text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: 'The effect of blocking between different species occurring in one dimension is investigated here numerically in the case of particles following branching and annihilating random walk with two offsprings. It is shown that in two dimension simulations confirm the field theoretical results with logarithmic corrections. In one dimension however if particles exhibit hard core interaction I confirm the very recent predictions of Kwon [*et al.*]{} \[PRL [**85**]{}, 1682 (2000)\] that there are two different universality classes depending on the spatial symmetry of the offspring production characterized by $\beta_S=0.5$ and $\beta_A=2$. Elaborate analysis of simulation data shows that the order parameter exponent $\beta$ does not depend on initial conditions or on diffusion rates of species but strong correction to scaling is observed. By systematic numerical simulations the critical point properties have been explored and initial condition dependence of the dynamical exponents $Z$ and $\alpha$ is shown. In the case of a random initial state the particle-density decay at the critical point follows the $t^{-1/4}$ law with logarithmic corrections.'
address: |
Research Institute for Technical Physics and Materials Science,\
H-1525 Budapest, P.O.Box 49, Hungary
author:
- Géza Ódor
title: 'Critical branching-annihilating random walk of two species'
---
[2]{}
Introduction
============
Branching and annihilating random walk (BARW) process one of the simplest prototypes of a particle system exhibiting nonequilibrium phase transitions. For small creation/annihilation ratio the system evolves to a completely empty state from which no return is possible. This so called “absorbing state” lacks any fluctuations. For higher creation/annihilation rates, a steady state with some finite concentration of particles emerges with a phase transition. This phase transition has been investigated first by numerical simulations [@Gras84; @Taka; @Jensen] and later with field theoretical methods [@Cardy-Tauber]. In general, we define annihilation of $k$ particles $k A\to\emptyset$ with the rate $\lambda$ and generation of $m$ offsprings $A \to (m+1) A$ with rate $\sigma$.
In $D>2$ dimensions the phase transition of these systems can be described by mean-field theory but in low dimensions the effect of fluctuations introduces more complex behavior. The $k=1,2$; $m=1$ case is the so-called directed percolation process; the continuous phase transition of it defines a robust universality class. According to the hypothesis of Janssen and Grassberger [@Jan81; @Gras82] all continuous phase transitions to a single absorbing state in homogeneous systems with short-ranged interactions belong to this class provided there is no additional symmetry and quenched randomness present. As it was shown by Cardy and Taüber [@Cardy-Tauber] this is the generic class for all critical models with $k=1,2$; $m=$ odd and indeed a large number of model systems [@Dick-Mar] have been found to belong to this class.
If $k=m=2$ the parity of the number of particles is conserved locally under the reactions and another universality class appears: the so-called parity-conserving (PC) or BARW2 class. Particles following BARW2 dynamics may also appear as kinks between ordered domains in systems exhibiting two absorbing states [@Gras84; @Men94; @Park94; @Hin97; @Bassler]. For recent reviews see [@Hin2000; @MeOdof]. For $k>2$ the field theory does not predict any new universality classes.
Our knowledge of multiparticle systems is quite incomplete yet. A very recent paper of Janssen [@Janssen-col] shows that this usually leads to asymmetries between pairs of species and unidirectionally coupled systems arise. These systems have been shown to describe certain surface roughening processes [@uni-DP; @uni-PC], for example.
The bosonic field theoretical work of [@Cardy-Tauber] predicts a new universality class for BARW2 process of symmetric $N$ species (N-BARW2), exhibiting parity conservation ($m=k=2$) of particles. They found that offspring creations of the same type like $A\to AAA$ are not relevant processes because new particles are annihilated immediately. In the case of branching processes like $A\to ABB$ and $A\to BBA$, all $N>1$ component models have the same Feynman diagrams as that of the $N\to\infty$ model and the critical point for $D\le 2$ happens to be at $\sigma=0$ zero branching rate with the following critical exponents: $$\nu_{||}=2/d,\quad\nu_{\perp}=1/d,\quad Z=2,\quad\alpha=d/2,\quad\beta=1.
\label{FTexps}$$ The critical exponents are defined by the usual way. The singular behavior of the spatial and temporal correlation lengths are characterized by
$$\xi \propto \sigma^{-\nu_{\perp}} \ \ ,$$
$$\tau \propto \sigma^{-\nu_{||}} \ \ .$$
The anisotropy or dynamical exponent is $Z = \nu_{||} / \nu_{\perp}$, while the particle density near the critical point obeys the scaling law $$\rho (t,\sigma) \propto t^{-\alpha} \phi( t \sigma^{\nu_{||}}) \ \ ,
\label{rhoscal}$$ such that in the $t\to\infty$ steady state limit the order parameter scales as $\rho \propto \sigma^{\beta}$; hence $$\beta = \alpha \nu_{||} = \alpha Z \nu_{\perp}$$ scaling relation holds. At the critical dimension ($D_c=2$), logarithmic corrections to density decay are expected. For $D>2$ the critical point is also at $\sigma=0$ but governed by mean-field exponents [@Cardy-Tauber].
In this work I investigated, numerically, the critical behavior of the 2-BARW2 model in one and two dimensions with the motivation that the existing field theories of reaction-diffusion models deal with a coarse grained, bosonic description of the particle system and therefore particle exclusion has not been taken into account. In a recent paper [@gdkcikk] we have shown that in the case of one-dimensional (1D) annihilating random walk of two species, the blocking between different species can cause marginal perturbations. Therefore it is an open question whether this can also be observed if we add particle creation to this process.
In a more recent paper Kwon [*et al.*]{} [@Kwon] argue based on local mean-field approximation that in this case new universality classes emerge indeed. I confirm the predictions of [@Kwon] for the order parameter exponent by precise numerical simulations and show that this exponent does not depend on initial-conditions or diffusion ratios of species. Furthermore I investigate the very nontrivial time dependence of this model and show numerical evidence for the initial condition dependence of the dynamical exponents and logarithmic corrections.
Definition of the model
=======================
A random sequential processes have been implemented in $D=1$ and $D=2$ dimensional lattices possessing periodic boundary conditions with one time step described as follows:
\(1) A particle is selected randomly
\(2) A nearest neighbor site is selected randomly
\(3) With probability $1-\sigma$ the particle is attempted to
move to the new site if that is empty
\(4) If the new site is filled with a same kind of particle,
both of them are removed
\(5) With probability $\sigma$ two off-springs of different types
from the ancestor are placed at two free nearest
neighbor sites selected randomly.
In this way I investigate the same model as [@Kwon]. The field theoretical model of [@Cardy-Tauber] also deals with the same particle reactions albeit without exclusion.
Simulations from random initial state in two dimensions
=======================================================
The initial conditions for systems with linear sizes $L$ have been set up in such a way that $L^2/2$ randomly selected A or B particles are placed at random sites.
Zero branching rate case ($\sigma=0$)
-------------------------------------
First the field theoretical expectations [@Lee; @Cardy-Tauber] for the density decay ($\rho\propto \ln(t) / t$) were tested. To see the logarithmic corrections, I plotted $\rho(t)\times t$ versus $\ln(t)$. As Fig. \[decayu\] shows the curves corresponding to different sizes show linear behavior for short times. Later the effect of finite system sizes causes this behavior to break down. The crossover happens for larger and larger times as $L$ goes to $\infty$.
For the largest system investigated here ($L=512$) a logarithmic fitting was applied in the $10 < t < 10^4$ region, resulting in $$\rho(t)= (0.442(2)+0.296(1)\ln(t))/t$$ Hence the field theoretical prediction $\alpha=1$ with logarithmic corrections has been confirmed by these simulations. The amplitude of the logarithmic term however differs from that of the pure annihilation model: $A_2=1/8\pi$ [@Lee]. One may speculate that in the two-component system this value is exactly $1/\pi$.
Off-critical case ($\sigma>0$)
------------------------------
Traditional, direct simulations of off-critical exponents usually produce less precise estimates than cluster simulations for example, but now I could eliminate the two most important drawbacks of this method. The critical point is known to be exactly at $\sigma=0$; therefore this does not cause uncertainty in the estimation of the order parameter exponent. Furthermore I use precise analysis of the data by calculating local slopes that enables us to follow corrections to scaling.
The simulations with branching were performed in systems of linear sizes: $L=512$ in the neighborhood of the critical point ($\sigma_c=0$) at $\sigma=0.0075,0.01 ... 0.17$ (Fig. \[rho\_512u\]). About $100$ samples were run from independent random initial states and averaged over for each $\sigma$.
From the results at the critical point (Fig. \[decayu\]) one can see that this system size is large enough for finite size corrections to be negligible for $t < 10^4$ MCS investigated here. That means we can assume that in my steady state simulations the correlation length does not exceed $L$. The particle density curves were averaged following saturation and the effective $\beta_{eff}(\sigma)$ exponents were calculated as $$\beta_{eff} (\sigma) = \frac {\ln \rho_{i} -\ln \rho_{i-1}}
{\ln \sigma_i - \ln \sigma_{i-1}} \ \ ,$$ providing an estimate for the true asymptotic behavior of the order parameter $$\beta = \lim_{\sigma\to 0} \beta_{eff}(\sigma) \,.$$ By applying a linear extrapolation as in Fig. \[betaeffu\] a very good agreement with the field theoretical prediction for the order parameter exponent $\beta=1.003(3)$ can be found.
Simulations in one dimension
============================
The zero branching rate case ($\sigma=0$) \[sigmac\]
----------------------------------------------------
In [@gdkcikk] we showed that in the case of special initial conditions
....A..A...B.B...B..B.A.....A......B..B...
that assures that the time evolution never freezes (i.e. every particle has a neighboring particle of the same type to annihilate with) the density decays non-universally in an initial-condition dependent way. In this case particles can be regarded as boundaries of compact domains of different species that cannot overlap each other. This happens in the genaralized Domany-Kinzel cellular automaton, for example, [@hayeGDK].
The decay depends on the initial density (and hence on the initial interparticle separation length) of the species. We argued on the basis of symmetry considerations and by using an analogy to the works of Kaiser and Turban [@Kaiser-Turban] that this decay follows the powerlaw with continuously changing exponents. We also showed that in the case of asymmetric initial conditions, where a small seed of B particles is inserted in the see of A’s, the cluster-survival probability of B’s (characterized by the exponent $\delta$) depends continuously on the initial density of A’s similar to the case of the pair contact process [@PCP]. Therefore in this work I investigated whether the static exponents show any initial-condition dependence as well and the form of the scaling law that connects them to the dynamic ones.
In the case of random initial conditions particles segregate into coarsening mosaic of alternating domains containing alternating sequences of A’s and B’s. By mapping this onto diffusion-controlled two-species annihilation ($A+B\to\emptyset$) [@DC2A] Krapivsky and Redner argue that the particle density decays as $t^{-1/4}$ [@Krap-Red].
I tested this by simulating the process on $L=10^5$ lattices up to $t=4\times10^6$ MCS. The local-slopes curves of the density decay defined as $$\alpha_{eff}(t) = {- \ln \left[ \rho(t) / \rho(t/m) \right]
\over \ln(m)} \label{slopes}$$ (where usually I use $m=8$) converge to $\sim 0.25$ indeed (Fig. \[alpha\]), but again like in [@gdkcikk] dependence on the initial conditions can be observed. Now however, the local slopes do not saturate in the $t\to\infty$ limit as in the case of “pairwise” initial conditions [@gdkcikk] but show logarithmically decreasing behavior as $t\to\infty$. This is not an artifact of the finite system sizes since the same behavior can be seen on much smaller ($L=10^4$) lattices too. The origin of the logarithmic correction to scaling is not clear, but it is likely that marginal perturbation of species on each other causes it. Note that logarithmic correction to time dependence of the interparticle distances in case of the $A+B\to\emptyset$ model have also been shown by simulations [@Ley-Red] and explained to be the consequence of density inhomogeneity inside the domains.
This anomalous decay behavior cannot be described by the conventional field theoretical description of a particle system [@Cardy-Tauber] in $D=1$ that omits site restrictions and predicts $\alpha=1/2$. Also the paper of Kwon [*et al.*]{} [@Kwon] based on local mean-field approximation does not show any initial-condition dependency but predicts simply the $\alpha=1/2$ result.
The dynamical exponent $Z$ has been determined through the measurement of the characteristic time $\tau(L)$ at the critical point. In this study I define $\tau(L)$ as the time it takes for some portion of the sample to enter the absorbing state. In the case of pairwise initial conditions this portion was 50% but in case of random initial conditions, where the evolution is very slow in finite systems, I chose this portion to be 10% in order to get results for $L>1000$ sizes. We expect the following finite size scaling at $\sigma=0$ $$\tau(L) \propto L^Z \ \ .$$ The data points have been determined within the $L=16-4096$ size region and to make precise extrapolation, local-slopes analysis has been performed. In Fig.\[tausl\] I have plotted $$Z_{eff} (L) = \frac {\ln \tau_{i} -\ln \tau_{i-1}}
{\ln L_i - \ln L_{i-1}} \ \ ,$$ as a function of $1/L$. As one can see, in the pairwise initial condition case $Z_{eff}$ converges to $Z=1.82(2)$ as $1/L\to 0$ quite smoothly. However in the random initial condition case a huge correction to scaling can be observed and $Z_{eff}$ seems to extrapolate to $Z \sim 4.0(2)$, which is in accordance with the $t^{-1/4}$ density decay law.
The $Z=1.82(2)$ value is in agreement with our previous finding [@gdkcikk] where we showed that in the case of pairwise initial conditions the density decays as $\sim t^{-0.545(10)}$. We argued there that the interparticle distance of AA and BB pairs $l_{AA}=l_{BB} \propto \rho(t)^{-1}$ increases with the same power-law as the region of confinement that can be characterized with the exponent $1/Z$. Now I could not obtain significant initial-condition dependence in $Z$ owing to the lack of such high precision simulations that we achieved in [@gdkcikk]. Note that the usual scaling relation between the single cluster spreading exponent $z$ (describing the mean distance from the origin $R(t)\propto t^{z/2}$) and the dynamical exponent $Z=2/z$ is violated. This may be understood if we realize that in the seed growing process there is no symmetric, mutual exclusion between different species therefore the exponent $z$ cannot describe the multisurface effect that arises in the case of pairwise initial conditions. Neither of these $Z$ values is in agreement with the assumptions of [@Kwon] and the field theoretical results for a 1D system without particle exclusion [@Cardy-Tauber].
The off-critical case ($\sigma>0$) with symmetric (static) branching \[static\]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The effect of the spatial symmetry in simple one-dimensional BARW processes was first investigated in [@Kw-P] and it was shown that reflection-symmetric (static) branching causes reentrant phase diagrams unlike the asymmetric (dynamic) branching process. First with the same special, pairwise initial conditions as in our recent paper [@gdkcikk], I performed steady state simulations such that offsprings are generated symmetrically on the left and the right sides of parents $A \to BAB$, $B \to ABA$ (static branching). Kwon [*et al.*]{} [@Kwon] reported different critical behavior than what was expected by applying the results of the bosonic field theory [@Cardy-Tauber] for this particle system.
Similar to the two-dimensional case, the density decay was followed carefully and averaging was done within a long time period, following the steady state having been built up. Figure \[betas\] shows my simulation results of the order parameter $\beta$ in cases of different diffusion rates. As one can see, all the curves show strong (nonmonotonic) correction to scaling in the neighborhood of $\sigma=0$ but they all tend to the value $\beta=0.5$. The overshooting of the effective exponent signals possible logarithmic correction to scaling. The relaxation times to steady state were $t<10^5$ MCS in these simulations.
I found that in the neighborhood of the critical point the steady state concentration is unchanged if I use larger lattice sizes ($L=4\times10^5$ instead of $10^5$), therefore the strange shape of the curves cannot be an artifact of the finite system size of the simulations. Note, that had we done a simple fitting onto the data points we could have estimated $\beta\sim 0.55$ instead of $\beta=0.5$.
The results are plotted as functions of $\sigma^{0.5}$ determined experimentally such that the curves approach $\sigma=0$ in an asymptotically straight line manner. This means that the leading correction to the scaling exponent is $\sim0.5$. As one can see, the curves converge to $\beta=0.50(1)$ in agreement with the predictions of [@Kwon]. The simulations with other initial densities and random initial distributions of particles resulted in the same steady state values and hence $\beta$ is unchanged.
Comparing the $Z$’s of the previous section with the $\nu_{\perp}=1/2$ of [@Kwon] determined by static finite size scaling for the symmetric branching model we predict for pairwise initial conditions $\nu_{||}^p = Z \nu_{\perp} = 0.915(2)$ and $\nu_{||}^r= 2.0(1)$ for random initial conditions.
The scaling law of density is fulfilled within error limits $\alpha^p\simeq 0.545\simeq\beta / \nu_{||}^p = 0.5 / 0.915$ for the pairwise initial case, $\alpha^r\simeq 0.25 \simeq \beta / \nu_{||}^r = 0.5 / 2$ for random initial conditions.
The scaling form (\[rhoscal\]) can be checked by plotting $\rho t^{\alpha}$ against $t\sigma^{\nu_{||}}$. As Fig. \[srcol\] shows, one can obtain a fairly good data collapse with $\nu^r_{||}=2$ and $\alpha^r=0.25$ (corresponding to random initial conditions) for large times. For small times the collapse is less good owing to the effect of logarithmic corrections to $\alpha^r$.
For pairwise initial conditions a very good data collapse can be achieved with the standard scaling form (\[rhoscal\]) using $\alpha^p=0.545$, $\nu_{||}^p=0.915$
The off-critical case ($\sigma>0$) with asymmetric (dynamical) branching
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the same special, pairwise initial conditions as in our recent paper [@gdkcikk] I performed steady state simulations such that offsprings were generated on the left or right sides of parents $A \to ABB$, $A \to BBA$, $B \to BAA$ and $B \to AAB$. The relaxation time in this case was very long, typically $t>10^6$ MCS that prohibited getting closer to the critical point than $\sigma=0.03$. I performed these simulations in system sizes of $L=10^5$ sites and averaged over $100$ samples.
As one can see in Fig.\[beta\] the $\beta_{eff}$ extrapolates to $2.05(10)$ linearly in agreement with what was deduced from the local mean-field approximation by Kwon [*et al.*]{} [@Kwon]. This value however, differs from the field theoretical predictions ($\beta=1$) [@Cardy-Tauber] obtained for the coarse grained, bosonic description of the particle system, which neglects hard-core interactions.
I investigated the decay by starting from other different initial conditions as well. The steady state concentration and hence the exponent $\beta$ was found to be the same, independent of the initial density of particles. In the case of random initial distribution of particles the relaxation was found to be even longer reflecting the fact that initial alternating sequences slow down the evolution to the steady state but the final concentration was the same. Again by comparing the $Z$’s of Sec. \[sigmac\] with $\nu_{\perp}=2$ of [@Kwon] determined by static finitesize scaling for the asymmetric branching process, we can predict for pairwise initial conditions $\nu_{||}^p = Z \nu_{\perp} = 3.66(2)$ and $\nu_{||}^r=8.0(4)$ for random initial conditions. As in Sec. \[static\] the standard scaling relation of the density is fulfilled for both initial cases within error limits: $\alpha^p\simeq 0.545 \simeq \beta / \nu_{||}^p = 2 / 3.66$ $\alpha^r\simeq 0.25 \simeq \beta / \nu_{||}^r = 8 / 2$ and the scaling law can be confirmed by data collapse (see Fig. \[scol\]).
In the case of dynamic branching Kwon [*et al.*]{} [@Kwon] claim a slight dependence (a few percent) of the static exponents on the diffusion rates of different species. The relaxation time in this case is so huge that it hindered achieving such a precision by simulations.
The off-critical case ($\sigma>0$) without exclusion
----------------------------------------------------
Finally I tested the field theoretical results in one dimension in such a way that I allowed particles of different types to exchange sites upon meeting. The steady state density has been determined for different values of $\sigma$ around zero in lattices with $L=2\times 10^4$ size. As one can see in Fig.\[rho-s\] the middle curve (corresponding to this case) approaches to $\sigma=0$ linearly indeed in agreement with the $\beta=1$ field theoretical result. This can be verified by considering $\beta_{eff}$ as well.
Conclusions
===========
In this study I confirmed numerically the field theoretical predictions for the two dimensional branching and annihilating random walk process of two species. The logarithmic corrections to the power-law density decay function have been determined.
In one dimension I gave numerical evidence that the bosonic renormalization group field theoretical predictions cannot be applied in contrast to widespread beliefs for systems with exclusion and the order parameter exponent depends on the spatial symmetry of the offspring production process. As Fig. \[rho-s\] shows, the steady state density is much lower if offsprings are created on the same side of the parent against the case when they are separated by the parent resulting in different scaling exponents $\beta=2$ versus $\beta=1/2$.
This particle exclusion effect results in new universality classes in one dimension as summarized in Table \[tab\] and the static exponents are insensitive to the initial conditions. In the case of static branching the precise numerical analysis of the order parameter data does not show dependence on the diffusion ratios either.
The density decay exponent starting from a random initial state ($\alpha$) has been shown to agree with predictions of [@Krap-Red] but initial density-dependent logarithmic corrections to scaling can be observed. The dynamical exponent $Z$ has been found to depend on the initial conditions too. For pairwise initial conditions it is in agreement with our earlier study [@gdkcikk]. All these results for dynamical scaling deviate from those obtained by the continuum field theory and assumed in [@Kwon].
This study gives further evidence to the claims of Kwon [*et al.*]{}[@Kwon] that in one dimension a series of new universality classes emerge in nonequilibrium particle systems exhibiting hardcore interactions and continuous phase transitions. The relative simplicity of this model and the precision of the critical exponents obtained may provide a good starting point to more elaborate analytical investigations of systems with hardcore exclusion.
[**Acknowledgments**]{}\
The author would like to thank Z. Rácz, S. Redner and U. Täuber for stimulating discussions. Support from Hungarian research fund OTKA (Nos. T-25286 and T-23552) and from Bólyai (No. BO/00142/99) is acknowledged.
P. Grassberger, F. Krause and T. von der Twer, J. Phys. A:Math.Gen., [**17**]{}, L105 (1984). H. Takayasu and A. Yu. Tretyakov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 3060, (1992). I. Jensen, Phys. Rev. E [**50**]{}, 3623 (1994). J. L. Cardy and U. C. Täuber, J. Stat. Phys. [**90**]{}, 1 (1998). H. K. Janssen, Z. Phys. B [**42**]{}, 151 (1981). P. Grassberger, Z. Phys. B [**47**]{}, 365 (1982). See examples in : J. Marro and R. Dickman, , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999. N. Menyhárd, J.Phys.A:Math.Gen., [**27**]{}, 6139 (1994). M. H. Kim and H. Park, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**73**]{}, 2579, (1994). H. Hinrichsen, Phys. Rev. [**E 55**]{}, 219 (1997). K. E. Bassler and D. A. Browne, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 4094 (1996). H. Hinrichsen, Adv. Phys. [**49**]{}, 815 (2000). N. Menyhárd and G. Ódor, Brazilian J. of Physics [**30**]{}, 113 (2000). H. K. Janssen, preprint, cond-mat/0006129. U.C. Täuber, M.J. Howard, and H. Hinrichsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 2165 (1998); H. Hinrichsen and G. Ódor, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 1205 (1999). G. Ódor and N. Menyhárd, Phys. Rev. E. [**61**]{}, 6404 (2000). S. Kwon, J. Lee and H. Park, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 1682 (2000). B.P. Lee, J. Phys. A [**27**]{}, 2633 (1994). H. Hinrichsen, Phys. Rev. [**E 55**]{}, 219 (1997). C. Kaiser and L. Turban, J. Phys. A:Math.Gen [**27**]{}, L579 (1994); C. Kaiser and L. Turban, J. Phys. A:Math.Gen [**28**]{}, 351 (1995). A. A. Ovchinnikov and Ya. B. Zel’dovich, Chem. Phys. [**28**]{}, 215 (1978); S. F. Burlatskii and A. A. Ovchinnikov, Russ. J. Phys. Chem. [**52**]{}, 1635 (1978); D. Toussaint and F. Wilczek, J. Chem. Phys. [**78**]{}, 2642 (1983); K. Kang and S. Redner, Phys. Rev. A [**32**]{}, 435 (1985); M. Bramson and J.L. Lebowitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**61**]{}, 2397 (1988). P. L. Krapivsky and S. Redner, private communication. F. Leyvraz and S. Redner, Phys. Rev. A [**46**]{}, 3132 (1992); S. Kwon and H. Park, Phys. Rev. E [**52**]{}, 5955 (1995). I. Jensen and R. Dickman, Phys. Rev. E [**48**]{}, 1710 (1993); I. Jensen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 1465 (1993).
process $\nu_{||}$ $\nu_{\perp}$ $Z$ $\alpha$ $\beta$
------------- ----------------- --------------- ------------------ ------------------- ----------
nonblocking 2 1 2 1/2 1
symmetric 2.0(1)/0.915(2) 0.50(1) 4.0(2)/1.82(2)\* 0.25(1)/0.55(1)\* 0.50(1)
asymmetric 8.0(4)/3.66(2) 2.0(1) 4.0(2)/1.82(2)\* 0.25(1)/0.55(1)\* 2.05(10)
: Summary of critical exponents in one dimension. The non-blocking data are quoted from \[4\]. The predictions for $\nu_{\perp}$ of the blocking models are cited from \[18\]. Data divided by “/” correspond to random vs. pairwise initial condition cases. Exponents denoted by \* exhibit slight initial density dependence \[17\]. []{data-label="tab"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study a linearized Mullins-Sekerka/Stokes system in a bounded domain with various boundary conditions. This system plays an important role to prove the convergence of a Stokes/Cahn-Hilliard systemto its sharp interface limit, which is a Stokes/Mullins-Sekerka system, and to prove solvability of the latter system locally in time. We prove solvability of the linearized system in suitable $L^2$-Sobolev spaces with the aid of a maximal regularity result for non-autonomous abstract linear evolution equations.'
author:
- 'Helmut Abels[^1] and Andreas Marquardt[^2]'
title: 'On a linearized Mullins-Sekerka/Stokes system for two-phase flows'
---
[[**Mathematics Subject Classification (2000):**]{} Primary: 76T99; Secondary: 35Q30, 35Q35, 35R35, 76D05, 76D45.]{}\
[**Key words:**]{} [Two-phase flow, sharp interface limit, Cahn-Hilliard equation, Free boundary problems, Mullins-Sekerka equation,]{}
Introduction
============
We study the following linearized Mullins-Sekerka/Stokes system $$\begin{aligned}
D_{t,\Gamma}h+\mathbf{b}\cdot\nabla_{\Gamma}h-bh+\tfrac{1}{2}X_{0}^{*}\big((\mathbf{v}^{+}+\mathbf{v}^{-})\cdot\mathbf{n}_{\Gamma_{t}}\big)+\tfrac{1}{2}X_{0}^{*}\big(\big[\partial_{\mathbf{n}_{\Gamma_{t}}}\mu\big]\big) & =g & & \text{in }\Gamma_0\times\left(0,T\right),\\
h\left(.,0\right) & =h_{0} & & \text{in }\Gamma_0,\end{aligned}$$ where for every $t\in\left[0,T\right]$, the functions [$\mathbf{v}^{\pm}=\mathbf{v}^{\pm}(x,t)$]{}, $p^{\pm}=p^{\pm}(x,t)$ and $\mu^{\pm}=\mu^{\pm}(x,t)$ for $(x,t)\in\Omega_{T}^{\pm}$ with $\mathbf{v}^{\pm}\in H^{2}(\Omega^{\pm}(t))^d$, $p^{\pm}\in H^{1}(\Omega^{\pm}(t))$ and $\mu^{\pm}\in H^{2}(\Omega^{\pm}(t))$ are the unique solutions to $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta\mu^{\pm} & =a_{1} & & \text{in }\Omega^{\pm}(t),\label{eq:laplmu}\\
\mu^{\pm} & = X_{0}^{*,-1}\big(\sigma\Delta_{\Gamma}h\pm a_{2}h\big)+a_{3} & & \text{on }\Gamma_{t},\\
{\mathbf{n}}\cdot \nabla \mu^{-} & =a_{4} & & \text{on }{\Gamma_{\mu,1}},\\
\mu^{-} & =a_{4} & & \text{on }{\Gamma_{\mu,2}},\\
-\Delta\mathbf{v}^{\pm}+\nabla p^{\pm} & =\mathbf{a}_{1} & & \text{in }\Omega^{\pm}(t),\label{eq:stokes}\\
\operatorname{div}\mathbf{v}^{\pm} & =0 & & \text{in }\Omega^{\pm}(t),\\
[\mathbf{v}] & =\mathbf{a}_{2} & & \text{on }\Gamma_{t},\label{eq:stokesjmp}\\
\left[2D_{s}\mathbf{v}-p\mathbf{I}\right]\mathbf{n}_{\Gamma_{t}} & =X_{0}^{*,-1}\big(\mathbf{a}_{3}h+\mathbf{a}_{4}\Delta_{\Gamma}h+a_{5}\nabla_{\Gamma}h+\mathbf{a}_{5}\big) & & \text{on }\Gamma_{t},\label{eq:stokesbdry}\\
B_j(\mathbf{v}^{-},p^{-})& =\mathbf{a}_{6} & & \text{on }{\Gamma_{S,j}}, j=1,2,3.\label{eq:stokesoutbdry}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\Omega\subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^d$, $d=2,3$, is a bounded domain with smooth boundary, which is the disjoint union of $\Omega^+(t)$, $\Omega^-(t)$ and $\Gamma_t$, where $\Gamma_t=\partial\Omega^+(t)$ is a smoothly evolving $(d-1)$-dimensional hypersurface. We assume that $\Gamma_t\subseteq\Omega$ for all $t\in (0,T)$, i.e., there is no boundary contact and contact angle. Moreover, $\Gamma_t$ is given for $t\in [0,T]$ as well as $a_1,\ldots, a_4$, $\mathbf{a}_1,\ldots, \mathbf{a}_6$ are given for some $T>0$, $\sigma>0$ is the surface tension constant and $D_s\mathbf{v}= \frac12(\nabla \mathbf{v}+\nabla \mathbf{v}^T)$. Furthermore, $X_0\colon \Gamma_0\times [0,T]\to \Gamma:=\bigcup_{t\in [0,T]} \Gamma_t\times \{t\}$ is a suitable diffeomorphism, which is described below.
This system arises in the construction of approximate solutions in the proof of convergence of a Stokes/Cahn-Hilliard system to its sharp interface limit, which is a Stokes/Mullins-Sekerka system, cf. [@NSCH2]-[@NSCH1]. Here $\mathbf{v}^\pm\colon \bigcup_{t\in [0,T]}\Omega^\pm(t)\times \{t\}\to {\mathbb{R}}^d$ and $p^\pm\colon \bigcup_{t\in [0,T]}\Omega^\pm(t)\times \{t\}\to {\mathbb{R}}$ are the velocity and pressure incompressible viscous Newtonian fluids filling the domains $\Omega^\pm(t)$ at time $t$, which are separated by the (fluid) interface $\Gamma_t$. Furthermore, $h\colon \Gamma_0\times [0,T]\to {\mathbb{R}}$ is a linearized height function that describes the evolution of the interface at a certain order and $\mu^\pm\colon \bigcup_{t\in [0,T]}\Omega^\pm(t)\times \{t\}\to {\mathbb{R}}$ is a linearized chemical potential related to the fluids in $\Omega^\pm(t)$. If one neglects the terms related to $\mathbf{v}^\pm, p^\pm$, a similar linearized system arises in the study of the sharp interface limit of the Cahn-Hilliard equation, cf. [@abc]. Moreover, similar systems arise in the construction of strong solutions for a Navier-Stokes/Mullins-Sekerka system locally in time, cf. [@abelswilke].
We consider different kinds of boundary conditions for $\mathbf{v}^.$ and $\mu^-$ simultaneously. More precisely, we assume that $$\partial\Omega= {\Gamma_{\mu,1}}\cup{\Gamma_{\mu,2}}= {\Gamma_{S,1}}\cup {\Gamma_{S,2}}\cup {\Gamma_{S,3}},$$ where ${\Gamma_{\mu,1}}, {\Gamma_{\mu,2}}$ and ${\Gamma_{S,1}}, {\Gamma_{S,2}},{\Gamma_{S,3}}$ are disjoint and closed. Moreover, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
B_1({\mathbf{v}}^-,p^-)&= {\mathbf{v}}^- &\quad&\text{on }{\Gamma_{S,1}}\\
(B_2({\mathbf{v}}^-,p^-))_{{{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}}&= \left(\left(2D_s {\mathbf{v}}^- -p^-\right){\mathbf{n}}_{\partial\Omega}\right)_{{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}+ \alpha_2 {\mathbf{v}}_{{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}^- &\quad&\text{on }{\Gamma_{S,2}}\\
{\mathbf{n}}_{\partial\Omega}\cdot B_2({\mathbf{v}}^-,p^-)&= {\mathbf{n}}_{\partial\Omega}\cdot {\mathbf{v}}^- &\quad&\text{on }{\Gamma_{S,2}}\\
B_3({\mathbf{v}}^-,p^-)&= \left(2D_s {\mathbf{v}}^- -p^-\right){\mathbf{n}}_{\partial\Omega} + \alpha_3 {\mathbf{v}}^- &\quad&\text{on }{\Gamma_{S,3}},\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathbf{n}}_{\partial\Omega}$ denotes the exterior normal on $\partial\Omega$. To avoid a non-trivial kernel in the following we assume that one of the following cases holds true: $$|{\Gamma_{S,1}}|+ \alpha_2 |{\Gamma_{S,2}}|+\alpha_3|{\Gamma_{S,3}}|>0$$ Then Korn’s inequality yields $$\label{eq:Korn}
\|{\mathbf{v}}\|_{H^1(\Omega)}\leq C \left(\|D_s{\mathbf{v}}\|_{L^2(\Omega)} + \alpha_2 \|{\mathbf{v}}_{{{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}}\|_{L^2({\Gamma_{S,2}})}+ \alpha_3 \|{\mathbf{v}}\|_{L^2({\Gamma_{S,3}})} \right)$$ for all ${\mathbf{v}}\in H^1(\Omega)^d$ with ${\mathbf{v}}|_{{\Gamma_{S,1}}}=0$, ${\mathbf{n}}_{\partial\Omega}\cdot {\mathbf{v}}|_{{\Gamma_{S,2}}}=0$, cf. [@korn Corollary 5.9].
The structure of this contribution is as follows: In Section \[sec:Prelim\] we summarize some preliminaries on the parametrization of the interface $\Gamma_t$ and non-autonomuous evolution equations. In Section \[sec:Main\] we present and prove our main results on existence and smoothness of solutions to the linearized Mullins-Sekerka system. Finally, in the appendix we prove an auxilliary result on the existence of a pressure.
The results of this paper are extensions of results in the second author’s PhD Thesis.
Preliminaries {#sec:Prelim}
=============
Notation
--------
Throughout this manuscript we denote by $\xi\in C^{\infty}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$ a cut-off function such that $$\xi(s)=1\text{ if }\left|s\right|\leq\delta,\,\xi(s)=0\text{ if }\left|s\right|>2\delta,\text{ and }0\geq s\xi'(s)\geq-4\ \text{if }\delta\leq\left|s\right|\leq2\delta.\label{eq:cut-off}$$
Coordinates {#subsec:Coordinates}
-----------
We will parametrize $(\Gamma_t)_{t\in[0,T_0]}$ with the aid of a family of smooth diffeomorphisms $X_0\colon \Gamma_0\times [0,T_0]\to \Omega$ such that $d_s X_0(s,t)$ has full rank for all $s\in\Gamma_0$, $t\in [0,T_0]$. Here $d_s X_0(s,t)$ is the differential of the mapping $$\Gamma_0\ni s\mapsto X_0(s,t)\in {\mathbb{R}}^d$$ at $s$. Moreover, let $${{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}_j(s,t)= \frac{\partial_{s_j} X_0(s,t)}{|\partial_{s_j} X_0(s,t)|},\qquad j=1,\ldots, d-1,$$ and ${\mathbf{n}}(s,t)$ normal vectors on $\Gamma_t$ at $X_0(s,t)$ such that ${{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}_1(s,t),\ldots,{{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}_{d-1}(s,t),{\mathbf{n}}(s,t)$ is a positively oriented orthonormal basis of ${\mathbb{R}}^d$. Furthermore, $P_{{{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}}=P_{{{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}}(s,t)$ denotes the orthogonal projection onto the tangent space of $\Gamma_t$ at $X_0(s,t)$ and can be represented as $P_{{{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}}= I - {\mathbf{n}}(s,t)\otimes {\mathbf{n}}(s,t)$. We choose the orientation of $\Gamma_t$ (induced by $X_0(\cdot,t)$) such that ${\mathbf{n}}(s,t)$ is the exterior normal with respect to $\Omega^-(t)$. Moreover, we denote $$\label{yuning:1.58}
{\mathbf{n}}_{\Gamma_t}(x):= {\mathbf{n}}(s,t)~\text{for all}~ x=X_0(s,t)\in \Gamma_t.$$ Furthermore, $V_{\Gamma_t}$ and $H_{\Gamma_t}$ should be the normal velocity and (mean) curvature of $\Gamma_t$ (with respect to ${\mathbf{n}}_{\Gamma_t}$) and we define $$\label{yuning:1.57}
V(s,t)= V_{\Gamma_t}(X_0(s,t)),\quad H(s,t)= H_{\Gamma_t}(X_0(s,t))\quad \text{for all }s\in\Gamma_0, t\in [0,T_0].$$ Hence $H_{\Gamma_t}\leq 0$ if $\Omega^-(t)$ is convex. Moreover, by definition, $$V_{\Gamma_t}(X_0(s,t))=V(s,t)= \partial_t X_0(s,t)\cdot {\mathbf{n}}(s,t)\qquad \text{for all }(s,t)\in \Gamma_0\times [0,T_0].$$
In the following we will need a tubular neighborhood of $\Gamma_t$: For $\delta>0$ sufficiently small, the orthogonal projection $P_{\Gamma_t}(x)$ of all $$x\in \Gamma_t(3\delta) =\{y\in \Omega: {\operatorname{dist}}(y,\Gamma_t)<3\delta\}$$ is well-defined and smooth. Moreover, we choose $\delta$ so small that ${\operatorname{dist}}(\partial\Omega,\Gamma_t)>3\delta$ for every $t\in [0,T_0]$. Every $x\in\Gamma_t(3\delta)$ has a unique representation $$x=P_{\Gamma_t}(x)+r{\mathbf{n}}_{\Gamma_t}(P_{\Gamma_t}(x))$$ where $r={\operatorname{sdist}}(\Gamma_t,x)$. Here $$d_{{\Gamma}}(x,t):={\operatorname{sdist}}(\Gamma_t,x)=
\begin{cases}
{\operatorname{dist}}(\Omega^-(t),x) &\text{if } x\not \in \Omega^-(t),\\
-{\operatorname{dist}}(\Omega^+(t),x) &\text{if } x \in \Omega^-(t).
\end{cases}$$ For the following we define for $\delta'\in (0,3\delta]$ $$\Gamma(\delta') =\bigcup_{t\in [0,T_0]} \Gamma_t(\delta') \times\{t\}.$$
We introduce new coordinates in $\Gamma(3\delta)$ which we denote by $$X\colon (-3\delta, 3\delta)\times \Gamma_0 \times [0,T_0]\mapsto \Gamma(3\delta)~\text{by}~ X(r,s,t):= X_0(s,t)+r{\mathbf{n}}(s,t),$$ where $$r={\operatorname{sdist}}(\Gamma_t,x), \qquad s= X_{0}^{-1}(P_{\Gamma_t}(x),t)=: S(x,t).$$ Differentiating the identity $$d_\Gamma(X_0(s,t)+r{\mathbf{n}}(s,t),t)=r,$$ one obtains $$\nabla d_{{\Gamma}}(x,t)={\mathbf{n}}_{\Gamma_t} (P_{\Gamma_t}(x)),~ \partial_t d_{{\Gamma}}(x,t)=-V_{\Gamma_t} (P_{\Gamma_t}(x)),~\Delta d_\Gamma(q,t)=-H_{\Gamma_t}(q)$$ for all $(x,t)\in \Gamma(3\delta)$, $(q,t)\in\Gamma$, resp., cf. Chen et al. [@chenAC Section 4.1]. Moreover, we define $$\partial_{{{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}_j} u(x,t):= {{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}_j(S(x,t),t)\nabla_x u(x,t),\ \nabla_{{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}u(x,t):=\sum_{j=1}^{d-1} \partial_{{{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}_j} u(x,t){{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}_j(S(x,t),t)$$ for all $(x,t)\in \Gamma(3\delta)$.
In the case that $h$ is twice continuously differentiable with respect to $s$ and continuously differentiable with respect to $t$, we introduce the notations $$\begin{aligned}
D_{t,\Gamma}h(s,t) & :=\left(\partial_{t}+\partial_{t}S\left(X_0(s,t)\right)\partial_{s}\right)h(s,t),\nonumber \\
\nabla_{\Gamma}h(s,t)& :=\nabla S\left(X_0(s,t)\right)\partial_{s}h(s,t),\nonumber \\
\Delta_{\Gamma}h(s,t)& :=\left(\Delta S\left(X_0(s,t)\right)\partial_{s}+\left(\nabla S\cdot\nabla S\right)\left(X_0(s,t)\right)\partial_{ss}\right)h(s,t).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Maximal Regularity for Non-autonomous Equations
-----------------------------------------------
In order to prove our main result we use of the theory of maximal regularity for non-autonomous abstract evolution equations. Therefore, we give a short overview of the basic definitions and results which we will use. These are taken from [@arendt] and all the proofs of the statements can be found in that article.
In this subsection let $X$ and $D$ be two Banach spaces such that $D$ is continuously and densely embedded in $X$.
Let $p\in\left(1,\infty\right).$
1. Let $A\in\mathcal{L}\left(D,X\right)$. Then $A$ has $L^{p}-$*maximal regularity* and we write $A\in\mathcal{MR}_{p}$ if for some bounded interval $\left(t_{1},t_{2}\right)\subset\mathbb{R}$ and all $f\in L^{p}\left(t_{1},t_{2};X\right)$ there exists a unique $u\in W^{1,p}\left(t_{1},t_{2};X\right)\cap L^{p}\left(t_{1},t_{2};D\right)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{t}u+Au & =f\quad\text{a.e. on }\left(t_{1},t_{2}\right),\\
u\left(t_{1}\right) & =0.\end{aligned}$$
2. Let $T>0$ and $A:\left[0,T\right]\rightarrow\mathcal{L}\left(D,X\right)$ be a bounded and strongly measurable function. Then $A$ has $L^{p}$-*maximal regularity* and we write $A\in\mathcal{MR}_{p}\left(0,T\right)$ if for all $f\in L^{p}\left(0,T;X\right)$ there exists a unique $u\in W^{1,p}\left(0,T;X\right)\cap L^{p}\left(0,T;D\right)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{t}u+A\left(t\right)u & =f\quad\text{a.e. on }\left(0,T\right),\\
u\left(0\right) & =0.\end{aligned}$$
It can be shown that if $A\in\mathcal{MR}_{p}$ for some $p\in\left(1,\infty\right)$ then $A\in\mathcal{MR}_{p}$ for all $p\in\left(1,\infty\right)$. Hence, we often simply write $A\in\mathcal{MR}$.
\
We say that $A:\left[0,T\right]\rightarrow\mathcal{L}\left(D,X\right)$ is *relatively continuous* if for each $t\in\left[0,T\right]$ and all $\epsilon>0$ there exist $\delta>0$, $\eta\geq0$ such that for all $x\in D$ and for all $s\in\left[0,T\right]$ with $\left|s-t\right|\leq\delta$ the inequality $$\left\Vert A(t)x-A(s)x\right\Vert _{X}\leq\epsilon\left\Vert x\right\Vert _{D}+\eta\left\Vert x\right\Vert _{X}$$ holds.
\[maxres\] Let $T>0$ and $A:\left[0,T\right]\rightarrow\mathcal{L}\left(D,X\right)$ be a strongly measurable and relatively continuous function. If $A(t)\in\mathcal{MR}$ for all $t\in\left[0,T\right]$, then $A\in\mathcal{MR}_{p}\left(0,t\right)$ for every $0<t\leq T$ and every $p\in\left(1,\infty\right)$.
See [@arendt Theorem 2.7].
A very important tool for proving maximal regularity properties of different operators are perturbation techniques. Employing these can often help to show maximal regularity for a variety of operators by separating them into a main part (for which maximal regularity can be readily shown) and a perturbation.
In the following we give a perturbation result which is key to many results in the next chapter.
\
\[relclo\] Let $Y$ be a Banach space such that $$D\hookrightarrow Y\hookrightarrow X.$$ We say $Y$ *is close to $X$ compared with $D$*, if for each $\epsilon>0$ there exists $\eta\geq0$ such that $$\left\Vert x\right\Vert _{Y}\leq\epsilon\left\Vert x\right\Vert _{D}+\eta\left\Vert x\right\Vert _{X}\quad\text{for all }x\in D.$$
\[relres\] Let $Y$ be as in Definition \[relclo\] and let the inclusion $D\hookrightarrow Y$ be compact. Then $Y$ is close to $X$ compared with $D$.
See [@arendt Example 2.9 (d)].
\[thm:Perturbation\] \[perres\] Let $T>0$ and $Y$ be a Banach space that is close to $X$ compared with $D$. Furthermore, let $A\colon \left[0,T\right]\rightarrow\mathcal{L}\left(D,X\right)$ be relatively continuous and $B\colon \left[0,T\right]\rightarrow\mathcal{L}\left(Y,X\right)$ be strongly measurable and bounded. If $A\left(t\right)\in\mathcal{MR}$ for every $t\in\left[0,T\right]$ then $A+B\in\mathcal{MR}_{p}\left(0,T\right)$.
See [@arendt Theorem 2.11].
Main Results {#sec:Main}
============
Parabolic Equations on Evolving Surfaces \[sec:Parabolic-Equations-on\]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
We introduce the space $$\begin{aligned}
X_{T} & = & L^{2}\big(0,T;H^{\frac{7}{2}}(\Gamma_0)\big)\cap H^{1}\big(0,T;H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_0)\big)\label{eq:XT}\end{aligned}$$ for $T\in(0,\infty) $, where we equip $X_{T}$ with the norm $$\left\Vert h\right\Vert _{X_{T}}=\left\Vert h\right\Vert _{L^{2}\big(0,T;H^{\frac{7}{2}}(\Gamma_0)\big)}+\left\Vert h\right\Vert _{H^{1}\big(0,T;H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_0)\big)}+\left\Vert h|_{t=0}\right\Vert _{H^{2}(\Gamma_0)}.$$
\[Max-Reg\] Let $T\in\left(0,T_{0}\right]$. Let $\mathbf{b}\colon \Gamma_0\times[0,T]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^d$ and $b_{1},b_{2}\colon \Gamma_0\times[0,T]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be smooth given functions. For every $g\in L^{2}\big(0,T;H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_0)\big)$ and $h_{0}\in H^{2}(\Gamma_0)$, there is a unique solution $h\in X_{T}$ of $$\begin{aligned}
D_{t,\Gamma}h+\mathbf{b}\cdot\nabla_{\Gamma}h-b_{1}h+X_{0}^{*}\big(\big[\partial_{\mathbf{n}_{\Gamma_{t}}}\mu\big]\big) & =g & & \text{ on }\Gamma_0\times(0,T),\label{eq:hmax}\\
h\left(.,0\right) & =h_{0} & & \text{ on }\Gamma_0,\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where $\mu|_{\Omega^{\pm}(t)}\in H^{2}(\Omega^{\pm}(t))$, for $t\in[0,T]$, is determined by
\[eq:musystem\] $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta\mu^{\pm} & =0 & & \text{in }\Omega^{\pm}(t),\label{eq:musystem1}\\
\mu^{\pm} & =X_{0}^{*,-1}(\sigma\Delta_{\Gamma}h\pm b_{2}h) & & \text{on }\Gamma_{t},\label{eq:musystem2}\\
{\mathbf{n}}_{\partial\Omega}\cdot \nabla \mu^{-} & =0 & & \text{on }{\Gamma_{\mu,1}},\\ \mu^{-} & =0 & & \text{on }{\Gamma_{\mu,2}}.\label{eq:musystem3}\end{aligned}$$
Furthermore, the estimates $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\pm}\left\Vert \mu^{\pm}\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(0,T;H^{2}\left(\Omega^{\pm}(t)\right)\right)\cap L^{6}\left(0,T;H^{1}\left(\Omega^{\pm}(t)\right)\right)} & \leq C\left\Vert h\right\Vert _{X_{T}},\label{eq:mumaxab}\end{aligned}$$ hold for some constant $C>0$ independent of $\mu$ and $h$.
We may write (\[eq:hmax\]) in abstract form as $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\partial_{t}h+\mathcal{A}(t)h & =g &\qquad & \text{in }\Gamma_0\times [0,T],\\
h\left(.,0\right) & =h_{0} & & \text{in }\Gamma_0,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{A}(t)\colon H^{\frac{7}{2}}(\Gamma_0)\to H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_0)$ depends on $t\in[0,T]$. Now we fix $t_{0}\in [0,T]$ and analyze the operator $\mathcal{A}(t_{0})$, where we replace $t$ with the fixed $t_{0}$ in all time dependent coefficients.
In order to understand this operator we define $$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{D}_{t_{0}}\colon & H^{\frac{7}{2}}(\Gamma_0)\rightarrow H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\Gamma_{t_{0}})\colon h\mapsto\big(X_{0}^{*,-1}(\sigma\Delta_{\Gamma}h)\big)(.,t_{0}),\\
S_{t_{0}}^{N}\colon & H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\Gamma_{t_{0}})\rightarrow H^{2}(\Omega^{+}(t_{0}))\times H^{2}(\Omega^{-}(t_{0}))\colon f\mapsto(\Delta_{N})^{-1}f,\\
B_{t_{0}}\colon & H^{2}(\Omega^{+}(t_{0}))\times H^{2}(\Omega^{-}(t_{0}))\rightarrow H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_0)\colon (\mu^{+},\mu^{-})\mapsto \big(X_{0}^{*}([\nabla\mu\cdot\mathbf{n}_{\Gamma_{t_{0}}}])\big)(.,t_{0}),\end{aligned}$$ where $(\Delta_{N})^{-1}f$ is the unique solution $(\mu_{N}^{+},\mu_{N}^{-})$ to
\[eq:neumannelliptic\] $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta\mu_{N}^{\pm} & =0 & & \text{in }\Omega^{\pm}(t_{0}),\label{eq:neumannelliptic1}\\
\mu_{N}^{\pm} & =f & & \text{on }\Gamma_{t_{0}},\label{eq:neumannelliptic2}\\
\nabla\mu_{N}^{-}\cdot\mathbf{n}_{\partial\Omega} & =0 & & \text{on }\partial\Omega.\label{eq:neumannelliptic3}\end{aligned}$$
In the literature the concatenation $B_{t_{0}}\circ S_{t_{0}}^{N}$ is often referred to as the *Dirichlet-to-Neumann* operator and $A_{0}\left(t_{0}\right):=B_{t_{0}}\circ S_{t_{0}}^{N}\circ\mathfrak{D}_{t_{0}}$ is called the *Mullins-Sekerka* operator. It can be shown that $$A_{0}\colon [0,T]\to\mathcal{L}\big(H^{\frac{7}{2}}(\mathbb{T}^{1}),H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mathbb{T}^{1})\big)$$ has $L^{p}$-maximal regularity, i.e., $A_{0}\in\mathcal{MR}_{p}(0,T)$. We will not prove this in detail but just give a short sketch describing the essential ideas: first, a reference surface $\Sigma\subset\subset\Omega$ is fixed such that $\Gamma_{t}$ can be expressed as a graph over $\Sigma$ for $t$ in some time interval $\left[\tilde{t},\tilde{t}+\epsilon\right]\subset\left[0,T\right]$. e.g. one may choose $\Sigma:=\Gamma_{0}$ and then determine $\epsilon_{0}>0$ such that $\Gamma_{t}$ may be written as graph over $\Gamma_{0}$ for all $t\in\left[0,\epsilon_{0}\right]$, which is possible since $\Gamma$ is a smoothly evolving hypersurface. Next, a Hanzawa transformation is applied, enabling us to consider (\[eq:neumannelliptic3\]) as a system on fixed domains $\Omega^{\pm}$ and $\Sigma$, but with time dependent coefficients (see e.g. [@abelswilke Chapter 2.2] or and [@stefan Chapter 4]). Here, $\Omega^{+}$, $\Omega^{-}$ and $\Sigma$ denote disjoint sets such that $\partial\Omega^{+}=\Sigma$ and $\Omega=\Omega^{+}\cup\Omega^{-}\cup\Sigma$ holds and we assume in the following that $t_{0}\in\left[0,\epsilon_{0}\right]$. To be more specific, the Hanzawa transformation results in a system of the form $$\begin{aligned}
a\left(x,t,\nabla_{x}\right)\bar{\mu}^{\pm} & =0 & & \text{in }\Omega^{\pm},\\
\bar{\mu}^{\pm} & =\tilde{f} & & \text{on }\Sigma,\\
\nabla\bar{\mu}^{-}\cdot\mathbf{n}_{\partial\Omega} & =0 & & \text{on }\partial\Omega,\end{aligned}$$ where $a$ is the transformed Laplacian, depending smoothly on $t$ and $\tilde{f}$ is the transformation of $f$. Applying the Hanzawa transformation (and the diffeomorphism $X_{0}$) also to the operators $\mathfrak{D}_{t_{0}}$ and $B_{t_{0}}$, we end up with a transformed operator $\tilde{A}_{0}(t_{0})\in\mathcal{L}\big(H^{\frac{7}{2}}(\Sigma),H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\Sigma)\big)$ and [@pruess Corollary 6.6.5] implies that $\tilde{A}_{0}(t_{0})$ has $L^{p}$-maximal regularity. As all involved differential operators and coefficients depend smoothly on $t$, it is possible to show that $\tilde{A}_{0}\colon \left[0,\epsilon_{0}\right]\to\mathcal{L}\big(H^{\frac{7}{2}}(\Sigma),H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\Sigma)\big)$ is relatively continuous. Therefore Theorem \[maxres\] implies $\tilde{A}_{0}\in\mathcal{MR}_{p}(0,\epsilon_{0})$ and, transforming back, also $A_{0}\in\mathcal{MR}_{p}(0,\epsilon_{0})$. Repeating this procedure with a new reference surface $\Sigma:=\Gamma_{\epsilon_{0}}$ and iteratively continuing the argumentation, we end up with $A_{0}\in\mathcal{MR}_{p}(0,T)$.
We proceed by showing that $\mathcal{A}(t_{0})=A_{0}(t_{0})+\mathcal{B}(t_{0})$ holds for some lower order perturbation $\mathcal{B}$. We introduce $$S_{t_{0}}^{DN}\colon H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\Gamma_{t_{0}})\rightarrow H^{2}(\Omega^{+}(t_{0}))\times H^{2}(\Omega^{-}(t_{0}))\colon f\mapsto (\Delta_{DN})^{-1}f,$$ where $(\mu_{DN}^{+},\mu_{DN}^{-}):=(\Delta_{DN})^{-1} f$ is the unique solution to (\[eq:neumannelliptic\]), replacing $\nabla\mu_{N}^{-}\cdot\mathbf{n}_{\partial\Omega}=0$ on ${\Gamma_{\mu,2}}$ by $\mu_{D}^{-}=0$ on ${\Gamma_{\mu,2}}$. Moreover, we write $S_{t_{0}}^{\Delta}:=S_{t_{0}}^{DN}-S_{t_{0}}^{N}$ and observe that the equality $$B_{t_{0}}\circ S_{t_{0}}^{DN}\circ\mathfrak{D}_{t_{0}}=A_{0}(t_{0})+\mathcal{B}_{0}(t_{0})\label{eq:neumanndirichlet}$$ is satisfied, where $\mathcal{B}_{0}(t_{0}):=B_{t_{0}}\circ S_{t_{0}}^{\Delta}\circ\mathfrak{D}_{t_{0}}$. Let $f\in H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\Gamma_{t_{0}})$ be fixed, $(\mu_{DN}^{+},\mu_{DN}^{-}):=S_{t_{0}}^{DN}f$, $(\mu_{N}^{+},\mu_{N}^{-}):=S_{t_{0}}^{N}f$ and $\tilde{\mu}^{\pm}:=\mu_{DN}^{\pm}-\mu_{N}^{\pm}$, implying $(\tilde{\mu}^{+},\tilde{\mu}^{-})=S_{t_{0}}^{\Delta}f$. Then $\tilde{\mu}^{\pm}\in H^{2}(\Omega^{\pm}(t_{0}))$ solves $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\Delta\tilde{\mu}^{\pm} & =0 & \qquad & \text{in }\Omega^{\pm}\left(t_{0}\right),\\
\tilde{\mu}^{\pm} & =0 & & \text{on }\Gamma_{t_{0}},\\
{\mathbf{n}}_{\partial\Omega}\cdot \nabla \tilde{\mu}^{-} & =0 & & \text{on }{\Gamma_{\mu,1}}\\
\tilde{\mu}^{-} & =\mu_{N}^{-} & & \text{on }{\Gamma_{\mu,2}}\end{aligned}$$ and elliptic regularity theory implies $$\left\Vert \tilde{\mu}^{-}\right\Vert _{H^{2}(\Omega^{-}(t_{0}))}\leq C\Vert \mu_{N}^{-}\Vert _{H^{\frac{3}{2}}({\Gamma_{\mu,2}})}\label{eq:mutildeelliptic}$$ and $\tilde{\mu}^{+}\equiv0$ in $\Omega^{+}(t_{0})$. For the further argumentation, we show $$\left\Vert \mu_{N}^{-}\right\Vert _{H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\partial\Omega)}\leq C\Vert \mu_{N}^{-}\Vert _{H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_{t_{0}})}.\label{eq:zwischenstand}$$ To this end let $\gamma(x):=\xi(4d_{\mathbf{B}}(x))$ for all $x\in\Omega$, where $\xi$ is a cut-off function satisfying (\[eq:cut-off\]). In particular $\text{supp}\gamma\cap\Gamma_{t}=\emptyset$ for all $t\in[0,T_{0}]$ by our assumptions and $\gamma\equiv1$ in $\partial\Omega(\frac{\delta}{4})$. Denoting $\hat{\mu}:=\gamma\mu_{N}^{-}\in H^{2}\left(\Omega^{-}(t_{0})\right)$, we compute using $\Delta\mu_{N}^{-}=0$ in $\Omega^{-}(t_{0})$ that $\hat{\mu}$ is a solution to $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\Delta\hat{\mu} & =2\nabla\gamma\cdot\nabla\mu_{N}^{-}+(\Delta\gamma)\mu_{N}^{-} &\qquad & \text{in }\Omega^{-}(t_{0}),\\
\hat{\mu} & =0 & & \text{on }\Gamma_{t_{0}},\\
\nabla\hat{\mu}\cdot\mathbf{n}_{\partial\Omega} & =0 & & \text{on }\partial\Omega,\end{aligned}$$ which, again regarding elliptic regularity theory, implies $\left\Vert \hat{\mu}\right\Vert _{H^{2}(\Omega^{-}(t_{0}))}\leq C\Vert \mu_{N}^{-}\Vert _{H^{1}(\Omega^{-}(t_{0}))}$. This is essential in view of (\[eq:zwischenstand\]) as it leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert \mu_{N}^{-}\Vert _{H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\partial\Omega)} & =\Vert \hat{\mu}\Vert _{H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\partial\Omega)}\leq C\Vert \hat{\mu}\Vert _{H^{2}(\Omega^{-}(t_{0}))}\\
&\leq C\Vert \mu_{N}^{-}\Vert _{H^{1}(\Omega^{-}\left(t_{0})\right)} \leq \tilde{C}\Vert \mu_{N}^{-}\Vert _{H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_{t_{0}})},\end{aligned}$$ where we used the continuity of the trace operator $\operatorname{tr}\colon H^{2}(\Omega^{-}(t_{0}))\rightarrow H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\partial\Omega^{-}(t_{0}))$ in the first inequality (cf. [@mclean Theorem 3.37]) and standard estimates for elliptic equations in the second and third inequality.
Let now $h\in H^{\frac{7}{2}}(\Gamma_0)$ and $(\tilde{\mu}^{+},\tilde{\mu}^{-}):=S_{t_{0}}^{\Delta}\circ\mathfrak{D}_{t_{0}} h$. Our prior considerations enable us to estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert B_{t_{0}}\circ S_{t_{0}}^{\Delta}\circ\mathfrak{D}_{t_{0}}h\right\Vert _{H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_0)} & \leq C\left\Vert \tilde{\mu}^{-}\right\Vert _{H^{2}(\Omega^{-}(t_{0}))}\le C\Vert \mu_{N}^{-}\Vert _{H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\partial\Omega)}\\
& \leq C\Vert \mu_{N}^{-}\Vert _{H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_{t_{0}})}\leq C\Vert \sigma\Delta^{\Gamma}h\Vert _{H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_0)} \leq C\Vert h\Vert_{H^{\frac{5}{2}}(\Gamma_0)},\end{aligned}$$ where we employed the continuity of the trace in the first line, (\[eq:mutildeelliptic\]) in the second, (\[eq:zwischenstand\]) in the third and the definition of $\mu_{N}^{-}$ in the fourth. As $H^{\frac{7}{2}}(\Gamma_0)$ is dense in $H^{\frac{5}{2}}(\Gamma_0)$, we may extend $\mathcal{B}_{0}(t_{0})$ to an operator $$\mathcal{B}_{0}(t_{0})\colon H^{\frac{5}{2}}(\Gamma_0)\rightarrow H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_0),\label{eq:B0}$$ which shows in regard to (\[eq:neumanndirichlet\]) that we may view $B_{t_{0}}\circ S_{t_{0}}^{D}\circ\mathfrak{D}_{t_{0}}$ as a lower order perturbation of $A_{0}(t_0)$.
Next we take care of the term involving $b_{2}$ in (\[eq:musystem2\]). For this we consider the operator $$\mathcal{B}_{1}(t_0)\colon H^{\frac{7}{2}}(\Gamma_0)\rightarrow H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_0)\colon h\mapsto X_{0}^{*}\big(\big[\partial_{\mathbf{n}_{\Gamma_{t_{0}}}}\mu_{1}\big]\big),$$ where $\mu_{1}^{\pm}\in H^{2}(\Omega^{\pm}(t_0))$ is the solution to $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\Delta\mu_{1}^{\pm} & =0 &\qquad & \text{in }\Omega^{\pm}(t_0),\\
\mu_{1}^{\pm} & =\pm b_{2}h & & \text{on }\Gamma_{t_{0}},\\
{\mathbf{n}}_{\partial\Omega}\cdot \nabla \mu_{1}^{-} & =0 & & \text{on }{\Gamma_{\mu,1}},\\
\mu_{1}^{-} & =0 & & \text{on }{\Gamma_{\mu,2}}.\end{aligned}$$ We estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert \mathcal{B}_{1}(t_0)h\right\Vert _{H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_0)} & \leq C\big\Vert \big[\partial_{\mathbf{n}_{\Gamma_{t_{0}}}}\mu_{1}\big]\big\Vert _{H^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\Gamma_{t_{0}}\right)}\nonumber\\&\leq C\left(\Vert \mu_{1}^{+}\Vert _{H^{2}(\Omega^{+}(t_0))}+\Vert \mu_{1}^{-}\Vert _{H^{2}(\Omega^{-}(t_0))}\right)
\leq C\Vert h\Vert _{H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\Gamma_0)},\label{eq:max-reg-per}\end{aligned}$$ where $C>0$ can be chosen independent of $h$ and $t_{0}\in\left[0,T\right]$. Here we again employed the continuity of the trace operator and elliptic theory.
Defining $$\mathcal{B}(t_0)\colon H^{\frac{7}{2}}(\Gamma_0)\to H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_0)\colon h\mapsto\mathcal{B}(t_0)h:=\tilde{b}(.,t_{0})\partial_{s}h-b_{1}(.,t_{0})h+(\mathcal{B}_{0}(t_0)+\mathcal{B}_{1}(t_0))h,$$ with $\tilde{b}:=\mathbf{b}\cdot\nabla S$, and using (\[eq:max-reg-per\]) and (\[eq:B0\]), we find that $$\left\Vert \mathcal{B}(t_0)h\right\Vert _{H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_0)}\leq C\Vert h\Vert _{H^{\frac{5}{2}}(\Gamma_0)}.$$ Thus, we can extend $\mathcal{B}(t_0)$ to a bounded operator $\mathcal{B}(t_0)\colon H^{\frac{5}{2}}(\Gamma_0)\rightarrow H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_0)$. Since $H^{\frac{5}{2}}(\Gamma_0)$ is close to $H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_0)$ compared to $H^{\frac{7}{2}}(\Gamma_0)$ as the embedding $H^{\frac{7}{2}}(\Gamma_0)\hookrightarrow H^{\frac{5}{2}}(\Gamma_0)$ is compact, we get due to Theorem \[thm:Perturbation\], that $\text{\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}=A_{0}+\mathcal{B}$ has $L^{p}$-maximal regularity for all $t\in\left[0,T\right]$.
By elliptic theory $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert \mu^{\pm}\right\Vert _{H^{1}\left(\Omega^{\pm}(t)\right)} & \leq C\left\Vert X_{0}^{*,-1}\left(\sigma\Delta_{\Gamma}h+b_{2}h\right)\right\Vert _{H^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\Gamma_{t}\right)}\leq C\left\Vert h\right\Vert _{H^{\frac{5}{2}}(\Gamma_0)}\end{aligned}$$ for almost all $t\in\left[0,T\right]$ and thus $$\left\Vert \mu^{\pm}\right\Vert _{L^{6}\left(0,T;H^{1}\left(\Omega^{\pm}(t)\right)\right)}\leq C\left\Vert h\right\Vert _{L^{6}\left(0,T;H^{\frac{5}{2}}(\Gamma_0)\right)}\leq C\left\Vert h\right\Vert _{X_{T}}.$$
\[stokesthe\] Let $T\in\left(0,T_{0}\right]$ and $t\in\left[0,T\right]$. For every $\mathbf{f}\in L^{2}(\Omega)^d$, $\mathbf{s}\in H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\Gamma_{t})^d$, $\mathbf{a}\in H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_{t})^d$ and $\mathbf{g}\colon \partial \Omega\to {\mathbb{R}}^d$ such that $\mathbf{g}|_{{\Gamma_{S,1}}}\in H^{\frac{3}{2}}({\Gamma_{S,1}})^d$, ${\mathbf{n}}_{\partial\Omega}\cdot \mathbf{g}|_{{\Gamma_{S,2}}}\in H^{\frac{3}{2}}({\Gamma_{S,2}})$, $(I-{\mathbf{n}}_{\partial\Omega}\otimes{\mathbf{n}}_{\partial\Omega})\mathbf{g}|_{{\Gamma_{S,2}}}\in H^{\frac{1}{2}}({\Gamma_{S,2}})^d$, $\mathbf{g}|_{{\Gamma_{S,3}}}\in H^{\frac{1}{2}}({\Gamma_{S,3}})^d$ satisfying the compatibility condition $$\label{eq:compStokes}
\int_{\Gamma_t} {\mathbf{n}}_{\partial\Omega}\cdot \mathbf{s} \, d\mathcal{H}^{d-1} + \int_{\partial\Omega} {\mathbf{n}}_{\partial\Omega}\cdot \mathbf{g} \, d\mathcal{H}^{d-1} =0\qquad \text{if }{\Gamma_{S,3}}=\emptyset$$ the system $$\begin{aligned}
-\Delta\mathbf{v}^{\pm}+\nabla p^{\pm} & =\mathbf{f} & & \text{in }\Omega^{\pm}(t),\label{eq:zweiphasen1}\\
\mathrm{div}\mathbf{v}^{\pm} & =0 & & \text{in }\Omega^{\pm}(t),\\
B_j(\mathbf{v}^{-},p^{-}) & =\mathbf{g}|_{{\Gamma_{S,j}}}=: \mathbf{g}_j & & \text{on }{\Gamma_{S,j}}, j=1,2,3,\\
\left[\mathbf{v}\right] & =\mathbf{s} & & \text{on }\Gamma_{t},\\
\left[2D_{s}\mathbf{v}-p^{-}\mathbf{I}\right]\mathbf{n}_{\Gamma_{t}} & =\mathbf{a} & & \text{on }\Gamma_{t}\label{eq:zweiphasen5}\end{aligned}$$ has a unique solution $\left(\mathbf{v}^{\pm},p^{\pm}\right)\in H^{2}(\Omega^{\pm}(t))^d\times H^{1}(\Omega^{\pm}(t))$ satisfying $\int_\Omega p\, dx=0$ if ${\Gamma_{S,3}}=\emptyset$. Moreover, there is a constant $C>0$ independent of $t\in\left[0,T_{0}\right]$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&\left\Vert \left(\mathbf{v},p\right)\right\Vert _{H^{2}(\Omega^{\pm}(t))\times H^{1}(\Omega^{\pm}(t))}\leq C \left(\| \mathbf{f}\| _{L^{2}(\Omega)}+\left\Vert \mathbf{s}\right\Vert _{H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\Gamma_{t})}+\left\Vert \mathbf{a}\right\Vert _{H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_{t})}\right. \\
&\qquad \left.+\left\Vert \mathbf{g}_1\right\Vert _{H^{\frac{3}{2}}({\Gamma_{S,1}})}+ \left\Vert \mathbf{g}_{2,{\mathbf{n}}}\right\Vert _{H^{\frac{3}{2}}({\Gamma_{S,2}})} + \left\Vert \mathbf{g}_{2,{{\boldsymbol{\tau}}}}\right\Vert _{H^{\frac{1}{2}}({\Gamma_{S,2}})} +\left\Vert \mathbf{g}_3\right\Vert _{H^{\frac{1}{2}}({\Gamma_{S,3}})}\right)\label{eq:instoab}\end{aligned}$$ holds.
We can assume for simplicity that $\mathbf{g}=0$ on ${\Gamma_{S,1}}$ and ${\mathbf{n}}_{\partial\Omega}\cdot \mathbf{g}=0$ on ${\Gamma_{S,2}}$. Otherwise we substract a suitable extension of $\mathbf{g}$. As a first step, we reduce the system (\[eq:zweiphasen1\])(\[eq:zweiphasen5\]) to the case $\mathbf{s}=0$. Elliptic theory implies that the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta q & =0 & & \text{in }\Omega^{-}(t),\\
\nabla q\cdot\mathbf{n}_{\Gamma_{t}} & =\mathbf{s}\cdot\mathbf{n}_{\Gamma_{t}} & & \text{on }\Gamma_{t},\\
{\mathbf{n}}_{\partial\Omega} \cdot \nabla q & ={\mathbf{n}}_{\partial\Omega}\cdot \mathbf{g}_{2} & & \text{on }{\Gamma_{S,1}}\cup {\Gamma_{S,2}},\\
q & =0 & & \text{on }{\Gamma_{S,3}}\end{aligned}$$ has a unique solution $q\in H^{3}\left(\Omega^{-}(t)\right)$ with $\int_{\Omega^-(t)} q\, dx =0$ if ${\Gamma_{S,3}}=\emptyset$ since $\mathbf{s}\in H^{\frac{3}{2}}\left(\Gamma_{t}\right)^d$ and ${\mathbf{n}}_{\partial\Omega}\cdot \mathbf{g}_{2}\in H^{\frac32}({\Gamma_{S,1}}\cup {\Gamma_{S,2}})$. Here, if ${\Gamma_{S,3}}=\emptyset$, the necessary compatibility condition is satisfied because of . Moreover, we have the estimate $$\left\Vert q\right\Vert _{H^{3}\left(\Omega^{-}(t)\right)}\leq C\left(\left\Vert \mathbf{s}\right\Vert _{H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\Gamma_{t})}+ \|{\mathbf{n}}_{\partial\Omega}\cdot \mathbf{g}_{2}\|_{H^{\frac32}({\Gamma_{S,1}}\cup {\Gamma_{S,2}})}\right).$$ Regarding the tangential part of $\mathbf{s}$, we may solve the stationary Stokes system $$\begin{aligned}
-\Delta\mathbf{w}+\nabla\tilde{p} & =0 & & \text{in }\Omega^{-}(t),\\
\operatorname{div}\mathbf{w} & =0 & & \text{in }\Omega^{-}(t),\\
\mathbf{w} & =(I-{\mathbf{n}}_{\partial\Omega}\otimes {\mathbf{n}}_{\partial\Omega})\left(\mathbf{s}-\nabla q\right) & & \text{on }\Gamma_{t},\\
\mathbf{w} & =0 & & \text{on }\partial\Omega.\end{aligned}$$ We may find a solution $\left(\mathbf{w},\tilde{p}\right)\in H^{2}(\Omega^{-}(t))^d\times H^{1}(\Omega^{-}(t))$ (made unique by the normalization $\int_{\Omega^{-}(t)}\tilde{p}{\, d}x=0$) and also get the estimate $$\left\Vert \mathbf{w}\right\Vert _{H^{2}(\Omega^{-}(t))}+\left\Vert \tilde{p}\right\Vert _{H^{1}(\Omega^{-}(t))}\leq C\left\Vert \mathbf{s}\right\Vert _{H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\Gamma_{t})}.$$ Thus, defining $
\tilde{\mathbf{w}}:=\mathbf{w}+\nabla q, $ the couple $\left(\tilde{\mathbf{w}},\tilde{p}\right)$ solves $$\begin{aligned}
-\Delta\tilde{\mathbf{w}}+\nabla\tilde{p} & =0 & & \text{in }\Omega^{-}(t),\\
\operatorname{div}\tilde{\mathbf{w}} & =0 & & \text{in }\Omega^{-}(t),\\
\tilde{\mathbf{w}} & =\mathbf{s} & & \text{on }\Gamma_{t},\\
\tilde{\mathbf{w}} & =0 & & \text{on }\partial\Omega,\end{aligned}$$ and may be estimated by $\mathbf{s}$ in strong norms. Next, let $$\tilde{\mathbf{g}}:=\mathbf{g}_j+B_j(\tilde{\mathbf{w}},\tilde{p})\qquad \text{on }{\Gamma_{S,j}}, j=1,2,3$$ and $\tilde{\mathbf{a}}:=\mathbf{a}-\left(2D_{s}\tilde{\mathbf{w}}-\tilde{p}\mathbf{I}\right)\mathbf{n}_{\Gamma_t}\in H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_{t})^d$, where the regularity is due to the properties of the trace operator. Then, for every strong solution $\left(\hat{\mathbf{v}}^{\pm},\hat{p}^{\pm}\right)$ of -, with $\mathbf{s\equiv}0$ and $\mathbf{g},\mathbf{a}$ substituted by $\tilde{\mathbf{g}},\tilde{\mathbf{a}}$, the functions $$\left(\mathbf{v}^{+},p^{+}\right):=\left(\hat{\mathbf{v}}^{+},\hat{p}^{+}\right)\text{ and }\left(\mathbf{v}^{-},p^{-}\right):=\left(\hat{\mathbf{v}}^{-}+\tilde{\mathbf{w}},\hat{p}^{-}+\tilde{p}\right)$$ are solutions to the original system -. So, we will consider $\mathbf{s}\equiv0$ in the following and show existence of strong solutions in that case.
As a starting point, we construct a solution $\left(\mathbf{v},p\right)\in V(\Omega)\times L^{2}(\Omega)$ to the weak formulation $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{\Omega}2D_{s}\mathbf{v}:D_{s}{\boldsymbol{\psi}}\, dx -\int_\Omega p\operatorname{div}{\boldsymbol{\psi}}{\, d}x+\int_{{\Gamma_{S,2}}}\alpha_{2}\mathbf{v}\cdot{\boldsymbol{\psi}}{\, d}\mathcal{H}^{1}(s)+\int_{{\Gamma_{S,3}}}\alpha_{3}\mathbf{v}\cdot{\boldsymbol{\psi}}{\, d}\mathcal{H}^{1}(s)\nonumber\\
&\qquad =\int_{\Omega}\mathbf{f}\cdot{\boldsymbol{\psi}}{\, d}x+\int_{\Gamma_{t}}\mathbf{a}\cdot{\boldsymbol{\psi}}{\, d}\mathcal{H}^{1}(s)-\int_{\partial\Omega}\mathbf{g}\cdot{\boldsymbol{\psi}}{\, d}\mathcal{H}^{1}(s),\label{eq:weak2phase}\end{aligned}$$ for all ${\boldsymbol{\psi}}\in H^{1}(\Omega)^d$ with ${\boldsymbol{\psi}}|_{{\Gamma_{S,1}}}=0$, ${\mathbf{n}}\cdot {\boldsymbol{\psi}}|_{{\Gamma_{S,2}}}=0$, where $$V(\Omega)= \{\mathbf{u}\in H^1(\Omega)^d: \operatorname{div} \mathbf{u}=0, \mathbf{u}|_{{\Gamma_{S,1}}}=0, {\mathbf{n}}\cdot \mathbf{u}|_{{\Gamma_{S,2}}}=0\}.$$ Considering first ${\boldsymbol{\psi}}\in V(\Omega)$ and the right hand side as a functional $\mathbf{F}\in\left(V(\Omega)\right)'$, the Lemma of Lax-Milgram implies the existence of a unique $\mathbf{v}\in V(\Omega)$ solving (\[eq:weak2phase\]) for all ${\boldsymbol{\psi}}\in V(\Omega)$, where the coercivity of the involved bilinear form is a consequence of .
Next consider the functional $$\begin{aligned}
F({\boldsymbol{\psi}}):= &-\int_{\Omega}2D_{s}\mathbf{v}:D_{s}{\boldsymbol{\psi}}\, dx -\int_{{\Gamma_{S,2}}}\alpha_{2}\mathbf{v}\cdot{\boldsymbol{\psi}}{\, d}\mathcal{H}^{1}(s)-\int_{{\Gamma_{S,3}}}\alpha_{3}\mathbf{v}\cdot{\boldsymbol{\psi}}{\, d}\mathcal{H}^{1}(s)\\
&\qquad +\int_{\Omega}\mathbf{f}\cdot{\boldsymbol{\psi}}{\, d}x+\int_{\Gamma_{t}}\mathbf{a}\cdot{\boldsymbol{\psi}}{\, d}\mathcal{H}^{1}(s)-\int_{\partial\Omega}\mathbf{g}\cdot{\boldsymbol{\psi}}{\, d}\mathcal{H}^{1}(s),\end{aligned}$$ for all ${\boldsymbol{\psi}}\in H^1(\Omega)^d$ with ${\boldsymbol{\psi}}|_{{\Gamma_{S,1}}}=0$, ${\mathbf{n}}\cdot {\boldsymbol{\psi}}|_{{\Gamma_{S,2}}}=0$. Then $F$ vanishes on $V(\Omega)$ and by Lemma \[lem:pressure\] in Appendix A there is a unique $p\in L^2 (\Omega)$ with $\int_\Omega p\, dx =0$ if ${\Gamma_{S,3}}=\emptyset$ such that $$F({\boldsymbol{\psi}})= -\int_\Omega p \operatorname{div} {\boldsymbol{\psi}}\, dx \quad \text{for all }\ {\boldsymbol{\psi}}\in H^1(\Omega)^d\text{ with }{\boldsymbol{\psi}}|_{{\Gamma_{S,1}}}=0, {\mathbf{n}}\cdot {\boldsymbol{\psi}}|_{{\Gamma_{S,2}}}=0.$$ Hence $(\mathbf{v},p)$ solve . Moreover, we obtain the estimate $$\left\Vert (\mathbf{v},p)\right\Vert _{H^{1}(\Omega)\times L^{2}(\Omega)}\leq C\left(\left\Vert \mathbf{f}\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\Omega)}+\left\Vert \mathbf{a}\right\Vert _{H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_{t})}+\left\Vert \mathbf{g}\right\Vert _{H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\partial\Omega)}\right).\label{eq:2weak2estimate}$$ We now show higher regularity of $\left(\mathbf{v},p\right)$ by localization.
Let $\eta^{\pm}\in C^{\infty}\left(\overline{\Omega}\right)$ be a partition of unity of $\Omega$, such that the inclusions $\Omega^{+}(t)\cup\Gamma_{t}\left(\delta\right)\subset\left\{ \left.x\in\Omega\right|\eta^{+}(x)=1\right\} $ and $\partial\Omega\left(\delta\right)\subset\left\{ \left.x\in\Omega\right|\eta^{-}(x)=1\right\} $ hold. We choose $\eta^\pm$ such that $\nabla \eta^\pm(x)\neq 0$ for all $x\in \partial \{x\in\Omega: \eta^\pm(x)=1\}$ and define $U^{\pm}:=\text{supp}\left(\eta^{\pm}\right)$, $\partial U_{0}^{-}:=\partial U^{-}\backslash\partial\Omega$ and $$\dot{U}:=\left\{ \left.x\in\Omega\right|\eta^{+}(x)\in\left(0,1\right)\right\} =\left\{ \left.x\in\Omega\right|\eta^{-}(x)\in\left(0,1\right)\right\} .$$ Moreover, we set $\dot{p}^{-}:=p\eta^{-}$ and $\tilde{\mathbf{v}}^{-}:=\mathbf{v}\eta^{-}$ in $\Omega$ and we correct the divergence of $\tilde{\mathbf{v}}^{-}$ with the help of the Bogovskii-operator: Let $\varphi\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\Omega)$ with $\text{supp}\left(\varphi\right)\subset U^{+}\backslash\dot{U}$ and $\int_{\Omega}\varphi{\, d}x=1$ and set $$\hat{g}:=\operatorname{div}\left(\tilde{\mathbf{v}}^{-}\right)-\varphi\int_{U^{+}}\operatorname{div}\left(\tilde{\mathbf{v}}^{-}\right){\, d}x$$ in $U^{+}$. As $\mathbf{v}\in V(\Omega)$, we have $\operatorname{div}\left(\tilde{\mathbf{v}}^{-}\right)=\mathbf{v}\cdot\nabla\eta^{-}$ and thus $\hat{g}\in H_{0}^{1}\left(U^{+}\right)$, $\int_{U^{+}}\hat{g}{\, d}x=0$. Consequently, [@galdi Theorem III.3.3] implies that there is $\hat{\mathbf{v}}^{-}\in H_{0}^{2}\left(U^{+}\right)$, which we extend onto $\Omega$ by $0$, satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{div}\hat{\mathbf{v}}^{-} & =\hat{g}\text{ in }U^{+},\nonumber \\
\left\Vert \hat{\mathbf{v}}^{-}\right\Vert _{H^{2}(\Omega)} & \leq C\left\Vert \mathbf{v}\right\Vert _{H^{1}(\Omega)}.\label{eq:vhut-}\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $\dot{\mathbf{v}}^{-}:=\tilde{\mathbf{v}}^{-}-\hat{\mathbf{v}}^{-}$ fulfills $\operatorname{div}\dot{\mathbf{v}}^{-}=0$ in $U^{-}$ since $\varphi\equiv0$ in that domain. Let now $${\boldsymbol{\psi}}\in\left\{ \mathbf{w}\in H^{1}(U^{-})^d: \mathbf{w}=0\text{ on }\partial U_{0}^{-}, \mathbf{w}|_{{\Gamma_{S,1}}}=0, {\mathbf{n}}\cdot \mathbf{w}|_{{\Gamma_{S,2}}}=0\right\},$$ then $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{U^{-}} & 2D_{s}\dot{\mathbf{v}}^{-}:D_{s}{\boldsymbol{\psi}}-\dot{p}^{-}\operatorname{div}{\boldsymbol{\psi}}{\, d}x+\int_{{\Gamma_{S,2}}}\alpha_{2}\mathbf{v}\cdot{\boldsymbol{\psi}}{\, d}\mathcal{H}^{1}(s)+\int_{{\Gamma_{S,3}}}\alpha_{3}\mathbf{v}\cdot{\boldsymbol{\psi}}{\, d}\mathcal{H}^{1}(s)\\
& =\int_{U^{-}}2D_{s}\tilde{\mathbf{v}}^{-}:D_{s}{\boldsymbol{\psi}}-p\operatorname{div}\left({\boldsymbol{\psi}}\eta^{-}\right)+\left(p\nabla\eta^{-}\right)\cdot{\boldsymbol{\psi}}{\, d}x+\int_{{\Gamma_{S,2}}}\alpha_{2}\mathbf{v}\cdot{\boldsymbol{\psi}}{\, d}\mathcal{H}^{1}(s)\\
& \quad+\int_{{\Gamma_{S,3}}}\alpha_{3}\mathbf{v}\cdot{\boldsymbol{\psi}}{\, d}\mathcal{H}^{1}(s)-\int_{U^{-}}2D_{s}\hat{\mathbf{v}}^{-}:D_{s}{\boldsymbol{\psi}}{\, d}x\\
& =\int_{U^{-}}\mathbf{f}\cdot{\boldsymbol{\psi}}\eta^{-}{\, d}x-\int_{\partial\Omega}\mathbf{g}\cdot{\boldsymbol{\psi}}{\, d}\mathcal{H}^{1}(s)+\left(p\nabla\eta^{-}\right)\cdot{\boldsymbol{\psi}}{\, d}x\\
& \quad+\int_{U^{-}}2\operatorname{div}\left(D_{s}\hat{\mathbf{v}}\right)\cdot{\boldsymbol{\psi}}+\left(2D_{s}\mathbf{v}\nabla\eta^{-}-\operatorname{div}\left(\mathbf{v}\otimes\nabla\eta^{-}+\nabla\eta^{-}\otimes\mathbf{v}\right)\right)\cdot{\boldsymbol{\psi}}{\, d}x,\end{aligned}$$ where we used the definition of $\dot{\mathbf{v}}^{-}$ and $\dot{p}^{-}$ in the first equality and integration by parts together with $\hat{\mathbf{v}}^{-}\in H_{0}^{2}\left(U^{+}\right)$ and $\nabla\eta^{-}=0$ on $U^{-}$ in the second equality. Additionally, we employed the fact that $\left(\mathbf{v},p\right)$ is the weak solution to (\[eq:weak2phase\]). Hence, $\left(\dot{\mathbf{v}}^{-},\dot{p}^{-}\right)$ are a weak solution to the system $$\begin{aligned}
-\Delta\dot{\mathbf{v}}^{-}+\nabla\dot{p}^{-} & =\tilde{\mathbf{f}} & & \text{in }U^{-},\nonumber \\
\operatorname{div}\dot{\mathbf{v}}^{-} & =0 & & \text{in }U^{-},\nonumber \\
\dot{\mathbf{v}}^{-} & =\hat{\mathbf{v}}^{-} & & \text{on }\partial U_{0}^{-},\nonumber \\
B_j(\mathbf{v}^{-},\dot{p}^{-}) & =\mathbf{g} & & \text{on }{\Gamma_{S,j}}, j=1,2,3,\label{eq:onephase outer}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\tilde{\mathbf{f}}:=p\nabla\eta^{-}+2\operatorname{div}(D_{s}\hat{\mathbf{v}})+2D_{s}\mathbf{v}\nabla\eta^{-}-\operatorname{div}\left(\mathbf{v}\otimes\nabla\eta^{-}+\nabla\eta^{-}\otimes\mathbf{v}\right)\in L^{2}(U^{-})$$ and $\hat{\mathbf{v}}^{-}\in H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\partial U_{0}^{-})$ by the properties of the trace operator. Writing $$\tilde{\mathbf{g}}:=
\begin{cases}
\mathbf{g} &\text{on }{\Gamma_{S,1}},\\
\alpha_{j}\dot{\mathbf{v}}^{-}+\mathbf{g} &\text{on }{\Gamma_{S,j}},j=2,3,
\end{cases}$$ using localization techniques and results for strong solutions of the stationary Stokes equation in one phase with inhomogeneous do-nothing boundary condition (cf. Theorem 3.1 in [@ShimizuStokes]), with Dirichlet boundary condition (cf. [@galdi]) and slip-boundary conditions (cf. Solonnikov and Ščadilov [@SolonnikovNavier Theorem 2]), we find that $\left(\dot{\mathbf{v}}^{-},\dot{p}^{-}\right)\in H^{2}(U^{-})\times H^{1}(U^{-})$. Moreover, regarding (\[eq:vhut-\]), (\[eq:2weak2estimate\]) and the definition of $\tilde{\mathbf{f}}$, we get $$\left\Vert \left(\dot{\mathbf{v}}^{-},\dot{p}^{-}\right)\right\Vert _{H^{2}\left(U^{-}\right)\times H^{1}\left(U^{-}\right)}\leq C\left(\left\Vert \mathbf{f}\right\Vert _{L^{2}(\Omega)}+\left\Vert \mathbf{a}\right\Vert _{H^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\Gamma_{t}\right)}+\left\Vert \mathbf{g}\right\Vert _{H^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\partial\Omega\right)}\right).$$ Analogously, we define $\tilde{\mathbf{v}}^{+}:=\mathbf{v}\eta^{+}$ and $\hat{\mathbf{v}}^{+}\in H_{0}^{2}(\dot{U})$ as a solution to $\operatorname{div}\mathbf{\hat{\mathbf{v}}}^{+}=\operatorname{div}\tilde{\mathbf{v}}^{+}$. Here, we do not need to correct the mean value, since $$\int_{\dot{U}}\operatorname{div}\tilde{\mathbf{v}}^{+}{\, d}x=\int_{\partial\dot{U}}\mathbf{v}\cdot\mathbf{n}_{\partial\dot{U}}\eta^{+}{\, d}\mathcal{H}^{1}(s)=-\int_{\left\{ \eta^{+}=1\right\} }\operatorname{div}\mathbf{v}{\, d}x=0.$$ We set $\dot{\mathbf{v}}^{+}:=\tilde{\mathbf{v}}^{+}-\hat{\mathbf{v}}^{+}$ and $\dot{p}^{+}:=p\eta^{+}$ and get after similar calculations as before that $\left(\dot{\mathbf{v}}^{+},\dot{p}^{+}\right)$ is a weak solution to the two phase stationary Stokes system $$\begin{aligned}
-\Delta\dot{\mathbf{v}}^{+}+\nabla\dot{p}^{+} & =\hat{\mathbf{f}} & & \text{in }U^{+},\label{eq:zweiphasen1-1}\\
\operatorname{div}\dot{\mathbf{v}}^{+} & =0 & & \text{in }U^{+},\\
\dot{\mathbf{v}}^{+} & =0 & & \text{on }\partial U^{+},\\
\left[\dot{\mathbf{v}}^{+}\right] & =0 & & \text{on }\Gamma_{t},\\
\left[2D_{s}\dot{\mathbf{v}}^{+}-\dot{p}^{+}\mathbf{I}\right]\cdot\mathbf{n}_{\Gamma_{t}} & =\mathbf{a} & & \text{on }\Gamma_{t},\label{eq:zweiphasen5-1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{\mathbf{f}}\in L^{2}\left(U^{+}\right)$. Then [@shibatastokesdirichlet Theorem 1.1] implies $\dot{\mathbf{v}}^{+}|_{\Omega^{+}(t)}\in H^{2}(\Omega^{+}(t))$ and $\dot{\mathbf{v}}^{+}|_{U^{+}\backslash\Omega^{+}(t)}\in H^{2}(U^{+}\backslash\Omega^{+}(t))$, and also that the pressure satisfies $\dot{p}^{+}|_{\Omega^{+}(t)}\in H^{1}(\Omega^{+}(t))$ and $\dot{p}^{+}|_{U^{+}\backslash\Omega^{+}(t)}\in H^{1}(U^{+}\backslash\Omega^{+}(t))$ with estimates in the associated norms. In particular, $\mathbf{v}=\dot{\mathbf{v}}^{+}$ in $\Omega^{+}(t)$ and $\mathbf{v}=\dot{\mathbf{v}}^{+}+\dot{\mathbf{v}}^{-}+\hat{\mathbf{v}}^{+}+\text{\ensuremath{\hat{\mathbf{v}}}}^{-}$ in $\Omega^{-}(t)$, yielding the desired regularity and (\[eq:instoab\]). To show that $C>0$ may be chosen independently of $t\in\left[0,T_{0}\right]$, one may make use of extension arguments, see e.g. the proof of [@nsac Lemma 2.10].
\[scharfthe\] Let $T\in\left(0,T_{0}\right]$. Let $\mathbf{b}\colon \Gamma_0\times\left[0,T\right]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^d$, $b\colon \Gamma_0\times\left[0,T\right]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, $a_{1}\colon \Omega\times\left[0,T\right]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, $a_{2},a_{3},a_{5}\colon \Gamma\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, $a_{4}\colon \partial\Omega\times[0,T]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, $\mathbf{a}_{1}\colon \Omega\times\left[0,T\right]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^d$, $\mathbf{a}_{2},\mathbf{a}_{3},\mathbf{a}_{4},\mathbf{a}_{5}\colon\Gamma\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^d$ and $\mathbf{a}_{6}\colon \partial\Omega\times [0,T]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^d$ be smooth given functions such that $$\int_{\Gamma_t} {\mathbf{n}}_{\Gamma_t}\cdot \mathbf{a}_2 \, d\mathcal{H}^{d-1} + \int_{\partial\Omega} {\mathbf{n}}_{\partial\Omega}\cdot\mathbf{a}_6 \, d\mathcal{H}^{d-1} =0\qquad \text{if }{\Gamma_{S,3}}=\emptyset.$$ For every $g\in L^{2}\big(0,T;H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_0)\big)$ and $h_{0}\in H^{2}(\Gamma_0)$ there exists a unique solution $h\in X_{T}$ of $$\begin{aligned}
D_{t,\Gamma}h+\mathbf{b}\cdot\nabla_{\Gamma}h-bh+\tfrac{1}{2}X_{0}^{*}\big((\mathbf{v}^{+}+\mathbf{v}^{-})\cdot\mathbf{n}_{\Gamma_{t}}\big)+\tfrac{1}{2}X_{0}^{*}\big(\big[\partial_{\mathbf{n}_{\Gamma_{t}}}\mu\big]\big) & =g & & \text{in }\Gamma_0\times\left(0,T\right),\\
h\left(.,0\right) & =h_{0} & & \text{in }\Gamma_0,\end{aligned}$$ where for every $t\in\left[0,T\right]$, the functions **$\mathbf{v}^{\pm}=\mathbf{v}^{\pm}(x,t)$**, $p^{\pm}=p^{\pm}(x,t)$ and $\mu^{\pm}=\mu^{\pm}(x,t)$ for $(x,t)\in\Omega_{T}^{\pm}$ with $\mathbf{v}^{\pm}\in H^{2}(\Omega^{\pm}(t))$, $p^{\pm}\in H^{1}(\Omega^{\pm}(t))$ and $\mu^{\pm}\in H^{2}(\Omega^{\pm}(t))$ are the unique solutions to $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta\mu^{\pm} & =a_{1} & & \text{in }\Omega^{\pm}(t),\label{eq:laplmu}\\
\mu^{\pm} & = X_{0}^{*,-1}\big(\sigma\Delta_{\Gamma}h\pm a_{2}h\big)+a_{3} & & \text{on }\Gamma_{t},\\
{\mathbf{n}}_{\partial\Omega}\cdot \nabla \mu^{-} & =a_{4} & & \text{on }{\Gamma_{\mu,1}},\\
\mu^{-} & =a_{4} & & \text{on }{\Gamma_{\mu,2}},\\
-\Delta\mathbf{v}^{\pm}+\nabla p^{\pm} & =\mathbf{a}_{1} & & \text{in }\Omega^{\pm}(t),\label{eq:stokes}\\
\operatorname{div}\mathbf{v}^{\pm} & =0 & & \text{in }\Omega^{\pm}(t),\\
[\mathbf{v}] & =\mathbf{a}_{2} & & \text{on }\Gamma_{t},\label{eq:stokesjmp}\\
\left[2D_{s}\mathbf{v}-p\mathbf{I}\right]\mathbf{n}_{\Gamma_{t}} & =X_{0}^{*,-1}\big(\mathbf{a}_{3}h+\mathbf{a}_{4}\Delta_{\Gamma}h+a_{5}\nabla_{\Gamma}h+\mathbf{a}_{5}\big) & & \text{on }\Gamma_{t},\label{eq:stokesbdry}\\
B_j(\mathbf{v}^{-},p^{-})& =\mathbf{a}_{6} & & \text{on }{\Gamma_{S,j}}, j=1,2,3.\label{eq:stokesoutbdry}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, if $g$, $h_{0}$ and $b$, $\mathbf{b}$, $a_{i}$, and $\mathbf{a}_{j}$ are smooth on their respective domains for $i\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,5\right\}$, $j\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,6\right\}$, then $h$ is smooth and $p^{\pm}$, $\mathbf{v}^{\pm}$ and $\mu^{\pm}$ are smooth on $\Omega^{\pm}(t)$.
We show this by a perturbation argument. First of all note that we may without loss of generality assume that $a_{1}$, $a_{3}$, $a_{4}$, $\mathbf{a}_{1}$, $\mathbf{a}_{2}$, $\mathbf{a}_{5}$, $\mathbf{a}_{6}=0$ on their respective domains. The above system may be reduced to this case by solving $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta\hat{\mu}^{\pm} & =a_{1} & & \text{in }\Omega^{\pm}(t),\\
\hat{\mu}^{\pm} & =a_{3} & & \text{on }\Gamma_{t},\\
{\mathbf{n}}\cdot \nabla \hat{\mu}^{-} & =a_{4} & & \text{on }{\Gamma_{\mu,1}},\\
\hat{\mu}^{-} & =a_{4} & & \text{on }{\Gamma_{\mu,2}}\end{aligned}$$ with the help of standard elliptic theory and $$\begin{aligned}
-\Delta\hat{\mathbf{v}}^{\pm}+\nabla\hat{p}^{\pm} & =\mathbf{a}_{1} & & \text{in }\Omega^{\pm}(t),\\
\operatorname{div}\mathbf{\hat{v}}^{\pm} & =0 & & \text{in }\Omega^{\pm}(t),\\
[\mathbf{\hat{\mathbf{v}}}] & =\mathbf{a}_{2} & & \text{on }\Gamma_{t},\\
\left[2D_{s}\mathbf{\hat{v}}-p\right]\cdot\mathbf{n} & =\mathbf{a}_{5} & & \text{on }\Gamma_{t},\\
B_j(\mathbf{\hat{v}}^{-},\hat{p}^{-}) & =\mathbf{a}_{6} & & \text{on }{\Gamma_{S,j}}, j=1,2,3,\end{aligned}$$ with the help of Theorem \[stokesthe\] and setting $$\hat{g}=g-\tfrac{1}{2}X_{0}^{*}\left([\partial_{\mathbf{n}_{\Gamma_{t}}}\hat{\mu}]+(\hat{\mathbf{v}}^{+}+\hat{\mathbf{v}}^{-})\cdot\mathbf{n}_{\Gamma_{t}}\right).$$ Now let $t\in\left[0,T\right]$, $h\in H^{\frac{7}{2}}(\Gamma_0)$ and let $\mathbf{v}_{h}^{\pm}\in H^{2}(\Omega^{\pm}(t))^d$, $p_{h}^{\pm}\in H^{1}(\Omega^{\pm}(t))$ be the solution to (\[eq:stokes\])(\[eq:stokesoutbdry\]). Multiplying (\[eq:stokes\]) by $\mathbf{v}_{h}^{\pm}$ and integrating in $\Omega^{\pm}(t)$ together with integration by parts and the consideration of the boundary values (\[eq:stokesbdry\]) and (\[eq:stokesoutbdry\]) allows us to deduce $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Omega^{+}(t)} & 2|D_{s}\mathbf{v}_{h}^{+}|^{2}{\, d}x+\int_{\Omega^{-}(t)}2|D_{s}\mathbf{v}_{h}^{-}|^{2}{\, d}x+\sum_{j=2,3}\int_{{\Gamma_{S,j}}}\alpha_j|\mathbf{v}_{h}^{-}|^{2}{\, d}\mathcal{H}^{1}(s)\nonumber \\
& =\int_{\Gamma_{t}}X_{0}^{*,-1}\big(\mathbf{a}_{3}h+\mathbf{a}_{4}\Delta_{\Gamma}h+a_{5}\nabla_{\Gamma}h\big)\cdot\mathbf{v}_{h}^{-}{\, d}\mathcal{H}^{1}(s).\label{eq:v+-test}\end{aligned}$$ Hence, by [@korn Corollary 5.8] and the continuity of the trace we find $$\Vert \mathbf{v}_{h}^{-}\Vert _{H^{1}(\Omega^{-}(t))}\leq C\Vert h\Vert _{H^{2}(\Gamma_0)}\label{eq:v-est}$$ for $C$ independent of $h$ and $t$. [@korn Corollary 5.8], also implies $$\int_{\Omega^{+}(t)}2|D_{s}\mathbf{v}_{h}^{+}|^{2}{\, d}x+\int_{\Gamma_{t}}|\mathbf{v}_{h}^{+}|^{2}{\, d}\mathcal{H}^{1}(s)\geq C\Vert \mathbf{v}_{h}^{+}\Vert _{H^{1}\left(\Omega^{+}(t)\right)}^{2},$$ leading to $$\Vert \mathbf{v}_{h}^{+}\Vert _{H^{1}(\Omega^{-}(t))}\leq C\Vert h\Vert _{H^{2}(\Gamma_0)}\label{eq:v+est}$$ due to $\mathbf{v}_{h}^{+}=\mathbf{v}_{h}^{-}$ on $\Gamma_{t}$, (\[eq:v-est\]) and (\[eq:v+-test\]). Defining $$\mathcal{B}(t)\colon H^{\frac{7}{2}}(\Gamma_0)\rightarrow H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_0)\colon h\mapsto\mathcal{B}(t)h=\tfrac{1}{2}X_{0}^{*}\big((\mathbf{v}_{h}^{+}+\mathbf{v}_{h}^{-})\cdot\mathbf{n}_{\Gamma_{t}}\big),$$ we may use (\[eq:v-est\]) and (\[eq:v+est\]) to confirm $$\Vert \mathcal{B}(t)h\Vert _{H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_0)}\le C\Vert h\Vert _{H^{2}(\Gamma_0)}$$ for $C>0$ independent of $h$ and $t$. As $H^{\frac{7}{2}}(\Gamma_0)$ is dense in $H^{2}(\Gamma_0)$ we can extend $\mathcal{B}(t)$ to an operator $\mathcal{B}(t):H^{2}(\Gamma_0)\rightarrow H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_0)$ and $H^{2}(\Gamma_0)$ is close to $H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_0)$ compared with $H^{\frac{7}{2}}(\Gamma_0)$.
The existence of a unique solution $h\in X_{T}$ with the properties stated in the theorem is now a consequence of Theorem \[thm:Perturbation\]. Higher regularity may be shown by localization and e.g. the usage of difference quotients.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors acknowledge support by the SPP 1506 “Transport Processes at Fluidic Interfaces” of the German Science Foundation (DFG) through the grant AB285/4-2.
Existence of a Pressure
=======================
\[lem:pressure\] Let $F\in \{{\boldsymbol{\psi}}\in H^1(\Omega)^d: {\boldsymbol{\psi}}|_{{\Gamma_{S,1}}}=0, {\mathbf{n}}_{\partial\Omega}\cdot {\boldsymbol{\psi}}|_{{\Gamma_{S,2}}}=0 \}\to {\mathbb{R}}$ be linear and bounded such that $$F({\boldsymbol{\psi}})= 0 \quad \text{for all } {\boldsymbol{\psi}}\in V(\Omega)=\{ {\boldsymbol{\psi}}\in H^1(\Omega)^d: \operatorname{div} {\boldsymbol{\psi}}=0, {\boldsymbol{\psi}}|_{{\Gamma_{S,1}}}=0, {\mathbf{n}}_{\partial\Omega}\cdot {\boldsymbol{\psi}}|_{{\Gamma_{S,2}}}=0\}.$$ Then there is a unique $p\in L^2(\Omega)$ with $\int_\Omega p\,dx =0$ if ${\Gamma_{S,3}}=\emptyset$ such that $$F({\boldsymbol{\psi}})= \int_\Omega p\operatorname{div}{\boldsymbol{\psi}}\,dx \qquad \text{for all } {\boldsymbol{\psi}}\in H^1(\Omega)^d\text{ with }{\boldsymbol{\psi}}|_{{\Gamma_{S,1}}}=0, {\mathbf{n}}_{\partial\Omega}\cdot {\boldsymbol{\psi}}|_{{\Gamma_{S,2}}}=0.$$
We will apply the closed range theorem. To this end let $$\begin{aligned}
X&= \{{\boldsymbol{\psi}}\in H^1(\Omega)^d: {\boldsymbol{\psi}}|_{{\Gamma_{S,1}}}=0, {\mathbf{n}}_{\partial\Omega}\cdot {\boldsymbol{\psi}}|_{{\Gamma_{S,2}}}=0 \},\\
Y&= \left\{g\in L^2(\Omega): \int_\Omega g(x)\,dx =0 \text{ if }{\Gamma_{S,3}}=\emptyset\right\}
\end{aligned}$$ and consider $$T \colon X\to Y \colon {\boldsymbol{\psi}}\mapsto -\operatorname{div} {\boldsymbol{\psi}}.$$ Then $T$ is onto, which can be seen as follows: Let $g\in Y$.
If ${\Gamma_{S,3}}\neq \emptyset$, then there is a unique solution $q\in H^1(\Omega)$ of $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\Delta q &= g &\qquad & \text{in }\Omega,\\
q|_{{\Gamma_{S,3}}} &= 0 && \text{on }{\Gamma_{S,3}},\\
{\mathbf{n}}_{\partial\Omega} \cdot \nabla q|_{{\Gamma_{S,1}}\cup{\Gamma_{S,2}}}& =0 &&\text{on }{\Gamma_{S,1}}\cup {\Gamma_{S,2}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, using the solvability of the stationary Stokes equation with non-homogenoues Dirichlet boundary conditions, we find some $\mathbf{w}\in H^1(\Omega)^d$ with $\operatorname{div} \mathbf{w}=0$ and $$\mathbf{w}|_{{\Gamma_{S,1}}} = \nabla q|_{{\Gamma_{S,1}}\cup {\Gamma_{S,2}}},\qquad \mathbf{w}|_{{\Gamma_{S,3}}}=0.$$ Then ${\boldsymbol{\psi}}= \mathbf{w}-\nabla q\in X$ with $-\operatorname{div}{\boldsymbol{\psi}}= g$.
If ${\Gamma_{S,3}}= \emptyset$, we have $\int_\Omega g(x)\, dx=0$ and can use the well-known Bogovskii operator to obtain some ${\boldsymbol{\psi}}\in H^1_0(\Omega)$ with $-\operatorname{div} {\boldsymbol{\psi}}=g$.
Now the closed range theorem implies that $T' \colon Y'\to X'$ is injective and $$\mathcal{R}(T') =\mathcal{N}(T)^\circ=\{F\in X': F({\boldsymbol{\psi}}) =0 \text{ for all }{\boldsymbol{\psi}}\in V(\Omega)\}.$$ This proves the statement of the lemma.
[10]{}
H. Abels and Y. Liu, [[Sharp Interface Limit for a Stokes/Allen-Cahn System]{}]{}, *Archives for Rational Mechanics and Analysis* **229** (2018), no. 1, 417–502.
H. Abels and A. Marquardt, [Sharp interface limit of a [S]{}tokes/[C]{}ahn-[H]{}illiard system, part [II]{}: Approximate solutions]{}, preprint, arXiv:2003.14267.
[to3em]{}, [Sharp interface limit of a [S]{}tokes/[C]{}ahn-[H]{}illiard system, part [I]{}: Convergence result]{}, preprint, arXiv:2003.03139.
H. Abels and M. Wilke, [[Well-Posedness and Qualitative Behaviour of Solutions for a Two-Phase Navier-Stokes/Mullins-Sekerka System]{}]{}, *Interfaces and Free Boundaries* **15** (2013), 39–75.
G. Alessandrini, A. Morassi, and E. Rosset, [[The linear constraint in Poincar]{}é [and Korn type inequalities]{}]{}, *Forum Mathematicum* **20** (2006), no. 3.
N. Alikakos, P. Bates, and X. Chen, [[Convergence of the Cahn-Hilliard Equation to the Hele-Shaw Model]{}]{}, *Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis* **128** (1994), no. 2, 165–205.
W. Arendt, R. Chill, S. Fornaro, and C. Poupaud, [[$L^p$]{}-[Maximal Regularity for Non-Autonomous Evolution Equations]{}]{}, *Journal of Differential Equations* **237** (2007), no. 1, 1–26.
X. Chen, D. Hilhorst, and E. Logak, [[Mass Conserving Allen-Cahn Equation and Volume Preserving Mean Curvature Flow]{}]{}, *Interfaces and Free Boundaries* **12** (2010), 527–549.
G. P. Galdi, *[An Introduction to the Mathematical Theory of the Navier-Stokes Equations: Steady-State Problems]{}*, second ed., Springer Monographs in Mathematics, 2011.
William McLean, *[Strongly Elliptic Systems and Boundary Integral Equations]{}*, Cambridge University Press, 2000.
J. Pruess and G. Simonett, *[Moving Interfaces and Quasilinear Parabolic Evolution Equations]{}*, Birkh[ä]{}user Basel, 2016.
Stefan Schaubeck, *[Sharp Interface Limits for Diffuse Interface Models]{}*, Ph.D. thesis, University of Regensburg, urn:nbn:de:bvb:355-epub-294622, 2014.
Y. Shibata and S. Shimizu, [[On a Resolvent Estimate of the Interface Problem for the Stokes System in a Bounded Domain]{}]{}, *Journal of Differential Equations* **191** (2003), no. 2, 408–444.
[to3em]{}, [[On the Lp-Lq Maximal Regularity of the Neumann Problem for the Stokes Equations in a Bounded Domain]{}]{}, *Journal f[ü]{}r die reine und angewandte Mathematik* **615** (2007), 1–53.
V. A. Solonnikov and V. E. [Š]{}[č]{}adilov, [A certain boundary value problem for the stationary system of [N]{}avier-[S]{}tokes equations]{}, *Trudy Mat. Inst. Steklov.* **125** (1973), 196–210, 235, Boundary value problems of mathematical physics, 8.
[^1]: *Fakultät für Mathematik, Universität Regensburg, 93040 Regensburg, Germany*
[^2]: *Fakultät für Mathematik, Universität Regensburg, 93040 Regensburg, Germany*
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Fix a Dynkin diagram and let $\lambda$ be a coweight. When does there exist an element $w$ of the corresponding Weyl group such that $w$ is $\lambda$-minuscule and $w(\lambda)$ is dominant? We answer this question for general Coxeter groups. We express and prove these results using a variant of Mozes’s game of numbers.'
author:
- 'Qëndrim R. Gashi and Travis Schedler'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: On dominance and minuscule Weyl group elements
---
Introduction
============
Mazur’s Inequality [@mazur; @mazur2] is an important $p$-adic estimate of the number of rational points of certain varieties over finite fields. It can be formulated in purely group-theoretic terms, and the classical version can be viewed as a statement for the group $GL_n$ (see [@kot]). Kottwitz and Rapoport formulated a converse to this inequality [@krapo], which is also related to the non-emptiness of certain affine Deligne-Lusztig varieties, and they reduced the proof to a purely root-theoretic problem, which is solved in [@qendrim3]. A crucial step in [@qendrim3] involves the use of Theorem \[question\] below, which we state after introducing some standard notation and terminology.
Let $\Gamma$ be a simply-laced Dynkin graph, with corresponding simple roots $\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_n$, positive roots $\Delta_+$, Weyl group $W$, and simple reflections $s_1, \ldots, s_n \in W$. Let $P_\Gamma$ be the lattice of coweights corresponding to $\Gamma$. Following Peterson, for $\lambda \in P_\Gamma$ and $w \in W$, we say that $w$ is $\lambda$-minuscule if there exists a reduced expression $w=s_{i_1}s_{i_2}\cdots s_{i_t}$ such that $$s_{i_r}s_{i_{r+1}}\cdots s_{i_t} \lambda = \lambda +
\alpha^{\vee}_{i_r} + \alpha^{\vee}_{i_{r+1}} + \ldots +
\alpha^{\vee}_{i_t}, \, \forall r \in \{1,2,\ldots,t\},$$ where $\alpha_i^\vee \in P_\Gamma$ is the simple coroot corresponding to $\alpha_i$. Equivalently (cf. [@stem]), a reduced product $w = s_1 s_2 \cdots s_{i_t}$ is $\lambda$-minuscule if and only if $\langle \lambda, \alpha_{i_t}^{\vee} \rangle = -1$ as well as $\langle s_{i_{r+1}}\cdots s_{i_t} \lambda, \alpha_{i_r}^{\vee}
\rangle = -1$, for all $r \in \{1,\ldots,t-1\}$, where $\langle \, , \rangle$ is the Cartan pairing.
\[question\] For $\lambda \in P_{\Gamma}$, there exists a $\lambda$-minuscule element $w \in W$ such that $w(\lambda)$ is dominant if and only if $$\label{broer}
\langle \lambda, \alpha^{\vee} \rangle \geq -1, \, \forall \alpha \in \Delta_+.$$
The proof of this theorem is straightforward, and is given in §3. We also generalize the result to the case of extended Dynkin graphs, in the following manner. Let $\widetilde{\Gamma}$ be a simply-laced extended Dynkin graph, $\widetilde W$ be its Weyl group, and $R_{\widetilde \Gamma}$ be the root lattice, i.e., the span of the simple roots $\alpha_i$. Let $\widetilde{\Delta}_+ \subset R_{\widetilde \Gamma}$ be the set of positive real roots (i.e., positive-integral combinations $\alpha$ of simple roots such that $\langle \alpha, \alpha \rangle = 2$). Define $P_{\widetilde \Gamma}$ in this case to be the dual to the root lattice $R_{\widetilde \Gamma}$. Given $\alpha \in R_{\widetilde \Gamma}$ and $\lambda \in P_{\widetilde \Gamma}$, denote their pairing by $\alpha \cdot \lambda$. Let $\delta \in R_{\widetilde \Gamma}$ be the positive-integral combination of simple roots which generates the kernel of the Cartan form on $R_{\widetilde \Gamma}$. Finally, for $\alpha \in \widetilde{\Delta}_+$, let $\alpha^\vee \in P_{\widetilde \Gamma}$ be the element such that $\beta \cdot \alpha^\vee = \langle \beta, \alpha \rangle$ for all $\beta \in \widetilde{\Delta}_+$. Then, the notion of $\lambda$-minusculity carries over to this setting.
\[question-ext\] For nonzero $\lambda \in P_{{\widetilde \Gamma}}$, there exists a $\lambda$-minuscule element $w \in \widetilde{W}$ such that $w(\lambda)$ is dominant if and only if
1. $\alpha \cdot \lambda \geq -1, \, \forall \alpha \in
\widetilde{\Delta}_+$, and
2. $\delta \cdot \lambda \neq 0$.
We generalize the theorems above in two directions. First, we allow $\lambda$ to be non-integral, i.e., to lie in $P_{\Gamma} \otimes_{\Z} \R$ (respectively $P_{\widetilde \Gamma} \otimes_{\Z} \R$) and not just in $P_\Gamma$ (respectively $P_{\widetilde \Gamma}$). Second, we consider all Coxeter groups, not just finite and affine ones. For example, in the first direction, if $\lambda \in P_{\Gamma} \otimes_{\Z} \R$, the notion of $\lambda$-minuscule Weyl group element should be generalized accordingly: $w \in W$ is $\lambda$-minuscule if there exists a reduced expression $w = s_{i_1} \ldots s_{i_t}$ such that $s_{i_r} \ldots s_{i_t} \lambda = \lambda + \xi_{r}
\alpha_{i_r}^{\vee} + \ldots + \xi_{t} \alpha_{i_t}^{\vee}$ for all $r \in \{1, \ldots, t\}$, for some positive real numbers $\xi_1, \ldots, \xi_{t} \leq 1$.
In the original situation (for $\lambda \in P_\Gamma$ “integral” and $\Gamma$ Dynkin), we prove a stronger result:
\[question-int\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \[question\], there exists a $\lambda$-minuscule element $w \in W$ such that $w(\lambda)$ is dominant if and only if
- $\langle \lambda, \alpha_i^{\vee} \rangle \geq -1$ for every simple root $\alpha_i$, and
- For every connected subdiagram $\Gamma' \subseteq \Gamma$, the restriction $\lambda|_{\Gamma'}$ is not a negative coroot.
In the theorem, the restriction $\lambda|_{\Gamma'} \in P_{\Gamma'}$ is the unique element such that $\langle \lambda|_{\Gamma'}, \alpha_i^{\vee} \rangle = \langle \lambda,
\alpha_i^{\vee} \rangle$ for all simple roots $\alpha_i$ associated to the vertices of $\Gamma'$.
We also prove a similar result for extended Dynkin graphs (see Theorem \[intt\]), and generalize it so as to include the case where $\lambda$ lies in a finite Weyl orbit.
Condition (\[broer\]) is equivalent to the non-negativity of the coefficients of Lusztig’s $q$-analogues of weight multiplicity polynomials (see [@broer Theorem 2.4]). It is also equivalent to the vanishing of the higher cohomology groups of the line bundle that corresponds to $\lambda$ on the cotangent bundle of the flag variety (op. cit.). We hope to address and apply this in future work.
The paper is organized as follows. The second section introduces the terminology of Mozes’s game of numbers [@mozes] and its variant with a cutoff [@qendrim3], which provides a useful language to state and prove our results. We also recall some preliminaries on Dynkin and extended Dynkin graphs. In the third section we solve the numbers game with a cutoff for Dynkin and extended Dynkin graphs (Theorem \[mt\]), in particular proving Theorems \[question\] and \[question-ext\] and the non-integral versions thereof. Next, in §4, we give a more explicit solution in the integral case, which proves Theorem \[question-int\] and the corresponding result for extended Dynkin diagrams. In the last section, we generalize Theorem \[question\] to the case of arbitrary Coxeter groups.
Acknowledgements
----------------
We thank R. Kottwitz for useful comments and M. Boyarchenko for the opportunity to speak on the topic. The first author is an EPDI fellow and the second author is an AIM fellow, and both authors were supported by Clay Liftoff fellowships. The first author was also partially supported by the EPSERC Grant EP/F005431/1, and the second author was partially supported by the University of Chicago’s VIGRE grant. We thank the University of Chicago, MIT, the Max Planck Institute in Bonn, and the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences, for hospitality.
The numbers game with and without a cutoff
==========================================
In this section we introduce the numbers game with a cutoff, which provides a useful language to state our results. We begin with some preliminaries on Dynkin and extended Dynkin graphs.
Preliminaries on Dynkin and extended Dynkin graphs {#deds}
--------------------------------------------------
We will largely restrict our attention to simply-laced Dynkin and extended Dynkin graphs. By this, we mean graphs of type $A_n, D_n,$ or $E_n$, or $\tilde A_n, \tilde D_n$, or $\tilde E_n$. For such a graph $\Gamma$, let $\Delta$ be the set of (real)[^1] roots of the associated root system, and $\Delta_+$ the set of positive roots. Let $I$ denote its set of vertices, so that $\alpha_i$ are the simple roots for $i \in I$. Identify $\Z^I$ with the root lattice (i.e., the integral span of the $\alpha_i$), so that $\Delta \subseteq \Z^I$, and $\alpha_i \in \Z^I$ are the elementary vectors. Although we will use subscripts (e.g., $\beta_i$ of $\beta \in \Z^I$) to denote coordinates, we will never use them for a vector denoted by $\alpha$, to avoid confusion with the simple roots $\alpha_i$.
We briefly recall the essential facts about $\Delta_+$ and $\Delta$. We have $\Delta = \Delta_+ \sqcup (- \Delta_+)$, and $\Delta_+ = \{ \alpha \in \Z_{\geq 0}^I: \langle \alpha, \alpha
\rangle = 2\}$, where $\langle \, , \rangle$ is the Cartan form $$\langle {\alpha_i}, {\alpha_j} \rangle = \begin{cases} 2, & \text{if $i = j$},
\\ -1, & \text{if $i$ is adjacent to $j$}, \\ 0, &
\text{otherwise},\end{cases}$$ which is positive-definite in the Dynkin case and positive-semidefinite in the extended Dynkin case. It is well known that $\Delta_+$ is finite in the Dynkin case. Consider the extended Dynkin case, and let us switch notation to $\widetilde{\Gamma}, \widetilde{\Delta}, \widetilde{\Delta}_+$, and $\widetilde I$. We may write $\widetilde{\Gamma} \supsetneq \Gamma$ where $\Gamma$ is the Dynkin graph of corresponding type. The vertex $i_0 = \widetilde{I} \setminus I$ is called an *extending vertex* (the other extending vertices being obtained as the complements of different choices of $\Gamma$). Let $\Delta_+$ the set of positive roots for $\Gamma$. There is an inclusion $\Delta_+ \subset \widetilde{\Delta}_+$ obtained by setting the coefficient at $i_0$ to zero, and $\widetilde{\Delta}_+ = (\Delta_+ + \Z_{\geq 0} \delta) \sqcup
(-\Delta_+ + \Z_{>0} \delta)$, for the unique vector $\delta \in \Z_{>0}^{\widetilde I}$ characterized by $\langle \delta, u \rangle = 0$ for all $u \in \R^{\widetilde I}$ and $\delta_{i_0} = 1$.
Switching back to $\Gamma, \Delta_+$, and $I$, for either the Dynkin or extended Dynkin case, we recall the simple reflections. For any vertex $i \in I$, let $s_i: \R^I \rightarrow \R^I$ be defined by $s_i(\beta) = \beta - \langle \beta, {\alpha_i} \rangle
{\alpha_i}$. It is well known that $\beta \in \Delta_+$ implies $s_i(\beta) \in \Delta_+$ unless $\beta = {\alpha_i}$, in which case $s_i({\alpha_i}) = - {\alpha_i}$. Also, $s_i(\delta) = \delta$ for all $i$.
For any $\beta \in \Delta_+$, its *height*, $h(\beta)$, is defined as $h(\beta) = \sum_{i \in I} \beta_i$, where $\beta = (\beta_i) = \sum_i \beta_i \alpha_i$. Note that $\beta$ may be obtained from some simple root ${\alpha_i}$ by applying $h(\beta)-1$ simple reflections, and is not obtainable from any simple root by applying fewer simple reflections.
The numbers game with and without a cutoff
------------------------------------------
We first recall Mozes’s numbers game [@mozes]. Fix an unoriented, finite graph with no loops and no multiple edges. (For the generalized version of this game, with multiplicities, see §\[gens\].) Let $I$ be the set of vertices. The *configurations* of the game consist of vectors $\R^I$. The moves of the game are as follows: For any vector ${v} \in \R^I$ and any vertex $i \in I$ such that ${v}_i < 0$, one may perform the following move, called *firing the vertex $i$*: ${v}$ is replaced by the new configuration $f_i({v})$, defined by $$f_i({v})_j =
\begin{cases}
-{v}_i, & \text{if $j = i$}, \\
{v}_j + {v}_i, & \text{if $j$ is adjacent to $i$}, \\
{v}_j, & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ The entries ${v}_i$ of the vector ${v}$ are called *amplitudes*. The game terminates if all the amplitudes are nonnegative. Let us emphasize that *only negative-amplitude vertices may be fired*.[^2]
In [@qendrimthesis], the numbers game *with a cutoff* was defined: The moves are the same as in the ordinary numbers game, but the game continues (and in fact starts) only as long as all amplitudes remain greater than or equal to $-1$. Such configurations are called *allowed*. Every configuration which does not have this property is called *forbidden*, and upon reaching such a configuration the game terminates (we lose). We call a configuration *winning* if it is possible, by playing the numbers game with a cutoff, to reach a configuration with all nonnegative amplitudes.
Call a configuration *losing* if, no matter how the game is played, one reaches a forbidden configuration. By definition, any losing configuration remains so by playing the numbers game. We will see that the same is true for winning configurations (Theorem \[genmt\]).
We now explain how to interpret the results from the introduction in terms of this language. Let $\Gamma$ be a Dynkin diagram, with set of vertices $I$. To every element $\lambda \in P_{\Gamma}$ one can associate naturally an integral configuration of $\Gamma$, still denoted by $\lambda$, where the amplitude corresponding to the vertex $\alpha_i$ is given by $\langle \lambda, \alpha_i^{\vee} \rangle$. Firing the vertex $\alpha_j$ changes these amplitudes to $\langle s_j(\lambda) , \alpha_i^{\vee} \rangle$, i.e., gives the natural configuration (on the vertices of $\Gamma$) associated to the simple reflection $s_j(\lambda)$ of $\lambda$. In other words, using the identifications made in the previous subsection between the coroot space and $\Z^I$, and letting $\cdot$ denote the standard dot product on $\R^I$, we have $$\label{sifi}
s_i(\alpha) \cdot v = \alpha \cdot f_i(v), \quad s_i(\alpha) \cdot f_i(v) = \alpha \cdot v,$$ for any configuration $v$. In terms of Lie theory, we may think of the $s_i$ as acting on $\R^I$ with basis given by the simple roots, and the $f_i$ as acting on the dual $\R^I$, with basis given by the fundamental coweights. (Formula remains true in the case of extended Dynkin graphs.)
The existence of an element $w \in W$ such that $w(\lambda)$ is dominant is then equivalent to the winnability of the usual numbers game with initial configuration $\lambda$ (and hence, one always wins). Of course, we want to impose the extra condition that $w$ be $\lambda$-minuscule, which is equivalent to imposing the $-1$ cutoff to the numbers game. Thus, Theorem \[question\] gives a characterization of the winning configurations ${v} \in \Z^I$ for the numbers game with a cutoff, where $v_i = \langle \lambda, \alpha_i^{\vee} \rangle$, $\lambda \in P_{\Gamma}$, and the graph $\Gamma$ is a Dynkin one. Later on, we will give similar descriptions in terms of the numbers game with a cutoff for the other results stated in the introduction.
Note that in the paragraph above we only considered the case of integral $\lambda$, but the analogy holds in the non-integral case as well, and now we study the winnability of the numbers game with a cutoff with real amplitudes, where we may fire any vertex with amplitudes from $[-1,0)$ and not just those with amplitude $-1$ as in the integral case.
The language of the numbers game with a cutoff is useful because it makes apparent certain phenomena that already occur without the bound of 1 or indeed with a different bound. It also allows one to use results from the usual Mozes’s numbers game, which has been widely studied (cf. [@Pro-bru; @Pro-min; @DE; @Erik-no1; @Erik-no2; @erikconf; @Erik-no3; @Erik-no4; @eriksson; @Wild-no1; @Wild-no2]),[^3] and yields useful algorithms for computing with the root systems and reflection representations of Coxeter groups (see [@BB §4.3] for a brief summary).
Finally, we recall some basic results about the usual numbers game, and why it exhibits special behavior in the Dynkin and extended Dynkin cases:
1. [@mozes] If the usual numbers game terminates, then it must terminate in the same number of moves and at the same configuration regardless of how it is played.
2. In the Dynkin case, the usual numbers game must terminate.
3. [@erikconf] In the extended Dynkin case, the usual numbers game terminates if and only if $\delta \cdot v > 0$.
4. [@erikconf] Whenever the usual numbers game does not terminate, it reaches infinitely many distinct configurations, except for the case of an extended Dynkin graph where $\delta \cdot v = 0$, in which case only finitely many configurations are reached *(*i.e., the game “loops”*)*.[^4]
Thus, provided we can determine which configurations are winning (for the numbers game with a cutoff) in the Dynkin case and the extended Dynkin case, then with the additional condition $\delta \cdot v> 0$, these are also the ones that terminate in a nonnegative configuration, and this configuration (and the number of moves required to get there) is unique.
The (extended) Dynkin case
==========================
\[mt\] In the Dynkin case, a configuration ${v}$ is winning if and only if $$\label{rtconddyn}
\alpha \cdot {v} \geq -1, \quad \forall \alpha \in \Delta_+.$$ Otherwise, ${v}$ is losing.
In the extended Dynkin case, ${v} \neq 0$ is winning if and only if both $$\label{rtconded}
\alpha \cdot {v} \geq -1, \quad \forall \alpha \in \widetilde{\Delta}_+,$$ and $\delta \cdot {v} \neq 0$. If is satisfied but $\delta \cdot {v} = 0$ *(*and ${v} \neq 0$*)*, then ${v}$ is looping and the game cannot terminate. Finally, if is not satisfied *(*e.g., if $\delta \cdot {v} < 0$*)*, then ${v}$ is losing.
Theorem \[mt\] implies Theorems \[question\] and \[question-ext\], as well as their “non-integral” versions.
The above theorem shows, in particular, that exactly one of the following is true: ${v}$ is winning, looping, or losing.
To prove the theorem, it is helpful to introduce the set $$X_{{v}} := \{(\alpha, \alpha \cdot {v}) \mid \alpha \in \Delta_+, \alpha \cdot {v} < 0 \}.$$
Consider the projections $$\xymatrix{
& X_{{v}} \ar@{^{ (}->}[ld]_{\pi_1} \ar[rd]^{\pi_2} & \\ \Delta_+ & & \R_{<0}.
}$$ Each time a vertex, say $i \in I$, is fired, there is a natural isomorphism $X_{{v}} \setminus \{({\alpha_i}, v_i)\} {{\;\stackrel{_\sim}{\to}\;}}X_{{f_i
v}}$, with $(\alpha, \alpha \cdot {v}) \mapsto (s_i \alpha, \alpha \cdot {v}) =
(s_i \alpha, s_i \alpha \cdot f_i {v})$. The set $X_v$ is defined similarly in the extended Dynkin case, with $\Delta_+$ replaced by $\widetilde{\Delta}_+$, and there is still a natural isomorphism $X_{{v}} \setminus \{({\alpha_i}, v_i)\} {{\;\stackrel{_\sim}{\to}\;}}X_{{f_i v}}$.
In the Dynkin case, $X_{{v}}$ is finite. Since the size decreases by one in each step, removing an element whose second projection is the amplitude at the vertex which is fired, we see that the game is won precisely when $\pi_2(X_{{v}}) \subset [-1,0)$, and otherwise it is lost. The former is equivalent to .
In the extended Dynkin case, the game is won precisely when $X_{{v}}$ is finite and $\pi_2(X_{{v}}) \subset [-1,0)$; finiteness is equivalent to $\delta \cdot {v} > 0$. The condition $\pi_2(X_{{v}}) \subset [-1,0)$ is equivalent to , and implies $\delta \cdot {v} \geq 0$, so for ${v}$ to be winning we only need to additionally assume that $\delta \cdot {v} \neq 0$.
Since, in the extended Dynkin case, a game that is not won is either lost or loops, it remains to show that ${v}$ is losing precisely when there exists $\alpha \in \widetilde{\Delta}_+$ with $\alpha \cdot {v} < -1$, i.e., when $\pi_2(X_{{v}}) \not \subset [-1,0)$. It is clear that the condition is required for ${v}$ to be losing. Thus, suppose that $\alpha \cdot {v} < -1$ for some $\alpha \in \widetilde{\Delta}_+$. We will show that ${v}$ is losing. We induct on the height of $\alpha$. Suppose $v_i < 0$, and that we fire the vertex $i$. Consider two cases: first, suppose that $h(s_i \alpha) < h(\alpha)$. Then, $s_i \alpha \cdot f_i {v} < -1$ and $h(s_i \alpha) < h(\alpha)$, completing the induction. Next, suppose $h(s_i \alpha) \geq h(\alpha)$, i.e., $s_i \alpha - \alpha$ is a nonnegative multiple of ${\alpha_i}$. Then, $\alpha \cdot f_i {v} \leq s_i \alpha \cdot f_i {v}$ (since $(f_i {v})_i > 0$), and $s_i \alpha \cdot f_i {v} = \alpha \cdot {v}$. Thus, we may leave $\alpha$ unchanged. If we eventually fire a vertex $i \in \widetilde{I}$ such that $h(s_i \alpha) < h(\alpha)$, the induction is complete. Otherwise, we would be playing the game only on a Dynkin subgraph, which would have to terminate in finitely many moves, and therefore reach a forbidden configuration (since $\pi_2(X_{{v}}) \not \subset [-1,0)$).
Note that only finitely many inequalities in are required: since implies $\delta \cdot v \geq 0$, is equivalent to the conditions $\delta \cdot {v} \geq 0$, $\alpha \cdot v \geq -1$, and $(\delta - \alpha) \cdot v \geq -1$ for all $\alpha$ which are positive roots of a corresponding Dynkin subgraph obtained by removing an extending vertex. So, it is enough to assume for $\alpha \in \Delta_+ \cup (\delta - \Delta_+)$, which is finite.
\[dzcor\] If $\delta \cdot {v} = 0$, then the game loops *(*and cannot terminate*)* if and only if, after removing an extending vertex, both ${v}$ and $-{v}$ are winning.
This follows from the fact that $\widetilde{\Delta}_+ = (\Delta_+ + \Z_{\geq 0} \delta) \sqcup
(-\Delta_+ + \Z_{> 0} \delta)$.
Another interpretation of the above corollary is the following: ${v}$ continues indefinitely if and only if the restriction of ${v}$ to the complement of an extending vertex cannot reach a forbidden configuration by playing numbers game forwards *or backwards* (i.e., firing vertices with positive instead of negative amplitudes).
T. Haines pointed out that Theorem \[mt\] implies [@Haines Lemma 3.1]: for every dominant minuscule[^5] coweight $\mu$ and every coweight $\lambda \in W \mu$, there exists a sequence of simple roots $\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_p$, such that $s_1(\mu) = \mu-\alpha_1^\vee$, $s_2 s_1 \mu = \mu - \alpha_1^\vee - \alpha_2^\vee, \ldots,$ and $\lambda = s_p s_{p-1} \cdots s_1(\mu) = \mu - \alpha_1^\vee -
\cdots - \alpha_p^\vee$.
The integral case {#ints}
=================
Of particular relevance is the case of integral configurations ${v} \in \Z^I$. Below, we apply Theorem \[mt\] to give a surprisingly simple, explicit description of the losing and looping integral configurations in the Dynkin and extended Dynkin cases.
To state the theorem, we will make use of the interpretation of configurations ${v} \in \R^I$ as coweights. In particular, as in the introduction, for every Dynkin graph $\Gamma$, and every root $\alpha \in \Delta_+$, there is an associated coroot configuration $\alpha^{\vee} \in \Z^I$, in the basis of fundamental coweights, uniquely defined by $\beta \cdot \alpha^{\vee} = \langle \beta, \alpha \rangle$ for all $\beta$, using the Cartan form as in §\[deds\]. For every extended Dynkin graph $\widetilde{\Gamma}$, Dynkin subgraph $\Gamma$, and $\alpha \in \widetilde{\Delta}_+$, we also have the configuration $\alpha^{\vee}$ defined in the same way; in particular, $\delta \cdot \alpha^{\vee} = 0$ (and the $\alpha_i^\vee$ are linearly dependent). Let $\omega_i \in \Z^I$ be the elementary vector, viewed as a configuration (i.e., in the Dynkin case, the $i$-th fundamental coweight).[^6] Thus, $\alpha_i \cdot \omega_j = \delta_{ij}$. For $\beta \in \Delta_+$ or $\widetilde{\Delta}_+$, let its *support*, $\text{supp}(\beta)$, be the (connected) subgraph on which its coordinates $\beta_i$ are nonzero.
\[intt\]
- An integral configuration $v$ on a Dynkin graph is winning if and only if
- $v_i \geq -1$ for all $i$, and
- For all $\alpha \in \Delta_+$, $v|_{supp(\alpha)} \neq -\alpha^{\vee}$;
- An integral configuration $v$ on an extended Dynkin graph is winning if and only if *(1)* and *(2)* are satisfied *(*with $\alpha \in \widetilde \Delta_+$*)*, and furthermore,
- $v \neq -\omega_i$ for any extending vertex $i$.
- An integral configuration on an extended Dynkin graph is looping if and only if it is in the Weyl orbit of a vector $\mu= \omega_i - \omega_{i'}$ for distinct extending vertices $i, i'$. In this case, the numbers game can take the configuration to and from such a vector $\mu$.
The above result implies Theorem \[question-int\], as well as the extended Dynkin version thereof.
As in the introduction, for $\Gamma' \subseteq \Gamma$, with vertex sets $I' \subseteq I$, the restriction $v|_{\Gamma'}$ is the restriction $\R^I {\twoheadrightarrow}\R^{I'}$ of coordinates.
We remark that an alternative way to state parts (i) and (ii) above is that the losing configurations on (extended) Dynkin diagrams which are winning on all proper subgraphs, which we call the *minimal losing configurations*, are exactly those of the form $-\beta^{\vee}$ for fully supported roots $\beta$, which in the extended Dynkin case also satisfy $\beta_i \leq \delta_i$ for all $i$, and $-\omega_j$ for extending vertices $j$, together with the one-vertex forbidden configurations.
Here, we have used that $(\beta + c \delta)^\vee = \beta^\vee$ for all $c \in \Z$, so that in part (ii) it suffices to assume that $\beta \in \widetilde{\Delta}_+$ satisfies $\beta_i \leq \delta_i$ for all $i$, i.e., $\beta_i \leq 1$ for all extending vertices $i$. In fact, we can further restrict to the case of roots $\beta$ that are supported on a Dynkin subdiagram, in exchange for adding the condition that $v_{supp(\gamma)} \neq \gamma^{\vee}$ for all positive roots $\gamma$ such that $\gamma_i = 0$ at all extending vertices $i$. This is because the fully supported roots $\beta$ such that $\beta_i \leq \delta_i$ for all $i$ are exactly $\delta - \gamma$ where $\gamma \in \widetilde{\Delta}_+$ satisfies $\gamma_i = 0$ at all extending vertices, and then $-\beta^\vee = \gamma^\vee$.
As a special case of (ii), for $\widetilde{A_n}$ (with $n \geq 1$), the only integral losing configurations which are winning on all proper subgraphs are $- {\omega_i}$ for all $i$. Also, by (iii), there is no looping integral configuration on $\widetilde{E_8}$ (but these exist for all other extended Dynkin graphs).
\(i) Following the discussion above, we show that the minimal losing configurations on Dynkin graphs with more than one vertex are exactly $-\beta^\vee$ for fully supported $\beta \in \Delta_+$. Note that it is clear that such configurations are minimal losing configurations, since $\beta \cdot (-\beta^\vee) = -2$ and $\gamma \cdot (-\beta^\vee) \in \{-1,0,1\}$ for all $\gamma \in \Delta_+ \setminus \{\beta\}$. Thus, we only need to show that there are no other minimal losing configurations (other than one-vertex ones).
For any minimal losing configuration $v \in \Z^I$, Theorem \[mt\] implies the existence of $\beta \in \Delta_+$ such that $\beta \cdot v \leq -2$. By minimality, all such $\beta$ are fully supported. It suffices to prove that, when $\beta$ is not simple (i.e., the graph has more than one vertex), $v = -\beta^\vee$. We prove this by induction on the height of $\beta$, considering all Dynkin graphs simultaneously.
Let $i$ be a vertex such that $h(s_i \beta) < \beta$, i.e., $\langle \beta, {\alpha_i} \rangle = 1$. It follows that ${v}_i = -1$; otherwise, $s_i \beta \cdot {v} \leq -2$, a contradiction. Since $s_i \beta \cdot f_i v \leq -2$, we deduce from the inductive hypothesis that the restriction of $f_i v$ to the support of $s_i \beta$ coincides with $-(s_i \beta)^\vee$. Since $-((s_i \beta)^{\vee})_i = (\beta^\vee)_i = 1$, we deduce that $f_i v = -(s_i \beta)^\vee$ and hence $v = -\beta^\vee$, as desired.
\(ii) We prove that the minimal losing configurations in the extended Dynkin case are exactly $-\beta^\vee$ for fully supported $\beta \in \widetilde \Delta_+$ satisfying $\beta_i \leq \delta_i$ for all $i$, and $-\omega_i$ for extending vertices $i$. The former configuration is a minimal losing configuration by the same argument as in the Dynkin case, and $-\omega_i$ is a minimal losing configuration since $\delta \cdot -\omega_i = -1 < 0$ (so $-\omega_i$ is losing) and $\beta \cdot -\omega_i = -\beta_i \in \{-1, 0\}$ for all $\beta \in \widetilde \Delta_+$ (so $-\omega_i$ is winning on all Dynkin subdiagrams). Hence, it suffices to prove that there are no other minimal losing configurations.
Let ${v}$ be an integral losing configuration which is winning on all proper subdiagrams, and let $\beta \in \widetilde{\Delta}_+$ be of minimal height such that $\beta \cdot {v} \leq -2$. Once again, we can induct on the height of $\beta$. We reach the desired conclusion unless $\beta = c \delta + {\alpha_i}$ for some $c \geq 1$ and $i \in \widetilde I$, so assume this. Since $v_i \geq -1$, it follows that $\delta \cdot {v} \leq -1$. Moreover, fix an associated Dynkin subdiagram $\Gamma$. Then, for all $\gamma \in \Delta_+$, we must have $\gamma \cdot {v} \in \{-1,0\}$ (since $(\delta - \gamma) \cdot {v} \geq -1$ and $\gamma \cdot {v} \geq -1$ by minimality of $\beta$). In particular, ${v}_j \in \{-1,0\}$ for all $j$. In this case, in order not to be losing on a Dynkin subdiagram, we must have ${v} = - {\omega_i}$, where $i$ is an extending vertex.
\(iii) Let $i$ be an extending vertex, and let ${v} \in \Z^I$ satisfy $\delta \cdot {v} = 0$ but ${v} \neq 0$. If we play the numbers game by firing only vertices other than $i$, we must eventually obtain either a forbidden configuration (if the restriction of ${v}$ to the complement of $i$ is losing) or a configuration whose sole negative amplitude occurs at $i$. In the latter case, in order to not be forbidden, we must have $-1$ at the vertex $i$, and hence, in order to satisfy $\delta \cdot {v}= 0$, there can only be one positive amplitude, it must be $1$, and it must occur at another extending vertex, say $i'$. So, ${v}$ is winning when restricted to the complement of $i$ if and only if one can obtain $\mu = {\omega_{i'}} - \omega_{i}$ from ${v}$. This implies that $v$ is in the same Weyl orbit as $\mu$. On the other hand, if $v$ is in the Weyl orbit of $\mu$, then $\delta \cdot v = 0$ and the usual numbers game loops, and since $\alpha \cdot v \in \{-1, 0, 1\}$ for all $\alpha \in \widetilde{\Delta}_+$, the numbers game with a cutoff also loops. Hence, the conditions that $v$ is looping, that $v$ is in the Weyl orbit of such a $\mu$, and that $\mu$ can be obtained from $v$ by playing the numbers game with a cutoff, are all equivalent. Since, in this case, $-v$ is also looping, we see also that $-v$ can reach a configuration $\nu = \omega_j - \omega_{i'}$ for some extending vertex $j$, and since $\nu$ is in the same Weyl orbit as $-\mu$, we must have $\nu = - \mu$ (since $-\mu$ and $\nu$ are dominant on the complement of $i'$). Hence, $v$ can be obtained from $\mu$ by playing the numbers game, which proves the remainder of the final assertion.
In the Dynkin case, the above may be interpreted as saying that every losing integral configuration which is winning on all proper subgraphs is obtainable from the maximally negative coroot by playing the numbers game: this configuration is the one with ${v}_i = -1$ when $i$ is adjacent to the extending vertex of $\widetilde{\Gamma}$, and ${v}_i = 0$ otherwise. On the other hand, in the non-integral case, losing configurations are not necessarily obtainable from nonpositive ones by playing the numbers game: for example, on $D_4$, one may place $-1$ at all three endpoint vertices, and $\frac{3}{2}$ at the node.
Note that the extended Dynkin case with $\delta \cdot {v} \geq 0$ and ${v}$ losing, integral, and winning on all subgraphs may similarly be described as those configurations obtainable from ${\alpha_i}^\vee = 2 {\omega_i} - \sum_{j \text{ adjacent to } i}
{\omega_j}$, for $i$ not an extending vertex, by playing the numbers game. This contrasts with the nonintegral case: see the next remark.
In the extended Dynkin case, it is perhaps surprising that all losing integral configurations with $\delta \cdot {v} > 0$ are also losing on a proper subgraph. This is not true in the non-integral case (except in the case $\widetilde{A_n}$): e.g., one may take a configuration $\beta^{\vee} + \varepsilon {\omega_i}$, for $\beta \in \widetilde{\Delta}_+$ which satisfies $\beta_j = 0$ for all extending vertices $j$, and $\varepsilon \in (0,\frac{1}{\delta_i})$ for any fixed $i \in \widetilde{I}$. Similarly, one may find losing configurations with $\delta \cdot {v} = 0$ which are winning on all Dynkin subgraphs, but are not $\beta^{\vee}$ for $\beta \in \Delta_+$ (although there are still none for $\widetilde{A_n}$): for example, $\varepsilon \beta^{\vee}$ for $\varepsilon \in (\frac{1}{2}, 1)$ and $\beta$ as before. For another example, we can take any configuration in $\widetilde{D_n}$ with values $a, b, c, d \geq -1$ at exterior vertices such that $\sigma := \frac{a+b+c+d}{2} < -1$ and $\sigma - x \geq -1$ for all $x \in \{a,b,c,d\}$. Finally, there are many more losing nonintegral configurations with $\delta \cdot {v} < 0$ that are winning on all subgraphs than just $-{\omega_i}$ for $i$ an extending vertex: for example, $-{\omega_i} + u$ for any nonnegative vector $u$ such that $\delta \cdot u < 1$.
Generalization to arbitrary graphs with multiplicities {#gens}
======================================================
In [@mozes; @eriksson], the numbers game was stated in greater generality than the above. Namely, in addition to a graph with vertex set $I$ (and no loops or multiple edges), we are given a Coxeter group $W$ with generators $s_i, i \in I$ and relations $(s_i s_j)^{n_{ij}}$ for $n_{ij} \in \{1, 2, \ldots\} \cup \{\infty\}$, together with a Cartan matrix $C = (c_{ij})_{i,j \in I}$, such that $c_{ii} = 2$ for all $i$, $c_{ij} = 0$ whenever $i$ and $j$ are not adjacent, and otherwise $c_{ij}, c_{ji} < 0$ and either $c_{ij} c_{ji} = 4 \cos^2(\frac{\pi}{n_{ij}})$ (when $n_{ij}$ is finite) or $c_{ij} c_{ji} \geq 4$ (when $n_{ij} = \infty$).
We recall that the numbers game is modified as follows in terms of $C$: The configurations are again of the form ${v} \in \R^I$, and, we may fire the vertex $i$ in a configuration ${v} \in \R^I$ if and only if the amplitude ${v}_i < 0$. The difference is that the new configuration $f_i({v}_i)$ is now given by $$f_i({v})_j = v_j - c_{ij} v_i.$$ We call this the *weighted* numbers game. The non-weighted numbers game is recovered in the case $c_{ij} =-1$ for all adjacent $i,j$.
The standard reflection action of $W$ on $\R^I$ is given by $$s_i(\beta)_j =
\begin{cases} \beta_j, & \text{if $j \neq i$}, \\
-\beta_i - \sum_{k \neq i} c_{ik} \beta_k, & \text{if $j = i$}.
\end{cases}$$ Recall from [@eriksson] that, in this situation, the usual numbers game is *strongly convergent*: if the game can terminate, then it must terminate, and in exactly the same number of moves and arriving at the same configuration, regardless of the choices made.
We remark that, while it is standard to take $C$ to be symmetric, there are cases when this is not desired, particularly for the non-simply-laced Dynkin diagrams $\Gamma$, where $C$ can be taken to be integral only if allowed to be non-symmetric. In these cases, if we choose $C$ to be integral, playing the numbers game on $\Gamma$ is equivalent to playing the numbers game without multiplicities on a simply-laced diagram $\Gamma'$ with some symmetry group $S$, such that $\Gamma' / S = \Gamma$, if we restrict to $S$-invariant configurations on $\Gamma'$, where we allow simultaneous firing of any orbit of vertices under $S$ (since these orbits consist of nonadjacent vertices, it makes sense to fire them simultaneously).
Let $\Delta = \bigcup_{i \in I} W {\alpha_i}$ be the set of (*real*) *roots*.[^7] Let $\Delta_+ \subset \Delta$ be the subset of *positive roots*: these are the elements whose entries are nonnegative. Note that, by a standard result (see [@BB Proposition 4.2.5]), $\Delta = \Delta_+ \sqcup (- \Delta_+)$.
Finally, we recall a useful partial ordering from, e.g., [@BB §4.6]. For $\beta \in \Delta_+$, we say that $\beta < s_i \beta$ if and only if $\beta_i < (s_i \beta)_i$. Generally, for $\alpha, \beta < \Delta_+$, we say $\alpha < \beta$ if there exists a sequence $\alpha < s_{i_1} \alpha < s_{i_2} s_{i_1} \alpha < \cdots < s_{i_m}
s_{i_{m-1}} \cdots s_{i_1} \alpha = \beta$. The argument of [@BB Lemma 4.6.2] shows that this is a graded partial ordering. The grading, ${\operatorname{dp }}(\alpha)$, called the *depth*, is defined to be the minimum number of simple reflections required to take $\alpha$ to a negative root. Thus, $\alpha < s_i \alpha$ implies ${\operatorname{dp }}(s_i \alpha) = {\operatorname{dp }}(\alpha) + 1$.
\[genmt\] Let $\Gamma, C$ be associated to a Coxeter group. Assume that $C$ satisfies $c_{ij} = c_{ji}$ whenever $n_{ij}$ is odd *(*and finite*)*. Then, ${v}$ can reach a forbidden configuration if and only if $\beta \cdot {v} < -1$ for some $\beta \in \Delta_+$, and in this case, the minimum number of moves required to take ${v}$ to a forbidden configuration is $$m({v}) := \text{min} \{{\operatorname{dp }}(\beta)-1 \mid \beta \cdot {v} < -1, \beta \in \Delta_+\}.$$ Furthermore, if ${v}_i < 0$, then $m(f_i {v}) \in \{m({v}), m({v})-1\}$.
Note that, in the non-simply-laced Dynkin cases with $C$ integral, we may always take $c_{ij} = c_{ji}$ whenever $n_{ij}$ is odd (and in these cases, this implies $n_{ij} = 3$), so the theorem applies.
Under the assumptions of the theorem, ${v}$ is winning if and only if the usual numbers game terminates and $$\label{rtcond2}
\alpha \cdot {v} \geq -1, \forall \alpha \in \Delta_+.$$ Moreover, if is not satisfied and the usual numbers game terminates, then ${v}$ is losing.
Also, under the hypotheses of the theorem, any winning configuration remains so regardless of what moves are made.
We can also make a statement for arbitrary $C$ and $\Gamma$:
\[onedirthm\] If $C$ and $\Gamma$ are arbitrary *(*associated to a Coxeter group*)*, then ${v}$ can reach a forbidden configuration if and only if there exists $\beta \in \Delta_+$ and $i \in I$ such that both $\beta \cdot {v} < -1$ and $\beta > {\alpha_i}$. In this case, the minimum number of moves required to reach a forbidden configuration is $$\label{mpdfn} m'({v}) := \text{min} \{{\operatorname{dp }}(\beta)-1
\mid \beta \cdot {v} < -1, \text{ and there exists $i \in I$ with }
\beta > {\alpha_i}\}.$$ Moreover, in this case, if $i \in I$ is such that ${v}_i < 0$, then $m'(f_i {v}) \geq m'({v}) - 1$ *(*provided $m'(f_i {v})$ is defined, i.e., $f_i {v}$ can reach a forbidden configuration*)*.
The difference from Theorem \[genmt\] is that we added the condition $\beta > {\alpha_i}$, and replaced the equality for $m$ under numbers game moves by an inequality.
We remark that the usual numbers game, beginning with ${v}$, terminates if and only if $$\# \mathbb{P}\{\beta \in \Delta_+ \mid \beta \cdot {v} < 0\} < \infty,$$ for arbitrary $\Gamma, C$, where $\mathbb{P}$ means modding by scalar multiples, since each move decreases the size of this set by one. (We do not need to mod by scalar multiples if $c_{ij} = c_{ji}$ whenever $n_{ij}$ is odd.) So, this gives a completely root-theoretic description of the winning conditions above.[^8]
For the finite and affine cases, we have the following corollary, which generalizes Theorem \[mt\]. As before, in the affine case, let $\delta \in \R_{> 0}^I$ be the additive generator of the semigroup $\{\delta' \in \R_{> 0}^I \mid \alpha \in \Delta_+ \Rightarrow
\alpha+\delta' \in \Delta_+\}$. In particular, $\langle \delta, \alpha \rangle = 0$ for all $\alpha \in \Delta$.
\[genmtcor\] Let $\Gamma, C$ be associated to a finite or affine Coxeter group and let ${v}$ be a nonzero configuration. Then, exactly one of the following is true:
1. is satisfied, and $\delta \cdot {v} \neq
0$: then ${v}$ is winning, and cannot reach a forbidden configuration.
2. is satisfied but $\delta \cdot {v} = 0$: then ${v}$ is looping, and cannot reach a forbidden configuration.
3. is not satisfied. Then, provided $c_{ij} = c_{ji}$ whenever $n_{ij}$ is odd, ${v}$ is losing.
Note that, by Theorem \[onedirthm\], we can strengthen this slightly by replacing by the condition that $\alpha \cdot {v} \geq -1$ only for $\alpha$ such that $\alpha > {\alpha_i}$ for some $i \in I$.
\(a) In the affine case, $\delta \cdot {v} > 0$, so in either case, the usual numbers game terminates. Then, ${v}$ is winning by Theorem \[onedirthm\], and a forbidden configuration cannot be reached.
\(b) ${v}$ is looping, as in the simply-laced case, since the usual numbers game cannot terminate, and the configuration is uniquely determined by its restriction to a subgraph obtained by removing an extending vertex, where the configuration remains in the orbit of the restriction of ${v}$ under the associated finite Coxeter group. The rest follows from Theorem \[onedirthm\].
\(c) In this case (we assume $c_{ij} = c_{ji}$ whenever $n_{ij}$ is odd), ${v}$ can reach a forbidden configuration. Moreover, in the proof of Theorem \[genmt\], we see that there always exists a vertex $i \in I$ so that, for any configuration ${v}'$ obtained from ${v}$ by firing vertices other than $i$, we have $m(f_i {v}') = m({v}') - 1$. In the affine Coxeter group case, in order for the numbers game to continue indefinitely, all vertices must be fired infinitely many times. This proves the result.
The weakened conclusions of Theorem \[onedirthm\] are needed. Indeed, if $c_{ij} \neq c_{ji}$ for some $i,j$ with $n_{ij}$ odd, then it is possible that a winning configuration can become a losing one. For example, take $I = \{1,2\}$ and $C = \begin{pmatrix} 2 & -2 \\ -\frac{1}{2} & 2 \end{pmatrix}$, with $n_{12} = 3$. Then, the configuration $(-\frac{1}{2}, -\frac{1}{2})$ is winning under the sequence $(-\frac{1}{2}, -\frac{1}{2}) \mapsto (-\frac{3}{4}, \frac{1}{2})
\mapsto (\frac{3}{4}, -1) \mapsto (\frac{1}{2}, 1)$, but if we instead fired vertex $1$ first, we would get $(\frac{1}{2}, -\frac{3}{2})$, which is forbidden.
It is natural to ask what can happen in the numbers game with a cutoff if it continues indefinitely. Suppose this happens and that $\Gamma'$ is the subgraph on vertices which are fired infinitely many times. If $\Gamma'$ corresponds to an affine Coxeter group, then the configuration restricted to $\Gamma'$ is looping, and in this case, in order for a forbidden configuration not to be reached, $\Gamma'$ must be the whole graph (assuming that our whole graph is connected). Otherwise, if our graph is not affine, then $\Gamma'$ cannot be associated to an affine or finite Coxeter group. Then, for any affine subgraph $\Gamma_0 \subseteq \Gamma'$ (where by this we allow reducing the numbers $n_{ij}$ for edges between vertices of $\Gamma_0$), the inner product of the restriction of ${v}$ with the associated $\delta_0$ must remain positive, and the value must be decreasing. It must converge to some nonnegative number, and hence all amplitudes of vertices in $\Gamma'$ must converge to zero. In particular, the configuration $v$ must converge to some limiting allowed configuration (which is zero on $\Gamma'$), and one could continue the numbers game from this limit if desired. Note that, in the case that $c_{ij} = c_{ji}$ for all odd $n_{ij}$, we must also have $\alpha \cdot {v} > -1$ for all $\alpha \in \Delta_+$ supported on $\Gamma'$, i.e., ${v}|_{\Gamma'}$ cannot reach a forbidden configuration by playing the numbers game on $\Gamma'$.
Proof of Theorems \[genmt\] and \[onedirthm\]
---------------------------------------------
We will use the following lemma which is interesting in itself (and is the connection between the two theorems):
\[curlem\] If $\Gamma, C$ are such that $c_{ij} = c_{ji}$ whenever $n_{ij}$ is odd, then for all $\beta \in \Delta_+$, we have ${\alpha_i} \leq \beta$ for some $i \in I$.
We remark that it is well known (and obvious) that the lemma holds when $C$ is symmetric.
The case $n_{ij}$ is odd is exactly the case when, on the subgraph with vertices $i$ and $j$ only, ${\alpha_i}$ is in the $W$-orbit of some positive multiple of ${\alpha_j}$ and vice-versa (and this multiple is $1$ if and only if $c_{ij} = c_{ji}$). Thus, this assumption is exactly what is needed so that, whenever $\beta = a {\alpha_i} + b {\alpha_j} \in \Delta_+$ and $d {\alpha_i} < \beta$ for some $d \in \R$, then $d = 1$. As a result, using the Coxeter relations, it follows inductively on depth that, if ${\alpha_i} < \beta$ for some $i \in I$, then if $\gamma < \beta$ and $\gamma \in \Delta_+$ is not simple, we also have ${\alpha_j} < \gamma$ for some $j \in I$. Thus, for all $\beta\in \Delta_+$, there exists $i \in I$ with ${\alpha_i} \leq \beta$.
It will be convenient to think of $m({v})$ as being allowed to be infinite (infinite if and only if the set appearing in the right hand side is empty). Similarly, call the number of moves required to reach a forbidden configuration “infinite” if and only if a forbidden configuration cannot be reached. We clearly have $m({v}) \geq 0$, and Lemma \[curlem\] implies that $m({v}) = 0$ if and only if ${v}$ is forbidden. Thus, using induction, the theorem may be restated as: if ${v}$ is not forbidden, then for any vertex $i$ with ${v}_i < 0$, we have $m(f_i {v}) \in \{m({v}), m({v})-1\}$, and there exists at least one such $i$ with $m(f_i {v}) = m({v}) - 1$. Here, $\infty +c := \infty$ for any finite $c$.
Suppose that $\alpha \in \Delta_+$ and $j \in I$ are such that $\alpha \cdot {v} < -1$ and ${v}_j < 0$. If we fire $j$, then the set $\{\beta \in \Delta_+: \beta \cdot {v} < -1 \}$ changes by applying $s_j$. Hence, $m(f_j {v}) \in \{m({v})-1, m({v}), m({v})+1\}$. In particular, $m(f_j {v}) \geq m({v})-1$.
Suppose that $\alpha \in \Delta_+$ is such that $\alpha \cdot {v} < -1$ and ${\operatorname{dp }}(\alpha) -1 = m({v})$, and let $i \in I$ be such that $s_i \alpha < \alpha$. Then, if ${v}_i \geq
0$, then $s_i \alpha \cdot {v} \leq \alpha \cdot {v} < -1$, which would contradict the minimality of the depth of $\alpha$. Thus, ${v}_i < 0$, and it follows that $m(f_i {v}) = m({v}) - 1$. So, there exists $i$ such that $m(f_i {v}) = m({v}) - 1$.
Next, suppose that ${v}_i < 0$ and $s_i \alpha > \alpha$. Then, $\alpha \cdot f_i {v} \leq s_i \alpha \cdot f_i {v} < -1$. As a result, we have $m(f_i {v}) \in \{m({v}), m({v}) -1\}$. Thus, for any $i \in I$ such that ${v}_i < 0$, we have $m(f_i {v}) \in \{m({v}), m({v})-1\}$.
If $\alpha \cdot {v} < -1$, and $s_i \alpha > \alpha$, then ${v}_i < 0$ implies that $s_i \alpha \cdot f_i {v} < -1$ as well. As a result, although firing $i$ does not simply change $$Y_{{v}} := \{\beta \in \Delta_+: \beta \cdot {v} < -1 \, \,
\text{and} \, \, \beta > {\alpha_i} \text{ for some $i$} \}$$ by applying $s_i$, we still have $Y_{f_i {v}} \subseteq s_i
Y_{{v}}$, which is all we need.
Note that, as a corollary of Lemma \[curlem\], we see that, for a general Coxeter group $W$, vertex $i \in I$, and matrix $C$, the set $\{j \in I \mid \exists b \in \R, b {\alpha_j} \in W
{\alpha_i}\}$ is the set of vertices $j$ connected to $i$ by a sequence of edges $i' \mapsto j'$ corresponding to odd integers $n_{i', j'}$. It is clear that all such $j$ are in the set; conversely, if an edge corresponding to an even integer or $\infty$ is required to connect $i$ to $j$, then if $w {\alpha_i} = b {\alpha_j}$, then by modifying the elements of $C$ corresponding to the edges with even $n_{i'j'}$, we would be able to change the value $b$ such that $b {\alpha_j} \in W {\alpha_i}$. But this is impossible, since $b = 1$ whenever $c_{i'j'} = c_{j'i'}$ for all odd $n_{i'j'}$, and symmetrizing the latter values of $C$ would rescale $b$ by a fixed amount independent of the other values of $C$ (and independent of $b$ itself).
[^1]: These are sometimes called “real roots” in the literature to exclude multiples of the so-called imaginary root $\delta$ below, which are also roots of the associated Kac-Moody algebra. We will omit the adjective “real.”
[^2]: In some of the literature, the opposite convention is used, i.e., only positive-amplitude vertices may be fired.
[^3]: Mozes’s numbers game originated from (and generalizes) a 1986 IMO problem.
[^4]: Stronger results were stated in [@erikconf], and a detailed study appears in [@GSS].
[^5]: Recall that minuscule means that $\langle \mu, \alpha \rangle \in \{-1, 0, 1\}$ for all $\alpha \in \Delta$.
[^6]: We use distinct notation $\alpha_i, \omega_i$ for the same vector in $\Z^I$ depending on whether it is viewed as a simple root or a configuration, to avoid confusion.
[^7]: Note that, when the Cartan matrix $C$ is associated to a nonreduced root system (i.e., $BC_n$), then $\Delta$ is a proper subset of the whole root system, which does not contain $2\alpha$, for any simple root $\alpha$.
[^8]: Also, this observation easily implies the main results (Theorems 2.1 and 4.1) of [@DE]: if ${v}_i \leq 0$ for all $i$ and ${v} \neq 0$, then the usual numbers game can only terminate if $\Gamma, C$ are associated to a finite Coxeter group: otherwise (assuming $\Gamma$ is connected), infinitely many elements $\beta \in \Delta_+$ which are not multiples of each other satisfy $\beta \cdot {v} < 0$: note that, for each $i \in I$, the set $\mathbb{P}(W {\alpha_i})$ essentially does not depend on the choice of $C$ for a given Coxeter group.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'For a class of K3 surfaces, the action of a Lie algebra which is a certain affinization of a Kac-Moody algebra is given on the cohomology of the moduli spaces of rank 1 torsion free sheaves on the surface. This action is generated by correspondences between moduli spaces of Bridgeland stable objects on the surface, and is equivalent to an action defined using Fourier coefficients of vertex operators. Two other results are included: a more general result giving geometric finite dimensional Lie algebra actions on moduli spaces of Bridgeland stable objects on K3 surfaces subject to natural conditions and a geometric modular interpretation of some quiver varieties for affine ADE quivers.'
author:
- Samuel DeHority
bibliography:
- 'lorentzian-KM-K3.bib'
title: ' Affinizations of Lorentzian Kac-Moody Algebras and Hilbert Schemes of Points on K3 Surfaces'
---
Introduction
============
This paper describes the cohomology of the moduli spaces of all rank 1 torsion-free sheaves on a certain class of K3 surfaces as a module over a specific Lie algebra. The characterization of cohomologies of moduli spaces of sheaves as a representation of a Lie algebra is so pervasive that it would be impossible to list every incarnation of this result, but a central role is played by the Hilbert schemes of points on a smooth surface $S$ so that if we combine all of their cohomologies into a single vector space $$\bigoplus_{n = 0}^\infty H^*(S^{[n]})$$ then this space is a highest weight representation of the Heisenberg algebra ${{\mathcal}{H}eis}_{H^*(S)}$ modelled on the cohomology of the surface itself [@nakajima1999lectures]. As stated, this result simply says that the given vector space has countable dimension, and even if we asked for the weight spaces to have specific geometric meaning it would only require that these spaces had a specific dimension. Thus the result cited actually says more since it describes a specific set of correspondences between different moduli spaces which induce the action of the generators of ${{\mathcal}{H}eis}_{H^*(S)}$.
When the surface $S$ is an ADE surface formed as the minimal resolution of ${\mathbb{C}}^2/\Gamma$ for a finite group $\Gamma$, which will be the setting of the local result whose global analogue is proven in this paper, the given action of ${{\mathcal}{H}eis}_{H^*(S)}$ is related to the action of a larger algebra, namely the affine lie algebra ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}$ of corresponding type ADE. This algebra acts on the module $$V_S := \bigoplus_{\alpha \in H^2(S, {\mathbb{Z}})} \bigoplus_{n \in {\mathbb{Z}}} H^*(M(1, \alpha, n))$$ which is the direct sum of the cohomologies of the all spaces of rank 1 torsion free sheaves on $S$.
There are two ways to produce such an action. The first use the fact that by taking a tensor product with the line bundle ${\mathcal}{L}_{\alpha}$ such that $c_1({\mathcal}{L}_{\alpha}) = \alpha \in H^2(S, {\mathbb{Z}})$ there is an isomorphism $$\bigoplus_{n = 0}^\infty H^*(S^{[n]}) \simeq \bigoplus_{n \in {\mathbb{Z}}} H^*(M(1, \alpha, n))$$ for each $\alpha$, and so ${{\mathcal}{H}eis}_{H^*(S)}$ acts on $V_S$. But if we take $H^2(S) \subset H^*(S)$ we get a corresponding inclusion ${{\mathcal}{H}eis}_{H^2(S)} \hookrightarrow {{\mathcal}{H}eis}_{H^*(S)}$, so $V(S)$ is also a module for ${{\mathcal}{H}eis}_{H^2(S)}$, which is of level 1. Then the Frenkel-Kac construction [@frenkel1980basic] uses vertex algebra techniques to upgrade the action of ${{\mathcal}{H}eis}_{H^2(S)}$ to a level 1 action of ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}$ on $V_S$ which is compatible with the isomorphism $H^2(S) \simeq {\mathfrak}{h} \subset {\mathfrak}{g} \subset {\widehat}{{\mathfrak}{g}}$ and the corresponding inclusion ${{\mathcal}{H}eis}_{H^2(S)} \subset {\widehat}{{\mathfrak}{g}}$. There are various geometric interpretations of this construction [@nakajima1999lectures; @carlsson_exts_2012].
The second way to produce an action of ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}$ on $V_S$ relies on the general fact [@nakajima1994instantons; @nakajima1998quiver] that for a quiver $Q$ with associated Kac-Moody algebra ${\mathfrak}{g}_{KM}$ there is an action of ${\mathfrak}{g}_{KM}$ on the cohomology of certain Nakajima quiver varieties $$\bigoplus_{{\mathbf}v}H^*({\mathfrak}{M}({\mathbf}v, {\mathbf}w)).$$ When $Q$ is an affine ADE quiver, there is a vector ${\mathbf}w = {\mathbf}{w_0}$ such that there is a correspondence between data $(\alpha, n) \in H^2(S, {\mathbb{Z}})\times {\mathbb{Z}}$ and dimension vectors ${\mathbf}v$ such that $M(1, \alpha, n)\simeq {\mathfrak}{M}({\mathbf}v, {\mathbf}{w_0})$ for some choice of stability data (see Section \[sec:quivers\] for details), and in this case the Kac-Moody algebra ${\mathfrak}{g}_{KM}$ agrees with ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}$, the relevant affine Lie algebra. Thus combining all of these isomorphisms for all vectors ${\mathbf}{v}$ we get an action of ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}{g}}$ on $V_S$.
The second way of producing the action of ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}{g}}$ makes it apparent that the action of Chevalley generators $e_i$ and $f_i$ are given by convolution with specific (holomorphic) Lagrangian correspondences between quiver varieties for different dimension vectors ${\mathbf}v$ which are intimately related to the birational geometry of the corresponding quiver varieties. More precisely, after potentially conjugating by the birational transformation induced by variation of GIT stability condition, they are irreducible components of the variety $$Z({\mathbf}{v}_1, {\mathbf}{v}_2) := {\mathfrak}{M}({\mathbf}v_1, {\mathbf}w)\times_{M_0}{\mathfrak}{M}({\mathbf}v_2, {\mathbf}w)$$ where $M_0$ is an affine variety and the maps from ${\mathfrak}{M}({\mathbf}v_i, {\mathbf}w)$ are symplectic resolutions of their images. Thus $Z({\mathbf}{v}_1, {\mathbf}{v}_2)$ are analogues of the Steinberg variety which encodes the Springer representation of the Weyl group on Springer fibers, see [@chriss_representation_2010] for an excellent account of this story.
The main result of this paper is that both of these methods can be extended to produce equivalent Lie algebra actions on the space $V_S$ by a Lie algebra which is a central extension of the loop algebra of a Kac-Moody algebra where $S$ is a K3 surface such that
- $\operatorname{NS}(S)$ is generated by irreducible $-2$ curves
- Any pair of irreducible -2 curves on $S$ are either disjoint or intersect transversally at a single point.
More general results follow by deforming the complex structure of a given K3 surface to be related to one of this type.
Before stating this result precisely, it is necessary to say something about the techniques involved and how they relate to possible extensions of the present work. First, the K-trivial birational geometry of quiver varieties of affine ADE type is captured by variation of GIT stability of quiver representations, while the K-trivial birational geometry of moduli spaces of sheaves on K3 surfaces is most completely described by variation of Bridgeland stability [@bayer2014projectivity; @bellamy2018birational], namely if $M = M_{H}(v)$ is the moduli space of $H$-stable sheaves of primitive Mukai vector $v$ then all K-trivial birational models of $M$ are the moduli spaces $M_{\sigma}(v)$ of $\sigma$-stable objects of Mukai vector $v$ for some stability condition $\sigma$. Also in fairly general settings (e.g. [@toda2018moduli]) but especially for K3 surfaces [@arbarello2018singularities], the local structure of singularities of moduli spaces of sheaves induced by varying to a non-generic stability parameter is locally analytically (or étale locally) described by the variation of stability for a quiver variety, namely the Ext quiver of a polystable representative of a sheaf represented by a point in the singular moduli space.
The first ancillary result, which is proven as Theorem \[thm:finite\_action\], is that subject to natural conditions on the stable factors of an element of $M_{\sigma}(v)$ and assuming that one has a local Ext-quiver description of the map contracting S-equivalent objects in $M_{\sigma}(v)$ under a stability condition $\sigma_0$, one can combine local finite dimensional Lie algebra actions on the cohomologies of the Ext quivers to produce global Lie algebra actions on cohomologies of moduli spaces of stable complexes. For a precise set of conditions see Definition \[def:amenable\], which we briefly record here.
Let $S$ be any $K3$ surface and let $v\in H^*_{alg}(S)$ be a primitive Mukai vector. Let ${\mathcal}{S} = \{ s_1, \ldots, s_n\}$ be a set of Mukai vectors of norm $-2$ spanning a negative definite sublattice of $H^*_{alg}(S)$ such that for $s_{{\mathbf}t} \in {\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}{S}$ if $(v + s_{{\mathbf}t})^2 \ge -2$ then $v + s_{{\mathbf}t}$ is primitive. Let $\sigma_0\in \operatorname{Stab}^{\dagger}(S)$ be a stability condition with an adjacent generic stability condition $\sigma$ such that the phase of an object in $M_{\sigma}(v)$ overlaps with that of a $\sigma_0$-stable object of Mukai vector $s_i$ for each $i$. Suppose that the $\sigma_0$-stable factors of a $\sigma$-stable object of Mukai vector in $v + {\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}S$ are a unique object in $v + {\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}S$ and some number of objects of Mukai vector in ${\mathcal}{S}$, and that the local map contracting $S$-equivalent objects is locally analytically isomorphic to the map from a quiver variety for generic stability parameter to the affine quotient for the Ext-quiver of a polystable object on the base. Then Definition \[def:amenable\] says that the data $(v, {\mathcal}S, \sigma_0)$ is amenable to a local quiver Lie algebra action. This name is justified because of the following theorem.
Suppose $(v, {\mathcal}S, \sigma_0)$ is amenable to a local quiver Lie algebra action. Let ${\mathfrak}{g}$ denote the semisimple Lie algebra whose Cartan matrix is the Gram matrix of the set ${\mathcal}{S}$. There is a space $M_0$ and maps $$\pi : M_{\sigma}(v + s_{{\mathbf}t}) \to M_0$$ for all $s_{{\mathbf}t} \in {\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}{S}$ and an action of ${\mathfrak}{g}$ on the cohomology of the moduli spaces $$\bigoplus_{s_{{\mathbf}t} \in {\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}{S}} H^*(M_{\sigma}(v+ s_{{\mathbf}t}))$$ induced by Lagrangian correspondences which are components of the fiber products $$M_{\sigma}(v + s_{{\mathbf}t}) \times_{M_0} M_{\sigma}(v + s_{{\mathbf}t'}).$$
The main result then applies this result and combines them for several different finite dimensional Lie algebras. Here we restrict to the stated class of K3 surfaces so that $S$ is a K3 surface such that $\operatorname{NS}(S)$ is generated by irreducible $-2$ curves which are pairwise disjoint or intersect transversely at a single point. Let ${\mathfrak}{g}$ be the Kac-Moody algebra whose Cartan matrix is the Gram matrix of the irreducible $-2$ curves. Define a Lie algebra ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}(\operatorname{NS}(S))$ which as a vector space is $${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}(\operatorname{NS}(S)) = {\mathfrak}{g}[t^{\pm 1}] \oplus {\mathbb{Q}}c \oplus {\mathbb{Q}}d$$ and has commutation relations as in . The following is Theorem \[thm:main\] in the main text.
Let $\operatorname{NS}(S)^\perp \subset H^*(S)$ denote the orthogonal complement of $\operatorname{NS}(S)$ in $H^*(S)$. Then there is an action of ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}(\operatorname{NS}(S))\oplus {{\mathcal}{H}eis}_{\operatorname{NS}(S)^\perp}$ on $$V_S := \bigoplus_{\alpha \in H^2(S, {\mathbb{Z}})} \bigoplus_{n \in {\mathbb{Z}}} H^*(M(1, \alpha, n))$$ such that the action of ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}(\operatorname{NS}(S))$ satisfies the following:
(i) The algebra ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}(\operatorname{NS}(S))$ is generated by correspondences which are the compositions of components of fiber products over symplectic singularities of $M_{\sigma}(1, \alpha, n)$ with correspondences inducing birational transformations $M(1, \alpha, n)\dashrightarrow M_{\sigma}(1, \alpha, n)$ for stability conditions $\sigma\in \operatorname{Stab}^\dagger(S)$.
(ii) This action induces the quiver affine Lie algebra action ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}$ on local quiver varieties corresponding to moduli spaces of rank 1 torsion free sheaves on $U\subset S$ where $U$ is biholomorphic to an affine ADE surface and ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}\subset {\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}(\operatorname{NS}(S))$ is the corresponding affine Lie algebra.
(iii) This action of ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}(\operatorname{NS}(S))\oplus {{\mathcal}{H}eis}_{\operatorname{NS}(S)^\perp}$ agrees with that defined by Fourier coefficients of vertex operators.
All of the stability conditions considered may be chosen to have central charge $Z_{\omega, \beta}$ corresponding to complexified Kähler form $\beta + i\omega$ is such that there is a bound $N$ (potentially depending on $\alpha$ and $n$) and a contractible collection of $-2$ curves ${\mathcal}{C}$ on $S$ such that for all $C \in {\mathcal}{C}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
|\beta\cdot \omega| &< N & \omega^2 &\gg 0 & |\omega\cdot C| &< \frac{N}{\omega^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Geometrically, this corresponds to the fact that the volume of $S$ and hence each $M_{\sigma}(v)$ is arbitrarily large, but that each contractible curve $C\in {\mathcal}{C}$ is extremely small, and also that the volume of the exceptional divisor of the Hilbert-Chow map remains bounded and so is small compared to the volume of the moduli space. We get different affine Lie algebra actions on moduli spaces for these stability conditions depending on which collection ${\mathcal}{C}$ is chosen.
Finally, en route to this result, a geometric modular interpretation of quiver varieties for affine ADE quivers and framing vector ${\mathbf}{w_0}$ is given, as long as the corresponding finite ADE diagram can occur as the dual graph of a collection of $-2$ curves on a K3 surface. This is Corollary \[cor:quiver\_geometric\_moduli\] in the main text.
Let $Q$ be an affine ADE quiver corresponding to a connected contractible collection ${\mathcal}C$ on $S$. Fix an open set $U \subset S_{{\mathcal}C}$ containing ${\mathcal}{C}$ which is biholomorphic to the corresponding ADE surface. Fix framing vector ${\mathbf}{w_0}$. Then given a generic stability condition $\theta$ and dimension vector ${\mathbf}v$ there is a Mukai vector $v$, a generic stability condition $\sigma \in \operatorname{Stab}^\dagger(S)$ in a chamber which has a stability condition on its boundary inducing a contraction $\pi_{{\mathcal}C}$ onto $Sym^k(S_{{\mathcal}C})$ and an isomorphism $${{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta}({{\mathbf}{v}}, {{\mathbf}{w_0}})} \simeq M_\sigma(v, U)$$ between the corresponding quiver variety and an open set $M_\sigma(v, U) = \pi_{{\mathcal}{C}}^{-1}(Sym^k(U))$ of $M_\sigma(v)$ parametrizing $\sigma$-stable objects on $S$ of Mukai vector $v$. This correspondence is such that the birational transformations between different chambers in the stability space for the quiver are induced by those between different chambers in $\operatorname{Stab}^\dagger(S)$.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:VOA\], the action of Lie algebras given by the Frenkel-Kac construction in presented. Sections \[sec:quivers\] - \[sec:birational\_hilb\] review necessary background on Nakajima quiver varieties, birational geometry and Bridgeland stability conditions. Section \[sec:stabk3\_specific\] describes the specific relevant limits of the space of stability conditions on K3 surfaces of the required form and Section \[sec:construction\] constructs the required Lie algebra actions and provides the proof of the main theorem.
#### Acknowledgements
I am extremely grateful for the help and advice of so many people, especially my advisor A. Okounkov, and many other including A. Bayer, A. Craw, I. Danilenko, A. Gyenge, A.J. de Jong, H. Liu, G. Saccà, and J. Sawon.
Lattice VOAs and Cohomology {#sec:VOA}
===========================
#### K3 Lattices
Recall the K3 lattice $$\Lambda_{K3} = H^*(X,{\mathbb{Z}}) = U^{\oplus 4} \oplus -E_8 \oplus -E_8$$ is an even, integral lattice of signature $(4,20)$, where $U$ is the hyperbolic lattice with matrix $\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1\\1 & 0\end{pmatrix}$, and the $E_8$ lattices are the usual one, where $-L$ refers to $L$ with the negative intersection pairing. Now for a K3 surfaces $S$, the Picard group is equal to the Neron Severi lattice and ${\operatorname}{Pic}(S) = {\operatorname}{NS}(X) = H^{1,1}(X,{\mathbb{C}})\cap H^2(X, {\mathbb{Z}})$ has signature $(1,\rho(S) -1 )$ and is contained in $\Lambda_{K3}$. Let $\Delta = \{\alpha\in {\operatorname}{NS}(S) | \alpha^2 = -2\}$ be the classes with square -2, and let $$W_S = \langle r_\alpha: v \mapsto v + 2\langle v , \alpha \rangle \alpha\rangle$$ denote the Coxeter group of reflections by these vectors. If we extend them to act on ${\operatorname}{NS}(S)_{\mathbb{R}}:= {\operatorname}{NS}(S)\otimes {\mathbb{R}}$ then $W_S \subset O({\operatorname}{NS}(S)_{\mathbb{R}})$, further the cone $\operatorname{Nef}(S) = \overline{{\operatorname}{Amp}(S)}$ is a fundamental domain for the action of $W_S$ on the positive cone $C^+ \subset
{\operatorname}{NS}_{\mathbb{R}}$. Here $C_+$ is defined such that $C = \{ \alpha \in {\operatorname}{NS}_{\mathbb{R}}| \alpha^2 > 0\} =
C^+\sqcup C^-$ and there is an ample class in $C^+$. Technically the claim that $\operatorname{Nef}(S)$ is a fundamental domain is true only as long as $\operatorname{Nef}(S)$ avoids the boundary of $C^+$. In the case where $\operatorname{Nef}(S)$ hits the boundary of $C^+$ then $\operatorname{Nef}(S) \backslash (\operatorname{Nef}(S))\cap \partial C^+)$ is a fundamental domain for the action. For this paper we only consider the case that $\operatorname{Nef}(S) \cap \partial C^+$ is a finite number of points. The only other case is that $\operatorname{Nef}(S)$ is the entire positive cone.
#### Kac-Moody algebras
Consider the negative of the intersection pairing on ${\operatorname}{NS}(S)$, denoted $\langle -, - \rangle$ with signature $(\rho(S)-1, 1)$. We will denote the actual intersection pairing $\langle -, - \rangle_{{\operatorname}{NS}}$. Let $\Delta$ denote the set of irreducible $-2$ curves, whose corresponding hyperplanes form the walls of the NEF cone. If the symplectic automorphism group of $S$ is infinite then it is possible there are an infinite number. In general we also need to consider additional NEF classes to get a basis of our lattice. So the situation where the representation theory of Kac-Moody algebras is most closely related to the geometry of the K3 surface occurs when $\operatorname{NS}(S)$ is generated by irreducible $-2$ classes. Then letting $C$ be the intersection matrix according to the simple roots (whose rank may be larger than $\rho(S)$ define the algebra algebra ${\mathfrak}{g}(S) = {\mathfrak}{g}(S, \Delta)$ which is generated by $e_i, f_i, h_i$ for $\alpha_i \in \Delta$ subject to the relations $$\begin{aligned}
[h_i, h_j] &= 0\label{bkm1}\\
[h_i, e_j] = \langle \alpha_i, \alpha_j\rangle e_j,&~~ [h_i, f_j] = -\langle
\alpha_i, \alpha_j\rangle f_j\label{bkm2}\\
[e_i, f_j] &= \delta_{ij} h_i\label{bkm3}\\
({\operatorname}{ad}(e_i))^{1 - \langle \alpha_i, \alpha_j\rangle}e_j &= ({\operatorname}{ad}(f_i))^{1
- \langle \alpha_i, \alpha_j\rangle}f_j = 0\label{bkm4}\\
\langle \alpha_i, \alpha_j\rangle = 0 \Rightarrow [e_i, e_j] &= [f_i, f_j] =
0.\label{bkm5}\end{aligned}$$ Then we have a triangular decomposition as usual with $${\mathfrak}{g}(S) = \left( \oplus_{\alpha \in \Delta_+} {\mathfrak}{g}_\alpha\right) \oplus {\mathfrak}{g}_0 \left( \oplus_{\alpha \in \Delta_+} {\mathfrak}{g}_{-\alpha}\right)$$ where $\Delta_+$ is the set of effective divisors on $S$ of norm $\ge -2$. The Lie algebra ${\mathfrak}{g}(S)$ comes with an invariant bilinear form $\langle\cdot, \cdot\rangle$ such that ${\mathfrak}{g}_\alpha \perp {\mathfrak}{g}_\beta$ if $\alpha\neq -\beta$ The roots accessible by the Weyl group from the real simple roots are called real roots, and the corresponding root spaces have dimension 1. It is hard to write an explicit formula for the multiplicity of a general root.
#### Affinization of ${\mathfrak}{g}(S)$
From the invariant form $\langle\cdot, \cdot\rangle$ we can form the affinization of ${\mathfrak}{g}(S)$, which as a vector space is ${\mathfrak}{g}(S)\otimes {\mathbb{C}}[t, t^{-1}]\oplus {\mathbb{C}}c$ and the usual bracket $$\label{eq:affine}
[x\otimes t^m, y\otimes t^n] = [x,y]\otimes t^{n+m} + m\langle x, y\rangle \delta_{m+n,0} c.$$ This algebra is not a Kac-Moody algebra although some of the theory carries through. Call this algebra ${\widetilde}{{\mathfrak}g}({\operatorname}{NS}(S))$. If we adjoin an outer derivation $d$ so that $[d, x\otimes t^n] = n x\otimes t^n$ then we get another Lie algebra ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}({\operatorname}{NS}(S)) = {\widetilde}{{\mathfrak}g}({\operatorname}{NS}(S)) \oplus {\mathbb{C}}d$. In general we will use ${\widetilde}{{\mathfrak}{g}}$ (${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}$) for the affinization without (with) outer derivation $d$, when ${\mathfrak}g$ is a Kac-Moody algebra.
#### Vertex algebra from K3, Mukai or NS Lattice
We apply the well-known construction of a vertex algebra from an even lattice $\Lambda$ [@borcherds1986vertex; @frenkel1980basic] in the cases relevant to K3 surfaces. See also [@nakajima1999lectures ch. 9]. Let $\Lambda = {\operatorname}{NS}(S)$ or $\Lambda = M := {\operatorname}{NS}(S)\oplus H^0(S, {\mathbb{Z}}) \oplus H^4(S,{\mathbb{Z}})$ the Mukai lattice, or $\Lambda = \Lambda_{K3}$ the full K3 lattice. Let ${\operatorname}{Heis}_\Lambda$ be the corresponding Heisenberg algebra and ${\mathcal}{F}_\Lambda(1)$ the level 1 Fock representation (over ${\mathbb{Q}}$). Let $\epsilon: \Lambda\times\Lambda \to \{\pm 1\}$ be a 2-cocycle and let ${\mathbb{Q}}[\Lambda]_\epsilon$ denote the group algebra twisted by $\epsilon$, i.e. $$e^\alpha e^\beta = \epsilon(\alpha, \beta) e^{\alpha+\beta}.$$ Then let $$\label{eq:VOA}
V_\Lambda := \mathcal{F}_\Lambda(1) \otimes {\mathbb{Q}}[L]_\epsilon$$ extend the action of $\alpha(0) \in {\operatorname}{Heis}_\Lambda$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{heis_deg_0_wt}
\alpha(0) (v\otimes e^\beta) = \langle \alpha, \beta\rangle v \otimes e^\beta.\end{aligned}$$
Note that for an appropriate choice of cocycle $V_{\Lambda_1 \oplus \Lambda_2} = V_{\Lambda_1}\otimes V_{\Lambda_2}$. For example $V_M = V_{{\operatorname}{NS}(S)} \otimes V_U$ where $U$ is the hyperbolic lattice corresponding to the pairing with matrix $$\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1\\ 1 & 0\end{pmatrix}.$$ Next define $$\phi_\alpha(z) = \sum_{n\in {\mathbb{Z}}\backslash \{0\}} \alpha(n) \frac{z^{-n}}{-n} + \alpha(0) \log(z) + \alpha$$ and the vertex operator $$\begin{aligned}
X(e^\alpha, z) &= :e^{\phi_\alpha(z)}:\\
&= \exp(\phi_\alpha(z)_-)e^\alpha z^{\alpha(0)} \exp(\phi_\alpha(z)_+)\\
&= \sum_{n\in {\mathbb{Z}}} x_n(\alpha) z^{-n}\end{aligned}$$ as an element of ${\operatorname}{End} V_\Lambda \otimes {\mathbb{Q}}[[z, z^{-1}]]$. The vertex operators $X(v, z)$ for other $v\in V_\Lambda$ are recovered by the reconstruction theorem (see e.g. [@frenkel_vertex_2004] ). In fact, this equation for $X(e^\alpha, z)$ is essentially uniquely determined by the requirement that $V_{\Lambda}$ form a vertex algebra. This is captured in the following proposition, for which [@kac_vertex_1998 Prop. 5.4] is a good reference.
\[prop:frenkel\_kac\_follows\_from\_VOA\] Let $\Lambda$ be an even lattice and let $V_\Lambda$ admit the structure of a vertex algebra such that $$Y(h(-1)|\mathrm{vac}\rangle \otimes 1,z) = \sum_{n\in {\mathbb{Z}}} h(n) z^{-n-1} \text{ for } h\in {\mathcal}{F}_{\Lambda}(1)$$ and $Y(e^{\alpha}, w)$ has the same OPE (or a forteriori the same commutation relations between Fourier coefficients) with $h(z)$ as does $X(e^{\alpha}, w)$. Then these vertex operators in fact determine a VOA structure on $V_\Lambda$ such that $Y(e^\alpha, w) = X(e^\alpha, w)$, and this determination is unique up to the choice of cocycle $\epsilon$.
Let ${\mathfrak}h = \Lambda \otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}}{\mathbb{Q}}$. The Fourier coefficients of vertex operators can be seen to have the following commutation relations: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hx_fourier_rel}[h(n), x_m(\alpha)] &= \langle h, \alpha\rangle x_{n+m}(\alpha), ~h\in {\mathfrak}{h}\\
\label{xx_fourier_rel}[x_n(\alpha), x_m(\beta)] &= \begin{cases} 0 & \langle \alpha, \beta \rangle \ge 0\\
x_{n+m}(\alpha+ \beta) & \langle \alpha, \beta \rangle = -1\\
\alpha(n+m) + n\delta_{n+m,0} & \alpha + \beta = 0 \text{ and } {\langle \alpha, \alpha\rangle } = 2.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
#### Lie algebra from some Fourier Coefficients
Again recall the restriction that ${\operatorname}{NS}(S)$ has a basis of irreducible -2 curves so the negative of the intersection matrix has diagonal entries 2 in this basis. Further assume that for any two curves $C_1, C_2$ in this basis they have intersection 1 or 0 so non-zero off diagonal entries are -1. Then $V_{NS(S)}$ is a representation of ${{\mathfrak}g}({\operatorname}{NS}(S))$.
Using this lemma and the relations between Fourier coefficients of vertex operators we deduce
\[prop:main\_from\_rep\_theory\] Let $S$ be a K3 surfaces with generators $\{\alpha_i\}$ for $NS(S)$ of irreducible -2 curves which have intersections with each other 1 or 0. Then ${\widetilde}{{\mathfrak}{g}}({\operatorname}{NS}(S))$ acts on $V_{{\operatorname}{NS}(S)}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
h_i\otimes t^n &\mapsto h_i(n)\\
e_i\otimes t^n &\mapsto x_{n}(\alpha_i)\\
f_i\otimes t^n &\mapsto x_{n}(-\alpha_i)\\
c&\mapsto 1\end{aligned}$$ and $d$ acts by the degree operator.
The only non-trivial part is the relation between ${\mathfrak}{g}(\operatorname{NS}(S))$ coefficients of the polynomials in $t$. This follows from a standard argument based on integrability, see e.g. [@nakajima1998quiver §9.iii]. Any pair of real simple roots $\alpha_1, \alpha_2$ the representation $V$ decomposes into finite dimensional representations of the Lie algebra generated by $e_{\alpha_i}, f_{\alpha_i}$ for $i = 1,2$. Then [@kac_infinite-dimensional_1990 ch. 3] implies for coefficients.
#### Slightly larger algebra
As a consequence of the previous we also get an action of ${\widetilde}{{\mathfrak}{g}}({\operatorname}{NS}(S))$ on $V_M$ for the Mukai lattice $M = {\operatorname}{NS(S)} \oplus U$ by $x(v\otimes w) = x(v) \otimes w$ for $v\otimes w \in V_{{\operatorname}{NS}(S)}\otimes V_{U} \simeq V_M$, and similarly on $V_{\Lambda_{K3}}$.
It will be useful for us, since we care about all cohomology and not just algebraic cohomology or middle dimensional algebraic cohomology to consider slightly larger algebras. Currently we have an algebra ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}{g}}(\operatorname{NS}(S))$ generated by Fourier coefficients of vertex operators related to algebraic curve classes and Nakajima operators related to algebraic curve classes. We would like to capture Fourier coefficients of vertex operators related to algebraic curve classes and Nakajima operators related to more general classes, either algebraic classes lying in the Mukai lattice or any cohomology classes.
To this end consider the Heisenberg algebras ${{\mathcal}{H}eis}(H^0(S) \oplus H^4(S))$ and ${{\mathcal}{H}eis}(T(S))$ (taken with the *negative* pairing $\langle -, - \rangle$) where $T(S) = NS(S)^{\perp}\subset H^2(S, {\mathbb{Z}})$ is the transcendental lattice. Then define the lie algebras $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:g_alg} {\widetilde}{{\mathfrak}{g}}_{alg}(S) &:= {{\mathcal}{H}eis}(H^0(S) \oplus H^4(S)) \oplus {\widehat}{{\mathfrak}{g}}(\operatorname{NS}(S))\\
\label{eq:g_k3} {\widetilde}{{\mathfrak}{g}}(S) &:= {{\mathcal}{H}eis}(T(S)) \oplus {\widehat}{{\mathfrak}{g}}_{alg}(S)\end{aligned}$$ Note that ${\widetilde}{{\mathfrak}{g}}_{alg}(S)$ contains the algebra ${{\mathcal}{H}eis}(M)$ modelled on the Mukai lattice and ${\widetilde}{{\mathfrak}{g}}(S)$ likewise contains ${{\mathcal}{H}eis}(\Lambda_{K3})$ modelled on the entire K3 lattice.
#### Fock space as Cohomology of Moduli Spaces
In general, moduli spaces of sheaves on K3 surfaces, if smooth, are hyperkähler varieties deformation equivalent to Hilbert schemes on points on a K3. For the time being, we will consider moduli spaces of torsion free rank 1 sheaves which are naturally isomorphic to Hilbert schemes of points. The standard notation in the study of moduli of sheaves on K3 surfaces is to label the discrete invariants of a sheaf ${\mathcal}{E}$ by its *Mukai vector* given by $$\begin{aligned}
v({\mathcal}E) &= {\operatorname}{ch}({\mathcal}E)\sqrt{{\operatorname}{Td}_X}\\
&= (r, c_1, {\operatorname}{ch}_2).(1,0,1)\\
&= (r, c_1, c_1^2/2 - c_2 + r)\\
&\in H^0(X, {\mathbb{Z}}) \oplus H^{1,1}(X,{\mathbb{Z}}) \oplus H^4(X, {\mathbb{Z}})\end{aligned}$$ then given a Mukai vector $v$ and a polarization $H$ of $X$ there is a moduli space $M_H(v)$ of Gieseker semistable sheaves of Mukai vector $v$. If non-empty, this space has dimension ${\langle v, v\rangle } + 2$ and the stable locus is smooth. The rank one moduli spaces do not depend on the polarization, so we suppress the notation in this case. Supposing $L_\alpha$ is a line bundle with $c_1(L_\alpha) = \alpha\in {\operatorname}{NS}(X)$ then $M(1, \alpha, {\operatorname}{ch}_2 + 1)$ consists of subsheaves ${\mathcal}E$ of $L_\alpha = {\mathcal}{E}^{\vee \vee}$ such that the quotient has finite length $ n := {\operatorname}{ch}_2 ({\mathcal}{E}^{\vee\vee}) - {\operatorname}{ch}_2({\mathcal}{E})$. It follows that we can also consider the moduli space as parametrizing the quotient, and so $$\label{eq:hilb_eq_m}
M(1, \alpha, {\operatorname}{ch}_2 + 1) \simeq S^{[n]} .$$ On the other hand, we know that $$H_*(\bigsqcup_{n\ge 0} S^{[n]}) \simeq \mathcal{F}_{H_*(S)}(1) = {\mathcal}{F}_{\Lambda_{K3}}(1)$$ so $$\label{eq:rk_1_torsion_free_V}
V:= H_*(\bigsqcup_{\substack{\alpha \in {\operatorname}{NS}(S)\\ {\operatorname}{ch_2}\in {\mathbb{Z}}}} M(1, \alpha, {\operatorname}{ch}_2 + 1)) \simeq \mathcal{F}_{\Lambda_{K3}}(1) \otimes {\mathbb{Q}}[{\operatorname}{NS}(S)]$$ but this space $V$ lies inside $V_{\Lambda_{K3}}$ and is preserved by the action of the whole Heisenberg subalgebra ${{\mathcal}{H}eis}(\Lambda_{K3})$ (which acts by constants or in the first factor) as well as all of ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}({\operatorname}{NS}(S))$ and therefore is preserved by ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}(S)$. We write $V$ without a subscript because it is of fundamental importance.
#### Notation for cohomology classes
We record notation for the Nakajima basis on the Fock space ${\mathcal}{F}_{\Lambda_{K3}}(1)$. Let $\mathfrak{p}_{-i}(\gamma), \mathfrak{p}_{i}(\gamma)$ for $i \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{> 0}$, $\gamma \in H^*(X, {\mathbb{Z}})$ denote the Nakajima creation and annihilation operators respectively. Let $\omega_X$ denote the class dual to a point. Further, if $|\text{vac}\rangle\in H^*(X^{[0]})$ is the vacuum of the Fock space we use the notation $$\begin{aligned}
|n_{1, \alpha_1}^{k_1}, \ldots, n_{j, \alpha_j}^{k_j}\rangle := {\mathfrak}{p}_{-n_1} (\alpha_1)^{k_1}\cdots {\mathfrak}{p}_{-n_j} (\beta)^{k_j} |\text{vac}\rangle\end{aligned}$$ for elements of the Fock space, where in addition we drop the subscript $\alpha$ if $\alpha = \omega_X$ is the class of a point. Further, we know that if $d\ge 2$ then the classes $$\begin{aligned}
C_\beta := |1_{\beta}, 1^{d-1}\rangle &= {\mathfrak}{p}_{-1} (\beta){\mathfrak}{p}_{-1} (\omega_X)^{d-1} |\text{vac}\rangle\\
D := |2, 1^{d-2}\rangle &= {\mathfrak}{p}_{-2} (\omega_X){\mathfrak}{p}_{-1} (\omega_X)^{d-2} |\text{vac}\rangle\end{aligned}$$ generate $H_2(X^{[d]}; {\mathbb{Z}})$ in the sense that $$\label{eq:h2xn}
H_2(X^{[d]}; {\mathbb{Z}}) = \{ |1_{\beta}, 1^{d-1}\rangle + k |2, 1^{d-2}\rangle ~ | k\in {\mathbb{Z}}, \beta \in H^2(X, {\mathbb{Z}})\}$$
#### Virasoro algebra
The usual construction to produce a Virasoro action in $V_{\Lambda}$ works for any choice of $\Lambda$, e.g. $\Lambda = {\operatorname}{NS}(S)$ and $\Lambda = \Lambda_{K3}$. For our purposes the most sensible one is the one coming from $\Lambda_{K3}$. Then $L(0)$ has commutation relations with elements of ${\widetilde}{{\mathfrak}g}(S)$ given by $$[L(0), h(n)] = -n h(n) ~~~ [L(0), x_\alpha(n)] = -nx_\alpha(n)$$ and in this way we extend our Lie algebra to ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}(S)$ which contains ${\widetilde}{{\mathfrak}g}(S)$ and also ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}({\operatorname}{NS}(S))$ by the equality $ d = -L(0)|_{{\widetilde}{{\mathfrak}g}({\operatorname}{NS}(S))}$. We will now extend this and call $d =-L(0)$.
#### Roots
Our Lie algebra ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}(S)$ has Cartan subalgebra $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathfrak}h &:= H^{*}(S,{\mathbb{Q}}) \oplus {\mathbb{Q}}c \oplus {\mathbb{Q}}d\\
&= \Lambda_{K3}\otimes {\mathbb{Q}}\oplus {\mathbb{Q}}c \oplus {\mathbb{Q}}d\end{aligned}$$ with dual $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathfrak}h^* &= \Lambda_{K3}^{\vee}\otimes {\mathbb{Q}}\oplus {\mathbb{Q}}\Lambda \oplus {\mathbb{Q}}\delta\end{aligned}$$ Now let $\mathring{\Delta} = \mathring{\Delta}_{+, re} \cup\mathring{\Delta}_{-, re} \cup\mathring{\Delta}_{+, im} \cup\mathring{\Delta}_{-, im}$ be the root system for the Kac-Moody algebra ${\mathfrak}{g}({\operatorname}{NS}(S))$ and ${\mathfrak}{g}({\operatorname}{NS}(S)) = {\mathfrak}{g}_0\oplus\bigoplus {\mathfrak}{g}_{\alpha}$ the root space decomposition. Then $$\label{affinization_root_decomp}
{\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}(S) = {\mathfrak}{h} \oplus \bigoplus_{\alpha\in \mathring{\Delta}, n\in {\mathbb{Z}}} {\mathfrak}{g}_{\alpha}\otimes t^n\oplus \bigoplus_{n\in {\mathbb{Z}}\backslash\{0\}} \Lambda_{K3, {\mathbb{Q}}}\otimes t^n$$ is a root space decomposition (just as in building the affine algebra from a finite dimensional Lie algebra) and so our roots $\Delta \subset {\mathfrak}{h}^*$ are given by $$\Delta = \{ \alpha + n\delta |\alpha \in \mathring{\Delta}, n\in {\mathbb{Z}}\}\cup \{n \delta | n \in {\mathbb{Z}}\backslash \{0\}\}.$$
#### Weights in $V_M$
Using we know the weight decomposition of $V$ with respect to $\Lambda^{\vee}_{K3,{\mathbb{Q}}}$ is just the grading on ${\operatorname}{NS}(S)$. If $h\in \Lambda_{K3, {\mathbb{Q}}}^{\vee}$ then $h$ acts by ${\langle h, \alpha\rangle }$ on $\mathcal{F}_{\Lambda_{K3}}(1) \otimes e^{\alpha}$. But on $1\otimes
e^\alpha$ we know that the $L(0)_{{\operatorname}{NS}}$ operator coming from $V_{{\operatorname}{NS}(S)}$ acts by $-
{\operatorname}{deg}(v) - {\langle \alpha, \alpha\rangle }/2$ on $v\otimes e^\alpha$ but choosing an orthonormal basis $\{b_i\}_{i\in I}$ for $U_{\mathbb{Q}}\oplus T(S)_{{\mathbb{Q}}}$ our $L(0)$ is given as $$L(0) = L(0)_{{\operatorname}{NS}} + \frac{1}{2}\sum_{k\in {\mathbb{Z}}, i\in I} : b_i(-k)b_i(k):$$ and so $L(0)$ acts according to the same formula, as $-\deg(v) - {\langle \alpha, \alpha\rangle }/2$. Thus $d$ acts by the scalar ${\operatorname}{ch}_2$ on the component $H_*(M(1,c_1, {\operatorname}{ch_2}+1))$. Note that under increasing the number of points by 1 decreases ${\operatorname}{ch_2}$ by $1$. Thus our grading implicit in the indices on $M(1, \alpha, ch_2 + 1)$ is is the weight grading on $V$.
#### Useful choices of Picard lattices
Some choices of Picard lattice will be very useful for proving general things about K3 surfaces, and also to serve as examples. The first one is a generic elliptic K3 with a section whose intersection pairing has matrix $${\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 1 & -2\end{pmatrix}}.$$ in this case, $\operatorname{NS}(S)$ is not generated by $-2$ classes. It is interesting to note that if we look at the Lie algebra spanned by the Fourier coefficients of the vertex operators for the $-2$ class $S$ for the section and the norm $0$ fibre class $F$, instead of getting the Borcherds-Kac-Moody algebra with the Cartan matrix, we get a Lie algebra with larger abelian symmetry. In particular the Fourier coefficients $x_n(F)$ and $x_m(-F)$ commute with each other for all $n$ and $m$.
It will be more useful to consider the case where there is one singular fiber in the elliptic fibration of type other than ${ \textup{\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral1}}}_0$. For example, with one type ${ \textup{\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral1}}}_n$ fiber for $n = 2,3$ this will have intersection matrix $$\begin{pmatrix} -2 & 2 & 0 \\ 2 & -2 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 & -2\end{pmatrix}, ~ \begin{pmatrix} -2 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\ 1 & -2 & 1 & 0 \\ 1 & 1 & -2 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & -2 \end{pmatrix}$$ respectively. The existence of K3 surfaces with these two intersection pairings follows from [@morrison1984k3] (see also [@huybrechts2016lectures ch. 14]) where it is shown that every even Lorentzian lattice of rank $\rho \le 10$ occurs as ${\operatorname}{Pic}(S)$ for a K3 surface $S$. More generally, the same argument will show that if we consider the intersection pairing of the form $$\left( \begin{array}{ccc | c}
&&& 0\\
&-A&&1\\
&&&\vdots\\\hline
0&1&\cdots&-2
\end{array}\right)$$ where $A$ is the Cartan matrix of affine type ${\widetilde}{A}_n$ for $n \le 9$, ${\widetilde}{D}_n$ for $4 \le n \le
9$ or ${\widetilde}{E}_6, {\widetilde}{E}_7, {\widetilde}{E}_8$ and the single one in the off-diagonal blocks is placed in such a way that it corresponds to adding a single extra node with one edge connecting the new node to a node of the affine Dynkin diagram which has label 1, i.e. the corresponding irreducible component of the singular fiber has multiplicity 1. Then a K3 surface $S$ exists with this intersection pairing on ${\operatorname}{Pic}(S)$, the null root corresponds to class of the elliptic fiber, which admits one singular fiber which we take to be of type ${ \textup{\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral1}}}_n$, ${ \textup{\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral1}}}_n^*,
{ \textup{\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral2}}}^*, { \textup{\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral3}}}^*, { \textup{\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral4}}}^*$ respectively, and the additional node corresponds to the class of the section. Technically this argument doesn’t show that we can produce ${ \textup{\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral1}}}_2$ and ${ \textup{\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral1}}}_3$ fibers instead of type ${ \textup{\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral2}}}, { \textup{\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral2}}}$ or ${ \textup{\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral4}}}$, but it is true that these K3 surfaces exists with the desired fibers, and in fact is is shown that there exist K3 surfaces with a single ${ \textup{\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral1}}}_n$ fiber and a section for $2\le n \le 19$ in [@miranda1989configurations]. Because the total Euler characteristic of the singular fibers must sum to 24, there is a bound on which singular fibers may occur. For example, the Euler characteristic of a ${ \textup{\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral1}}}_n^*$ fiber, corresponding to ${\widetilde}{D}_{n+4}$ is $n + 6$, so the largest possible $n$ for which this occurs as the fiber of a elliptic K3 with section is $18$. I am not sure whether an elliptic K3 exists with a section, one ${ \textup{\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral1}}}_n^*$ fiber and $24 - (n + 6)$ ${ \textup{\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral1}}}_0$ fibers when $10 \le n \le 18$.
Even more generally we can consider elliptic K3 surfaces with one or more sections and with multiple singular fibers of type ${ \textup{\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral1}}}_n$, ${ \textup{\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral1}}}_m^*, { \textup{\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral2}}}^*, { \textup{\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral3}}}^*, { \textup{\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral4}}}^*$ which, if $n\ge 3$ correspond to Cartan matrices with $-2$ along the diagonal and $1$ everywhere else if we ignore the effect of the linear relations stemming from the fact that the fiber lies in the same cohomology class regardless of whether it comes from a linear combination of $(-2)$-curves in one singular fiber or in a different one.
Nakajima Quiver Varieties and Hilbert Schemes on ADE surfaces {#sec:quivers}
=============================================================
We first recall from [@nakajima1994instantons; @nakajima1998quiver] the general construction of Nakajima quiver varieties. Let $Q$ be a quiver, i.e. a directed graph with vertex set $I$ and edges $E$ where loops and multiple edges are allowed. Consider the doubled quiver $\overline{Q}$ with vertices $I \sqcup \overline I$ doubled and edges $E \sqcup E^T \sqcup \{ i \to \overline i | i\in I\} \sqcup \{ \overline i \to i | i\in \overline I\}$ with transposes included and one edge to and from each doubled vertex to the original vertex.
Given a graded vector space $V$ let $\dim_I V\in {\mathbb{N}}^I$ denote its graded dimension vector. Given $\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w}\in {\mathbb{N}}^{I}$ let ${\operatorname}{Rep}_{\overline Q}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w})$ denote the variety of representations of $\overline Q$ where the dimensions of vertices in the index set $I$ are given by the coordinate in $\mathbf{v}$ (the dimension vector) and the dimensions of coordinates in $\overline I$ are given by coordinates of $\mathbf{w}$ (the framing vector). Let $V = \oplus_{i\in I} V_i$ and $W = \oplus_{i\in I} W_i$ be graded vector spaces with dimension vectors $\mathbf{v}$ and $\mathbf{w}$. Then $${\operatorname}{Rep}_{\overline Q}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w}) = \big[\bigoplus_{e\in E} {\operatorname{Hom}}(V_{s(e)}, V_{t(e)}) \oplus {\operatorname{Hom}}(V_{t(e)}, V_{s(e)}) \big] \oplus {\operatorname{Hom}}(W, V) \oplus {\operatorname{Hom}}(V,W)$$ where ${\operatorname{Hom}}$s between graded vector spaces are taken in the graded sense. A point in ${\operatorname}{Rep}_{\overline Q}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w}) $ will be denoted $(B, i, j)$.
The groups $G_{\mathbf v} := \prod {\operatorname{GL}}(v_i)$ and $G_{\mathbf w} := \prod{\operatorname{GL}}(w_i)$ with lie algebras ${\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbf v}, {\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbf w}$ act on ${\operatorname}{Rep}_{\overline Q}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w})$ preserving the symplectic form $\omega$ which arises because ${\operatorname}{Rep}_{\overline Q}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w})$ is the cotangent bundle to the representations of the quiver with half the edges. Finally consider the moment map $$\mu : {\operatorname}{Rep}_{\overline Q}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w})\to {\mathfrak}{g}_{\mathbf v}^*$$ and a vector $\theta \in {\mathbb{Z}}^I$ corresponding to the character $$\prod \det(g_i)^{-\theta_i} \in {\mathbb{C}}^\times$$ of $G_{\mathbf{v}}$. Values of $\theta$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^I$ are also considered but the quiver variety is defined with respect to a Hyperkähler quotient rather than how it’s defined below. Then for an appropriate value of $\zeta$ (i.e., $\zeta$ is a fixed point of the coadjoint action)
a Nakajima quiver variety is the GIT quotient $$\mathfrak{M}_{\theta, \zeta}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w}) := \mu^{-1}(\zeta)/\!\!/_{\theta} G_\mathbf{v}.$$
The cases where $\zeta = 0$ play a central role for us, so if there is only one subscript we assume $\zeta = 0$, i.e. $$\mathfrak{M}_{\theta}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w}) := \mathfrak{M}_{\theta, 0}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w}).$$ Also, letting $\mathfrak{z}_{\mathbf{v}}$ denote the fixed points of the coadjoint orbit, we will use the fact that we may first perform the algebraic quotient on $\mu^{-1}(\mathfrak{z}_{\mathbf{v}})$ and then take the fiber over $\zeta$ and recover ${\mathfrak{M}_{\theta, \zeta}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w})}$, meaning that for fixed $\theta$, different quiver varieties fit into a family $$\label{eq:quiverfamily}
\widetilde{{\mathfrak}{M}}_{\theta}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w}) \to {\mathfrak}{z}_{\mathbf{v}}$$ whose fiber over $\zeta$ is ${\mathfrak{M}_{\theta, \zeta}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w})}$.
Let ${\mathfrak}{M}^{reg}_{\theta, \zeta}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w})\subset {\mathfrak{M}_{\theta, \zeta}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w})}$ denote the regular locus, which coincides with the locus of stable quiver representations.
#### Tautological bundles
The trivial bundles of rank $v_i$ on $\mu^{-1}(\zeta)$ pass to the quotient via descent where we consider them with the the defining action of ${\operatorname{GL}}(v_i)$ on ${\mathbb{C}}^{v_i}$ and the trivial action for other factors of $G_{\mathbf{v}}$. In this way we get a *tautological bundle* denoted $$\label{eq:tautological_bundle}
{\mathcal}{V}_i \to {\mathfrak{M}_{\theta, \zeta}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w})}$$ of rank $\mathbf{v}_i$ for every $i\in I$. For every edge $e$ (including the doubles ones) between $i, j\in I$ there is also a bundle map the *tautological map* denoted $\phi_e : {\mathcal}V_i \to {\mathcal}V_j$ which is also constructed by descent.
#### Wall and chamber structure
How are quiver varieties with different stability parameters related? First, we know that $\mathfrak{M}_{0, \zeta}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w}) = {\operatorname{Spec}}{\mathbb{C}}[\mu^{-1}(\zeta)]^{G_{\mathbf{v}}}$ is an affine variety and by the general theory of GIT quotients there is a projective map $$\mathfrak{M}_{\theta, \zeta}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w}) \to \mathfrak{M}_{0, \zeta}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w})$$ which is often an equivariant symplectic resolution. We also have the following key result. Let $A$ be the adjacency matrix of $Q$ and $C = 2I - A$ the Cartan matrix. Then define the *positive roots* of which only a few are relevant to a given dimension vector: $$R_+ := \{ \theta \in {\mathbb{N}}^ I \mid \theta \cdot C \theta \le 2, \theta \neq 0\}$$ $$R_+ (\mathbf{v}) := \{ \theta \in R_+ \mid \theta_i \le v_i\}$$ $$D_\theta := \{ \alpha\in {\mathbb{R}}^I \mid \alpha \cdot \theta = 0 \}$$ note that the walls $D_\theta$ for $\theta \in R_+(\mathbf{v})$ give a polyhedral decomposition of ${\mathbb{R}}^I$, and a face will refer to any dimensional face of this decomposition.
\[thm:partial\_resolutions\] With the above definitions
1. When $\alpha \cdot \theta \neq 0$ for all $\alpha \in R_+ (\mathbf{v})$ or $\alpha \cdot \zeta \neq 0 $ for all $\alpha \in R_+ (\mathbf{v})$, there are no strictly semistable points in ${\mathfrak{M}_{\theta, \zeta}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w})}$. Further, for two different generic stability parameters the corresponding varieties are ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-equivariantly diffeomorphic.
2. If $\zeta = 0$, and $\theta, \theta'$ lie in the same face, stability (semistability) for $\theta$ is equivalent to stability (semistability) for $\theta'$ and the corresponding quiver varieties are naturally isomorphic.
3. If $\zeta = 0$ and $F' \subset \overline F$ with $\theta' \in F', \theta \in F$, then $\theta$-semistable $\implies \theta'$-semistable and $\theta'$-stable $\implies \theta$-stable. Further, there exists a natural projective map $$\label{eq:semisimplification}
\pi_{\theta, \theta'} : \mathfrak{M}_{\theta}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w}) \to \mathfrak{M}_{\theta'}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w})$$ sending a quiver representation $V$ to the direct sum of its Jordan Hölder factors $\operatorname{gr}_{\theta'}(V)$ with respect to $\theta'$.
The set of walls $W$ where the map $\pi_{\theta, \theta'}$ is not generically an isomoprhism onto its image is contained in the set $\{D_\theta \mid \theta \in R_+({\mathbf}{v})\}$ but when the quiver is not a finite type quiver there may be walls $D_\theta$ where the map $\pi_{\theta, \theta'}$ is not surjective, and is an isomoprhism onto its image. Section \[ssec:bellamy\_craw\] following [@bellamy2018birational] describes the walls inducing non-trivial contractions in the cases relevant to the present work.
#### Reduction to ${\mathbf}{w} = 0$
We review a formulation of quiver representations due to Crawley-Boevey [@crawley2001geometry] which replaces the framing nodes with a single extra vertex which is useful in many circumstances.
Let $Q$ be a quiver with vertices $I$ and edges $E$. Given dimension vector $\mathbf{v}$ and framing vector $\mathbf{w}$ let $Q_\infty(\mathbf{w})$ be the quiver with vertices $\{\infty\}\sqcup I$ and edges $E\sqcup E^T\sqcup W\sqcup W^T$ where $W$ consists of $w_i$ edges from $\infty$ to the $i$th vertex of $I$, and $W^T$ are the same edges with orientation reversed. We write $Q_\infty$ for $Q_\infty({\mathbf}{w})$ when the framing vector is understood. Then there is a $G_{\mathbf{v}}$ and $G_{\mathbf{w}}$ equivariant isomorphism $$\label{eq:cb_trick_rep_equiv}
{\operatorname}{Rep}_{\overline Q}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w}) \simeq {\operatorname}{Rep}_{ Q_\infty(\mathbf{w})}((1, \mathbf{v}))$$ where $G_{{\mathbf}{w}}$ now acts on the edge spaces. Thus the moment maps for the $G_{{\mathbf}{v}}$ actions coincide but we refer to the moment map ${\operatorname}{Rep}_{ Q_\infty(\mathbf{w})}((1, \mathbf{v}))$ as $\mu_\infty$ for clarity. Pick a complex stability parameter $\zeta\in {\mathfrak}{z}_{{\mathbf}{v}}$. The natural group to act on ${\operatorname}{Rep}_{ Q_\infty(\mathbf{w})}((1, \mathbf{v}))$ is ${\operatorname{GL}}(1) \times G_{{\mathbf}{v}}$ but the diagonal ${\mathbb{C}}^*$ acts trivially so we take $G_{{\mathbf}{v}, \infty} = {\operatorname{GL}}(1) \times G_{{\mathbf}{v}}/ {\operatorname{GL}}(1)$. Because of this the natural characters correspond to vectors $\theta^\infty = (\theta_\infty, \theta_1, \ldots, \theta_r)$ with $\theta ^\infty( (1, {\mathbf}{v}) )= 0$ giving the rational character $$\prod \det (g_i)^{-\theta_i}$$ of $G_{{\mathbf}{v}, \infty}$. There is a 1-1 correspondence between rational characters $\theta = (\theta_1, \ldots, \theta_r)$ of $G_{{\mathbf}{v}}$ and characters $\theta^\infty = ( - \theta({\mathbf}{v}), \theta_1, \ldots, \theta_r)$ of $G_{{\mathbf}{v}, \infty}$ such that $${{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta, \zeta}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w})} = \mu_\infty^{-1}(\zeta){/\!\!/}_{\theta^\infty} G_{{\mathbf}{v}, \infty}.$$
#### Algebraic descritption of stability
We recall an algebraic formulation of stability for quiver representations introduced by King in [@king1994moduli] equivalent to stability defining the GIT quotient. See also [@ginzburg2009lectures].
\[prop:king\_stability\] A point $(B,i,j) \in \mu^{-1}(\zeta)$ corresponding to a representation $V$ is $\theta$-semistable if and only if for every $B$-invariant subspace $S\subset V$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
S \subset \ker(j) &\Rightarrow \theta\cdot \dim_{I} S \le 0\\
S \supset {\operatorname{im}}(i) &\Rightarrow \theta \cdot \dim_I S \le \theta \cdot \dim_I V.\end{aligned}$$ The point is $\theta$-stable if in addition for non-zero proper subrepresentations $S\subset V$ the inequalities are strict.
Affine ADE quivers
------------------
One of the most important cases for present applications is when the quiver $Q$ is of affine ADE type such that the affine root is the zeroth index in $I = \{0, \ldots, r\}$. Unless otherwise stated, a quiver variety will correspond to a quiver of this type for the remainder of the paper. These quiver varieties for some stability parameters have interpretations as moduli spaces of framed sheaves on ADE surfaces or as $\Gamma$-equivariant sheaves on ${\mathbb{C}}^2$ for a finite group $\Gamma$ acting on ${\mathbb{C}}^2$. We briefly recall the relevant isomorphism between quiver representations and rank 1 torsion free sheaves, see [@nakajima1994instantons; @nakajima2007sheaves].
#### Gieseker/Hilbert choice of stability parameter
There is a close relationship between the wall and chamber structure in this case with the Weyl chambers of the corresponding affine root system. Let $\delta = (1,\delta_1, \ldots,\delta_r)$ denote the dimension vector corresponding to the null vector for the Cartan matrix with all positive entries and value $1$ on the affine root. Note that this is also the multiplicities of components in a singular elliptic fiber with the corresponding Dynkin diagram. Let $\mathbf{w_0}$ be the framing vector $(1,0,\ldots, 0)$ corresponding to the affine root. The complex stability parameter $\zeta$ can vary in the space ${\mathbb{C}}^I$ and $\theta$ can vary in ${\mathbb{Q}}^I$ (or ${\mathbb{R}}^I$ if we consider Hyper-Kähler quotients). First we fix $\zeta = 0$. As long as $\theta \not\in D_\delta$ then ${\mathfrak}{M}_\theta(\delta, \mathbf{w_0})$ is isomorphic to the ADE surface $X_\Gamma = \widetilde{{\mathbb{C}}^2/\Gamma}$ where $\Gamma$ is the finite group corresponding to $Q$ [@kronheimer1989construction]. This is also true whenever $\zeta$ lies in ${\mathbb{C}}\otimes D_{\delta}$ and $\theta\not \in D_\theta$.
Now we intend to find a stability condition $\theta$ which results in ${\mathfrak}{M}_\theta(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w})$ having the desired interpretation as a moduli space of sheaves. There is not a single $\theta$ which works for all $\mathbf{v}$ because the set of walls is not locally finite in the region of ${\mathbb{R}}^I$ adjacent to $D_\delta$. The set of walls is however finite for any fixed $\mathbf{v}$. The real root hyperplanes partition $D_\delta$ according to the finite ADE root system. Let $C$ denote the usual choice of positive chamber $$C = \{ \theta \in D_\delta \mid \theta \cdot \alpha_i > 0, ~ i = 1, \ldots, r\}$$ and given $\mathbf{v}$ let $C(\mathbf{v})$ be the unique chamber of the decomposition of ${\mathbb{R}}^I$ with respect to the roots in $R_+(\mathbf{v})$ such that $C(\mathbf{v})$ has face $C$ and such that $\theta \cdot \delta > 0$ for $\theta \in C(\mathbf{v})$. Let $\theta_{\text{Hilb}}(\mathbf{v})$ denote a fixed stability condition in this chamber, and $\theta_U$ a fixed stability condition in $C$.
#### Moduli of torsion free sheaves
First let $\overline{X_\Gamma}$ denote the orbifold compactification of $X_\Gamma$ from [@nakajima2007sheaves], i.e. we have an action of $\Gamma$ on $\mathbb{P}^2$ and we resolve the singularity at $[0:0:1]$. Let $\ell_\infty$ be the divisor at infinity. Then
\[thm:quivers\_are\_torsionfree\_moduli\] There is a correspondence between stable quiver representations and framed torsion free sheaves such that quiver variety ${\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{\text{Hilb}}(\mathbf{v})}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w})$ is isomorphic to the moduli space of framed torsion free sheave $(E, \Phi)$. Further,
(i) Let $\mathbf{u} = \mathbf{w} - C\mathbf{v}$. The chern classes of $E$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname}{c}_1(E) &= \sum_{i \neq 0} u_i c_1({\mathcal}{V}_i)\\
{\operatorname}{ch}_2(E) &= \sum_i u_i {\operatorname}{ch}_2({\mathcal}{V}_i) + 2\mathbf{v} \cdot \delta {\operatorname}{ch}_2({\mathcal}{O}(\ell_\infty))
\end{aligned}$$
(ii) The framing $\Phi$ gives an isomorphism $E\simeq E_\infty$ over the end of $X_\Gamma$ such that the representation of $\Gamma$ at $\infty$ on $E_\infty$ decomposes as $\oplus \rho_i^{\oplus w_i}$ where $\rho_i$ is the irreducible representation of $\Gamma$ corresponding to vertex $i\in I$ under the McKay correspondence.
(iii) The variety ${\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{U}}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w})$ is isomorphic to the Uhlenbeck compactification of ${\mathfrak}{M}^{reg}_{\theta_{\text{Hilb}}(\mathbf{v})}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w})$, so we have an identification $$\label{eq:uhl}
{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{\text{U}}}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w}) =
\bigsqcup_{k \ge 0} {\mathfrak}{M}^{reg}_{\theta_{U}}(\mathbf{v}- k\delta, \mathbf{w})\times S^{k}X_{\Gamma}$$ such that the natural map $$\label{eq:geis_to_uhl}
{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{\text{Hilb}}(\mathbf{v})}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w}) \to {\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{\text{U}}}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w})$$ coincides with the Gieseker-Uhlenbeck map of [@li1993algebraic].
In particular ${\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{Hilb}(\mathbf{n\delta})}(n\delta, \mathbf{w_0})$ is isomorphic to the Hilbert scheme of $n$ points on the corresponding smooth ADE surface.
#### Equivariant Hilbert Scheme
There is another well studied stability condition on the affine ADE quivers, especially useful for geometric actions of various algebras and quantum groups. This corresponds to the choice $\theta =: \theta_+$ a stability condition in the positive chamber $C_+$ where $\theta_i > 0$ for all $i = 0, \ldots, n$. Define the analogous negative chamber $C_- = -C_+$.
Then we have the following modular description of this quiver variety if we identify framing/dimension vectors as representations of the finite group $\Gamma$ using the McKay correspondence.
There is an isomorphism ${\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_+}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w}) \simeq M(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w})$ where $M(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w})$ is the moduli space of framed torsion free sheaves $(E, \phi)$ on $\mathbb{P}^2$ with $H^1(\mathbb{P}^2, E(-1)) = \mathbf{v}$ as a representation of $\Gamma$ and the induced action on $E|_{\ell_\infty}$ under $\phi: E|_{\ell_\infty} \simeq {\mathcal}{O}_{\ell_\infty}^{\oplus |\mathbf{w}|}$ corresponds to the representation $\mathbf{w}$.
Consider the case $\mathbf{w} = \mathbf{w_0}$ of the trivial representation at $\ell_\infty$. Here the map to the affine quotient $${\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_+}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0})\to {\mathfrak}{M}_{0}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0})$$ is an analogue of the Hilbert-Chow map (or Gieseker-Uhlenbeck in the higher rank case).
It is helpful to consider all of the affine quotients together in a stratified space $${\mathfrak}{M}_0(\infty, \mathbf{w_0}) := \bigcup_{n\ge 0} Sym^n({\mathbb{C}}^2)^\Gamma = \bigcup_{n \ge 0} Sym^n({\mathbb{C}}^2/ \Gamma)$$
of symmetric powers of the affine quotient, where we include $Sym^n({\mathbb{C}}^2/ \Gamma)\hookrightarrow
Sym^{n+k}({\mathbb{C}}^2/ \Gamma)$ by adding $k>0$ points at the origin. The image of one ${\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_+}(\mathbf{w}, \mathbf{v})$ surjects onto a maximal stratum. One way of finding this stratum is by noting that the affine quotients agree and it is the corresponding affine quotient for the quiver variety with the same dimension vector but the stability condition $\theta_{Hilb}(\mathbf{v})$. Then the number of points is the length of the double dual of an element of ${\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{Hilb}(\mathbf{v})}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0})$, namely $ n = v_0 - v^T C v/2$ where $C$ is the Cartan matrix.
#### Stratifications
There is an essential structure on quiver varieties induced from their definition as GIT quotients, which is a stratification by the conjugacy class of the stabilizer at a point see [@nakajima1994instantons §6][@nakajima1998quiver §3] [@nakajima2009quiver §2.6]. This is a more general description of the stratification of the Uhlenbeck moduli space. Let ${\widehat}{G}$ run over conjugacy classes of subgroups of $G_{\mathbf{v}}$ then $$\label{eq:strata_quiver}
{{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w})} = \bigsqcup_{{\widehat}{G}} {{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w})}_{{\widehat}{G}}$$ where ${{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w})}_{{\widehat}{G}} $ consists of points represented by $(B,i,j)$ with stabilizer ${\widehat}{G}$. The locus with trivial stabilizer, or ${\widehat}{G} = 1$ is ${{\mathfrak}{M}^{reg}_{\theta}({{\mathbf}{v}}, {{\mathbf}{w}})}$. Possible choices of ${\widehat}{G}$ are all isomorphic to $\prod_{j = 1}^{k}{\operatorname{GL}}(n_j)$ for some choices of $n_j$, and a polystable representative $(B,i,j)$ of a point in the stratum corresponding to a quiver representation in $V$ decomposes as $$\label{eq:statum_decomp}
\begin{split}
V &\simeq V^\infty \oplus (V^1)^{\oplus n_1} \oplus \cdots \oplus (V^k)^{\oplus n_k}\\
(B, i, j) & \simeq (B^\infty, i^\infty, j^\infty) \oplus (B^1, 0 , 0)^{\oplus n_1} \oplus \cdots \oplus (B^k, 0, 0)^{\oplus n_k }
\end{split}$$ where the representations $(V^i, (B^i, 0,0))$ are simple and pairwise non-isomorphic. Under the equivalence , the summand $(B^\infty, i^\infty, j^\infty)$ corresponds to the unique summand as a representation of $Q_\infty$ which contains the one dimensional subspace at the infinite vertex.
Let ${\mathbb{C}}^{2}_{\circ}/\Gamma = ({\mathbb{C}}^2\backslash\{0\})/\Gamma$. When $\theta = 0$ for an affine ADE quiver this stratification is the decomposition $${{\mathfrak}{M}_{0}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w})} = \bigsqcup_{\substack{{\mathbf}{v'} \le {\mathbf}{v}\\ |{\mathbf}{v'}| + |\lambda| + k = |{\mathbf}{v}|}} {\mathfrak}{M}^{reg}_0({\mathbf}{v'}, {\mathbf}{w})\times S_\lambda ({\mathbb{C}}^{2}_{\circ}/\Gamma )\times \{ k [0]\}$$ where $k\ge 0$, ${\mathfrak}{M}^{reg}_0({\mathbf}{v'}, {\mathbf}{w})\subset {{\mathfrak}{M}_{0}(\mathbf{v'}, \mathbf{w})}$ consists of framed equivariant *locally free* sheaves on ${\mathbb{P}}^2$ (which may be empty) and $$S_\lambda(Y) = \{ \sum \lambda_i [x_i] \in Sym^n Y \mid \lambda \vdash n, ~ x_i \neq x_j \text{ if } i \neq j\}.$$ When ${\mathbf}{w} = {\mathbf}{w_0}$ the only trivially framed line bundle on ${\mathbb{P}}^2$ is the trivial line bundle so the only non-empty ${\mathfrak}{M}^{reg}_0({\mathbf}{v'}, {\mathbf}{w})\subset {{\mathfrak}{M}_{0}(\mathbf{v'}, \mathbf{w})}$ occurs when ${\mathbf}{v'} = 0$, and in this case it is a point. Thus the decomposition becomes $$\label{eq:pts_quiv_stratification}
{{\mathfrak}{M}_{0}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0})} = \bigsqcup_{\substack{k \ge 0\\ |\lambda| + k = |{\mathbf}{v}|}} S_\lambda ({\mathbb{C}}^{2}_{\circ}/\Gamma )\times \{ k [0]\}.$$ which also is a stratification of ${\mathfrak}{M}_0(\infty, \mathbf{w_0})$ where we identify strata by identifying factors $\{k[0]\}$ and $\{k'[0]\}$ for $k \neq k'$.
#### Local description of resolution
We recall a local analytic description of the resolution or partial resolution from variation of GIT parameters following [@nakajima1994instantons §6], [@crawley2003normality] near a point $x$ in terms of the the map to the affine quiver variety near the central point for a different quiver and different data. Our notation follows [@bellamy2018birational].
Let $\theta$ be a generic stability parameter in a chamber ${\mathfrak}C$ and let $\theta'$ be a stability parameter in $\overline{{\mathfrak}C}$, and let $\pi_{\theta, \theta'} : {{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w})} \to {{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta'}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w})}$ be the corresponding map. Let $C$ be the Cartan matrix for the quiver $Q_\infty$, with vertex set $I_\infty$ and let $(-,- )$ be the pairing defined by this matrix, and let $p(\alpha) := 1 - 1/2(\alpha, \alpha)$.
\[defn:ext\_quiver\_quiv\] Let $(B,i,j)$ be a $\theta_0$-polystable representative of a point $x$ in ${{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta'}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w})}$ with decomposition, $V^\infty, V^i$ and $n_i$ for $i = 1, \ldots, k$ defined as in . Let $\beta^i\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}^{I_\infty}$ be the dimension vectors of $V^i$ for $i \in \{\infty, 1, \ldots, k\}$. Let $Q'$ be the quiver with
- vertices $\{1, \ldots, k\}$,
- $p(\beta^i)$ loops at vertex $i$,
- and $-(\beta^i, \beta^j)$ edges between vertices $i$ and $j$.
Then $Q'$ is called the *Ext-quiver* of $(B,i,j)$ or of $x$.
Now choose dimension vector ${\mathbf}{n} = (n_1, \ldots, n_k)$ and framing vector $ {\mathbf}{m} = (m_1, \ldots, m_k)$ with $n_i$ as above and where $m_i = -(\beta^\infty, \beta^i)$ for $i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$. The stability parameter $\theta'$ will correspond to the 0 stability parameter for this quiver. Next we find stability parameter to correspond to $\theta$. Pick a real stability parameter $\rho$ corresponding to a rational character of $G_{{\mathbf}{n}}$ (which is ${\widehat}{G}$ for the stratum containing $(B,i,j)$) by restricting the character $\theta$ to $G_{{\mathbf}{n}}$, namely $$\begin{aligned}
\rho &= \operatorname{res}_{G_{{\mathbf}{n}}}^{G_{{\mathbf}{v}}} \theta \\
\rho(\gamma) &= \theta\big( \sum_{i = 1}^k \gamma_i \beta^i \big).\end{aligned}$$
\[thm:local\_quiver\] Consider a point $x \in {{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta'}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w})}$ with Ext-quiver and data $\beta^i, {\mathbf}{n}, {\mathbf}{m}, \rho$ as above. Let $\ell = p(\beta^\infty)\ge 0$. There are local analytic neighborhoods $U$ of $x\in {{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta'}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w})}$ and $V$ of $0\times 0 \in {{\mathfrak}{M}_{0}(\mathbf{n}, \mathbf{m})}\times {\mathbb{C}}^\ell$ and isomorphisms fitting into a commutative diagram
\_[, ’]{}\^[-1]{}(U)& (\_[, 0]{} )\^[-1]{}(V)\
U & V
such that in particular, the fibers ${{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w})}_x$ over $x$ and ${{\mathfrak}{M}_{\rho}(\mathbf{n}, \mathbf{m})}_0\times \{0\}$ over $0\times 0$ are identified.
(i) The value $\ell = p(\beta^\infty)$ may equivalently be thought of as the number of loops at the framing vertex.
(ii) This result was extended in [@bellamy2018birational] to non-generic $\theta$, i.e. for any map of the form .
#### Other stability conditions
In addition to those specific stability conditions already described, there are additional stability conditions which are important to consider. We fix notation for these. A key tool in understanding the birational geometry of quiver varieties is the fact that the polyhedral structure of the stability space captures partial symplectic resolutions of the corresponding quiver variety as in Theorem \[thm:partial\_resolutions\].
Fix an affine ADE graph $\Gamma$ and let $I_0$ be a set of indices other than the one corresponding to the affine root. Recall the positive chamber $C_+ = \{ \theta \mid \theta_i > 0, ~ i = 0, \ldots, r\}$. Let $\theta_{I_0, +}$ be a stability condition generic in the face $C_{I_0, +} \subset \overline{C_+}$ defined by $$\label{eq:theta_io_plus}
\theta_{I_0, +}\in C_{I_0, +} := \{ \theta \mid \theta_i = 0 \text{ if } i \in I_0, \theta_j > 0 \text{ if } j\not\in I_0\}.$$ This is a non-generic stability parameter but we take it to be generic within its face. Therefore we have a projective resolution of symplectic singularities specializing for any pair $I_1 \subset I_0 \subset \Gamma$ $$\pi_{I_1, I_0} : {{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{I_0',+}}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w})} \to {{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{I_0, +}}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w})}$$ which are compatible in the sense that for a chain $I_2 \subset I_1 \subset I_0 \subset \Gamma$ we have $$\pi_{I_2, I_0} = \pi_{I_1, I_0}\circ \pi_{I_2, I_1}.$$ These maps are also compatible with the map to the affine quotient. This gives a chain of partial symplectic resolutions which when $\mathbf{w} = \mathbf{w_0}$ all resolve to the unique resolution ${{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_+}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0})}$.
Universal enveloping algebra action {#sec:quiver_action}
-----------------------------------
There is a geometric description of the universal enveloping algebra of an affine Kac-Moody algebra via Steinberg correspondences on the quiver varieties with stability parameter $\theta_+$. We combine the quiver varieties with one framing vector and different dimension vectors $${\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_+}(\mathbf{w}) := \bigsqcup_{\mathbf{v}} {\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_+}(\mathbf{v},
\mathbf{w}).$$ We again restrict to the case $\mathbf{w_0}$ and consider $$Z := {\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_+}(\mathbf{w_0}) \times_{{\mathfrak}{M}_{0}(\infty, \mathbf{w_0})} {\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_+}(\mathbf{w_0})$$ which is an analogue of the Steinberg variety for the Springer resolution. We now state the result on the action of an affine Lie algebra in the specific case of the equivariant hilbert scheme. Given $x\in
{\mathfrak}{M}_0(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0})$ consider the fiber ${\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_+}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0})_x$ over the point $x$ of the map ${\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_+}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0})\to {\mathfrak}{M}_0(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0})$. When $x =
0$ we denote the fiber ${\mathfrak}{L}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0})$. Extending our previous notation let ${\mathfrak}{M}(\mathbf{w_0})_x = \sqcup_{\mathbf{v}} {{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_+}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0})}_x$.
\[thm:uea\_action\_nakajima\] There is an algebra morphism $$U({\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}) \to H_{top}^{BM}(Z, {\mathbb{C}})$$ where ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}$ is the affine lie algebra corresponding to $\Gamma$, $H_{top}^{BM}(Z)$ is top dimensional Borel-Moore homology of $Z$ with the algebra action given by convolution.
(i) The images of $h_i, d, c$ are multiplies of diagonal subvarieties.
(ii) Restricted to a pair of quiver varieties, the image of $e_i$ is the fundamental class of the Hecke correspondence $$\label{eq:hecke}
\{ (E, E') \in{{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_+}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0})}\times{{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_+}({\mathbf{v} + \rho_i}, {\mathbf{w_0}})} \mid E \subset E'\}$$ and the image of $f_i$ is, up to sign, the same class in the opposite direction. Each connected component is a nonsingular Lagrangian subvariety of ${{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_+}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0})}\times{{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_+}({\mathbf{v} + \rho_i}, {\mathbf{w_0}})}$.
(iii) Under the convolution action on $H_{top}({\mathfrak}{M}(\mathbf{w_0})_x)$, this space is an irreducible integrable highest weight representation with weight spaces $H_{top}({\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_+}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0})_x)$. When $ x = 0$ the highest weight is $\Lambda_0$.
(iv) The representation only depends on the stratum in which $x$ lies in the decomposition .
We denote the component of the Hecke correspondence between ${{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_+}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0})}$ and ${{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_+}({\mathbf{v} + \rho_i}, {\mathbf{w_0}})} $ by ${\mathfrak}{P}_i({\mathbf}{v})$, and more generally the one between ${{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_+}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w})}$ and ${{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_+}({\mathbf{v} + \rho_i}, {\mathbf{w}})} $ by ${\mathfrak}{P}_i({\mathbf}{v}; {\mathbf}{w})$.
#### Equivalent descriptions of Hecke correspondence
We collect a few description of the Hecke correspondences.
First calculate how it acts on fibers $H_{top}({\mathfrak}{M}(\mathbf{w_0})_x)$ for $x \neq 0$ under the equivalence of Theorem \[thm:local\_quiver\]. If the variety is positive dimensional, the Ext quiver is the original quiver and some number of copies of the Jordan quiver (i.e. with one vertex and on loop). The map $\pi_{\theta_+, 0}$ near $x$ corresponds to the product of $\pi_{\theta_+, 0}$ on the first factor and the Hilbert-Chow map on the Jordan quiver factors. For the Jordan quiver the quiver varieties are ${\operatorname{Hilb}}^n({\mathbb{C}}^2)$ for non-zero stability parameter and $Sym^n({\mathbb{C}}^2)$ for zero stability parameter. Let $x$ lie in the stratum of corresponding to the partition $\lambda$. Thus we have $$\label{eq:factor_fiber}
{\mathfrak}{M}({\mathbf}{v}, \mathbf{w_0})_x \simeq {\mathfrak}{L}({\mathbf}{v} - |\lambda| \delta, {\mathbf}{w_0}) \times \prod_{i} {\operatorname{Hilb}}_0^{\lambda_i}({\mathbb{C}}^2)$$ where ${\operatorname{Hilb}}_0^{\lambda_i}({\mathbb{C}}^2)$ is the punctural Hilbert scheme (i.e. the fiber over $k\cdot[0]$ of the Hilbert-Chow map), which is irreducible.
We need the following description, which is used in [@nakajima2009quiver]. Pick a stability condition $\theta_{\alpha_i}$ which is on a maximal dimensional face of the positive cone ${\mathbb{C}}_+$ and also on the wall $\alpha_i^\perp$, and generic in this face. Let $a_i$ be a simple root of the affine ADE root system and let $S_i$ be simple quiver representation which is $1$ dimensional and supported in degree $i$, on the $i$th vertex. Form the ind-variety $${{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{\alpha_i}}({{\mathbf}{v} + \infty \rho_i}, { {\mathbf}{w}})} = \bigcup_{k = 0}^\infty {{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{\alpha_i}}({{\mathbf}{v} + k \rho_i}, { {\mathbf}{w}})}$$ where we include ${{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{\alpha_i}}({{\mathbf}{v} + k\rho_i }, { {\mathbf}{w}})}\hookrightarrow {{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{\alpha_i}}({{\mathbf}{v} + (k+n) \rho_i}, { {\mathbf}{w}})}$ for $n > 0$ by sending the representation $V$ to $V \oplus S_i^{\oplus n}$. For convenience in stating the following, we consider quiver varieties for non-generic stability parameter as parametrizing polystable quiver representations.
\[prop:hecke\_from\_1\_wall\]In this situation we have that the Hecke correspondence ${\mathfrak}{P}_i({\mathbf}{v}; {\mathbf}{w})$ is an irreducible component of the fiber product $${{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_+}({{\mathbf}{v}}, { {\mathbf}{w}})}\times_{{{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{\alpha_i}}({{\mathbf}{v} + \infty \rho_i}, { {\mathbf}{w}})}}{{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_+}({{\mathbf}{v} + \rho_i}, { {\mathbf}{w}})}$$ where the fiber product comes from the maps $\pi_{\theta_+, \theta_{\alpha_i}}$ from composed with the inclusion into ${{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{\alpha_i}}({{\mathbf}{v} + \infty \rho_i}, { {\mathbf}{w}})}$. More specifically, it is the unique irreducible component such that
- For a point $x\in {{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_+}({{\mathbf}{v}}, { {\mathbf}{w}})}$ such that $\pi_{\theta_+, \theta_{\alpha_i}}(x)$ contains a direct summand of exactly $r$ copies of $S_i$, the fiber of ${\mathfrak}{P}_i({\mathbf}v, {\mathbf}w)$ over $x$ under the first projection is a projective space of dimension $\rho_i^T ({\mathbf}w - C{\mathbf}v) + r -1$.
- For a point $y\in {{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_+}({{\mathbf}{v} + \rho_i }, { {\mathbf}{w}})}$ such that $\pi_{\theta_+, \theta_{\alpha_i}}(y)$ contains a direct summand of exactly $r$ copies of $S_i$, the fiber of ${\mathfrak}{P}_i({\mathbf}v, {\mathbf}w)$ over $y$ under the second projection is a projective space of dimension $r -1$.
It will also be useful to know how the Hecke correspondence restricts to fibers of the map $\pi_{\theta_+,0}$.
\[prop:action\_on\_x\_fiber\] The restriction of ${\mathfrak}{P}_i({\mathbf}{v})$ to ${\mathfrak}{M}({\mathbf}{v}, \mathbf{w_0})_x\times {\mathfrak}{M}({\mathbf}{v}+ \rho_i, \mathbf{w_0})_x$ under the decomposition is $$\{ (E, \xi, E', \xi') \in {\mathfrak}{M}({\mathbf}{v}, \mathbf{w_0})_x\times {\mathfrak}{M}({\mathbf}{v}+ \rho_i, \mathbf{w_0})_x \mid (E, E') \in {\mathfrak}{P}_i({\mathbf}{v} - |\lambda| \delta), \zeta = \zeta' \}$$ or in other words $${\mathfrak}{P}_i({\mathbf}{v} - |\lambda| \delta)\times \Delta \subset {\mathfrak}{L}({\mathbf}{v} - |\lambda| \delta, {\mathbf}{w_0})\times {\mathfrak}{L}({\mathbf}{v} - |\lambda| \delta, {\mathbf}{w_0}) \times\prod_{i} {\operatorname{Hilb}}_0^{\lambda_i}({\mathbb{C}}^2)\times \prod_{i} {\operatorname{Hilb}}_0^{\lambda_i}({\mathbb{C}}^2).$$
Suppose $Z, Z'$ are $\Gamma$-fixed zero dimensional subschemes of ${\mathbb{C}}^2$ with ${\operatorname}{len}(Z) +1 = {\operatorname}{lem}(Z')$. Then the cycles must differ only at the origin, by exactly 1. Therefore the Hecke correspondence is trivial on the punctural Hilbert scheme factors, and the computation is reduced to the central fiber case, which is exactly what needed to be shown. Note that in the second line of the proposition we have denoted the Hecke correspondence and its restriction to the product of the central fibers by the same letter.
Compatibility of Lie algebra actions
------------------------------------
Fix an affine quiver $Q$ corresponding to a finite group $\Gamma$ and smooth surface $X_\Gamma$. We know the Frenkel-Kac construction described in Section \[sec:VOA\] gives a representation of the corresponding affine lie algebra $\widehat{{\mathfrak}{g}}$ on the Fock space $V_{H^2(X_\Gamma)}$ from modeled on the middle-dimensional cohomology of the surface $X_\Gamma$. This is an irreducible highest weight representation. It also gives an irreducible highest weight representation of a larger algebra $$\widehat{{\mathfrak}{g}}_{H^*} := {{\mathcal}{H}eis}(H^4(X_\Gamma)) \oplus {\widehat}{{\mathfrak}{g}}$$ on the analogue of for our present context, namely $$V := \bigoplus_{c_1, \mathrm{ch}_2} H^*(M(c_1, ch_2))$$ where $M(c_1, \mathrm{ch}_2)$ is the moduli space of rank 1 torsion free sheaves on $X_\Gamma$ with these characteristic classes. When $\Gamma = {\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}}$ these algebras are ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}{sl}}_{n-1}$ and ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}{gl}}_{n-1}$. The algebra $\widehat{{\mathfrak}{g}}_{H^*}$ contains the entire Heisenberg algebra ${\mathcal}{H}eis(H^*(X_\Gamma))$ and for fixed $c_1$ each $\oplus_{ch_2} H^*(M(c_1, ch_2))$ is the usual level 1 Fock module for this algebra. We have identifications $$\begin{aligned}
V_{H^2(X_\Gamma)} &= \bigoplus_{\mathbf{v}}H^{mid}({\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{Hilb}(\mathbf{v})}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0}))\\
V &= \bigoplus_{\mathbf{v}}H^*({\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{Hilb}(\mathbf{v})}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0}))
\end{aligned}$$ between the Fock spaces and cohomology groups of spaces of rank 1 torsion free sheaves, which are Nakajima quiver varieties for a specific choice of stability parameter.
The action of Theorem \[thm:uea\_action\_nakajima\] of the universal enveloping algebra of $\widehat{{\mathfrak}{g}}$ on cohomologies is for quiver varieties for a different stability parameter, namely on the space $$\bigoplus_{\mathbf{v}}H^{*}({\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_+}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0}))$$ preserving the subspace $$\bigoplus_{\mathbf{v}}H^{mid}({\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_+}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0}))$$ making the latter an irreducible highest weight representation. Here $\theta_+$ lies in the positive chamber for the corresponding affine Weyl group, which is separated by walls from the Hilbert scheme chamber for each ${\mathbf}{v}$, and the number of walls tends to infinity. However by the flop relating the quiver varieties in the different chambers, there is a ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-equivariant diffeomorphism between the corresponding quiver varieties so in particular the corresponding vector spaces are isomorphic. It is a natural question to ask how these two lie algebra actions relate to one another under this isomorphism. By an detailed analysis of the fixed points of a torus action in the $A_n$ case, they were shown to coincide in this case.
\[thm:nagao\] Consider the ${\mathbb{C}}^*$ equivariant diffeomorphism corresponding to a flop $F$ between quiver varieties corresponding to the $\widetilde{A}_{n}$ with stability parameters $\theta_+$ and $\theta_{Hilb}(\mathbf{v})$. Denoting the isomorphism on cohomology by the same letter $F$ we have that $$\bigoplus_{\mathbf{v}}H^{mid}({\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_+}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0})) \xrightarrow{F} H^{mid}({\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{Hilb}(\mathbf{v})}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0}))$$ intertwines the Nakajima action with the Frenkel-Kac action for a specific choice of cocycle determining the latter.
Since we are interested in all cohomology groups we need
\[prop:flop\_intertwines\] Under the same flop $$\label{eq:flop_hilb_an} \bigoplus_{\mathbf{v}}H^{*}({\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_+}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0})) \xrightarrow{F} H^{*}({\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{Hilb}(\mathbf{v})}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0}))$$ the ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}{sl}}_{n-1}$ actions are also intertwined.
On the right hand side of , the action of $\widehat{\mathfrak{sl}}_{n-1}$ on $V$ is induced by its action on $V_{H^2(X_\Gamma)}$ and the isomorphism $V =V_{H^2(X_\Gamma)} \otimes {\mathcal}{F}$ where ${\mathcal}{F}$ is the Fock module for the rank 1 free boson, modeled on the line spanned by the class of a point. This ${\mathcal}F$ has a basis labeled by all partitions $\lambda$ and we have $$V = \bigoplus_{\lambda} V_{H^2(X_\Gamma)}\otimes |\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_n\rangle.$$ We need a geometric description of this decomposition. Let $\pi_{\theta_{Hilb}({\mathbf}{v}), 0}$ be the semisimplification map and we decompose based on the inclusion of a fiber of this map into $\bigsqcup_{{\mathbf}v} {\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{Hilb}(\mathbf{v})}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0})$. Namely we have $$\label{eq:hilb_decomp_strata}
V = \bigoplus_{\lambda} H_{top}({\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{Hilb}({\mathbf}{v})}({\mathbf}{w_0})_y)$$ where $y\in {\mathcal}{O}_\lambda$ and ${\mathcal}{O}_\lambda$ runs over the strata so $\lambda$ is a partition for any integer and the empty partition corresponds to the central point, and again we combine fibers for different ${\mathbf}{v}$ and define ${\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta}({\mathbf}{w_0})_x$ for any stability condition $\theta$. Let ${\mathfrak}{L}_\theta({\mathbf}{w_0})$ be the central fiber. The isomoprhsim $V_{H^2(X_\Gamma)}\otimes |\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_n\rangle \simeq H_{top}({\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{Hilb}({\mathbf}{v})}({\mathbf}{w_0})_y)$ arises by noting that a basis for the left hand side coincides with a basis for the right hand side in terms of the Nakajima basis.
The action on the other side of is induced by a similar factorization[@nakajima2002geometric § 5.2]. Recall that the central fiber of the map to the affine quotient ${\mathfrak}{L}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0})$ is a Lagrangian subvariety homotopic to ${\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_+}(\mathbf{v},
\mathbf{w_0})$ so $H_{*}({\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta'}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0})) \simeq H_{*}({\mathfrak}{L}(\mathbf{v},
\mathbf{w_0}))$ and in particular $$H_{mid}({\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_+}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0})) \simeq H_{top}({\mathfrak}{L}(\mathbf{v},
\mathbf{w_0})).$$ The lower degree terms may be found via the decomposition theorem, which is particularly nice in this case. In particular, the map is semismall so no shifts appear, and it has also been shown that no non-trivial local systems appear [@nakajima2001quiver_finite]. Thus we have a decomposition $$H_{top - d} ({\mathfrak}{L}_{\theta_+}({\mathbf}{w_0}), {\mathbb{C}}) = \bigoplus_{\lambda} H^d (i_0^! IC({\mathcal}{O}_\lambda)) \otimes H_{top}({\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_+}({\mathbf}{w_0})_y, {\mathbb{C}})$$ Then $i_0: \{0\} \to {{\mathfrak}{M}_{0}({\infty}, {{\mathbf}{w_0}})}$ is the inclusion. This is a decomposition as ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}{sl}}_{n-1}$ modules, where the action is trivial on the cohomology of the IC complex. In this case the strata are $S_\lambda({\mathbb{C}}^2_\circ / \Gamma)$ and the $IC$ complexes are constant sheaves ${\mathbb{C}}_{\overline{{\mathcal}{O}_y}}[\dim]$ because $S_\lambda({\mathbb{C}}^2_\circ / \Gamma)$ have only finite quotient singularities. Thus our decomposition becomes $$H_* ({\mathfrak}{L}_{\theta_+}({\mathbf}{w_0}), {\mathbb{C}}) = \bigoplus_{\lambda} H_{top}({\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_+}({\mathbf}{w_0})_y, {\mathbb{C}})$$ The flop $F$ induces by Theorem \[thm:local\_quiver\] the flop $F\times \Delta$ between neighborhoods of the fibers ${\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_+}({\mathbf}{w_0})_y$ and ${\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{Hilb}({\mathbf}{v})}({\mathbf}{w_0})_y$, where $F$ acts on the components which quiver varieties for affine quivers and $\Delta$ is the diagonal on Jordan quiver components. Then Proposition \[prop:action\_on\_x\_fiber\] implies that the action of the Hecke correspondences coincides with the action on the first component of the product in the fibers. Thus this flop intertwines the ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}{sl}}_{n-1}$ actions as in Theorem \[thm:nagao\] for each chosen point $y$. This decomposition for the $\theta_+$ parameter coincides with the one from . Thus the actions are intertwined by $F$ on all degrees of cohomology.
We will not explicitly record a proof or statement of the analogous result for types D and E but the proof is essentially contained in the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\].
Birational geometry of hyperkähler varieties {#sec:hk_birational}
============================================
We review structures on $\operatorname{NS}(M)$ for a hyperkähler variety $M$ and their relation to birational geometry, developed in numerous sources. See [@hassett2009moving] and references therein.
Let $M$ by a hyperkähler variety with Beauville-Bogomolov form $(, )$ on $H^2(M, {\mathbb{Z}})$.
- The *cone of curves* of $M$ is the cone $\operatorname{NE}_{\mathbb{R}}(M)$ generated by effective curves.
- The *ample cone* is the cone $\operatorname{Amp}(M)$ generated by ample classes.
- The *nef cone* is the cone $\operatorname{Nef}(M)$ dual to $\overline{\operatorname{NE}(M)}$.
- The *positive cone* of $M$ is the component $$\operatorname{Pos}(M) \subset \{ \alpha \in \operatorname{NS}_{\mathbb{R}}(M) \mid (\alpha,\alpha) > 0\}$$ of the locus of positive-self-pairing classes such that it contains an ample class.
- The *movable cone* is the cone $\operatorname{Mov}(M)$ generated by divisors $D$ such that there is an $N> 0$ with $ND$ having no fixed components (i.e. with fixed locus having codimension $\ge 2$).
We also have a number of interesting wall and chamber structures on these cones. The first comes from the following proposition
\[prop:markman\_refl\] Let $D$ be an exceptional divisor, and let $\rho_D$ be the corresponding reflection, which is an integral involution of $\operatorname{NS}(M)$. Let $W_{Exc}$ be the Weyl group of exceptional reflections. Then the cone $\operatorname{Mov}(M)\cap \operatorname{Pos}(M)$ of big moveable divisors is the fundamental chamber for $W_{Exc}$ on $\operatorname{Pos}(M)$.
Also given a birational hyperkähler $M'$ the map induced from graph $\Gamma \subset M\times M'$ on cohomology $\Gamma_*: H^2(M, {\mathbb{Z}}) \to H^2(M', {\mathbb{Z}})$ is an isomorphism preserving $(,)$ and $\Gamma_*\alpha \in \operatorname{Amp}(M')$. We can thus identify the ample cone of a birational model $M'$ of $M$ with a subset of the positive cone of $M$. Varieties whose ample classes are in the same orbit of $W_{Exc}$ are isomorphic, so we can consider the ample cone of every birational model as a subset of the movable cone. If the *birational ample cone* ${\mathcal}{B}\operatorname{Amp}(M)$ is the union of the images of all ample cones of birational models of $M$ under the maps induced on cohomology groups then
We have inclusions $${\mathcal}{B}\operatorname{Amp}(M) \subset \operatorname{Mov}(M)\subset \overline{{\mathcal}{B}\operatorname{Amp}}(M).$$
It follows that $\overline{\operatorname{Mov}}(M) = \overline{{\mathcal}{B}\operatorname{Amp}}(M)$ and so the chamber decomposition $$\label{eq:amp_decomp}
\bigcup_{M' \sim M} \overline{\operatorname{Amp}}(M') = \overline{{\mathcal}{B}\operatorname{Amp}}(M)$$ is also a chamber decomposition for $\overline{\operatorname{Mov}}(M)$. It is locally polyhedral [@hassett2009moving].
A similar structure is known for the relevant quiver varieties, in particular affine ADE quiver varieties for the framing vector ${\mathbf}w_0$. Consider a crepant resolution $X\xrightarrow{\pi} Y$ of an affine variety $Y$, let $N^1(X/Y) = \operatorname{NS}(X/Y)_{{\mathbb{Q}}}$ be the vector space of ${\mathbb{Q}}$-cartier divisors up to numerical equivalence, with cones $\operatorname{Mov}(X/Y)$ as above, $\operatorname{Nef}(X/Y)$ consisting of divisors $D$ with $D\cdot \ell \ge 0$ if $\ell$ is a curve contracted by $\pi$, and $\operatorname{Amp}(X/Y)$ the interior of the Nef cone. We will write $\operatorname{Amp}(X)$ for $\operatorname{Amp}(X/Y)$ when the base is clear.
Birational geometry of $X_\Gamma^{[n]}/ Sym^n {\mathbb{C}}^2/\Gamma$ {#ssec:bellamy_craw}
--------------------------------------------------------------------
We now follow the description in [@bellamy2018birational], which shows that all crepant resolution of $Sym^n {\mathbb{C}}^2/\Gamma$ are given by variation of stability for a quiver variety, and the cone structure on $$N^1(X_\Gamma^{[n]}/ Sym^n {\mathbb{C}}^2/\Gamma)$$ coincides with the wall and chamber structure on the space of stability conditions. In particular, a particular description is provided of the walls $D_\theta$ for $\theta\in R_+({\mathbf}{v})$ which actually induce birational contractions.
Fix framing vector $\mathbf{w} = \mathbf{w_0}$ and dimension vector $\mathbf{v} = n\delta$. let $F$ be the“quadrant" $$F = \{ \theta \mid \theta\cdot \alpha_i \ge 0 \text{ for } i = 1, \ldots, r, \theta\cdot \delta \ge 0\}$$ and let $$L_F: F\to N^1(X_\Gamma^{[n]}/Sym^n({\mathbb{C}}^2/\Gamma)))$$ be defined by $\theta \mapsto \bigotimes {\mathcal}{R}_i^{\theta_i}$ sending a stability parameter to a line bundle on the Hilbert scheme on the resolved surface. This map corresponds to the map for K3 surfaces and the following theorem is the analogue of Theorem \[thm:bm\_mmp\].
\[thm:birat\_sym\] The map $\theta \mapsto L_F(\theta)$ identifies $F$ with the relative movable cone $\operatorname{Mov}(X_\Gamma^{[n]}/Sym^n({\mathbb{C}}^2/\Gamma))$ such that
(i) The Namikawa Weyl group $W = \langle \rho_{\delta}, \rho_{\alpha_1}, \ldots, \rho_{\alpha_r}\rangle$ generated by reflections through the roots of the finite root system and through the imaginary root $\delta$ acts on ${\mathfrak}{h} \simeq H^2(X_\Gamma^{[n]}, {\mathbb{Q}})$ with fundamental chamber $F$ and quiver varieties with parameters $\theta, \theta'$ in the same $W$-orbit are isomorphic.
(ii) Let $\Delta_f$ denote the set of roots for the finite root system (i.e. they have no $\alpha_0$ component). The walls $W\subset {\mathbb{R}}^I$ which induce birational contractions are the hyperplanes $$\{ \delta^\perp, (m\delta + \alpha)^\perp \mid 0 \le m < n, \alpha \in \Delta_f\}$$ so for a stability parameter $\theta \in {\mathbb{R}}^I$, the condition of not lying on one of these hyperplanes is equivalent to the quiver variety ${{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta}({n\delta}, {{\mathbf}{w_0}})}$ being smooth.
(iii) The image of a stability chamber $C$ under the map $L_F$ (with the wall and chamber structure given by the aforementioned hyperplanes) is exactly the ample cone $\operatorname{Amp}({{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta}({n\delta}, {\mathbf{w_0}})})$ for the corresponding birational model.
(iv) For a stability condition $\theta_0$ generic on one of the boundary walls $\delta^\perp$ or $\alpha_i^\perp$, for $i = 1, \ldots, r$ of the movable cone and $\theta$ in an adjacent chamber, the map $\pi_{\theta, \theta_0}$ contracts an irreducible exceptional divisor. All other walls (i.e. on the interior of $F$) correspond to flops.
Every crepant resolution of $Sym^n({\mathbb{C}}^2/\Gamma)$ is given by a quiver variety. And every partial symplectic resolution between a nonsingular quiver variety ${{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0})}$ and $Sym^n({\mathbb{C}}^2/\Gamma)$ is given by a map $\pi_{\theta', 0}$ for some $\theta'$.
\[eg:2ptsA2\] Consider ${{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{Hilb}}({2\delta}, { {\mathbf}{w_0}})} \simeq (T^*{\mathbb{P}}^1)^{[2]}$. Then the walls are the hyperplanes orthogonal to $$\{(1,0),(0,1), (1,0), (1,2)\}$$ while the potential walls are hyperplanes orthogonal to elements of $R_+ (2\delta)$, namely the set $$\{(1,0), (0,1), (1,0), (1,2), (2,1), (1,1), (2,2)\}$$ in particular the hyperplane $(2,1)^\perp$ is not a wall for the GIT stability space for this quiver variety. One way to see this is as follows: suppose $\theta$ is a stability condition generically on the wall $(2,1)^\perp$ with a strictly polystable quiver representation $V$ with a stable summand $V'$ of graded dimension $(2,1)$. Then because there are no edges between the framing node and the non-affine root node, $V$ must also have a stable summand with dimension vector $(0,1)$ which contradicts semistability from \[prop:king\_stability\]if, say, $\theta\cdot (0,1) > 0$.
![\[fig:3delta\] Level 1 hyperplane for the stability space of the affine $A_2$ quiver for framing vector ${\mathbf}{w_0}$ and dimension vector ${\mathbf}{v} = 3\delta$. The red lines correspond to the walls $e_\alpha^\perp$ for finite roots $e_{\alpha}$. ](1333_a2_quiverlvl1){width=".7\linewidth"}
Other dimension vectors
-----------------------
The previous section completely describes the birational geometry of ${{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta}({n\delta}, {{\mathbf}{w_0}})}$ over ${{\mathfrak}{M}_{0}({n\delta}, {{\mathbf}{w_0}})}$, which is provided by variation of GIT stability. On the other hand, for a different dimension vector ${\mathbf}{v}$ the result of Theorem \[thm:quivers\_are\_torsionfree\_moduli\] says ${{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{Hilb}({\mathbf}{v})}({{\mathbf}{v}}, {{\mathbf}{w_0}})}$ over its image in ${{\mathfrak}{M}_{0}({{\mathbf}{v}}, {{\mathbf}{w_0}})}$ is isomorphic under to ${{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{Hilb}(n\delta)}({n\delta}, {{\mathbf}{w_0}})}$ over ${{\mathfrak}{M}_{0}({n\delta}, {{\mathbf}{w_0}})}$. Therefore variation of GIT stability for the dimension vector $n\delta$ controls the birational geometry over the affine quotient of quiver varieties with framing vector ${\mathbf}{w_0}$ and other dimension vectors. In particular, birational transformations given by variation of stability for quiver varieties ${{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta}({{\mathbf}{v}}, {{\mathbf}{w_0}})}$ must also be given under this isomorphism by variation of stability for the dimension vector $n\delta$.
However, it is not true that for some stability vector $\theta$ there is always an isomorphism between ${{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0})}$ and ${{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta}({n\delta}, {{\mathbf}{w_0}})}$; there is a modification involved in the stability condition, which at a slice $\theta\cdot \delta = 1$ corresponds to a shift by $c_1({\mathcal}{L})$ where ${\mathcal}{L}$ is the line bundle which one tensors with to obtain the specific isomorphism between the moduli space of rank 1 torsion free sheaves and the Hilbert scheme.
The proof we give in probably not the most natural way to identify the stability spaces of ${{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0})}$ and ${{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta}({n\delta}, {{\mathbf}{w_0}})}$, which would involve looking at where the determinant line bundle is sent, explicitly identifying a specific vector in the ample cones of ${{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0})}$ and ${{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta}({n\delta}, {{\mathbf}{w_0}})}$. This proof highlights the strange interplay between variation of GIT stability for quiver representations and the birational geometry of the moduli spaces.
\[prop:affine\_quiver\_shift\] Let $Q$ be an affine ADE quiver, with fixed framing vector ${\mathbf}{w_0}$. For any dimension vector ${\mathbf}{v}$, let ${\mathbf}{u} = {\mathbf}{w} - C {\mathbf}{v}$ so that Theorem \[thm:quivers\_are\_torsionfree\_moduli\] implies that ${{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{Hilb}({\mathbf}{v})}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0})}$ is isomorphic to the moduli space of rank 1 torsion-free subsheaves $E$ of a line bundle ${\mathcal}{L}_{\mathbf}{v} = E^{\vee \vee}$ with $c_1(E) = \sum_{i \neq 0} u_i c_1({\mathcal}{V}_i) = c_1({\mathcal}{L}_{{\mathbf}{v}})$ and quotient $ {\mathcal}{L}_{{\mathbf}{v}}/E$ of length $n = v_0 - {\mathbf}{v}^T C {\mathbf}{v}/2$. Consider the isomorphism $$\phi: {{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{Hilb}(n\delta)}({n\delta}, {{\mathbf}{w_0}})} \to {{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{Hilb}({\mathbf}{v})}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0})}$$ given on points representing torsion-free sheaves by $$\phi: E \mapsto E \otimes {\mathcal}{L}_{{\mathbf}{v}}.$$ Let $\Theta_{{\mathbf}{v}} \simeq {\mathbb{R}}^I$ denote the stability space for dimension vector ${\mathbf}{v}$.
(i) If $n > 1$ then under the identifications $$H^2({{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{Hilb}({\mathbf}{v})}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0})}, {\mathbb{R}}) = \Theta_{{\mathbf}{v}}$$ and $$H^2({{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{Hilb}(n\delta )}(\mathbf{n\delta }, \mathbf{w_0})}, {\mathbb{R}}) = \Theta_{{\mathbf}{n\delta}}$$ the isomorphism $$H^2({{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{Hilb}(n\delta )}(\mathbf{n\delta }, \mathbf{w_0})}, {\mathbb{R}}) \simeq H^2({{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{Hilb}({\mathbf}{v})}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0})}, {\mathbb{R}})$$ induced by $\phi$ is (up to a global scaling) the unique map $\phi : \Theta_{n\delta}\to \Theta_{{\mathbf}{v}} $ which acts by the identity on the level $0$ hyperplane $H_0 := \{\theta\cdot \delta = 0 \}$ and sends $e_0 = (1, \ldots, 0)$ to $$e_0 + (-\sum_{i\neq 0} u_i, u_1, u_2, \ldots,u_n).$$ In other words, $\phi$ preserves the level 1 hyperplane $H_1 := \{\delta \cdot \theta = 1\}$ and acts by a shift by $(u_1, \ldots, u_n)$ on this hyperplane.
(ii) If $n = 1$ the map $\phi$ induces an isomorphism $\phi: \Theta_{n\delta} \to \Theta_{{\mathbf}{v}}$ given by the same formula and the corresponding isomorphism between $H^2({{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{Hilb}(n\delta )}(\mathbf{n\delta }, \mathbf{w_0})}, {\mathbb{R}}) \simeq H^2({{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{Hilb}({\mathbf}{v})}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0})}, {\mathbb{R}})$ is given (up to a scale) by the isomorphism $\phi: \Theta_{n\delta} / e_0 \to \Theta_{{\mathbf}{v}} / \phi(e_0).$
For $n> 1$, under the identification $\Theta_{v} = H^2({{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{Hilb}({\mathbf}{v})}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0})}, {\mathbb{R}})$ we know that a stability condition $\theta$ corresponds to an ample bundle on the corresponding birational model. Theorem \[thm:birat\_sym\] and the isomorphism $$H^2({{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{Hilb}(n\delta )}(\mathbf{n\delta }, \mathbf{w_0})}, {\mathbb{R}}) \simeq H^2({{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{Hilb}({\mathbf}{v})}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0})}, {\mathbb{R}})$$ also imply that every birational model for ${{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{Hilb}({\mathbf}{v})}(\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w_0})}$ over $Sym^n({\mathbb{C}}^2/ \Gamma)$ is given by variation of $\theta \in \Theta_v$ such that the birational model corresponding to $\theta$ is the birational model associated to the image of $\theta$ in $H^2({{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta_{Hilb}(n\delta )}(\mathbf{n\delta }, \mathbf{w_0})}, {\mathbb{R}})$. In particular, if $\theta$ lies on a wall for GIT stability on $\Theta_{{\mathbf}{v}}$ but $\phi(\theta) \in \Theta_{n\delta}$ does not lie on a wall for GIT stability, then the map $\pi_{\theta', \theta}$ from for generic adjacent $\theta'$ is an isomorphism onto its image.
We can also deduce that $\phi: \Theta_{{\mathbf}{v}} \to \Theta_{n\delta}$ is an isomorphism the level $0$ hyperplane $H_0$ since one chamber in $H_0$ is a wall of the nef cone of the Hilbert scheme chamber corresponding to $Sym^n(X_\Gamma)$ by Theorem \[thm:quivers\_are\_torsionfree\_moduli\], and the other chambers correspond to $Sym^n({\operatorname}{Flop}(X_\Gamma))$ the symmetric power on the (isomorphic) surface obtained by flopping some $-2$ curves.
The remainder of the identification essentially arises by noting that for each finite root wall $\alpha^\perp \subset H_0$ where $\alpha$ is a finite root, there is a unique hyperplane $H$ in the family $\{ (k \delta + \alpha)^\perp | k \in {\mathbb{Z}}\}$ of all hyperplanes in $\Theta_{{\mathbf}{v}}$ intersecting $H_0$ transversally at $\alpha^\perp\cap H_0$ which induces a divisorial contraction. This fact follows from the case ${\mathbf}{v} = n\delta$ where it is part of Theorem \[thm:birat\_sym\]. In this case, the unique hyperplane is $\alpha^\perp$, and these hyperplanes intersect at the line spanned by $e_0$. For other ${\mathbf}{v}$ we show that the divisorial hyperplanes intersect at the line spanned by $e_0 +(-\sum_{i\neq 0} u_i, u_1, u_2, \ldots,u_n)$.
To show that it actually preserves $H_1$ it is actually necessary to identify something about the birational contractions induced by the other hyperplanes intersecting $\alpha^\perp \cap H_0$. To this end, fix a positive finite root $\alpha = \sum_{i = 1}^n a_i \alpha_i$ where $\alpha_i$ are the simple positive roots. Let $$\tau := a\cdot u = \sum_{i = 1}^n a_i u_i = -a^T C {\mathbf}{v}$$
Then for $k \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, a generic $\theta \in ((\tau + k)\delta + \alpha)^\perp$, if it induces a birational contraction, by Theorem \[thm:local\_quiver\] induces a contraction whose generic singular fiber is the central fiber of $\pi_{\rho, 0}$ for the Ext quiver of the decomposition ${\mathbf}v = ({\mathbf}v - \ell \beta_k) \oplus \beta_k^{\oplus \ell} $ where $ \ell \ge 1$ is an integer, $\rho$ is a generic stability condition and $$\beta_k = \begin{cases}(\tau + k)\delta - \alpha & \tau + k > 0 \\ -(\tau + k)\delta + \alpha & \tau + k \le 0\end{cases}.$$ This Ext quiver has only a single dimension node and no loops, and dimension $\ell$ at this node. Also the framing dimension $w_\ell$ is $ - ((1,{\mathbf}{v} - \ell \beta_k), (0,\beta_k) )$ where $(-,-)$ is the Cartan pairing for the quiver $Q_\infty$ with Cartan matrix $$C_\infty = \left( \begin{array}{c|cc c}
2&-1&& \\ \hline
-1&&&\\
&&C&\\
&&&
\end{array}\right).$$ Let $v_\infty = (1, {\mathbf}v)$ and identify $\beta_k$ with $(0, \beta_k)$. Thus we can calculate (in the $\tau + k > 0$ case) $$\begin{aligned}
w_\ell &= - (v_\infty - \ell\beta_k)^T C_\infty\beta_k\\
&= -v_\infty^T C_\infty\beta_k + 2\ell \\
&= (\tau + k) - {\mathbf}{v}^T C ((\tau + k)\delta - \alpha) + 2\ell \\
&= \tau + k + {\mathbf}{v}^T C \alpha + 2\ell \\
&= k + 2\ell
\end{aligned}$$ by the fact that $\tau = -{\mathbf}{v}^T C \alpha$. In the case $\tau + k \le 0$ the same calculation shows that $w_\ell = -k + 2\ell $. The central fiber of $\pi_{\rho , 0}$ of a quiver with one node, dimension ${\mathbf}{v} = \ell$ and framing ${\mathbf}{w_\ell} = \pm k + 2\ell$ is a Grassmannian $Gr(\ell, \pm k + 2\ell)$. We know from the ${\mathbf}{v} = n\delta$ case that all of these fibers, if the relevant wall induces a contraction, are ${\mathbb{P}}^r$ for some $r$. Thus either $\ell = 1$ and $\pm k \ge 0$ or $\ell = \pm k + 2\ell - 1$ so $\ell = \mp k + 1$. If $\ell \neq 1$ we must have $\pm k < 0$.
Since for a semismall map, a divisorial contraction must have a curve as its generic positive dimensional fiber, the fiber must be ${\mathbb{P}}^1$ and we can identify which $k$ corresponds to the unique wall in the family inducing a divisorial contraction. Namely, the divisorial wall must be when $k = 0$, with $\ell = 1$.
Then since walls for adjacent $k$ have the same difference in dimension of generic positive dimensional fibers as do walls for adjacent $k$ for the dimension vector $n\delta$, the level 1 hyperplane is preserved. This actually only needs to be checked for $k \ge 0$, in which case adjacent walls $((\tau + k)\delta - \alpha)^\perp$ and $((\tau + k+1)\delta - \alpha)^\perp$ induce contractions with generic positive dimensional fibers ${\mathbb{P}}^{k+1}$ and ${\mathbb{P}}^{k+2}$ respectively, the same as for ${\mathbf}{v} = n\delta$.
But by letting $\alpha$ range over $\alpha_i$, we know that the shift at the level 1 hyperplane is exactly by $u$, since the line spanned by $\phi(e_0) = \cap_{i =1}^n \phi(\alpha_i^\perp)$ is the intersection of $(\tau_i \delta - \alpha)^\perp$ for $i = 1, \ldots, n$.
For $n = 1$ the exact same argument gives the identification between $\Theta_{{\mathbf}v}$ and $\Theta_{n\delta}$ and the rest of the result follows from the fact that the map from a stability vector in $\Theta_{n\delta}$ to the line bundle in $H^2(X_\Gamma)$ is equivalent to forgetting the $e_0$ component of $\theta$.
![Level 1 hyperplanes for stability space of the affine $A_2$ quiver for framing vector ${\mathbf}{w_0}$ and dimension vector ${\mathbf}v = 3\delta + e_0 = (4,3,3)$. The red lines correspond to the walls $e_\alpha^\perp$ for finite roots $e_{\alpha}$ and the green dot is placed in the center of all of the divisorial walls other than the $\delta^\perp$ wall. A purple dot is placed on every wall actually inducing a birational contraction. Compare with Figure \[fig:3delta\]](1433_a2_quiver_lbl1_annot){width=".72\linewidth"}
.
Birational geometry of Hilbert schemes of points on K3 surfaces {#sec:birational_hilb}
===============================================================
The work of Bellamy and Craw in [@bellamy2018birational] was intended to describe the birational geometry for $X_\Gamma^{[n]}$ in a way analogously to how it had been done for moduli spaces of complexes of sheaves on a K3 surface in [@bayer2014mmp; @bayer2014projectivity], which we now recall. Throughout this section $S$ denotes a K3 surface.
Stability conditions for K3 surfaces {#sec:stabk3}
------------------------------------
Let $\beta, \omega \in \operatorname{NS}(S) \otimes {\mathbb{R}}$ with $\omega \in \operatorname{Amp}(S)\otimes {\mathbb{R}}$. Define $$\label{eq:cc}
Z_{\omega, \beta}(E) = (e^{\beta + i\omega}, v(E))$$ to be the pairing of the exponential of the complexified Kähler class with the Mukai vector of $E \in D^b(S)$. Let $$\label{eq:p_stab}
{\mathcal}{P}_0^+(S)\subset H^*_{alg}(S, {\mathbb{Z}})\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$$ be the set of $\Omega$ such that
- The real and imaginary parts of $\Omega$ span a positive definite $2$-plane in $H^*_{alg}(S, {\mathbb{Z}})\otimes {\mathbb{R}}$.
- For $\Omega\in {\mathcal}{P}_0^+(S)$, we have $(\Omega, s) \neq 0$ for all $s$ spherical, i.e. with $(s,s) = -2$.
- The orientation of the 2-plane spanned by $\Omega$ agrees with that of $\Omega = e^{\beta + i\omega}$.
This allows us to write down a description of the *Bridgeland component* of the space of stability conditions on $D^b(S)$. Let $${\mathcal}{Z}: \operatorname{Stab}(S) \to H^*_{alg}(S, {\mathbb{Z}})\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$$ denote the map sending a stability condition $\sigma$ to the vector ${\mathcal}{Z}(\sigma)$ such that the central charge of $\sigma$ is $( {\mathcal}{Z}(\sigma), -)$.
\[thm:bridgeland\_cmp\] There is a connected component $\operatorname{Stab}^\dagger(S) \subset \operatorname{Stab}(S)$ such that ${\mathcal}{Z}: \operatorname{Stab}^\dagger(S) \to H^*_{alg}(S, {\mathbb{Z}}) \otimes {\mathbb{C}}$ is a covering map over ${\mathcal}{P}_0^+(S)$.
Let $U(S)$ denote the subset of $\operatorname{Stab}^\dagger(S)$ such that all skyscraper sheaves are stable of the same phase. In [@bridgeland2008stability] it is shown that the universal cover $\widetilde{{\operatorname{GL}}}^+(2, {\mathbb{R}})$ (which doesn’t change the classification of objects as stable, semistable, etc.) acts freely on $U(S)$, and for every $\sigma\in U(S)$ there is a unique element of $g$ such that $g\sigma$ has central charge $Z_{\omega, \beta}$ given by and skyscraper sheaves are stable of phase 1. Thus following Bridgeland define $$\label{eq:stab_v}
V(S) := \{ \sigma \in U(S) \mid {\mathcal}{Z}(\sigma) = e^{\beta + i\omega}, \text{ each } {\mathcal}{O}_x \text{ is stable of phase } 1 \}$$ where $\beta$ and $\omega$ run over $\operatorname{NS}(S)\otimes {\mathbb{R}}$ with $\omega$ positive. Restricted to $V(S)$ the map ${\mathcal}{Z}$ is a homeomorphism $${\mathcal}{Z}: V(S) \to {\mathcal}{L}(S)$$ where $$\label{eq:Lstab}
{\mathcal}{L}(S) := \{e^{\beta + i\omega} \mid \omega \in \operatorname{Amp}(S),~ (e^{\beta + i\omega}, \delta)\not \in {\mathbb{R}}_{\le 0} \text{ if } \delta^2 = -2 \text{ and } r(\delta) > 0 \}$$ where $v(\delta) = (r(\delta), c_1(\delta), s(\delta))$ gives the $r(\delta)$ component of the Mukai vector of $\delta$.
The boundary $\partial U$ of this set of stability conditions is understood by Bridgeland [@bridgeland2008stability Theorem 12.1] in terms of walls which correspond to destabilizing sequences for skyscraper sheaves with respect to spherical twists. Then walls are denoted $$(A_+), (A_-), (C_k)\label{eq:uwalls_stab}$$ depending on the destabilizing object. The $(A_+)$ and$(A_-)$ cases corresponds to a spherical vector bundle where all skyscraper sheaves are destabilized and is not relevant to us, and when $\sigma$ lies generically on the $(C_k)$ wall for $k \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ and a smooth rational curve $C\in S$, then $k(x)$ is $\sigma$-stable for $x\not \in C$ and if $x\in {\mathbb{C}}$ then the destabilizing triangle is $${\mathcal}{O}_C(k+1)\to k(x) \to {\mathcal}{O}_C(k)[1] \to$$ which is exactly the triangle defining the spherical twist of $k(x)$ by ${\mathcal}{O}_C(k+1)$.
Matsuki-Wentworth twisted stability
-----------------------------------
Under mild hypotheses, Bridgeland stability reduces at large volume $\omega^2 \gg 0$ to a twisted version of Gieseker stability, introduced earlier by Matsuki and Wentworth [@matsuki_mumford_1997]. This fact will be used so we recall the relevant definitions and equivalence at large volume.
Given $\beta, \omega \in \operatorname{NS}(S)\otimes {\mathbb{R}}$ with $\omega$ ample, and a torsion-free sheaf $E$ with $v(E) = (r, c_1, s)$, let $$\label{eq:slope_mw}\begin{split}
\mu_{\beta, \omega}(E) &= \frac{(c_1 - r\beta) \cdot \omega }{r}\\
\nu_{\beta, \omega}(E) &= \frac{s - c_1 \cdot \beta }{r}
\end{split}$$
\[def:matsuki\_wentworth\] The torsion-free sheaf $E$ is $(\beta, \omega)$-twisted semistable if for every subsheaf $0 \neq A \subset E$ either $\mu_{\beta, \omega}(A) < \mu_{\beta, \omega}(E)$ or ($\mu_{\beta, \omega}(A) = \mu_{\beta, \omega}(E)$ and $\nu_{\beta, \omega}(A) \le \nu_{\beta, \omega}(E)$).
With this definition
\[prop:bridge\_is\_twist\] For $\omega$ ample with $\omega^2 \gg 0$ and fixed $\beta$ there is a unique stability condition $\sigma \in V(S)$ with ${\mathcal}{Z}(\sigma) = e^{\beta + i \omega}$ and if $E$ is an object with Mukai vector $(r, c_1, s)$ with $r > 0$ and $(c_1 - r\beta)\cdot \omega > 0$ then $$E \text{ is }\sigma\text{-semistable} \Leftrightarrow E[k] \text { is } (\beta, \omega)\text{-twisted semistable for some } k.$$
Moduli spaces of stable complexes
---------------------------------
It is interesting that if one is only interested in studying the birational geometry of $S^{[n]}$ it is necessary to understand the moduli space of stable objects in $D^b(S)$. We briefly review the construction of projective moduli spaces of Bridgeland stable objects in $D^b(S)$ completed in [@bayer2014projectivity] and important facts about these moduli spaces.
#### Mukai homomorphism
Let $\sigma\in \operatorname{Stab}^\dagger(S)$ be a stability condition on $S$, and let ${\mathcal}{E}\to B$ be a family of semistable objects of the same phase in $D^b(S)$ with Mukai vector $v$. Consider $\Phi_{\mathcal}{E}: D^b(S) \to D^b(B, \alpha)$, the convolution, or Fourier-Mukai functor, with image in $\alpha$-twisted objects on $B$. Let the *Mukai homomorphism* $$\label{eq:mukai_homo}
\theta_v : v^\perp \to \operatorname{NS}(B)$$ be defined by requiring that $$\theta_v(w)\cdot C = (w, \mathbf{v}(\Phi_{{\mathcal}E}({\mathcal}O_C))).$$ A key property proved for Moduli spaces of sheaves in [@yoshioka2001moduli] is that if $v^2 \ge 0$ and $B$ is the moduli space $M_\sigma(S)$ for generic $\sigma$, such that $M_\sigma(v)$ is equivalent to a moduli spaces of sheaves under a derived equivalence, then $$\theta_v : v^\perp \xrightarrow{~} \operatorname{NS}(M_\sigma(v))$$ is an isomorphism.
(i) When $v^2 = 0$ this is really an isomorphism $\theta_v : v^\perp/ v \xrightarrow{~} \operatorname{NS}(M_\sigma(v))$.
(ii) For any primitive $v$ and generic $\sigma$ since $M_\sigma(v)$ is an irreducible holomorphic symplectic variety, $\operatorname{NS}(M_\sigma(v))$ admits on general grounds the Beauville-Bogomolov form, which is identified with the Mukai pairing under $\theta_v$. Thus for example we can interpret constructions such as Proposition \[prop:markman\_refl\] defined in $\operatorname{NS}(M_\sigma(v))$ with respect to the Beauville-Bogomolov form concretely with respect to the Mukai lattice $H^*_{alg}(S, {\mathbb{Z}})$.
#### Construction of projective moduli spaces
We now give some details on the construction of the moduli spaces of stable objects, which will be necessary later.
\[const:bridgeland\_stable\_spaces\] Let $\sigma\in \operatorname{Stab}^\dagger(S)$ be a stability condition and $v = mv_0\in H^*_{alg}(S, {\mathbb{Z}})$ a Mukai vector with $m > 0$ and $v_0$ primitive. Assume $v_0^2 \ge - 2$ so the space is non-empty. We construct the moduli space $M_\sigma(v)$ of $\sigma$-semistable objects with Mukai vector $v$ together with an ample line bundle, in some cases including those relevant to our situation.
##### Step 1
If $v_0^2 = -2$ then all semistable objects are $S$-equivalent and the corresponding moduli space $M_\sigma(v)$ is a point. Likewise, if $\sigma$ is generic and $v_0^2
= 0$ then when $m = 1$, $M_\sigma(v)$ is a projective K3 surface and there is a derived equivalence $D^b(S) \simeq D^b(M_\sigma(v), \alpha)$ between $S$ and twisted derived category on $M_\sigma(v)$. When $m > 1$ we have $M_\sigma(v) \simeq {\operatorname}{Sym}^n(M_\sigma(v_0))$.
##### Step 2
(Finding coarse moduli space for generic $\sigma$) Now we can assume $v^2 > 0$. Assume $\sigma$ is generic. Deforming $\sigma$ slightly within the chamber (which doesn’t affect stability, or therefore the moduli stacks) we can find primitive $w$ such that $w^2 = 0$, and such that $Z(w)$ and $Z(v)$ are positive real scalar multiples of each other. Further, there is a Fourier-Mukai transform $\Phi : D^b(S) \simeq D^b(M_\sigma(w),
\alpha)$ as in step 1 and under $\Phi$ we have $\Phi (\sigma) \in U \subset \operatorname{Stab}^\dagger(M_\sigma(w))$, so let it be equivalent up to $\widetilde{{\operatorname{GL}}}(2, {\mathbb{R}})$ to one with central charge $Z_{\omega', \beta'}$. It turns out that under $\Phi$ composed with a shift $[-1]$, $\sigma$ stability for objects of Mukai vector $v$ is equivalent to $\omega'$-Gieseker stability for objects of Mukai vector $-\Phi(v)$ essentially due to Proposition \[prop:bridge\_is\_twist\], so the Gieseker moduli space $M_{\omega'}(-\Phi(v))$ is the desired coarse moduli space.
##### Step 3
(Ample line bundle for generic $\sigma$ and $v$ primitive) Suppose $v^2 \ge 0$ with $v$ primitive. We have that $M_\sigma(v)$ from Step 2 is an irreducible holomorphic symplectic manifold with universal family ${\mathcal}E$, and Fourier-Mukai transform $\Phi_{{\mathcal}{E}} : D^b(M_\sigma(v)) \to D^b(S)$. Pick a stability condition equivalent to $\sigma$ up to $\widetilde{{\operatorname{GL}}}(2, {\mathbb{R}})$ with $Z(v) = -1$, and let $\Omega_Z$ be defined by the central charge by requiring that $Z(~) = (\Omega_Z, ~)$. Then a key result of [@bayer2014projectivity] is that under the Mukai homomorphism the class $$\label{eq:bm_ample}
\ell_\sigma := \theta_v({\operatorname}{im}(\Omega_Z))\in \operatorname{NS}(M_\sigma(v))$$ is ample. In particular, $M_\sigma(v)$ is projective.
##### Step 4
(What happens for non-generic stability conditions, primitive $v$) Now let $\sigma_0$ lie on a wall but be generic in this wall, and let $\sigma_+, \sigma_-$ lie in chambers on either side of the wall. Since the definition makes sense when the base is any family $S$ instead of the moduli space $M_\sigma(v)$, and since ${\mathcal}{E}_\pm \to M_{\sigma_\pm}(v)$ are in particular families of $\sigma_0$ semistable objects, we get line bundles $\ell_{\sigma_0, {\mathcal}{E}_\pm}$ on $M_{\sigma_\pm}(v)$, which are big and nef, and induce morphisms $$\pi^{\pm}: M_{\sigma_\pm}(v) \to M_{\pm}$$ to normal projective irreducible varieties contracting $S$-equivalent objects. Even when there is a natural identification $M_+ = M_-$, this $M_+ = M_-$ is not really a natural definition for $M_{\sigma_0}(v)$, because there may be polystable sheaves which are not accessible as sums of Jordan-Holder factors of $\sigma_+$-stable objects of Mukai vector $v$. For example, take a spherical object $S$ with Mukai vector $s$ and any primitive Mukai vector $v$ with $v^2 \ge -2$. Then in a stability condition $\sigma_0$ where the phase of $v$ overlaps with that of $S$, and $S$ is $\sigma_0$-stable, and any $\sigma_0$-semistable object ${\mathcal}{E}$ of Mukai vector $v$, we have that ${\mathcal}{E} \oplus S^{\oplus k}$ is $\sigma_0$-semistable for any $k > 0$. But $(v + ks)^2 = v^2 + 2k(v,s) -2k^2$ so for large enough $k$ there are no semistable objects of Mukai vector $(v + ks)$ for an adjacent generic stability condition. Compare this with the quiver variety case where the map is not in general surjective.
Bayer-Macrì description of MMP
------------------------------
In addition to the projectivity of the moduli spaces, Bayer and Macrì give an comprehensive description of the birational geometry of the same moduli spaces[@bayer2014mmp] based on the analytic map for a chamber ${\mathcal}{C}\subset \operatorname{Stab}^\dagger(S)$ and $\sigma \in {\mathcal}{C}$ $$\label{eq:lmap}\begin{split}
\ell : {\mathcal}{C} &\to \operatorname{NS}(M_\sigma(v))\\
\sigma' &\mapsto \ell_{\sigma'}\end{split}$$ sending a stability condition in the chamber to the corresponding line bundle from . The following description follows very closely [@bayer2014mmp; @bayer2014projectivity], with the modification described in Remark \[rmk:no\_bounce\]. These results relate this description of cones with its wall and chamber structure to the wall and chamber structure of $\operatorname{Stab}^\dagger(S)$ via the map .
\[thm:bm\_mmp\] Fix a generic basepoint $\sigma \in \operatorname{Stab}^\dagger(S)$ and $v\in H^*_{alg}(S, {\mathbb{Z}})$ primitive with $v^2 > 0$.
(i) Given $\tau \in \operatorname{Stab}^\dagger(S)$ generic there is a birational transformation $M_\tau(v) \simeq M_\sigma(v)$. These birational transformations can be chosen so that if we identify $H^2(M_{\tau}(v), {\mathbb{Z}})$ for different $\tau$ using these birational transformations, the maps $\ell: {\mathcal}{C} \to \operatorname{NS}(M_\sigma(v))$ for different chambers ${\mathcal}{C}$ glue to give an analytic map $$\label{eq:lstab}
\ell : \operatorname{Stab}^\dagger(S) \to \operatorname{NS}(M_\sigma(v)).$$
(ii) The image of $\ell$ is the positive cone $\operatorname{Pos}(M_\sigma(v))$ in $\operatorname{NS}(M_\sigma(v))$.
(iii) The map $\ell$ is compatible with the decomposition of $\operatorname{Pos}(M_\sigma(v))$ where $\operatorname{Pos}(M_\sigma(v))$ if first decomposed into chambers for the group $W_{Exc}$ from Proposition \[prop:markman\_refl\] and each chamber is then decomposed into (the Weyl reflection of) the decomposition of the moveable cone. The image $\ell(\sigma')$ of a generic stability condition $\sigma'$ corresponds to the birational model $M_{\sigma'}(v)$.
(iv) The image of a chamber ${\mathcal}{C}$ is exactly the ample cone $\operatorname{Amp}(M_{{\mathcal}{C}}(v))$ of the corresponding birational model.
\[rmk:no\_bounce\] Our convention for the map $\ell: {\mathcal}{C}\to \operatorname{NS}(M_\sigma(v))$ differs slightly from the one in Thm. 1.1, Thm. 1.2 in [@bayer2014mmp], which we will denote $\ell_{BM}$. The key differences are
- The image of $\ell$ is the entire positive cone. The image of $\ell_{BM}$ is the cone $\operatorname{Mov}(S) \cap \operatorname{Pos}(S)$ of big movable divisors.
- This $\ell$ is analytic, while $\ell_{BM}$ is continuous and *piecewise* analytic.
- When the image of $\ell_{BM}$ hits the wall of the movable cone, it bounces back into $\operatorname{Mov}(S)$ while $\ell$ continues across the wall.
Lemma 10.1 from [@bayer2014mmp] relates the two descriptions, since if two chambers ${\mathcal}{C}, {\mathcal}{C}'\subset \operatorname{Stab}^\dagger(S)$ are separated by a wall inducing a contraction of the divisor $D$ then $\ell_{BM}$ restricted to ${\mathcal}{C}$ and ${\mathcal}{C'}$ are analytic continuations of each other after the Markman reflection $\rho_D$.
The map $\ell_{BM}$ is more natural for the purposes of the minimal model program where it is desirable to identify a complete set $\{M_i\}$ of minimal models of a variety $M$. On the other hand, $\ell$ is useful for the present application in geometric representation theory where the action on cohomology induced by a birational transformation is of central importance, even if the two varieties are isomorphic.
We will also need an explicit formulation of the map sending a stability condition to an element of $\operatorname{NS}(M_\sigma(v))$, which involves writing out explicitly.
\[prop:explicit\_stab\_to\_pos\] Let $v = (r, c, s)$ be a primitive Mukai vector with $v^2 \ge -2$ and fix a generic basepoint $\sigma\in \operatorname{Stab}^\dagger(S)$. The map $\ell$ of restricted to the set $V(S)$ of sends a stability condition $\sigma_{\beta, \omega} \in {\mathcal}{V}(S)$ with central charge $Z(-) = (e^{\beta + \omega}, -)$ to $\ell(\sigma_{\beta, \omega})$ which is a real positive multiple of $\theta_v((r_{\beta, \omega}, C_{\beta, \omega}, s_{\beta, \omega}))$ where $$\begin{aligned}
r_{\omega, \beta} &= c\cdot \omega - r\beta\cdot \omega\\
C_{\omega, \beta} &= (c\cdot \omega - r\beta \cdot\omega)\beta + \left(s - c\cdot \beta + r \frac{\beta^2 - \omega^2}{2}\right)\omega\\
s_{\omega, \beta} &= c\cdot \omega\frac{\beta^2 - \omega^2}{2} + s\beta\cdot \omega - (c\cdot \omega)(\beta\cdot \omega).
\end{aligned}$$
They also provide a description of relevant cones in $\overline{\operatorname{Pos}}(M)$. We use implicitly the duality between curves and divisor classes induced by the Beauville-Bogomolov form.
\[thm:bm\_cones\] Let $v, \sigma$ be as in Theorem \[thm:bm\_mmp\]. Let $M := M_\sigma(v)$.
(i) The nef cone $\operatorname{Nef}(M)\subset \overline{\operatorname{Pos}}(M)$ is cut out by linear subspaces $$\{\theta_v(v^\perp \cap \alpha^\perp) \mid \alpha \in H_{alg}^*(S, {\mathbb{Z}}), ~\alpha^2 \ge -2,~ 0\le (v, \alpha) \le \frac{v^2}{2}\}.$$
(ii) Dually, the cone of curves $\operatorname{NE}_{\mathbb{R}}(M)$ is generated by positive curves (i.e. $C$ such that $(C, C) > 0$ and $(C.A) > 0$ for fixed ample class $A$) and classes $$\{\theta(a) \mid \alpha \in H_{alg}^*(S, {\mathbb{Z}}), ~a^2 \ge -2, ~ |(v, a)| \le v^2/2, ~ (\theta(a), A) > 0\}$$
(iii) The movable cone $\operatorname{Mov}(M)\subset \overline{\operatorname{Pos}}(M)$ is cut out by linear subspaces $$\{\theta_v(v^\perp \cap s^\perp) \mid s\in v^\perp \text{ spherical}\}$$ and subspaces $$\{\theta(v^\perp \cap w^\perp) \mid w \in H_{alg}^*(S, {\mathbb{Z}}), w^2 = 0, ~ 1\le (w, v) \le 2\}$$
(iv) The effective cone ${\operatorname}{Eff}(M)$ is generated by $\overline{\operatorname{Pos}}(M)$ and the exceptional divisors $$\{D := \theta(s)\mid s\in v^\perp, ~s\text{ spherical}, ~ (D, A) > 0\}$$ and $$\{D := \theta(v^2 \cdot w - (v, w) \cdot v) \mid w \in H_{alg}^*(S, {\mathbb{Z}}), ~ w^2 = 0, ~ 1\le (w, v) \le 2, (D, A) > 0\}.$$
Not all of the classes described form extremal rays or walls of the corresponding cones.
Local structure of singularities via Ext-quivers {#sec:local_k3_ext_quiver}
------------------------------------------------
A key tool in the study of singularities of moduli spaces of sheaves is the local analytic description of singularities in terms of ${\operatorname{Ext}}$ quivers [@kaledin2007local; @arbarello2018singularities; @toda2018moduli].
It will turn out that the situation described in this paper is a certain negative result to a certain conjecture that chambers in $\operatorname{Stab}^\dagger(S)$ around a specific $\sigma_0$ correspond 1-1 with chambers in the stability space for an Ext-quiver of a polystable object so that the resolution for $M_\sigma(v)$ is locally around this point given by the resolution of the corresponding Ext quiver. It will turn out instead of matching chambers in $\operatorname{Stab}^\dagger(S)$ adjacent to a given $\sigma_0$ with chambers in the space $\operatorname{Stab}^\dagger(S)$ is a certain resolution of the stability space of the corresponding local affine ADE quiver (c.f. Section \[sec:k3\_stability\_conditions\_corner\]) where the map $\ell: \operatorname{Stab}^\dagger(S) \to \operatorname{NS}(M_{\sigma}(v))$ acts as the resoluton. There will, however, for the stability conditions under consideration, be a 1-1 correspondence between chambers in $\operatorname{Pos}(M_\sigma(v))$ around a given point and chambers for the corresponding quiver variety giving a local description of the singularity.
Thus instead of using a general argument that says the local structure of moduli space around a polystable object is described by its Ext-quiver, this paper uses a more brute-force technique (c.f. Section \[sec:local\_analytic\_brute\_force\]) to describe the local analytic structure of singularities for the case of Mukai vectors corresponding to rank 1 torsion free sheaves. We will however state and use results about Lie algebra actions which hold when we do have a description of a singularity around a polystable object as an Ext quiver.
A key property to understand completely the local singularity of a moduli space of sheaves or of complexes at a sheaf $F$ is formality which is only known in some cases [@arbarello2018singularities; @budur2019formality].
\[defn:formality\]
A DG-algebra $A$ is *formal* if there is a quasi-isomorphism $$A\simeq H^*(A)$$ where $H^*(A)$ is the cohomology complex of $A$ taken with $0$ differentials.
A sheaf or object $F\in D^b(S)$ satisfies the *formality condition* if $R{\operatorname{Hom}}(F, F)$ is formal, i.e. $R{\operatorname{Hom}}(F, F)\simeq {\operatorname{Ext}}^*(F,F)$.
The following definition extends Definition \[defn:ext\_quiver\_quiv\] to the present context of objects in the derived category.
\[defn:ext\_quiver\_object\] Let $\sigma$ be a Bridgeland stability condition on $S$ and let $F = \bigoplus_{i = 1}^s F_i ^{\oplus n_i}$ be a polystable object where the $F_i$ are pairwise distinct $\sigma$-stable objects. The ${\operatorname{Ext}}$-quiver $Q(F)$ has vertices labelled by $I = \{1, \ldots, s\}$, one for each stable factor of $F$, and the number of edges between vertices $i$ and $j$ is $$\begin{cases}
\operatorname{ext}^1(F_i, F_i)/ 2 & i = j\\
\operatorname{ext}^1(F_i, F_j) & i \neq j
\end{cases}$$ and given a stability parameter $\theta$ the corresponding quiver variety is denoted $${\mathfrak}{M}_\theta(F) := {\mathfrak}{M}_\theta(\mathbf{n}, 0).$$
In this situation $\operatorname{Rep}_{\overline{Q(F)}}(\mathbf{n}, 0)\simeq {\operatorname{Ext}}^1(F, F)$ and ${\mathfrak}{g}(\mathbf{n})^* \simeq {\operatorname{Ext}}^2(F,F)$ such that the moment map is given by the Yoneda product $e\mapsto e\cup e$, which is also the quadratic part of the *Kuranishi map* governing obstructions to deformations.
These definitions allows us to state the key result on the local description of singularities in the case of sheaves.
Let $H_0$ be a polarization of $S$ and $F = \bigoplus_{i = 1}^s F_i ^{\oplus n_i}$ as in Definition \[defn:ext\_quiver\_object\], except with stability taken with respect to $H_0$, with Mukai vector $v$ and Ext-quiver $Q(F)$ such that $F$ satisfies the formality property Definition \[defn:formality\]. Then
(i) There is a local analytic isomorphism $$\psi: ({\mathfrak}{M}_0(F), 0) \simeq (M_{H_0}(v), [F]).$$
(ii) Given a chamber $C\subset \operatorname{Amp}(S)$ there is a chamber $D$ of stability parameters for $\operatorname{Rep}_{\overline{Q(F)}}(\mathbf{n}, 0)$, for every $H\in C$ and $\theta \in D$ the natural maps $$\xi: {\mathfrak}{M}_\theta(F) \to {\mathfrak}{M}_0(F) ~\text{ and } ~ h: M_H(v) \to M_{H_0}(v)$$ coincide over neighborhoods of $0$ and $[F]$ as long as $h$ is regular over $[F]$.
(iii) The correspondence between chambers $D$ and $C$ is given by the assignment $H \mapsto \theta = (\theta_1, \ldots, \theta_s)$ where $$\theta_i = c_1(F_i) \cdot ( H - H_0)$$ as long as $h$ is regular over $[F]$.
Stability conditions and birational geometry for specific K3s {#sec:stabk3_specific}
=============================================================
We now restrict to the case of a K3 surface $S$ such that ${\overline}{\operatorname{NE}}(S)$ is the cone spanned irreducible $-2$ curves, and any pair of these either don’t intersect or intersect transversely at a single point.
Thus $\operatorname{Nef}(S)$ is a locally polyhedral cone in $\operatorname{NS}(S)_{\mathbb{R}}\simeq {\mathbb{R}}^{1, \rho(S) -1}$, and $\operatorname{Nef}(S)\cap {\mathcal}{C}_+$ is a fundamental domain for the action of $W_S$ on $C_+$. Consider the wall and chamber structure on $C_+$ induced by all $-2$ classes, and let a face denote a face of any dimension of this decomposition. Let $W_1, W_2$ be two distinct walls of this cone. Then the dihedral angle between $W_1$ and $W_2$ is $\pi/2$ or $\pi/3$. If we consider a big and nef divisor on the boundary of $\operatorname{Nef}(S)$ it induces a contraction of the $-2$ curves corresponding to the walls it lies on. Thus faces of the nef cone correspond to contractions of some disjoint set of ADE systems of -2 curves, and locally near a big and nef divisor $\ell$ the wall and chamber decomposition corresponds to the product of a Euclidean space and the wall and chamber structure around 0 induced by a finite ADE root system.
We are interested in not just the wall and chamber decomposition for $S$ but also for $S^{[n]}$ given by Theorem \[thm:bm\_cones\]. The Hilbert scheme we view as parametrizing ideal sheaves, so the Mukai vector of $S^{[n]}$ is $(1,0, 1-n)$. We know the Mukai homomorphism says that for $n > 1$, the Neron Severi group of $S^{[n]}$ is the orthogonal direct sum $$\label{eq:ns_direct_sum}
\operatorname{NS}(S^{[n]}) = \theta((1,0,1-n)^\perp) \simeq H^2(S, {\mathbb{Z}}) \oplus {\mathbb{Z}}|2, 1^{n-2}\rangle$$ where $|2, 1^{n-2}\rangle = \theta((-1,0,1-n))$ (c.f. ) is the locus of a moving double point, and is $2|2,1^{n-2}\rangle$ is the exceptional divisor of the Hilbert-Chow contraction.
There is an interesting sign involved in the Mukai homomorphism on $H^2(S, {\mathbb{Z}})$ so that if $H$ is ample on $S$ then $\theta((0,-H,0))$ is big and nef in $\operatorname{NS}(S^{[n]})$, rather than $\theta((0,H,0))$. This $\theta((0,-H,0))$ induces the Hilbert-Chow map and gives an ample bundle on $Sym^n(S)$. For this reason, given a class $\alpha\in H^2(S, {\mathbb{Z}})$ we define $$\label{eq:tilde_sign}
{\widetilde}{\alpha} := \theta((0,-\alpha, 0))$$ so that ${\widetilde}{H}$ is big and nef for $H$ ample.
Walls near $Sym^n(S)$
---------------------
We use Theorem \[thm:bm\_mmp\] in the present case to find all walls nearby the locus of movable divisors on $S^{[n]}$ corresponding to $Sym^n(S)$. In particular, given $H\in \operatorname{Amp}(S)$, there is an $\epsilon > 0$ so that ${\widetilde}H - \epsilon |2, 1^{n-2}\rangle \in \operatorname{Amp}_{\mathbb{R}}(S^{[n]})$. Thus $\theta(-\operatorname{Nef}(S))\subset |2, 1^{n-2}\rangle^\perp$ forms a maximal dimensional face of the cone $\operatorname{Nef}(S^{[n]})$, corresponding to big and nef divisors inducing the Hilbert-Chow map. We investigate birational chambers in a short cylinder over this face. Denote the Hilbert-Chow wall $W_{HC} := |2, 1^{n-2}\rangle^\perp$, and call this face $\operatorname{Nef}(S^{[n]}) \cap W_{HC} \cap \operatorname{Pos}(S^{[n]})$ the $Sym^n (S)$ face of the Nef cone. Also denote this face $F_{Sym}$. See the figures in Section \[sec:figures\] for an example.
This subsection leads to Proposition \[prop:stab\_corner\_arranged\] which says that around a point n the boundary of this face, the walls are arranged according to a set of roots in an affine root system.
Let $W$ be a wall of $\operatorname{Mov}(S^{[n]})$ corresponding to a divisorial contraction intersecting $W_{HC}\cap \operatorname{Pos}(S^{[n]})$. Then $W = {\widetilde}{\alpha}^\perp$ for $\alpha\in H^2(S, {\mathbb{Z}})$ an irreducible -2 curve. In particular $W$ meets $W_{HC}$ perpendicularly.
Recall from Theorem \[thm:bm\_cones\] that the wall and chamber structure on $\operatorname{Pos}(S^{[n]})$ cutting out the movable cone is given by walls in $\{\theta_v(v^\perp \cap s^\perp) \mid s\in v^\perp \text{ spherical}\} \cup \{\theta(v^\perp \cap w^\perp) \mid w \in H_{alg}^*(S, {\mathbb{Z}}), w^2 = 0, ~ 1\le (w, v) \le 2\}$ where $v = (1,0,1-n)$ is the Mukai vector. Suppose that one of these walls is $W = \theta_v(v^\perp \cap a^\perp)$ and $W$ meets $W_{HC}$. Then there is a positive class $H\in H^2(S, {\mathbb{Z}})$ with $(a, H) = 0$. Suppose we are in the first case with $a$ spherical and $a\in (1,0,1-n)^\perp$. Then $\theta(a) = {\widetilde}{a_S} + c|2, 1^{n-1}\rangle$ with $a_S \in H^2(S, {\mathbb{Z}})$ and $(a_S , H) = 0$. Thus $a_S^2 < 0$ or $a_S = 0$. But $a_S = 0$ is excluded since $a^2 = -2$. Also $$-2 = a^2 = a_S^2 + c^2(-1,0,1-n)^2 = a_S^2 + c^2(2-2n).$$ Since $ n >1$ we have $c = 0$ and $\theta(a) = {\widetilde}{a_S}$ as desired.
Now suppose $W = \theta_v(v^\perp \cap a^\perp)$ with $a^2 = 0$ and $1\le (a,v) \le 2$. Write $a = (c_1, a_s, c_2)$ with $(a_s, H) = 0$ as before, so $a_s^2 < 0$ or $a_s = 0$. Again $a_s = 0$ is excluded or we just get the Hilbert-Chow wall. Then $a^2 = 0$ implies $c_1c_2 < 0$. But then the condition $1 \le (a, (1,0,1-n)) \le 2$ becomes $$1 \le c_1(n-1) - c_2 \le 2$$ and the only solution which doesn’t give the Hilbert-Chow wall is $ n = 2, c1 = 1, c2 = -1$ so $a = v + a_s$, which is equivalent to the previous case with $\theta(a) = {\widetilde}{a_s}$.
Also, given $H$ big and every ${\widetilde}{H} - \epsilon|2, 1^{n-2}\rangle$ is NEF for small enough $\epsilon>0$ so there are no flopping walls intersecting $W_{HC}\cap \operatorname{Nef}(S^{[n]})$ except at the place where divisorial walls intersect, and by Weyl group symmetry, no flopping walls intersecting $W_{HC}$ at all except where divisorial walls intersect $W_{HC}$. Thus the wall and chamber structure on $W_{HC}$ induced by the other walls in $\operatorname{Pos}(S^{[n]})$ coincides exactly with the wall and chamber structure on $\operatorname{Pos}(S)$ controlling the birational geometry of $S$.
The only ingredient left to describe all of the birational geometry nearby the $Sym^n S$ face is to collect flopping walls which intersect $W_{HC}$ at the intersection $W_{HC}\cap {\widetilde}{a}^{\perp}$ for $a \in H^2(S, {\mathbb{Z}})$ spherical.
\[def:arranged\_hyperplanes\] Consider a collection of hyperplanes ${\mathcal}{H}$ defining a wall and chamber structure on some cone $C$. Let $x$ be a point in the intersection $\cap_{H\in {\mathcal}{H}} H \cap C$. We say that the collection ${\mathcal}{H}$ is *arranged according to the root system $\Delta$* at $x$ if there is a affine subspace $H'$ of the vector space generated by $C$ with $x \in H'$ such that
- tangent vectors to $x$ parallel to $H'$ or $H\in {\mathcal}{H}$ together span $T_x C$,
- $H \perp H'$ for all $H\in {\mathcal}{H}$, in the sense that if $v \in T_x H, v\not\in T_x H', w\in T_x H', w\not \in T_x H$ then $v\cdot w = 0$.
- and the polyhedral decomposition in a neighborhood of $x \in H'$ induced by the hyperplanes $H'\cap H$ for $H \in {\mathcal}{H}$ coincides with the polyhedral decomposition induced by $\Delta$ in a neighborhood around $0$ in the ambient space of $\Delta$.
More generally, given a collection of roots $\Delta_0 \subset \Delta$ we say that a hyperplanes are *arranged according to the roots $\Delta_0$* at $x$ if the same condition holds but we only consider the walls $\alpha^\perp$ for $\alpha \in \Delta_0$ for the wall and chamber structure on the ambient space of $\Delta$.
\[eg:associated\_GIT\] Consider the GIT stability space ${\mathbb{R}}^I$ for $X_\Gamma^{[n]}$, with walls ${\mathcal}{W}$. Let $\Delta$ be the root system for the affine Kac-Moody algebra associated to the quiver, $\Delta_f$ the associated finite root system. Then Theorem \[thm:birat\_sym\] says that the walls ${\mathcal}{W}\subset {\mathbb{R}}^I$ are arranged according to to the roots $$\{\delta, m \delta + \alpha \mid \alpha \in \Delta_f ,0 \le m < n \} \subset \Delta$$ near the point $0\in {\mathbb{R}}^I$.
Now consider the wall and chamber structure on $\operatorname{Pos}(S)$ induced by $-2$ classes. Around a point $x \in \partial (\operatorname{Nef}(S)) \cap \operatorname{Pos}(S)$ there is a unique root system $\Delta$ so that the hyperplanes in $\{s^\perp \mid s\in H^2(S, {\mathbb{Z}}), s^2 = -2 \}$ meeting $x$ are arranged according to $\Delta$. Using the isomoprhism $\partial (\operatorname{Nef}(S)) \cap \operatorname{Pos}(S)\simeq \partial F_{Sym}$ between this boundary and the boundary of the $Sym^n(S)$ face We upgrade this to a map $$\label{eq:delta_of_x}
\Delta : \partial F_{Sym} \to D$$ where $D$ is the set of finite root systems whose irreducible factors are of type ADE. This map factors through the map (seen in the cone $\operatorname{Pos}(S)$) $${\operatorname}{Exc} : \partial (\operatorname{Nef}(S)) \cap \operatorname{Pos}(S) \to 2^{\mathcal}{C}$$ sending a big and nef divisor to its exceptional locus, where ${\mathcal}{C}$ is the set of exceptional curves in $S$ and $2^{{\mathcal}{C}}$ is its power set. Thus $\Delta(H)$ describes the root system associated to the (possibly disconnected) Dynkin diagram formed as the intersection graph of ${\operatorname}{Exc}(H)$. Let $S_{H}$ denote the blown-down surface associated to $H$. Seen as an element of $\operatorname{Pos}(S^{[n]})$, we have that $\theta(H)$ is the big and nef divisor inducing the contraction $S^{[n]} \to Sym^n(S_H)$.
#### Flopping walls through a point
Consider a point $x\in \partial F_{Sym}$, we investigate the walls which pass through this point.
To this end, let ${\mathcal}{W}$ be the set of walls intersecting $F_{Sym}$ and ${\mathcal}{W}_x\subset {\mathcal}{W}$ those walls which intersect the point $x$. Consider $\Delta(x)$ from the root system associated to $x$. Let $W$ be one of these walls, distinct from $W_{HC}$. We know that $W$ intersects $W_{HC}$ in one of the walls of $\operatorname{Pos}(S)$ under the isomorphism $\operatorname{Pos}(S) \simeq W_{HC}$, so let $\alpha_x(W)$ be the root in $\Delta(x)$ associated to the wall $W$.
The wall $W$ intersects $W_{HC}$ in the locus ${\widetilde}{s}^\perp \cap W_{HC}$ for $s \in H^2(S, {\mathbb{Z}})$ a -2 class on the surface itself, but the walls ${\widetilde}{s}^\perp$ are orthogonal to $W_{HC}$ while the flopping walls are not necessarily. The following lemma writes down the implication of Theorem \[thm:bm\_cones\] in this situation.
\[lem:walls\] The walls in ${\mathcal}{W}_x$, i.e. those that intersect $x$ are given by $$\{ W_{HC}, \theta_v(v^\perp \cap (0, s, m)^\perp) \mid s\in H^2(S, {\mathbb{Z}}), s^2 = -2, 0 \le m < n \}.$$
Recall from \[thm:bm\_cones\] that the walls of $\operatorname{Nef}(S^{[n]})$ are contained in $$\{\theta_v(v^\perp \cap \alpha^\perp) \mid \alpha \in H_{alg}^*(S, {\mathbb{Z}}), ~\alpha^2 \ge -2,~ 0\le (v, \alpha) \le \frac{v^2}{2}\}.$$ Let ${\widetilde}{H} = x$ for a big and nef divisor $H$ on $S$. So if $\theta_v(v^\perp\cap \alpha^\perp)$ is a wall of $\operatorname{Nef}(S^{[n]})$ passing through $x$, and $$\alpha = (c_1, a_s, c_2)$$ then $a_s \cdot H = 0$. Therefore either $a_s = 0$ (in which case we have the Hilbert-Chow wall as before) or up to an inconsequential sign, $a_s$ is the class of some subset of ${\operatorname}{Exc}(x)$. In particular, $a_s^2 = -2$. The condition $\alpha^2 \ge -2$ reads $c_1c_2 \le 0$ and the condition $0 \le (\alpha, v) \le v^2/2$, since $v^2/2 = n-1$, reads $$0 \le c_1(n-1) - c_2 \le n-1$$ so $c_1 \in \{ 0, 1\}$ and $c_1 = 1 \implies c_2 = 0$. The other case is $c_1 = 0, c_2 \in \{0,-1, \ldots, 1-n\}$. The case $\alpha = (1, a_s, 0)$ is equivalent to $v- \alpha = (0, -a_s, 1-n)$ so we can assume $c_1 = 0$, and we are left with exactly the proposed list.
It should now be clear that we have the following local-to-global type correspondence between chambers for $S^{[n]}$ near the big nef divisor $x = {\widetilde}{H}$ corresponding to $Sym^n(S_H)$ for the symmetric power of the blowndown surface, and GIT chambers for quiver varieties ${{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta}({{\mathbf}{v}}, {{\mathbf}{w}})}$ for relevant quiver varieties.
\[prop:stab\_corner\_arranged\] Let $x\in \partial F_{Sym}$ be a point on the boundary of the $Sym^n$ face such that ${\operatorname}{Exc}(x)$ is a connected ADE collection of -2 curves. Pick a small open set $x\in U \subset \operatorname{Pos}(S^{[n]})$ so that any wall $W$ intersecting $U$ passes through $x$. Consider the walls $${\mathcal}{W}_{Q, {\mathbf}{v}, {\mathbf}{w}} = \{ \delta^\perp, (m\delta + \alpha)^\perp \mid 0 \le m < n, \alpha \in \Delta_f\}$$ in the GIT stability space for the quiver $Q$ of affine ADE type, ${\mathbf}{v} = n\delta, w = {\mathbf}{w_0}$ where $\Delta_f$ is the corresponding finite root system. Then
(i) there is a 1-1 correspondence between faces in the polyhedral decomposition of $U$ with respect to the walls ${\mathcal}{W}_x$ and ${\mathbb{R}}^{I}$ with respect to ${\mathcal}{W}_{Q, {\mathbf}{v}, {\mathbf}{w}}$ sending the closed point $x$ to $0$
(ii) This correspondence preserves the relation $F' \le F \Leftrightarrow F' \subset {\overline}{F}$.
Theorem \[thm:birat\_sym\] says the wall and chamber decomposition of ${\mathbb{R}}^I$ is arranged according to some roots $\Delta_0$ in a root system $\Delta$, and Lemma \[lem:walls\] says the wall and chamber structure around $x$ is arranged according to the same roots.
Stability conditions {#sec:k3_stability_conditions_corner}
--------------------
We describe specific Bridgeland stability conditions $\sigma\in \operatorname{Stab}^\dagger(S)$ which produce birational models $M_\sigma((1,0,1-n))$ for $S^{[n]}$ corresponding to chambers described previously.
Our stability conditions will generally lie near a certain limit where the central charge $Z_{\beta, \omega}(-) = (e^{\beta+ i\omega}, -)$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\omega^2 &\gg 0 \label{eq:stab_limit_lv} \\
|\beta \cdot \omega | &< \lambda \label{eq:stab_limit_bdd_hc} \\
0 \lneq C \cdot \omega &< \frac{\kappa}{\omega^2} \label{eq:stab_limit_small_exc}\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda, \kappa$ are positive constants and $C$ lies in some possibly empty family ${\mathcal}C$ of $-2$ curves on the surface. We also consider limits where the first inequality in is allowed to become an equality.
From a metric perspective, the first condition corresponds to the “large volume limit” of both the K3 surface $S$ and also the birational model of $S^{[n]}$, while the second condition implies in particular that the volume in (the birational model of) $S^{[n]}$ of the (strict transform of the) exceptional locus of the Hilbert-Chow map is small compared to the volume of the moduli space, so that we are near a contraction of this locus. The third condition implies that the volume of the -2 curves in ${\mathcal}{C}$ are extremely small in $S$ so that we are close to contracting them to a blowndown surface $S_{bd}$, and also close to contracting the moduli space to $Sym^n(S_{bd})$.
As we vary the collection ${\mathcal}{C}$ we vary which which curves are allowed and required to contract by imposing that $C' \cdot \omega$ remains bounded below for $C'\not \in {\mathcal}{C}$. Note that by Proposition \[prop:bridge\_is\_twist\], if ${\mathcal}{C}$ is empty then we therefore remain in the Gieseker chamber and are unable to hit walls which induce birational contractions. We will also impose an additional numerical condition which essentially states that $\omega$ does not lie too close to the boundary of $\operatorname{Pos}(S)$. Thus fixing ${\mathcal}{C}$ makes it so that only a fixed contractible collection of curves is relevant to how $\sigma$-stability differs from Gieseker stability.
We record some useful calculations of central charges and slopes:
$v(-)$ ${\operatorname{re}}(Z_{\beta,\omega}(-))$ ${\operatorname{im}}(Z_{\beta, \omega}(-))$
---------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
$k(x)$ $(0,0,1)$ $-1$ $0$
${\mathcal}{O}_C(k)$ $(0,C,1+k)$ $C\cdot \beta - 1 -k$ $C\cdot \omega$
${\mathcal}{O}_S$ $(1,0,1)$ $-1 +(\omega^2-\beta^2)/2$ $-\beta\cdot \omega$
${\mathcal}{L}$ $(1,c_1,1 + c_1^2/2)$ $-1+(\omega^2-\beta^2)/2 + c_1\cdot \beta - c_1^2/2$ $(c_1 - \beta )\cdot \omega$
${\mathcal}{I}_Y$ $(1,0,1-n)$ $-1 + (\omega^2-\beta^2)/2 +n$ $-\beta\cdot\omega $
${\mathcal}{L}_Y$ $(1,c_1,1 + c_1^2/2 -n)$ $-1+(\omega^2-\beta^2)/2 + c_1\cdot \beta - c_1^2/2+n$ $(c_1 - \beta )\cdot \omega$
: Mukai vectors and real and imaginary parts of central charges with respect to $Z_{\beta, \omega}(-) = (e^{\beta + i \omega}, v(-))$. Here ${\mathcal}{L}_Y$ is a torsion free subsheaf of the line bundle ${\mathcal}{L}$ with first chern class $c_1 = c_1({\mathcal}{L})$ and with quotient $Y$ of finite length $n$.\[tbl:slopes\_z\]
#### Precise limit stability space
We give a precise version of our stability limit and describe the structure of the space near this limit, e.g. there are gaps in the space $\operatorname{Stab}^\dagger(S)$ near our limit corresponding to $Z_{\beta, \omega}(\delta) = 0$ for classes $\delta$ with $\delta^2 = -2$. Also the relevant region of $\operatorname{Stab}^\dagger(S)$ will actually depends on the specific chern characters we are considering, i.e. we may need to choose different constants for larger values of $n$ in $S^{[n]}$.
For a collection ${\mathcal}{C}$ of $-2$ curves and real numbers $N, \xi, V > 0$ define the set $$U_{{\mathcal}{C}, N, \xi, V}\subset \{(\omega, \beta) \mid \beta, \omega \in \operatorname{NS}(S)\otimes {\mathbb{R}}, ~ \omega^2 > 0\}\label{eq:Ulimit}$$ consisting of pairs $(\omega, \beta)$ such that $\omega$ is nef and $$\begin{aligned}
|C\cdot \beta|&< N & |\beta^2| &< N &-N < \beta\cdot \omega &\le 0 \\
\omega^2 &> V & |\omega \cdot q| &> \xi & |\omega\cdot \alpha| &> \xi\\
&& 0 \le C\cdot \omega &< \frac{N}{\omega^2} & &\end{aligned}$$ for every $C\in {\mathcal}{C}$, every $-2$ class $\alpha\in H_2(S, {\mathbb{Z}})$ not in ${\mathcal}{C}$ and every non-zero isotropic class $q\in H_2(S, {\mathbb{Z}})$. Denote this set simply $U_{{\mathcal}{C}}$ if we are allowed to take $V$ as large as desired and there is no confusion.
\[lem:stab\_limit\_gaps\] Fix some contractible collection ${\mathcal}{C}$ of $-2$ curves on $S$. Given $N>0$ and $\xi> 0$ there is a $V>0$ such that if $(\omega, \beta)$ is in $U_{{\mathcal}{C}} = U_{{\mathcal}{C}, N, \xi, V}$ then
(i) $e^{\beta + i\omega} \in {\mathcal}{P}_0^+(S)$ where ${\mathcal}{P}_0^+(S)$ is defined in (i.e. $Z_{\beta, \omega}$ is the central charge for some stability condition $\sigma \in \operatorname{Stab}^\dagger(S)$) if and only if there is no $-2$ class $C = C_1 + \ldots C_k$ with each $C_i\in {\mathcal}{C}$ and $$\omega\cdot C = 0 \text{ and } \beta \cdot C = m$$ for some $m \in {\mathbb{Z}}$.
(ii) If $e^{\beta + i\omega} \in {\mathcal}{P}_0^+(S)$ then $e^{\beta + i\omega} \in \overline{{\mathcal}{L}(S)}$ with ${\mathcal}{L}(S)$ from .
(iii) We have $e^{\beta + i\omega}\in {\mathcal}{L}(S)$ if and only if $\omega$ is ample.
This is a standard argument [@bridgeland2008stability; @bayer2014projectivity]. For the forward direction of (i), if there is such a $C$ then $Z_{\beta, \omega}((0,C, \ell))) = 0$ for some $\ell$. To prove the other direction, assume there is a class $\delta = (r, D, s)$ with $\delta^2 = D^2 -2 rs = -2$ and $(e^{\beta + i \omega}, \delta) = 0$. Assume $r \ge 0$ without loss of generality. If $r = 0$ then our Mukai vector is $\delta = (0,C, \ell)$ and we are done. Thus $r> 0$. Since ${\operatorname{im}}(Z(\delta)) = (D - r\beta)\cdot \omega = 0$ i.e. $(D- r\beta)\in \omega^\perp$ which is a negative definite subspace (here we use the condition involving isotropic classes). Write $D = A + r\beta$ for $A \in \omega^\perp$. Then we can calculate $$s = \frac{D^2 + 2}{2r}$$ so $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{re}}Z(\delta)) &= -r \left(\frac{\beta^2 - \omega^2}{2}\right) + D\cdot \beta - s\\
&= -r\left(\frac{\beta^2 - \omega^2}{2}\right) + (A + r\beta)\cdot \beta - \frac{(A+ r\beta)^2 + 2}{2r}\end{aligned}$$ which has no solutions $A$ for large enough $\omega^2$ and other coefficients bounded since the pairing restricted to $\omega^\perp$ is negative definite. To see (iii) note that the previous calculation is exactly the remaining condition for membership in ${\mathcal}{L}(S)$ beyond $\omega$ ample, and (ii) follows from finding and ample class $\omega'$ arbitrarily close to a given nef $\omega$.
- Not all of the conditions on the set $U_{{\mathcal}{C}}$ are necessary for the lemma.
- When the class $\omega$ tends to a class on the boundary of the ample cone, the stability condition $\sigma$ tends to $\partial U(S)$. If we hit a point such that $e^{\beta + i\omega}$ still lies in ${\mathcal}{P}_0^+(S)$ then $\sigma$ lies on the intersection of walls of type $(C_{i, k_i})$ from where $C_i$ ranges over curves with $C_i \cdot \omega = 0$ and the integer $k_i$ is determined by the value of $\beta\cdot C_i$, namely it satisfies $$k_i < \beta\cdot C_i < k_i + 1.$$ The loci where $C_i \cdot \beta\in {\mathbb{Z}}$ are not in ${\mathcal}{P}_0^+(S)$ and are therefore do not correspond to Bridgeland stability conditions.
We now describe the walls which induce birational contractions for moduli spaces $M_\sigma((1,0,1-n))$ for $\sigma$ near this limit. Given Mukai vectors $v,w$ let $W_{v, w} \subset \overline{{\mathcal}{L}(S)}$ be the locus of $(\beta, \omega)$ such that $Z_{\beta, \omega}(v)$ and $Z_{\beta, \omega}(w)$ are real positive multiples of each other, so that the phases $\phi({\mathcal}{E})$ and $\phi({\mathcal}{E'})$ of objects with mukai vectors $v$ and $w$ are potentially allowed to overlap in a corresponding stability condition.
Thus in the specific case of $v = (1,0,1-n)$ and $w = (0, C, k)$ we can use Table \[tbl:slopes\_z\] and find that $$\label{eq:wall_vcrv}
W_{v, w} = \{ (\beta, \omega)\in \overline{{\mathcal}{L}}(S) \mid (C\cdot \beta -k)(-\beta\cdot \omega) = (C\cdot \omega)((\omega^2 - \beta^2)/2 + n -1) \}.$$
Recall the set $V(S)\subset \operatorname{Stab}^\dagger(S)$ from mapping homeomorphically onto ${\mathcal}{L}(S)$ by ${\mathcal}{Z}$ defined in Theorem \[thm:bridgeland\_cmp\]. Fix some $n$ and let $N> 2n$, $\xi> 0$ and ${\mathcal}{C}$ a contractible collection of $-2$ curves, and take $V$ from Lemma \[lem:stab\_limit\_gaps\], and the space $U_{{\mathcal}{C}}$ of $(\beta, \omega)$ from . Let $v = (1,0,1-n)$. Define the set $$U_{Mov}\subset U_{{\mathcal}{C}}$$ consisting of $(\beta, \omega)$ with $\beta, \omega \in NS(S)_{\mathbb{R}}$ such that
- $(\beta, \omega) \in U_{{\mathcal}{C}}$
- For every $C\in {\mathcal}{C}$, which is an irreducible -2 curve, the point $(\beta, \omega)$ lies on the side of the wall $W_{v,w}$ for $w = (0, C, 0) = v({\mathcal}{O}_C(-1))$ such that in the stability condition $\sigma_{\beta, \omega}\in V(S)$ with ${\mathcal}{Z}(\sigma_{\beta, \omega}) = e^{\beta + i\omega}$ the phases $\phi$ of ${\mathcal}{O}_C(-1)$ and ${\mathcal}{I}_Y$ for $Y$ of finite length $n$ satisfy $$\phi({\mathcal}{O}_C(-1)) \ge \phi({\mathcal}{I}_Y).$$
The next proposition will describe these sets as inverse images of certain sets in $\operatorname{Pos}(S^{[n]})$ under the map $\ell: \operatorname{Stab}^\dagger(S) \to \operatorname{Pos}(S^{[n]})$. To this end, for a contractible collection ${\mathcal}{C}$ let $H_{{\mathcal}{C}}$ denote a big and nef divisor on $S$ inducing a contraction $S_{Bd}$ of $S$ with exceptional locus ${\mathcal}{C}$. Thus ${\widetilde}{H}_{{\mathcal}{C}}\in \operatorname{NS}(S^{[n]})$ is a big movable divisor corresponding to a contraction $ S^{[n]} \to Sym^n(S_{Bd})$.
\[prop:walls\_bstab\_hilb\] Take $n>1$, a contractible collection ${\mathcal}{C}$ of -2 curves on $S$, and Mukai vector $v= (1,0,1-n)$ and sets $U_{Mov}, U_{{\mathcal}{C}}$ as defined above.
- The image of $U_{{\mathcal}{C}}$ under the map $\ell_v$ of consists of divisors $D\in \operatorname{Pos}(S^{[n]})$ such that $D\cdot |2, 1^{n-1}\rangle \ge 0$ and $D$ lies arbitrarily close to the ray spanned by ${\widetilde}{H}_{{\mathcal}{C}}$.
- The image of $U_{Mov}$ under the map $\ell_v$ consists of divisors $D$ satisfying the same conditions and also lying in $\overline{Mov}(S^{[n]})$.
- The walls $W\subset U_{{\mathcal}{C}}$ which are ${\mathcal}{Z}(\sigma)$ for $\sigma\in V(S)$ inducing birational contractions of $M_\sigma(v)$ are the loci $$\{\beta\cdot \omega = 0\}\cap U_{{\mathcal}{C}}$$ and $W_{v,w}\cap U_{{\mathcal}{C}}$ for $$w \in \{ (0,C,k) \mid C\in {\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}{C},~ C^2 = -2,~ k = 0, -1, \ldots, 1-n \}.$$In other words they are $$\{W_{v, w} \cap U_{{\mathcal}{C}} \mid w = v({\mathcal}{O}_S) \text{ or } w = (0, C, k) \}$$ for the same conditions on $C$ and $k$.
- Under the map $\ell_v$, the wall $W_{v,w}\cap U_{{\mathcal}{C}}$ for $w = (0, C, k)$ is sent to the wall $$\theta_v(v^\perp \cap (0, C, k)^\perp)$$ in $\operatorname{Pos}(S^{[n]})$. The wall $\{\beta\cap \omega = 0\}\cap U_{{\mathcal}{C}}$ is sent to the wall $|2, 1^{n-1}\rangle^\perp\cap \operatorname{Nef}(S^{[n]})$ inducing the Hilbert-Chow contraction.
Proposition \[prop:explicit\_stab\_to\_pos\] implies that the class $\ell(\sigma_{\beta, \omega})\in \operatorname{Pos}(S^{[n]})$ corresponding to $\sigma_{\beta, \omega} \in V(S)$ with central charge ${\mathcal}{Z}(\sigma) = e^{\beta + i\omega}$ is a positive multiple $\eta$ of $\theta_v(r_{\omega, \beta}, C_{\omega, \beta}, s_{\omega, \beta})$ with $$\begin{aligned}
r_{\omega, \beta} &= - \beta\cdot \omega\\
C_{\omega, \beta} &= -(\beta \cdot\omega)\beta + \left(1-n + \frac{\beta^2 - \omega^2}{2}\right)\omega\\
s_{\omega, \beta} &= (1-n)\beta\cdot \omega
\end{aligned}$$ or in the notation of and $$\frac 1 \eta \ell(\sigma_{\beta, \omega}) = (\beta\cdot \omega) {\widetilde}{\beta} + \left(\frac{\omega^2 - \beta^2}{2} + n-1\right){\widetilde}{\omega} + \beta\cdot\omega |2, 1^{n-1}\rangle.$$ The fact that we have upper bounds on the sizes all coefficients in this expression except for $\omega^2$, together with the $\beta\cdot\omega \le 0$ condition implies that for large enough $V = \omega^2$ this class is equivalent under rescaling by a positive multiple to one of the form $${\widetilde}{H} -\epsilon |2, 1^{n-1}\rangle$$ for arbitrarily small $\epsilon \ge 0$. The conditions on $\omega\cdot C$ for curves $C\in {\mathcal}{C}$ and $C\notin {\mathcal}{C}$ implies that $H$ can be any class which is arbitrarily close to $H_{{\mathcal}{C}}$, the big and nef divisor on $S$ which contracts ${\mathcal}{C}$. This proves (i). Since $\beta\cdot \omega = 0$ corresponds to $\epsilon = 0$ this proves the last line of (iv).
Recall that the walls passing through the point $x = {\widetilde}{H_{{\mathcal}{C}}}$ are described by Lemma \[lem:walls\] (see also Proposition \[prop:stab\_corner\_arranged\] when the collection ${\mathcal}{C}$ is connected). They are arranged according to the walls $${\mathcal}{W} = \{ \delta^\perp, (m\delta + \alpha)^\perp \mid 0 \le m < n, \alpha \in \Delta_f\}$$ in the root system of the affine lie algebra corresponding to the finite dimensional lie algebra ${\mathfrak}{g}$ with root system $\Delta_f$ where $\Delta_f$ has associated (not necessarily connected) Dynkin diagram corresponding to the Dynkin diagram of the collection ${\mathcal}{C}$. Then those points also in the movable cone coincides with locus of $x$ where $\delta\cdot x \ge 0$, $\alpha_i \cdot x\ge 0$ for $\alpha_i$ simple.
Now consider the dual graph $\Gamma_{\operatorname{Stab}}$ of the chambers in the wall-and-chamber decomposition of $U_{{\mathcal}{C}}$ for the vector $v$, where chambers are adjacent if they share a codimension 1 face. Also consider the dual graph $\Gamma_{\operatorname{Pos}}$ of chambers in $\{ D\in \operatorname{Pos}(S^{[n]})\mid D\cdot |2, 1^{n-1}\rangle \ge 0\}$ adjacent to the point $x = {\widetilde}{H_{{\mathcal}{C}}}$, where again chambers are adjacent if they share a codimension 1 face. Then Theorem \[thm:bm\_mmp\] implies that $$\Gamma_{\operatorname{Stab}} \simeq \Gamma_{\operatorname{Pos}}.$$
We can also explicitly match the walls. Using the formula for $ \ell(\sigma_{\beta, \omega})$, it is possible to calculate $\ell(\sigma_{\beta, \omega})\cdot \theta_v((0, C, k))$ for $C \in {\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}{C}$ with $C^2 = -2$ and $k \in {\mathbb{Z}}$. Namely up to the positive multiple $\eta$ which has no effect $$\begin{aligned}
\ell(\sigma_{\beta, \omega})\cdot \theta_v((0, C, k)) &= ((r_{\omega, \beta}, C_{\omega, \beta}, s_{\omega, \beta}), (0, C, k))\\
&= -(\beta\cdot \omega) (\beta\cdot C) + \left(1-n + \frac{\beta^2 - \omega^2}{2}\right)\omega\cdot C + k\beta\cdot\omega\end{aligned}$$ and comparing this with the formula for $W_{v,(0,C,k)}$ we find that the two walls coincide, proving (iii) and (iv).
Now note that we can match the boundaries $$\{\beta\cdot\omega = 0\}\cap U_{{\mathcal}{C}}, W_{v, (0,C,0)}\cap U_{{\mathcal}{C}}$$ of $U_{\operatorname{Mov}}$ with the divisorial wall boundaries $$\{|2,1^{n-1}\rangle^\perp , {\widetilde}{C}^\perp \mid C\in {\mathcal}{C}\}$$ of the image $\ell(U_{\operatorname{Mov}})\subset \operatorname{Pos}(S^{[n]})$, and since the Gieseker chamber of $S^{[n]}$ intersects this image, $\ell(U_{\operatorname{Mov}})$ coincides with the intersection of $\ell_v(U_{{\mathcal}{C}})$ with $\overline{\operatorname{Mov}}(S^{[n]})$, showing (ii).
Other rank 1 torsion-free sheaves
---------------------------------
We need to relate moduli spaces of torsion free sheaves ${\mathcal}{F}$ with different values of $c_1({\mathcal}{F})$ to capture the entire Fock space, and also birational models for these moduli spaces. The condition describing the limit is also designed to make it easy to compare the stability conditions for ideal sheaves ${\mathcal}{I}_Y$ of length $n$ zero dimensional subschemes and torsion free subsheaves of ${\mathcal}{L}$ where ${\mathcal}{L}$ is a line bundle with $c_1({\mathcal}{L}) \in {\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}{C}$ for a contractible collection ${\mathcal}{C}$.
If ${\mathcal}{L}_Y$ is a torsion-free subsheaf of a line bundle ${\mathcal}{L}$ with quotient ${\mathcal}{O}_Y$ of length $n$ then tensoring with ${\mathcal}{L}^{-1}$ $${0 \to {\mathcal}{L}_Y \to {\mathcal}{L} \to {\mathcal}{O}_Y \to 0}$$ recovers $${0 \to {\mathcal}{I}_Y \to {\mathcal}{O}_S \to {\mathcal}{O}_Y \to 0}$$ inducing the isomorphism between $M(1, c_1({\mathcal}{L}),1 + c_1({\mathcal}{L})^2/2 - n)$ and $S^{[n]}$ seen in . This tensor product does not preserve the Bridgeland stability condition, even though Gieseker stability is the same for all Mukai vectors $(1, c_1, 1 + ch_2)$. At least in the relevant limit, the modification to Bridgeland stability given by tensoring with ${\mathcal}{L}$ is tracked by the shift $$\beta \mapsto \beta - c_1 ({\mathcal}{L}).$$ We begin with the calculation on the central charge.
\[lem:cc\_shift\_c1\] For $(\beta, \omega)$ corresponding to a stability condition in $V(S)$, and any ${\mathcal}{E} \in D(S)$, the action of tensoring with a line bundle on the central charge is given by the formula $$Z_{\beta, \omega} ({\mathcal}E\otimes {\mathcal}{L}) = Z_{\beta - c_1({\mathcal}{L}), \omega}({\mathcal}E).$$
For any object ${\mathcal}{E}\in D(S)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
Z_{\beta, \omega}({\mathcal}{E}\otimes {\mathcal}{L}) &= (e^{\beta + i\omega},v({\mathcal}{E}\otimes {\mathcal}{L}) )\\
&= -\int_S e^{-(\beta + i\omega)} ch({\mathcal}{E}\otimes {\mathcal}{L})\sqrt{{\operatorname}{Td}(S)}\\
&= -\int_S e^{-(\beta + i\omega)}e^{c_1({\mathcal}{L})} ch({\mathcal}{E})\sqrt{{\operatorname}{Td}(S)}\\
&= (e^{\beta - c_1({\mathcal}{L}) + i\omega}, v({\mathcal}{E}))\\
&= Z_{\beta - c_1({\mathcal}{L}), \omega}({\mathcal}{E}).
\end{aligned}$$
We also identify the wall and chamber structure in the relevant region of $\operatorname{Stab}^\dagger(S)$. The following is the analogue of Proposition \[prop:affine\_quiver\_shift\]. To this end, we need a generalization of the set $U_{{\mathcal}{C}}$ more applicable to Mukai vectors of the form $(1, D, s)$.
\[defn:ucd\] Let $D \in \operatorname{NS}(S)$ be a divisor. The set $U_{{\mathcal}C, D}$ depending on the same data $N, \xi, V$ as $U_{{\mathcal}C}$ is defined to be the subset $$U_{{\mathcal}C, D} = \{(\beta, \omega) \in U_{{\mathcal}C} \mid -\beta \cdot \omega >0 \text{ and } (D - \beta)\cdot \omega > 0 \}$$ of points in $U_{{\mathcal}C}$ satisfying these additional bounds.
\[prop:wall\_chamber\_vd\] Let $\sigma_{\beta, \omega}$ be a generic stability condition in $V(S)$ (in particular, $\omega$ is ample) lying above a point $(\beta, \omega) \in U_{{\mathcal}{C},D}$ where $D = c_1({\mathcal}{L})$ is $c_1$ of any line bundle on $S$. Let $v_{D} = (1, D,1 + D^2/2 - n )$. Let $W_{v,w}$ for Mukai vectors $v$ and $w$ denote the locus where $Z_{\beta, \omega}(v)$ and $Z_{\beta, \omega}(w)$ are real positive multiples of each other. Then after potentially increasing $V$ (which is the lower bound on $\omega^2$) and the other data defining $U_{{\mathcal}{C}}$, $\sigma_{\beta, \omega}$ lies on a wall for Mukai vector $v_{D}$ if and only if $\sigma_{\beta, \omega}$ lies on one of the walls $W_{w,v_{D}}$ for $$w \in \{ (0, C, C\cdot D + k) \mid C\in {\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}{C},C^2 = -2, k = 0,-1 \ldots,1-n \}.$$
If $\Phi_{{\mathcal}{L}}$ is the derived equivalence given by tensoring with ${\mathcal}{L}$ then the pullback stability condition $\Phi_{{\mathcal}{L}}^*\sigma_{\beta, \omega}$ lies in the Gieseker chamber for $v = (1,0,1-n)$ if and only if $\sigma_{\beta, \omega}$ lies in the Gieseker chamber for $v = v_D$. Also, given $(\beta, \omega)\in {\mathcal}{L}(S)$ satisfying $-\beta \cdot \omega >0 \text{ and } (D - \beta)\cdot \omega > 0 $, $(\beta, t\omega)$ is in ${\mathcal}{L}(S)$ and $\sigma_{\beta, t\omega}$ is in the Gieseker chamber for both $v = (1,0,1-n)$ and $v = v_D$ for all $t \gg 0$. But since the central charge of the pullback is given by $\Phi_{{\mathcal}{L}}^*\sigma_{\beta, \omega}$ a shift of $\beta$ by $D$ and the pullback preserves the set $V(S)$, it follows that after potentially increasing $V$ we have that $\Phi_{{\mathcal}{L}}^*\sigma_{\beta, \omega}\in U_{{\mathcal}{C}}$ and so the walls on which $\Phi_{{\mathcal}{L}}^*\sigma_{\beta, \omega}$ might lie are a subset those described in Proposition \[prop:walls\_bstab\_hilb\]. On the other hand, $\Phi_{{\mathcal}{L}}^*\sigma_{\beta, \omega}$ cannot lie on the wall $\beta\cdot\omega = 0$ since this is the wall where ${\mathcal}{O}_S$ and ${\mathcal}{I}_Y$ have the same phase for $\Phi_{{\mathcal}{L}}^*\sigma_{\beta, \omega}$ , but the conditions $-\beta \cdot \omega >0 \text{ and } (D - \beta)\cdot \omega > 0 $ and the calculations of Table \[tbl:slopes\_z\] show that for the stability condition $\sigma_{\beta, \omega}$ the phases of ${\mathcal}{L}$ and ${\mathcal}{L}_Y$ do not agree.
Thus the potential walls for Mukai vector $v_D$ on which $\sigma_{\beta, \omega}$ may lie are a subset of those $W_{w,v_{D}}$ for $$w \in \{ \Phi_{{\mathcal}{L}, *}((0, C, k)) \mid C\in {\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}{C},C^2 = -2, k = 0,-1 \ldots,1-n \}$$. Where $\Phi_{{\mathcal}{L}, *}$ denotes the action of the equivalence $\Phi_{{\mathcal}L}$ on Mukai vectors, which acts by multiplication with ${\operatorname}{ch}({\mathcal}{L})$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{{\mathcal}{L},*} : (r, C, s) &\mapsto (r, C, s)(1, c_1({\mathcal}{L}), c_1({\mathcal}{L})^2/2)\\
&= (r, C + r c_1({\mathcal}{L}), c_1({\mathcal}{L})\cdot C + s + rc_1({\mathcal}{L})^2/2)\end{aligned}$$ so that a destabilizing sequence $${0 \to {\mathcal}{G} \to {\mathcal}{F} \to {\mathcal}{O}_C(-k) \to 0}$$ for a semistable object ${\mathcal}{F}$ with Mukai vector $(1,0,1-n)$ is sent to a destabilizing sequence $${0 \to {\mathcal}{G}\otimes {\mathcal}{L} \to {\mathcal}{F}\otimes {\mathcal}{L} \to {\mathcal}{O}_C(-k)\otimes {\mathcal}{L} \to 0}.$$ Thus the potential destabilizing walls are $W_{w,v_D}$ are those for $$w\in \{(0, C, C\cdot D + k)\mid C\in {\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}{C},C^2 = -2, k = 0,-1 \ldots,1-n \}.$$
But they are all actually possible since again looking at Table \[tbl:slopes\_z\] we can find $\beta, \omega$ where we do lie on these walls, since for $w = (0, C, \ell)$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:Wvd_w}
W_{w,v_D}\cap U_{{\mathcal}{C}} = \{ (\beta, \omega) \in U_{{\mathcal}{C}} \mid (C\cdot \beta - \ell)((D - \beta)\cdot \omega ) = \\ (C\cdot \omega)(-1+(\omega^2-\beta^2)/2 + D\cdot \beta - D^2/2+n)\}.\end{gathered}$$
Figures for generic elliptic K3 surface {#sec:figures}
---------------------------------------
To clarify the results of this section we include figures of the positive cone of $S^{[n]}$ with its wall and chamber structures where $S$ is a generic elliptic K3 surface with section. This walls near the point corresponding to $Sym^nS_{bd}$ on the surface where we contract the section will coincide with the structure around a single $A_1$ collection in any K3 surface.
![The wall and chamber structure on $\operatorname{Pos}(S^{[n]})$ with the Nef cone, Hilbert-Chow wall, and a ray corresponding to $ Sym^nS_{bd}$ labelled. Red walls correspond to walls of the Movable cone or its reflections, and blue walls correspond to higher codimension contractions. ](bl_hilb_2pts_11ht_annotated){width="\linewidth"}
[.5]{} ![Positive cones of $S^{[n]}$ for $n \in \{ 4, 7, 9, 12\}$.](bl_hilb_4pts_11ht.png "fig:"){width=".9\linewidth"}
[.5]{} ![Positive cones of $S^{[n]}$ for $n \in \{ 4, 7, 9, 12\}$.](bl_hilb_7pts_11ht.png "fig:"){width=".9\linewidth"}
[.5]{} ![Positive cones of $S^{[n]}$ for $n \in \{ 4, 7, 9, 12\}$.](bl_hilb_9pts_11ht.png "fig:"){width=".9\linewidth"}
[.5]{} ![Positive cones of $S^{[n]}$ for $n \in \{ 4, 7, 9, 12\}$.](bl_hilb_12pts_13ht.png "fig:"){width=".9\linewidth"}
Construction of action {#sec:construction}
======================
In this section we construct the action of the universal enveloping algebra of the affinization of a Lorentzian Kac-Moody algebra on the cohomologies of moduli spaces of rank 1 torsion free sheaves on $S$, which is of the same form as in Section \[sec:stabk3\_specific\].
#### Stability chambers for smooth moduli spaces
For the quiver variety case, the natural stability chamber to produce the action consisted of $\theta = (\theta_0, \theta_1, \ldots, \theta_r)$ such that $\theta_i > 0$ for all $i$. From the present vantage point, this chamber is the most useful because every wall $\{ \theta \cdot \dim_{gr} S_i = 0\}$ is a wall of this chamber, where $S_i$ a 1 dimensional quiver representation. The analogous chamber for moduli spaces of objects on K3 surfaces will consist of a chamber ${\mathcal}A$ of stability conditions $\sigma_{\beta, \omega}$ such that for every irreducible curve $C\in {\mathcal}{C}$ there is a wall on the boundary of ${\mathcal}A$ such that on this wall the phases of the torsion-free sheaf ${\mathcal}L_Y$ and the sheaf ${\mathcal}{O}_C(-1)$ overlap. The following notation described a chamber in $\operatorname{Stab}^\dagger(S) \cap U_{{\mathcal}C}$ which is mapped to a chamber in $\operatorname{Pos}(S^{[n]})$ which corresponds to the fundamental alcove of the affine root system under the equivalence of such chambers with alcoves given by Proposition \[prop:stab\_corner\_arranged\].
\[not:mca\] Fix a connected contractible collection ${\mathcal}{C}$ of $-2$ curves on $S$ and fix some class $D \in \operatorname{NS}(S)$, and Mukai vector $v_D= (1, D,1 + D^2/2 - n )$. Define the set ${\mathcal}{A}_D \subset V(S)$ of stability conditions $\sigma = \sigma_{\beta, \omega}$ such that
(i) The pair $(\beta, \omega) \in U_{{\mathcal}C, D}$ where $U_{{\mathcal}C, D}$ is defined in Definition \[defn:ucd\]. Thus ${\mathcal}{A}_D$ depends on the same data as the set $U_{{\mathcal}{C}, D}$.
(ii) Under $\sigma \in {\mathcal}{A}_D$ the phases of a $\sigma$-stable object ${\mathcal}{E}\in {\mathcal}{P}(0, 1]$ of Mukai vector $v_D$ and objects ${\mathcal}{O}_C(k)$ for $k = -1, \ldots, 1-n$ and an irreducible curve $C\in {\mathcal}{C}$ satisfy $$\phi({\mathcal}{O}_C(-1)) > \phi({\mathcal}{E}) > \phi({\mathcal}{O}_C(-2)) > \cdots > \phi({\mathcal}{O}_C(1-n)).$$
(iii) Under the wall and chamber decomposition with respect to the Mukai vector $v_D$ of the subset of $(\beta, \omega)$ in $U_{{\mathcal}{C}}$ satisfying condition (ii), $\sigma$ lies in the unique chamber which for every $C\in {\mathcal}{C}$ this chamber has a point on its boundary where we have $\phi({\mathcal}{O}_C(-1)) = \phi({\mathcal}{E})$ for ${\mathcal}{E}$ as above.
Under Proposition \[prop:wall\_chamber\_vd\], condition (iii) in the above definition can be replaced by the condition that with respect to a stability condition $\sigma\in {\mathcal}{A}_D$ the phases of stable objects ${\mathcal}{E}$ and $S$ satisfy $\phi({\mathcal}{E}) > \phi(S)$ where ${\mathcal}{E}$ is as above and $S$ is an object in ${\mathcal}{P}(0,1]$ of Mukai vector $(0, C_h, -1)$ where $C_h \in {\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}{C}$, $C_h = \sum a_i C_i$ with $C_h^2 = -2$ is the class of the highest root under the identification of ${\mathcal}{C}$ with the set of simple positive roots of a finite root system. This is the analogue of the condition that $\theta_0 > 0$ in the case of the positive chamber for affine quiver varieties.
It will be useful to have a more general description of a chamber in $U_{{\mathcal}{C}, D}$ corresponding to a different alcove of the affine reflection group associated to ${\mathcal}{C}$, such that ${\mathcal}{A}_D$ will correspond to the usual fundamental alcove. To this end, consider the finite root system $\Delta$ of rank $r$ associated to ${\mathcal}C$ with simple roots $\alpha_i$, positive roots $\alpha\in \Delta_+$. Note that to each alcove $A$ of the corresponding affine reflection group on ${\mathbb{R}}^r$ (which we might think of as the level 1 hyperplane) we can associate a sequence of numbers ${\mathbf}k = (k_\alpha)_{\alpha\in \Delta_+}$ such that for $x\in A$ we have $$k_\alpha < \alpha(x) < k_{\alpha} + 1 ~\text{ for all }\alpha\in \Delta_+ .$$ Then the sequence ${\mathbf}k$ uniquely determines the alcove (although not every sequence corresponds to an alcove). Using this observation, and Proposition \[prop:wall\_chamber\_vd\] which implicitly identifies chambers in $U_{{\mathcal}{C}, D}$ with alcoves for the affine reflection group we extend the previous notation. In the following, writing $\phi(v)$ for a Mukai vector $v$ means $\phi({\mathcal}{E})$ for a semistable object in ${\mathcal}{P}(0,1]$ of Mukai vector $v$.
\[not:adsk\] Fix a contractible collection ${\mathcal}{C} = \{ C_1, \ldots, C_r\}$ of $-2$ curves on $S$ with class $C_\alpha \in {\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}C$ corresponding to the positive root $\alpha\in \Delta_+$. Fix some class $D \in \operatorname{NS}(S)$, and Mukai vector $v_D= (1, D,s)$, and consider the set $U_{{\mathcal}C, D}$ as above. Given a vector ${\mathbf}k = (k_\alpha)_{\alpha\in \Delta_+}$ define the (possibly empty) set ${\mathcal}{A}_{D,s, {\mathbf}{k}}\subset V(S)$ of stability conditions $\sigma = \sigma_{\beta, \omega}$ such that
- We have $(\beta, \omega) \in U_{{\mathcal}{C}, D}$. In particular, ${\mathcal}A_{D,s, {\mathbf}k}$ depends on everything $U_{{\mathcal}{C}}$ does.
- Under $\sigma \in {\mathcal}{A}_{D, s,{\mathbf}k}$ and for any $\alpha\in \Delta_+$ we have $$\phi((0, C_\alpha, k_\alpha -1)) < \phi(v_D) < \phi((0, C_\alpha, k_\alpha)).$$
When $s$ is not specified, but there is some integer implicit integer $n$, we take Mukai vector $(1, D,1 + D^2/2 - n )$ and define ${\mathcal}{A}_{D,{\mathbf}k } := {\mathcal}{A}_{D,s,{\mathbf}{k} }$ for $s = 1 + D^2/2 - n $. Whenever bold-faced ${\mathbf}k$ is not specified we take ${\mathbf}k = {\mathbf}0 = (0, 0,\ldots, 0)$. This is a generalization of the previous notation, since for ${\mathbf}k = {\mathbf}0 = (0, 0,\ldots, 0)$ we have ${\mathcal}{A}_D = {\mathcal}{A}_{D, {\mathbf}0}$. Also, note that for a given $n$ (= number of points) and data defining $U_{{\mathcal}{C}}$ the set ${\mathcal}{A}_{D, {\mathbf}k}$ may not be an the intersection of a stability chamber for Mukai vector $v_D$ and $U_{{\mathcal}{C}, D}$. But as $n$ and the bounds on $\beta, \omega$ defining $U_{{\mathcal}{C}}$ increase every ${\mathcal}{A}_{D, {\mathbf}{k}}$ is one of these chambers for any ${\mathbf}k$ corresponding to an alcove.
Stability conditions relating different Mukai vectors {#ssec:different_mukai_vectors}
-----------------------------------------------------
In order to produce Steinberg correspondences between different smooth moduli spaces, we need to include one singular moduli space into another to parallel the quiver variety case.
To be precise, for stability conditions $\sigma_D \in {\mathcal}{A}_D\cap {\mathcal}{A}_{D + C_i}$ the action of $e_i$ mapping $H^*(M_{\sigma_D}(1,D, s))$ to $H^*(M_{\sigma_{D}}(1, D+ C_i, s))$ will be given by a convolution by a Lagrangian correspondence which is an irreducible component of $M_{\sigma_D}((1,D, s)\times_M M_{\sigma_{D}}(1, D+ C_i, s)$ where $M$ is a certain singular moduli space, which we can think of as a stratum of $M_{\sigma}(1, D+ \infty C_i, s)$ for a specifically chosen stability condition $\sigma$ which must be on the boundary of both ${\mathcal}{A}_D$ and $ {\mathcal}{A}_{D + C_i}$.
#### Boundary stability conditions
There will be some freedom in the choice of non-generic stability condition because we are not taking the fiber product over the analogue of the affine quotient, but rather, a moduli space for a lower-codimension face in the space of stability conditions. Here we describe this face. Pick a base integer $s\in {\mathbb{Z}}$ and $D \in \operatorname{NS}(S)$, a contractible collection ${\mathcal}{C}$ of $-2$ curves, and a curve $C_i \in {\mathcal}{C}$. Let $U_{{\mathcal}{C}, D}$ be the set of $(\beta, \omega)$ defined in Definition \[defn:ucd\].
Now we choose a specific stability condition corresponding to a point in this set. Let $$\label{eq:sigma_Di}
\sigma_{D,s,i} = \sigma_{\beta, \omega} \text{ for } (\beta, \omega)\in U_{{\mathcal}{C}, D}$$ be a stability condition that for all $\ell\in {\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $(1, D + \ell C_i, s)^2 \ge -2$ we have $\sigma_{D,s,i}\in \partial {\mathcal}{A}_{D + \ell C_i,s}$, and further that for each $\ell$ the condition $\sigma_{D,s, i}$ lies generically on the wall of ${\mathcal}{A}_{D + \ell C_i,s}$ such that the phase of ${\mathcal}{O}_{C_i}(-1)$ overlaps with that of an object of Mukai vector $(1, D + \ell C_i, s)$. We will soon show this exists.
It will actually be necessary to define a more general stability condition where an adjacent generic stability condition, instead of lying in the chamber ${\mathcal}{A}_{D,s}$ will lie in ${\mathcal}{A}_{D,s,{\mathbf}k}$ and our stability condition, instead of lying on a single wall will lie the intersection of several. In the following, we continue writing $\phi(v)$ for a Mukai vector $v$ means $\phi({\mathcal}{E})$ for a semistable object in ${\mathcal}{P}(0,1]$ of Mukai vector $v$.
\[not:boundary\_stab\] Fix $D\in \operatorname{NS}(S)$, integer $s\in {\mathbb{Z}}$, contractible collection ${\mathcal}{C} = \{C_1, \ldots, C_r\}$ of $-2$ curves, sequence ${\mathbf}{k}$ of integers corresponding to an alcove $A$, and some subset $R \subset \Delta_+$ with of positive roots such that there is a point $x\in \partial A$ on the boundary of the alcove such that $\alpha(x) = k_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha \in R$. Let ${\mathcal}{C}_R\subset {\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}{C}$ denote the set of $C_{r}\in {\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}{C}$ corresponding to $r\in R$. Then let $$\label{eq:sigma_DsRk}
\sigma_{D,s,R,{\mathbf}{k}} = \sigma_{\beta, \omega} \text{ for } (\beta, \omega)\in U_{{\mathcal}{C}, D}$$ be a stability condition such that
- Given ${\mathbf}{t}\in {\mathbb{Z}}^R$ let $D_{{\mathbf}t} = D + \sum_{r\in R} t_r C_r$ and $s_{{\mathbf}t} = s + \sum_{r\in R} {t_r k_r}$. For all ${\mathbf}{t}\in {\mathbb{Z}}^R$ such that $$(1,D_{{\mathbf}t} ,s_{{\mathbf}t} )^2 \ge -2$$ we have $\sigma_{D,s,R, {\mathbf}{k}}\in \partial {\mathcal}{A}_{D_{{\mathbf}t},s_{{\mathbf}t}, {\mathbf}{k}}$.
- Further, for any such ${\mathbf}{t}$, the stability condition $\sigma_{D,s,R, {\mathbf}{k}}$ lies generically on the intersection over $r\in R$ of the walls $W_r$ of ${\mathcal}{A}_{D_{{\mathbf}t},s_{{\mathbf}t}, {\mathbf}{k}}$ where the phase $\phi((0, C_r, k_r))$ of the unique stable object of Mukai vector $(0, C_r, k_r)$ overlaps with $\phi((1, D_{{\mathbf}t},s_{{\mathbf}t}))$.
\[lem:sigma\_DI\_exists\] For large enough data $N$ and $V$ defining $U_{{\mathcal}{C}, D}$ there exists such a $\sigma_{D,s,i}$ satisfying the above conditions. More generally given the data in Notation \[not:boundary\_stab\] there exists a $\sigma_{D,s,R,{\mathbf}{k}}$ satisfying the required conditions.
This is not the most immediate way to prove this result, but it makes the geometry of the space of stability conditions clear. We first prove the existence of $\sigma_{D,s,i}$ where the notation is simpler. Also, to simplify formulas, define $$\lambda_{D, \beta} = D\cdot \beta - \beta^2/2 -s.$$ Recall that, for example, equation implies that the condition which allows the phase of ${\mathcal}{O}_{C_i}(-1)$ to overlap with that of an object of Mukai vector $(1, D, s)$ is $$(C_i\cdot \beta)((D - \beta)\cdot \omega ) = (C_i\cdot \omega)(\omega^2/2 + \lambda_{D, \beta})$$ and the equation which allows the analogous condition for Mukai vector $(1, D+ \ell C_i, s)$ is the equation $$(C_i\cdot \beta)((D + \ell C_i - \beta)\cdot \omega ) = (C_i\cdot \omega)(\omega^2/2 + \lambda_{D, \beta} + \ell C_i \cdot \beta ).$$ Then in $U_{{\mathcal}{C}, D}$ both of these conditions are equivalent to $$\label{eq:ratio_sigma_Dsi}
(D-\beta)\cdot \omega = \frac{(C_i \cdot \omega)(\omega^2/2 + \lambda_{D,\beta})}{C_i \cdot \beta}$$ which is independent of $\ell$ and which for fixed $\omega$ and fixed $C_i\cdot \beta$ (and in fact for fixed $C_j\cdot \beta$ for $j \neq i$ as well, meaning we can avoid other walls) we can vary $\beta$ subject to these constraints so that the value of $\beta\cdot \omega$ is adequate to produce a solution to by slightly deforming the constant solution of $\beta\cdot \omega$ to $$(D-\beta)\cdot \omega = \frac{(C_i\cdot \omega)(\omega^2/2)}{C_i \cdot \beta}$$ since $\lambda_{D, \beta}$ is extremely small compared to $\omega^2/2$. For fixed values of $C_i\cdot \beta$ and $(C_i \cdot\omega)\omega^2$ it may be necessary to extend the data $V$ and $N$ in order for this value of $\beta\cdot\omega$ to be compatible with the condition that $(\beta, \omega)$ lie in $U_{{\mathcal}{C}, D}$.
Now fix ${\mathbf}{k}$ and $R$ as in Notation \[not:boundary\_stab\]. The Mukai vectors $(0, C_r, k_r)$ span a negative definite plane in the Mukai lattice therefore there are only a finite number of ${\mathbf}t$ such that $(1,D_{{\mathbf}t} ,s_{{\mathbf}t} )^2 \ge -2$, meaning that we are free to choose $N$ to be large enough to bound all relevant chern characters. Let $C_{{\mathbf}t} = \sum_{r\in R} t_r C_r$ and $k_{{\mathbf}t} = \sum_{r\in R} t_r k_r$. The equations for the relevant walls are for all $r \in R$ and relevant ${\mathbf}t\in {\mathbb{Z}}^R$ $$(C_r\cdot \beta -k_r)((D + C_{{\mathbf}t} - \beta)\cdot \omega ) = (C_r \cdot \omega)(\omega^2/2 + \lambda_{D,\beta} + C_{{\mathbf}t} \cdot \beta - k_{{\mathbf}t})$$ which by the same argument admit simultaneously a solution if we choose a fixed common ratio $\xi$ with $$\frac{C_r \cdot \omega}{C_r \cdot \beta - k_r } = \xi$$ for all $r \in R$.
This is exactly what is needed to relate moduli spaces for different Mukai vectors since, for example, if ${\mathcal}{F}$ is a $\sigma_{D,s, i}$-semistable object (e.g. if ${\mathcal}{F}$ is $\sigma_D$-stable) of Mukai vector $(1, D, s)$ then $${\mathcal}{F}\oplus {\mathcal}{O}_{C_i}(-1)^{\oplus \ell}$$ is $\sigma_{D,s,i}$-semistable for any $\ell \ge 0$ of Mukai vector $(1, D + \ell C_i, s)$.
Common base of symplectic resolution
------------------------------------
In the quiver variety case, even in the case of non-generic stability parameter, the construction via Hamiltonian reduction and GIT quotient defines moduli spaces of quiver representations. Thus in the setting of Section \[sec:quiver\_action\] there was no issue defining a common singular base to construct correspondences between different smooth moduli spaces.
In this situation, for a non-generic stability condition $\sigma_0$ the relevant Step 4 of Construction \[const:bridgeland\_stable\_spaces\] does not produce a space of all semistable objects of a given primitive Mukai vector, only the space of S-equivalence classes of objects which are stable for a generic stability condition in an adjacent chamber. This space can be thought of as a specific *stratum* in an (as of yet presently undefined) larger space of all semistable objects of that Mukai vector.
Rather than actually define a moduli space of semistable objects for non-generic $\sigma_0$, we will simply take an appropriate union of $\pi_{\sigma_+, \sigma_0}( M_{\sigma_+}(v))$, which will essentially consist of defining the largest relevant stratum of the undefined large moduli space of semistable objects for non-generic $\sigma_0$.
This is slightly nuanced and some care must be taken because it is possible that other spherical classes show up in the lattice spanned by $(1, D, s)$ and $(0, C, k)$ so we cannot simply look at the lattice spanned by $(1, D, s)$ and $(0, C, k)$ to determine the polystable representative of a given semistable object. We have to look at the set of effective spherical classes in this lattice, which depends not just on the lattice but on the central charge. It is the specific limit under consideration which makes it so that no spherical twists by higher rank spherical objects influences the decomposition of objects of Mukai vector $(1, D, s) + \ell (0, C, k)$.
For stability conditions lying on the intersection of two or more walls, we will need a slight extension of some of the results in [@bayer2014mmp §6, §8] in the present setting. Also recall the definition of an effective class $u$, with respect to an ambient Mukai vector $v$ and stability condition $\sigma$ with central charge $Z$. This is a class with $u^2 \ge -2$ and ${\operatorname{re}}Z(u)/Z(v) > 0$.
\[prop:corner\_jh\] Fix a phase $\phi$ so that we are consider moduli spaces of objects of Mukai vector $(1, D, s)$ of phase $\phi$. Consider $D, s, {\mathcal}{C}, {\mathbf}{k}, R \subset \Delta_+, {\mathcal}{C}_R\subset {\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}{C}$ and $\sigma_0 := \sigma_{D,s,R,{\mathbf}{k}}$ as in Notation \[not:boundary\_stab\]. Let $\sigma_+\in {\mathcal}{A}_{D,s,{\mathbf}{k}}$ be a generic stability condition in the adjacent chamber. Let ${\mathcal}{H}$ be the hyperbolic lattice spanned by $v_{D} := (1,D,s)$ and $(0, C_r, k_r)$ for $r \in R$.
(i) Let ${\mathcal}{R}\subset {\mathcal}{H}$ be the rank $\rho = |R|$ negative definite sublattice spanned by $c_i := (0, C_{r_i}, k_{r_i}), i = 1, \ldots, \rho$. This basis $c_1, \ldots, c_\rho$ of ${\mathcal}{R}$ is such that there is a $\sigma_{0}$-stable spherical object ${\mathcal}{S}$ of phase $\phi$ if and only if the Mukai vector of ${\mathcal}S$ is $c_i$ for some $i$, and if so this object is unique. Let ${\mathcal}{S}_1, \ldots, {\mathcal}{S}_\rho$ be the corresponding spherical objects.
(ii) Let ${\mathbf}{t} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^\rho$ and let $c_{{\mathbf}{t}} = \sum_{i = 1}^\rho t_ic_i$. If $(v_{D} + c_{{\mathbf}t})^2 \ge -2$ then the map $$\pi_{\sigma_+, \sigma_0} : M_{\sigma_+}(v_{D} + c_{{\mathbf}t}) \to M_0$$ sending a $\sigma_+$ stable object to its $S$-equivalence class under $\sigma_0$ has target consisting entirely of strictly semistable objects if and only if $\langle v_{D,s}, c_i \rangle < 0$ for some $i$.
(iii) The Jordan-Hölder factors of a $\sigma_+$-stable object of Mukai vector $v_{D,s} + c_{{\mathbf}t}$ consist of $\sigma_0$-stable objects of Mukai vector $c_i$ or those lying in the set $$\{v_{D} + c_{{\mathbf}{t'}} \mid {\mathbf}{t'}\in {\mathbb{Z}}^\rho, (v_{D} + c_{{\mathbf}{t'}})^2 \ge -2, \langle (v_{D} + c_{{\mathbf}{t'}}), c_i \rangle \ge 0 \text{ for all } i\}.$$
To prove (i), first note that Mukai vectors of stable spherical objects of phase $\phi$ must span ${\mathcal}R$. This is because we can deform to a stability condition where these phases don’t overlap with $v_{D}$ and so the Jordan-Hölder factors of $\sigma_+$-stable objects with Mukai vectors in ${\mathcal}{R}$ have Mukai vectors in ${\mathcal}{R}$. But then ${\mathcal}{R}$ has a basis of spherical objects and the Jordan-Hölder factors of spherical objects are spherical [@huybrechts_stability_2008 §2] (also see [@bayer2014mmp Lemma 6.2].) Let $\{c_1, \ldots, c_n\}$ be the spanning set of Mukai vectors of these spherical objects ${\mathcal}{S}_1, \ldots, {\mathcal}S_n$.
Now we show that there are no linear relations among the Mukai vectors of stable spherical objects. Note that the fact that they correspond to objects of phase $\phi$ means the $H^2$ part of the Mukai vector of any stable spherical object is a positive root. The fact that they are all stable of the same phase means $\langle c_i, c_j \rangle = {\operatorname{Ext}}^1({\mathcal}S_i, {\mathcal}S_j)\ge 0$ since $Hom({\mathcal}S_i, {\mathcal}S_j) = 0$ for $i \neq j$ because they are stable. But this implies that the $H^2$ parts of the $c_i$ form a choice of simple roots for a root system, and it must be the root system generated by $R$, so up to relabelling $\{ c_1, \ldots, c_n \} = \{ c_1, \ldots, c_\rho \}$ is the given basis. But when the phase of $v_{D}$ overlaps with the $c_i$, the objects ${\mathcal}{S}_i$ cannot be destabilized because the real part ${\operatorname{re}}Z({\mathcal}{E})$ of the central charge of positive rank objects is too large for any object ${\mathcal}{E}$ of Mukai vector $a v_{D} + b q$ for $q\in {\mathcal}{R}$ to destabilize any of the ${\mathcal}S_i$ with $a \neq 0$.
To prove (ii) note that the $(v_D + c_{{\mathbf}t})^2 = -2$ case follows from the fact that destabilizing objects must have rank $\le 1$ due to the central charge, and thus this is an effective spherical object precisely if it is not destabilized by objects in ${\mathcal}{R}$. Now assume $(v_D + c_{{\mathbf}t})^2 \ge 0$, and assume up to a shift in $D$ and $s$ that ${\mathbf}{t} = 0$. A similar argument will work in this case, but we relate it to the techniques of [@bayer2014mmp]. In particular, from this source Proposition 6.8 implies that if if there is a spherical object ${\mathcal}{S}$ with Mukai vector ${\mathbf}s$ such that generically on a wall where the phase of ${\mathcal}{S}$ is overlaps with that of $v_{D}$ and ${\mathcal}{S}$ is stable such that $\langle {\mathbf}s, v_{D} \rangle < 0$ then every object of Mukai vector $v_{D}$ is destabilized for stability conditions on this wall. Conversely, Lemma 6.5 and Proposition 8.4 imply that if for effective spherical class ${\mathbf}s \in {\mathcal}{H}$ we have $\langle {\mathbf}s, v_{D} \rangle \ge 0$ and also there are no isotropic classes ${\mathbf}{w}\in {\mathcal}{H}$ with $\langle{\mathbf}{w} , v \rangle =1$ then the wall is not totally semistable, i.e. the generic $\sigma_+$-stable object of Mukai vector $v_D$ is $\sigma_0$-stable. To recover our formulation using a higher rank lattice from theirs, if the generic object of Mukai vector ${\mathbf}{v}$ is destabilized on this wall, take one factor $q$ in its Jordan-Hölder filtration and the wall where the Mukai vectors of objects with Mukai vector $q$ have overlapping phase with objects of Mukai vector $v_D$ will give the situation described in the cited work.
In particular, suppose $\langle v_D, c_i \rangle < 0$ for some $i$, then every object of Mukai vector $v_D$ is destabilized by deforming the stability condition to where only these phases overlap. Conversely, assume $\langle v_D, c_i \rangle \ge 0$. We need to show that
(a) There is no effective spherical class ${\mathbf}s \in {\mathcal}{H}$ with $\langle {\mathbf}s, v_D \rangle < 0$.
(b) There is no isotropic class $w\in {\mathcal}{H}$ with $\langle w, v_D \rangle =1$.
For (a), suppose that ${\mathbf}s = a v_D + c_{{\mathbf}t}$ is this class for $a\in {\mathbb{Z}}$ with $a \neq 0$ (we know all effective spherical classes in ${\mathcal}{R}$, they are the $c_i$). Then for ${\mathbf}s$ to be effective we must have $a > 0$ because of the stability condition limit. But $$-2 = {\mathbf}s^2 = a^2 v_D^2 + 2a \langle v, c_{{\mathbf}t} \rangle + c_{{\mathbf}t} ^2$$ and $$\langle {\mathbf}s, v_D \rangle = a v_D^2 + \langle v, c_{{\mathbf}t} \rangle$$ so that combining these we get $$\langle {\mathbf}s, v_D \rangle = \frac{-2 - c_{{\mathbf}t}^2}{a} - \langle v, c_{{\mathbf}t} \rangle.$$ If $ \langle {\mathbf}s, v_D \rangle < 0$ we must have $\langle v, c_{{\mathbf}t} \rangle<0$ but then $-c_{{\mathbf}t}^2 \ge 2$ and so $\langle {\mathbf}s, v_D \rangle \ge 0$ after all. For (b) suppose $w = a v_D + c_{{\mathbf}t}$ is isotropic and $\langle w, v_d \rangle = 0$. Then similarly we have the formulas $$\begin{aligned}
0 &= w^2 = a^2 v_D^2 + c_{{\mathbf}t}^2 + 2 a \langle v_D, c_{{\mathbf}t} \rangle\\
\langle w, v_D \rangle &= av^2 + \langle v_D, c_{{\mathbf}t} \rangle = - \frac{c_{{\mathbf}t}^2}{a}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus again we can deduce from $av^2 \ge 0$ that $\langle v_D, c_{{\mathbf}t} \rangle \ge 0$ and dividing the formula for $w^2$ by $a$, the only solution to $w^2 = 0$ occurs with $a = 1, v^2 = 2$, but then we can’t have $\langle w, v_D \rangle = 1$.
To show (iii) first consider the decomposition of ${\mathcal}{H}$ via the walls $c_i^\perp$. When $v_D + c_{{\mathbf}t}$ lies in the chamber of where $\langle v_D + c_{{\mathbf}t} , c_i \rangle \ge 0$ then the destabilizing sequences are iterated extensions of stable objects with Mukai vectors of the form $ v_D + c_{{\mathbf}t'}$ by the stable spherical objects ${\mathcal}{S}_i$ for some $v_D + c_{{\mathbf}t'}$ also in this chamber (or the extensions are the other way around). When we are in another chamber, there is a sequence of spherical twists by the ${\mathcal}S_i$ under which an object with Mukai vector $v_D + c_{{\mathbf}t}$ is sent to one in the positive chamber, where the previous case applies. In this case we combine the previous decomposition with the decomposition given by these spherical twists.
This description will allow us to locate the maximal common stratum after the following:
\[lem:singular\_stratum\_corner\] Using the notation of Proposition \[prop:corner\_jh\], there exists a unique ${\mathbf}m\in {\mathbb{Z}}^\rho$ such that for every $\sigma_+$-stable object ${\mathcal}F \in M_{\sigma_+}(v_{D,s} + c_{{\mathbf}t})$ for any ${\mathbf}t \in {\mathbb{Z}}^\rho$, there are $\ell_i \ge 0$ such that the direct sum ${\mathcal}F \oplus \bigoplus_{i = 1}^\rho {\mathcal}{S}_i^{\oplus \ell_i}$ is $S$-equivalent under the stability condition $\sigma_0$ to an object of the form $${\mathcal}{E} \oplus \bigoplus_{i = 1}^\rho {\mathcal}{S}_i^{\oplus k_i}$$ for some $k_i \ge 0$ where ${\mathcal}{E} \in M_{\sigma_+}(v_{D,s} + c_{{\mathbf}m})$ is $\sigma_+$-stable of Mukai vector $v_{D,s} + c_{{\mathbf}m}$.
Recall the proof of part (iii) of the previous proposition, in particular the decomposition of ${\mathcal}{H}$ via the walls $c_i^\perp$ so that the polystable representative of on object of Mukai vector $v_D + c_{{\mathbf}t}$ is equivalent to that of ${\mathcal}F \bigoplus \oplus_i {\mathcal}S_i$ for some (possibly repeated) ${\mathcal}S_i$ where ${\mathcal}F$ has Mukai vector $v_D + c_{{\mathbf}t'}$ in the positive chamber, i.e. $\langle v_D + c_{{\mathbf}t'}, c_i \rangle \ge 0$ for all $i$. Now write ${\mathcal}{R}_{{\mathbb{R}}}$ as the ${\mathbb{R}}$-span the $c_i$, so that there is a unique $v_0\in v_D + {\mathcal}{R}_{\mathbb{R}}$ such that $v_0 \in c_i^\perp$ for all $i$. But if there were two different $\alpha, \beta\in {\mathcal}{R}_{\mathbb{R}}$ such that $x := v_0 + \alpha$ and $y: = v_0 + \beta$ both lie in the lattice $v_D + {\mathcal}R$ and satisfy the condition that for all ${\mathbf}t$ with all components positive we have $(x + c_{{\mathbf}t})\cdot c_j < 0$ for some $j$ (and analogously for $y$) then there must exist ${\mathbf}t$ and ${\mathbf}t'$ will all components positive such that $y = x +c_{{\mathbf}t} - c_{{\mathbf}t'}$ where we can choose ${\mathbf}t$ and ${\mathbf}t'$ such that they have no non-zero components in common. But then we can find $c_j$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\langle y, c_j \rangle = \langle x + c_{{\mathbf}t} - c_{{\mathbf}t'}, c_j \rangle &\ge 0\\
\langle x , c_j \rangle &\ge 0\\
\langle x + c_{{\mathbf}t}, c_j \rangle &< 0
\end{aligned}$$ from which it follows that $\langle c_{{\mathbf}t}, c_j \rangle < 0$ and $\langle c_{{\mathbf}t'}, c_j \rangle < 0$ contradicting that only one of $c_{{\mathbf}t}$ and $c_{{\mathbf}t'}$ has a $c_j$ component.
Let ${\mathbf}{m}$ be defined so that $v_D + c_{{\mathbf}m} = x = y$. Then all polystable representative of objects $v_D + c_{{\mathbf}t}$ with Mukai vector in the positive chamber can, after some extension by some of the ${\mathcal}S_i$ be a $\sigma_+$ stable object of Mukai vector $v_D + c_{{\mathbf}m}$, while vectors which don’t lie in the positive chamber are equivalent to those in the positive chamber after formally subtracting some ${\mathcal}S_i$ by Proposition \[prop:corner\_jh\] (iii).
It is now possible to finally realize the goal of this section and define the common base of the maps $\pi_{\sigma_+, \sigma_0}$ for different Mukai vectors.
Fix $D\in \operatorname{NS}(S)$, integer $s\in {\mathbb{Z}}$, contractible collection ${\mathcal}{C} = \{C_1, \ldots, C_r\}$ of $-2$ curves, sequence ${\mathbf}{k}$ of integers, and some subset $R \subset \Delta_+$ corresponding to positive roots with corresponding Mukai vectors $c_i = (0, C_i, k_i)$ and let ${\mathcal}{R}$ denote the set $\{c_1, \ldots, c_\rho\}$. Choose stability conditions $\sigma_0 = \sigma_{D,s,R,{\mathbf}k}$ as in Notation \[not:boundary\_stab\] and choose a generic stability condition $\sigma_+$ in the adjacent chamber ${\mathcal}{A}_{D,s,{\mathbf}k}$. Let $v_D = (1,D,s)$.
Given ${\mathbf}{m}$ from Lemma \[lem:singular\_stratum\_corner\] define $$M_{\sigma_0}(v_D + {\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}{R})$$ to be the target of the map $\pi_{\sigma_+, \sigma_0}: M_{\sigma_+}(v_D + c_{{\mathbf}m}) \to M_0$ contracting S-equivalent objects. Also for any $c_{{\mathbf}t}$ such that $(v_D + c_{{\mathbf}t})^2\ge -2$ define a map $$\pi_{\sigma_+, \sigma_0}: M_{\sigma_+}(v_D + c_{{\mathbf}t}) \to M_{\sigma_0}(v_D + {\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}{R})$$ sending a $\sigma_+$-stable sheaf ${\mathcal}{F}$ to its equivalence class up to S-equivalence and the transitive closure of the relation where objects are equivalent up to taking direct sums with the ${\mathcal}S_i$. The previous lemma implies that this map is well defined.
#### General Mukai vector
While for Mukai vectors of the form $v_D = (1, D,s)$ and some contractible collection ${\mathcal}{C} = \{C_1, \ldots, C_\rho\}$ it is easy to write down explicitly stability conditions so that the phases of objects of Mukai vector $v_D$ and those of Mukai vectors in the span ${\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}{R}$ of ${\mathcal}R = \{ (0, C_i, k_i)\}_{i = 1}^\rho$ overlap and the only stable factors for objects of Mukai vector $v_D$ were other objects with Mukai vector $(1, D', s')$ or elements of ${\mathcal}R$, and this is the key property which allows one to define common bases for Steinberg correspondences.
That being said, once we have this property for some other Mukai vector $v$ and some spherical classes ${\mathcal}{S} = \{s_1, \ldots, s_\rho\}$ which span a negative definite lattice, it is again possible to define a common base $M_{\sigma_0}(v + {\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}S)$ under reasonable hypotheses. We summarize how the arguments in this section apply in the general case, where the proofs go though without change.
\[prop:general\_base\] Let $v$ be some primitive Mukai vector with $v^2 \ge -2$ and let ${\mathcal}{S} = \{s_1, \ldots, s_\rho\}$ be a collection of spherical classes spanning a negative definite lattice arranged according to a simply laced root system $\Delta$. Consider a stability condition $\sigma_0$ for which there are semistable objects of Mukai vector $v$ of phase $\phi$ such that
- For $s_{{\mathbf}t} \in {\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}{S}$ such that $(v + s_{{\mathbf}t})^2 \ge -2$ we have that $v + s_{{\mathbf}t}$ is primitive. In particular, the corresponding moduli spaces for generic $\sigma$ are smooth.
- There is a $\sigma_0$-stable object $S_i$ of Mukai vector $s_i$ and phase $\phi$ for every $i$.
- For an adjacent generic $\sigma$ and $\sigma$-stable object ${\mathcal}E$ of Mukai vector $v$, the Jordan-Hölder filtration of ${\mathcal}E$ consists of objects $S_i$ with some multiplicity and a unique object of Mukai vector $v - s_{{\mathbf}t}$ for $s_{{\mathbf}t} \in {\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}S$.
Given such ${\mathcal}E$ let $\pi({\mathcal}E)$ denote this unique object of Mukai vector $v - s_{{\mathbf}t}$. Then there exists a unique ${\mathbf}m \in {\mathbb{Z}}^\rho$ such that $\langle v+ s_{{\mathbf}m}, s_i \rangle\ge 0$ for all $i$ and a variety $M_{\sigma_0}(v + {\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}S)$ defined as the image of the contraction for generic adjacent $\sigma$ $$\pi_{\sigma, \sigma_0}: M_{\sigma}(v + s_{{\mathbf}m}) \to M_{\sigma_0}(v + {\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}S)$$ such that for any $s_{{\mathbf}t} \in {\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}S$ and generic adjacent $\sigma$ there is a map $$\pi_{\sigma, \sigma_0}: M_{\sigma}(v + s_{{\mathbf}t}) \to M_{\sigma_0}(v + {\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}S)$$ which is the composition of the map contracting $S$-equivalent objects with an inclusion such that $\pi_{\sigma, \sigma_0}({\mathcal}E)$ is equivalent to $\pi({\mathcal}E)$ after potentially adding and/or subtracting some $S_i$.
Local analytic structure {#sec:local_analytic_brute_force}
------------------------
We need to describe locally analytically the structure of the maps $\pi_{\sigma_+,\sigma_0}: M_{\sigma_+}(v_D + c_{{\mathbf}t}) \to M_{\sigma_0}(v_D + {\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}{R})$. It will turn out that in this case, the Ext quiver description of Section \[sec:local\_k3\_ext\_quiver\] is correct, but the proof here instead involves the map $M_{\sigma_+}(v_D + c_{{\mathbf}t}) \to Sym^n(S_{bd})$ to the symmetric product on the blown-down surface and the fact that this map factors through $\pi_{\sigma_+,\sigma_0}$ and a comparison with the ADE surfaces obtained as neighborhoods around the connected components of contracted curves.
Fix $D\in \operatorname{NS}(S), s \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, let $v = (1, D, s)$. First note that when a stability condition $\sigma \in {\mathcal}{A}_{D,s, {\mathbf}{k}}$ (see Notation \[not:adsk\]) approaches the boundary of this set where $(D- \beta)\cdot \omega = 0$ for $\omega$ ample the phases of ${\mathcal}{L_D}$ and objects of Mukai vector $v$ overlap, and we are on the wall inducing the Hilbert-Chow map. If, in addition we have $C\cdot \omega = 0$ for $C \in {\mathcal}{C}$ for a contractible collection ${\mathcal}{C}$ then the stability condition corresponds to $Sym^n(S_{{\mathcal}{C}})$ of n points on the surface $S_{{\mathcal}C}$ where the curves in ${\mathcal}{C}$ are contracted. Let $\sigma_{{\mathcal}{C}}$ denote a stability condition corresponding to $Sym^n(S_{{\mathcal}{C}})$ on the boundary of ${\mathcal}{A}_{D,s, {\mathbf}{k}}$, and let $\pi_{{\mathcal}{C}}: M_{\sigma}(v) \to Sym^n(S_{{\mathcal}{C}})$ denote the contraction map. The birational maps $F_{{\mathbf}k, {\mathbf}k'}: M_{\sigma}(v) \dashrightarrow M_{\sigma'}(v)$ between generic $\sigma \in {\mathcal}{A}_{D,s, {\mathbf}{k}}$ and $ \sigma' \in {\mathcal}{A}_{D,s, {\mathbf}{k}'}$ are maps over $Sym^n(S_{{\mathcal}{C}})$.
Write the collection ${\mathcal}{C}$ as ${\mathcal}{C} = {\mathcal}{C}_1 \sqcup \cdots\sqcup {\mathcal}{C}_m$ as a union of disjoint ADE collections. Let $Q_i$ be the affine ADE quiver corresponding to the collection ${\mathcal}{C}_i$ and ${\mathbf}{w_0}$ the usual 1-dimensional framing vector at the affine node for each $i$, which should not cause any confusion.
\[prop:hilb\_is\_quiv\_amenable\] Let $\sigma_{{\mathbf}k} \in {\mathcal}{A}_{D,s, {\mathbf}{k}}$ be generic stability conditions for ${\mathbf}k$ ranging over a set $K$ sequences giving all chambers in the relevant limit $U_{{\mathcal}{C}, D}$ of $\operatorname{Stab}^\dagger(S)$.
(i) There is an analytic open covering of $M_{\sigma_{{\mathbf}k}}(v)$ for every ${\mathbf}k\in K$ consisting of sets of the form $$U_{{\mathbf}k} = \pi_{{\mathcal}C}^{-1}(\prod_{i=1}^m Sym^{\lambda_i} (U_i) \times U_0)$$ for some partition $\lambda_0 + \lambda_1 + \ldots \lambda_m = n$ of $n$, where $U_i \subset S_{{\mathcal}C}$ is a set containing the singular locus where ${\mathcal}{C}_i$ is contracted and also $U_i$ is biholomorphic to the corresponding ADE surface and $U_0\subset Sym^{\lambda_0}(S\backslash \sqcup U_i)$ is a small open set around a configuration of points outside of the $U_i$. The $U_i$ are required to be pairwise disjoint.
(ii) Pick one such set of open sets $U_i, U_0$ and the corresponding $U_{{\mathbf}k}$. Let ${\widetilde}{U}_0$ denote the inverse image of $U_0$ under the Hilbert-Chow map. Let ${\mathbf}{v}_{D,\lambda_i}$ denote the dimension vector for the quiver $Q_i$ such that the Hilb chamber for this dimension vector corresponds to rank 1 torsion-free sheaves with $c_1 = c_1({\mathcal}{L}_D|_{U_i})$ and the finite length quotients have length $\lambda_i$. For every ${\mathbf}k$ there is a chamber $C_{{\mathbf}k, i}$ in the stability space for $Q_i$ with dimension vector ${\mathbf}{v}_{D,\lambda_i}$ and framing ${\mathbf}{w_0}$ such that for $\theta_i \in C_{{\mathbf}k, i}$ there is an isomorphism $$U_{{\mathbf}k} \simeq \prod_{i = 1}^m {{\mathfrak}{M}_{Q_i, \theta_i}({{\mathbf}{v}_{D,\lambda_i}}, {{\mathbf}{w_0}})} \times {\widetilde}U _0$$ such that the map $\pi_{{\mathcal}{C}}$ coincides with the map $$\pi_{\theta_1, 0}\times\cdots \times \pi_{\theta_m, 0}\times \pi_{HC},$$ the product of the map to the affine quotient $$\pi_{\theta_i, 0} : {{\mathfrak}{M}_{Q_i, \theta_i}({{\mathbf}{v}_{D,a, i}}, {{\mathbf}{w_0}})} \to Sym^a(U_i)$$ on the first $m$ factors with the Hilbert-Chow map $\pi_{HC}:{\widetilde}{U}_0 \to U_0$ on the last factor.
(iii) The correspondence between ${\mathbf}k$ and chambers $C_{{\mathbf}k, i}$ is as follows: given the alcove $A_{{\mathbf}k}$ of the affine reflection group action on ${\mathbb{R}}^\rho$ where $\rho = |{\mathcal}{C}|$, we can write $A_{{\mathbf}k}$ as $\prod_{i = 1}^m A_{k_i}$ where $A_{k_i}$ is an alcove for the $i$th factor under the decomposition of ${\mathbb{R}}^\rho$ into a product of affine hyperplane arrangements. the chamber $C_{{\mathbf}{k}, i}$ is the one intersecting $A_{k_i}$ on the alcove structure on the level 1 hyperplane $\{\theta\cdot \delta = 1\}$ in the stability space for the quiver $Q_i$.
The statement of (i) just follows from the fact that the sets $$\prod_{i = 1}^mSym^\lambda_i(U_i) \times U_0$$ cover $Sym^n(S_{{\mathcal}C})$. Now note that (ii) is true for chambers for the quivers and for $S$ which actually correspond to the space of rank 1 torsion-free sheaves. Then since all of the birational transformations between different $M_{\sigma_{{\mathbf}k}}(v)$ 1) are birational maps over $Sym^n(S_{{\mathcal}C})$ and 2) do not contract the exceptional locus of the Hilbert-Chow map, we know that all of the flops are locally isomorphisms over the ${\widetilde}{U}_0$ factor. More generally, we know that all of the codimension 1 walls are walls where the phase of an object in our moduli space overlaps with an object with support in a *connected* collection ${\mathcal}{C}_i$ and therefore contracted curves for this wall only occur in the corresponding factor over $U_i$. It follows that all of the flops preserve the product structure on $U_{{\mathbf}k}$ since every flop can be factors into a sequence of such flops hitting codimension 1 walls, and each of these preserves the product structure. This proves (ii) after Theorem \[thm:birat\_sym\] implies that all smooth symplectic birational models of ${{\mathfrak}{M}_{Q_i, \theta_i}({{\mathbf}v_{D, \lambda_i}}, {{\mathbf}{w_0}})}$ over $Sym^a(U_i)$ are given by variation of GIT stability.
Then (iii) follows from Lemma \[lem:cc\_shift\_c1\], Proposition \[prop:affine\_quiver\_shift\] which by matching shifts on both the quiver and K3 surface sides, reduces it to the case where we are dealing with the Hilbert scheme, i.e. for trivial first chern class. There it follows from the fact that the map $N^1(S^{[n]}/Sym^{n}(S_{{\mathcal}C}))\to N^1(U_i^{[a]}/Sym^{\lambda_i}(U_i)))$ sends $|2, 1^{n-1} \rangle$ to $|2, 1^{n-2} \rangle$ and $|1_{C}, 1^{n-1} \rangle$ to $|1_{C}, 1^{n-1} \rangle$ for every $C\in {\mathcal}{C}_i$, and so the birational maps induced on the $i$th factor of $U_{{\mathbf}k}$ by varying Bridgeland stability conditions must be the ones from varying GIT stability on the quiver.
This implies a geometric modular interpretation of some quiver varieties for affine ADE quivers $Q$ corresponding to finite ADE Dynkin diagrams that show up as dual graphs of collections of -2 curves on K3 surfaces.
\[cor:quiver\_geometric\_moduli\] Let $Q$ be an affine quiver corresponding to a connected contractible collection ${\mathcal}C$ on $S$. Fix an open set $U \subset S_{{\mathcal}C}$ containing ${\mathcal}{C}$ which is biholomorphic to the corresponding ADE surface. Fix framing vector ${\mathbf}{w_0}$. Then given a generic stability condition $\theta$ and dimension vector ${\mathbf}v$ there is a Mukai vector $v$, a generic stability condition $\sigma \in \operatorname{Stab}^\dagger(S)$ in a chamber which has a stability condition on its boundary inducing a contraction $\pi_{{\mathcal}C}$ onto $Sym^k(S_{{\mathcal}C})$ and an isomorphism $${{\mathfrak}{M}_{\theta}({{\mathbf}{v}}, {{\mathbf}{w_0}})} \simeq M_\sigma(v, U)$$ between the corresponding quiver variety and an open set $M_\sigma(v, U) = \pi_{{\mathcal}{C}}^{-1}(Sym^k(U))$ of $M_\sigma(v)$ parametrizing $\sigma$-stable objects on $S$ of Mukai vector $v$ such that under the map $\pi_{{\mathcal}C}$ the support of $\pi_{{\mathcal}C}({\mathcal}{E})$ for an object ${\mathcal}E \in M_\sigma(v,U)$ lies in $U$. This correspondence is such that the birational transformations between different chambers in the stability space for the quiver are induced by those between different chambers in $\operatorname{Stab}^\dagger(S)$.
This is straightforward from the previous proposition when $(c_1({\mathcal}{E}) - \beta )\cdot \omega > 0$ which gives all stability chambers for $\theta$ such that $\theta\cdot \delta > 0$. But since $-\beta\cdot \omega$ can be chosen to have a much larger magnitude than $c_1({\mathcal}{E})\cdot \omega$ the general case follows from the fact (see e.g. [@bayer2014mmp Prop. 2.11]) that mapping $(\omega, \beta) \mapsto (\omega, -\beta)$ gives isomorphic moduli spaces $M_{\sigma_{\omega, \beta}}(v) \simeq M_{\sigma_{\omega, -\beta}}(v) $ where the isomorphism is given by taking a derived dual of a stable object, and so we obtain moduli spaces of Bridgeland stable objects for stability chambers containing $\theta$ such that $\theta\cdot \delta < 0$, and hence for all quiver stability chambers. Further, the walls $\{\theta\cdot \delta = 0\}$ for the quiver side and $(c_1({\mathcal}{E}) - \beta )\cdot \omega = 0$ both induce, for stability conditions generically on this wall, the Hilbert-Chow contraction, so the birational transformations induced by variation of Bridgeland stability between different chambers are exactly those induced by variation of GIT locally for the quiver varieties.
#### Definition allowing for Lie algebra actions
The previous paragraphs describes the local structure of certain singularities for moduli spaces birational to moduli spaces of rank 1 torsion free sheaves in a way which will be shown to be sufficient to produce an action of a Lie algebra. We propose a definition which should hold in quite general scenarios (c.f. Section \[sec:local\_k3\_ext\_quiver\]) which allows one to construct finite dimensional Lie algebra actions. We restrict for simplicity to connected Dynkin diagrams but the generalization is immediate.
Let $v$ be some primitive Mukai vector with $v^2 \ge -2$ and let ${\mathcal}{S} = \{s_1, \ldots, s_\rho\}$ be a collection of spherical classes spanning a negative definite lattice arranged according to a simply laced root system $\Delta$. Consider a stability condition $\sigma_0$ for which there are semistable objects of Mukai vector $v$ of phase $\phi$. We know that $\sigma_0$ lies on the intersection of codimension 1 walls $W_\alpha$ arranged according to the root system $\Delta$. Let $\{C_w\}_{w\in W}$ be the chambers for the corresponding finite quiver variety and pick an isomorphism between wall and chamber structures near $\sigma_0$ and for the quiver variety preserving the polyhedral structure, and $\sigma_w$ for $w \in W$ generic in the chamber corresponding to $C_w$.
\[def:amenable\] Then the data $(v, {\mathcal}S, \sigma_0)$ is called *amenable to a local quiver Lie algebra action* if
- The conditions of Proposition \[prop:general\_base\] are satisfied so there is a base $M_{\sigma_0}(v + {\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}S)$ to which all $M_{\sigma}(v + s_{{\mathbf}t})$ map, such that the map is the composition of the map contracting S-equivalent objects under $\sigma_0$ followed by an inclusion.
- For each ${\mathcal}{E}\in M_{\sigma_w}(v + s_{\mathbf}{t})$ for all ${\mathbf}t$ and all $w\in W$ there is a neighborhood around ${\mathcal}{E}$ such that the map $\pi_{\sigma_w, \sigma_0}$ is isomorphic to the product $\pi_{\theta, 0}\times {\operatorname{Id}}$ where ${\operatorname{Id}}$ is the identity on some factor and $\pi_{\theta, 0}$ is the map to the affine quotient for the Ext quiver of Definition \[defn:ext\_quiver\_object\] of the $\sigma_0$-polystable representative of ${\mathcal}E$ and $\theta$ is a generic stability condition.
In particular, Proposition \[prop:hilb\_is\_quiv\_amenable\] together with the local description of Theorem \[thm:local\_quiver\] imply that for any $v_D = (1, D, s)$, and negative definite collection ${\mathcal}{R}$ corresponding to a connected Dynkin diagram and $\sigma_0 = \sigma_{D,s, {\mathcal}R, {\mathbf}k}$, the data $(v_D, {\mathcal}R, \sigma_0)$ is amenable to a local quiver Lie algebra action.
We will later see in Theorem \[thm:finite\_action\] that this condition allows for the construction of a geometric finite dimensional Lie algebra action on the cohomologies of associated moduli spaces, which justifies the name.
Action near corners
-------------------
In this section, given a fixed Mukai vector $v_D = (1, D,1 + D^2/2 - n)$ and contractible collection ${\mathcal}C$ with corresponding finite dimensional semisimple Lie algebra ${\mathfrak}g$ of rank $\rho$ and we define a geometric action of the affine Lie algebra ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}$ on $$\bigoplus_{\substack{{\mathbf}t \in {\mathbb{Z}}^\rho \\ s \in {\mathbb{Z}}}} H^*(M_{\sigma_{D,s}}((1, D + c_{{\mathbf}t}, s)))$$ where $\sigma_{D, s}$ is a stability condition in ${\mathcal}{A}_{D,s} = {\mathcal}{A}_{D,s, {\mathbf}0}$ from Notation \[not:adsk\]. We can also produce Lie algebra actions for different stability conditions (e.g. for the Gieseker chamber) by conjugating by the birational transformations induced by varying the stability condition.
The same technique will produce finite dimensional Lie algebra actions on cohomologies for more general collections of Mukai vectors subject to some conditions on stable factors and local structures of singularities so that we may use local quiver calculations. Thus the result in this setup will also be recorded.
#### Glueing Hecke corespondences
We construct Lagrangian correspondences between a pair of moduli spaces which locally agree with the Hecke correspondences using the local description of moduli space contractions as quiver variety contractions. One of these correspondences will locally coincide with the Hecke correspondence, and thus convolution with this correspondence will essentially induce the action of the Chevalley generators $e_i$ and $f_i$ on cohomology.
We work in the setup of Proposition \[prop:general\_base\] and Definition \[def:amenable\]. Let ${\mathcal}S = \{s\}$ be a single spherical class and pick Mukai vector $v_0$ and stability condition $\sigma_0$ satisfying the conditions of the proposition and pick $\sigma$ in a chamber adjacent to the wall on which $\sigma_0$ lies. Let $M_{\sigma_0}(v_0+ {\mathbb{Z}}s)$ denote the base produced by the theorem. Assume that the data $(v_0, {\mathcal}{S}, \sigma_0)$ is amenable to a local quiver Lie algebra action.
\[lem:stratum\_open\_cover\] Given $v\in v_0 + {\mathbb{Z}}s$, let $M_0$ denote the smallest stratum of $M_{\sigma_0}(v_0 + {\mathbb{Z}}s)$ which contains the image of both $M_{\sigma}(v)$ and $M_{\sigma}(v + s)$ under $\pi_{\sigma, \sigma_0}: M_{\sigma}(v)\to M_{\sigma_0}(v_0 + {\mathbb{Z}}s)$ and $\pi'_{\sigma, \sigma_0}: M_{\sigma}(v + s)\to M_{\sigma_0}(v_0 + {\mathbb{Z}}s)$. There is a finite open cover $\{U_i\}$ of $M_0$ such that $$\pi_{\sigma, \sigma_0}^{-1}(U_i) \to U_i$$ and $$\pi_{\sigma, \sigma_0}^{'-1}(U_i) \to U_i$$ as maps onto their images are isomorphic to a trivial factors times Springer resolutions of closures of nilpotent orbits. More precisely if $\pi_{k,n}$ denotes the Springer map $\pi_{k,n}: T^* Gr(k, n) \to {\mathcal}{N}$ restricted to some neighborhood of the central fiber for some $k,n$, there is an open set $V\subset {\mathbb{C}}^n$ such that locally $\pi_{\sigma, \sigma_0} \simeq \pi_{k,n} \times {\operatorname{Id}}_V$ while $\pi_{\sigma, \sigma_0}^{'}\simeq \pi_{k+1,n} \times {\operatorname{Id}}_V$ for a different Springer map $\pi_{k+1,n}: T^* Gr(k+1, n) \to {\mathcal}{N}'$ times the same trivial factor. Further these maps are compatible under the inclusion of one of ${\mathcal}N$ or ${\mathcal}N'$ into the other.
Pick some finite set of points $x$ in $M_0$ corresponding to polystable sheaves $\{ {\mathcal}F_x\}$ of Mukai vector $v$ or $v+s$ such that by our assumption that the data given is amenable to a local quiver Lie algebra action there is an open covering $U_i$ of $M_0$ around these $x$ for which the maps $\pi_{\sigma, \sigma_0}$ and $\pi'_{\sigma, \sigma_0}$ admit local Ext-quiver descriptions. Then by the assumption that the stable factors of these objects may only be a unique object with Mukai vector in $v_0+ {\mathbb{Z}}s$ and some number of copies of $s$, the local Ext quiver must be empty or the quiver with one node and no loops. And if $x$ is in the image of both $\pi_{\sigma, \sigma_0}$ and $\pi'_{\sigma, \sigma_0}$ then the unique object with Mukai vector in $v_0+ {\mathbb{Z}}s$ agrees, which forms the framing node in the Crawley-Boevey quiver $Q_\infty$ so the framing dimensions agree as well as the dimension of the trivial factor, and the dimension vectors for the two Ext quivers must differ by $1$.
This description allows us to define the correspondence, whose definition is the same if we are considering the affine Lie algebra action or the finite dimensional one.
\[defn:heckek3\] Let $${\mathfrak}{P}_s^{\mathrm{K3}}(v) \subset M_{\sigma}(v) \times_{M_0} M_{\sigma}(v + s)$$ denote the subvariety such that given the open cover $U_i$ of the previous lemma, we have that $${\mathfrak}{P}_s^{\mathrm{K3}}(v) \big |_{\pi^{-1}(U_i)\times_{U_i} \pi^{'-1}(U_i)} = {\mathfrak}{P}(v)\times \Delta$$ where ${\mathfrak}{P}(v)$ is the Hecke correspondence on the first factor and $\Delta$ is the diagonal on the factors from the previous lemma on which $\pi$ and $\pi'$ are the identity. Note that we suppress the subscripts on these maps.
This subvariety $ {\mathfrak}{P}_s^{\mathrm{K3}}(v)$ is well defined. In addition it is smooth, irreducible, and Lagrangian under the usual product holomorphic symplectic form on $M_{\sigma}(v) \times M_{\sigma}(v + s)$, i.e. with a minus sign on the second factor.
That the subvariety is smooth irreducible and Lagrangian follows from a local calculation where it is true over each open set $U_i$. That it is well defined follows from the fact Proposition \[prop:hecke\_from\_1\_wall\] which implies that it is uniquely determined by its fiber over a point on each factor $M_{\sigma}(v)$ and $M_{\sigma}(v + s)$, regardless of the choice of point around which we take a local Ext quiver description.
The variety $${\mathfrak}{P}_s^{\mathrm{K3}}(v) \subset M_{\sigma}(v) \times_{M_0} M_{\sigma}(v + s)$$ is essentially the variety of extensions $$\{{0 \to {\mathcal}E \to {\mathcal}E' \to S \to 0} \mid {\mathcal}E \in M_{\sigma(v)}, {\mathcal}E' \in M_{\sigma}(v + s) \}$$ where $S$ is the unique $\sigma_0$-stable object of class $s$ and the maps to the two factors $M_{\sigma}(v)$ and $M_{\sigma}(v + s)$ project onto ${\mathcal}{E}$ and ${\mathcal}E'$. This means that convolution with this class encodes multiplication in some subset of some version of the Hall algebra.
#### Finite dimensional Lie algbra actions
We first construct the finite dimensional Lie algebra action, and justify the name of Definition \[def:amenable\]. To this end let $v$ be a Mukai vector, $\sigma_0$ a stability condition and ${\mathcal}S = \{ s_1, \ldots, s_\rho\}$ be a set of spherical classes such that $(v, {\mathcal}S, \sigma_0)$ is amenable to a local quiver Lie algebra action. Pick $\sigma_{w}$ generic in chambers adjacent to $\sigma_0$, labelled by $w\in W$ the Weyl group for the corresponding finite dimensional Lie algebra ${\mathfrak}{g}$. Consider the finite disjoint union and common base $$\begin{gathered}
M_{\sigma_w} := \bigsqcup_{(v + s_{{\mathbf}t})^2 \ge -2} M_{\sigma_w}(v + s_{{\mathbf}t})\\
M_0 := M_{\sigma_0}(v + {\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}S)\end{gathered}$$ and define the analogue of the Steinberg variety as $$Z := M_{\sigma_w} \times_{M_0} M_{\sigma_w}.$$
We record a few facts about the convolution structure. For proofs see [@chriss_representation_2010 §2.7]. Let $p_{ij}: M_{\sigma_w} \times M_{\sigma_w} \times M_{\sigma_w}\to M_{\sigma_w} \times M_{\sigma_w}$ denote projection onto the product of the $i$ and $j$ factors. In what follows we will frequently suppress applications of Poincaré duality.
\[prop:steinberg\_properties\] The cohomology $H^*(Z)$ is an associative algebra under the convolution product $$[\alpha] \circ [\beta] := p_{13 *}(p^*_{12}(\alpha) \cup p^*_{23}(\beta))$$ for $[\alpha], [\beta]\in H^*(Z)$. Further
(i) The diagonal $[\Delta] \subset H^*(Z)$ is the identity for the product.
(ii) Let $H(Z)$ denote the subspace spanned by cycles which are middle dimensional in $M_{\sigma_w}(v + s_{{\mathbf}t}) \times M_{\sigma_w}(v + s_{{\mathbf}t'})$ for some ${\mathbf}t, {\mathbf}t'$. Then this subspace is actually a subalgebra. Also the set-theoretic convolution of two Lagrangian cycles is isotropic.
(iii) For any $x\in M_0$, if $M_x$ is the fiber of $M_{\sigma_w}$ over $x$ then $H^*(M_x)$ is a module over $H^*(Z)$ and $H(Z)$ preserves degrees on this module.
(iv) Given $U\subset M_0$ open if we repeat the construction using Borel-Moore homology for $Z_U := \pi^{-1}(U)\times_U \pi^{-1}(U)$ then the restriction map composed with Poincaré duality $$H^*(Z) \to H_*^{BM}(Z_U)$$ is an algebra homomorphism which preserves the module structure on $H^*(M_x)$ for $x\in U$.
Define the map $\omega: M\times N \to N\times M$ which flips the two components of any product. We come to the analogue of (a simpler version of) Theorem \[thm:uea\_action\_nakajima\]. Recall that convolution is written in the opposite order as composition of operators.
\[thm:finite\_action\] Let $e_i, f_i, h_i \in {\mathfrak}g$ for $i = 1, \ldots, \rho $ denote the Chevalley generators for the finite dimensional Lie algebra associated to the data $(v, {\mathcal}{S}, \sigma_0)$. Then there is an algebra morphism $$U({\mathfrak}g) \to H(Z)$$ defined on generators by $$\begin{aligned}
e_i &\mapsto \sum_{(v+ s_{{\mathbf}t})^2 \ge -2 } \big [ {\mathfrak}{P}_{s_i}^{\mathrm{K3}}(v+ s_{{\mathbf}t})\big]\\
f_i &\mapsto \sum_{(v+ s_{{\mathbf}t})^2 \ge -2} (-1)^{r_i( s_{{\mathbf}t})}\big [ \omega\big({\mathfrak}{P}_{s_i}^{\mathrm{K3}}(v+ s_{{\mathbf}t})\big)\big]\\
h_i &\mapsto \sum_{(v+ s_{{\mathbf}t})^2 \ge -2} -\langle v + s_{{\mathbf}t} , s_i \rangle[\Delta_{M_{\sigma_w}(v+ s_{{\mathbf}t})}]\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
r_i( s_{{\mathbf}t}) &:= \frac 12 (\dim M_{\sigma_w}(v + s_{{\mathbf}t} + s_i) - \dim M_{\sigma_w}(v + s_{{\mathbf}t})) \\
&= \langle v + s_{{\mathbf}t}, s_i \rangle - 1.\end{aligned}$$
We check first the case when ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is ADE, and later deduce the case where ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is a direct sum of ADE Lie algebras. The relations - , essentially using Proposition \[prop:steinberg\_properties\] (iv) which reduces to the local case, where the local calculations are in [@nakajima1998quiver §9]. The relations and are immediate. Then as in [@nakajima1998quiver 9.iii], the relations and follow from the finite-dimensionality of $H^*(M_{\sigma_w})$ once we know . But this follows from the fact that $$[\Delta] = \sum [\Delta_{M_{\sigma_w}(v + s_{{\mathbf}t})}]$$ and then locally using [@nakajima1998quiver p. 545-6] that the class $$[C] := (f_j \circ e_i - e_i \circ f_j)\circ [\Delta_{M_{\sigma_w}(v + s_{{\mathbf}t})}]$$ is represented by the cycle $$C = \begin{cases}
\emptyset & i \neq j\\
c \Delta_{M_{\sigma_w}(v + s_{{\mathbf}t})} & i = j
\end{cases}$$ where the constant can be checked over an open set $U\in M_0$ to be $$c = -1 - \frac{1}{2} (\dim M_{\sigma_w}(v + s_{{\mathbf}t} + s_i) - \dim M_{\sigma_w}(v + s_{{\mathbf}t})) = -\langle v + s_{{\mathbf}t}, s_i \rangle$$ because taking the difference in dimensions eliminates the contribution of the trivial factor from Lemma \[lem:stratum\_open\_cover\].
Now consider ${\mathfrak}{g} = \oplus_{i=1}^d {\mathfrak}{g}_i$ where each ${\mathfrak}{g}_i$ is simple. Pick roots ${\mathcal}{S}_i = \{s_{i,j}\} \subset {\mathcal}{S}$ corresponding to each ${\mathfrak}{g}_i$ and stability conditions $\sigma_{0,i}$ where the phase of $v$ generically overlaps with that of an object of each Mukai vector $s_{i,j}$. Then the data $(v, {\mathcal}{S}_i, \sigma_{0,i})$ are each amenable to local quiver Lie algebra actions, and the previous case proves maps $U({\mathfrak}{g}_i) \to H(Z)$, we are left to prove that they commute. Without loss of generality take $e_1 \in {\mathfrak}{g}_1$ and $e_2 \in {\mathfrak}{g}_2$ corresponding to classes $s_1, s_2 \in {\mathcal}{S}$. But since a local quiver variety for a disjoint quiver $Q_1\sqcup Q_2$ has the structure of a product ${\mathfrak}M_{Q_1, \theta_1}({\mathbf}v_1, {\mathbf}{w}_1)\times {\mathfrak}M_{Q_2, \theta_2}({\mathbf}v_2, {\mathbf}{w}_2)$, we have that $M_0$ is covered by open sets of the form $U$ such that their inverse image in each $M_{\sigma}(v + s_{{\mathbf}t})$ is of the form $$U_1 \times U_2 \times U_3$$ where ${\mathfrak}{P}_{s_1}^{\mathrm{K3}}(v+ s_{{\mathbf}t})$ is of the form $L \times \Delta_{U_2\times U_3}$ and up to reordering ${\mathfrak}{P}_{s_2}^{\mathrm {K3}}(v+ s_{{\mathbf}t})$ is of the form $L \times \Delta_{U_1\times U_3}$, from which it follows that $e_1$ and $e_2$ commute.
#### Affine Lie algebra actions
We now restrict to Mukai vectors of the form $(1, D, s)$ and essentially glue the previous Lie algebra actions from corners of the chamber ${\mathcal}{A}_{D,s}$ together to form affine Lie algebra actions. We can accomplish the same effect by working with the map to $Sym^n(S_{{\mathcal}C})$ for a contractible collection ${\mathcal}{C}$.
To this end fix $v_D = (1,D,s)$ and a (not necessarily connected) contractible collection ${\mathcal}{C} = \sqcup_{i = 1}^d {\mathcal}{C}_d$ with ${\mathcal}{C} = \{C_{1}, \ldots, C_{ \rho}\}$, consider the Mukai vectors $$\begin{aligned}
c_{i} &:= v({\mathcal}O_{C_{i}}(-1)) = (0, C_{i}, 0)\\
c_{0_j} &:= (0, -C_{\beta_j}, 1) \end{aligned}$$ with $C_{\beta_j}$ the class corresponding to the highest root in ${\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}{C}_j$. Let ${\mathcal}{R}$ denote the set of $-2$ classes in the span of all $c_{i}$ and $c_{0_j}$. If ${\mathbf}t \in {\mathbb{Z}}^\rho$ let $$c_{{\mathbf}t} : = (0, t_i C_i, 0)$$ Let $$M_0 := \bigcup_{n\ge 0} Sym^n(S_{{\mathcal}C})$$ where we identify cycles on $S_{{\mathcal}C}$ if they differ by cycles supported at singular points. Thus for a Mukai vector $$(1, D', s') \in v_D + {\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}{R} = v_D + {\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}C + {\mathbb{Z}}(0,0,1)$$ and any stability condition $\sigma_{D',s'} \in {\mathcal}{A}_{D',s'}$ from Notation \[not:adsk\] there is a map $$M_{\sigma_{D,s}}(1, D', s') \to M_0$$ which factors though the map $$M_{\sigma_{D,s}}(1, D', s') \to M_{\sigma_{R'}}((1, D', s') + {\mathbb{Z}}R')$$ where $R'\subset {\mathcal}{R}$ is a subset whose span is negative definite and $\sigma_{R'} = \sigma_{D', s', R', {\mathbf}0}$ in the language of Notation \[not:boundary\_stab\]. Given $v_1 = (1, D_1, s_1)$ and $v_2 = (1, D_2, s_2)$ both in $v_D + {\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}R$ let $$Z(v_1, v_2) := M_{\sigma_{D_1, s_1}}(v_1) \times_{M_0} M_{\sigma_{D_2, s_2}}(v_2)$$ so that there is a convolution algebra structure on (what we will abusively refer to as ) $$H(Z) := \bigoplus_{v_1, v_2} H(Z(v_1, v_2)).$$
Let $$\begin{aligned}
{\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}&:= {\mathfrak}g[t^{\pm 1}] \oplus {\mathbb{Q}}c \oplus {\mathbb{Q}}d\end{aligned}$$ denote the affine Lie algebra whose finite Dynkin diagram agrees with the dual graph of the (not necessarily connected) contractible collection ${\mathcal}{C}$. This algebra is generated by the affine Lie algebras ${\widetilde}{{\mathfrak}{g}}_{{\mathcal}C_j}$ for connected components ${\mathcal}C_j$ by requiring that all of the central elements agree and by adjoining $d = t\frac{d}{dt}$. Thus ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}$ is generated by $c, d$ and $e_i, f_i, h_i$ for $i = 1, \ldots, \rho$ and an additional $e_{0_j}, f_{0_j}, h_{0_j}$ for each connected component ${\mathcal}C_j$.
Let $P_S\subset H^*(S, {\mathbb{Z}})$ be the set of Mukai vectors of the form $v = (1,D,1 + s)$ and consider the map $\lambda: P_S \to P_{{\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}}$ defined by $$\lambda : v \mapsto \Lambda_0 + s \delta - \langle v, c_\alpha \rangle c_i$$ where we identify $c_i$ for $i = 1, \ldots, \rho$ with roots for ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}$ and $\Lambda_0$ is the fundamental weight dual to $c\in {\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}.$
Finally recall from [@lusztig_quiver_1998] (see [@nakajima1998quiver §2]) the modified universal enveloping algebra, which allows us to deal easily with infinite unions of Steinberg correspondences. This is an algebra ${\widetilde}{U}({\mathfrak}g)$ for a Kac-Moody (or BKM) algebra ${\mathfrak}g$ generated by $a_{\lambda}\in P_{{\mathfrak}g}$ and also $e_i a_{\lambda}$ and $a_{\lambda} f_i $ for $e_i\in U^+({\mathfrak}g), f_i\in U^-({\mathfrak}g)$ such that under mild conditions which are satisfied in this paper, a representation $M$ of ${\widetilde}{U}({\mathfrak}g)$ is the same as a representation of $U({\mathfrak}g)$ with a weight decomposition $$M = \bigoplus_{\lambda \in P_{{\mathfrak}g}} M_\lambda$$ where $a_\lambda$ acts as the projection $M \to M_{\lambda}$.
\[prop:affine\_corners\] For base Mukai vector $v_D = (1,D,s)$ there exists a unique algebra morphism $$\Phi: {\widetilde}U({\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}) \to H(Z)$$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
a_{\lambda} &\mapsto \begin{cases}
[\Delta_{M_{\sigma_{D',s'}}(1, D', s')}] & \lambda = \lambda(1, D', s')\\
0 & \text{else}
\end{cases}\\
e_{i} a_{\lambda} &\mapsto E_i \Phi(a_\lambda)\\
a_{\lambda} f_i &\mapsto \Phi(a_\lambda) F_i\end{aligned}$$ where $E_i, F_i \in \prod_{v_1, v_2} H(Z(v_1, v_2))$ are operators on $H(Z)$ for $i = 1, \ldots, \rho$ or $i = 0_j$ for some $j$ defined by convolution on the right with the formal sums $$\begin{aligned}
E_i &:= \sum_{\substack{v\in v_D + {\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}R\\ v^2 \ge -2} }[ {\mathfrak}{P}_{c_{i}}^{\mathrm{K3}}(v)\big] \\
F_i &:= \sum_{\substack{v\in v_D + {\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}R\\ v^2 \ge -2} } (-1)^{r_i( v)}\big [ \omega\big({\mathfrak}{P}_{c_{i}}^{\mathrm{K3}}(v)\big)\big]\end{aligned}$$ where $r_i(v) = \langle v, c_i \rangle -1 .$
Because of the local quiver description of Proposition \[prop:hilb\_is\_quiv\_amenable\], the exact same argument as Theorem \[thm:finite\_action\] we get, for every connected component ${\mathcal}C_j$, a morphism ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}_{{\mathcal}C_j} \to H(Z)$ of the stated form with the modification that instead of using a decomposition $[\Delta] = \sum_M [\Delta_M]$ we use the modified universal enveloping algebra.
Since $c$ acts by $1$ in all of these representations and the action of $d$ coincide, it remains to see that the factors ${\widetilde}{g}_{{\mathcal}C_j}$ and ${\widetilde}{g}_{{\mathcal}C_j'}$ commute with each other for $j \neq j'$. But this follows from the argument in Lemma \[lem:stratum\_open\_cover\] which implies that if $c_1$ and $c_2$ are classes supported in different components of ${\mathcal}{C}$ then the relevant stratum of $M_0$ is covered by open sets $U$ such that the inverse image of $U$ in $M_{\sigma_{D',s'}}(v)$ for any $v$ is a product $$U_1 \times U_2 \times U_3$$ such that the Hecke correspondences ${\mathfrak}{P}_{c_1}^{\mathrm{K3}}(v)$ are the identity in the factor $U_2\times U_3$ while the correspondences ${\mathfrak}{P}_{c_2}^{\mathrm{K3}}(v')$ act as the identity in $U_1 \times U_3$. Thus they commute with each other.
\[cor:affine\_on\_VOA\] By taking a set of representatives $\{ 1, D_i, s_i\}$ for the action of ${\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}{R}$ by addition on $P_S = \{ (1, D, s) \in H^*(S, {\mathbb{Z}})\}$, the previous proposition gives a representation of ${\widetilde}{U}({\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g})$, and hence of $U({\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g})$ on $$\bigoplus_{(1,D,s) \in P_S} H^*(M_{\sigma_{D,s}}(1, D, s)).$$
Compatibility of corner actions
-------------------------------
The next section will prove the main theorem \[thm:main\] of the paper. The argument essentially proceeds by combining the previously constructed affine Lie algebra actions and thus rests on the following compatibility lemma. For two stability conditions $\sigma, \sigma'$ and primitive Mukai vector $v$ let $$F_{\sigma, \sigma'}(v) \subset M_{\sigma}(v) \times M_{\sigma'}(v)$$ denote the cycle which induces the isomorphism $H^*(M_{\sigma}(v)) \simeq H^*(M_{\sigma'}(v))$ via convolution.
Given a Lie algebra action for a stability condition $\sigma$, we can induce Lie algebra actions for moduli spaces for another generic stability condition $\sigma'$ by conjugating by a flop relating $M_{\sigma}(v)$ and $M_{\sigma'}(v)$. The lemma says that if there are multiple choices of $\sigma$ where the algebra action is defined, this procedure induces the same action for stability condition $\sigma'$ regardless of $\sigma$.
\[lem:flop\_chain\] Let $v_1 = (1, D, s)$ and $v_2 = (1, D+ C, s)$ denote two Mukai vectors which differ by the class of ${\mathcal}{O}_C(-1)$ for an irreducible $-2$ curve $C$. Let $\sigma_{Hilb}$ be a stability condition in the Gieseker chamber for both $v_1$ and $v_2$. Let ${\mathcal}{C}$ and ${\mathcal}C'$ denote contractible collections both containing $C$ and stability conditions $\sigma_{{\mathcal}C}$, $\sigma_{{\mathcal}C'}$ which lie in the chambers ${\mathcal}{A}_{D, s}$ from Notation \[not:adsk\] for the contractible collections ${\mathcal}C$ and ${\mathcal}{C}'$ respectively.
(i) Let ${\mathfrak}{P}_{{\mathcal}C}^{\mathrm{K3}}(v)$ and ${\mathfrak}{P}_{{\mathcal}C'}^{\mathrm{K3}}(v)$ denote the Hecke correspondence for class $c = (0, C, 0)$ between moduli spaces for stability conditions $\sigma_{{\mathcal}C}$ and $\sigma_{{\mathcal}C'}$ respectively. Then the cycles $$[F_{\sigma_{Hilb}, \sigma_{{\mathcal}C}} (v_1)]\circ [{\mathfrak}{P}_{{\mathcal}C}^{\mathrm{K3}}(v_1)] \circ [F_{\sigma_{{\mathcal}C} , \sigma_{Hilb}}(v_2)]$$ and $$[F_{\sigma_{Hilb}, \sigma_{{\mathcal}C'}} (v_1)]\circ [{\mathfrak}{P}_{{\mathcal}C'}^{\mathrm{K3}}(v_1)] \circ [F_{\sigma_{{\mathcal}C'} , \sigma_{Hilb}}(v_2)]$$ agree and hence induce the same map $$H^*(M_{\sigma_{Hilb}}(v_1)) \to H^*(M_{\sigma_{Hilb}}(v_2)).$$
(ii) More generally, consider contractible collections ${\mathcal}C \subset {\mathcal}C'$, the class $c = (0, -C_{\max}, 1)$ with $C_{\max}$ the curve class corresponding to the highest root in ${\mathcal}{C}$, with $v_1 = (1, D, s)$ and $v_2 = v_1 + c$. Then there is a corner of ${\mathcal}{A}_{D,s}$ for the collection ${\mathcal}{C}'$ and $\sigma_0$ on this corner such that for some $\sigma_w$ in a chamber (not necessarily ${\mathcal}{A}_{D,s}$)adjacent to $\sigma_0$ such that the wall where the phases of $v_1$ overlaps with that of $c$ is a wall of this chamber. We have an equality of cycles $$\begin{aligned}
&[F_{\sigma_{Hilb}, \sigma_{{\mathcal}C}} (v_1)]\circ [{\mathfrak}{P}_{{\mathcal}C}^{\mathrm{K3}}(v_1)] \circ [F_{\sigma_{{\mathcal}C} , \sigma_{Hilb}}(v_2)] \\
&= [F_{\sigma_{Hilb}, \sigma_{{\mathcal}C}} (v_1)]\circ [F_{ \sigma_{{\mathcal}C}, \sigma_w} (v_1)] \circ [{\mathfrak}{P}_{{\mathcal}C'}^{\mathrm{K3}}(v_1)] \circ [F_{\sigma_{w}, \sigma_{{\mathcal}C}} (v_2)]\circ [F_{\sigma_{{\mathcal}C} , \sigma_{Hilb}}(v_2)].\end{aligned}$$
First we prove (i). By Proposition \[prop:stab\_corner\_arranged\] in the positive cone for $S^{[n]}$ and its analogue Proposition \[prop:wall\_chamber\_vd\] which defines a the wall and chamber structure on subset $U_{{\mathcal}C, D}\subset \operatorname{Stab}^\dagger(S)$ for $v_1$ and $v_2$, there is a continuous path $\sigma_t\in \operatorname{Stab}^{\dagger}$ for $t \in [0,1]$ such that $\sigma_t \in U_{{\mathcal}C, D}\cup U_{{\mathcal}C', D}$ (c.f. also Notation \[not:mca\] and subsequent paragraph for the definition of $U_{{\mathcal}C, D}$). Further, this path can be chosen so that it only passes through codimension 1 walls, and lies arbitrarily close to the wall $W_C$ where the phase of ${\mathcal}{O}_C(-1)$ overlaps with that of an object of Mukai vector $v_1$ and $v_2$. In other words, we pass through the chambers of Notation \[not:adsk\] through codimension 1 walls $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sigmatpath}
~~~{\mathcal}{A}_{D,s, {\mathbf}0} \to {\mathcal}{A}_{D,s, {\mathbf}j_1} \to \cdots \to &{\mathcal}{A}_{D,s, {\mathbf}j_n} \to \\
\to {\mathcal}{A}_{D,s, {\mathbf}k_m} &\to \cdots \to {\mathcal}{A}_{D,s,{\mathbf}k_1 }\to {\mathcal}{A}_{D,s,{\mathbf}0}~~~\end{aligned}$$ where the first line refers to chambers ${\mathcal}A$ for contractible collection ${\mathcal}{C}$ and the second for ${\mathcal}C'$, and each vector ${\mathbf}j$ or ${\mathbf}k$ defining an alcove has component $0$ corresponding to the class $C$. For convenience denote ${\mathbf}j_0 = {\mathbf}0$ and ${\mathbf}k_0 = {\mathbf}0$. Let $\sigma_{{\mathbf}j_i}$ denote a class in ${\mathcal}{A}_{D,s, {\mathbf}j_i}$ and analogously define $\sigma_{{\mathbf}k_i}$.
For $\sigma_0$ generic subject to the condition that it lies on the wall $W_C$ and also on the wall $W_{{\mathbf}j_i}$ between ${\mathcal}{A}_{D,s, {\mathbf}j_i}$ and ${\mathcal}{A}_{D,s, {\mathbf}j_{i+1}}$ or analogously on both $W_C$ and $W_{{\mathbf}k_i}$, then the collection $(v_1, {\mathcal}{S}, \sigma_0)$ is amenable to a local quiver Lie algebra action for ${\mathfrak}g$ of type $A_2$ or of $A_1\times A_1$ with ${\mathcal}{S}$ consisting of $c$ and some other spherical class. In either case we have (for ${\mathbf}j$, and analogously for ${\mathbf}k$ ) an equality of cycles $$[F_{\sigma_{{\mathbf}j_i}, \sigma_{{\mathbf}j_{i+1}}} (v_1)]\circ [{\mathfrak}{P}_{c,\sigma_{{\mathbf}j_{i+1}} }^{\mathrm{K3}}(v_1)] \circ [F_{\sigma_{{\mathbf}j_{i+1}} , \sigma_{{\mathbf}j_i}}(v_2)] = [{\mathfrak}{P}_{c, \sigma_{{\mathbf}j_{i}}}^{\mathrm{K3}}(v_1)]$$ where ${\mathfrak}{P}_{c, \sigma}^{\mathrm {K3}}(v)$ is the cycle of Definition \[defn:heckek3\] for given generic condition $\sigma$ and class $s = c$. This follows from the fact that locally, the geometric action of ${\mathfrak}{g}$ is intertwined by the flops between different chambers, and so the difference between these cycles is represented by a cycle which is locally the zero cycle.
By chaining the string of equalities of these cycles the result follows as the stability condition passes through the chambers in after conjugation by a flop into the Gieseker chamber, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
&[F_{\sigma_{Hilb}, \sigma_{{\mathcal}C}} (v_1)]\circ [{\mathfrak}{P}_{{\mathcal}C}^{\mathrm{K3}}(v_1)] \circ [F_{\sigma_{{\mathcal}C} , \sigma_{Hilb}}(v_2)] \\
&= [F_{\sigma_{Hilb}, \sigma_{{\mathcal}C}} (v_1)]\circ [F_{\sigma_{{\mathcal}C}, \sigma_{{\mathcal}C'}} (v_1)] \circ [{\mathfrak}{P}_{{\mathcal}C'}^{\mathrm{K3}}(v_1)]\circ [F_{\sigma_{{\mathcal}C'}, \sigma_{{\mathcal}C}} (v_2)]\circ [F_{\sigma_{{\mathcal}C} , \sigma_{Hilb}}(v_2)] \\
&= [F_{\sigma_{Hilb}, \sigma_{{\mathcal}C'}} (v_1)]\circ [{\mathfrak}{P}_{{\mathcal}C'}^{\mathrm{K3}}(v_1)] \circ [F_{\sigma_{{\mathcal}C'} , \sigma_{Hilb}}(v_2)]. \end{aligned}$$
The proof of (ii) is identical except we first conjugate the Hecke correspondence by a flop to write it as a correspondence $$[F_{ \sigma_{{\mathcal}C}, \sigma_w} (v_1)] \circ [{\mathfrak}{P}_{{\mathcal}C'}^{\mathrm{K3}}(v_1)] \circ [F_{\sigma_{w}, \sigma_{{\mathcal}C}} (v_2)]$$ between moduli spaces for $\sigma\in {\mathcal}{A}_{D, s}$, and then instead of choosing a path of stability conditions close to the wall where the phase of $v_1$ overlaps with $(0,C,0)$ we choose a path arbitrarily close to the wall where the phase of $v_1$ overlaps with $(0, -C_{\max}, 1)$.
Main theorem
------------
Let ${\mathfrak}{g}$ denote the Kac-Moody algebra with Cartan matrix the negative of the Gram matrix for the pairing on $\operatorname{NS}(S)$, where we reiterate that K3 surface $S$ such that ${\overline}{\operatorname{NE}}(S)$ is the cone spanned irreducible $-2$ curves, and any pair of these either don’t intersect or intersect transversely at a single point.
We arrive at the main theorem which gives a representation of the algebra $${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}(\operatorname{NS}(S)) = {\mathfrak}{g}[t^{\pm 1}] \oplus {\mathbb{Q}}c \oplus {\mathbb{Q}}d$$ of Section \[sec:VOA\] via geometric correspondences defined by variation of Bridgeland stability conditions.
Now recall the space from which is the direct sum of the cohomologies of all rank 1 torsion-free sheaves denoted $$V = \bigoplus_{\substack{D\in \operatorname{NS}(S)\\s\in {\mathbb{Z}}}} H^*(M(1, D, s)) = \bigoplus_{\substack{D\in \operatorname{NS}(S)\\s\in {\mathbb{Z}}}} H^*(M_{\sigma_{Hilb}(D,s)}(1, D, s))$$ where $\sigma_{Hilb}(D,s)$ is a stability condition in the Gieseker chamber for Mukai vector $(1, D, S)$. We combine the affine Lie algebra actions which Corollary \[cor:affine\_on\_VOA\] imply act on $V$. Denote the triangular decomposition of ${\mathfrak}{g}$ as ${\mathfrak}{g} = {\mathfrak}{g}_+ \oplus {\mathfrak}h \oplus {\mathfrak}{g}_-$ chosen so that positive real simple roots correspond to effective $-2$ classes. Recall the modified universal enveloping algebra ${\widetilde}{U}({\widehat}{{\mathfrak}{g}}(\operatorname{NS}(S)))$ from the paragraph before \[prop:affine\_corners\], based on the decomposition $$\begin{aligned}
U_+({\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}(\operatorname{NS}(S))) &:= U( t{\mathfrak}{g} [t] \oplus {\mathfrak}{g}_+ )\\
U_-({\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}(\operatorname{NS}(S))) &:= U( t^{-1} {\mathfrak}{g} [t^{-1}] \oplus {\mathfrak}{g}_- ).\end{aligned}$$ This ${\widetilde}{U}({\widehat}{{\mathfrak}{g}}(\operatorname{NS}(S)))$ is generated by elements $$a_{\lambda}, e a_{\lambda}, a_{\lambda} f ~~ \text{ for } e \in U_+, f\in U_-, \lambda \in P$$ where $P = P_{{\mathfrak}g} \oplus {\mathbb{Z}}\Lambda_0 \oplus {\mathbb{Z}}\delta$ is the weight lattice of ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}(\operatorname{NS}(S))$ with $\Lambda_0(c) = \delta(d) = 1$ and $\Lambda_0(d) = \delta(c) = 0$ as usual.
For the following, write $[\alpha]$ for the operator of convolution with $[\alpha]$ and write $[\alpha][\beta]$ for the operator $[\beta]\circ[\alpha](t)$ when $[\alpha]$ and $[\beta]$ are cohomology classes for which the convolution is well defined. Also write $[F_{\sigma, \sigma'}(v)]$ for the class of the cycle inducing the birational transformation between $M_{\sigma}(v)$ and $F_{\sigma'}(v)$. Let $\sigma_{Hilb}(v)$ denote a stability condition in the Gieseker chamber for Mukai vector $v = (1, D, s)$.
\[thm:main\] There is an action of ${\widetilde}{U}({\widehat}{{\mathfrak}{g}}(\operatorname{NS}(S)))$ on $V$ generated by elements which are the conjugation of Steinberg correspondences by birational transformations induced by variation of Bridgeland stability conditions. Let $\lambda(v) = \lambda(1, D,s) \in P$ denote the weight corresponding to a specific moduli space so that $a_{\lambda(1,D,s)}$ acts by projection onto $H^*(M_{\sigma_{Hilb}(v)}(v))$ for $ v = (1,D,s)$. This action can be chosen so that
(i) For any negative definite (i.e. contractible) collection of irreducible $-2$ curves corresponding to an affine Lie algebra action of ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}$ on $V'$ from Corollary \[cor:affine\_on\_VOA\] where $$V' := \bigoplus_{(1,D,s) \in P_S} H^*(M_{\sigma_{D,s}}(1, D, s))$$ if ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}\subset {\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}(\operatorname{NS}(S))$ is generated by $c, d$ and $e_i, f_i, h_i$ for $i = 1, \ldots, \rho$ and $i= 0_1, \ldots, 0_m$ then the action of $e_ia_{\lambda}$ and $a_{\lambda}f_i$ for $\lambda = \lambda(v)$ are given by $$\label{eq:mainE}
[F_{ \sigma_{D,s},\sigma_{Hilb}(v + c_i)}(v + c_i)] E_i [F_{\sigma_{Hilb}(v), \sigma_{D,s}}(v)] a_{\lambda}$$ and $$\label{eq:mainF}
a_{\lambda}[F_{ \sigma_{D,s},\sigma_{Hilb}(v)}(v)] F_i [F_{\sigma_{Hilb}(v-c_i), \sigma_{D,s}}(v - c_i)]$$ respectively, where $E_i$ and $F_i$ are defined as in Proposition \[prop:affine\_corners\] and $c_i$ is the corresponding $-2$ class.
(ii) Write $V = V_{alg} \otimes V_T$ where $$\begin{aligned}
V_{alg} &= \bigoplus_{\substack{D\in \operatorname{NS}(S)\\s\in {\mathbb{Z}}}} H^*_{alg}(M_{\sigma_{Hilb}(D,s)}(1, D, s))\\
V_{T} &= \bigoplus_{\substack{D\in \operatorname{NS}(S)\\s\in {\mathbb{Z}}}} H^*_{alg}(M_{\sigma_{Hilb}(D,s)}(1, D, s))^\perp.\end{aligned}$$ The action of ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}(\operatorname{NS}(S))$ on $V$ coincides with the action given by Fourier coefficients of vertex operators from Proposition \[prop:main\_from\_rep\_theory\] for some choice of cocycle $\epsilon$ in defining the VOA structure on $V_{alg}$ acting on the first tensor factor of $V = V_{alg} \otimes V_T$.
Let ${\mathcal}{C}_A$ be a connected contractible $A_n$ collection of curves on $S$. We get two actions of associated Heisenberg algebra ${{\mathcal}{H}eis}_{A_n}$ via Nakajima operators and ${{\mathcal}{H}eis}_{A_n}'$ from the local construction in Corollary \[cor:affine\_on\_VOA\], together with the inclusion ${{\mathcal}{H}eis}_{A_n}' \hookrightarrow {\widehat}{{\mathfrak}{g}}_{{\mathcal}C_A}$. For both of these, there is an open covering of each $M_{\sigma_{Hilb}(v)}(v)$ by sets of the form $U_{1,v} \times U_{2,v}$ such that for $h(n) \in {{\mathcal}{H}eis}_{A_n}$ we have that $h(n)$ acts by a correspondence represented by $$L\times\Delta_{U_2} \subset U_{1, v} \times U_2 \times U_{1, v+ (0,0,n)} \times U_2$$ with $U_2 = U_{2, v}= U_{2, v+ (0,0,n)}$, and analogously $h(n)\in {{\mathcal}{H}eis}_{A_n}'$ is represented by a cycle $L'\times \Delta_{U_2}$. Here $U_{1, v}\times U_{2,v}$ is a set $U_{{\mathbf}k}$ of the form defined in Proposition \[prop:hilb\_is\_quiv\_amenable\]. Then Theorem \[prop:flop\_intertwines\] implies that the cycles $L$ and $L'$ agree. Further this proposition implies that for any $x\in {\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}_{{\mathcal}C_A}$ agrees with a cycled generated by convolution by Nakajima operators and hence ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}_{{\mathcal}C_A}$ acts by $x \otimes 1$ on $V = V_{alg}\otimes V_T$, so we can restrict to studying $V_{alg}$.
Now let ${\mathcal}{C}$ be any contractible collection. Then Lemma \[lem:flop\_chain\] implies that for ${\mathcal}{C}_{A}\subset {\mathcal}{C}$ an $A_n$ collection, the Lie algebra action ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}{g}}_{{\mathcal}C_A}$ on $V$ constructed by Corollary \[cor:affine\_on\_VOA\] agrees with the action induced by the inclusion ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}{g}}_{{\mathcal}C_A} \hookrightarrow {\widehat}{{\mathfrak}{g}}_{{\mathcal}C}$ and the action of the latter on $V$ given by the same corollary. Part (i) of Lemma \[lem:flop\_chain\] implies that the action of $e_i$ and$f_i$ on $V$agree for $i \neq 0$ and part (ii) implies that the action of $e_0$ and $f_0$ agree. Thus the Heisenberg algebra actions $Heis_{{\mathcal}C}$ on $V$ induced by Nakajima operators and $Heis_{{\mathcal}C}'$ induced as a subset of ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}_{{\mathcal}C}$ agree by the fact that they agree for all $A_n$ subalgebras, and by the same argument as the previous paragraph act by $x\otimes 1$ on $V = V_{alg}\otimes V_T$.
Combining this construction for all possible contractible collections, we get that for the action of the Heisenberg algebra $Heis_{\operatorname{NS}(S)}$ on $V$ induced by Nakajima operators and any contractible collection ${\mathcal}{C}$, the action of the Heisenberg algebra $Heis_{{\mathcal}{C}} \subset {\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}_{{\mathcal}C}$ on $V$ induced by Corollary \[cor:affine\_on\_VOA\] agrees with that induced by $Heis_{{\mathcal}{C}}\hookrightarrow Heis_{\operatorname{NS}(S)}$, and both of these come from an action on $V_{alg}$. Further if $\alpha\in \operatorname{NS}(S)$ is a class corresponding to $e_i$ or $f_i$ for $i = 1, \ldots \rho$ or $i = 0_{j}$ a generator of the Lie algebra ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}_{{\mathcal}C}$ then the vertex operator $$Y(z) := \sum_{n \in {\mathbb{Z}}} y_n(\alpha)z^{-n}$$ where $y_n(\alpha)$ is an operator which on weight space $\lambda$ acts by an appropriate operator generated by those of the form or has the correct commutation relations with elements of the Heisenberg algebra and therefore agrees with that defined in Proposition \[prop:main\_from\_rep\_theory\] by Proposition \[prop:frenkel\_kac\_follows\_from\_VOA\] for some choice of cocycle $\epsilon$. Then because these Fourier coefficients generate the entire algebra ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}{g}}(\operatorname{NS}(S))$ the result follows.
#### Further questions
This result is hopefully a special case of a more general result which takes a collection of spherical classes ${\mathcal}{S}$ and Mukai vector $v$ and produces an action of a Lie algebra ${\mathfrak}{g}_{{\mathcal}S}$ with real roots corresponding to $s\in {\mathcal}{S}$ on the space $$\bigoplus_{s_{{\mathbf}t} \in {\mathbb{Z}}{\mathcal}{S}} H^*(M_{\sigma}(v + s_{{\mathbf}t}))$$ where $H^*(-)$ is some cohomology theory and this action is generated by multiplication in a version of the Hall algebra for this cohomology theory by objects of Mukai vector in ${\mathcal}{S}$. One set of examples is induced by Theorem \[thm:main\] under any derived autoequivalence of $D^b(Coh(S))$. In particular if we spherical twist by a higher rank spherical vector bundle we obtain a somewhat peculiar action of ${\widehat}{{\mathfrak}g}(\operatorname{NS}(S))$ on some moduli spaces corresponding to Mukai vectors with varying rank. It is an interesting question as to how general this construction may be, and among these lie algebra actions which are induced by Fourier coefficients of vertex operators as is this one.
Also, we expect that just as in the quiver variety case [@nakajima2001quiver_finite], this construction is the classical limit $q \to 1$ of a construction which gives an evaluation representation of a $q$-deformation of $U({\operatorname}{Map}(\mathbb{G} \to {\widehat}{{\mathfrak}{g}}(\operatorname{NS}(S)))))$ on the cohomologies of these moduli spaces for some cohomology theory dependent on $\mathbb{G}$ which is the additive group or the multiplicative group, or possibly an elliptic curve if maps are defined in the correct way. The role of $q$ here, and therefore the relevant cohomology theory is more mysterious. The author intends to return to this question and its potential applications to enumerative geometry in future work.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We introduce a fundamental lemma called the Poisson matching lemma, and apply it to prove one-shot achievability results for various settings, namely channels with state information at the encoder, lossy source coding with side information at the decoder, joint source-channel coding, broadcast channels, distributed lossy source coding, multiple access channels, channel resolvability and wiretap channels. Our one-shot bounds improve upon the best known one-shot bounds in most of the aforementioned settings (except multiple access channels, channel resolvability and wiretap channels, where we recover bounds comparable to the best known bounds), with shorter proofs in some settings even when compared to the conventional asymptotic approach using typicality. The Poisson matching lemma replaces both the packing and covering lemmas, greatly simplifying the error analysis. This paper extends the work of Li and El Gamal on Poisson functional representation, which mainly considered variable-length source coding settings, whereas this paper studies fixed-length settings, and is not limited to source coding, showing that the Poisson functional representation is a viable alternative to typicality for most problems in network information theory.'
author:
- |
Cheuk Ting Li and Venkat Anantharam\
EECS, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA\
Email: [email protected], [email protected]
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: 'A Unified Framework for One-shot Achievability via the Poisson Matching Lemma'
---
Introduction
============
The Poisson functional representation was introduced by Li and El Gamal [@sfrl_trans] to prove the strong functional representation lemma: for any pair of random variables $(X,Y)$, there exists a random variable $Z$ independent of $X$ such that $Y$ is a function of $(X,Z)$, and $H(Y|Z)\le I(X;Y)+\log(I(X;Y)+1)+4$. The lemma is applied to show various one-shot variable-length lossy source coding results, and a simple proof of the asymptotic achievability in the Gelfand-Pinsker theorem [@gelfand1980coding].
In this paper, we introduce the Poisson matching lemma, which gives a bound on the probability of mismatch between the Poisson functional representations applied on different distributions, and use it to prove one-shot achievability results for various settings, namely channels with state information at the encoder, lossy source coding with side information at the decoder, joint source-channel coding, broadcast channels, distributed lossy source coding, multiple access channels, channel resolvability and wiretap channels. The Poisson matching lemma can replace both the packing and covering lemmas (and generalizations such as the mutual covering lemma) in asymptotic typicality-based proofs. The one-shot bounds in this paper subsume the corresponding asymptotic achievability results by straightforward applications of the law of large numbers.
Various non-asymptotic alternatives to typicality have been proposed, e.g. one-shot packing and covering lemmas [@verdu2012nonasymp; @liu2015oneshotmutual], stochastic likelihood coder [@yassaee2013oneshot], likelihood encoder [@song2016likelihood] and random binning [@yassaee2013binning]. However, these non-asymptotic approaches generally require more complex proofs than their asymptotic counterparts, whereas proofs using the Poisson matching lemma can be even simpler than asymptotic proofs.
Our approach is better than the conventional asymptotic approach using typicality (and previous one-shot results, e.g. [@verdu2012nonasymp; @yassaee2013oneshot]), in the following ways:
1. We can give one-shot bounds stronger than the best known one-shot bounds in many settings discussed in this paper, with the exception of channel coding, multiple access channels, channel resolvability and wiretap channels, which are included for demonstration purposes, where we recover bounds comparable to the best known bounds.
2. Our proofs work for random variables in general Polish spaces.
3. To the best of our knowledge, for the achievability in the Gelfand-Pinsker theorem [@gelfand1980coding] (for channels with state information at the encoder) and the Wyner-Ziv theorem [@wyner1976ratedistort; @wyner1978rate] (for lossy source coding with side information at the decoder), our proofs are significantly shorter than all previous proofs (another short proof of the achievability in the Gelfand-Pinsker theorem is given in [@sfrl_trans], though it is asymptotic). Using our approach, we can also greatly shorten the proof of the achievability of the dispersion in joint source-channel coding [@kostina2013joint].
4. Our proofs only use the Poisson matching lemma introduced in this paper, which replaces both the packing and covering lemmas in proofs using typicality. The Poisson matching lemma can also be used to prove a soft covering lemma. Hence the Poisson matching lemma can be the only tool needed to prove a wide range of results in network information theory.
5. Our analyses usually involve fewer (or no) uses of sub-codebooks and binning. As a result, we can reduce the number of error events and give sharper second-order bounds. For example:
1. Conventional proofs of the Gelfand-Pinsker theorem involve one sub-codebook, giving an additional error event, whereas we do not use any sub-codebook.
2. Conventional proofs of the Wyner-Ziv theorem and the Berger-Tung inner bound [@berger1978multiterminal; @tung1978multiterminal] (for distributed lossy source coding) use binning, giving additional error events, whereas we do not require binning.
3. Conventional proofs of Marton’s inner bound [@marton1979broadcast] (for broadcast channels) involve two sub-codebooks, whereas we use only one.
6. In our approach, the encoders and decoders are characterized using a common framework (the Poisson functional representation), which is noteworthy since the roles of an encoder and a decoder in an operational setting are very different, and their constructions usually have little in common in conventional approaches.
Notation {#notation .unnumbered}
--------
Throughout this paper, we assume that $\log$ is to base 2 and the entropy $H$ is in bits. We write $\mathrm{exp}_{a}(b)$ for $a^{b}$.
The set of positive integers is denoted as $\mathbb{N}=\{1,2,\ldots\}$. We use the notation: $X_{a}^{b}:=(X_{a},\ldots,X_{b})$, $X^{n}:=X_{1}^{n}$ and $[a:b]:=[a,b]\cap\mathbb{Z}$. The conditional information density is denoted as $$\iota_{X;Y|Z}(x;y|z):=\log\frac{dP_{XY|Z=z}}{d(P_{X|Z=z}\times P_{Y|Z=z})}(x,y).$$ We consider $\iota_{X;Y|Z}(x;y|z)$ to be defined only if $P_{XY|Z=z}\ll P_{X|Z=z}\times P_{Y|Z=z}$.
For discrete $X$, we write the probability mass function as $p_{X}$. For continuous $X$, we write the probability density function as $f_{X}$. For a general random variable $X$ in a measurable space, we write its distribution as $P_{X}$. The uniform distribution over a finite set $S$ is denoted as $\mathrm{Unif}(S)$. The joint distribution of $X_{1},\ldots,X_{n}\stackrel{iid}{\sim}P_{X}$ is written as $P_{X}^{\otimes n}$. The degenerate distribution $\mathbf{P}\{X=a\}=1$ is denoted as $\delta_{a}$. The conditional independence of $X$ and $Z$ given $Y$ is denoted as $X\leftrightarrow Y\leftrightarrow Z$.
The Q-function and its inverse are denoted as $\mathcal{Q}(x)$ and $\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\epsilon)$ respectively. For $V\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ positive semidefinite, define $\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(V,\epsilon)=\{x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}:\,\mathbf{P}\{X\le x\}\ge1-\epsilon\}$ where $X\sim N(0,V)$ and $X\le x$ denotes entrywise comparison.
We assume that every random variable mentioned in this paper lies in a Polish space with its Borel $\sigma$-algebra, and all functions mentioned (e.g. distortion measures, the function $x(u,s)$ in Theorem \[thm:channel\_state\]) are measurable. The Lebesgue measure over $\mathbb{R}$ is denoted as $\lambda$. The Lebesgue measure restricted to the set $S\subseteq\mathbb{R}$ is denoted as $\lambda_{S}$. For two measures $\mu,\nu$ over $\mathcal{X}$ (a Polish space with its Borel $\sigma$-algebra) such that $\nu$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\mu$ (denoted as $\nu\ll\mu$), the Radon-Nikodym derivative is written as $$\frac{d\nu}{d\mu}:\,\mathcal{X}\to[0,\infty).$$ If $\nu_{1},\nu_{2}\ll\mu$ (but $\nu_{1}\ll\nu_{2}$ may not hold), we write $$\frac{d\nu_{1}}{d\nu_{2}}(x)=\frac{d\nu_{1}}{d\mu}(x)\left(\frac{d\nu_{2}}{d\mu}(x)\right)^{-1}\in[0,\infty],\label{eq:rnderiv}$$ which is $0$ if $(d\nu_{1}/d\mu)(x)=0$, and is $\infty$ if $(d\nu_{1}/d\mu)(x)>0$ and $(d\nu_{2}/d\mu)(x)=0$.
The total variation distance between two distributions $P,Q$ over $\mathcal{X}$ is denoted as $\Vert P-Q\Vert_{\mathrm{TV}}=\sup_{A\subseteq\mathcal{X}\,\mathrm{measurable}}|P(A)-Q(A)|$.
Poisson Matching Lemma
======================
We first state the definition of Poisson functional representation in [@sfrl_trans], with a different notation that allows the proofs to be written in a simpler and more intuitive manner.
\[Poisson functional representation\]Let $\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ be the points of a Poisson process with intensity measure $\mu\times\lambda_{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}$ on $\mathcal{U}\times\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}$ (where $\mathcal{U}$ is a Polish space with its Borel $\sigma$-algebra, and $\mu$ is $\sigma$-finite). For $P\ll\mu$ a probability measure over $\mathcal{U}$, define $$\tilde{U}_{P}\left(\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}\right):=\bar{U}_{K_{P}(\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}})},$$ where $$K_{P}\left(\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}\right):=\underset{i:\,\frac{dP}{d\mu}(\bar{U}_{i})>0}{\arg\min}T_{i}\left(\frac{dP}{d\mu}(\bar{U}_{i})\right)^{-1},$$ with arbitrary tie-breaking (a tie occurs with probability 0). We omit $\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ and only write $\tilde{U}_{P}$ if the Poisson process is clear from the context. If the Poisson process is $\{\bar{X}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ instead of $\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$, then the Poisson functional representation is likewise denoted as $\tilde{X}_{P}$. If $\bar{U}_{i}=(\bar{X}_{i},\bar{Y}_{i})$ is multivariate, and $P$ is a distribution over $\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}$, the Poisson functional representation is denoted as $(\tilde{X},\tilde{Y})_{P}$. We write its components as $(\tilde{X},\tilde{Y})_{P}=(\tilde{X}_{P},\tilde{Y}_{P})$.
Note that while $dP/d\mu$ is only uniquely defined up to a $\mu$-null set, changing the value of $dP/d\mu$ on a $\mu$-null set will only affect the values of $\tilde{U}_{P}$ on a null set with respect to the distribution of $\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$, since the probability that there exists $\bar{U}_{i}$ on that $\mu$-null set is zero. Therefore $\tilde{U}_{P}$ is uniquely defined up to a null set.
By the mapping theorem [@kingman1992poisson; @last2017lectures] (also see Appendix A of [@sfrl_trans]), we have $\tilde{U}_{P}\sim P$. This is termed Poisson functional representation in [@sfrl_trans] since it can be regarded as a construction for the functional representation lemma [@elgamal2011network]. Consider the distribution $P_{U,X}$. Let $\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ be the points of a Poisson process with intensity measure $P_{U}\times\lambda_{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}$, $X\sim P_{X}$ independent of the process, and $U:=\tilde{U}_{P_{U|X}(\cdot|X)}$. Then $(U,X)\sim P_{U,X}$. Hence we can express $U$ as a function of $X$ and $\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}$ (which is independent of $X$). This fact will be used repeatedly throughout the proofs in this paper.
For two different distributions $P$ and $Q$, $\tilde{U}_{P}$ and $\tilde{U}_{Q}$ are coupled in such a way that $\tilde{U}_{P}=\tilde{U}_{Q}$ occurs with a probability that can be bounded in terms of $dP/dQ$. We now present the core lemma of this paper. The proof is given in Appendix \[subsec:pf\_phidiv\].
\[Poisson matching lemma\]\[lem:phidiv\]Let $\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ be the points of a Poisson process with intensity measure $\mu\times\lambda_{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}$, and $P,Q$ be probability measures on $\mathcal{U}$ with $P,Q\ll\mu$. Then we have the following almost surely: $$\mathbf{P}\left\{ \left.\tilde{U}_{Q}\neq\tilde{U}_{P}\,\right|\,\tilde{U}_{P}\right\} \le1-\left(1+\frac{dP}{dQ}(\tilde{U}_{P})\right)^{-1},\label{eq:phidiv}$$ where we write $(dP/dQ)(u)=(dP/d\mu)(u)/((dQ/d\mu)(u))$ as in (we do not require $P\ll Q$). The right hand side of is considered to be 1 if $(dP/d\mu)(\tilde{U}_{P})>0$ and $(dQ/d\mu)(\tilde{U}_{P})=0$.
The exact expression for the left hand side of is in .
We usually do not apply the Poisson matching lemma on fixed $P,Q$, but rather on conditional distributions. The following conditional version of the Poisson matching lemma follows directly from applying the lemma on $(P,Q)\leftarrow(P_{U|X}(\cdot|X),Q_{U|Y}(\cdot|Y))$. The proof is given in Appendix \[subsec:phidiv\_cond\] for the sake of completeness.
\[Conditional Poisson matching lemma\]\[lem:cond\_phidiv\]Fix a distribution $P_{X,U,Y}$ and a probability kernel $Q_{U|Y}$ (that is not necessarily $P_{U|Y}$) satisfying $P_{U|X}(\cdot|X),Q_{U|Y}(\cdot|Y)\ll\mu$ almost surely. Let $X\sim P_{X}$, and $\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ be the points of a Poisson process with intensity measure $\mu\times\lambda_{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}$ independent of $X$. Let $U=\tilde{U}_{P_{U|X}(\cdot|X)}$ and $Y|(X,U,\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i})\sim P_{Y|X,U}(\cdot|X,U)$ (note that $(X,U,Y)\sim P_{X,U,Y}$ and $Y\leftrightarrow(X,U)\leftrightarrow\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i}$). Then we have the following almost surely: $$\mathbf{P}\left\{ \left.\tilde{U}_{Q_{U|Y}(\cdot|Y)}\neq U\,\right|\,X,U,Y\right\} \le1-\left(1+\frac{dP_{U|X}(\cdot|X)}{dQ_{U|Y}(\cdot|Y)}(U)\right)^{-1}.$$
The condition that $P_{U|X}(\cdot|X),Q_{U|Y}(\cdot|Y)\ll\mu$ almost surely is satisfied, for example, when $\mu=P_{U}$, $Q_{U|Y}=P_{U|Y}$, $P_{UX}\ll P_{U}\times P_{X}$ and $P_{UY}\ll P_{U}\times P_{Y}$. Note that since $X{\perp\!\!\!\perp}\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i}$, we have $\tilde{U}_{P_{U|X}(\cdot|X)}|X\sim P_{U|X}$, whereas $Y$ may not be independent of $\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i}$, so $\tilde{U}_{Q_{U|Y}(\cdot|Y)}$ may not follow the conditional distribution $Q_{U|Y}$.
One-shot Channel Coding\[sec:channel\]
======================================
To demonstrate the application of the Poisson matching lemma, we apply it to recover a bound for one-shot channel coding in [@yassaee2013oneshot] (with a slight penalty of having $\mathsf{L}$ instead of $\mathsf{L}-1$). Upon observing $M\sim\mathrm{Unif}[1:\mathsf{L}]$, the encoder produces $X$, which is sent through the channel $P_{Y|X}$. The decoder observes $Y$ and recovers $\hat{M}$ with error probability $P_{e}=\mathbf{P}\{M\neq\hat{M}\}$.
\[prop:channel\]Fix any $P_{X}$. There exists a code for the channel $P_{Y|X}$, with message $M\sim\mathrm{Unif}[1:\mathsf{L}]$, with average error probability $$P_{e}\le\mathbf{E}\left[1-\left(1+\mathsf{L}2^{-\iota_{X;Y}(X;Y)}\right)^{-1}\right]$$ if $P_{XY}\ll P_{X}\times P_{Y}$.
Let $\{(\bar{X}_{i},\bar{M}_{i}),T_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ be the points of a Poisson process with intensity measure $P_{X}\times P_{M}\times\lambda_{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}$ (where $P_{M}$ is $\mathrm{Unif}[1:\mathsf{L}]$) independent of $M$. The encoding function is $m\mapsto\tilde{X}_{P_{X}\times\delta_{m}}$ (i.e., $X=\tilde{X}_{P_{X}\times\delta_{M}}$), and the decoding function is $y\mapsto\tilde{M}_{P_{X|Y}(\cdot|y)\times P_{M}}$ (i.e., $\hat{M}=\tilde{M}_{P_{X|Y}(\cdot|Y)\times P_{M}}$). Note that the encoding and decoding functions also depend on the common randomness $\{(\bar{X}_{i},\bar{M}_{i}),T_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$, which will be fixed later. We have $(M,X,Y)\sim P_{M}\times P_{X}P_{Y|X}$. $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{P}\left\{ M\neq\tilde{M}_{P_{X|Y}(\cdot|Y)\times P_{M}}\right\} \\
& \le\mathbf{P}\left\{ (X,M)\neq(\tilde{X},\tilde{M})_{P_{X|Y}(\cdot|Y)\times P_{M}}\right\} \\
& =\mathbf{E}\left[\mathbf{P}\left\{ \left.(X,M)\neq(\tilde{X},\tilde{M})_{P_{X|Y}(\cdot|Y)\times P_{M}}\,\right|\,M,X,Y\right\} \right]\\
& \stackrel{(a)}{\le}\mathbf{E}\left[1-\left(1+\frac{dP_{X}\times\delta_{M}}{dP_{X|Y}(\cdot|Y)\times P_{M}}(X,M)\right)^{-1}\right]\\
& =\mathbf{E}\left[1-(1+\mathsf{L}2^{-\iota_{X;Y}(X;Y)})^{-1}\right],\end{aligned}$$ where (a) is by the conditional Poisson matching lemma (Lemma \[lem:cond\_phidiv\]) on $(X,U,Y,Q_{U|Y})\leftarrow(M,(X,M),Y,P_{X|Y}\times P_{M})$ (note that $P_{X,M|M}=P_{X}\times\delta_{M}$). Therefore there exists a fixed $\{(\bar{x}_{i},\bar{m}_{i}),t_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ such that conditioned on $\{(\bar{X}_{i},\bar{M}_{i}),T_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}=\{(\bar{x}_{i},\bar{m}_{i}),t_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$, the average probability of error is bounded by $\mathbf{E}\left[1-(1+\mathsf{L}2^{-\iota_{X;Y}(X;Y)})^{-1}\right]$.
Compared to the scheme in [@yassaee2013oneshot], we use the Poisson process $\{(\bar{X}_{i},\bar{M}_{i}),T_{i}\}$ to create a codebook, instead of the conventional i.i.d. random codebook in [@yassaee2013oneshot]. While the codewords for different $m$’s are still i.i.d., we attach a bias $T_{i}$ to each codeword. Our scheme does not use a stochastic decoder as in [@yassaee2013oneshot], but rather a biased maximum likelihood decoder $\tilde{M}_{P_{X|Y}(\cdot|y)\times P_{M}}=\bar{M}_{K}$ where $K=\arg\max_{i}T_{i}^{-1}(dP_{X|Y}(\cdot|y)/dP_{X})(\bar{X}_{i})$. In the following sections, we will demonstrate how our approach can lead to simpler proofs and sharper bounds compared to [@yassaee2013oneshot].
Using the generalized Poisson matching lemma that will be introduced in Section \[sec:gen\_pml\], we can prove the following bound. The proof is in Appendix \[subsec:channel2\].
\[thm:channel2\]Fix any $P_{X}$. There exists a code for the channel $P_{Y|X}$, with message $M\sim\mathrm{Unif}[1:\mathsf{L}]$, with average error probability $$P_{e}\le\mathbf{E}\left[1-\left(1-\min\left\{ 2^{-\iota_{X;Y}(X;Y)},\,1\right\} \right)^{(\mathsf{L}+1)/2}\right]$$ if $P_{XY}\ll P_{X}\times P_{Y}$.
Compare this to the dependence testing bound [@polyanskiy2010channel]: $$P_{e}\le\mathbf{E}\left[\min\left\{ \frac{\mathsf{L}-1}{2}\cdot2^{-\iota_{X;Y}(X;Y)},\,1\right\} \right].$$ Theorem \[thm:channel2\] is at least as strong (with a slight penalty of having $(\mathsf{L}+1)/2$ instead of $(\mathsf{L}-1)/2$) since $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{E}\left[1-\left(1-\min\left\{ 2^{-\iota_{X;Y}(X;Y)},\,1\right\} \right)^{(\mathsf{L}+1)/2}\right]\\
& \le\mathbf{E}\left[\min\left\{ \frac{\mathsf{L}+1}{2}\cdot2^{-\iota_{X;Y}(X;Y)},\,1\right\} \right].\end{aligned}$$
Apart from the dependence testing bound [@polyanskiy2010channel], there are other one-shot bounds for channel coding such as the random-coding union (RCU) bound and the $\kappa\beta$ bound in [@polyanskiy2010channel], which are tighter in certain situations (e.g. the RCU bound is suitable for error exponent analysis). The technique introduced in this paper is suitable for first and second order analysis, but does not seem to give tight error exponent bounds.
One-shot Coding for Channels with State Information at the Encoder\[sec:channel\_state\]
========================================================================================
The one-shot coding setting for a channel with state information at the encoder is described as follows. Upon observing $M\sim\mathrm{Unif}[1:\mathsf{L}]$ and $S\sim P_{S}$, the encoder produces $X$, which is sent through the channel $P_{Y|X,S}$ with state $S$. The decoder observes $Y$ and recovers $\hat{M}$ with error probability $P_{e}=\mathbf{P}\{M\neq\hat{M}\}$.
We show a one-shot version of the Gelfand-Pinsker theorem [@gelfand1980coding]. This is the first one-shot bound attaining the best known second order result in [@scarlett2015dispersions] (which considers a finite-blocklength, not one-shot scenario). Our bound is stronger than the one-shot bounds in [@verdu2012nonasymp; @yassaee2013oneshot; @watanabe2015nonasymp] (in the second order), and significantly simpler to state and prove than all the aforementioned results. Unlike previous approaches, our proof does not require sub-codebooks.
\[thm:channel\_state\]Fix any $P_{U|S}$ and function $x:\mathcal{U}\times\mathcal{S}\to\mathcal{X}$. There exists a code for the channel $P_{Y|X,S}$ with state distribution $P_{S}$ with message $M\sim\mathrm{Unif}[1:\mathsf{L}]$, with error probability $$P_{e}\le\mathbf{E}\left[1-(1+\mathsf{L}2^{\iota_{U;S}(U;S)-\iota_{U;Y}(U;Y)})^{-1}\right]$$ if $P_{US}\ll P_{U}\times P_{S}$ and $P_{UY}\ll P_{U}\times P_{Y}$, where $(S,U,X,Y)\sim P_{S}P_{U|S}\delta_{x(U,S)}P_{Y|X,S}$.
Let $\{(\bar{U}_{i},\bar{M}_{i}),T_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ be the points of a Poisson process with intensity measure $P_{U}\times P_{M}\times\lambda_{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}$ independent of $M,S$. The encoding function is $(m,s)\mapsto x(\tilde{U}_{P_{U|S}(\cdot|s)\times\delta_{m}},s)$ (let $U=\tilde{U}_{P_{U|S}(\cdot|S)\times\delta_{M}}$, $X=x(U,S)$), and the decoding function is $y\mapsto\tilde{M}_{P_{U|Y}(\cdot|y)\times P_{M}}$ (i.e., $\hat{M}=\tilde{M}_{P_{U|Y}(\cdot|Y)\times P_{M}}$). Note that $(M,S,U,X,Y)\sim P_{M}\times P_{S}P_{U|S}\delta_{x(U,S)}P_{Y|X,S}$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{P}\{M\neq\tilde{M}_{P_{U|Y}(\cdot|Y)\times P_{M}}\}\\
& \le\mathbf{P}\{(U,M)\neq(\tilde{U},\tilde{M})_{P_{U|Y}(\cdot|Y)\times P_{M}}\}\\
& =\mathbf{E}\left[\mathbf{P}\left\{ \left.(U,M)\neq(\tilde{U},\tilde{M})_{P_{U|Y}(\cdot|Y)\times P_{M}}\,\right|\,M,S,U,Y\right\} \right]\\
& \stackrel{(a)}{\le}\mathbf{E}\left[1-\left(1+\frac{dP_{U|S}(\cdot|S)\times\delta_{M}}{dP_{U|Y}(\cdot|Y)\times P_{M}}(U,M)\right)^{-1}\right]\\
& =\mathbf{E}\left[1-(1+\mathsf{L}2^{\iota_{U;S}(U;S)-\iota_{U;Y}(U;Y)})^{-1}\right].\end{aligned}$$ where (a) is by the conditional Poisson matching lemma on $((M,S),\,(U,M),\,Y,\,P_{U|Y}\times P_{M})$ (note that $P_{U,M|M,S}=P_{U|S}\times\delta_{M}$). Therefore there exists a fixed $\{(\bar{u}_{i},\bar{m}_{i}),t_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ attaining the desired bound.
Compared to Theorem 3 in [@verdu2012nonasymp]: $$P_{e}\le\mathbf{P}\{\iota_{U;S}(U;S)>\log\mathsf{J}-\gamma\}+\mathbf{P}\{\iota_{U;Y}(U;Y)\le\log\mathsf{L}\mathsf{J}+\gamma\}+2^{-\gamma}+e^{-2^{\gamma}}$$ for any $\gamma>0$, $\mathsf{J}\in\mathbb{N}$, our result is strictly stronger since $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{E}\left[1-\left(1+\mathsf{L}2^{\iota_{U;S}(U;S)-\iota_{U;Y}(U;Y)}\right)^{-1}\right]\\
& \le\mathbf{P}\{\iota_{U;S}(U;S)>\log\mathsf{J}-\gamma\}+\mathbf{P}\{\iota_{U;Y}(U;Y)\le\log\mathsf{L}\mathsf{J}+\gamma\}\\
& \;\;\;\;+\mathbf{E}\left[1-\left(1+\mathsf{L}2^{\iota_{U;S}(U;S)-\iota_{U;Y}(U;Y)}\right)^{-1}\,|\,\iota_{U;S}(U;S)\le\log\mathsf{J}-\gamma,\,\iota_{U;Y}(U;Y)>\log\mathsf{L}\mathsf{J}+\gamma\right]\\
& \le\mathbf{P}\{\iota_{U;S}(U;S)>\log\mathsf{J}-\gamma\}+\mathbf{P}\{\iota_{U;Y}(U;Y)\le\log\mathsf{L}\mathsf{J}+\gamma\}+2^{-2\gamma}\\
& <\mathbf{P}\{\iota_{U;S}(U;S)>\log\mathsf{J}-\gamma\}+\mathbf{P}\{\iota_{U;Y}(U;Y)\le\log\mathsf{L}\mathsf{J}+\gamma\}+2^{-\gamma}+e^{-2^{\gamma}}.\end{aligned}$$ This is due to the fact that the Poisson matching lemma simultaneously replaces both the covering and the packing lemma, resulting in only one error event.
Next, we prove a second-order result. Fix $\epsilon>0$. Let $C:=I(U;Y)-I(U;S)$, $V:=\mathrm{Var}[\iota_{U;S}(U;S)-\iota_{U;Y}(U;Y)]$. We apply Theorem \[thm:channel\_state\] on $n$ uses of the memoryless channel with i.i.d. state sequence $S^{n}=(S_{1},\ldots,S_{n})$, and $$\mathsf{L}:=\left\lfloor \mathrm{exp}_{2}\left(nC-\sqrt{nV}\mathcal{Q}^{-1}\left(\epsilon-\frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{n}}\right)-\frac{1}{2}\log n\right)\right\rfloor ,$$ where $\alpha$ is a constant that depends on $P_{S,U,Y}$. For $n>\alpha^{2}\epsilon^{-2}$, by the Berry-Esseen theorem [@berry1941accuracy; @esseen1942liapunov; @feller1971introduction], we have $$\begin{aligned}
P_{e} & \le\mathbf{E}\left[\min\left\{ 2^{\log\mathsf{L}+\iota_{U^{n};S^{n}}(U^{n};S^{n})-\iota_{U^{n};Y^{n}}(U^{n};Y^{n})},\,1\right\} \right]\\
& \le\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}+\mathbf{P}\left\{ 2^{\log\mathsf{L}+\iota_{U^{n};S^{n}}(U^{n};S^{n})-\iota_{U^{n};Y^{n}}(U^{n};Y^{n})}>\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\right\} \\
& \le\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}+\mathbf{P}\left\{ \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left(\iota_{U;Y}(U_{i};Y_{i})-\iota_{U;S}(U_{i};S_{i})-C\right)<-\sqrt{V}\mathcal{Q}^{-1}\left(\epsilon-\frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{n}}\right)\right\} \\
& \le\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}+\epsilon-\frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{n}}+\frac{\alpha-1}{\sqrt{n}}\\
& \le\epsilon\end{aligned}$$ if we let $\alpha-1$ be the constant given by the Berry-Esseen theorem. This coincides with the best known second order result in [@scarlett2015dispersions], which is stronger than the second order results implied by [@verdu2012nonasymp; @yassaee2013oneshot; @watanabe2015nonasymp]. We bound $\iota_{U;S}(U;S)-\iota_{U;Y}(U;Y)$ as a single quantity, instead of bounding the two terms separately as in [@verdu2012nonasymp; @yassaee2013oneshot; @watanabe2015nonasymp], resulting in a sharper second order bound.
One-shot Lossy Source Coding with Side Information at the Decoder
=================================================================
The one-shot lossy source coding setting with side information at the decoder is described as follows. Upon observing $X\sim P_{X}$, the encoder produces $M\in[1:\mathsf{L}]$. The decoder observes $M$ and $Y\sim P_{Y|X}$ and recovers $\hat{Z}\in\mathcal{Z}$ with probability of excess distortion $P_{e}=\mathbf{P}\{\mathsf{d}(X,\hat{Z})>\mathsf{D}\}$, where $\mathsf{d}:\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Z}\to\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}$ is a distortion measure.
We show a one-shot version of the Wyner-Ziv theorem [@wyner1976ratedistort; @wyner1978rate]. Our bound is stronger than those in [@verdu2012nonasymp; @watanabe2015nonasymp], and significantly simpler to state and prove. Unlike previous approaches, our proof does not require binning.
\[thm:lscsi\]Fix any $P_{U|X}$ and function $z:\mathcal{U}\times\mathcal{Y}\to\mathcal{Z}$. There exists a code for lossy source coding with source distribution $P_{X}$, side information at the decoder given by $P_{Y|X}$, and message size $\mathsf{L}$, with probability of excess distortion $$P_{e}\le\mathbf{E}\left[1-\mathbf{1}\{\mathsf{d}(X,Z)\le\mathsf{D}\}(1+\mathsf{L}^{-1}2^{\iota_{U;X}(U;X)-\iota_{U;Y}(U;Y)})^{-1}\right]$$ if $P_{UX}\ll P_{U}\times P_{X}$ and $P_{UY}\ll P_{U}\times P_{Y}$, where $(X,Y,U,Z)\sim P_{X}P_{Y|X}P_{U|X}\delta_{z(U,Y)}$.
Let $\{(\bar{U}_{i},\bar{M}_{i}),T_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ be the points of a Poisson process with intensity measure $P_{U}\times P_{M}\times\lambda_{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}$ independent of $X$, where $P_{M}$ is $\mathrm{Unif}[1:\mathsf{L}]$. The encoding function is $x\mapsto\tilde{M}_{P_{U|X}(\cdot|x)\times P_{M}}$ (i.e., $M=\tilde{M}_{P_{U|X}(\cdot|X)\times P_{M}}$), and the decoding function is $(m,y)\mapsto z(\tilde{U}_{P_{U|Y}(\cdot|y)\times\delta_{m}},y)$ (let $\hat{U}=\tilde{U}_{P_{U|Y}(\cdot|Y)\times\delta_{M}}$, $\hat{Z}=z(\hat{U},Y)$). Also define $U=\tilde{U}_{P_{U|X}(\cdot|X)\times P_{M}}$, $Z=z(U,Y)$. Note that $(M,X,Y,U,Z)\sim P_{M}\times P_{X}P_{Y|X}P_{U|X}\delta_{z(U,Y)}$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{P}\{\mathsf{d}(X,\hat{Z})>\mathsf{D}\}\\
& \le1-\mathbf{P}\{\mathsf{d}(X,Z)\le\mathsf{D}\,\mathrm{and}\,U=\hat{U}\}\\
& \le\mathbf{E}\left[1-\mathbf{1}\{\mathsf{d}(X,Z)\le\mathsf{D}\}\mathbf{P}\{(U,M)=(\tilde{U},\tilde{M})_{P_{U|Y}(\cdot|Y)\times\delta_{M}}\,|\,M,X,Y,U\}\right]\\
& \stackrel{(a)}{\le}\mathbf{E}\left[1-\mathbf{1}\{\mathsf{d}(X,Z)\le\mathsf{D}\}\left(1+\frac{dP_{U|X}(\cdot|X)\times P_{M}}{dP_{U|Y}(\cdot|Y)\times\delta_{M}}(U,M)\right)^{-1}\right]\\
& \le\mathbf{E}\left[1-\mathbf{1}\{\mathsf{d}(X,Z)\le\mathsf{D}\}(1+\mathsf{L}^{-1}2^{\iota_{U;X}(U;X)-\iota_{U;Y}(U;Y)})^{-1}\right].\end{aligned}$$ where (a) is by the conditional Poisson matching lemma on $(X,\,(U,M),\,(M,Y),\,P_{U|Y}\times\delta_{M})$ (note that $P_{U,M|X}=P_{U|X}\times P_{M}$). Therefore there exists a fixed $\{(\bar{u}_{i},\bar{m}_{i}),t_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ attaining the desired bound.
This reduces to lossy source coding (without side information) when $Y=\emptyset$. Note that the encoder is designed in the same way with or without side information. An encoder for lossy source coding is sufficient to achieve the bound in Theorem \[thm:lscsi\] even when side information is present. Binning is not required at the encoder.
Similar to the case in Section \[sec:channel\_state\], it can be checked that our bound is stronger than that in Theorem 2 in [@verdu2012nonasymp]. Compared to Corollary 9 in [@watanabe2015nonasymp]: $$\begin{aligned}
P_{e} & \le\mathbf{P}\{\iota_{U;X}(U;X)>\gamma_{\mathrm{c}}\;\mathrm{or}\;\iota_{U;Y}(U;Y)<\gamma_{\mathrm{p}}\;\mathrm{or}\;\mathsf{d}(X,Z)>\mathsf{D}\}+\frac{\mathsf{J}}{2^{\gamma_{\mathrm{p}}}\mathsf{L}}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{2^{\gamma_{\mathrm{c}}}}{\mathsf{J}}}\label{eq:lscsi_watanabe}\end{aligned}$$ for any $\gamma_{\mathrm{p}},\gamma_{\mathrm{c}}>0$, $\mathsf{J}\in\mathbb{N}$, our result is stronger since $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{E}\left[1-\mathbf{1}\{\mathsf{d}(X,Z)\le\mathsf{D}\}(1+\mathsf{L}^{-1}2^{\iota_{U;X}(U;X)-\iota_{U;Y}(U;Y)})^{-1}\right]\\
& \le\mathbf{P}\{\iota_{U;X}(U;X)>\gamma_{\mathrm{c}}\;\mathrm{or}\;\iota_{U;Y}(U;Y)<\gamma_{\mathrm{p}}\;\mathrm{or}\;\mathsf{d}(X,Z)>\mathsf{D}\}+\mathsf{L}^{-1}2^{\gamma_{\mathrm{c}}-\gamma_{\mathrm{p}}}\\
& \le\mathbf{P}\{\iota_{U;X}(U;X)>\gamma_{\mathrm{c}}\;\mathrm{or}\;\iota_{U;Y}(U;Y)<\gamma_{\mathrm{p}}\;\mathrm{or}\;\mathsf{d}(X,Z)>\mathsf{D}\}+\frac{\mathsf{J}}{2^{\gamma_{\mathrm{p}}}\mathsf{L}}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{2^{\gamma_{\mathrm{c}}}}{\mathsf{J}}},\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality is due to $$a+b\ge(a+b)^{3}=27\left(\frac{a+2(b/2)}{3}\right)^{3}\ge27a(b/2)^{2}\ge4ab^{2}$$ by the AM-GM inequality for $a,b\ge0$, $a+b\le1$ (since the right hand side of $\le1$ for it to be meaningful). We bound $\iota_{U;X}(U;X)-\iota_{U;Y}(U;Y)$ as a single quantity, instead of bounding the two terms separately, resulting in a sharper bound.
One-shot Joint Source-Channel Coding
====================================
The one-shot joint source-channel coding setting is described as follows. Upon observing the source symbol $W\sim P_{W}$, the encoder produces $X\in\mathcal{X}$, which is sent through the channel $P_{Y|X}$. The decoder observes $Y$ and recovers $\hat{Z}\in\mathcal{Z}$ with probability of excess distortion $P_{e}=\mathbf{P}\{\mathsf{d}(W,\hat{Z})>\mathsf{D}\}$, where $\mathsf{d}:\mathcal{W}\times\mathcal{Z}\to\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}$ is a distortion measure.
We show a one-shot joint source-channel coding result that achieves the optimal dispersion in [@kostina2013joint].
\[thm:jscc\]Fix any $P_{X}$ and $P_{Z}$. There exists a code for the source distribution $P_{W}$ and channel $P_{Y|X}$, with probability of excess distortion $$P_{e}\le\mathbf{E}\left[\left(1+P_{Z}(\mathcal{B}_{\mathsf{D}}(W))2^{\iota_{X;Y}(X;Y)}\right)^{-1}\right]$$ if $P_{XY}\ll P_{X}\times P_{Y}$, where $(W,X,Y)\sim P_{W}\times P_{X}P_{Y|X}$, and $\mathcal{B}_{\mathsf{D}}(w):=\{z:\,\mathsf{d}(w,z)\le\mathsf{D}\}$.
Let $\{(\bar{X}_{i},\bar{Z}_{i}),T_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ be the points of a Poisson process with intensity measure $P_{X}\times P_{Z}\times\lambda_{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}$ independent of $W$. Let $\rho(w):=P_{Z}(\mathcal{B}_{\mathsf{D}}(w))$. Let $P_{\check{Z}|W}$ be defined as $$P_{\check{Z}|W}(A|w):=\begin{cases}
P_{Z}(A\cap\mathcal{B}_{\mathsf{D}}(w))/\rho(w) & \mathrm{if}\,\rho(w)>0\\
P_{Z}(A) & \mathrm{if}\,\rho(w)=0.
\end{cases}$$ The encoding function is $w\mapsto\tilde{X}_{P_{X}\times P_{\check{Z}|W}(\cdot|w)}$ (i.e., $X=\tilde{X}_{P_{X}\times P_{\check{Z}|W}(\cdot|W)}$). The decoding function is $y\mapsto\tilde{Z}_{P_{X|Y}(\cdot|y)\times P_{Z}}$ (i.e., $\hat{Z}=\tilde{Z}_{P_{X|Y}(\cdot|Y)\times P_{Z}}$). Also define $\check{Z}=\tilde{Z}_{P_{X}\times P_{\check{Z}|W}(\cdot|W)}$. We have $(X,Y,W,\check{Z})\sim P_{X}P_{Y|X}\times P_{W}P_{\check{Z}|W}$. $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{P}\{\mathsf{d}(W,\hat{Z})>\mathsf{D}\}\\
& \le\mathbf{P}\{\rho(W)=0\}+\mathbf{P}\{\rho(W)>0\;\mathrm{and}\;\check{Z}\neq\hat{Z}\}\\
& \le\mathbf{P}\{\rho(W)=0\}+\mathbf{E}\left[\mathbf{1}\{\rho(W)>0\}\mathbf{P}\{(X,\check{Z})\neq(\tilde{X},\tilde{Z})_{P_{X|Y}(\cdot|Y)\times P_{Z}}\,|\,X,Y,W,\check{Z}\}\right]\\
& \stackrel{(a)}{\le}\mathbf{P}\{\rho(W)=0\}+\mathbf{E}\left[\mathbf{1}\{\rho(W)>0\}\left(1-\left(1+\frac{dP_{X}\times P_{\check{Z}|W}(\cdot|W)}{dP_{X|Y}(\cdot|Y)\times P_{Z}}(X,\check{Z})\right)^{-1}\right)\right]\\
& =\mathbf{P}\{\rho(W)=0\}+\mathbf{E}\left[\mathbf{1}\{\rho(W)>0\}\left(1-\left(1+(\rho(W))^{-1}2^{-\iota_{X;Y}(X;Y)}\right)^{-1}\right)\right]\\
& =\mathbf{E}\left[\left(1+\rho(W)2^{\iota_{X;Y}(X;Y)}\right)^{-1}\right],\end{aligned}$$ where (a) is by the conditional Poisson matching lemma on $(W,\,(X,\check{Z}),\,Y,\,P_{X|Y}\times P_{Z})$ (note that $P_{X,\check{Z}|W}=P_{X}\times P_{\check{Z}|W}$). Therefore there exists a fixed $\{(\bar{x}_{i},\bar{z}_{i}),t_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ attaining the desired bound.
Compare this to Theorem 7 in [@kostina2013joint]: $$P_{e}\le\mathbf{E}\left[\min\left\{ J2^{-\iota_{X;Y}(X;Y)},\,1\right\} \right]+\mathbf{E}\left[(1-P_{Z}(\mathcal{B}_{\mathsf{D}}(W)))^{J}\right]\label{eq:jscc_kostina}$$ for any $P_{J|W}$, $J\in\mathbb{N}$. While neither of the bounds implies the other, our bound is at least within a factor of 2 from , since $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{E}\left[\left(1+P_{Z}(\mathcal{B}_{\mathsf{D}}(W))2^{\iota_{X;Y}(X;Y)}\right)^{-1}\right]\\
& \le\mathbf{E}\left[\left(1+(2J)^{-1}2^{\iota_{X;Y}(X;Y)}\right)^{-1}\right]+\mathbf{P}\left\{ (2J)^{-1}\ge P_{Z}(\mathcal{B}_{\mathsf{D}}(W))\right\} \\
& \le\mathbf{E}\left[\min\left\{ 2J2^{-\iota_{X;Y}(X;Y)},\,1\right\} \right]+2\mathbf{E}\left[\max\{1-JP_{Z}(\mathcal{B}_{\mathsf{D}}(W)),\,0\}\right]\\
& \le2\mathbf{E}\left[\min\left\{ J2^{-\iota_{X;Y}(X;Y)},\,1\right\} \right]+2\mathbf{E}\left[(1-P_{Z}(\mathcal{B}_{\mathsf{D}}(W)))^{J}\right].\end{aligned}$$ However, does not imply a bound that is within a constant factor from our bound. Theorem 8 in [@kostina2013joint] is obtained by substituting $J=\lfloor\gamma/P_{Z}(\mathcal{B}_{\mathsf{D}}(W))\rfloor$ in : $$P_{e}\le\mathbf{E}\left[\min\left\{ \gamma P_{Z}(\mathcal{B}_{\mathsf{D}}(W))^{-1}2^{-\iota_{X;Y}(X;Y)},\,1\right\} \right]+e^{1-\gamma},$$ which is strictly weaker than our bound with an unbounded multiplicative gap $\gamma$ (that tends to $\infty$ when the bound tends to 0). Hence our bound is stronger than Theorem 7 and 8 in [@kostina2013joint] (ignoring constant multiplicative gaps). Also our proof is significantly shorter than that of Theorem 7 in [@kostina2013joint].
Please refer to Appendix \[subsec:second\_jscc\] for the proof that Theorem \[thm:jscc\] achieves the optimal dispersion.
Poisson Matching Lemma Beyond the First Index\[sec:gen\_pml\]
=============================================================
The Poisson functional representation concerns the point with the smallest $T_{i}((dP/d\mu)(\bar{U}_{i}))^{-1}$. We can generalize it to obtain a sequence ordered in ascending order of $T_{i}((dP/d\mu)(\bar{U}_{i}))^{-1}$.
\[Mapped Poisson process\] Let $\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ be the points of a Poisson process with intensity measure $\mu\times\lambda_{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}$ on $\mathcal{U}\times\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}$ (where $\mathcal{U}$ is a Polish space with its Borel $\sigma$-algebra, and $\mu$ is $\sigma$-finite). For $P\ll\mu$ a probability measure over $\mathcal{U}$, let $i_{P,1},i_{P,2},\ldots\in\mathbb{N}$ be a sequence of distinct integers such that $\bigcup_{j=1}^{\infty}\{i_{P,j}\}=\{i:\,(dP/d\mu)(\bar{U}_{i})>0\}$ and $\{T_{i_{P,j}}((dP/d\mu)(\bar{U}_{i_{P,j}}))^{-1}\}_{j\in\mathbb{N}}$ is sorted in ascending order with arbitrary tie-breaking (a tie occurs with probability 0). For $j\in\mathbb{N},\,u\in\mathcal{U}$, define the *mapped Poisson process with respect to $P$* as $$\left\{ \tilde{U}_{P}\left(\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}},\,j\right),\,\tilde{T}_{P}\left(\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}},\,j\right)\right\} _{j\in\mathbb{N}},\label{eq:mappedpp}$$ where $$\tilde{T}_{P}\left(\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}},\,j\right):=T_{i_{P,j}}\left(\frac{dP}{d\mu}(\bar{U}_{i_{P,j}})\right)^{-1},$$ $$\tilde{U}_{P}\left(\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}},\,j\right):=\bar{U}_{i_{P,j}}.$$ For $P,Q\ll\mu$ probability measures over $\mathcal{U}$, define $i_{P,1},i_{P,2},\ldots\in\mathbb{N}$ and $i_{Q,1},i_{Q,2},\ldots\in\mathbb{N}$ as above. Define $$\Upsilon_{P\Vert Q}\left(\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}},\,j\right):=\min\{k\in\mathbb{N}:\,i_{Q,k}=i_{P,j}\},$$ where the minimum is $\infty$ if such $k$ does not exist. We omit $\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ and only write $\tilde{U}_{P}(j)$, $\tilde{T}_{P}(j)$, $\Upsilon_{P\Vert Q}(j)$ if the Poisson process is clear from the context. Note that, with probability 1, we have either $\tilde{U}_{Q}(\Upsilon_{P\Vert Q}(j))=\tilde{U}_{P}(j)$ or $\Upsilon_{P\Vert Q}(j)=\infty$. Also, for any $j,k\in\mathbb{N}$, $\Upsilon_{P\Vert Q}(j)=k\Leftrightarrow\Upsilon_{Q\Vert P}(k)=j$. Loosely speaking, $\Upsilon_{P\Vert Q}(j)$ can be regarded as “$\tilde{U}_{Q}^{-1}(\tilde{U}_{P}(j))$” (if there are no atoms in $\mu$), i.e., finding the $j$-th point in the mapped Poisson process w.r.t. $P$, then finding its index in the mapped Poisson process w.r.t. $Q$.
While $dP/d\mu$ is only uniquely defined up to a $\mu$-null set, changing the value of $dP/d\mu$ on a $\mu$-null set will only affect the values of $\{\tilde{U}_{P}(j),\,\tilde{T}_{P}(j)\}_{j\in\mathbb{N}}$ on a null set with respect to the distribution of $\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$, since the probability that there exists $\bar{U}_{i}$ in that $\mu$-null set is zero. Therefore $\{\tilde{U}_{P}(j),\,\tilde{T}_{P}(j)\}_{j\in\mathbb{N}}$ is uniquely defined up to a null set. The same is true for $\Upsilon_{P\Vert Q}(j)$.
By the mapping theorem [@kingman1992poisson; @last2017lectures] (also see Appendix A of [@sfrl_trans]), $$\{\bar{U}_{i_{P,j}},\,T_{i_{P,j}}((dP/d\mu)(U_{i_{P,j}}))^{-1}\}_{j\in\mathbb{N}}=\{\tilde{U}_{P}(j),\tilde{T}_{P}(j)\}_{j\in\mathbb{N}}$$ is a Poisson process with intensity measure $P\times\lambda_{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}$. Hence $$\tilde{U}_{P}(1),\tilde{U}_{P}(2),\ldots\stackrel{iid}{\sim}P.$$
We present a generalized Poisson matching lemma concerning the indices beyond the first. The proof is given in Appendix \[subsec:pf\_phidiv\].
\[Generalized Poisson matching lemma\]\[lem:phidiv\_gen\]Let $\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ be the points of a Poisson process with intensity measure $\mu\times\lambda_{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}$ on $\mathcal{U}\times\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}$, and $P,Q$ be probability measures over $\mathcal{U}$ with $P,Q\ll\mu$. Fix any $j\in\mathbb{N}$. Then we have the following almost surely: $$\mathbf{E}\left[\left.\Upsilon_{P\Vert Q}(j)\,\right|\,\tilde{U}_{P}(j)\right]\le j\frac{dP}{dQ}(\tilde{U}_{P}(j))+1,$$ where we write $(dP/dQ)(u)=(dP/d\mu)(u)/((dQ/d\mu)(u))$ as in (we do not require $P\ll Q$). As a result, we have the following almost surely: for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{P}\left\{ \left.\tilde{U}_{P}(j)\notin\{\tilde{U}_{Q}(i)\}_{i\in[1:k]}\,\right|\,\tilde{U}_{P}(j)\right\} & \le\mathbf{P}\left\{ \left.\Upsilon_{P\Vert Q}(j)>k\,\right|\,\tilde{U}_{P}(j)\right\} \\
& \le\min\left\{ \frac{j}{k}\frac{dP}{dQ}(\tilde{U}_{P}(j)),\,1\right\} .\end{aligned}$$ For $k=1$, this can be slightly strengthened to $$\mathbf{P}\left\{ \left.\Upsilon_{P\Vert Q}(j)>1\,\right|\,\tilde{U}_{P}(j)\right\} \le1-\left(1-\min\left\{ \frac{dP}{dQ}(\tilde{U}_{P}(j)),\,1\right\} \right)^{j}.$$ For $j=1$, this can be slightly strengthened to: for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{P}\left\{ \left.\Upsilon_{P\Vert Q}(1)>k\,\right|\,\tilde{U}_{P}(1)\right\} & \le\Bigl(1-\Bigl(1+\frac{dP}{dQ}(\tilde{U}_{P}(1))\Bigr)^{-1}\Bigr)^{k}\\
& \le1-\Bigl(1+k^{-1}\frac{dP}{dQ}(\tilde{U}_{P}(1))\Bigr)^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$
The exact distribution of $\Upsilon_{P\Vert Q}(j)$ is given in .
Similar to Lemma \[lem:cond\_phidiv\], we can state a conditional version of the generalized Poisson matching lemma. The proof follows the same logic as Lemma \[lem:cond\_phidiv\] and is omitted.
\[Conditional generalized Poisson matching lemma\]\[lem:cond\_phidiv\_gen\]Fix a distribution $P_{X,J,U,Y}$ and a probability kernel $Q_{U|Y}$, satisfying $J\in\mathbb{N}$ and $P_{U|X,J}(\cdot|X,J),Q_{U|Y}(\cdot|Y)\ll\mu$ almost surely. Let $(X,J)\sim P_{X,J}$, and $\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ be the points of a Poisson process with intensity measure $\mu\times\lambda_{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}$ independent of $(X,J)$. Let $U=\tilde{U}_{P_{U|X,J}(\cdot|X,J)}(J)$ and $Y|(X,J,U,\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i})\sim P_{Y|X,J,U}(\cdot|X,J,U)$ (note that $(X,J,U,Y)\sim P_{X,J,U,Y}$ and $Y\leftrightarrow(X,J,U)\leftrightarrow\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i}$). Then we have the following almost surely: $$\mathbf{E}\left[\left.\Upsilon_{P_{U|X,J}(\cdot|X,J)\Vert Q_{U|Y}(\cdot|Y)}(J)\,\right|\,X,J,U,Y\right]\le J\frac{dP_{U|X,J}(\cdot|X,J)}{dQ_{U|Y}(\cdot|Y)}(U)+1,$$ and for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$, $$\mathbf{P}\left\{ \left.\Upsilon_{P_{U|X,J}(\cdot|X,J)\Vert Q_{U|Y}(\cdot|Y)}(J)>k\,\right|\,X,J,U,Y\right\} \le\min\left\{ \frac{J}{k}\frac{dP_{U|X,J}(\cdot|X,J)}{dQ_{U|Y}(\cdot|Y)}(U),\,1\right\} ,$$ and $$\mathbf{P}\left\{ \left.\Upsilon_{P_{U|X,J}(\cdot|X,J)\Vert Q_{U|Y}(\cdot|Y)}(J)>1\,\right|\,X,J,U,Y\right\} \le1-\left(1-\min\left\{ \frac{dP_{U|X,J}(\cdot|X,J)}{dQ_{U|Y}(\cdot|Y)}(U),\,1\right\} \right)^{J}.$$ If $J=1$ almost surely, then we also have the following almost surely: for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{P}\left\{ \left.\Upsilon_{P_{U|X}(\cdot|X)\Vert Q_{U|Y}(\cdot|Y)}(1)>k\,\right|\,X,U,Y\right\} & \le\Bigl(1-\Bigl(1+\frac{dP_{U|X}(\cdot|X)}{dQ_{U|Y}(\cdot|Y)}(U)\Bigr)^{-1}\Bigr)^{k}\\
& \le1-\Bigl(1+k^{-1}\frac{dP_{U|X}(\cdot|X)}{dQ_{U|Y}(\cdot|Y)}(U)\Bigr)^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$
We can use the generalized Poisson matching lemma to extend Proposition \[prop:channel\] to the list decoding setting with fixed list size $\mathsf{J}$. The decoder outputs the list $\{\tilde{M}_{P_{X|Y}(\cdot|Y)\times P_{M}}(j)\}_{j\in[1:\mathsf{J}]}$. The error event becomes $(X,M)\notin\{(\tilde{X},\tilde{M})_{P_{X|Y}(\cdot|Y)\times P_{M}}(j)\}_{j\in[1:\mathsf{J}]}$. The probability of error is bounded by $\mathbf{E}\left[(1-(1+\mathsf{L}2^{-\iota_{X;Y}(X;Y)})^{-1})^{\mathsf{J}}\right]$.
One-shot Coding for Broadcast Channels and Mutual Covering
==========================================================
The one-shot coding setting for the broadcast channel with common message is described as follows. Upon observing three independent messages $M_{j}\sim\mathrm{Unif}[1:\mathsf{L}_{j}]$, $j=0,1,2$, the encoder produces $X$, which is sent through the broadcast channel $P_{Y_{1},Y_{2}|X}$. Decoder $j$ observes $Y_{j}$ and recovers $\hat{M}_{0j}$ and $\hat{M}_{j}$ ($j=1,2$). The error probability is $P_{e}=\mathbf{P}\{(M_{0},M_{0},M_{1},M_{2})\neq(\hat{M}_{01},\hat{M}_{02},\hat{M}_{1},\hat{M}_{2})\}$.
We show a one-shot version of the inner bound in [@liang2007broadcast Theorem 5] (which is shown to be equivalent to [@gelfand1980capacity Theorem 1] in [@liang2011equivalence]). The proof is given in Appendix \[subsec:pf\_bc\_cm\].
\[thm:bc\_cm\]Fix any $P_{U_{0},U_{1},U_{2}}$ and function $x:\mathcal{U}_{0}\times\mathcal{U}_{1}\times\mathcal{U}_{2}\to\mathcal{X}$. For any $\mathsf{J},\mathsf{K}_{1},\mathsf{K}_{2}\in\mathbb{N}$, there exists a code for the broadcast channel $P_{Y_{1},Y_{2}|X}$ for independent messages $M_{j}\sim\mathrm{Unif}[1:\mathsf{L}_{j}]$, $j=0,1,2$, with the error probability bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
P_{e} & \le\mathbf{E}\biggl[\min\biggl\{\tilde{\mathsf{L}}_{0}\tilde{\mathsf{L}}_{1}\mathsf{J}A2^{-\iota_{U_{0},U_{1};Y_{1}}(U_{0},U_{1};Y_{1})}+\tilde{\mathsf{L}}_{1}\mathsf{J}A2^{-\iota_{U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0}}(U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0})}\\
& \;\;\;\;\;\;+\tilde{\mathsf{L}}_{0}\tilde{\mathsf{L}}_{2}\mathsf{J}^{-1}B2^{\iota_{U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0})-\iota_{U_{0},U_{2};Y_{2}}(U_{0},U_{2};Y_{2})}+\tilde{\mathsf{L}}_{0}\tilde{\mathsf{L}}_{2}(1-\mathsf{J}^{-1})B2^{-\iota_{U_{0},U_{2};Y_{2}}(U_{0},U_{2};Y_{2})}\\
& \;\;\;\;\;\;+\tilde{\mathsf{L}}_{2}\mathsf{J}^{-1}B2^{\iota_{U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0})-\iota_{U_{2},Y_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{2};Y_{2}|U_{0})}+\tilde{\mathsf{L}}_{2}(1-\mathsf{J}^{-1})B2^{-\iota_{U_{2},Y_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{2};Y_{2}|U_{0})},\,1\biggr\}\biggr]\end{aligned}$$ if all the information density terms are defined almost surely, where $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\mathsf{L}}_{0} & :=\mathsf{L}_{0}\mathsf{K}_{1}\mathsf{K}_{2},\\
\tilde{\mathsf{L}}_{a} & :=\lceil\mathsf{L}_{a}/\mathsf{K}_{a}\rceil\;\mathrm{for}\,a=1,2,\\
A & :=(\log(\tilde{\mathsf{L}}_{1}^{-1}\mathsf{J}^{-1}2^{\iota_{U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0}}(U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0})}+1)+1)^{2},\\
B & :=\bigl(\log((\tilde{\mathsf{L}}_{2}\mathsf{J}^{-1}2^{\iota_{U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0})-\iota_{U_{2},Y_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{2};Y_{2}|U_{0})}\\
& \;\;\;\;+\tilde{\mathsf{L}}_{2}(1-\mathsf{J}^{-1})2^{-\iota_{U_{2},Y_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{2};Y_{2}|U_{0})})^{-1}+1)+1\bigr)^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ As a result, for $\gamma>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
P_{e} & \le\mathbf{P}\biggl\{\log\tilde{\mathsf{L}}_{1}\mathsf{J}>\iota_{U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0}}(U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0})-\gamma\;\;\mathrm{or}\;\;\log\tilde{\mathsf{L}}_{2}>\iota_{U_{2},Y_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{2};Y_{2}|U_{0})-\gamma\nonumber \\
& \;\;\;\;\mathrm{or}\;\;\log\tilde{\mathsf{L}}_{2}\mathsf{J}^{-1}>\iota_{U_{2},Y_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{2};Y_{2}|U_{0})-\iota_{U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0})-\gamma\nonumber \\
& \;\;\;\;\mathrm{or}\;\;\log\tilde{\mathsf{L}}_{0}\tilde{\mathsf{L}}_{1}\mathsf{J}>\iota_{U_{0},U_{1};Y_{1}}(U_{0},U_{1};Y_{1})-\gamma\;\;\mathrm{or}\;\;\log\tilde{\mathsf{L}}_{0}\tilde{\mathsf{L}}_{2}>\iota_{U_{0},U_{2};Y_{2}}(U_{0},U_{2};Y_{2})-\gamma\nonumber \\
& \;\;\;\;\mathrm{or}\;\;\log\tilde{\mathsf{L}}_{0}\tilde{\mathsf{L}}_{2}\mathsf{J}^{-1}>\iota_{U_{0},U_{2};Y_{2}}(U_{0},U_{2};Y_{2})-\iota_{U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0})-\gamma\biggr\}\nonumber \\
& +2^{-\gamma}\left(8\mathbf{E}\left[(\iota_{U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0}}(U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0}))^{2}+(\iota_{U_{2},Y_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{2};Y_{2}|U_{0}))^{2}\right]+12\gamma^{2}+84\right).\label{eq:bc_pe2}\end{aligned}$$
The logarithmic terms $A$ and $B$ (or the last term in ) result in an $O(n^{-1}\log n)$ penalty on the rate in the finite blocklength regime, and do not affect the second order result. Ignoring the last term in , the error event in is a strict subset of those in [@yassaee2013oneshot eqn (32)] and [@liu2015oneshotmutual eqn (49)]. This is because the error event in [@yassaee2013oneshot] is a superset of by Fourier-Motzkin elimination on $\mathsf{J}_{2}$ in the error event in [@yassaee2013oneshot], but the reverse is not true since Fourier-Motzkin elimination only guarantees the existence of a random variable for $\mathsf{J}_{2}$ (that depends on the information density terms) satisfying the bounds, but $\mathsf{J}_{2}$ must be a constant since it is a parameter of the code construction in [@yassaee2013oneshot].
Theorem \[thm:bc\_cm\] gives the following second order bound. Consider $n$ independent channel uses. Let $\mathsf{L}_{a}=2^{nR_{a}}$ for $a=0,1,2$. By the multi-dimensional Berry-Esseen theorem [@bentkus2003dependence] (using the notation in [@yassaee2013oneshot]), we have $P_{e}\le\epsilon$ if there exists $\bar{R},\hat{R}_{1},\hat{R}_{2}\ge0$ such that $$\left[\begin{array}{c}
\tilde{R}_{1}+\bar{R}\\
\tilde{R}_{2}\\
\tilde{R}_{2}-\bar{R}\\
\tilde{R}_{0}+\tilde{R}_{1}+\bar{R}\\
\tilde{R}_{0}+\tilde{R}_{2}\\
\tilde{R}_{0}+\tilde{R}_{2}-\bar{R}
\end{array}\right]\in\mathbf{E}[I]-\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\mathcal{Q}^{-1}\left(\mathrm{Cov}[I],\,\epsilon-\frac{\beta}{\sqrt{n}}\right)-\frac{\beta\log n}{n}$$ if $n>\beta^{2}\epsilon^{-2}$, where $\beta$ is a constant that depends on $P_{U_{0},U_{1},U_{2},Y_{1},Y_{2}}$, and $\tilde{R}_{0}=R_{0}+\hat{R}_{1}+\hat{R}_{2}$, $\tilde{R}_{a}=R_{a}-\hat{R}_{a}$ for $a=1,2$, and $$I=\left[\begin{array}{c}
\iota_{U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0}}(U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0})\\
\iota_{U_{2},Y_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{2};Y_{2}|U_{0})\\
\iota_{U_{2},Y_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{2};Y_{2}|U_{0})-\iota_{U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0})\\
\iota_{U_{0},U_{1};Y_{1}}(U_{0},U_{1};Y_{1})\\
\iota_{U_{0},U_{2};Y_{2}}(U_{0},U_{2};Y_{2})\\
\iota_{U_{0},U_{2};Y_{2}}(U_{0},U_{2};Y_{2})-\iota_{U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0})
\end{array}\right].$$
To demonstrate the use of the generalized Poisson matching lemma in place of the mutual covering lemma, we prove a one-shot version of Marton’s inner bound without common message [@marton1979broadcast] (i.e., $\mathsf{L}_{0}=1$). Our bound is stronger than that in [@verdu2012nonasymp] in the sense that our bound implies [@verdu2012nonasymp] (with a slight penalty of having $2^{1-\gamma}+2^{-2\gamma}$ instead of $2^{1-\gamma}+e^{-2^{\gamma}}$), but [@verdu2012nonasymp] does not imply our bound. We also note that a finite-blocklength bound is given in [@yassaee2013binning]. Nevertheless, the analysis in [@yassaee2013binning] only works for discrete auxiliary random variables $U_{1},U_{2}$, and does not appear to yield a one-shot bound due to the use of typical sequences.
In the conventional mutual covering approach in [@yassaee2013oneshot; @liu2015oneshotmutual], sub-codebooks for both $U_{1}$ and $U_{2}$ are generated, whereas in our approach we generate a sub-codebook only for $U_{1}$, and the codebook of $U_{2}$ adapts to the sub-codebook automatically, eliminating the need for a sub-codebook for $U_{2}$.
\[thm:bc\_ncm\]Fix any $P_{U_{1},U_{2}}$ and function $x:\mathcal{U}_{1}\times\mathcal{U}_{2}\to\mathcal{X}$. For any $\mathsf{J}\in\mathbb{N}$, there exists a code for the broadcast channel $P_{Y_{1},Y_{2}|X}$ for independent private messages $M_{j}\sim\mathrm{Unif}[1:\mathsf{L}_{j}]$, $j=1,2$, with the error probability bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
P_{e} & \le\mathbf{E}\biggl[\min\biggl\{\mathsf{L}_{1}\mathsf{J}2^{-\iota_{U_{1};Y_{1}}(U_{1};Y_{1})}+\mathsf{L}_{2}(1-\mathsf{J}^{-1})2^{-\iota_{U_{2};Y_{2}}(U_{2};Y_{2})}+\mathsf{L}_{2}\mathsf{J}^{-1}2^{\iota_{U_{1};U_{2}}(U_{1};U_{2})-\iota_{U_{2};Y_{2}}(U_{2};Y_{2})},\,1\biggr\}\biggr]\end{aligned}$$ if all the information density terms are defined, where $(U_{1},U_{2},X,Y_{1},Y_{2})\sim P_{U_{1}U_{2}}\delta_{x(U_{1},U_{2})}P_{Y_{1},Y_{2}|X}$.
Let $\{(\bar{U}_{1,i},\bar{M}_{1,i}),T_{1,i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$, $\{(\bar{U}_{2,i},\bar{M}_{2,i}),T_{2,i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ be two independent Poisson processes with intensity measures $P_{U_{1}}\times P_{M_{1}}\times\lambda_{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}$ and $P_{U_{2}}\times P_{M_{2}}\times\lambda_{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}$ respectively, independent of $M_{1},M_{2}$.
The encoder would generate $X$ such that $$(M_{1},M_{2},K,\{\check{U}_{1j}\}_{j\in[1:\mathsf{J}]},U_{1},U_{2},X)\sim P_{M_{1}}\times P_{M_{2}}\times P_{K}P_{U_{1}}^{\otimes\mathsf{J}}\delta_{\check{U}_{1K}}P_{U_{2}|U_{1}}\delta_{x(U_{1},U_{2})},\label{eq:bc_dist}$$ where $P_{K}=\mathrm{Unif}[1:\mathsf{J}]$, and $\{\check{U}_{1j}\}_{j\in[1:\mathsf{J}]}\in\mathcal{U}_{1}^{\mathsf{J}}$ is an intermediate list (which can be regarded as a sub-codebook). The term $P_{U_{1}}^{\otimes\mathsf{J}}\delta_{\check{U}_{1K}}$ in means that $\{\check{U}_{1j}\}_{j}$ are i.i.d. $P_{U_{1}}$, and $U_{1}=\check{U}_{1K}$. To accomplish this, the encoder computes $\check{U}_{1j}=(\tilde{U}_{1})_{P_{U_{1}}\times\delta_{M_{1}}}(j)$ for $j=1,\ldots,\mathsf{J}$ (which Poisson process we are referring to can be deduced from whether we are discussing $U_{1}$ or $U_{2}$), $U_{2}=(\tilde{U}_{2})_{\mathsf{J}^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{\mathsf{J}}P_{U_{2}|U_{1}}(\cdot|\check{U}_{1j})\times\delta_{M_{2}}}$, and $(K,U_{1})|(\{\check{U}_{1j}\}_{j},U_{2})\sim P_{K,U_{1}|\{\check{U}_{1j}\}_{j},U_{2}}$ (where $P_{K,U_{1}|\{\check{U}_{1j}\}_{j},U_{2}}$ is derived from ), and outputs $X=x(U_{1},U_{2})$. It can be verified that is satisfied.
The decoding functions are $\hat{M}_{1}=(\tilde{M}_{1})_{P_{U_{1}|Y_{1}}(\cdot|Y_{1})\times P_{M_{1}}}$, $\hat{M}_{2}=(\tilde{M}_{2})_{P_{U_{2}|Y_{2}}(\cdot|Y_{2})\times P_{M_{2}}}$. We have the following almost surely: $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{P}\biggl\{(\tilde{U}_{1},\tilde{M}_{1})_{P_{U_{1}|Y_{1}}(\cdot|Y_{1})\times P_{M_{1}}}\neq(U_{1},M_{1})\,\biggl|\,U_{1},U_{2},Y_{1},Y_{2},M_{1},K\biggr\}\\
& \stackrel{(a)}{=}\mathbf{P}\biggl\{(\tilde{U}_{1},\tilde{M}_{1})_{P_{U_{1}|Y_{1}}(\cdot|Y_{1})\times P_{M_{1}}}\neq(U_{1},M_{1})\,\biggl|\,U_{1},Y_{1},M_{1},K\biggr\}\\
& \stackrel{(b)}{\le}K\frac{dP_{U_{1}}\times\delta_{M_{1}}}{dP_{U_{1}|Y_{1}}(\cdot|Y_{1})\times P_{M_{1}}}(U_{1},M_{1})\\
& \le\mathsf{L}_{1}\mathsf{J}2^{-\iota_{U_{1};Y_{1}}(U_{1};Y_{1})},\end{aligned}$$ where (a) is by $(U_{2},Y_{2})\leftrightarrow(U_{1},Y_{1},M_{1},K)\leftrightarrow\{(\bar{U}_{1,i},\bar{M}_{1,i}),T_{1,i}\}_{i}$ (see Figure \[fig:bc\_bayes\] middle), and (b) is by the conditional generalized Poisson matching lemma on $(X,J,U,Y,Q_{U|Y})\leftarrow(M_{1},\,K,\,(U_{1},M_{1}),\,Y_{1},\,P_{U_{1}|Y_{1}}\times P_{M_{1}})$, since $P_{U_{1},M_{1}|M_{1},K}=P_{U_{1}}\times\delta_{M_{1}}$, $(M_{1},K)\perp\!\!\!\perp\{(\bar{U}_{1,i},\bar{M}_{1,i}),T_{1,i}\}_{i}$, and $Y_{1}\leftrightarrow(U_{1},M_{1},K)\leftrightarrow\{(\bar{U}_{1,i},\bar{M}_{1,i}),T_{1,i}\}_{i}$, which can be deduced from and $\check{U}_{1j}=(\tilde{U}_{1})_{P_{U_{1}}\times\delta_{M_{1}}}(j)$ (see Figure \[fig:bc\_bayes\] middle).
Also, almost surely, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{P}\left\{ \left.(\tilde{U}_{2},\tilde{M}_{2})_{P_{U_{2}|Y_{2}}(\cdot|Y_{2})\times P_{M_{2}}}\neq(U_{2},M_{2})\,\right|\,U_{1},U_{2},Y_{1},Y_{2},M_{2}\right\} \\
& \stackrel{(a)}{=}\mathbf{P}\left\{ \left.(\tilde{U}_{2},\tilde{M}_{2})_{P_{U_{2}|Y_{2}}(\cdot|Y_{2})\times P_{M_{2}}}\neq(U_{2},M_{2})\,\right|\,U_{1},U_{2},Y_{2},M_{2}\right\} \\
& \stackrel{(b)}{\le}\mathbf{E}\left[\left.\frac{d(\mathsf{J}^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{\mathsf{J}}P_{U_{2}|U_{1}}(\cdot|\check{U}_{1j}))\times\delta_{M_{2}}}{dP_{U_{2}|Y_{2}}(\cdot|Y_{2})\times P_{M_{2}}}(U_{2},M_{2})\,\right|\,U_{1},U_{2},Y_{2},M_{2}\right]\\
& =\mathbf{E}\left[\left.\mathsf{L}_{2}\mathsf{J}^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{\mathsf{J}}2^{\iota_{U_{1};U_{2}}(\check{U}_{1j};U_{2})-\iota_{U_{2};Y_{2}}(U_{2};Y_{2})}\,\right|\,U_{1},U_{2},Y_{2},M_{2}\right]\\
& =\mathbf{E}\left[\left.\mathsf{L}_{2}\mathsf{J}^{-1}2^{-\iota_{U_{2};Y_{2}}(U_{2};Y_{2})}\Bigl(2^{\iota_{U_{1};U_{2}}(U_{1};U_{2})}+\sum_{j\in[1:\mathsf{J}]\backslash K}2^{\iota_{U_{1};U_{2}}(\check{U}_{1j};U_{2})}\Bigr)\,\right|\,U_{1},U_{2},Y_{2},M_{2}\right]\\
& =\mathbf{E}\left[\left.\mathsf{L}_{2}\mathsf{J}^{-1}2^{-\iota_{U_{2};Y_{2}}(U_{2};Y_{2})}\Bigl(2^{\iota_{U_{1};U_{2}}(U_{1};U_{2})}+\sum_{j=1}^{\mathsf{J}-1}2^{\iota_{U_{1};U_{2}}(\check{U}_{1,j+\mathbf{1}\{j\ge K\}};U_{2})}\Bigr)\,\right|\,U_{1},U_{2},Y_{2},M_{2}\right]\\
& \stackrel{(c)}{\le}\mathsf{L}_{2}\mathsf{J}^{-1}2^{-\iota_{U_{2};Y_{2}}(U_{2};Y_{2})}(2^{\iota_{U_{1};U_{2}}(U_{1};U_{2})}+\mathsf{J}-1),\end{aligned}$$ where (a) is by $Y_{1}\leftrightarrow(U_{1},U_{2},Y_{2},M_{2})\leftrightarrow\{(\bar{U}_{2,i},\bar{M}_{2,i}),T_{2,i}\}_{i}$ (see Figure \[fig:bc\_bayes\] right), (b) is by the conditional Poisson matching lemma on $((\{\check{U}_{1j}\}_{j},M_{2}),\,(U_{2},M_{2}),\,Y_{2},\,P_{U_{2}|Y_{2}}\times P_{M_{2}})$, and (c) is because $\{\check{U}_{1,j+\mathbf{1}\{j\ge K\}}\}_{j\in[1:\mathsf{J}-1]}$ (the $\check{U}_{1j}$’s not selected as $U_{1}$) are independent of $(U_{1},U_{2},Y_{2},M_{2})$, $\mathbf{E}[2^{\iota_{U_{1};U_{2}}(\check{U}_{1,j+\mathbf{1}\{j\ge K\}};U_{2})}\,|\,U_{2}]=1$, and Jensen’s inequality. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{P}\{(M_{1},M_{2})\neq(\hat{M}_{1},\hat{M}_{2})\}\\
& =\mathbf{E}\left[\mathbf{P}\left\{ \left.(M_{1},M_{2})\neq(\hat{M}_{1},\hat{M}_{2})\,\right|\,U_{1},U_{2},Y_{1},Y_{2}\right\} \right]\\
& \le\mathbf{E}\left[\min\left\{ \mathbf{P}\left\{ \left.M_{1}\neq\hat{M_{1}}\,\right|\,U_{1},U_{2},Y_{1},Y_{2}\right\} +\mathbf{P}\left\{ \left.M_{2}\neq\hat{M_{2}}\,\right|\,U_{1},U_{2},Y_{1},Y_{2}\right\} ,\,1\right\} \right]\\
& \le\mathbf{E}\biggl[\min\Bigl\{\mathsf{L}_{1}\mathsf{J}2^{-\iota_{U_{1};Y_{1}}(U_{1};Y_{1})}+\mathsf{L}_{2}\mathsf{J}^{-1}2^{-\iota_{U_{2};Y_{2}}(U_{2};Y_{2})}(2^{\iota_{U_{1};U_{2}}(U_{1};U_{2})}+\mathsf{J}-1),\,1\Bigr\}\biggr].\end{aligned}$$ Therefore there exist fixed realizations of the Poisson processes attaining the desired bound.
![\[fig:bc\_bayes\]Left: The Bayesian network described in . Middle: The Bayesian network deduced from and $\check{U}_{1j}=(\tilde{U}_{1})_{P_{U_{1}}\times\delta_{M_{1}}}(j)$. Right: The Bayesian network describing the encoding scheme. Note that all three are valid Bayesian networks, and the desired conditional independence relations can be deduced using d-separation.](bc_bayes)
One-shot Distributed Lossy Source Coding
========================================
The one-shot distributed lossy source coding setting is described as follows. Let $(X_{1},X_{2})\sim P_{X_{1},X_{2}}$. Upon observing $X_{j}$, encoder $j$ produces $M_{j}\in[1:\mathsf{L}_{j}]$, $j=1,2$. The decoder observes $M_{1},M_{2}$ and recovers $\hat{Z}_{1}\in\mathcal{Z}_{1}$, $\hat{Z}_{2}\in\mathcal{Z}_{2}$ with probability of excess distortion $P_{e}=\mathbf{P}\{\mathsf{d}_{1}(X_{1},\hat{Z}_{1})>\mathsf{D}_{1}\;\mathrm{or}\;\mathsf{d}_{2}(X_{2},\hat{Z}_{2})>\mathsf{D}_{2}\}$, where $\mathsf{d}_{j}:\mathcal{X}_{j}\times\mathcal{Z}_{j}\to\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}$ is a distortion measure for $j=1,2$.
We show a one-shot version of the Berger-Tung inner bound [@berger1978multiterminal; @tung1978multiterminal].
\[thm:dlsc\]Fix any $P_{U_{1}|X_{1}}$, $P_{U_{2}|X_{2}}$ and functions $z_{j}:\mathcal{U}_{1}\times\mathcal{U}_{2}\to\mathcal{Z}_{j}$, $j=1,2$. There exists a code for distributed lossy source coding with sources $P_{X_{1}},P_{X_{2}}$ and message sizes $\mathsf{L}_{1},\mathsf{L}_{2}$, with probability of excess distortion $$\begin{aligned}
P_{e} & \le\mathbf{E}\biggl[\min\biggl\{\mathbf{1}\{\mathsf{d}_{1}(X_{1},Z_{1})>\mathsf{D}_{1}\;\mathrm{or}\;\mathsf{d}_{2}(X_{2},Z_{2})>\mathsf{D}_{2}\}+\mathsf{L}_{1}^{-1}2^{\iota_{U_{1};X_{1}|U_{2}}(U_{1};X_{1}|U_{2})}\nonumber \\
& \;\;\;\;+\left(\mathsf{L}_{1}^{-1}\mathsf{L}_{2}^{-1}2^{\iota_{U_{1},U_{2};X_{1},X_{2}}(U_{1},U_{2};X_{1},X_{2})}+\mathsf{L}_{2}^{-1}2^{\iota_{U_{2};X_{2}|U_{1}}(U_{2};X_{2}|U_{1})}\right)\left(\log(\mathsf{L}_{2}2^{-\iota_{U_{2};X_{2}|U_{1}}(U_{2};X_{2}|U_{1})}+1)+1\right)^{2},\,1\biggr\}\biggr]\label{eq:dlsc_pe1}\end{aligned}$$ if all the information density terms are defined, where $(X_{1},X_{2},U_{1},U_{2},Z_{1},Z_{2})\sim P_{X_{1},X_{2}}P_{U_{1}|X_{1}}P_{U_{2}|X_{2}}\delta_{z_{1}(U_{1},U_{2})}\delta_{z_{2}(U_{1},U_{2})}$. As a result, for $\gamma>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
P_{e} & \le\mathbf{P}\biggl\{\mathsf{d}_{1}(X_{1},Z_{1})>\mathsf{D}_{1}\;\mathrm{or}\;\mathsf{d}_{2}(X_{2},Z_{2})>\mathsf{D}_{2}\;\;\mathrm{or}\;\;\log\mathsf{L}_{1}<\iota_{U_{1};X_{1}|U_{2}}(U_{1};X_{1}|U_{2})+\gamma\nonumber \\
& \;\;\;\;\mathrm{or}\;\;\log\mathsf{L}_{2}<\iota_{U_{2};X_{2}|U_{1}}(U_{2};X_{2}|U_{1})+\gamma\;\;\mathrm{or}\;\;\log\mathsf{L}_{1}\mathsf{L}_{2}<\iota_{U_{1},U_{2};X_{1},X_{2}}(U_{1},U_{2};X_{1},X_{2})+\gamma\biggr\}\nonumber \\
& \;\;\;+2^{-\gamma}\left(4\mathbf{E}[(\iota_{U_{1};U_{2}}(U_{1};U_{2}))^{2}]+4\gamma^{2}+29\right).\label{eq:dlsc_pe2}\end{aligned}$$
The logarithmic term in (or the last term in ) results in an $O(n^{-1}\log n)$ penalty on the rate in the finite blocklength regime, and does not affect the second order result. Ignoring the last term in , the error event in is a strict subset of that in [@yassaee2013oneshot eqn (47)]. This is because the error event in [@yassaee2013oneshot] is a superset of by Fourier-Motzkin elimination on $\mathsf{J}_{1},\mathsf{J}_{2}$ in the error event in [@yassaee2013oneshot], but the reverse is not true since Fourier-Motzkin elimination only guarantees the existence of random variables for $\mathsf{J}_{1},\mathsf{J}_{2}$ (that depend on the information density terms) satisfying the bounds, but $\mathsf{J}_{1},\mathsf{J}_{2}$ must be constants since they are parameters of the code construction in [@yassaee2013oneshot].
We now prove the result. Unlike previous approaches, our proof does not require binning. The encoders are the same as those for point-to-point lossy source coding.
Let $\{(\bar{U}_{1,i},\bar{M}_{1,i}),T_{1,i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$, $\{(\bar{U}_{2,i},\bar{M}_{2,i}),T_{2,i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ be two independent Poisson processes with intensity measures $P_{U_{1}}\times P_{M_{1}}\times\lambda_{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}$ and $P_{U_{2}}\times P_{M_{2}}\times\lambda_{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}$ respectively, independent of $X_{1},X_{2}$. The encoding functions are $M_{j}=(\tilde{M}_{j})_{P_{U_{j}|X_{j}}(\cdot|X_{j})\times P_{M_{j}}}$, $j=1,2$ (which Poisson process we are referring to can be deduced from whether we are discussing $M_{1}$ or $M_{2}$). Also define $U_{j}=(\tilde{U}_{j})_{P_{U_{j}|X_{j}}(\cdot|X_{j})\times P_{M_{j}}}$, $Z_{j}=z_{j}(U_{1},U_{2})$, $j=1,2$. For the decoding function, let $\check{U}_{1k}=(\tilde{U}_{1})_{P_{U_{1}}\times\delta_{M_{1}}}(k)$ for $k\in\mathbb{N}$, $\hat{U}_{2}=(\tilde{U}_{2})_{\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\phi(k)P_{U_{2}|U_{1}}(\cdot|\check{U}_{1k})\times\delta_{M_{2}}}$ where $\phi(k)\propto k^{-1}(\log(k+2))^{-2}$ with $\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\phi(k)=1$, and $\hat{U}_{1}=(\tilde{U}_{1})_{P_{U_{1}|U_{2}}(\cdot|\hat{U}_{2})\times\delta_{M_{1}}}$, $\hat{Z}_{j}=z_{j}(\hat{U}_{1},\hat{U}_{2})$, $j=1,2$. Note that $(M_{1},M_{2},X_{1},X_{2},U_{1},U_{2},Z_{1},Z_{2})\sim P_{M_{1}}\times P_{M_{2}}\times P_{X_{1},X_{2}}P_{U_{1}|X_{1}}P_{U_{2}|X_{2}}\delta_{z_{1}(U_{1},U_{2})}\delta_{z_{2}(U_{1},U_{2})}$.
Let $K=\Upsilon_{P_{U_{1}|X_{1}}(\cdot|X_{1})\times P_{M_{1}}\Vert P_{U_{1}}\times\delta_{M_{1}}}(1)$ (using the Poisson process $\{(\bar{U}_{1,i},\bar{M}_{1,i}),T_{1,i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$). By the conditional generalized Poisson matching lemma on $(X_{1},\,1,\,(U_{1},M_{1}),\,M_{1},\,P_{U_{1}}\times\delta_{M_{1}})$ (note that $P_{U_{1},M_{1}|X_{1}}=P_{U_{1}|X_{1}}\times P_{M_{1}}$), almost surely, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{E}\left[\left.K\,\right|\,X_{1},U_{1},M_{1}\right] & \le\frac{dP_{U_{1}|X_{1}}(\cdot|X_{1})\times P_{M_{1}}}{dP_{U_{1}}\times\delta_{M_{1}}}(U_{1},M_{1})+1\nonumber \\
& =\mathsf{L}_{1}^{-1}2^{\iota_{U_{1};X_{1}}(U_{1};X_{1})}+1.\label{eq:dlsc_ek}\end{aligned}$$ Since $\{\check{U}_{1k}\}_{k}$ is a function of $\{(\bar{U}_{1,i},\bar{M}_{1,i}),T_{1,i}\}_{i}$ and $M_{1}$, we have $\{\check{U}_{1k}\}_{k}\leftrightarrow(X_{1},X_{2},U_{1},U_{2},M_{2})\leftrightarrow\{(\bar{U}_{2,i},\bar{M}_{2,i}),T_{2,i}\}_{i}$. By the conditional Poisson matching lemma on $(X_{2},\,(U_{2},M_{2}),\,(\{\check{U}_{1k}\}_{k},M_{2}),\,\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\phi(k)P_{U_{2}|U_{1}}(\cdot|\check{U}_{1k})\times\delta_{M_{2}})$ (note that $P_{U_{2},M_{2}|X_{2}}=P_{U_{2}|X_{2}}\times P_{M_{2}}$), almost surely, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{P}\biggl\{\left.(\tilde{U}_{2},\tilde{M}_{2})_{\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\phi(k)P_{U_{2}|U_{1}}(\cdot|\check{U}_{1k})\times\delta_{M_{2}}}\neq(U_{2},M_{2})\,\right|\,X_{1},X_{2},U_{1},U_{2},M_{2}\biggr\}\\
& \le\mathbf{E}\left[\left.\min\biggl\{\frac{dP_{U_{2}|X_{2}}(\cdot|X_{2})\times P_{M_{2}}}{d(\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\phi(k)P_{U_{2}|U_{1}}(\cdot|\check{U}_{1k}))\times\delta_{M_{2}}}(U_{2},M_{2}),\,1\biggr\}\,\right|\,X_{1},X_{2},U_{1},U_{2},M_{2}\right]\\
& \le\mathbf{E}\left[\left.\min\biggl\{\mathsf{L}_{2}^{-1}\frac{dP_{U_{2}|X_{2}}(\cdot|X_{2})}{\phi(K)dP_{U_{2}|U_{1}}(\cdot|U_{1})}(U_{2}),\,1\biggr\}\,\right|\,X_{1},X_{2},U_{1},U_{2},M_{2}\right]\\
& =\mathbf{E}\left[\left.\min\{\mathsf{L}_{2}^{-1}(\phi(K))^{-1}2^{\iota_{U_{2};X_{2}|U_{1}}(U_{2};X_{2}|U_{1})},\,1\}\,\right|\,X_{1},X_{2},U_{1},U_{2},M_{2}\right]\\
& \stackrel{(a)}{\le}\mathbf{E}\left[\left.K\mathsf{L}_{2}^{-1}2^{\iota_{U_{2};X_{2}|U_{1}}(U_{2};X_{2}|U_{1})}\left(\log(\mathsf{L}_{2}2^{-\iota_{U_{2};X_{2}|U_{1}}(U_{2};X_{2}|U_{1})}+1)+1\right)^{2}\,\right|\,X_{1},X_{2},U_{1},U_{2},M_{2}\right]\\
& \stackrel{(b)}{\le}\left(\mathsf{L}_{1}^{-1}2^{\iota_{U_{1};X_{1}}(U_{1};X_{1})}+1\right)\mathsf{L}_{2}^{-1}2^{\iota_{U_{2};X_{2}|U_{1}}(U_{2};X_{2}|U_{1})}\left(\log(\mathsf{L}_{2}2^{-\iota_{U_{2};X_{2}|U_{1}}(U_{2};X_{2}|U_{1})}+1)+1\right)^{2}\\
& =\left(\mathsf{L}_{1}^{-1}\mathsf{L}_{2}^{-1}2^{\iota_{U_{1},U_{2};X_{1},X_{2}}(U_{1},U_{2};X_{1},X_{2})}+\mathsf{L}_{2}^{-1}2^{\iota_{U_{2};X_{2}|U_{1}}(U_{2};X_{2}|U_{1})}\right)\left(\log(\mathsf{L}_{2}2^{-\iota_{U_{2};X_{2}|U_{1}}(U_{2};X_{2}|U_{1})}+1)+1\right)^{2},\end{aligned}$$ where (a) is by Proposition \[prop:phi\_ineq\], and (b) is by $K\leftrightarrow(U_{1},X_{1})\leftrightarrow(X_{2},U_{2},M_{2})$, and Jensen’s inequality. By the conditional Poisson matching lemma on $(X_{1},\,(U_{1},M_{1}),\,(U_{2},M_{1}),\,P_{U_{1}|U_{2}}\times\delta_{M_{1}})$ (note that $P_{U_{1},M_{1}|X_{1}}=P_{U_{1}|X_{1}}\times P_{M_{1}}$), and $X_{2}\leftrightarrow(X_{1},U_{1},U_{2},M_{1})\leftrightarrow\{(\bar{U}_{1,i},\bar{M}_{1,i}),T_{1,i}\}_{i}$, almost surely, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{P}\biggl\{(\tilde{U}_{1},\tilde{M}_{1})_{P_{U_{1}|U_{2}}(\cdot|U_{2})\times\delta_{M_{1}}}\neq(U_{1},M_{1})\,\biggl|\,X_{1},X_{2},U_{1},U_{2},M_{1}\biggr\}\\
& \le\frac{dP_{U_{1}|X_{1}}(\cdot|X_{1})\times P_{M_{1}}}{dP_{U_{1}|U_{2}}(\cdot|U_{2})\times\delta_{M_{1}}}(U_{1},M_{1})\\
& =\mathsf{L}_{1}^{-1}2^{\iota_{U_{1};X_{1}|U_{2}}(U_{1};X_{1}|U_{2})}.\end{aligned}$$ We have $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{P}\{\mathsf{d}_{1}(X_{1},\hat{Z}_{1})>\mathsf{D}_{1}\;\mathrm{or}\;\mathsf{d}_{2}(X_{2},\hat{Z}_{2})>\mathsf{D}_{2}\}\\
& \le\mathbf{E}\biggl[\mathbf{P}\biggl\{\mathsf{d}_{1}(X_{1},Z_{1})>\mathsf{D}_{1}\;\mathrm{or}\;\mathsf{d}_{2}(X_{2},Z_{2})>\mathsf{D}_{2}\;\mathrm{or}\;\hat{U}_{2}\neq U_{2}\\
& \;\;\;\;\;\mathrm{or}\;(\hat{U}_{2}=U_{2}\;\mathrm{and}\;\hat{U}_{1}\neq U_{1})\,\biggl|\,X_{1},X_{2},U_{1},U_{2}\biggr\}\biggr]\\
& \le\mathbf{E}\biggl[\min\biggl\{\mathbf{1}\{\mathsf{d}_{1}(X_{1},Z_{1})>\mathsf{D}_{1}\;\mathrm{or}\;\mathsf{d}_{2}(X_{2},Z_{2})>\mathsf{D}_{2}\}+\mathsf{L}_{1}^{-1}2^{\iota_{U_{1};X_{1}|U_{2}}(U_{1};X_{1}|U_{2})}\\
& \;\;\;\;+\left(\mathsf{L}_{1}^{-1}\mathsf{L}_{2}^{-1}2^{\iota_{U_{1},U_{2};X_{1},X_{2}}(U_{1},U_{2};X_{1},X_{2})}+\mathsf{L}_{2}^{-1}2^{\iota_{U_{2};X_{2}|U_{1}}(U_{2};X_{2}|U_{1})}\right)\left(\log(\mathsf{L}_{2}2^{-\iota_{U_{2};X_{2}|U_{1}}(U_{2};X_{2}|U_{1})}+1)+1\right)^{2},\,1\biggr\}\biggr]\end{aligned}$$ Therefore there exist fixed values of the Poisson processes attaining the desired bound.
For , if the event in does not occur, by Proposition \[prop:phi\_ineq\] with $\alpha=\gamma-1$, $\tilde{\alpha}=\gamma$, $\beta=\iota_{U_{1};U_{2}}(U_{1};U_{2})-\gamma$, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathsf{L}_{1}^{-1}2^{\iota_{U_{1};X_{1}|U_{2}}(U_{1};X_{1}|U_{2})}\\
& \;\;\;+\left(\mathsf{L}_{1}^{-1}\mathsf{L}_{2}^{-1}2^{\iota_{U_{1},U_{2};X_{1},X_{2}}(U_{1},U_{2};X_{1},X_{2})}+\mathsf{L}_{2}^{-1}2^{\iota_{U_{2};X_{2}|U_{1}}(U_{2};X_{2}|U_{1})}\right)\left(\log(\mathsf{L}_{2}2^{-\iota_{U_{2};X_{2}|U_{1}}(U_{2};X_{2}|U_{1})}+1)+1\right)^{2}\\
& \le2^{-\gamma}+2^{1-\gamma}\left(2(\iota_{U_{1};U_{2}}(U_{1};U_{2}))^{2}+2\gamma^{2}+14\right)\\
& =2^{-\gamma}\left(4(\iota_{U_{1};U_{2}}(U_{1};U_{2}))^{2}+4\gamma^{2}+29\right).\end{aligned}$$
The reason for the logarithmic term is that we want to translate a bound on $\mathbf{E}[K]$ (given by the generalized Poisson matching lemma) into a bound on $\mathbf{E}[(\phi(K))^{-1}]$ for some distribution $\phi$ over $\mathbb{N}$. Ideally, we wish $(\phi(k))^{-1}\propto k$, but this is impossible since the harmonic series diverges. Therefore we use a slow converging series $\phi(k)\propto k^{-1}(\log(k+2))^{-2}$ instead, resulting in a logarithmic penalty.
If we use $\mathsf{J}^{-1}\mathbf{1}\{k\le\mathsf{J}\}$ instead of $\phi(k)$ in the proof, we can obtain the following bound for any $\mathsf{J}\in\mathbb{N}$: $$\begin{aligned}
P_{e} & \le\mathbf{E}\biggl[\min\biggl\{\mathbf{1}\{\mathsf{d}_{1}(X_{1},Z_{1})>\mathsf{D}_{1}\;\mathrm{or}\;\mathsf{d}_{2}(X_{2},Z_{2})>\mathsf{D}_{2}\}\\
& \;\;\;+\mathsf{L}_{1}^{-1}\mathsf{J}^{-1}2^{\iota_{U_{1};X_{1}}(U_{1};X_{1})}+\mathsf{L}_{2}^{-1}\mathsf{J}2^{\iota_{U_{2};X_{2}|U_{1}}(U_{2};X_{2}|U_{1})}+\mathsf{L}_{1}^{-1}2^{\iota_{U_{1};X_{1}|U_{2}}(U_{1};X_{1}|U_{2})},\,1\biggr\}\biggr].\end{aligned}$$ Compared to Theorem \[thm:dlsc\], this does not contain the logarithmic term, but requires optimizing over $\mathsf{J}$, and may give a worse second order result.
Another choice is to use $g(k)\propto k^{-1}\mathbf{1}\{k\le\mathsf{J}\}$ instead of $\phi(k)$. We can obtain the following bound for any $\mathsf{J}\in\mathbb{N}$: $$\begin{aligned}
P_{e} & \le\mathbf{E}\biggl[\min\biggl\{\mathbf{1}\{\mathsf{d}_{1}(X_{1},Z_{1})>\mathsf{D}_{1}\;\mathrm{or}\;\mathsf{d}_{2}(X_{2},Z_{2})>\mathsf{D}_{2}\}+\mathsf{L}_{1}^{-1}\mathsf{J}^{-1}2^{\iota_{U_{1};X_{1}}(U_{1};X_{1})}\\
& \;\;+\mathsf{L}_{1}^{-1}\mathsf{L}_{2}^{-1}(\ln\mathsf{J}+1)2^{\iota_{U_{1},U_{2};X_{1},X_{2}}(U_{1},U_{2};X_{1},X_{2})}+\mathsf{L}_{2}^{-1}(\ln\mathsf{J}+1)2^{\iota_{U_{2};X_{2}|U_{1}}(U_{2};X_{2}|U_{1})}+\mathsf{L}_{1}^{-1}2^{\iota_{U_{1};X_{1}|U_{2}}(U_{1};X_{1}|U_{2})},\,1\biggr\}\biggr].\end{aligned}$$ which gives the same second order result as Theorem \[thm:dlsc\]. Nevertheless, we prefer using $\phi(k)$ which eliminates the need for a parameter $\mathsf{J}$ at the decoder.
One-shot Coding for Multiple Access Channels
============================================
The one-shot coding setting for the multiple access channel is described as follows. Upon observing $M_{j}\sim\mathrm{Unif}[1:\mathsf{L}_{j}]$ ($M_{1},M_{2}$ independent), encoder $j$ produces $X_{j}$, $j=1,2$. The decoder observes the output $Y$ of the channel $P_{Y|X_{1},X_{2}}$ and recovers $(\hat{M}_{1},\hat{M}_{2})$. The error probability is $P_{e}=\mathbf{P}\{(M_{1},M_{2})\neq(\hat{M}_{1},\hat{M}_{2})\}$.
We present a one-shot achievability result for the capacity region in [@ahlswede1971multi; @liao1972multiple; @ahlswede1974capacity]. While this result is slightly weaker than that in [@verdu2012nonasymp], we include it to illustrate the use of the generalized Poisson matching lemma in simultaneous decoding. Note that the logarithmic term results in an $O(n^{-1}\log n)$ penalty on the rate in the finite blocklength regime, and does not affect the second order result.
\[thm:mac\]Fix any $P_{X_{1}},P_{X_{2}}$. There exists a code for the multiple access channel $P_{Y|X_{1},X_{2}}$ for messages $M_{j}\sim\mathrm{Unif}[1:\mathsf{L}_{j}]$, $j=1,2$, with the error probability bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
P_{e} & \le\mathbf{E}\biggl[\min\biggl\{\left(\mathsf{L}_{1}\mathsf{L}_{2}2^{-\iota_{X_{1},X_{2};Y}(X_{1},X_{2};Y)}+\mathsf{L}_{2}2^{-\iota_{X_{2};X_{1},Y}(X_{2};X_{1},Y)}\right)\left(\log(\mathsf{L}_{2}^{-1}2^{\iota_{X_{2};X_{1},Y}(X_{2};X_{1},Y)}+1)+1\right)^{2}\\
& \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;+\mathsf{L}_{1}2^{-\iota_{X_{1};X_{2},Y}(X_{1};X_{2},Y)},\,1\biggr\}\biggr]\end{aligned}$$ if $P_{X_{1}X_{2}Y}\ll P_{X_{1}}\times P_{X_{2}}\times P_{Y}$, where $(X_{1},X_{2},Y)\sim P_{X_{1}}P_{X_{2}}P_{Y|X_{1},X_{2}}$. As a result, for $\gamma>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
P_{e} & \le\mathbf{P}\biggl\{\log\mathsf{L}_{1}>\iota_{X_{1};X_{2},Y}(X_{1};X_{2},Y)-\gamma\;\;\mathrm{or}\;\;\log\mathsf{L}_{2}>\iota_{X_{2};X_{1},Y}(X_{2};X_{1},Y)-\gamma\nonumber \\
& \;\;\;\;\mathrm{or}\;\;\log\mathsf{L}_{1}\mathsf{L}_{2}>\iota_{X_{1},X_{2};Y}(X_{1},X_{2};Y)-\gamma\biggr\}+2^{-\gamma}\left(4\mathbf{E}[(\iota_{X_{1};X_{2}|Y}(X_{1};X_{2}|Y))^{2}]+4\gamma^{2}+29\right).\label{eq:mac_pe2}\end{aligned}$$
Let $\{(\bar{X}_{1,i},\bar{M}_{1,i}),T_{1,i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$, $\{(\bar{X}_{2,i},\bar{M}_{2,i}),T_{2,i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ be two independent Poisson processes with intensity measures $P_{X_{1}}\times P_{M_{1}}\times\lambda_{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}$ and $P_{X_{2}}\times P_{M_{2}}\times\lambda_{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}$ respectively, independent of $M_{1},M_{2}$. The encoding functions are $X_{1}=(\tilde{X}_{1})_{P_{X_{1}}\times\delta_{M_{1}}}$, $X_{2}=(\tilde{X}_{2})_{P_{X_{2}}\times\delta_{M_{2}}}$ (which Poisson process we are referring to can be deduced from whether we are discussing $X_{1}$ or $X_{2}$). For the decoding function, let $\check{X}_{1k}=(\tilde{X}_{1})_{P_{X_{1}|Y}(\cdot|Y)\times P_{M_{1}}}(k)$ for $k\in\mathbb{N}$, $(\hat{X}_{2},\hat{M}_{2})=(\tilde{X}_{2},\tilde{M}_{2})_{\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\phi(k)P_{X_{2}|X_{1},Y}(\cdot|\check{X}_{1k},Y)\times P_{M_{2}}}$ where $\phi(k)\propto k^{-1}(\log(k+2))^{-2}$ with $\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\phi(k)=1$, and $\hat{M}_{1}=(\tilde{M}_{1})_{P_{X_{1}|X_{2},Y}(\cdot|\hat{X}_{2},Y)\times P_{M_{1}}}$.
Let $K=\Upsilon_{P_{X_{1}}\times\delta_{M_{1}}\Vert P_{X_{1}|Y}(\cdot|Y)\times P_{M_{1}}}(1)$ (using the Poisson process $\{(\bar{X}_{1,i},\bar{M}_{1,i}),T_{1,i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$). By the conditional generalized Poisson matching lemma on $(M_{1},\,1,\,(X_{1},M_{1}),\,Y,\,P_{X_{1}|Y}\times P_{M_{1}})$ (note that $P_{X_{1},M_{1}|M_{1}}=P_{X_{1}}\times\delta_{M_{1}}$), almost surely, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{E}\left[\left.K\,\right|\,X_{1},Y,M_{1}\right] & \le\frac{dP_{X_{1}}\times\delta_{M_{1}}}{dP_{X_{1}|Y}(\cdot|Y)\times P_{M_{1}}}(X_{1},M_{1})+1\nonumber \\
& =\mathsf{L}_{1}2^{-\iota_{X_{1};Y}(X_{1};Y)}+1.\label{eq:mac_ek}\end{aligned}$$ Since $\{\check{X}_{1k}\}_{k}$ is a function of $\{(\bar{X}_{1,i},\bar{M}_{1,i}),T_{1,i}\}_{i}$ and $Y$, we have $\{\check{X}_{1k}\}_{k}\leftrightarrow(X_{1},X_{2},Y,M_{2})\leftrightarrow\{(\bar{X}_{2,i},\bar{M}_{2,i}),T_{2,i}\}_{i}$. By the conditional Poisson matching lemma on $(M_{2},\,(X_{2},M_{2}),\,(\{\check{X}_{1k}\}_{k},Y),\,\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\phi(k)P_{X_{2}|X_{1},Y}(\cdot|\check{X}_{1k},Y)\times P_{M_{2}})$ (note that $P_{X_{2},M_{2}|M_{2}}=P_{X_{2}}\times\delta_{M_{2}}$), almost surely, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{P}\biggl\{\left.(\tilde{X}_{2},\tilde{M}_{2})_{\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\phi(k)P_{X_{2}|X_{1},Y}(\cdot|\check{X}_{1k},Y)\times P_{M_{2}}}\neq(X_{2},M_{2})\,\right|\,X_{1},X_{2},Y,M_{2}\biggr\}\\
& \le\mathbf{E}\left[\left.\min\biggl\{\frac{dP_{X_{2}}\times\delta_{M_{2}}}{d(\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\phi(k)P_{X_{2}|X_{1},Y}(\cdot|\check{X}_{1k},Y))\times P_{M_{2}}}(X_{2},M_{2}),\,1\biggr\}\,\right|\,X_{1},X_{2},Y,M_{2}\right]\\
& \le\mathbf{E}\left[\left.\min\biggl\{\mathsf{L}_{2}\frac{dP_{X_{2}}}{\phi(K)dP_{X_{2}|X_{1},Y}(\cdot|X_{1},Y)}(X_{2}),\,1\biggr\}\,\right|\,X_{1},X_{2},Y,M_{2}\right]\\
& =\mathbf{E}\left[\left.\min\{\mathsf{L}_{2}(\phi(K))^{-1}2^{-\iota_{X_{2};X_{1},Y}(X_{2};X_{1},Y)},\,1\}\,\right|\,X_{1},X_{2},Y,M_{2}\right]\\
& \stackrel{(a)}{\le}\mathbf{E}\left[\left.K\mathsf{L}_{2}2^{-\iota_{X_{2};X_{1},Y}(X_{2};X_{1},Y)}\left(\log(\mathsf{L}_{2}^{-1}2^{\iota_{X_{2};X_{1},Y}(X_{2};X_{1},Y)}+1)+1\right)^{2}\,\right|\,X_{1},X_{2},Y,M_{2}\right]\\
& \stackrel{(b)}{\le}\left(\mathsf{L}_{1}2^{-\iota_{X_{1};Y}(X_{1};Y)}+1\right)\mathsf{L}_{2}2^{-\iota_{X_{2};X_{1},Y}(X_{2};X_{1},Y)}\left(\log(\mathsf{L}_{2}^{-1}2^{\iota_{X_{2};X_{1},Y}(X_{2};X_{1},Y)}+1)+1\right)^{2}\\
& =\left(\mathsf{L}_{1}\mathsf{L}_{2}2^{-\iota_{X_{1},X_{2};Y}(X_{1},X_{2};Y)}+\mathsf{L}_{2}2^{-\iota_{X_{2};X_{1},Y}(X_{2};X_{1},Y)}\right)\left(\log(\mathsf{L}_{2}^{-1}2^{\iota_{X_{2};X_{1},Y}(X_{2};X_{1},Y)}+1)+1\right)^{2},\end{aligned}$$ where (a) is by Proposition \[prop:phi\_ineq\], and (b) is by $K\leftrightarrow(X_{1},Y)\leftrightarrow X_{2}$, and Jensen’s inequality. By the conditional Poisson matching lemma on $(M_{1},\,(X_{1},M_{1}),\,(X_{2},Y),\,P_{X_{1}|X_{2},Y}\times P_{M_{1}})$ (note that $P_{X_{1},M_{1}|M_{1}}=P_{X_{1}}\times\delta_{M_{1}}$), almost surely, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{P}\biggl\{(\tilde{X}_{1},\tilde{M}_{1})_{P_{X_{1}|X_{2},Y}(\cdot|X_{2},Y)\times P_{M_{1}}}\neq(X_{1},M_{1})\,\biggl|\,X_{1},X_{2},Y,M_{1}\biggr\}\\
& \le\frac{dP_{X_{1}}\times\delta_{M_{1}}}{dP_{X_{1}|X_{2},Y}(\cdot|X_{2},Y)\times P_{M_{1}}}(X_{1},M_{1})\\
& =\mathsf{L}_{1}2^{-\iota_{X_{1};X_{2},Y}(X_{1};X_{2},Y)}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore there exist fixed values of the Poisson processes attaining the desired bound.
For , if the event in does not occur, by Proposition \[prop:phi\_ineq\] with $\alpha=\gamma-1$, $\tilde{\alpha}=\gamma$, $\beta=\iota_{X_{1};X_{2}|Y}(X_{1};X_{2}|Y)-\gamma$, $$\begin{aligned}
& \left(\mathsf{L}_{1}\mathsf{L}_{2}2^{-\iota_{X_{1},X_{2};Y}(X_{1},X_{2};Y)}+\mathsf{L}_{2}2^{-\iota_{X_{2};X_{1},Y}(X_{2};X_{1},Y)}\right)\left(\log(\mathsf{L}_{2}^{-1}2^{\iota_{X_{2};X_{1},Y}(X_{2};X_{1},Y)}+1)+1\right)^{2}+\mathsf{L}_{1}2^{-\iota_{X_{1};X_{2},Y}(X_{1};X_{2},Y)}\\
& \le2^{1-\gamma}\left(2(\iota_{X_{1};X_{2}|Y}(X_{1};X_{2}|Y))^{2}+2\gamma^{2}+14\right)+2^{-\gamma}\\
& =2^{-\gamma}\left(4(\iota_{X_{1};X_{2}|Y}(X_{1};X_{2}|Y))^{2}+4\gamma^{2}+29\right).\end{aligned}$$
If we use $\mathsf{J}^{-1}\mathbf{1}\{k\le\mathsf{J}\}$ instead of $\phi(k)$ in the proof, we can obtain the following bound for any $\mathsf{J}\in\mathbb{N}$: $$\begin{aligned}
P_{e} & \le\mathbf{E}\biggl[\min\biggl\{\mathsf{L}_{1}\mathsf{J}^{-1}2^{-\iota_{X_{1};Y}(X_{1};Y)}+\mathsf{L}_{2}\mathsf{J}2^{-\iota_{X_{2};X_{1},Y}(X_{2};X_{1},Y)}+\mathsf{L}_{1}2^{-\iota_{X_{1};X_{2},Y}(X_{1};X_{2},Y)},\,1\biggr\}\biggr].\end{aligned}$$ Compared to Theorem \[thm:mac\], this does not contain the logarithmic term, but requires optimizing over $\mathsf{J}$, and may give a worse second order result.
Another choice is to use $g(k)\propto k^{-1}\mathbf{1}\{k\le\mathsf{J}\}$ instead of $\phi(k)$. We can obtain the following bound for any $\mathsf{J}\in\mathbb{N}$: $$\begin{aligned}
P_{e} & \le\mathbf{E}\biggl[\min\biggl\{\mathsf{L}_{1}\mathsf{L}_{2}(\ln\mathsf{J}+1)2^{-\iota_{X_{1},X_{2};Y}(X_{1},X_{2};Y)}+\mathsf{L}_{2}(\ln\mathsf{J}+1)2^{-\iota_{X_{2};X_{1},Y}(X_{2};X_{1},Y)}\\
& \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;+\mathsf{L}_{1}2^{-\iota_{X_{1};X_{2},Y}(X_{1};X_{2},Y)}+\mathsf{L}_{1}\mathsf{J}^{-1}2^{-\iota_{X_{1};Y}(X_{1};Y)},\,1\biggr\}\biggr],\end{aligned}$$ which gives the same second order result as Theorem \[thm:mac\]. Nevertheless, we prefer using $\phi(k)$ which eliminates the need for a parameter $\mathsf{J}$ at the decoder.
One-shot Channel Resolvability and Soft Covering
================================================
The one-shot channel resolvability setting [@han1993approximation] is described as follows. Fix a channel $P_{Y|X}$ and input distribution $P_{X}$. Upon observing an integer $M\sim\mathrm{Unif}[1:\mathsf{L}]$, the encoder applies a deterministic mapping $g:[1:\mathsf{L}]\to\mathcal{X}$ on $M$ to produce $\hat{X}=g(M)$, which is sent through the channel $P_{Y|X}$ and gives the output $\hat{Y}$. The goal is to minimize the total variation distance between $P_{\hat{Y}}$ and $P_{Y}$ ($Y$-marginal of $P_{X}P_{Y|X}$), i.e., $\epsilon:=\Vert\mathsf{L}^{-1}\sum_{m=1}^{\mathsf{L}}P_{Y|X}(\cdot|g(m))-P_{Y}(\cdot)\Vert_{\mathrm{TV}}$.
We show a one-shot channel resolvability result using the the Poisson matching lemma. This result can also be regarded as a one-shot soft covering lemma [@cuff2013synthesis].
\[prop:resolve\]Given channel $P_{Y|X}$ and input distribution $P_{X}$ with $P_{XY}\ll P_{X}\times P_{Y}$. Let $\{\check{X}_{m}\}_{m\in[1:\mathsf{L}]}\stackrel{iid}{\sim}P_{X}$, then for any $\mathsf{J}\in\mathbb{N}$, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{E}\left[\Bigl\Vert\mathsf{L}^{-1}\sum_{m=1}^{\mathsf{L}}P_{Y|X}(\cdot|\check{X}_{m})-P_{Y}(\cdot)\Bigr\Vert_{\mathrm{TV}}\right]\nonumber \\
& \le\mathbf{E}\left[(1+2^{-\iota_{X;Y}(X;Y)})^{-\mathsf{J}}\right]+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\mathsf{J}\mathsf{L}^{-1}}.\label{eq:resolve_pe1}\end{aligned}$$ As a result, for any $0<\gamma\le\log\mathsf{L}$, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{E}\left[\Bigl\Vert\mathsf{L}^{-1}\sum_{m=1}^{\mathsf{L}}P_{Y|X}(\cdot|\check{X}_{m})-P_{Y}(\cdot)\Bigr\Vert_{\mathrm{TV}}\right]\nonumber \\
& \le\mathbf{P}\left\{ \iota_{X;Y}(X;Y)>\log\mathsf{L}-\gamma\right\} +2^{-\gamma/2}\left(1+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\gamma}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\mathsf{L}^{-1}}.\label{eq:resolve_pe2}\end{aligned}$$ Hence there exists a code for channel resolvability satisfying the above bounds.
Let $\mathfrak{P}=\{\bar{Y}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ be the points of a Poisson process with intensity measure $P_{Y}\times\lambda_{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}$. Let $M\sim\mathrm{Unif}[1:\mathsf{L}]$, $\{\check{X}_{m}\}_{m\in[1:\mathsf{L}]}\stackrel{iid}{\sim}P_{X}$ ($M\perp\!\!\!\perp\{\check{X}_{j}\}_{j}\perp\!\!\!\perp\mathfrak{P}$), and $X=\check{X}_{M}$. Let $Y=\tilde{Y}_{P_{Y|X}(\cdot|X)}$, and $\hat{Y}_{j}=\tilde{Y}_{P_{Y}}(j)$ for $j\in\mathbb{N}$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{E}\left[\Vert P_{Y|\{\check{X}_{m}\}_{m}}(\cdot|\{\check{X}_{m}\}_{m})-P_{Y}(\cdot)\Vert_{\mathrm{TV}}\right]\\
& \stackrel{(a)}{\le}\mathbf{E}\left[\Vert P_{Y|\{\check{X}_{m}\}_{m},\mathfrak{P}}(\cdot|\{\check{X}_{m}\}_{m},\mathfrak{P})-P_{Y|\mathfrak{P}}(\cdot|\mathfrak{P})\Vert_{\mathrm{TV}}\right]\\
& \stackrel{(b)}{=}\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{E}\left[\sum_{y\in\{\hat{Y}_{j}\}_{j\in\mathbb{N}}}\left|P_{Y|\mathfrak{P}}(y|\mathfrak{P})-P_{Y|\{\check{X}_{m}\}_{m},\mathfrak{P}}(y|\{\check{X}_{m}\}_{m},\mathfrak{P})\right|\right]\\
& \le\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{E}\biggl[\sum_{y\in\{\hat{Y}_{j}\}_{j\in[1:\mathsf{J}]}}\left|P_{Y|\mathfrak{P}}(y|\mathfrak{P})-P_{Y|\{\check{X}_{m}\}_{m},\mathfrak{P}}(y|\{\check{X}_{m}\}_{m},\mathfrak{P})\right|\\
& \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;+\sum_{y\in\{\hat{Y}_{j}\}_{j\in\mathbb{N}}\backslash\{\hat{Y}_{j}\}_{j\in[1:\mathsf{J}]}}\left(P_{Y|\mathfrak{P}}(y|\mathfrak{P})+P_{Y|\{\check{X}_{m}\}_{m},\mathfrak{P}}(y|\{\check{X}_{m}\}_{m},\mathfrak{P})\right)\biggr]\\
& =\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{E}\left[\sum_{y\in\{\hat{Y}_{j}\}_{j\in[1:\mathsf{J}]}}\left|P_{Y|\mathfrak{P}}(y|\mathfrak{P})-\mathsf{L}^{-1}\sum_{m=1}^{\mathsf{L}}P_{Y|X,\mathfrak{P}}(y|\check{X}_{m},\mathfrak{P})\right|\right]\\
& \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;+\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{E}\left[P_{Y|\mathfrak{P}}(\mathcal{Y}\backslash\{\hat{Y}_{j}\}_{j\in[1:\mathsf{J}]}|\mathfrak{P})+P_{Y|\{\check{X}_{m}\}_{m},\mathfrak{P}}(\mathcal{Y}\backslash\{\hat{Y}_{j}\}_{j\in[1:\mathsf{J}]}\,|\,\{\check{X}_{m}\}_{m},\mathfrak{P})\right]\\
& =\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{E}\left[\sum_{y\in\{\hat{Y}_{j}\}_{j\in[1:\mathsf{J}]}}\left|P_{Y|\mathfrak{P}}(y|\mathfrak{P})-\mathsf{L}^{-1}\sum_{m=1}^{\mathsf{L}}P_{Y|X,\mathfrak{P}}(y|\check{X}_{m},\mathfrak{P})\right|\right]+\mathbf{P}\left\{ Y\notin\{\hat{Y}_{j}\}_{j\in[1:\mathsf{J}]}\right\} ,\end{aligned}$$ where (a) is by the convexity of the total variation distance, and (b) is because $Y\in\{\hat{Y}_{j}\}_{j\in\mathbb{N}}$ almost surely (note that the summation $\sum_{y\in\{\hat{Y}_{j}\}_{j\in\mathbb{N}}}$ ignores multiplicity of elements in $\{\hat{Y}_{j}\}_{j\in\mathbb{N}}$). For the first term, note that since $Y$ is a function of $(X,\mathfrak{P})$, we have $P_{Y|X,\mathfrak{P}}(y|\check{X}_{m},\mathfrak{P})\in\{0,1\}$, and hence $$\left(\sum_{m=1}^{\mathsf{L}}P_{Y|X,\mathfrak{P}}(y|\check{X}_{m},\mathfrak{P})\right)\,\biggl|\,\mathfrak{P}\sim\mathrm{Bin}(\mathsf{L},\,P_{Y|\mathfrak{P}}(y|\mathfrak{P})).$$ We have $$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{1}{2}\mathbf{E}\left[\sum_{y\in\{\hat{Y}_{j}\}_{j\in[1:\mathsf{J}]}}\left|P_{Y|\mathfrak{P}}(y|\mathfrak{P})-\mathsf{L}^{-1}\sum_{m=1}^{\mathsf{L}}P_{Y|X,\mathfrak{P}}(y|\check{X}_{m},\mathfrak{P})\right|\right]\\
& =\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{E}\left[\sum_{y\in\{\hat{Y}_{j}\}_{j\in[1:\mathsf{J}]}}\mathbf{E}\left[\left.\left|P_{Y|\mathfrak{P}}(y|\mathfrak{P})-\mathsf{L}^{-1}\sum_{m=1}^{\mathsf{L}}P_{Y|X,\mathfrak{P}}(y|\check{X}_{m},\mathfrak{P})\right|\,\right|\,\mathfrak{P}\right]\right]\\
& \le\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{E}\left[\sum_{y\in\{\hat{Y}_{j}\}_{j\in[1:\mathsf{J}]}}\sqrt{\mathrm{Var}\left[\left.\mathsf{L}^{-1}\sum_{m=1}^{\mathsf{L}}P_{Y|X,\mathfrak{P}}(y|\check{X}_{m},\mathfrak{P})\,\right|\,\mathfrak{P}\right]}\right]\\
& \le\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{E}\left[\sum_{y\in\{\hat{Y}_{j}\}_{j\in[1:\mathsf{J}]}}\sqrt{\mathsf{L}^{-1}P_{Y|\mathfrak{P}}(y|\mathfrak{P})}\right]\\
& \le\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{E}\left[\sqrt{\mathsf{J}\sum_{y\in\{\hat{Y}_{j}\}_{j\in[1:\mathsf{J}]}}\mathsf{L}^{-1}P_{Y|\mathfrak{P}}(y|\mathfrak{P})}\right]\\
& \le\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\mathsf{J}\mathsf{L}^{-1}}.\end{aligned}$$ For the second term, by the conditional generalized Poisson matching lemma on $(X,\,1,\,Y,\,\emptyset,\,P_{Y})$, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{P}\{Y\notin\{\hat{Y}_{j}\}_{j\in[1:\mathsf{J}]}\}\\
& \le\mathbf{E}\left[\left(1-\left(1+\frac{dP_{Y|X}(\cdot|X)}{dP_{Y}}(Y)\right)^{-1}\right)^{\mathsf{J}}\right]\\
& =\mathbf{E}\left[(1-(1+2^{\iota_{X;Y}(X;Y)})^{-1})^{\mathsf{J}}\right].\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{E}\left[\Vert P_{Y|\{\check{X}_{j}\}_{j}}(\cdot|\{\check{X}_{m}\}_{m})-P_{Y}(\cdot)\Vert_{\mathrm{TV}}\right]\\
& \le\mathbf{E}\left[(1-(1+2^{\iota_{X;Y}(X;Y)})^{-1})^{\mathsf{J}}\right]+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\mathsf{J}\mathsf{L}^{-1}}\\
& =\mathbf{E}\left[(1+2^{-\iota_{X;Y}(X;Y)})^{-\mathsf{J}}\right]+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\mathsf{J}\mathsf{L}^{-1}}.\end{aligned}$$ For , substitute $\mathsf{J}=\lceil\gamma2^{-\gamma}\mathsf{L}\rceil$, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{E}\left[(1-(1+2^{\iota_{X;Y}(X;Y)})^{-1})^{\mathsf{J}}\right]+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\mathsf{J}\mathsf{L}^{-1}}\\
& \stackrel{(a)}{\le}\mathbf{E}\left[(1-(1+(2\mathsf{L}2^{-\gamma})^{-1}2^{\iota_{X;Y}(X;Y)})^{-1})^{\mathsf{J}(2\mathsf{L}2^{-\gamma})^{-1}}\right]+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\mathsf{J}\mathsf{L}^{-1}}\\
& \le\mathbf{P}\left\{ \iota_{X;Y}(X;Y)>\log\mathsf{L}-\gamma\right\} +2^{-\mathsf{J}(2\mathsf{L}2^{-\gamma})^{-1}}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{(\gamma2^{-\gamma}\mathsf{L}+1)\mathsf{L}^{-1}}\\
& \le\mathbf{P}\left\{ \iota_{X;Y}(X;Y)>\log\mathsf{L}-\gamma\right\} +2^{-\gamma/2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\gamma2^{-\gamma}}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\mathsf{L}^{-1}}\\
& =\mathbf{P}\left\{ \iota_{X;Y}(X;Y)>\log\mathsf{L}-\gamma\right\} +2^{-\gamma/2}\left(1+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\gamma}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\mathsf{L}^{-1}},\end{aligned}$$ where (a) is because $\gamma\le\log\mathsf{L}$, $2\mathsf{L}2^{-\gamma}>1$ and $(1-(1+\alpha)^{-1})^{\beta}\le1-(1+\beta^{-1}\alpha)^{-1}$ for $\alpha\ge0$, $\beta\ge1$.
Compare this to Theorem 2 in [@hayashi2006resolvability] (weakened by substituting $\delta'_{p,W,C}\le C$): for any $\alpha>0$, $$\epsilon\le\mathbf{P}\left\{ \iota_{X;Y}(X;Y)>\log\alpha\right\} +\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\alpha\mathsf{L}^{-1}}.$$ If we assume $1\le\alpha\le\mathsf{L}$ and substitute $\gamma=\log(\mathsf{L}/\alpha)$ in , we obtain the following slightly weaker bound (within a logarithmic gap from that in [@hayashi2006resolvability]): $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon & \le\mathbf{P}\left\{ \iota_{X;Y}(X;Y)>\log\alpha\right\} +\sqrt{\alpha\mathsf{L}^{-1}}\left(1+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\log(\mathsf{L}/\alpha)}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\mathsf{L}^{-1}}.\end{aligned}$$ Nevertheless, the bound in [@hayashi2006resolvability] does not imply , so neither bound is stronger than the other.
The channel resolvability or soft covering bound in Proposition \[prop:resolve\] can be applied to prove various secrecy and coordination results, e.g. one-shot coding for wiretap channels [@wyner1975wire], one-shot channel synthesis [@cuff2013synthesis], and one-shot distributed source simulation [@wyner1975common]. Hence these results can also be proved using the Poisson matching lemma alone. In the next section, we will prove a one-shot result for wiretap channels.
One-shot Coding for Wiretap Channels
====================================
The one-shot version of the wiretap channel setting [@wyner1975wire] is described as follows. Upon observing $M\sim\mathrm{Unif}[1:\mathsf{L}]$, the encoder produces $X$, which is sent through the broadcast channel $P_{Y,Z|X}$. The legitimate decoder observes $Y$ and recovers $\hat{M}$ with error probability $P_{e}=\mathbf{P}\{M\neq\hat{M}\}$. The eavesdropper observes $Z$. Secrecy is measured by the total variation distance $\epsilon:=\Vert P_{M,Z}-P_{M}\times P_{Z}\Vert_{\mathrm{TV}}$.
The following bound is a direct result of the generalized Poisson matching lemma and Proposition \[prop:resolve\]. It is included for demonstration purposes. See [@hayashi2006resolvability; @yassaee2015one; @liu2017resolvability] for other one-shot bounds (that are not strictly stronger or weaker than ours).
\[prop:wire\]Fix any $P_{U,X}$. For any $\nu\ge0$, $\mathsf{K},\mathsf{J}\in\mathbb{N}$, there exists a code for the wiretap channel $P_{Y,Z|X}$, with message $M\sim\mathrm{Unif}[1:\mathsf{L}]$, with average error probability $P_{e}$ and secrecy measure $\epsilon$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
P_{e}+\nu\epsilon & \le\mathbf{E}\left[\min\{\mathsf{L}\mathsf{K}2^{-\iota_{U;Y}(U;Y)},\,1\}\right]\\
& \;\;\;+\nu\left(2\mathbf{E}\left[(1+2^{-\iota_{U;Z}(U;Z)})^{-\mathsf{J}}\right]+\sqrt{\mathsf{J}\mathsf{K}^{-1}}\right)\end{aligned}$$ if $P_{UY}\ll P_{U}\times P_{Y}$ and $P_{UZ}\ll P_{U}\times P_{Z}$.
Let $\mathfrak{P}=\{(\bar{U}_{i},\bar{M}_{i}),T_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ be the points of a Poisson process with intensity measure $P_{U}\times P_{M}\times\lambda_{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}$ independent of $M$. Let $K\sim\mathrm{Unif}[1:\mathsf{K}]$ independent of $(M,\mathfrak{P})$. The encoder computes $U=\tilde{U}_{P_{U}\times\delta_{M}}(K)$ and generates $X|U\sim P_{X|U}$. The decoder recovers $\hat{M}=\tilde{M}_{P_{U|Y}(\cdot|Y)\times P_{M}}$. We have $(M,K,U,X,Y,Z)\sim P_{M}\times P_{K}\times P_{U,X}P_{Y,Z|X}$. By the conditional generalized Poisson matching lemma on $(M,\,K,\,(U,M),\,Y,\,P_{U|Y}\times P_{M})$ (note that $P_{U,M|M,K}=P_{U}\times\delta_{M}$), $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{P}\left\{ M\neq\hat{M}\right\} \\
& \le\mathbf{E}\left[\mathbf{P}\left\{ (U,M)\neq(\tilde{U},\tilde{M})_{P_{U|Y}(\cdot|Y)\times P_{M}}\,|\,M,K,U,Y\right\} \right]\\
& \le\mathbf{E}\left[\min\left\{ \mathsf{K}\frac{dP_{U}\times\delta_{M}}{dP_{U|Y}(\cdot|Y)\times P_{M}}(U,M),\,1\right\} \right]\\
& =\mathbf{E}\left[\min\{\mathsf{L}\mathsf{K}2^{-\iota_{U;Y}(U;Y)},\,1\}\right].\end{aligned}$$ For the secrecy measure, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{E}\left[\Bigl\Vert P_{M,Z|\mathfrak{P}}(\cdot,\cdot|\mathfrak{P})-P_{M}(\cdot)\times P_{Z|\mathfrak{P}}(\cdot|\mathfrak{P})\Bigr\Vert_{\mathrm{TV}}\right]\\
& =\mathbf{E}\left[\Bigl\Vert P_{Z|M,\mathfrak{P}}(\cdot|M,\mathfrak{P})-P_{Z|\mathfrak{P}}(\cdot|\mathfrak{P})\Bigr\Vert_{\mathrm{TV}}\right]\\
& \le\mathbf{E}\left[\Bigl\Vert P_{Z|M,\mathfrak{P}}(\cdot|M,\mathfrak{P})-P_{Z}(\cdot)\Bigr\Vert_{\mathrm{TV}}\right]+\mathbf{E}\left[\Bigl\Vert P_{Z|\mathfrak{P}}(\cdot|\mathfrak{P})-P_{Z}(\cdot)\Bigr\Vert_{\mathrm{TV}}\right]\\
& \stackrel{(a)}{\le}2\mathbf{E}\left[\Bigl\Vert P_{Z|M,\mathfrak{P}}(\cdot|M,\mathfrak{P})-P_{Z}(\cdot)\Bigr\Vert_{\mathrm{TV}}\right]\\
& =2\mathbf{E}\left[\Bigl\Vert\mathsf{K}^{-1}\sum_{k=1}^{\mathsf{K}}P_{Z|U}(\cdot|\tilde{U}_{P_{U}\times\delta_{M}}(k))-P_{Z}(\cdot)\Bigr\Vert_{\mathrm{TV}}\right]\\
& \stackrel{(b)}{\le}2\mathbf{E}\left[(1+2^{-\iota_{U;Z}(U;Z)})^{-\mathsf{J}}\right]+\sqrt{\mathsf{J}\mathsf{K}^{-1}},\end{aligned}$$ where (a) is by the convexity of total variation distance, and (b) is by Proposition \[prop:resolve\] since $\{\tilde{U}_{P_{U}\times\delta_{m}}(k)\}_{k\in[1:\mathsf{K}]}\stackrel{iid}{\sim}P_{U}$ for any $m$. Therefore there exists a fixed set of points for $\mathfrak{P}$ satisfying the desired bound.
Strong Functional Representation Lemma and Noncausal Sampling
=============================================================
The generalized Poisson matching lemma can be applied to give a slight improvement on the constant in the strong functional representation lemma in [@sfrl_trans], and hence improves on the variable-length channel simulation result in [@harsha2010communication], and the result on minimax remote prediction with a communication constraint in [@li2018minimax]. It also gives an achievability bound on the moments for the noncausal sampling setting in [@liu2018rejection].
\[prop:concave\]Let $\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ be the points of a Poisson process with intensity measure $\mu\times\lambda_{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}$ over $\mathcal{U}\times\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}$, and $P,Q$ be probability measures over $\mathcal{U}$ with $P\ll Q\ll\mu$. For any $j\in\mathbb{N}$, $g:\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}\to\mathbb{R}$ concave nondecreasing, we have $$\mathbf{E}\left[g(\Upsilon_{P\Vert Q}(j)-1)\right]\le\mathbf{E}_{U\sim P}\left[g\left(j\frac{dP}{dQ}(U)\right)\right],$$ i.e., $j(dP/dQ)(U)$ dominates $\Upsilon_{P\Vert Q}(j)-1$ in the second order. As a result, let $$\mathfrak{C}[xg'(x)](y)=\inf\left\{ \alpha y+\beta:\,xg'(x)\le\alpha x+\beta\;\forall x\ge0\right\}$$ be the upper concave envelope of $xg'(x)$, then $$\mathbf{E}\left[g(\Upsilon_{P\Vert Q}(j))\right]\le\mathbf{E}_{U\sim P}\left[g\left(j\frac{dP}{dQ}(U)\right)\right]+j^{-1}\mathfrak{C}[xg'(x)](j).$$ In particular, $$\mathbf{E}\left[\log\Upsilon_{P\Vert Q}(j)\right]\le D(P\Vert Q)+\log j+j^{-1}\log e,$$ and for $\gamma\in(0,1)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{E}\left[(\Upsilon_{P\Vert Q}(j))^{\gamma}\right] & \le j^{\gamma}\mathbf{E}_{U\sim P}\left[\left(\frac{dP}{dQ}(U)\right)^{\gamma}\right]+\gamma j^{\gamma-1}\\
& =j^{\gamma}2^{\gamma D_{\gamma+1}(P\Vert Q)}+\gamma j^{\gamma-1},\end{aligned}$$ where $D_{\gamma+1}(P\Vert Q)=\gamma^{-1}\log\mathbf{E}_{U\sim P}\left[\left((dP/dQ)(U)\right)^{\gamma}\right]$ is the Rényi divergence.
For $g:\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}\to\mathbb{R}$ concave nondecreasing, we have $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{E}\left[g(\Upsilon_{P\Vert Q}(j)-1)\right]\\
& =\int\mathbf{E}\left[\left.g(\Upsilon_{P\Vert Q}(j)-1)\,\right|\,\tilde{U}_{P}(j)=u\right]P(du)\\
& \stackrel{(a)}{\le}\int g\left(\mathbf{E}\left[\left.\Upsilon_{P\Vert Q}(j)\,\right|\,\tilde{U}_{P}(j)=u\right]-1\right)P(du)\\
& \stackrel{(b)}{\le}\int g\left(j\frac{dP}{dQ}(u)\right)P(du),\end{aligned}$$ where (a) is by Jensen’s inequality, and (b) is by the generalized Poisson matching lemma. For any $\alpha,\beta$ such that $xg'(x)\le\alpha x+\beta$ for $x\ge0$, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{E}\left[g(\Upsilon_{P\Vert Q}(j))\right]\\
& \le\int g\left(j\frac{dP}{dQ}(u)+1\right)P(du)\\
& \le\int g\left(j\frac{dP}{dQ}(u)\right)P(du)+\int g'\left(j\frac{dP}{dQ}(u)\right)P(du)\\
& =\int g\left(j\frac{dP}{dQ}(u)\right)P(du)+j^{-1}\int g'\left(j\frac{dP}{dQ}(u)\right)j\frac{dP}{dQ}(u)Q(du)\\
& \le\int g\left(j\frac{dP}{dQ}(u)\right)P(du)+j^{-1}\int\left(\alpha j\frac{dP}{dQ}(u)+\beta\right)Q(du)\\
& =\int g\left(j\frac{dP}{dQ}(u)\right)P(du)+j^{-1}(\alpha j+\beta).\end{aligned}$$ For $g(x)=\log x$, $xg'(x)=\log e$, and hence $$\mathbf{E}\left[\log\Upsilon_{P\Vert Q}(j)\right]\le D(P\Vert Q)+\log j+j^{-1}\log e.$$ For $g(x)=x^{\gamma}$, $\gamma\in(0,1)$, $xg'(x)=\gamma x^{\gamma}$ is concave, and hence $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{E}\left[(\Upsilon_{P\Vert Q}(j))^{\gamma}\right] & \le\mathbf{E}_{U\sim P}\left[\left(j\frac{dP}{dQ}(U)\right)^{\gamma}\right]+j^{-1}\gamma j^{\gamma}\\
& =j^{\gamma}\mathbf{E}_{U\sim P}\left[\left(\frac{dP}{dQ}(U)\right)^{\gamma}\right]+\gamma j^{\gamma-1}.\end{aligned}$$
Consider the setting in the strong functional representation lemma [@sfrl_trans]: given $(X,Y)$, we want to find a random variable $Z$ independent of $X$ such that $Y$ is a function of $(X,Z)$, and $H(Y|Z)$ is minimized. Take $Z=\{\bar{Y}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$. Applying Proposition \[prop:concave\] on $P=P_{Y|X}(\cdot|X)$, $Q=P_{Y}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{E}\left[\log\Upsilon_{P_{Y|X}(\cdot|X)\Vert P_{Y}}(1)\right] & \le\mathbf{E}\left[D(P_{Y|X}(\cdot|X)\Vert P_{Y})\right]\\
& =I(X;Y).\end{aligned}$$ Using Proposition 4 in [@sfrl_trans], $$\begin{aligned}
& H(Y|Z)\\
& \le H(\Upsilon_{P_{Y|X}(\cdot|X)\Vert P_{Y}}(1))\\
& \le\mathbf{E}\left[\log\Upsilon_{P_{Y|X}(\cdot|X)\Vert P_{Y}}(1)\right]+\log\left(\mathbf{E}\left[\log\Upsilon_{P_{Y|X}(\cdot|X)\Vert P_{Y}}(1)\right]+1\right)+1\\
& \le I(X;Y)+\log e+\log\left(I(X;Y)+\log e+1\right)+1\\
& \le I(X;Y)+\log\left(I(X;Y)+1\right)+\log e+1+\log\left(\log e+1\right)\\
& \le I(X;Y)+\log\left(I(X;Y)+1\right)+3.732.\end{aligned}$$ The constant $3.732$ is smaller than that in [@sfrl_trans]: $$e^{-1}\log e+2+\log\left(e^{-1}\log e+2\right)\approx3.870.$$
Conclusions and Discussion
==========================
In this paper, we introduced a simple yet versatile approach to achievability proofs via the Poisson matching lemma. By reducing the uses of sub-codebooks and binning, we improved upon existing one-shot bounds on channels with state information at the encoder, lossy source coding with side information at the decoder, broadcast channels, and distributed lossy source coding. The Poisson matching lemma can replace the packing lemma, covering lemma and soft covering lemma to be the only tool needed to prove a wide range of results in network information theory.
In the proofs, random variables (e.g. the channel input and message in channel coding settings, the source and description in source coding settings, the channel output in channel resolvability) are regarded as points in a Poisson process. The Poisson functional representation is applied to map the Poisson process to give the correct conditional distribution. Viewing every random variable in the operational setting as a Poisson process gives a simple, unified and systematic approach to code constructions.
A possible extension is to generalize the Poisson functional representation to the multivariate case. In the proof of Marton’s inner bound for broadcast channels, we had two independent Poisson processes for $U_{1}$ and $U_{2}$ respectively. We first used the process for $U_{1}$ to obtain a list of values for $U_{1}$, then used the list to index into the process for $U_{2}$. A more symmetric approach where we select $(U_{1},U_{2})$ together (similar to the conventional mutual covering approach) using a multivariate version of the Poisson functional representation may be possible. Similarly, for distributed lossy source coding and the multiple access channel, it may be possible to decode both sources/messages simultaneously. While it can be argued that the gain we obtained in broadcast channels and distributed lossy source coding over conventional approaches comes from the asymmetry of our construction (our bounds are asymmetric unlike previous bounds), a symmetric treatment that does not result in a looser bound may be developed in the future.
Acknowledgements
================
The authors acknowledge support from the NSF grants CNS-1527846, CCF-1618145, the NSF Science & Technology Center grant CCF-0939370 (Science of Information), and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation supported Center for Long Term Cybersecurity at Berkeley.
Proof of Lemmas \[lem:phidiv\] and \[lem:phidiv\_gen\]\[subsec:pf\_phidiv\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We first prove Lemma \[lem:phidiv\_gen\]. For notational simplicity, we use $\{X_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}\sim\mathfrak{P}(\mu)$ to denote that $\{X_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ is the set of points of a Poisson process with intensity measure $\mu$ (the ordering of the points is ignored). Let $f(u)=(dP/d\mu)(u)$, $g(u)=(dQ/d\mu)(u)$. Let $\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}\sim\mathfrak{P}(\mu\times\lambda_{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}})$. Let $\{\check{U}_{k},\check{T}_{k}\}_{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ be the points $(\bar{U}_{i},T_{i})$ where $f(\bar{U}_{i})=0$. By the mapping theorem [@kingman1992poisson; @last2017lectures] on the mapping $$\psi(u,t)=\begin{cases}
(1,\,u,\,t/f(u)) & \mathrm{if}\;f(u)>0\\
(0,\,u,\,t) & \mathrm{if}\;f(u)=0,
\end{cases}$$ we have $\{\psi(\bar{U}_{i},T_{i})\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}\sim\mathfrak{P}(\delta_{1}\times P\times\lambda_{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}+\delta_{0}\times\mu_{\{f(u)=0\}}\times\lambda_{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}})$ (where $\mu_{\{f(u)=0\}}$ denotes $\mu$ restricted to the set $\{u:\,f(u)=0\}$), and hence $\{\tilde{U}_{P}(k),\tilde{T}_{P}(k)\}_{k\in\mathbb{N}}\sim\mathfrak{P}(P\times\lambda_{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}})$ (the points in $\{\psi(\bar{U}_{i},T_{i})\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ with $f(\bar{U}_{i})>0$) is independent of $\{\check{U}_{k},\check{T}_{k}\}_{k\in\mathbb{N}}\sim\mathfrak{P}(\mu_{\{f(u)=0\}}\times\lambda_{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}})$ (the points in $\{\psi(\bar{U}_{i},T_{i})\}_{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ with $f(\bar{U}_{i})=0$).
Condition on $\tilde{U}_{P}(j)=u$ and $\tilde{T}_{P}(j)=t$ unless otherwise stated. Assume $f(u)>0$ (which happens almost surely since $\tilde{U}_{P}(j)\sim P$) and $g(u)>0$ (otherwise the inequalities in the lemmas trivially hold). Recall that $\tilde{T}_{P}(1)\le\tilde{T}_{P}(2)\le\cdots$ by definition. It is straightforward to check that $\{\tilde{U}_{P}(k),\tilde{T}_{P}(k)\}_{k>j}\sim\mathfrak{P}(P\times\lambda_{[t,\infty)})$ independent of $\{\tilde{U}_{P}(k)\}_{k<j}\stackrel{iid}{\sim}P$ independent of $\{\tilde{T}_{P}(k)\}_{k<j}\sim\mathrm{Unif}(t\Delta_{*}^{j-1})$, the uniform distribution over the ordered simplex $t\Delta_{*}^{j-1}=\{s^{j-1}:\,0\le s_{1}\le\cdots\le s_{j-1}\le t\}$ (i.e., $\{\tilde{U}_{P}(k),\tilde{T}_{P}(k)\}_{k<j}$ has the same distribution as $j-1$ i.i.d. points following $P\times\mathrm{Unif}[0,t]$ sorted in ascending order of the second coordinate). We have $$\begin{aligned}
& \Upsilon_{P\Vert Q}(j)-1\\
& =\left|\left\{ k:\,T_{k}/g(\bar{U}_{k})<tf(u)/g(u)\right\} \right|\\
& =\left|\left\{ k:\,f(\bar{U}_{k})=0\;\mathrm{and}\;T_{k}/g(\bar{U}_{k})<tf(u)/g(u)\right\} \right|\\
& \;\;\;\;+\left|\left\{ k:\,\,f(\bar{U}_{k})>0\;\mathrm{and}\;T_{k}/g(\bar{U}_{k})<tf(u)/g(u)\right\} \right|\\
& =\left|\left\{ k:\,\check{T}_{k}/g(\check{U}_{k})<tf(u)/g(u)\right\} \right|\\
& \;\;\;\;+\left|\left\{ k:\,\tilde{T}_{P}(k)f(\tilde{U}_{P}(k))/g(\tilde{U}_{P}(k))<tf(u)/g(u)\right\} \right|\\
& =A_{0}+A_{1}+B,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
A_{0} & :=\left|\left\{ k:\,\check{T}_{k}/g(\check{U}_{k})<tf(u)/g(u)\right\} \right|,\\
A_{1} & :=\left|\left\{ k>j:\,\tilde{T}_{P}(k)f(\tilde{U}_{P}(k))/g(\tilde{U}_{P}(k))<tf(u)/g(u)\right\} \right|,\\
B & :=\left|\left\{ k<j:\,\tilde{T}_{P}(k)f(\tilde{U}_{P}(k))/g(\tilde{U}_{P}(k))<tf(u)/g(u)\right\} \right|.\end{aligned}$$ Due to the aforementioned independence between $\{\check{U}_{k},\check{T}_{k}\}_{k\in\mathbb{N}}$, $\{\tilde{U}_{P}(k),\tilde{T}_{P}(k)\}_{k>j}$ and $\{\tilde{U}_{P}(k),\tilde{T}_{P}(k)\}_{k<j}$, we have $A_{0}{\perp\!\!\!\perp}A_{1}{\perp\!\!\!\perp}B$. For $A_{0}$, since $\{\tilde{U}_{P}(k),\tilde{T}_{P}(k)\}_{k}{\perp\!\!\!\perp}\{\check{U}_{k},\check{T}_{k}\}_{k}$, conditioning on $(\tilde{U}_{P}(j),\tilde{T}_{P}(j))=(u,t)$ does not affect the distribution of $\{\check{U}_{k},\check{T}_{k}\}_{k}$, and hence $A_{0}$ follows the Poisson distribution with rate $$\begin{aligned}
& (\mu_{\{f(u)=0\}}\times\lambda)\left(\left\{ (v,s):\,s/g(v)<tf(u)/g(u)\right\} \right)\\
& =\int\mathbf{1}\{f(v)=0\}\frac{tg(v)f(u)}{g(u)}\mu(dv).\end{aligned}$$ For $A_{1}$, since $\{\tilde{U}_{P}(k),\tilde{T}_{P}(k)\}_{k>j}\sim\mathfrak{P}(P\times\lambda_{[t,\infty)})$, $A_{1}$ follows the Poisson distribution with rate $$\begin{aligned}
& (P\times\lambda_{[t,\infty)})\left(\left\{ (v,s):\,sf(v)/g(v)<tf(u)/g(u)\right\} \right)\\
& =\int\max\left\{ \frac{tg(v)f(u)}{f(v)g(u)}-t,\,0\right\} f(v)\mu(dv)\\
& =t\int\mathbf{1}\{f(v)>0\}\max\left\{ \frac{g(v)f(u)}{g(u)}-f(v),\,0\right\} \mu(dv).\end{aligned}$$ Hence $A:=A_{0}+A_{1}$ follows the Poisson distribution with rate $$\begin{aligned}
& t\int\left(\mathbf{1}\{f(v)=0\}\frac{g(v)f(u)}{g(u)}+\mathbf{1}\{f(v)>0\}\max\left\{ \frac{g(v)f(u)}{g(u)}-f(v),\,0\right\} \right)\mu(dv)\\
& =t\int\max\left\{ \frac{g(v)f(u)}{g(u)}-f(v),\,0\right\} \mu(dv)\\
& =tf(u)\int\max\left\{ \frac{g(v)}{g(u)}-\frac{f(v)}{f(u)},\,0\right\} \mu(dv)\\
& =:\,t\alpha(u).\end{aligned}$$ For $B$, since $\{\tilde{U}_{P}(k),\tilde{T}_{P}(k)\}_{k<j}$ has the same distribution as $j-1$ i.i.d. points following $P\times\mathrm{Unif}[0,t]$ sorted in ascending order of the second coordinate, $B$ follows the binomial distribution with number of trials $j-1$ and success probability $$\begin{aligned}
& (P\times\mathrm{Unif}[0,t])\left(\left\{ (v,s):\,sf(v)/g(v)<tf(u)/g(u)\right\} \right)\\
& =t^{-1}\int\min\left\{ \frac{tg(v)f(u)}{f(v)g(u)},\,t\right\} f(v)\mu(dv)\\
& =f(u)\int\min\left\{ \frac{g(v)}{g(u)},\,\frac{f(v)}{f(u)}\right\} \mu(dv)\\
& =:\,\beta(u).\end{aligned}$$
Conditioned on $\tilde{U}_{P}(j)=u$ (without conditioning on $\tilde{T}_{P}(j)$), we have $\tilde{T}_{P}(j)\sim\mathrm{Erlang}(j,1)$, and $(A,B)|\{\tilde{T}_{P}(j)=t\}\sim\mathrm{Poi}(t\alpha(u))\times\mathrm{Bin}(j-1,\beta(u))$. Hence, conditioned on $\tilde{U}_{P}(j)=u$, the distribution of $\Upsilon_{P\Vert Q}(j)-1=A+B$ is $$\mathrm{NegBin}\left(j,\,1-\frac{1}{1+\alpha(u)}\right)+\mathrm{Bin}(j-1,\beta(u)),\label{eq:dist_exact}$$ i.e., the sum of a negative binomial random variable and an independent binomial random variable. The mean is $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{E}\left[\left.\Upsilon_{P\Vert Q}(j)\,\right|\,\tilde{U}_{P}(j)=u\right]-1\\
& =j\alpha(u)+(j-1)\beta(u)\\
& =jf(u)\int\max\left\{ \frac{g(v)}{g(u)}-\frac{f(v)}{f(u)},\,0\right\} \mu(dv)+(j-1)f(u)\int\min\left\{ \frac{g(v)}{g(u)},\,\frac{f(v)}{f(u)}\right\} \mu(dv)\\
& =jf(u)\int\frac{g(v)}{g(u)}\mu(dv)-f(u)\int\min\left\{ \frac{g(v)}{g(u)},\,\frac{f(v)}{f(u)}\right\} \mu(dv)\\
& \le j\frac{f(u)}{g(u)}\\
& =j\frac{dP}{dQ}(u).\end{aligned}$$ Also, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{P}\left\{ \left.\Upsilon_{P\Vert Q}(1)>1\,\right|\,\tilde{U}_{P}(j)=u\right\} \\
& =1-\mathbf{P}\left\{ \left.A=0\;\mathrm{and}\;B=0\,\right|\,\tilde{U}_{P}(j)=u\right\} \\
& =1-\frac{(1-\beta(u))^{j-1}}{(1+\alpha(u))^{j}}\\
& \le1-\left(\frac{1-\beta(u)}{1+\alpha(u)}\right)^{j}\\
& \le1-\left(1-\min\{\alpha(u)+\beta(u),1\}\right)^{j}\\
& =1-\left(1-\min\left\{ f(u)\int\frac{g(v)}{g(u)}\mu(dv),\,1\right\} \right)^{j}\\
& =1-\left(1-\min\left\{ \frac{f(u)}{g(u)},\,1\right\} \right)^{j}\\
& =1-\left(1-\min\left\{ \frac{dP}{dQ}(u),\,1\right\} \right)^{j}.\end{aligned}$$ For $j=1$, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{P}\left\{ \left.\Upsilon_{P\Vert Q}(1)>k\,\right|\,\tilde{U}_{P}(1)=u\right\} \nonumber \\
& =\left(1-(1+\alpha(u))^{-1}\right)^{k}\nonumber \\
& =\left(1-\left(1+f(u)\int\max\left\{ \frac{g(v)}{g(u)}-\frac{f(v)}{f(u)},\,0\right\} \mu(dv)\right)^{-1}\right)^{k}\label{eq:prob_exact}\\
& \le\left(1-\left(1+f(u)\int\frac{g(v)}{g(u)}\mu(dv)\right)^{-1}\right)^{k}\nonumber \\
& =\left(1-(1+f(u)/g(u))^{-1}\right)^{k}\nonumber \\
& \le\Bigl(1-\Bigl(1+\frac{dP}{dQ}(u)\Bigr)^{-1}\Bigr)^{k}\nonumber \\
& =\exp\Bigl(-k\ln\Bigl(\Bigl(\frac{dP}{dQ}(u)\Bigr)^{-1}+1\Bigr)\Bigr)\nonumber \\
& \le\exp\Bigl(-\ln\Bigl(k\Bigl(\frac{dP}{dQ}(u)\Bigr)^{-1}+1\Bigr)\Bigr)\nonumber \\
& =1-\Bigl(1+k^{-1}\frac{dP}{dQ}(u)\Bigr)^{-1}.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
Proof of the Conditional Poisson Matching Lemma\[subsec:phidiv\_cond\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The conditional Poisson matching lemma is intuitively obvious. The Poisson matching lemma can be equivalently stated as: for any probability measures $\nu,\xi\ll\mu$, the following holds for $\nu$-almost all $u$: $$\mathbf{P}_{\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i}\sim P_{\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i}\,|\,\tilde{U}_{\nu}=u}}\{\tilde{U}_{\xi}(\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i})\neq u\}\le1-\left(1+\frac{d\nu}{d\xi}(u)\right)^{-1},$$ where $P_{\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i}\,|\,\tilde{U}_{\nu}=u}$ is the conditional distribution of the Poisson process given $\tilde{U}_{\nu}=u$. Intuitively, we can consider the Poisson matching lemma to be a statement with 3 parameters $\nu,\xi,u$ (ignore the almost-all condition on $u$ for the moment). Since the statement holds for (almost) any $(\nu,\xi,u)$, it also holds for any random choice of $(\nu,\xi,u)$. In particular, it holds for $(\nu,\xi,u)=(P_{U|X}(\cdot|X),\,Q_{U|Y}(\cdot|Y),\,U)$, where $(X,U,Y)\sim P_{X,U,Y}$, which gives the conditional Poisson matching lemma. Note that the probability in the conditional Poisson matching lemma is conditional on $(X,U,Y)$, where $(X,U,Y)\leftrightarrow(\nu,\xi,u)\leftrightarrow\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i}$, and hence conditioning on $(X,U,Y)$ has the same effect on $\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i}$ as conditioning on the parameters $(\nu,\xi,u)$.
We now prove the conditional Poisson matching lemma rigorously. Let $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},P_{\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i}})$ be the probability space for $\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i}$, the points of a Poisson process with intensity measure $\mu\times\lambda_{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}$ on $\mathcal{U}\times\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}$ (let $\mathcal{E}$ be the Borel $\sigma$-algebra of $\mathcal{U}$). The Poisson matching lemma can be equivalently stated as: for any probability measures $\nu,\xi\ll\mu$, and $\kappa:\mathcal{U}\times\mathcal{F}\to[0,1]$ a regular conditional probability distribution (RCPD) of $\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i}$ conditioned on $\tilde{U}_{\nu}(\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i})$ (i.e., $\kappa$ is a probability kernel, and $P_{\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i}}(A\cap\tilde{U}_{\nu}^{-1}(B))=\int_{B}\kappa(u,A)\nu(du)$ for any $A\in\mathcal{F}$, $B\in\mathcal{E}$ , where $\tilde{U}_{\nu}^{-1}(B)$ denotes the preimage of $B$ under $\tilde{U}_{\nu}:\Omega\to\mathcal{U}$, note that $\tilde{U}_{\nu}(\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i})\sim\nu$), then we have $$\int\mathbf{1}\{\tilde{U}_{\xi}(\{\bar{u}_{i},t_{i}\}_{i})\neq u\}\kappa(u,\,d\{\bar{u}_{i},t_{i}\}_{i})\le1-\left(1+\frac{d\nu}{d\xi}(u)\right)^{-1}\label{eq:phidiv_int}$$ for $\nu$-almost all $u$.
Consider the conditional Poisson matching lemma. We have the following for $P_{X,U,Y}$-almost all $(x,u,y)$: $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{P}\left\{ \left.\tilde{U}_{Q_{U|Y}(\cdot|Y)}\neq U\,\right|\,X=x,U=u,Y=y\right\} \\
& =\int\mathbf{1}\{\tilde{U}_{Q_{U|Y}(\cdot|y)}(\{\bar{u}_{i},t_{i}\}_{i})\neq u\}P_{\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i}|X,U,Y}(d\{\bar{u}_{i},t_{i}\}_{i}|x,u,y)\\
& \stackrel{(a)}{=}\int\mathbf{1}\{\tilde{U}_{Q_{U|Y}(\cdot|y)}(\{\bar{u}_{i},t_{i}\}_{i})\neq u\}P_{\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i}|X,U}(d\{\bar{u}_{i},t_{i}\}_{i}|x,u)\\
& \stackrel{(b)}{\le}1-\left(1+\frac{dP_{U|X}(\cdot|x)}{dQ_{U|Y}(\cdot|y)}(u)\right)^{-1},\end{aligned}$$ where (a) holds for $P_{X,U,Y}$-almost all $(x,u,y)$ due to $Y\leftrightarrow(X,U)\leftrightarrow\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i}$, and (b) is by with $(\nu,\xi,\kappa)\leftarrow(P_{U|X}(\cdot|x),\,Q_{U|Y}(\cdot|y),\,P_{\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i}|X,U}(\cdot|x,\cdot))$, which holds for $P_{U|X}(\cdot|x)$-almost all $u$, and hence holds for $P_{X,U,Y}$-almost all $(x,u,y)$. We now check that $P_{\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i}|X,U}(\cdot|x,\cdot)$ satisfies the RCPD condition for $P_{X}$-almost all $x$. Since $X{\perp\!\!\!\perp}\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i}$, we have $P_{\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i}}(\cdot)=P_{\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i}|X}(\cdot|x)$ for $P_{X}$-almost all $x$. Since $U=\tilde{U}_{P_{U|X}(\cdot|X)}(\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i})$, we have $P_{\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i}|X,U}(\tilde{U}_{P_{U|X}(\cdot|x)}^{-1}(\{u\})\allowbreak\,|\,x,u)=1$ for $P_{X,U}$-almost all $(x,u)$. Hence the following conditions are satisfied for $P_{X}$-almost all $x$: $$P_{\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i}}(\cdot)=P_{\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i}|X}(\cdot|x),\label{eq:cond_phidiv_xindep}$$ $$P_{\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i}|X,U}(\tilde{U}_{P_{U|X}(\cdot|x)}^{-1}(\{u\})|x,u)=1\;\text{for}\,P_{U|X}(\cdot|x)\text{-almost all}\,u.\label{eq:cond_phidiv_u}$$ For any $x$ satisfying and , we have the following: for all $A\in\mathcal{F}$, $B\in\mathcal{E}$, $$\begin{aligned}
& P_{\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i}}(A\cap\tilde{U}_{P_{U|X}(\cdot|x)}^{-1}(B))\\
& \stackrel{(a)}{=}P_{\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i}|X}(A\cap\tilde{U}_{P_{U|X}(\cdot|x)}^{-1}(B)|x)\\
& =\int P_{\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i}|X,U}(A\cap\tilde{U}_{P_{U|X}(\cdot|x)}^{-1}(B)\,|\,x,u)P_{U|X}(du|x)\\
& \stackrel{(b)}{=}\int P_{\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i}|X,U}(A\cap\tilde{U}_{P_{U|X}(\cdot|x)}^{-1}(B)\cap\tilde{U}_{P_{U|X}(\cdot|x)}^{-1}(\{u\})\,|\,x,u)P_{U|X}(du|x)\\
& =\int\mathbf{1}\{u\in B\}P_{\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i}|X,U}(A\cap\tilde{U}_{P_{U|X}(\cdot|x)}^{-1}(\{u\})\,|\,x,u)P_{U|X}(du|x)\\
& \stackrel{(c)}{=}\int_{B}P_{\{\bar{U}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i}|X,U}(A|x,u)P_{U|X}(du|x),\end{aligned}$$ where (a) is by , and (b), (c) are by .
Proof of Theorem \[thm:channel2\]\[subsec:channel2\]
----------------------------------------------------
Let $\{\bar{X}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ be the points of a Poisson process with intensity measure $P_{X}\times\lambda_{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}$ independent of $M$. The encoding function is $m\mapsto\tilde{X}_{P_{X}}(m)$ (i.e., $X=\tilde{X}_{P_{X}}(M)$), and the decoding function is $y\mapsto\Upsilon_{P_{X|Y}(\cdot|y)\Vert P_{X}}(1)$. We have $(M,X,Y)\sim P_{M}\times P_{X}P_{Y|X}$, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{P}\{M\neq\Upsilon_{P_{X|Y}(\cdot|Y)\Vert P_{X}}(1)\}\\
& \stackrel{(a)}{=}\mathbf{P}\{\Upsilon_{P_{X}\Vert P_{X|Y}(\cdot|Y)}(M)>1\}\\
& =\mathbf{E}\left[\mathbf{P}\left\{ \left.\Upsilon_{P_{X}\Vert P_{X|Y}(\cdot|Y)}(M)>1\,\right|\,M,X,Y\right\} \right]\\
& \stackrel{(b)}{\le}\mathbf{E}\left[1-\left(1-\min\left\{ \frac{dP_{X}}{dP_{X|Y}(\cdot|Y)}(X),\,1\right\} \right)^{M}\right]\\
& =\mathbf{E}\left[1-\left(1-\min\left\{ 2^{-\iota_{X;Y}(X;Y)},\,1\right\} \right)^{M}\right]\\
& \stackrel{(c)}{\le}\mathbf{E}\left[1-\left(1-\min\left\{ 2^{-\iota_{X;Y}(X;Y)},\,1\right\} \right)^{(\mathsf{L}+1)/2}\right],\end{aligned}$$ where (a) is by the definition of $\Upsilon$, (b) is by the conditional generalized Poisson matching lemma on $(\emptyset,M,X,Y,P_{X|Y})$, and (c) is by $M{\perp\!\!\!\perp}(X,Y)$ and Jensen’s inequality. Therefore there exists a fixed $\{\bar{x}_{i},t_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ attaining the desired bound.
$\blacksquare$
A noteworthy property of this construction is that both the encoder and the decoder do not require knowledge of $\mathsf{L}$. The code can transmit any integer $m\in\mathbb{N}$ with error probability $\mathbf{E}\left[1-(1-\min\{2^{-\iota_{X;Y}(X;Y)},\,1\})^{m}\right]$, assuming unlimited common randomness $\{\bar{X}_{i},T_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ between the encoder and the decoder.
Dispersion of Joint Source-Channel Coding\[subsec:second\_jscc\]
----------------------------------------------------------------
We show a second order result for joint source-channel coding using Theorem \[thm:jscc\] that coincides with the optimal dispersion in [@kostina2013joint]. Consider an i.i.d. source sequence $W^{k}$ of length $k$, separable distortion measure $\mathsf{d}(w^{k},\hat{z}^{k})=\frac{1}{k}\sum_{i=1}^{k}\mathsf{d}(w_{i},\hat{z}_{i})$, and $n$ uses of the memoryless channel $P_{Y|X}$. Let $P_{Z|W}$ attain the infimum of the rate-distortion function $$R(\mathsf{D}):=\inf_{P_{Z|W}:\,\mathbf{E}[\mathsf{d}(W,Z)]\le\mathsf{D}}I(W;Z).$$ The $\mathsf{D}$-tilted information [@kostina2012lossy] is defined as $$\jmath_{W}(w,\mathsf{D}):=-\log\mathbf{E}\left[2^{\nu^{*}(\mathsf{D}-\mathsf{d}(w,Z))}\right],$$ where $Z\sim P_{Z}$ (the unconditional $Z$-marginal of $P_{W}P_{Z|W}$), and $\nu^{*}=-R'(\mathsf{D})$ (the derivative exists if the infimum in $R(\mathsf{D})$ is achieved by a unique $P_{Z|W}$ [@kostina2012lossy]). We invoke a lemma in [@kostina2012lossy]:
\[[@kostina2012lossy], Lemma 2\]\[lem:kostina\_lemma\]If the following conditions hold:
- $\inf\{\tilde{\mathsf{D}}\ge0:\,R(\tilde{\mathsf{D}})<\infty\}<\mathsf{D}<\inf_{z\in\mathcal{Z}}\mathbf{E}[\mathsf{d}(W,z)]$,
- the infimum in $R(\mathsf{D})$ is achieved by a unique $P_{Z|W}$,
- there exists a finite set $\tilde{\mathcal{Z}}\subseteq\mathcal{Z}$ such that $\mathbf{E}[\min_{z\in\tilde{\mathcal{Z}}}\mathsf{d}(W,z)]<\infty$, and
- $\mathbf{E}_{P_{W}\times P_{Z}}[(\mathsf{d}(W,Z))^{9}]<\infty$ (computed assuming $W,Z$ independent),
then there exist constants $\alpha,\beta,\gamma,k_{0}>0$ such that for $k\ge k_{0}$, $$\mathbf{P}\left\{ -\log P_{Z^{k}}(\mathcal{B}_{\mathsf{D}}(W^{k}))\le\sum_{i=1}^{k}\jmath_{W}(W_{i},\mathsf{D})+\alpha\log k+\beta\right\} \ge1-\frac{\gamma}{\sqrt{k}},$$ where $W^{k}\stackrel{iid}{\sim}P_{W}$, and $P_{Z^{k}}=P_{Z}^{\otimes k}$.
We now show a second order result.
Fix $P_{X}$, $0<\epsilon<1$, $n,k\in\mathbb{N}$. We have $P_{e}=\mathbf{P}\{\mathsf{d}(W^{k},\hat{Z}^{k})>\mathsf{D}\}\le\epsilon$ if the conditions in Lemma \[lem:kostina\_lemma\] are satisfied, $k\ge k_{0}$, and $$nC-kR(\mathsf{D})\ge\sqrt{nV+k\mathcal{V}(\mathsf{D})}\mathcal{Q}^{-1}\left(\epsilon-\frac{\eta}{\sqrt{\min\{n,k\}}}\right)+\alpha\log k+\frac{1}{2}\log n+\beta,$$ where $C:=I(X;Y)$, $V:=\mathrm{Var}[\iota_{X;Y}(X;Y)]$, $\mathcal{V}(\mathsf{D}):=\mathrm{Var}[\jmath_{W}(W,\mathsf{D})]$, and $\eta>0$ is a constant that depends on $P_{X,Y}$ and the distribution of $\jmath_{W}(W,\mathsf{D})$.
We have $$\begin{aligned}
P_{e} & =\mathbf{P}\{\mathsf{d}(W^{k},\hat{Z}^{k})>\mathsf{D}\}\\
& \stackrel{(a)}{\le}\mathbf{P}\left\{ -\log P_{Z^{k}}(\mathcal{B}_{\mathsf{D}}(W^{k}))>\sum_{i=1}^{k}\jmath_{W}(W_{i},\mathsf{D})+\alpha\log k+\beta\right\} \\
& \;\;\;+\mathbf{E}\left[\left(1+2^{-\sum_{i=1}^{k}\jmath_{W}(W_{i},\mathsf{D})-\alpha\log k-\beta}2^{\iota_{X^{n};Y^{n}}(X^{n};Y^{n})}\right)^{-1}\right]\\
& \stackrel{(b)}{\le}\frac{\gamma}{\sqrt{k}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}+\mathbf{P}\left\{ 2^{\sum_{i=1}^{k}\jmath_{W}(W_{i},\mathsf{D})-\iota_{X^{n};Y^{n}}(X^{n};Y^{n})+\alpha\log k+\beta}>\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\right\} \\
& =\frac{\gamma}{\sqrt{k}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}+\mathbf{P}\left\{ \sum_{i=1}^{n}(\iota_{X;Y}(X_{i};Y_{i})-C)-\sum_{i=1}^{k}(\jmath_{W}(W_{i},\mathsf{D})-R(\mathsf{D}))<-nC+kR(\mathsf{D})+\alpha\log k+\frac{1}{2}\log n+\beta\right\} \\
& \le\frac{\gamma}{\sqrt{k}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}+\mathbf{P}\left\{ \sum_{i=1}^{n}(\iota_{X;Y}(X_{i};Y_{i})-C)-\sum_{i=1}^{k}(\jmath_{W}(W_{i},\mathsf{D})-R(\mathsf{D}))<-\sqrt{nV+k\mathcal{V}(\mathsf{D})}\mathcal{Q}^{-1}\left(\epsilon-\frac{\eta}{\sqrt{\min\{n,k\}}}\right)\right\} \\
& \stackrel{(c)}{\le}\frac{\gamma}{\sqrt{k}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}+\epsilon-\frac{\eta}{\sqrt{\min\{n,k\}}}+\frac{\eta-\gamma-1}{\sqrt{\min\{n,k\}}}\\
& \le\epsilon\end{aligned}$$ where (a) is by Theorem \[thm:jscc\], (b) is by Lemma \[lem:kostina\_lemma\], and (c) is by the Berry-Esseen theorem [@berry1941accuracy; @esseen1942liapunov; @feller1971introduction] if we let $\eta-\gamma-1$ be a constant given by the Berry-Esseen theorem.
This coincides with the optimal dispersion in [@kostina2013joint]. Although this is not a self-contained proof (it requires the lemma in [@kostina2012lossy] for the dispersion of lossy source coding), it shows how we can obtain the achievability of the dispersion in joint source-channel coding from a result on the dispersion of lossy source coding with little additional effort, using the Poisson matching lemma. This proof is considerably simpler than that in [@kostina2013joint].
Properties of $\phi(t)$
-----------------------
Let $\phi:\mathbb{R}_{>0}\to\mathbb{R}_{>0}$, $\phi(t)=ct^{-1}(\log(t+2))^{-2}$, where $c>0$ such that $\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\phi(j)=1$. Note that $(\phi(t))^{-1}$ is convex. It can be checked numerically that $1\le c\le2$. We prove a useful inequality about $\phi(t)$.
\[prop:phi\_ineq\]For any $s>0$, $t\ge1$, we have $$\min\{s(\phi(t))^{-1},\,1\}\le\min\left\{ st\left(\log(s^{-1}+1)+1\right)^{2},\,1\right\} .$$ Moreover, if $st\le2^{-\alpha}$, $t-1\le2^{\beta}$, and $\tilde{\alpha}\ge\max\{\alpha,0\}$, then $$\min\left\{ st\left(\log(s^{-1}+1)+1\right)^{2},\,1\right\} \le2^{-\alpha}\left(2(\tilde{\alpha}+\beta)^{2}+2\tilde{\alpha}^{2}+14\right).$$
Write $\phi^{-1}(t)$ for the inverse function of $\phi$. Since $$\phi\left(\frac{c}{t\left(\log\left(c/t+2\right)\right)^{2}}\right)=\frac{t\left(\log\left(c/t+2\right)\right)^{2}}{\left(\log\left(\frac{c}{t\left(\log\left(c/t+2\right)\right)^{2}}+2\right)\right)^{2}}\ge t,$$ we have $$\phi^{-1}(t)\ge\frac{c}{t\left(\log\left(c/t+2\right)\right)^{2}}.$$ By the convexity of $(\phi(t))^{-1}$ , $$\begin{aligned}
\min\left\{ \frac{s}{\phi(t)},\,1\right\} & \le\min\left\{ \frac{t}{\phi^{-1}(s)},\,1\right\} \\
& \le\min\left\{ tc^{-1}s\left(\log\left(c/s+2\right)\right)^{2},\,1\right\} \\
& \le\min\left\{ st\left(\log\left(2/s+2\right)\right)^{2},\,1\right\} \\
& =\min\left\{ st\left(\log(s^{-1}+1)+1\right)^{2},\,1\right\} .\end{aligned}$$ If $st\le2^{-\alpha}$, $t-1\le2^{\beta}$, and $\tilde{\alpha}\ge\max\{\alpha,0\}$, $$\begin{aligned}
& \min\left\{ st\left(\log(s^{-1}+1)+1\right)^{2},\,1\right\} \\
& =\min\left\{ st\left(\log(t/(st)+1)+1\right)^{2},\,1\right\} \\
& \le2^{-\alpha}\left(\log((2^{\beta}+1)2^{\alpha}+1)+1\right)^{2}\\
& \le2^{-\alpha}\left(\log(2^{\tilde{\alpha}+\beta}+2^{\tilde{\alpha}}+1)+1\right)^{2}\\
& \le2^{-\alpha}\left(\max\{\tilde{\alpha}+\beta,\,\tilde{\alpha}\}+\log3+1\right)^{2}\\
& \le2^{-\alpha}\left(2(\tilde{\alpha}+\beta)^{2}+2\tilde{\alpha}^{2}+14\right),\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality follows from considering whether $\beta$ is positive or negative, and the inequality $(x+y)^{2}\le2x^{2}+2y^{2}$.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:bc\_cm\] for Broadcast Channel with Common Message\[subsec:pf\_bc\_cm\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The parameters $\mathsf{K}_{1},\mathsf{K}_{2}$ correspond to rate splitting. We can split $M_{1}\in[1:\mathsf{L}_{1}]$ into $M_{10}\in[1:\mathsf{K}_{1}]$ and $M_{11}\in[1:\lceil\mathsf{L}_{1}\mathsf{K}_{1}^{-1}\rceil]$, and treat $M_{10}$ as part of $M_{0}$ to be decoded by both decoders. Although $M_{10}$ and $M_{11}$ may not be uniformly distributed, we can apply a random cyclic shift to $M_{1}$ such that $M_{1}\sim\mathrm{Unif}[1:\mathsf{K}_{1}\lceil\mathsf{L}_{1}\mathsf{K}_{1}^{-1}\rceil]$ (and hence $M_{10},M_{11}$ are also uniform), and condition on a fixed shift at the end. Also $M_{2}$ can be split similarly. Therefore we assume $\mathsf{K}_{1}=\mathsf{K}_{2}=1$ without loss of generality.
Let $\mathfrak{P}_{0}=\{(\bar{U}_{0,i},\bar{M}_{00,i}),T_{0,i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$, $\mathfrak{P}_{1}=\{(\bar{U}_{1,i},\bar{M}_{01,i},\bar{M}_{1,i}),T_{1,i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$, $\mathfrak{P}_{2}=\{(\bar{U}_{2,i},\bar{M}_{02,i},\bar{M}_{2,i}),T_{2,i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ be three independent Poisson processes with intensity measures $P_{U_{0}}\times P_{M_{0}}\times\lambda_{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}$, $P_{U_{1}}\times P_{M_{0}}\times P_{M_{1}}\times\lambda_{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}$ and $P_{U_{2}}\times P_{M_{0}}\times P_{M_{2}}\times\lambda_{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}$ respectively, independent of $M_{0},M_{1},M_{2}$.
The encoder would generate $X$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
& (M_{0},M_{1},M_{2},U_{0},J,\{\check{U}_{1j}\}_{j\in[1:\mathsf{J}]},U_{1},U_{2},X)\nonumber \\
& \sim P_{M_{0}}\times P_{M_{1}}\times P_{M_{2}}\times P_{U_{0}}P_{J}P_{U_{1}|U_{0}}^{\otimes\mathsf{J}}\delta_{\check{U}_{1J}}P_{U_{2}|U_{0},U_{1}}\delta_{x(U_{0},U_{1},U_{2})},\label{eq:bc2_dist}\end{aligned}$$ where $P_{J}=\mathrm{Unif}[1:\mathsf{J}]$, and $\{\check{U}_{1j}\}_{j\in[1:\mathsf{J}]}\in\mathcal{U}_{1}^{\mathsf{J}}$ is an intermediate list (which can be regarded as a sub-codebook). The term $P_{U_{1}|U_{0}}^{\otimes\mathsf{J}}\delta_{\check{U}_{1J}}$ in means that $\{\check{U}_{1j}\}_{j}$ are conditionally i.i.d. $P_{U_{1}|U_{0}}$ given $U_{0}$, and $U_{1}=\check{U}_{1J}$. To accomplish this, the encoder computes $U_{0}=(\tilde{U}_{0})_{P_{U_{0}}\times\delta_{M_{0}}}$, $\check{U}_{1j}=(\tilde{U}_{1})_{P_{U_{1}|U_{0}}(\cdot|U_{0})\times\delta_{M_{0}}\times\delta_{M_{1}}}(j)$ for $j=1,\ldots,\mathsf{J}$,\
$U_{2}=(\tilde{U}_{2})_{\mathsf{J}^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{\mathsf{J}}P_{U_{2}|U_{0},U_{1}}(\cdot|U_{0},\check{U}_{1j})\times\delta_{M_{0}}\times\delta_{M_{2}}}$ (which Poisson process we are referring to can be deduced from whether we are discussing $U_{0}$, $U_{1}$ or $U_{2}$), $(J,U_{1})|(U_{0},\{\check{U}_{1j}\}_{j},U_{2})\sim P_{J,U_{1}|U_{0},\{\check{U}_{1j}\}_{j},U_{2}}$ (where $P_{J,U_{1}|U_{0},\{\check{U}_{1j}\}_{j},U_{2}}$ is derived from ), and outputs $X=x(U_{0},U_{1},U_{2})$. It can be verified that is satisfied.
For the decoding function at the decoder $a\in[1:2]$, let $(\check{U}_{0aj},\check{M}_{0aj})=(\tilde{U}_{0},\tilde{M}_{00})_{P_{U_{0}|Y_{a}}(\cdot|Y_{a})\times P_{M_{0}}}(j)$ for $j\in\mathbb{N}$, $(\hat{U}_{a},\hat{M}_{0a},\hat{M}_{a})=(\tilde{U}_{a},\tilde{M}_{0a},\tilde{M}_{a})_{\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\phi(j)(P_{U_{a}|U_{0},Y_{a}}(\cdot|\check{U}_{0aj},Y_{a})\times\delta_{\check{M}_{0aj}})\times P_{M_{a}}}$ where $\phi(j)\propto j^{-1}(\log(j+2))^{-2}$ with $\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\phi(j)=1$.
Let $K_{a}=\Upsilon_{P_{U_{0}}\times\delta_{M_{0}}\Vert P_{U_{0}|Y_{a}}(\cdot|Y_{a})\times P_{M_{0}}}(1)$ (using the Poisson process $\mathfrak{P}_{0}$). By the conditional generalized Poisson matching lemma on $(M_{0},\,1,\,(U_{0},M_{0}),\,Y_{a},\,P_{U_{0}|Y_{a}}\times P_{M_{0}})$, almost surely, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{E}\left[\left.K_{a}\,\right|\,U_{0},Y_{a},M_{0}\right] & \le\frac{dP_{U_{0}}\times\delta_{M_{0}}}{dP_{U_{0}|Y_{a}}(\cdot|Y_{a})\times P_{M_{0}}}(U_{0},M_{0})+1\nonumber \\
& =\mathsf{L}_{0}2^{-\iota_{U_{0};Y_{a}}(U_{0};Y_{a})}+1.\label{eq:bc2_Ka}\end{aligned}$$ By , $U_{0}=(\tilde{U}_{0})_{P_{U_{0}}\times\delta_{M_{0}}}$, $\check{U}_{1j}=(\tilde{U}_{1})_{P_{U_{1}|U_{0}}(\cdot|U_{0})\times\delta_{M_{0}}\times\delta_{M_{1}}}(j)$, and $(\check{U}_{01j},\check{M}_{01j})=(\tilde{U}_{0},\tilde{M}_{00})_{P_{U_{0}|Y_{1}}(\cdot|Y_{1})\times P_{M_{0}}}(j)$, we have $(M_{0},M_{1},U_{0},J)\perp\!\!\!\perp\mathfrak{P}_{1}$ and $(\{(\check{U}_{01j},\check{M}_{01j})\}_{j},Y_{1})\leftrightarrow(M_{0},M_{1},U_{0},J,U_{1})\leftrightarrow\mathfrak{P}_{1}$ (see Figure middle). Hence by the conditional generalized Poisson matching lemma on $((M_{0},M_{1},U_{0}),\,J,\,(U_{1},M_{0},M_{1}),\,(\{(\check{U}_{01j},\check{M}_{01j})\}_{j},Y_{1}),\,\allowbreak\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\phi(j)\allowbreak(P_{U_{1}|U_{0},Y_{1}}(\cdot|\check{U}_{01j},Y_{1})\times\delta_{\check{M}_{01j}})\times P_{M_{1}})$, almost surely, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{P}\biggl\{(\tilde{U}_{1},\tilde{M}_{01},\tilde{M}_{1})_{\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\phi(j)(P_{U_{1}|U_{0},Y_{1}}(\cdot|\check{U}_{01j},Y_{1})\times\delta_{\check{M}_{01j}})\times P_{M_{1}}}\neq(U_{1},M_{0},M_{1})\,\biggl|\,U_{0},U_{1},U_{2},J,Y_{1},Y_{2},M_{0},M_{1}\biggr\}\\
& \stackrel{(a)}{=}\mathbf{P}\biggl\{(\tilde{U}_{1},\tilde{M}_{01},\tilde{M}_{1})_{\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\phi(j)(P_{U_{1}|U_{0},Y_{1}}(\cdot|\check{U}_{01j},Y_{1})\times\delta_{\check{M}_{01j}})\times P_{M_{1}}}\neq(U_{1},M_{0},M_{1})\,\biggl|\,U_{0},U_{1},J,Y_{1},M_{0},M_{1}\biggr\}\\
& \stackrel{(b)}{\le}\mathbf{E}\left[\left.\min\left\{ \mathsf{J}\frac{dP_{U_{1}|U_{0}}(\cdot|U_{0})\times\delta_{M_{0}}\times\delta_{M_{1}}}{d(\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\phi(j)(P_{U_{1}|U_{0},Y_{1}}(\cdot|\check{U}_{01j},Y_{1})\times\delta_{\check{M}_{01j}}))\times P_{M_{1}}}(U_{1},M_{0},M_{1}),\,1\right\} \,\right|U_{0},U_{1},J,Y_{1},M_{0},M_{1}\right]\\
& \le\mathbf{E}\left[\left.\min\left\{ \frac{\mathsf{L}_{1}\mathsf{J}}{\phi(K_{1})}\frac{dP_{U_{1}|U_{0}}(\cdot|U_{0})\times\delta_{M_{0}}}{dP_{U_{1}|U_{0},Y_{1}}(\cdot|U_{0},Y_{1})\times\delta_{M_{0}}}(U_{1},M_{0}),\,1\right\} \,\right|U_{0},U_{1},J,Y_{1},M_{0},M_{1}\right]\\
& =\mathbf{E}\left[\left.\min\left\{ \frac{\mathsf{L}_{1}\mathsf{J}}{\phi(K_{1})}2^{-\iota_{U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0}}(U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0})},\,1\right\} \,\right|U_{0},U_{1},J,Y_{1},M_{0},M_{1}\right]\\
& \stackrel{(c)}{\le}\mathbf{E}\left[\left.K_{1}\mathsf{L}_{1}\mathsf{J}2^{-\iota_{U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0}}(U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0})}\left(\log(\mathsf{L}_{1}^{-1}\mathsf{J}^{-1}2^{\iota_{U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0}}(U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0})}+1)+1\right)^{2}\,\right|U_{0},U_{1},J,Y_{1},M_{0},M_{1}\right]\\
& \stackrel{(d)}{\le}(\mathsf{L}_{0}2^{-\iota_{U_{0};Y_{1}}(U_{0};Y_{1})}+1)\mathsf{L}_{1}\mathsf{J}2^{-\iota_{U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0}}(U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0})}\left(\log(\mathsf{L}_{1}^{-1}\mathsf{J}^{-1}2^{\iota_{U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0}}(U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0})}+1)+1\right)^{2},\end{aligned}$$ where (a) is due to $(U_{2},Y_{2})\leftrightarrow(M_{0},M_{1},U_{0},J,U_{1},Y_{1})\leftrightarrow\mathfrak{P}_{1}$ (see Figure \[fig:bc2\_bayes\] middle), (b) is due to the aforementioned application of the conditional generalized Poisson matching lemma, (c) is by Proposition \[prop:phi\_ineq\], and (d) is due to and $K_{1}\leftrightarrow(U_{0},Y_{1},M_{0})\leftrightarrow(J,U_{1},M_{1})$ (see Figure \[fig:bc2\_bayes\] middle).
Also, since $(M_{0},M_{2},U_{0},\{\check{U}_{1j}\}_{j})\perp\!\!\!\perp\mathfrak{P}_{2}$ and $(\{(\check{U}_{02j},\check{M}_{02j})\}_{j},Y_{2})\leftrightarrow(M_{0},M_{2},U_{0},\{\check{U}_{1j}\}_{j},U_{2})\leftrightarrow\mathfrak{P}_{2}$ (see Figure \[fig:bc2\_bayes\] right), by the conditional Poisson matching lemma on $((M_{0},M_{2},U_{0},\{\check{U}_{1j}\}_{j}),\,(U_{2},M_{0},M_{2}),\,(\{(\check{U}_{02j},\check{M}_{02j})\}_{j},Y_{2}),\,\allowbreak\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\phi(j)\allowbreak(P_{U_{2}|U_{0},Y_{2}}\allowbreak(\cdot|\check{U}_{02j},\allowbreak Y_{2})\times\delta_{\check{M}_{02j}})\times P_{M_{2}})$, almost surely, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{P}\biggl\{(\tilde{U}_{2},\tilde{M}_{02},\tilde{M}_{2})_{\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\phi(j)(P_{U_{2}|U_{0},Y_{2}}(\cdot|\check{U}_{02j},Y_{2})\times\delta_{\check{M}_{02j}})\times P_{M_{2}}}\neq(U_{2},M_{0},M_{2})\,\biggl|\,U_{0},U_{1},U_{2},Y_{1},Y_{2},M_{0},M_{2}\biggr\}\\
& \stackrel{(a)}{=}\mathbf{P}\biggl\{(\tilde{U}_{2},\tilde{M}_{02},\tilde{M}_{2})_{\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\phi(j)(P_{U_{2}|U_{0},Y_{2}}(\cdot|\check{U}_{02j},Y_{2})\times\delta_{\check{M}_{02j}})\times P_{M_{2}}}\neq(U_{2},M_{0},M_{2})\,\biggl|\,U_{0},U_{2},Y_{2},M_{0},M_{2}\biggr\}\\
& \stackrel{(b)}{\le}\mathbf{E}\Biggl[\mathbf{E}\Biggl[\min\Biggl\{\frac{d(\mathsf{J}^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{\mathsf{J}}P_{U_{2}|U_{0},U_{1}}(\cdot|U_{0},\check{U}_{1j}))\times\delta_{M_{0}}\times\delta_{M_{2}}}{d(\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\phi(j)(P_{U_{2}|U_{0},Y_{2}}(\cdot|\check{U}_{02j},Y_{2})\times\delta_{\check{M}_{02j}}))\times P_{M_{2}}}(U_{2},M_{0},M_{2}),\,1\Biggr\}\\
& \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\,\Biggl|\,\{\check{U}_{1j}\}_{j},U_{0},U_{2},Y_{2},M_{0},M_{2}\Biggr]\,\Biggl|\,U_{0},U_{2},Y_{2},M_{0},M_{2}\Biggr]\\
& \le\mathbf{E}\left[\left.\min\left\{ \frac{\mathsf{L}_{2}}{\phi(K_{2})}\frac{d(\mathsf{J}^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{\mathsf{J}}P_{U_{2}|U_{0},U_{1}}(\cdot|U_{0},\check{U}_{1j}))\times\delta_{M_{0}}}{dP_{U_{2}|U_{0},Y_{2}}(\cdot|U_{0},Y_{2})\times\delta_{M_{0}}}(U_{2},M_{0}),\,1\right\} \,\right|U_{0},U_{2},Y_{2},M_{0},M_{2}\right]\\
& =\mathbf{E}\left[\left.\min\left\{ \frac{\mathsf{L}_{2}\mathsf{J}^{-1}}{\phi(K_{2})}\sum_{j=1}^{\mathsf{J}}2^{\iota_{U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0}}(\check{U}_{1j};U_{2}|U_{0})-\iota_{U_{2};Y_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{2};Y_{2}|U_{0})},\,1\right\} \,\right|U_{0},U_{2},Y_{2},M_{0},M_{2}\right]\\
& \stackrel{(c)}{\le}\mathbf{E}\left[\left.\min\left\{ \frac{\mathsf{L}_{2}\mathsf{J}^{-1}}{\phi(K_{2})}2^{-\iota_{U_{2},Y_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{2};Y_{2}|U_{0})}(2^{\iota_{U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0})}+\mathsf{J}-1),\,1\right\} \,\right|U_{0},U_{2},Y_{2},M_{0},M_{2}\right]\\
& \stackrel{(d)}{\le}\mathbf{E}\biggl[K_{2}\mathsf{L}_{2}\mathsf{J}^{-1}2^{-\iota_{U_{2},Y_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{2};Y_{2}|U_{0})}(2^{\iota_{U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0})}+\mathsf{J}-1)\\
& \;\;\;\;\;\left(\log(\mathsf{L}_{2}^{-1}\mathsf{J}2^{\iota_{U_{2},Y_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{2};Y_{2}|U_{0})}(2^{\iota_{U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0})}+\mathsf{J}-1)^{-1}+1)+1\right)^{2}\,\biggl|\,U_{0},U_{2},Y_{2},M_{0},M_{2}\biggr]\\
& \stackrel{(e)}{\le}(\mathsf{L}_{0}2^{-\iota_{U_{0};Y_{2}}(U_{0};Y_{2})}+1)\mathsf{L}_{2}\mathsf{J}^{-1}2^{-\iota_{U_{2},Y_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{2};Y_{2}|U_{0})}(2^{\iota_{U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0})}+\mathsf{J}-1)\\
& \;\;\;\;\;\left(\log(\mathsf{L}_{2}^{-1}\mathsf{J}2^{\iota_{U_{2},Y_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{2};Y_{2}|U_{0})}(2^{\iota_{U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0})}+\mathsf{J}-1)^{-1}+1)+1\right)^{2},\end{aligned}$$ where (a) is due to $(U_{1},Y_{1})\leftrightarrow(U_{0},U_{2},Y_{2},M_{0},M_{2})\leftrightarrow\mathfrak{P}_{2}$ (see Figure \[fig:bc2\_bayes\] right), (b) is due to the aforementioned application of the conditional Poisson matching lemma, (c) is by the same arguments as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:bc\_ncm\], (d) is by Proposition \[prop:phi\_ineq\], and (e) is due to and $K_{2}\leftrightarrow(U_{0},Y_{2},M_{0})\leftrightarrow(U_{2},M_{2})$ (see Figure \[fig:bc2\_bayes\] right). Hence $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{P}\{(M_{0},M_{0},M_{1},M_{2})\neq(\hat{M}_{00},\hat{M}_{01},\hat{M}_{1},\hat{M}_{2})\}\\
& \le\mathbf{E}\biggl[\min\biggl\{(\mathsf{L}_{0}2^{-\iota_{U_{0};Y_{1}}(U_{0};Y_{1})}+1)\mathsf{L}_{1}\mathsf{J}2^{-\iota_{U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0}}(U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0})}\left(\log(\mathsf{L}_{1}^{-1}\mathsf{J}^{-1}2^{\iota_{U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0}}(U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0})}+1)+1\right)^{2}\\
& \;\;\;\;+(\mathsf{L}_{0}2^{-\iota_{U_{0};Y_{2}}(U_{0};Y_{2})}+1)\mathsf{L}_{2}\mathsf{J}^{-1}2^{-\iota_{U_{2},Y_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{2};Y_{2}|U_{0})}(2^{\iota_{U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0})}+\mathsf{J}-1)\\
& \;\;\;\;\;\;\left(\log(\mathsf{L}_{2}^{-1}\mathsf{J}2^{\iota_{U_{2},Y_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{2};Y_{2}|U_{0})}(2^{\iota_{U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0})}+\mathsf{J}-1)^{-1}+1)+1\right)^{2},\,1\biggr\}\biggr]\\
& \le\mathbf{E}\biggl[\min\biggl\{\mathsf{L}_{0}\mathsf{L}_{1}\mathsf{J}A2^{-\iota_{U_{0},U_{1};Y_{1}}(U_{0},U_{1};Y_{1})}+\mathsf{L}_{1}\mathsf{J}A2^{-\iota_{U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0}}(U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0})}\\
& \;\;\;\;+\mathsf{L}_{0}\mathsf{L}_{2}\mathsf{J}^{-1}B2^{\iota_{U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0})-\iota_{U_{0},U_{2};Y_{2}}(U_{0},U_{2};Y_{2})}+\mathsf{L}_{0}\mathsf{L}_{2}(1-\mathsf{J}^{-1})B2^{-\iota_{U_{0},U_{2};Y_{2}}(U_{0},U_{2};Y_{2})}\\
& \;\;\;\;+\mathsf{L}_{2}\mathsf{J}^{-1}B2^{\iota_{U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0})-\iota_{U_{2},Y_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{2};Y_{2}|U_{0})}+\mathsf{L}_{2}(1-\mathsf{J}^{-1})B2^{-\iota_{U_{2},Y_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{2};Y_{2}|U_{0})},\,1\biggr\}\biggr],\end{aligned}$$ where $A=(\log(\mathsf{L}_{1}^{-1}\mathsf{J}^{-1}2^{\iota_{U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0}}(U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0})}+1)+1)^{2}$, $B=\bigl(\log((\mathsf{L}_{2}\mathsf{J}^{-1}2^{\iota_{U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0})-\iota_{U_{2},Y_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{2};Y_{2}|U_{0})}+\mathsf{L}_{2}(1-\mathsf{J}^{-1})2^{-\iota_{U_{2},Y_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{2};Y_{2}|U_{0})})^{-1}+1)+1\bigr)^{2}$.
For , if the event in does not occur, by Proposition \[prop:phi\_ineq\], $$\begin{aligned}
& (\mathsf{L}_{0}2^{-\iota_{U_{0};Y_{1}}(U_{0};Y_{1})}+1)\mathsf{L}_{1}\mathsf{J}2^{-\iota_{U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0}}(U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0})}\left(\log(\mathsf{L}_{1}^{-1}\mathsf{J}^{-1}2^{\iota_{U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0}}(U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0})}+1)+1\right)^{2}\\
& \;\;+(\mathsf{L}_{0}2^{-\iota_{U_{0};Y_{2}}(U_{0};Y_{2})}+1)\mathsf{L}_{2}\mathsf{J}^{-1}2^{-\iota_{U_{2},Y_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{2};Y_{2}|U_{0})}(2^{\iota_{U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0})}+\mathsf{J}-1)\\
& \;\;\;\;\;\left(\log(\mathsf{L}_{2}^{-1}\mathsf{J}2^{\iota_{U_{2},Y_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{2};Y_{2}|U_{0})}(2^{\iota_{U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{1};U_{2}|U_{0})}+\mathsf{J}-1)^{-1}+1)+1\right)^{2}\\
& \le2^{1-\gamma}\left(2(\iota_{U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0}}(U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0}))^{2}+2\gamma^{2}+14\right)+2^{2-\gamma}\left(2(\iota_{U_{2},Y_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{2};Y_{2}|U_{0}))^{2}+2\gamma^{2}+14\right)\\
& \le2^{-\gamma}\left(8(\iota_{U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0}}(U_{1};Y_{1}|U_{0}))^{2}+8(\iota_{U_{2},Y_{2}|U_{0}}(U_{2};Y_{2}|U_{0}))^{2}+12\gamma^{2}+84\right).\end{aligned}$$
![\[fig:bc2\_bayes\]Left: The Bayesian network described in . Middle: The Bayesian network deduced from , $U_{0}=(\tilde{U}_{0})_{P_{U_{0}}\times\delta_{M_{0}}}$, $\check{U}_{1j}=(\tilde{U}_{1})_{P_{U_{1}|U_{0}}(\cdot|U_{0})\times\delta_{M_{0}}\times\delta_{M_{1}}}(j)$, and $(\check{U}_{01j},\check{M}_{01j})=(\tilde{U}_{0},\tilde{M}_{00})_{P_{U_{0}|Y_{1}}(\cdot|Y_{1})\times P_{M_{0}}}(j)$. Right: The Bayesian network describing the scheme. Note that all three are valid Bayesian networks, and the desired conditional independence relations can be deduced using d-separation.](bc2_bayes)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: 'Mathematics Department, Auburn University, Auburn, AL36849-5310'
author:
- Jo Heath
title: 'Exactly k-to-1 maps: from pathological functions with finitely many discontinuities to well-behaved covering maps'
---
.5in
\#1 by \#2 (\#3)
to \#2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
width \#1 height 0pt depth 0pt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.1in [Abstract.]{} Many mathematicians encounter k-to-1 maps only in the study of covering maps. But, of course, k-to-1 maps do not have to be open. This paper touches on covering maps, and simple maps, but concentrates on ordinary k-to-1 functions (both continuous and finitely discontinuous) from one metric continuum to another. New results, old results, and ideas for further research are given; and a baker’s dozen of questions are raised. .1in
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.1in
Introduction
============
Requiring a function from one metric continuum $X$ to another, $Y$, to be finite-to-one, or even to be light, adds a strong hypothesis. But if the function must be k-to-1, meaning that each inverse has exactly $k$ points, then the collection of available maps shrinks drastically and may even disappear. For instance, if $Y$ is a dendrite, then there is a wealth of finite-to-one maps that map onto $Y$, but there are no k-to-1 maps, [@gotts]. What is it about the dendrite that repels these maps? Now, consider the domain $X$. It may be that every metric continuum $X$ admits a k-to-1 map for $ k > 2 $ (see Question 9 later), but for the special case $ k = 2 $ many interesting situations arise. For instance, the unit interval does not admit an exactly 2-to-1 map, [@harrold1], but some dendrites do. What is the crucial topological difference between an arc and a dendrite? And one of the big questions today in this field is whether or not the pseudo-arc admits such a map. The central purpose of this survey paper is to describe what is known about the domains and images of exactly k-to-1 maps, with special emphasis on the important $ k = 2 $ case, and to list some of the many questions that still need to be answered. Secondly we will see
what happens when finitely many discontinuities are allowed; the surprising thing is that there is still a lot of control. Thirdly and fourthly we will touch on two related topics: covering maps when the spaces do not have the usual textbook connectedness properties and, in variance with the title of this
survey, simple maps, that is, maps such that each point in the image has an inverse of cardinality 1 or 2.
By [*continuum*]{} we mean a connected compact metric space. There is a glossary at the end of the paper containing other definitions.
Domains and images of k-to-1 maps.
==================================
2-to-1 images.
--------------
If one toys with the question of which continua are 2-to-1 images (of continua), it is quickly seen that it is easy to map 2-to-1 onto a circle and onto other continua with subcontinua that are similar (in some sense) to a circle and it is hard otherwise. In fact, in [@nw], Nadler and Ward show how to construct a straightforward 2-to-1 map (or k-to- 1 for any $k > 1$) onto any continuum that contains a non-unicoherent subcontinuum. In this same paper, they ask if any tree-like continuum could be the image of an exactly 2-to-1 map. Their question, still unanswered today, is the basis of the conjecture that a continuum is a 2-to-1 image iff it is not tree-like. Furthermore, each of the examples of non-tree- like continua, that the author has tested, is a 2-to-1 retract of some continuum. Hence the following two questions, if answered affirmatively by a helpful reader, would neatly classify continua that are 2-to-1 images. [@nw] Is it true that no tree-like continuum can be the 2-to-1 image of a continuum?
[**Question 2.**]{} Is it true that every continuum that is not tree-like is the 2-to-1 image of a continuum? Can “image" be replaced with “retract"?
Regarding Question 1, we know that the following types of continua, if tree-like, cannot be the 2-to-1 image of any continuum: dendrites ([@gotts]), hereditarily indecomposable continua ([@hiimage]), and indecomposable arc-continua ([@jdm1]). Furthermore, if a continuum has any of the following properties, then it cannot be the 2-to-1 image of a continuum: (1) every subcontinuum has a cut point, [@nw] and [@gotts], (2) every subcontinuum has a finite separating set and the continuum is hereditarily unicoherent, [@tree], or (3) every subcontinuum has an endpoint, [@nw].
Furthermore, we know that whatever the tree-like continuum $Y$, there is no confluent or crisp ([@hiimage]) 2-to-1 map from any continuum onto $Y$.
Regarding Question 2, the 2-to-1 maps onto orientable or non-orientable indecomposable arc-continua that are local Cantor bundles (which includes all solenoids for instance) have recently been studied in [@jdm2]. (These definitions are in the glossary.) It was proved that in the non-orientable case, every 2-to-1 map onto the continuum is a 2-fold covering map and in either case every 2-to-1 map onto the continuum is either a 2-fold cover or a retraction. Furthermore, every orientable local Cantor bundle is the 2-to-1 image of a continuum.
k-to-1 images.
--------------
If we consider integers larger than $ k = 2 $, the situation is murky. For each
of these larger $ k$, there is indeed a tree-like continuum that is the k-to-1 image of a continuum, [@tree]. On the other hand, no dendrite is the k-to-1 image of a continuum for any $ k > 1 $, [@gotts]. There isn’t a lot of elbow room between dendrites and tree-like continua, and we do not even have a conjecture as to what the classification might be: For integers $ k > 2 $, which continua are k-to-1 images?
A related question asks which continua are k-to-1 images of dendrites [@miklos1]. The topological structure of a dendrite dictates, [@dendrite], that any k-to-1 image must be one-dimensional, it must contain a simple closed curve, and it cannot contain uncountably many disjoint arcs. And of course it must be a Peano continuum. Is this sufficient? Yes, [*if*]{} the continuum contains only finitely many simple closed curves (
[@dendrite], [@miklos1]); but sometimes the answer is yes when the continuum does contain infinitely many simple closed curves [@dendrite]. [@miklos1] Exactly which continua are k-to-1 images of dendrites?
[**Question 5.**]{} [@dendrite] If each of $Y_{1}$ and $Y_{2}$ is the k-to-1 image of a dendrite, and if $Y_{1} \cap Y_{2}$ is a single point, then must $Y_{1} \cup Y_{2}$ be the k-to-1 image of a dendrite? [@dendrite] Might the answer to Question 4 depend on $k$?
That is, does there exist a continuum $Y$ and integers $k$ and $m$, both greater than 1, such that $Y$ is the k-to-1 image of a dendrite, but $Y$ is not the m-to-1 image of a dendrite?
2-to-1 domains
--------------
It has been known for over fifty years that no 2-to-1 map can be defined on an arc [@harrold1], or, in fact, any connected graph with odd Euler number [@gilbert], but extending these results has been difficult. Many dendrites admit 2-to-1 maps, and Wayne Lewis, [@tree], has constructed a decomposable arc-like continuum that admits a 2-to-1 map. In [@debski1] W. Dȩbski uses the time-honored technique (see for instance [@mio], [@cern1] and [@civin]) of classifying continuous involutions on a space in order to indirectly study 2-to-1 maps on the space. He applies this to determine that a solenoid admits a 2-to-1 map iff there are at most finitely many even integers in an integer sequence that defines the inverse limit structure of the solenoid.
It would be nice of course to know exactly which continua admit 2- to-1 maps but we don’t even know the answers to these more restricted questions:
[@tree] Is there an indecomposable arc-like continuum that
admits a 2-to-1 map? (No use trying the classic Knaster Buckethandle space; J. Mioduszewski proved [@mio] over thirty years ago that it does not admit a 2-to-1 map. See also [@debski1].) [@mio] Does the pseudo-arc admit a 2-to-1 map? It is known [@weak] that there is no weakly confluent 2-to-1 map defined on the pseudoarc. In fact, if $f$ is a weakly confluent 2- to-1 map defined on any hereditarily indecomposable continuum, then neither the domain or the image can be tree-like. For more information related to Question 8, see [@hidomain].
George Henderson [@hend] has proved that if the domain, $ X $, of a 2-to-1 map is a mod 2 homology sphere and $ \phi(X) $ denotes the homology dimension of $ X $, then $ H_{i}(Y,Z_{2}) = Z_{2} $ if $ 0 \leq i \leq
\phi(X) $ and $ H_{i}(Y,Z_{2}) = 0 $ otherwise, where $ Y $ is the image. Thus additive mod 2 homology cannot be used to distinguish 2-to-1 images of such a sphere. As a corollary, he has that the circle is the only sphere that maps 2- to-1 onto a sphere.
k-to-1 domains
--------------
As is evident by the question below, very little is known about which continua can be the domain of a k-to-1 map, if $ k > 2 $. . Is there a continuum $X$ and an integer $k > 2 $ such that there is no exactly k-to-1 map defined on $X$? There is extensive literature concerning which continua can or cannot be covering spaces, i.e. domains of very special k-to-1 maps, namely covering maps. We will not attempt to survey these results, but we will mention
two relatively recent papers. R. Myers [@myer] has constructed contractible
open 3-manifolds which cannot cover closed 3-manifolds; and David Wright [@wright] gives a general method of determining when a contractible manifold cannot be a covering space of a manifold.
k-to-1 maps between graphs.
---------------------------
There should be some way to look at the adjacency matrices of two given graphs and decide if a k-to-1 map exists from one onto the other. Although good progress has been made on this question, a direct answer has not been found (see Question 10 below). In this discussion we assume that the two given graphs have enough vertices to eliminate loops, are non-trivial (consist of more than just one vertex), and are connected, even though many of the known results are true, with little or no modification, for disconnected graphs.
Given a positive integer $k$, and graphs $G$ and $H$, there are some preliminary filters to rule out the existence of a k-to-1 map from $G$ onto $H$. For instance, is $k$ times the Euler number of $H$ at least as large
as the Euler number of $G$ (or, if $ k = 2 $, is the Euler number of $G$ twice that of $H$)? If not, then there is no finitely discontinuous k-to-1 function from $G$ onto $H$, much less a continuous one. (See the theorem stated later in the subsection on finitely discontinuous functions.) Since only endpoints (vertices of order one)
of $G$ can map to endpoints of $H$, one can count them and make sure $G$ has at
least $k$ times as many as $H$. A more subtle requirement, true for odd integers $k$, is that each vertex of $H$ with odd order must have an odd number
of vertices in $G$ with odd order mapping to it ([@johilton1] or [@hilton2]). So, one can make sure that $G$ has at least as many odd-order vertices as $H$ does. But these tests can only give a definite “no". S. Miklos
has one of the few definite yes results in [@miklos2]; namely, if $k$ is odd, then a graph admits a k-to-1 map onto itself iff it has no endpoints.
The original paper [@johilton1] that worked on Question 10 started with graphs $G$ and $H$ and a k-to-1 function $f$ from a vertex set of $G$ onto a vertex set of $H$, and answered whether or not $ f$ extended to a k-to-1 map from all of $G$ onto all of $H$. Similar questions for $ \leq$k-to-1 maps are answered in [@johilton3] and [@johilton4]. The answers are algebraic in terms of the adjacency matrix for $H$ and the “inverse adjacency" matrix for $G$ and $f$ (defined in the glossary). An example of one of the theorems is as follows: Theorem. [@johilton1] Suppose $G$ and $H$ are graphs, $k$ is an odd integer, and $f$ is a k-to-1 function from a vertex set of $G$ onto a vertex set of $H$. Then $f$ extends to a k-to-1 map from all of $G$ onto $H$ iff $f$, the adjacency matrix $A$, and the inverse adjacency matrix $B$ satisfy:
1. For each vertex $p$ in $H$, $k$ times the order of $p$ is at least as large as the sum of the orders of the vertices in $f^{-1}(p)$,
2. each diagonal element of $ k \cdot A - B $ is even and non-negative, and
3. each entry of $ B - A $ is nonnegative.
The shortcoming of this theorem and the other similar results is clear. If a given k-to-1 function from the vertex set of $G$ onto the vertex set of $H$ fails to extend, that does [*not*]{} mean that there is no k-to- 1 function from $G$ onto $H$. Perhaps we just started with the wrong vertex function.
A favorite approach is to change the question. Given two non-trivial, connected
graphs, $G$ and $H$, does there [*exist*]{} an integer $k$ (or odd integer $k$
or even integer $k$) and a k-to-1 map from $G$ onto $H$ [@hilton1]? Another variation is: suppose that $G$ and $H$ are compatible enough to admit a k-to-1 map, and suppose $m$ is a larger integer (perhaps with the same parity); must $G$ and $H$ admit a m-to-1 map [@johilton5] ? Many cases of these and other similar questions have affirmative answers and the answers depend loosely on how close $H$ is to being
a simple closed curve. If $ H \neq S^{1}$, then $H$ is inspected to see if it is at least Eulerian (every vertex has even order). If not, how many odd-order vertices does $H$ have compared to the number of odd-order vertices in $G$; and, most important, how many endpoints does $H$ have? The graph $G$ seems to have little to do with the answer in many cases. Three nice results by A.J.W. Hilton [@hilton1] are: (1) if $H = S^{1}$ and $k$ is greater than the number of vertices in $G$, then all that is needed for the existence of a k-to-1 map from $G$ onto $H$ is that $G$ not have more edges than vertices. (2) If $H \neq S^{1}$ but $H$ has no endpoints, then for all sufficiently large even integers $k$, there is a k-to-1 map from $G$ onto $H$, and (3) if $H \neq S^{1}$, $H$ has no endpoints and there are at least as many odd-order vertices in $G$ as there are in $H$, then there are k- to-1 maps from $G$ onto $H$ for all sufficiently large odd $k$. The conditions given for $G$ and $H$ are, in each of the three cases, also necessary. Hilton [@hilton2] has also studied the relationships, for each parity, between the [*initial*]{} $k$ (the least $k$ such that there is a k-to-1 map) and the [*threshold*]{} $k$ (the least $k$ such that $k$ and every integer larger than $k$ admits a k-to-1 map) and found that, for each parity, in many cases they are the same integer. See [@hilton3] and [@johilton2] for some explicit constructions of k-to-1 maps from graphs onto a simple closed curve.
Given an integer $k > 1$ and two graphs, $G$ and $H$, when does a k-to-1 map exist from $G$ onto $H$?
Finitely discontinuous k-to-1 functions.
========================================
With many studies involving functions, so many theorems go out the window if a discontinuity is allowed that much of the power is lost. But not so with k-to- 1 functions, especially when the image is required to be a continuum. (Even with k-to-1 functions, a single discontinuity can easily destroy both connectivity and compactness.) The process is this: Suppose the domain is a graph $G$. Remove a finite set, $ N$, of points from $G$. Now reassemble the components of the complement of $N$, along with the points of $ N$, in a k-to-1 fashion in such a way that the resulting space is a continuum. From this mental picture emerges the fact that the Euler number of $G$ is all-important. (We define the Euler number of a graph to be the number of edges
minus the number of vertices.) In fact, the following theorem is a concise characterization of exactly which pairs of graphs have k-to-1 finitely discontinuous functions between them. No such characterization, based entirely on Euler numbers, is possible for continuous k-to-1 functions between graphs; in fact, we have no characterization at all for the continuous case (see earlier subsection). So, in the case of graphs, allowing finitely many discontinuities actually clarifies the picture. For some studies of finitely discontinuous functions from an arc [*into*]{} an arc, where the image is not required to be compact, see [@katkel], [@kat] and [@even]. Theorem. [@fdgraph] If $G$ is a graph with Euler number $ m $ and $ H $ is a graph with Euler number $ n $, then there is a k-to-1 function from $G$ onto $H$ with finitely many discontinuities:
1. iff $ m \leq kn $, if $ k > 2 $, and
2. iff $ m = 2n $, if $ k = 2 $.
Up to now, the study of finitely discontinuous k-to-1 functions has remained mostly in the safe haven of locally connected continua for domains, images, or both. Perhaps a good starting place to branch out would be the Knaster Buckethandle continuum (description in [@tree]). This indecomposable continuum can be neither the domain [@mio] nor the image [@jdm1] of a 2-to-1 (continuous) map, but in [@tree] an example is given of an exactly 2-to-1 map from a hereditarily decomposable tree-like continuum onto the Knaster Buckethandle continuum with exactly one discontinuity. However, the following is not known: Is there a 2-to-1 finitely discontinuous function defined on the Knaster Buckethandle continuum ? There are a number of important facts, true about continuous k-to-1 functions, that remain true if finitely many discontinuities are allowed, even if the image is not required to be a continuum. For instance, (i) the dimension of the image is the dimension of the domain for continuous k-to-1 functions [@harrold2], and, if the image is compact, for finitely discontinuous k-to-1 functions [@fddendrite]; (ii) Gottschalk’s result [@gotts] that no dendrite can be the continuous k-to-1 image of any continuum is still true if the function is allowed to have finitely many discontinuities [@fddendrite]; and (iii) Harrold’s original theorem in [@harrold1] that there is no continuous
2- to-1 map defined on $[0,1]$ also extends to the finitely discontinuous case, [@reals]. But, oddly enough, the similar result, that the $n$-ball does not support a continuous 2-to-1 map (Roberts [@roberts] for $ n = 2 $, Civin [@civin] for $n = 3 $ and Černavskii [@cern2] for $ n > 2
$), is not true for finitely discontinuous functions. Krystyna Kuperberg constructed a 2-to-1 function defined on the unit square that has exactly one discontinuity, and her example can be modified to make a 2-to-1 function defined on the $n$-ball, for any $n > 2 $, with only one discontinuity. This example has not appeared in print, and we will describe
it here: (K. Kuperberg) A 2-to-1 function defined on the unit disk with exactly one discontinuity. We will use the following notation:
1. $D = \{(x,y)|x^{2} + y^{2} = 1\}$, the unit disk,
2. for each integer $n > 0$, $ S_{n} = \{(x,y)| (x + (n-1)/n)^{2} +
y^{2} = 1/n^{2} ; y \geq 0 \} $, and
3. $S = D \setminus \cup^{\infty}_{n=1} S_{n} $.
The domain of the function is some unit square. We will first remove a point $p$ from the boundary of this unit square and let $h$ denote a homeomorphism from the square minus $p$ onto $S$. (Note: we are not suggesting that the boundary of $S$ is homeomorphic to the boundary of the square minus $p$.) We will, in the next paragraph, construct a continuous map $f$ on $S$ that is 2-to-1 everywhere except for the one point $(0,-1)$ at the bottom of $S$ at which it is 1-to-1. We will then extend the composition $ f \circ h $ to
all of the square by mapping $p$ to $f((0,-1))$, to complete the construction of the function of the example. .2in
.2in The function $f$ on $S$ will be described as a series of identifications. First, for each point $(x,y)$ in the top half of $S$ (meaning $y > 0 $), identify $(x,y)$ and $(x,-y)$. Now the set of points of $S$ that have not been identified is the union of a countable collection $ \cal I $ of disjoint open intervals such that (1) each interval lies either on the $x$-axis or in the bottom half of $S$, (2) the sequence of intervals converges to the point $(-
1,0)$, and (3) the endpoints of each interval are not in $S$. Next, locate the interval in $ \cal I $ containing $(0,-1)$ and identify each point $(x,y)$ in this interval with $(-x,y)$; thus the point $(0,-1)$ itself is not identified with another point. Then, for the intervals remaining in $ \cal I $, identify the first of these intervals with the second,
the third of these intervals with the fourth, etc. We have now constructed $f$.
Note that although the original Kuperberg example does not have compact image, the image, $I$, can be made compact in the following way. First embed $I$ in its one point compactification and then identify the new point added with any point of $I$. The composition of these two maps is a one-to-one continuous function from $I$ onto a (compact) continuum and the composition of this composite function with Kuperberg’s 2-to-1 function is again a 2-to-1 function with one discontinuity, but this time the image is a continuum.
Covering Maps.
==============
Covering maps defined on compact spaces are the tamest of all k-to- 1 maps. Two-fold covering maps are related to [*crisp*]{} maps, i.e. maps that are not just point-wise 2-to-1 but are continuum-wise 2- to-1 in that, if $ C $ is a continuum in the image, then the inverse of $ C
$ consists of two disjoint continua each of which is mapped homeomorphically onto C. Every crisp map is a two-fold covering map and every two-fold covering map has a crisp restriction to a subcontinuum, [@hiimage]. So far as I know, this relationship has not been studied for integers greater than two, so a natural question is: Define a map to be [*$ k $-crisp* ]{} if for each continuum $ C $ in the image, the inverse of $ C $ consists of $ k $ disjoint continua, each of which is mapped homeomorphically onto C. What is the relationship, if any, between $ k $-crisp maps and $ k $-fold covering maps?
Simple Maps.
============
In [@bors] K. Borsuk and R. Molski define [*simple*]{} maps to be continuous functions whose point inverses all have exactly one or two points. Simple maps share some of the strength of exactly 2-to-1 maps and are much easier to construct. In fact, one instantly sees that the only space that does not support a simple map, that is not a homeomorphism, is the one point space. In case the simple map $ f $, defined on a compactum, is open, J. W. Jaworowski [@jaw] has shown that $ f $ is equivalent to a homeomorphism on the domain of period two. That is, the natural involution $ i
$ on the compact domain defined by $ i(x) = x $ if $ f^{-1}f(x) $ has only one point and $ i(x) $ is the other point of $ f^{-1}f(x) $ otherwise, is a homeomorphism iff the simple map $ f $ is open. In contrast, if $ f $ is an open (exactly) 2-to-1 map, then $ f $ itself is locally one-to-one and is a local homeomorphism [@hiimage]; but this is not true of simple maps (a simple example of this is folding an arc in half).
Exactly k-to-1 maps never change the dimension [@harrold2], and Jaworowski [@jaw] showed that open simple maps do not alter dimension; but in [@bors] Borsuk and Molski note that there is a simple map
from the Cantor discontinuum onto an interval, so simple maps can raise dimension by one (but they point out that simple maps never change dimension other than to raise it by one). In a similar way, there is an natural simple map from the the Sierpiński universal curve into the plane that raises its dimension by one; however W. Dȩbski and J. Mioduszewski have proved [@debskim1] the surprising result that every simple map from the Sierpiński triangle into the plane has an image with empty interior (and so
the image has dimension one). See [@debskim2] and [@debskim3] for other
related results.
Borsuk and Molski [@bors] proved that every locally one-to-one map defined on a compactum is a finite composition of simple maps. So in this sense, simple maps are building blocks for locally one-to-one maps on compacta. In [@siek] Sieklucki showed even more: Every map of finite order defined on a finite dimensional compactum is a finite composition of simple maps. He also constructs an infinite dimensional counterexample. Since any finite composition
of simple maps is necessarily of finite order, his theorem is the best possible
for compacta. In response to the natural question of whether (or not) [ *open*]{} maps of finite order (defined on a finite dimensional compacta) are finite compositions of [*open*]{} simple maps, John Baildon [@bail] proved that if $ f $ is an open simple map between 2-manifolds without boundaries, and
if $ f $ is the composition of $ n $ open simple maps, then $ f $ has order $
2^{n} $. Hence, no such finite composition is possible for $ w = z^{3}, $ defined on the unit sphere, for instance. Note that Baildon adds to the definition of a simple map that it not be one-to-one.
These results do not extend, as is, to the exactly k-to-1 case. For instance, there is a 3-to-1 map defined the unit interval onto a simple closed curve, but it cannot be written as a composition of 2-to- 1 maps and 1-to-1 maps because there is no 2-to-1 map defined on the unit interval at all, and finite compositions of one-to-one maps
are homeomorphisms. But is there any kind of building block theory here? Under what circumstances are k-to-1 maps finite compositions of maps of lesser order?
Definitions.
============
.1in[**Adjacency matrix.**]{} If $ V $ is a vertex set for a graph $H$, the [*adjacency matrix*]{} is a matrix indexed by $ V \times V $ whose $ (v_{1},
v_{2}) $ entry is defined to be the number of edges in $H$ between $v_{1}$ and $v_{2}$. .1in[**Arc-continuum.**]{} A continuum is an [*arc-continuum*]{}
if each subcontinuum is either the whole continuum, a point or an arc. .1in[**Arc-like.**]{} A continuum is [*arc-like*]{} if for each
positive number $\epsilon$ there is an $\epsilon$-map from the continuum onto an arc, i.e. a continuous function from the continuum onto an arc such each point inverse has diameter less than $\epsilon$. .1in[**Confluent.**]{} A function is [*confluent*]{} if for each
continuum $C$ in the image, each component of the preimage of $C$ maps onto $C$. .1in[**Continuum.**]{} A topological space is a [ *continuum*]{} if it is connected, compact, and metric. .1in[**Covering Map.**]{} A continuous function $f$ from a space
$ X$ onto a space $ Y $ is a [*covering map*]{} if for each point $y$ in $ Y $ there is an open set $ U $ containing $ y $ such that $ f^{-1}(U) $ is the union of finitely many disjoint open sets, each of which is mapped homeomorphically by $f$ onto $U$. .1in[**Crisp.**]{} A map $f$ is [*crisp*]{} if, for any proper subcontinuum $C$ of the image, the inverse of $C$ is the union of two disjoint continua, each of which is mapped homeomorphically by $f$ onto $C$. .1in[**Cut point.**]{} A point $ x $ in a continuum $ X $ is a [*cut point*]{} if $ X \setminus \{x\} $ is not connected. .1in[**Decomposable.**]{} A continuum is [*decomposable*]{} if it is the union of two proper subcontinua. .1in[**Dendrite.**]{} A continuum is a [*dendrite*]{} if it is locally connected and contains no simple closed curve. .1in[**Euler number.**]{} The [*Euler number*]{} of a graph is the number of edges minus the number of vertices. .1in[**Finitely discontinuous.**]{} A function is [*finitely discontinuous*]{} if it has at most a finite number of discontinuities. .1in[**Finite order.**]{} A function has [*finite order*]{} if there is an integer $ k $ such that each point in the image has a preimage with no more than $ k $ points. .1in[**Graph.**]{} A continuum is a [*graph*]{} if it is homeomorphic to the finite union of straight arcs and points. .1in[**Hereditarily indecomposable.**]{} A continuum is [ *hereditarily indecomposable*]{} if each subcontinuum is indecomposable. .1in[**Indecomposable.**]{} A continuum is [*indecomposable*]{}
if it is not the union of two proper (unequal to the continuum) subcontinua. .1in[**Inverse Adjacency Matrix**]{} If $f$ is a function from the vertex set of a graph $G$ onto the vertex set $V$ of a graph $H$, then the [*inverse adjacency matrix*]{} is indexed by $ V \times V$ and its $ (v_{1}, v_{2}) $ entry
is the number of edges in $G$ that go from any point of $f^{-1}(v_{1})$ to any point of $f^{-1}(v_{2})$. .1in[**Involution.**]{} An [*involution*]{} is a function from a space into itself. It may or may not be continuous. .1in[**k-to-1** ]{} A function is [*k-to-1* ]{} if the preimage of each point in the image has exactly $k$ points. .1in[**k-crisp.**]{} A map is [*k-crisp*]{} if for each continuum $ C $ in the image, the inverse of $ C $ consists of $ k $ disjoint continua each of which is mapped homeomorphically onto $ C $. .1in[**Local Cantor Bundle**]{} A continuum is a [*local Cantor bundle*]{} if each point has a neighborhood homeomorphic to $ C \times (0,1) $, where $C$ denotes the Cantor discontinuum. .1in[**Local Homeomorphism.**]{} A function $f$ is a
*local*
homeomorphism
if for each point $p$ in the domain, there is an open set $U$ containing $p$ such that $f$ is a homeomorphism on $U$ and $f(U)$ is open. .1in[**Map.**]{} A function is a [*map*]{} if it is continuous. .1in[**Non-orientable Arc-continuum.**]{} See “Orientable Arc- continuum”. .1in[**Non-unicoherent.**]{} A continuum is [*non- unicoherent*]{} if it is the union of two subcontinua whose intersection fails to be connected. .1in[**Orientable Arc-continuum.**]{} A general definition can be found in [@over], but for arc-continua that are local Cantor bundles, the definition
is equivalent to the following natural one. The arc-continuum is [ *orientable*]{} if each separate arc component can be parameterized (given a direction) so that no sequence of arcs going one direction converges to an arc going the other direction. .1in[**Proper subcontinuum.**]{} A subcontinuum of a continuum $
C $ is [*proper*]{} if it is not equal to $ C $. .1in[**Simple Map.**]{} A continuous function is [*simple*]{} if
each of its point inverses has cardinality 1 or 2. .1in[**Tree.**]{} A graph is a [*tree*]{} if it is connected and
contains no simple closed curves. .1in[**Tree-like.**]{} A continuum is [*tree-like*]{} if for each positive number $\epsilon$ there is an $\epsilon$-map from the continuum onto a tree. (See “arc-like" for the definition of an $\epsilon$-map.) .1in[**2-to-1** ]{} A function is [*2-to-1* ]{} if the preimage of each point in the image has exactly two points. .1in[**Unicoherent.**]{} See “Non-unicoherent". .1in[**Weak Confluence.**]{} A function is
*weakly confluent*
if for each continuum $C$ in the image, at least one component of the preimage of $C$ maps onto $C$. .3in
[99]{} J.M. Aarts and L.G. Oversteegen, [*Flowbox Manifolds*]{} Transactions AMS, [**327**]{} (1991) 449-463. J. D. Baildon [*Open simple maps and periodic homeomorphisms,*]{} Proceedings AMS [**39**]{} (1973) 433-436.
K. Borsuk and R. Molski, [*On a class of continuous maps,*]{} Fund. Math. [**45**]{} (1957) 84-98. A.V. Cernavskii, [*Twofold Continuous Partitions of a Ball*]{}, Sov. Math. Doklady [**1**]{}, 1960, p. 436. A. V. Černavskii, [*The impossibility of a strictly continuous 2-to-1 partition of a homology cube*]{}, Doklady AN SSSR [**144**]{} (1962) 286-289 = Soviet Math. Dokl. [**3**]{} (1962) 726-729. P. Civin, [*Two-to-one mappings of manifolds*]{}, Duke Math. J. [**10**]{} (1943), 49-57.
W. Dȩbski, [*Two-to-one maps on solenoids and knaster continua*]{}, Fund. Math. [**141**]{} (1992) 277-285. W. Dȩbski, [*A note on continuous k-to-1 maps for k even*]{}, Preprint. W. Dȩbski, J. Heath, J. Mioduszewski, [*Exactly 2-to- 1 maps from continua onto some tree-like continua,*]{} Fundamenta Mathematica [**141**]{} (1992) 269-276. W. Dȩbski, J. Heath, J. Mioduszewski, [*Exactly 2-to- 1 maps onto arc continua,*]{} Preprint. W. Dȩbski and J. Mioduszewski, [*Simple plane images of the Sierpiński curve are nowhere dense*]{}, Coll. Math. [**59** ]{} (1990) 125-140. W. Dȩbski and J. Mioduszewski, [*Splitting property of dimension raising simple maps*]{}, Coll. Math. to appear. W. Dȩbski and J. Mioduszewski, [*Conditions which assure that a simple map does not raise the dimension*]{}, preprint.
P. Gilbert, [*n-to-one mappings of linear graphs*]{}, Duke Math J. [**9** ]{} (1942), 475-486.
W.H. Gottschaulk, [*On k-to-1 transformations*]{}, Bulletin AMS [**53**]{} (1947), 168-169.
O.G. Harrold, [*The non-existence of a certain type of continuous transformation*]{}, Duke Math J. [**5**]{} (1939), 789-793.
O.G. Harrold, [*Exactly (k,1) transformations on connected linear graphs*]{}, Amer. J. Math. [**62**]{} (1940), 823-834.
J. Heath, [*Every exactly 2-to-1 function on the reals has an infinite number of discontinuities*]{}, Proceedings AMS [**98**]{} (1986), 369- 373. J. Heath, [*K-to-1 functions on arcs for K even*]{}, Proceedings AMS [**101**]{} (1987) 387-391
J. Heath, [*There is no k-to-1 function from any continuum onto \[0,1\], or any dendrite, with only finitely many discontinuities*]{}, Transactions AMS [**306**]{} (1988), 293-305.
J. Heath,
*K-to-1 functions between graphs with finitely*
many discontinuities
, Proceedings AMS [**103**]{} (1988), 661-666.
J. Heath, [*K-to-1 images of dendrites*]{}, Topology and Its Applications [**31**]{} (1989) 73-82.
J. Heath, [*Tree-like continua and exactly k-to-1 functions*]{}, Proceedings AMS [**105**]{} (1989), 765-772.
J. Heath,[*The structure of 2-to-1 maps on metric compacta*]{}, Proceedings AMS [**110**]{} (1990) 549.
J. Heath,
*2-to-1 maps with hereditarily indecomposable*
images,
Proceedings AMS [**113**]{} (1991) 839-846. J. Heath, [*2-to-1 Maps on Hereditarily Indecomposable Continua*]{}, Transactions AMS [**328**]{} (1991) 433-443. J. Heath, [*Weakly confluent, 2-to-1 maps on hereditarily indecomposable continua,*]{} Proceedings AMS [**117**]{} (1993) 569- 573.
J. Heath and A.J.W. Hilton, [*Exactly k-to-1 maps between graphs*]{}, Transactions AMS [**331**]{} (1992) 771-785.
J. Heath and A.J.W. Hilton, [*Trees that admit 3-to-1 maps onto the circle*]{}, Journal of Graph Theory [**14**]{} (1990) 311-320. J. Heath and A.J.W. Hilton, [*At most k-to-1 continuous mappings between graphs,*]{} Contemporary methods in Graph Theory, BI Wessenschatsverlag, (1990) 383-398. J. Heath and A.J.W. Hilton, [*At most k-to-1 continuous mappings between graphs, II.*]{}, To appear in Discrete Math. J. Heath and A.J.W. Hilton, [*Extensions of k- to-1 maps between graphs,*]{} Houston J. Math. [**20** ]{} (1994) 129-143. G. W. Henderson [*The mod 2 homology of the image of an exactly 2-to-1 map from a sphere,*]{} Proceedings AMS [**18**]{} (1967) 723-726. A.J.W. Hilton [*The existence of k-to-1 continuous maps between graphs when k is sufficiently large,*]{} Graph Theory
****
17
\(1993) 443-461. A.J.W. Hilton [*The initial and threshold values for exactly k-to-1 continuous maps between graphs*]{}, Congressus Numerantium [**91**]{} (1992), 254-270. A.J.W. Hilton, J.P. Liu, and C. Zhao [*Graphs that admit 3-to-1 or 2-to-1 maps onto the circle,*]{} Discrete Applied Math., to appear. J. W. Jaworowski [*On simple regular mappings,*]{} Fund. Math. [**45**]{} (1958) 119-129. H. Katsuura and K. Kellum, [*K-to-1 functions of an arc*]{}, Proceedings AMS [**101**]{} (1987) 629-633. H. Katsuura, [*K-to-1 functions on (0,1)*]{}, Real Analysis Exchange, [bf 12]{} (1987), 516-527. S. Miklos [*Exactly (n,1) mappings on generalized local dendrites,*]{} Topology Appl. [**31**]{} (1989) S. Miklos [*Exactly (n,1) mappings on graphs*]{} Period. Math. Hungar. [**20** ]{} (1989) 35-39. J. Mioduszewski, [*On two-to-one continuous functions*]{}, Dissertationes Math. (Rozprawy Mat.) [**24**]{} (1961), 42 R. Myers [*Contractible open 3-manifolds which are not covering spaces,*]{} Topology [**27**]{} (1988) 27-35.
S.B. Nadler, Jr. and L.E. Ward, Jr., [*Concerning exactly (n,1) images of continua*]{}, Proceedings AMS [**87**]{} (1983), 351-354.
J.H. Roberts, [*Two-to-one transformations*]{}, Duke Math. J. [**6**]{} (1940), 256-262. K. Sieklucki [*On superpositions of simple mappings,*]{} Fund. Math. [**48**]{} ( 1960) 217-228. D. G. Wright [*Contractible open manifolds which are not covering spaces*]{}. Preprint. Mathematics Department; Brigham Young University; Provo, Utah 84602.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
[T. P. Shestakova]{}[Department of Theoretical and Computational Physics, Southern Federal University[^1],\
Sorge St. 5, Rostov-on-Don 344090, Russia\
E-mail: [[email protected]]{}]{}
In 2008 fifty years passed after the publication of the Dirac famous paper, devoted to Hamiltonian form of the theory of gravitation [@Dirac]. However, the formulation proposed by Arnowitt, Deser and Misner (ADM) may have become even more recognized and gave a basis of the Wheeler – DeWitt Quantum Geometrodynamics [@ADM].
Meanwhile, in the same year, 2008, there appeared the paper by Kiriushcheva and Kuzmin [@KK], where the authors claim that the formulation by Dirac and that by ADM are not equivalent since these two formulations are related by a non-canonical transformation of phase space variables. I would like to emphasize that the authors of this paper have raised a problem: Should we abandon the ADM parametrization (and also any others) if the new variables are not related with the old ones by a canonical transformation? We come to the conclusion that [*even now, fifty years after the Dirac paper, we are not sure what formulation of Hamiltonian dynamics for General Relativity is correct*]{}. Do we have any correct formulation?
We do not have strict mathematical rules how to construct Hamiltonian dynamics for a theory with constraints. The rules, proposed originally by Dirac, were then modified by many authors. In particular, we need a well-grounded procedure of constructing a generator of transformations in phase space for all gravitational variables including gauge ones. According to Dirac, the constraints or their linear combinations play the role of generators of gauge transformations. However, the constraints as generators cannot produce correct transformation for the $g_{0\mu}$ components of metric tensor or the lapse and shift functions. To avoid this difficulty, some other algorithms were suggested to construct the generator of transformations, see, for example, [@Cast; @BRR]. The most of the methods proposed rely upon the algebra of constraints that is not invariant under the choice of parametrization.
One can say that the difference in the algebra of constraints is a consequence of the fact that the two parametrizations are not related by a canonical transformation. However, [*such a transformation has to involve gauge variables which in the original Dirac approach played the role of Lagrangian multipliers at constraints and are not included into the set of canonical variables*]{}. To treat these variables on the equal basis with the others, [*one should extend the phase space*]{}.
The idea of extended phase space appeared in the works by Batalin, Fradkin and Vilkovisky (BFV) [@BFV1; @BFV2; @BFV3] where their approach to path integral quantization of gauge theories was proposed. In their approach the generator (BRST charge) also depends on the algebra of constraints. This makes us search for another way of constructing Hamiltonian dynamics in extended phase space. Such a way has been proposed in our papers [@SSV1; @SSV2].
Consider an isotropic model with the Lagrangian $$\label{Lagr1}
L=-\frac12\frac{a\dot a^2}N+\frac12 Na$$ We introduce the missing velocities into the Lagrangian by means of gauge conditions in differential form. The condition $N=f(a)$ gives $\dot N=\displaystyle\frac{df}{da}\;\dot a$. One should also include the ghost sector into the model, that leads to the full Lagrangian $$\label{Lagr3}
L=-\frac12\frac{a\dot a^2}N+\frac12 Na
+\lambda\left(\dot N-\frac{df}{da}\;\dot a\right)
+\dot{\bar\theta}\left(\dot N-\frac{df}{da}\;\dot a\right)\theta
+\dot{\bar\theta}N\dot\theta.$$ The conjugate momenta are: $$\label{mom1}
\pi=\lambda+\dot{\bar\theta}\theta;\quad
p=-\frac{a\dot a}N-\pi\frac{df}{da};\quad
\bar{\cal P}=N\dot{\bar\theta};\quad
{\cal P}=N\dot\theta.$$
Then we go to a new variable, $N=v(\tilde N,\; a)$ while the rest variables being unchanged, $a=\tilde a$, $\theta=\tilde\theta$, $\bar\theta=\tilde{\bar\theta}$. It is the analog of the transformation from the original gravitational variables $g_{\mu\nu}$ to the ADM variables. Indeed, in the both cases only gauge variables are transformed. It was shown in [@KK] that such a transformation is not canonical. The reason is that the momenta conjugate to physical variables also remained unchanged. The situation in extended phase space is different. After going to the new gauge variable the Lagrangian is written as $$\label{Lagr4}
L=-\frac12\frac{a\dot a^2}{v(\tilde N,\; a)}
+\frac12\;v(\tilde N,\; a)a
+\pi\left(\frac{\partial v}{\partial\tilde N}\;\dot{\tilde N}
+\frac{\partial v}{\partial a}\;\dot a
-\frac{df}{da}\;\dot a\right)
+v(\tilde N,\; a)\dot{\bar\theta}\dot\theta.$$ The new momenta are related with the old ones as following: $$\label{mom2}
\tilde\pi=\pi\frac{\partial v}{\partial\tilde N};\quad
\tilde p=p+\pi\frac{\partial v}{\partial a};\quad
\tilde{\bar{\cal P}}=\bar{\cal P};\quad
\tilde{\cal P}={\cal P}.$$
It is easy to demonstrate that now the transformation in extended phase space is canonical. In particular, the Poisson brackets among all phase variables maintain their canonical form. Moreover, the existence of global BRST invariance enables us to construct the generator of transformations in extended phase space making use of the first Noether theorem. The BRST generator can be constructed if the theory is not degenerate, i.e. derivatives of the Lagrangian with respect to all velocities are not zero, and the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian dynamics are completely equivalent. The first condition is guaranteed by the extension of phase space, the second one is ensured by construction of the Hamiltonian dynamics itself presented in our papers [@SSV1; @SSV2].
In the extended phase space approach we do not need to abandon generally accepted rules of constructing a Hamiltonian form of the theory or invent some new rules. Indeed, in our approach
- the Hamiltonian is built up according to the usual rule $H=p_a\dot q^a-L$;
- the Hamiltonian equations in extended phase space are completely equivalent to the Lagrangian equations;
- due to global BRST invariance it appears to be possible to construct the BRST charge in conformity with the first Noether theorem which produces correct transformations for all phase variables.
Dirac was not tired of repeating that “any dynamical theory must first be put in the Hamiltonian form before one can quantize it” [@Dirac]. The Hamiltonian formulation in extended phase space has been proved to be a real alternative to Dirac and ADM formulations. Quantization in extended phase space is straightforward and leads to a new description of quantum Universe in which an essential place is given to gauge degrees of freedom: a gravitating system is described from a viewpoint of reference frame from which it can be observed.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
I would like to thank Giovanni Montani and Francesco Cianfrani for attracting my attention to the paper [@KK]. I am grateful to the MG12 Organizers for financial support that let me take part in the MG12 Meeting. My participation in the Meeting was also partially supported by the RFBR grant 09-02-08224.
[99]{} =-5pt P. A. M. Dirac, [*Proc. Roy. Soc.*]{} [**A246**]{} (1958), P. 333–343. R. Arnowitt, S. Deser and C. W. Misner, “The Dynamics of General Relativity”, in: [*Gravitation, an Introduction to Current Research*]{}, ed. by L. Witten, John Wiley & Sons, New York (1963), P. 227–284. N. Kiriushcheva and S. V. Kuzmin, “The Hamiltonian formulation of General Relativity: myth and reality”, E-print arXiv: gr-qc/0809.0097. L. Castellani, [*Ann. Phys.*]{} [**143**]{} (1982), P. 357–371. R. Banerjee, H. J. Rothe and K. D. Rothe, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B463**]{} (1999), P. 248–251. E. S. Fradkin and G. A. Vilkovisky, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B55**]{} (1975), P. 224–226. I. A. Batalin and G. A. Vilkovisky, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B69**]{} (1977), P. 309–312. E. S. Fradkin and T. E. Fradkina, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B72**]{} (1978), P. 343–348. V. A. Savchenko, T. P. Shestakova and G. M. Vereshkov, [*Gravitation & Cosmology*]{} [**7**]{} (2001), P. 18–28. V. A. Savchenko, T. P. Shestakova and G. M. Vereshkov, [*Gravitation & Cosmology*]{} [**7**]{} (2001), P. 102–116.
[^1]: former Rostov State University
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider partial symmetric Toeplitz matrices where a positive definite completion exists. We characterize those patterns where the maximum determinant completion is itself Toeplitz. We then extend these results with positive definite replaced by positive semidefinite, and maximum determinant replaced by maximum rank. These results are used to determine the singularity degree of a family of semidefinite optimization problems.'
address:
- |
Department of Combinatorics and Optimization,\
Faculty of Mathematics, University of Waterloo,\
200 University Ave. W,\
Waterloo, Ontario,\
Canada N2L 3G1
- |
Department of Mathematics\
Drexel University\
3141 Chestnut Street,\
Philadelphia, PA 19104,\
USA
- |
Department of Combinatorics and Optimization,\
Faculty of Mathematics, University of Waterloo,\
200 University Ave. W,\
Waterloo, Ontario,\
Canada N2L 3G1
author:
- Stefan Sremac
- 'Hugo J. Woerdeman'
- Henry Wolkowicz
title: |
Maximum determinant positive definite\
Toeplitz completions
---
[^1]
[^2]
[^3]
Introduction
============
In this paper we study the positive definite completion of a [*partial symmetric Toeplitz matrix, ${\mathcal{T} }$*]{}. The main contribution is Theorem \[thm:main\], where we present a characterization of those Toeplitz patterns for which the maximum determinant completion is Toeplitz, whenever the partial matrix is positive definite completable. Part of this result answers a conjecture about the existence of a positive Toeplitz completion with a specific pattern. A consequence of the main result is an extension to the maximum rank completion in the positive semidefinite case, and an application to the *singularity degree* of a family of *semidefinite programs (SDPs)*. In the following paragraphs we introduce relevant background information, state the main result, and motivate our pursuit.
A [*partial matrix*]{} is a matrix in which some of the entries are assigned values while others are unspecified treated as variables. For instance, $$\label{eq:M}
{\mathcal{M} }:=\begin{bmatrix} 6 & 1 & x & 1 & 1 \cr
1 & 6 & 1 & y & 1 \cr
u & 1 & 6 & 1 & z \cr
1 & v & 1 & 6 & 1 \cr
1 & 1 & w & 1 & 6 \end{bmatrix}$$ is a real partial matrix, where the unspecified entries are indicated by letters. A *completion* of a partial matrix ${\mathcal{T} }$ is obtained by assigning values to the unspecified entries. In other words, a matrix $T$ (completely specified) is a completion of ${\mathcal{T} }$ if it coincides with ${\mathcal{T} }$ over the specified entries: $T_{ij} = {\mathcal{T} }_{ij}$, whenever ${\mathcal{T} }_{ij}$ is specified. A [*matrix completion problem*]{} is to determine whether the partial matrix can be completed so as to satisfy a desired property? This type of problem has enjoyed considerable attention in the literature due to applications in numerous areas, e.g., [@MR2807419; @Rechtparrilofazel]. For example this is used in sensor network localization [@kriswolk:09; @laur:97b], where the property is that the completion is a Euclidean distance matrix with a given embedding dimension. Related references for matrix completion problems are e.g., [@MR1321785; @MR2014037; @MR2565240; @MR2279160; @MR1823516].
The of a partial matrix is the set of specified entries. For example, the pattern of ${\mathcal{M} }$ is all of the elements in diagonals $-4,-3,-1,0,1,3,4$. Whether a partial matrix is positive definite completable to some property may depend on the values assigned to specified entries (the data) and it may also depend on the pattern of specified entries. A question pursued throughout the literature is whether there exist patterns admitting completions whenever the data satisfy some assumptions. Consider, for instance, the property of positive definiteness. A necessary condition for a partial matrix to have a positive definite completion is that all completely specified principal submatrices are positive definite. We refer to such partial matrices as [*partially positive definite*]{}. Now we ask: what are the patterns for which a positive definite completion exists whenever a partial matrix having the pattern is partially positive definite? In [@GrJoSaWo:84] the set of such patterns is shown to be fully characterized by *[*chordal*]{}ity of the graph* of the matrix.
In this work the desired property is *symmetric Toeplitz positive definite*. In particular, we consider the completion with maximum determinant over all positive definite completions. Recall that a real symmetric $n\times n$ matrix $T$ is Toeplitz if there exist real numbers $t_0,\dotso,t_{n-1}$ such that $T_{ij} = t_{\lvert i-j\rvert}$ for all $i,j \in \{1,\dotso,n\}$. A partial matrix is said to be [*partially symmetric Toeplitz*]{} if the specified entries are symmetric and consist of entire diagonals where the data is constant over each diagonal. The pattern of such a matrix indicates which diagonals are known and hence is a subset of $\{0,\dotso,n-1\}$. Here $0$ refers to the main diagonal, $1$ refers to the super diagonal and so on. The subdiagonals need not be specified in the pattern since they are implied by symmetry. In fact, since positive definite completions are trivial when the main diagonal is not specified (and the determinant is unbounded), we assume throughout that the main diagonal is specified. We therefore only consider patterns of increasing integers in the set $\{1,\dotso,n-1\}$. The pattern of ${\mathcal{M} }$, for instance, is $\{1,3,4\}$.
For a partial matrix ${\mathcal{T} }$ with pattern $P$ and $k \in P$, we let $t_k$ denote the value of ${\mathcal{T} }$ on diagonal $k$ and we refer to $\{t_k : k \in P \cup \{0\} \}$ as the *data* of ${\mathcal{T} }$. For ${\mathcal{M} }$ the data is $\{t_0,t_1,t_3,t_4\}= \{6,1,1,1\}$.
We say that a partial Toeplitz matrix ${\mathcal{T} }$ is [*positive (semi)definite completable*]{} if there exists a positive (semi)definite completion of ${\mathcal{T} }$. In this case we denote by ${{T^{\star}} }$, the unique positive definite completion of ${\mathcal{T} }$ that maximizes the determinant over all positive definite completions. We now state the main contribution of this paper, a characterization of the Toeplitz patterns where the maximum determinant completion is itself Toeplitz, whenever the partial matrix is positive definite completable.
\[thm:main\] Let $\emptyset \ne {\textit{$P \subseteq \{1,\dotso,n-1\}$}\index{$P \subseteq \{1,\dotso,n-1\}$}}$ denote a pattern of increasing integers. The following are equivalent.
1. \[item:parttoep\] Let ${\mathcal{T} }$ be a partial Toeplitz matrix have pattern P, and let ${\mathcal{T} }$ be positive definite completable. Then ${{T^{\star}} }$ is Toeplitz.
2. \[item:Prnk\] There exist $r,k \in {{\mathbb N} }$ such that $P$ has one of the three forms:
- [*$P_1 := \{k,2k,\dotso,rk\}$*]{},
- [*$P_2 := \{k,2k,\dotso,(r-2)k,rk\}$, where $n = (r+1)k$*]{},
- [*$P_3 := \{k,n-k\}$*]{}.
The proof of Theorem \[thm:main\] is presented in Section \[sec:main\]. Note that for the partial Toeplitz matrix ${\mathcal{M} }$ in , we can set all the unspecified entries to $1$ and obtain a positive definite completion. However, the maximum determinant completion is given, to four decimal accuracy, when $x=z=u=w=0.3113$ and $y=v=0.4247$. But, this completion is *not* Toeplitz. Indeed, the pattern of ${\mathcal{M} }$ is not among the patterns of Theorem \[thm:main\].
Positive definite Toeplitz matrices play an important role throughout the mathematical sciences. Correlation matrices of data arising from time series, [@MR941464], and solutions to the trigonometric moment problem, [@MR1709182], are two such examples. Among the early contributions to this area is the following sufficient condition and characterization, for a special case of pattern $P_1$.
\[thm:banded\] If ${\mathcal{T} }$ is a partially positive definite Toeplitz matrix with pattern $P_1$ and $k=1$, then ${{T^{\star}} }$ exists and is Toeplitz.
\[thm:jonlunnav\] A partially positive definite Toeplitz matrix is positive definite Toeplitz completable if, and only if, it has a pattern of the form $P_1$.
In these two results the assumption on the partial matrix is that it is partially positive definite, whereas in Theorem \[thm:main\] we make the stronger assumption that a positive definite completion exists. As a consequence, our characterization includes the patterns $P_2$ and $P_3$. To the best of our knowledge pattern $P_2$ has not been addressed in the literature. A special case of pattern $P_3$, with $k=1$, was considered in [@MR1236734], where the authors characterize the data for which the pattern is positive definite completable. In [@MR2156414] the result is extended to arbitrary $k$ and sufficient conditions for Toeplitz completions are provided. Moreover, the authors conjecture that whenever a partially positive definite Toeplitz matrix with pattern $P_3$ is positive definite completable then it admits a Toeplitz completion. This conjecture is confirmed true in Theorem \[thm:main\] and more specifically in Theorem \[thm:main2\].
Our motivation for the maximum determinant completion comes from optimization and the implications of the optimality conditions for completion problems (see Theorem \[thm:maxdet\]). In particular, a positive definite completion problem may be formulated as an SDP. The *central path* of standard interior point methods used to solve SDPs consists of solutions to the maximum determinant problem. In the recent work [@SWW:17], the maximum determinant problem is used to find feasible points of SDPs when the usual regularity conditions are not satisfied. A consequence of Theorem \[thm:main\] is that when a partially Toeplitz matrix having one of the patterns of the theorem admits a positive semidefinite completion, but not a positive definite one, then it has a maximum rank positive semidefinite completion that is Toeplitz. This result, as well as further discussion on the positive semidefinite case, are presented in Section \[sec:sdp\]. The application to finding the *singularity degree* of a family of SDPs is presented in Section \[sec:sd\].
Proof of Main Result with Consequences {#sec:main}
======================================
To simplify the exposition, the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\] is broken up into a series of results. Throughout this section we assume that every pattern $P$ is a non-empty subset of $\{1,\dotso,n-1\}$, consisting of strictly increasing integers, and ${\mathcal{T} }$ denotes an $n\times n$ partial symmetric Toeplitz matrix with pattern (or form) $P$. We begin by presenting the optimality conditions for the maximum determinant problem.
\[thm:maxdet\] Let ${\mathcal{T} }$ be of the form $P$ and positive definite completable. Then ${{T^{\star}} }$ exists, is unique, and satisfies $({{T^{\star}} })^{-1}_{i,j} = 0$, whenever $\lvert i - j \rvert \notin P$.
This result is proved for general positive definite completions in [@GrJoSaWo:84]. See also [@SWW:17].
For general positive definite completion problems, this result simply states that the inverse of the completion of maximum determinant has zeros in the unspecified (or free) entries. Since we are interested in Toeplitz completions, we may say something further using a permutation under which Toeplitz matrices are invariant. Let $K$ be the symmetric $n\times n$ anti-diagonal matrix defined as: $$\label{eq:antidiag}
K_{ij} := \begin{cases}
1 \quad \text{if } i+j = n+1, \\
0 \quad \text{otherwise},
\end{cases}$$ i.e., $K$ is the permutation matrix that reverses the order of the sequence $\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$.
\[lem:K\] Let ${\mathcal{T} }$ be of the form $P$ and positive definite completable. Let ${{T^{\star}} }$ be the maximum determinant completion, and let $K$ be the anti-diagonal permutation matrix in . Then the following hold.
1. \[item:KTK\] ${{T^{\star}} }= K{{T^{\star}} }K$.
2. \[item:PTstar\] If $P$ is of the form $P_2$ with $k=1$, i.e., $P = \{1,2,\dotso,n-3,n-1\}$, then ${{T^{\star}} }$ is Toeplitz.
For Item \[item:KTK\], it is a simple exercise to verify that the permutation reverses the order of the rows and columns and we have $$[K{{T^{\star}} }K]_{ij} = {{T^{\star}} }_{n+1-i,n+1-j}, \,
\forall i,j \in \{1,\dotso,n\}.$$ Moreover, $$\lvert n+1-i - (n+1-j)\rvert = \lvert i-j\rvert.$$ Therefore, it follows that $$[K{{T^{\star}} }K]_{ij} = {{T^{\star}} }_{n+1-i,n+1-j} = {{T^{\star}} }_{ij} = t_{\lvert i-j\rvert},
\,\, \forall \lvert i-j \rvert \in P\cup \{0\}.$$ Hence $K{{T^{\star}} }K$ is a completion of ${\mathcal{T} }$. Moreover, $K\cdot K$ is an automorphism of the cone of positive definite matrices. Hence $K{{T^{\star}} }K$ is a positive definite completion of ${\mathcal{T} }$, and since $K$ is a permutation matrix, we conclude that $\det(K{{T^{\star}} }K) = \det({{T^{\star}} })$. By Theorem \[thm:maxdet\], ${{T^{\star}} }$ is the unique maximizer of the determinant. Therefore ${{T^{\star}} }= K{{T^{\star}} }K$, as desired.
For Item \[item:PTstar\], we let ${\mathcal{T} }$ be as in the hypothesis and note that the only unspecified entries are $(1,n-1)$ and $(2,n)$, and their symmetric counterparts. Therefore it suffices to show that ${{T^{\star}} }_{1,n-1} = {{T^{\star}} }_{2,n}$. By applying Item \[item:KTK\] we get $${{T^{\star}} }_{1,n-1} = [K{{T^{\star}} }K]_{1,n-1} = {{T^{\star}} }_{n+1-1,n+1-(n-1)} = {{T^{\star}} }_{n,2} = {{T^{\star}} }_{2,n},$$ as desired.
The pattern $\{1,2,\dotso,n-3,n-1\}$ in Lemma \[lem:K\], above, is a special case of pattern $P_2$ with $k=1$. In fact, we show that a general pattern $P_2$ may always be reduced to this special case. A further observation is that this specific pattern is nearly of the form $P_1$. Indeed, if the diagonal $n-2$ were specified, the pattern would be of the form $P_1$. In fact, for any pattern of the form $P_2$, if the diagonal $(r+1)k$ were specified, the pattern would be of the form $P_1$. We now state a useful lemma for proving that Theorem \[thm:main\], Item \[item:Prnk\] implies Theorem \[thm:main\], Item \[item:parttoep\], when $P$ is of the form $P_1$ or $P_2$.
\[lem:block\] Let ${\mathcal{S} }$ be a partial $n\times n$ positive definite completable symmetric matrix and $Q$ a permutation matrix of order $n$ such that $$Q^T{\mathcal{S} }Q = \begin{bmatrix}
{\mathcal{S} }_1 & && \\
& {\mathcal{S} }_2 & & \\
& & \ddots & \\
& && {\mathcal{S} }_{\ell} \\
\end{bmatrix},$$ for some $\ell \in {{\mathbb N} }$. Here each block ${\mathcal{S} }_i$ is a partial symmetric matrix for $i \in \{1,\dotso,\ell\}$, and the elements outside of the blocks are all unspecified. Then the maximum determinant completion of ${\mathcal{S} }_i$, denoted $S^{\star}_i$, exists and is unique. Moreover, the unique maximum determinant completion of ${\mathcal{S} }$ is given by $$S^{\star} = Q \begin{bmatrix}
S^{\star}_1 &0 &\cdots&0 \\
0 & S^{\star}_2 &\cdots &0 \\
\vdots &\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0& 0&\cdots& S^{\star}_{\ell} \\
\end{bmatrix}Q^T.$$
Since $Q^T\cdot Q$ is an automorphism of the positive definite matrices, with inverse $Q\cdot Q^T$, we have that $Q^T{\mathcal{S} }Q$ is positive definite completable and admits a unique maximum determinant completion, say $\hat{S}$. Moreover, under the map $Q\cdot Q^T$, every completion of $Q^T {\mathcal{S} }Q$ corresponds to a unique completion of ${\mathcal{S} }$, with the same determinant, since the determinant is invariant under the transformation $Q\cdot
Q^T$. Therefore, we have $S^{\star} = Q\hat{S} Q^T$. Now we show that $\hat{S}$ has the block diagonal form. Observe that ${\mathcal{S} }_i$ is positive definite completable, take for instance the positive definite submatrices of $\hat{S}$ corresponding to the blocks ${\mathcal{S} }_i$. Thus $S^{\star}_i$ is well defined, and by the determinant Fischer inequality, e.g., [@HoJo:85 Theorem 7.8.3], we have $$\hat{S} = \begin{bmatrix}
S^{\star}_1 &0 &\cdots&0 \\
0 & S^{\star}_2 &\cdots &0 \\
\vdots &\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0& 0&\cdots& S^{\star}_{\ell} \\
\end{bmatrix},$$ as desired.
In [@MR1709182] it is shown that a partial Toeplitz matrix of the form $P_1$ with $rk = n-1$ can be permuted into a block diagonal matrix as in Lemma \[lem:block\]. We use this observation and extend it to all patterns of the form $P_1$, as well as patterns of the form $P_2$, in the following.
\[prop:P1P2\] Let ${\mathcal{T} }$ be positive definite completable and of the form $P_1$ or $P_2$. Then ${{T^{\star}} }$ is Toeplitz.
Let ${\mathcal{T} }$ be of the form $P_1$ with data $\{t_0,t_k, t_{2k},\dotso,t_{rk}\}$ and let $p \ge r$ be the largest integer so that $pk \le n-1$. As in [@MR1709182], there exists a permutation matrix $Q$ of order $n$ such that $$Q^T{\mathcal{T} }Q = \begin{bmatrix}
{\mathcal{T} }_0 & &&&& \\
& \ddots & &&& \\
& & {\mathcal{T} }_0 &&& \\
& && {\mathcal{T} }_1 &&\\
&&&&\ddots&\\
&&&&& {\mathcal{T} }_1
\end{bmatrix},$$ where ${\mathcal{T} }_0$ is a $(p+1)\times (p+1)$ partial Toeplitz matrix occuring $n-pk$ times and and ${\mathcal{T} }_1$ is a $p\times p$ partial Toeplitz. Moreover, ${\mathcal{T} }_0$ and ${\mathcal{T} }_1$ are both partially positive definite. Let us first consider the case $p=r$. Then ${\mathcal{T} }_0$ and ${\mathcal{T} }_1$ are actually fully specified, and the maximum determinant completion of $Q^T {\mathcal{T} }Q$, as in Lemma \[lem:block\], is obtained by fixing the elements outside of the blocks to $0$. After permuting back to the original form, ${{T^{\star}} }$ has zeros in every unspecified entry. Hence it is Toeplitz. Now suppose $p > r$. Then ${\mathcal{T} }_0$ is a partial Toeplitz matrix with pattern $\{1,2,\dotso,r\}$ and data $\{t_0,t_k,t_{2k},\dotso,t_{rk}\}$ and ${\mathcal{T} }_1$ is a partial Toeplitz matrix having the same pattern and data as ${\mathcal{T} }_0$, but one dimension smaller. That is, ${\mathcal{T} }_1$ is a partial principal submatrix of ${\mathcal{T} }_0$. By Theorem \[thm:banded\] both ${\mathcal{T} }_0$ and ${\mathcal{T} }_1$ are positive definite completable and their maximum determinant completions, ${\mathcal{T} }_0^{\star}$ and ${\mathcal{T} }_1^{\star}$, are Toeplitz. Let $\{a_{(r+1)k}, a_{(r+2)k}, \dotso, a_{pk}\}$ be the data of ${\mathcal{T} }_0^{\star}$ corresponding to the unspecified entries and let $\{b_{(r+1)k}, b_{(r+2)k}, \dotso, b_{(p-1)k}\}$, be the data corresponding to the unspecified entries of ${\mathcal{T} }_1$. By the permanence principle of [@MR892133], ${\mathcal{T} }_1$ is a principle submatrix of ${\mathcal{T} }_0$ and therefore $b_i = a_i$, for all $i \in \{(r+1)k,(r+2)k,\dotso,(p-1)k\}$. By Lemma \[lem:block\], the maximum determinant completion of $Q^T{\mathcal{T} }Q$ is obtained by completing ${\mathcal{T} }_0$ and ${\mathcal{T} }_1$ to ${\mathcal{T} }_0^{\star}$ and ${\mathcal{T} }_1^{\star}$ respectively, and setting the entries outside of the blocks to zero. After permuting back to the original form we get that ${{T^{\star}} }$ is Toeplitz with data $a_{(r+1)k}, a_{(r+2)k}, \dotso, a_{pk}$ in the diagonals $(r+1)k, (r+2)k, \dotso,pk$ and zeros in all other unspecified diagonals.
Now suppose that ${\mathcal{T} }$ is of the form $P_2$. By applying the same permutation as above, and by using the fact that $n=(r+1)k$ and each block ${\mathcal{T} }_0$ is of size $r+1$, we see that the submatrix consisting only of blocks ${\mathcal{T} }_0$ is of size $$(n-rk)(r+1) = ((r+1)k-rk)(r+1) = k(r+1) = n.$$ Hence, $$Q^T{\mathcal{T} }Q = \begin{bmatrix}
{\mathcal{T} }_0 & & \\
& \ddots & \\
& & {\mathcal{T} }_0 \\
\end{bmatrix},$$ where ${\mathcal{T} }_0$ is a partial matrix with pattern $\{1,2,\dotso,r-2,r\}$ and data $$\{t_0,t_k,t_{2k},\dotso,t_{(r-2)k},t_{rk}\}.$$ The unspecified elements of diagonal $(r-1)k$ of ${\mathcal{T} }$ are contained in the unspecified elements of diagonal $r-1$ of the partial matrices ${\mathcal{T} }_0$. By Lemma \[lem:K\], the maximum determinant completion of ${\mathcal{T} }_0$ is Toeplitz with value $t_{(r-1)k}$ in the unspecified diagonal. As in the above, after completing $Q^T{\mathcal{T} }Q$ to its maximum determinant positive definite completion and permuting back to the original form, we obtain the maximum determinant Toeplitz completion of ${\mathcal{T} }$ with value $t_{(r-1)k}$ in the diagonal $(r-1)k$ and zeros in every other unspecified diagonal, as desired.
We now turn our attention to patterns of the form $P_3$. Let $J$ denote the $n\times n$ lower triangular Jordan block with eigenvalue $0$. That is, $J$ has ones on diagonal $-1$ and zeros everywhere else. We also let $e_1,\dotso,e_n \in {{\mathbb R}^n }$ denote the columns of the identity matrix, i.e., the canonical unit vectors. With this notation we have $J = \sum_{j=1}^{n-1} e_{j+1}e_j^T$. We state several technical results regarding $J$ in the following lemma.
\[J\] With $J$ defined as above and $k,l \in \{0,1,\dotso,n-1\}$, the following hold.
1. \[item:sumes\] $J^k = \sum_{j=1}^{n-k} e_{j+k}e_j^T$.
2. \[item:nnzJ\] $J^k(J^T)^l$ has nonzero elements only in the diagonal $l-k$.
3. \[item:JJz\] If $k < l$, then $$J^k(J^T)^l - J^{n-l} (J^T)^{n-k} = 0 \ \iff \ l=n-k.$$
For Item \[item:sumes\] the result clearly holds when $k\in \{0,1\}$. Now observe that for integers of suitable size $(e_ke_l^T)(e_ie_j^T) \ne 0$ if, and only if, $l=i$ in which case the product is $e_ke_j^T$. Thus we have $$J^2 = \left( \sum_{j=1}^{n-1} e_{j+1}e_j^T\right)\left(\sum_{j=1}^{n-1} e_{j+1}e_j^T\right) = \sum_{j=2}^{n-1} (e_{j+1}e_j^T)(e_je_{j-1}^T) = \sum_{j=1}^{n-2} e_{j+2}e_j^T.$$ Applying an induction argument yields the desired expression for arbitrary $k$.
For Item \[item:nnzJ\], we use the result of item \[item:sumes\] to get $$\begin{aligned}
J^k(J^T)^l &= \left( \sum_{j=1}^{n-k} e_{j+k}e_j^T\right)\left(\sum_{j=1}^{n-l} e_je_{j+l}^T\right), \\
&= \sum_{j=1}^{n-\max \ \{k,l\}} (e_{j+k}e_j^T)(e_je_{j+l}^T), \\
&= \sum_{j=1}^{n-\max \ \{k,l\}} e_{j+k}e_{j+l}^T.\end{aligned}$$ The nonzero elements of this matrix are contained in the diagonal $j+l - (j+k) = l-k$.
Finally, for Item \[item:JJz\] we have $$J^k(J^T)^l - J^{n-l} (J^T)^{n-k} = \sum_{j=1}^{n-l} e_{j+k}e_{j+l}^T - \sum_{j=1}^k e_{j+n-l}e_{j+n-k}^T.$$ This matrix is the zero matrix if, and only if, $l=n-k$.
We now state a special case of the Schur-Cohn Criterion using the matrix $J$. We let ${{\mathbb S}^n }$ denote the Euclidean space of symmetric matrices, ${{\mathbb S}^n_{++} }$ the cone of positive definite matrices, and ${{\mathbb S}^n_T }$ the subset of symmetric, positive definite, Toeplitz matrices.
\[thm:schurcohn\] Let $f(z) = a_0 + a_1z + \cdots + a_nz^n$ be a polynomial with real coefficients $a:=(a_0,\dotso,a_n)$. Let $$A(a) := \sum_{j=0}^{n-1} a_jJ^j, \ B(a):= \sum_{j=1}^{n-1} a_j \left( J^T\right)^{n-j}.$$ Then every root of $f(z)$ satisfies $\lvert z \rvert > 1$ if, and only if, $${{\rm Bez} }(a) := A(a)A(a)^T - B(a)^TB(a) \in {{\mathbb S}^n_{++} },$$ where the matrix ${{\rm Bez} }(a)$ is the Toeplitz Bezoutian. Moreover ${{\rm Bez} }(a)^{-1}$ is Toeplitz.
The Schur-Cohn criterion is usually stated for the case where the roots are contained within the interior of the unit disk, but a simple reversal of the coefficients, as described in Chapter X of [@MR0225972], leads to the above statement. For further information on the *Toeplitz Bezoutian* ${{\rm Bez} }(a)$, and for a proof of the fact that ${{\rm Bez} }(a)^{-1}$ is Toeplitz, see e.g., [@MR2656823].
We now present a result on the maximum determinant completion of partial Toeplitz matrices with pattern $P_3$.
\[prop:P3\] Let ${\mathcal{T} }$ be positive definite completable and of the form $P_3$. Then ${{T^{\star}} }$ is Toeplitz.
Let ${\mathcal{T} }$ be as in the hypothesis with pattern of the form $P_3$ defined the integer $k$. Furthermore, let ${\mathcal O} \subset {\mathbb R}_{++} \times
{\mathbb R}^2$ consist of all triples $(t_0,t_k,t_{n-k})$ so that the partial Toeplitz matrix with pattern $P_3$ and data $\{t_0,t_k,t_{n-k}\}$ is positive definite completable. Then it can be verified that ${\mathcal O}$ is an open convex set, and thus in particular connected. We let ${\mathcal U} \subseteq {\mathcal O}$ consist of those triples $(t_0,t_k,t_{n-k})$ for which the corresponding maximum determinant completion is Toeplitz and we claim that ${\mathcal U} = {\mathcal O}$. Clearly ${\mathcal U} \neq \emptyset$ as $(t_k,0,0) \in {\mathcal U}$ for all $t_k>0$. We show that ${\mathcal U}$ is both open and closed in ${\mathcal O}$, which together with the connectedness of ${\mathcal O}$ yields that ${\mathcal U} = {\mathcal O}$.
First observe that the map $F: {\mathcal O} \to {{\mathbb S}^n_{++} }$ that takes $(t_0,t_k,t_{n-k})$ to its corresponding positive definite maximum determinant completion is continuous; see, for instance, [@MR1824072]. Next, the Toeplitz positive definite matrices, ${{\mathbb S}^n_{++} }\cap {{\mathbb S}^n_T }$, form a closed subset of ${{\mathbb S}^n_{++} }$ since ${{\mathbb S}^n_T }$ is closed. Thus ${\mathcal U}
= F^{-1} ({{\mathbb S}^n_{++} }\cap {{\mathbb S}^n_T })$ is closed in $\mathcal{O}$.
To show that ${\mathcal U}$ is also open, we introduce the set, $${\mathcal P} := \{ (p,q,r) \in {\mathbb R}_{++} \times {\mathbb R}^2 : p+qz^k+rz^{n-k} {\rm \ has \ all \ roots \ satisfy \ } |z|>1 \} .$$ Since the region $\lvert z \rvert > 1$ is an open subset of the complex plane, $\mathcal P$ is an open set. We consider the map $G: {\mathcal P} \to {{\mathbb R} }^3$ defined as $$G(p,q,r) = ( [{{\rm Bez} }(p,q,r)^{-1}]_{11}, [{{\rm Bez} }(p,q,r)^{-1}]_{k1}, [{{\rm Bez} }(p,q,r)^{-1}]_{n-k,1} ),$$ where by abuse of notation ${{\rm Bez} }(p,q,r)$ is the Toeplitz Bezoutian of Theorem \[thm:schurcohn\]: $$\begin{aligned}
{{\rm Bez} }(p,q,r) &= (pJ^0+qJ^k+rJ^{n-k})(pJ^0+qJ^k+rJ^{n-k})^T \\
& \qquad - (rJ^k+qJ^{n-k})(rJ^k+qJ^{n-k})^T.\end{aligned}$$ Then $G$ is continuous and we show that its image is exactly $\mathcal{U}$. By Theorem \[thm:schurcohn\], for any $(p,q,r) \in \mathcal{P}$ we have $${{\rm Bez} }(p,q,r) \in {{\mathbb S}^n_{++} }, \ {{\rm Bez} }(p,q,r)^{-1} \in {{\mathbb S}^n_{++} }\cap {{\mathbb S}^n_T }.$$ Thus ${{\rm Bez} }(p,q,r)^{-1}$ is a completion of the partial matrix having pattern $P_3$ and data $\{[{{\rm Bez} }(p,q,r)^{-1}]_{11}, [{{\rm Bez} }(p,q,r)^{-1}]_{k1}, [{{\rm Bez} }(p,q,r)^{-1}]_{n-k,1}\}$. It follows that $G(\mathcal{P}) \subseteq \mathcal{O}$. Moreover, expanding ${{\rm Bez} }(p,q,r)$ we obtain diagonal terms as well as terms of the form $J^0(J^T)^k$ and $J^0(J^T)^{n-k}$, where the coefficients have been omitted. By Lemma \[J\], ${{\rm Bez} }(p,q,r)$ has non-zero values only in entries of the diagonals $0,k,n-k$. Note that the term $J^k(J^T)^{n-k}$ cancels out in the expansion. Thus by Theorem \[thm:maxdet\], ${{\rm Bez} }(p,q,r)^{-1}$ is a maximum determinant completion of the partial matrix with pattern $P_3$ and data $\{[{{\rm Bez} }(p,q,r)^{-1}]_{11}, [{{\rm Bez} }(p,q,r)^{-1}]_{k1}, [{{\rm Bez} }(p,q,r)^{-1}]_{n-k,1}\}$ and $G(\mathcal{P}) \subseteq \mathcal{U}$. To show equality, let $(t_0,t_k,t_{n-k}) \in \mathcal{U}$ and let $F(t_0,t_k,t_{n-k})$, as above, be the maximum determinant completion of the partial matrix with pattern $P_3$ and data $\{t_0,t_k,t_{n-k}\}$ which is Toeplitz. Let $f_0$, $f_k$, and $f_{n-k}$ be the $(1,1)$, $(k+1,1)$ and $(n-k+1,1)$ elements of $F(t_0,t_kt_{n-k})^{-1}$ respectively. Then by the Gohberg-Semencul formula for the inversion of a symmetric Toeplitz matrix (see [@MR0353038; @MR1038316]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
F(t_0,t_kt_{n-k})^{-1} &= \frac{1}{f_0}(f_0J^0+f_kJ^k+f_{n-k}J^{n-k})(f_0J^0+f_kJ^k+f_{n-k}J^{n-k})^T \\
& \qquad - \frac{1}{f_0}(f_{n-k}J^k+f_kJ^{n-k})(f_{n-k}J^k+f_kJ^{n-k})^T, \\
&= {{\rm Bez} }\left(\sqrt{f_0}, \frac{f_k}{\sqrt{f_0}}, \frac{f_{n-k}}{\sqrt{f_0}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Since $F(t_0,t_kt_{n-k})^{-1} \in {{\mathbb S}^n_{++} }$, it follows that $\left(\sqrt{f_0}, \frac{f_k}{\sqrt{f_0}}, \frac{f_{n-k}}{\sqrt{f_0}}\right) \in \mathcal{P}$ and $$G\left(\sqrt{f_0}, \frac{f_k}{\sqrt{f_0}}, \frac{f_{n-k}}{\sqrt{f_0}}\right) = (t_0,t_k,t_{n-k}).$$ Therefore $G(\mathcal{P}) = \mathcal{U}$. Moreover, from the above we have that $$G^{-1}(t_0,t_k,t_{n-k}) = \left(\sqrt{f_0}, \frac{f_k}{\sqrt{f_0}}, \frac{f_{n-k}}{\sqrt{f_0}}\right),$$ with $f_0,f_k$, and $f_{n-k}$ defined above. Since $G^{-1}$ is continuous, $G^{-1}(\mathcal{U}) = \mathcal{P}$, and $\mathcal{P}$ is an open set, we conclude that $\mathcal{U}$ is open, as desired.
Now we are ready to prove Theorem \[thm:main\].
The direction $(\ref{item:Prnk})\!\! \implies\!\! (\ref{item:parttoep})$ follows from Proposition \[prop:P1P2\] and Proposition \[prop:P3\].
For the direction $(\ref{item:parttoep})\!\! \implies\!\! (\ref{item:Prnk})$, let ${\mathcal{T} }$ be positive definite completable with pattern $P = \{k_1,\dotso,k_s\}$, $k_0 = 0$, and data $\{t_0,t_1,\dotso,t_s\}$. Assume there exists data $t_j$ for the diagonal $k_j$, $j \in \{0,\dotso,s\}$, and that ${{T^{\star}} }$ is Toeplitz. Then by Theorem \[thm:maxdet\], $({{T^{\star}} })^{-1}$ has nonzero entries only in the diagonals $P\cup \{0\}$ (and their symmetric counterparts). We denote by $a_j$ the value of the first column of $({{T^{\star}} })^{-1}$ in the row $k_j+1$ for all $j \in \{0,\dotso,s\}$, and define $$A := \sum_{j=0}^s a_j J^{k_j}, \ B:= \sum_{j=1}^s a_j \left( J^T\right)^{n-k_j}.$$ The Gohberg-Semencul formula gives us that $T^{-1} = \frac{1}{a_0}(AA^T
- B^TB)$. Substituting in the expressions for $A$ and $B$ and expanding, we obtain $({{T^{\star}} })^{-1}$ is a linear combination of the following types of terms, along with their symmetric counterparts: $$J^{k_j}(J^T)^{k_j}, \quad J^{k_0}(J^T)^{k_j}, \quad J^{k_j}(J^T)^{k_l} - J^{n-k_j}(J^T)^{n-k_l}, \ j \ne l.$$ By Lemma \[J\], the first type of term has nonzero entries only on the main diagonal, and the second type of term has nonzero entries only on the diagonals belonging to $P$. The third type of term has nonzero entries only on the diagonals $\pm \lvert k_j-k_l\rvert$. As we have already observed in the proof of Proposition \[prop:P3\], the set of data for which ${\mathcal{T} }$ is positive definite completable is an open set. We may therefore perturb the data of ${\mathcal{T} }$ so that the entries $a_0,\dotso,a_j$ of the inverse do not all lie on the same proper linear manifold. Then terms of the form $J^{k_j}(J^T)^{k_l} -
J^{n-k_j}(J^T)^{n-k_l}$ with $j \ne l$ do not cancel each other out. We conclude that, for each pair $j < l$, we have $k_j - k_l \in P$ or $J^{k_j}(J^T)^{k_l} - J^{n-k_j}(J^T)^{n-k_l} = 0$. By Lemma \[J\] the second alternative is equivalent to $l = n-j$. Using this observation we now proceed to show that $P$ has one of the specified forms.
Let $1\le r \le s$ be the largest integer such that $\{k_1,\dotso,k_r\}$ is of the form $P_1$, i.e., $k_2 = 2k_1$, $k_3 = 3k_1$, etc…. If $r=s$, then we are done. Therefore we may assume $s \ge r+1$. Now we show that in fact $s=r+1$. We have that $k_{r+1} - k_1 \in P$ or $k_{r+1} = n-k_1$. We show that the first case does not hold. Indeed if $k_{r+1} - k_1 \in
P$, then it follows that $k_{r+1} - k_1 \in \{k_1,\dotso,k_r\}$. This implies that $$k_{r+1} \in \{2k_1,\dotso,rk_1, (r+1)k_1\} = \{k_2,\dotso,k_r,(r+1)k_1\}.$$ Clearly $k_{r+1} \notin \{k_2,\dotso,k_r\}$, and if $k_{r+1} =
(r+1)k_1$, then $r$ is not maximal, a contradiction. Therefore $k_{r+1}
= n-k_1$. To show that $s=r+1$, suppose to the contrary that $s \ge
r+2$. Then $k_{r+2} - k_1 \in P$ or $k_{r+2} = n-k_1$. The latter does not hold since then $k_{r+2} = k_{r+1}$. Thus we have $k_{r+2} - k_1
\in \{k_1,\dotso,k_r, k_{r+1}\}$, which implies that $$k_{r+2} \in \{2k_1,\dotso,rk_1,(r+1)k_1,k_{r+1}+k_1\} = \{k_2,\dotso,k_r,k_r+k_1,n\}.$$ Since $k_{r+2} \notin \{k_2,\dotso,k_r,n\}$, we have $k_{r+2} =
k_r+k_1$. Therefore, since $k_r < k_{r+1}<k_{r+2}$, we have that $0<
k_{r+2} - k_{r+1} <k_1$, and moreover, $k_{r+2} - k_{r+1} \notin P$. It follows that $k_{r+2} = n-k_{r+1} = k_1$, a contradiction.
We have shown that $P = \{k_1,2k_1,\dotso,rk_1,k_s\}$ with $k_s =
n-k_1$. If $r=1$, then $P$ is of the form $P_3$. On the other hand if $r \ge 2$, then we observe that $\{k_s -k_r, \dotso,k_s - k_2\} \subseteq P$, or equivalently, $$\{k_s -k_r, \dotso,k_s - k_2\} \subseteq \{k_2,\dotso,k_r\}.$$ Since the above sets of identical cardinality, distinct increasing elements, we conclude that $k_s - k_2 = k_r$. Rearranging, we obtain that $k_s = (r+2)k_1$ and $P$ is of the form $P_2$, as desired.
The results of this section have been stated for the symmetric real case for simplicity and for application to [[**S**DP]{} ]{}in the following Section \[sec:sdp\]. With obvious modifications, our results extend to the Hermitian case.
Semidefinite Toeplitz Completions {#sec:sdp}
=================================
In this section we extend the results of Theorem \[thm:main\] to positive semidefinite completions. In the case where all completions are singular, the maximum determinant is not useful for identifying a Toeplitz one, however, a recent result of [@SWW:17] allows us to extend our observations to the semidefinite case. Given a partial symmetric Toeplitz matrix, ${\mathcal{T} }$, a positive semidefinite completion of ${\mathcal{T} }$ may be obtained by solving an SDP feasibility problem. Indeed, if ${\mathcal{T} }$ has pattern $P$ and data $\{t_k : k \in P\cup \{0\}\}$, then the positive semidefinite completions of ${\mathcal{T} }$ are exactly the set $$\label{eq:feasibleset}
{\mathcal{F} }:= \{X \in {{\mathbb S}^n_+ }: {\mathcal{A} }(X) = b \},$$ where ${\mathcal{A} }$ is a linear map and $b$ a real vector in the image space of ${\mathcal{A} }$ satisfying $$[{\mathcal{A} }(X)]_{ik} = \langle E_{i,i+k}, X\rangle, \ b_{ik} = t_k, \quad i \in \{1,2,\dotso,n-k\}, \ k \in P\cup \{0\}.$$ Here $E_{i,j}$ is the symmetric matrix having a one in the entries $(i,j)$ and $(j,i)$ and zeros everywhere else and we use the trace inner product: $\langle X,Y \rangle = {\rm tr} ( XY )$. The maximum determinant is used extensively in SDP, for example, the central path of interior point methods is defined by solutions to the maximum determinant problem. If ${\mathcal{F} }$ is nonempty but does not contain a positive definite matrix, the maximum determinant may still be applied by perturbing ${\mathcal{F} }$ so that it does intersect the set of positive definite matrices. Consider the following parametric optimization problem $$X(\alpha) := \arg \max \ \{ \det(X) : X \in {\mathcal{F} }(\alpha)\},$$ where ${\mathcal{F} }(\alpha) := \{X \in {{\mathbb S}^n_+ }: {\mathcal{A} }(X) = b + \alpha {\mathcal{A} }(I)\}$ and $\alpha > 0$. For each $\alpha > 0$, the solution $X(\alpha)$ is contained in the relative interior of ${\mathcal{F} }(\alpha)$. It is somewhat intuitive that if the limit of these solutions is taken as $\alpha$ decreases to $0$, we should obtain an element of the relative interior of ${\mathcal{F} }(0) = {\mathcal{F} }$. Indeed, the following result confirms this intuition. We denote by ${\mathcal{A} }^*$ the adjoint of ${\mathcal{A} }$.
\[thm:Xalpha\] Let ${\mathcal{F} }\ne \emptyset$ and $X(\alpha)$ be as above. Then there exists $\bar{X}$ in the relative interior of ${\mathcal{F} }$ such that $\lim_{\alpha \searrow 0}X(\alpha) = \bar{X}$. Moreover, $\bar{Z} := \lim_{\alpha \searrow 0}\alpha (X(\alpha))^{-1}$ exists and satisfies $\bar{X} \bar{Z} = 0$ and $\bar{Z} \in \operatorname{{range}}({\mathcal{A} }^*)$.
See Section 3 of [@SWW:17].
An immediate consequence of this result is the following.
\[cor:sdp\] Let ${\mathcal{T} }$ be an $n\times n$ partial symmetric Toeplitz matrix of the form $P_1$, $P_2$, or $P_3$. If ${\mathcal{T} }$ admits a positive semidefinite completion then it admits a maximum rank completion that is Toeplitz.
Let ${\mathcal{T} }$ be as in the hypothesis with data $\{t_0,t_1, \dotso, t_s\}$ and let ${\mathcal{F} }$ be the set of positive semidefinite completions, as above. If ${\mathcal{F} }\cap {{\mathbb S}^n_{++} }\ne \emptyset$, then the maximum determinant completion is Toeplitz by Theorem \[thm:main\] and is of maximum rank. Now suppose ${\mathcal{F} }\in {{\mathbb S}^n_+ }\setminus {{\mathbb S}^n_{++} }$ and observe that for every $\alpha > 0$, ${\mathcal{F} }(\alpha)$ consists of solutions to to the completion problem having pattern $P_1$, $P_2$, or $P_3$ with data $\{t_0+\alpha,t_1, \dotso, t_s\}$ and there exists a positive definite completion. Thus $X(\alpha)$ is Toeplitz for each $\alpha > 0$ and since the Toeplitz matrices are closed, the limit point $\bar{X}$, of Theorem \[thm:Xalpha\], is Toeplitz. The relative interior of ${\mathcal{F} }$ corresponds to those matrices having maximum rank over all of ${\mathcal{F} }$, hence $\bar{X}$ has maximum rank, as desired.
In Theorem 2.2 of [@MR1444091] the author gives in the case of two prescribed diagonals (in the strict lower triangular part) necessary and sufficient conditions on the data for the existence of a Toeplitz positive semidefinite completion. In Theorem 10 of [@MR2156414] the authors give in the case of pattern $P_3$ necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of a positive semidefinite completion. If one is able to verify that the conditions are the same, which will require some tenacity, then one would have an alternative proof that for the pattern $P_3$ positive semidefinite completability implies the existence of a Toeplitz positive semidefinite completion. Their results are all stated for the real case, so one advantage of the approach here is that it readily generalizes to the complex Hermitian case.
While Theorem \[thm:main\] characterizes patterns for which the maximum determinant completion is automatically Toeplitz and Corollary \[cor:sdp\] addresses the maximum rank completions, one may merely be interested in the existence of a Toeplitz completion when a positive semidefinite one exists. Obviously, the patterns in Theorem \[thm:main\] fall in this category, but as we see in the following result, there are more.
\[thm:main2\] Define the patterns
- $P_2' := \{k,2k,\dotso,(r-2)k,rk\}$,
- $P_3' := \{k,r\}$ where $n \ge k+r$.
If ${\mathcal{T} }$ is an $n\times n$ positive semidefinite completable partial Toeplitz matrix with a pattern in the set $\{P_1,P_2',P_3'\}$, then ${\mathcal{T} }$ has a Toeplitz positive semidefinite completion.
For pattern $P_1$ this is a consequence of Corollary \[cor:sdp\]. Note that $P_2'$ and $P_3'$ are obtained from $P_2$ and $P_3$, respectively, by relaxing the restriction on $n$, i.e., allowing $n$ to be larger. Using the results we already have for $P_2$ and $P_3$ we fill in some of the diagonals of ${\mathcal{T} }$ to obtain a new partial matrix of the form $P_1$. We show the proof only for patterns of the form $P_2'$ since the same approach may be used for patterns of the form $P_3'$.
Suppose ${\mathcal{T} }$ has pattern $P_2'$ and consider the partial submatrix containing the first $(r+1)k$ rows and columns. This partial matrix is Toeplitz, has a positive semidefinite completion, and has pattern $P_2$. Let $U := \{1,\dotso,(r+1)k-1\} \setminus P_2$. The elements of $U$ correspond to the unspecified diagonals of the submatrix. By Corollary \[cor:sdp\], there exists a Toeplitz completion for this submatrix that assigns the value $a_i$ for every $i \in U$. Now $U$ is a subset of the unspecified diagonals of ${\mathcal{T} }$. We assign the value $a_i$ to the unspecified diagonals of ${\mathcal{T} }$ for every $i \in U$ thereby obtaining a new partial positive semidefinite Toeplitz matrix, say ${\mathcal{T} }'$, with pattern $\{1,2,\dotso,(r+1)k\}$. Since ${\mathcal{T} }$ and ${\mathcal{T} }'$ agree on the diagonals of $P_2'$, every completion of ${\mathcal{T} }'$ is also a completion of ${\mathcal{T} }$. The pattern of ${\mathcal{T} }'$ is of the form $P_1$, hence it admits a positive semidefinite Toeplitz completion, which is also a completion of ${\mathcal{T} }$, as desired.
Whether or not Theorem \[thm:main2\] gives a full characterization of all patterns for where there is always a Toeplitz completion among all positive semidefinite completions, is an open question.
The Singularity Degree of Some Toeplitz Cycles {#sec:sd}
==============================================
The *Slater condition* holds for the feasible set of an SDP if it contains a positive definite matrix. If the Slater condition does not hold for an SDP then there is no guarantee of convergence to an optimal solution using any known algorithm, moreover, it may not be possible to verify if a given matrix is optimal or not. One way to regularize an SDP that does not satisfy the Slater condition is by restricting the problem to the smallest face of ${{\mathbb S}^n_+ }$ containing the feasible set. Since every face of ${{\mathbb S}^n_+ }$ is a smaller dimensional positive semidefinite cone, every SDP may be transformed into an equivalent (possibly smaller dimensional) SDP for which the Slater condition holds. This transformation is referred to as *facial reduction*, see for instance [@bw1; @bw2; @DrusWolk:16]. The challenge, of course, is to obtain the smallest face. Most facial reduction algorithms look for *exposing vectors*, i.e., non-zero, positive semidefinite matrices that are orthogonal to the minimal face. Exposing vectors are guaranteed to exist by the following theorem of the alternative. Here we let ${\mathcal{F} }$ be the feasible set of an SDP that is defined by the affine equation ${\mathcal{A} }(X) = b$, as in .
\[thm:fr\] Exactly one of the following holds.
1. ${\mathcal{F} }\cap {{\mathbb S}^n_{++} }\ne \emptyset$.
2. \[item:expZ\] There exists $Z \in {{\mathbb S}^n_+ }\cap \operatorname{{range}}({\mathcal{A} }^*)$ such that $ZX = 0$ for all $X \in {\mathcal{F} }$.
This result guarantees the existence of exposing vectors when the Slater condition does not hold. By restricting the feasible set of an SDP to the kernel of an exposing vector, the dimension of the SDP is reduced. By repeatedly finding exposing vectors and reducing the size of the SDP, eventually the problem is reduced to the minimal face and the Slater condition holds. If the exposing vector obtained at each iteration is as in Item \[item:expZ\] of Theorem \[thm:fr\] and of maximal rank over all such exposing vectors, then the number of times the original SDP needs to be reduced in order to obtain a regularized SDP is referred to as the *singularity degree*. This notion and the connection to error bounds for SDP was introduced in [@S98lmi Sect. 4]. For instance, if an SDP satisfies the Slater condition, then it has singularity degree $0$ and the singularity degree is $1$ if and only if there exists an exposing vector $Z \in {{\mathbb S}^n_+ }\cap \operatorname{{range}}({\mathcal{A} }^*)$ such that $\operatorname{{rank}}(Z) + \operatorname{{rank}}(X) = n$ for all $X$ in the relative interior of ${\mathcal{F} }$.
In [@tanigawa Lemma 3.4] it is shown that for $n\ge 4$, there exists a partial matrix (not Toeplitz) with all entries of the diagonals $0,1,n-1$ specified so that the singularity degree of the corresponding SDP is at least 2. Here we apply the results of the previous sections to derive the singularity degree (or bounds for it) of a family of symmetric partial Toeplitz matrices with pattern $P = \{1,n-1\}$. As in much of the matrix completion literature the partial matrix is viewed as arising from a graph and the pattern $P$ corresponds to the graph of a *cycle* with loops. The following result is useful throughout.
\[Tinverse\] Let $T=(t_{i-j})_{i,j=1}^n$ be a positive definite Toeplitz matrix, and suppose that $(T^{-1})_{k,1}=0$ for all $k\in \{3,\ldots , n-1\}$. Then $T^{-1}$ has the form $$\label{CE} \begin{bmatrix}
a & c & 0& & d \\
c & b & c & \ddots & \\
0& c & b & \ddots &0 \\
& \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & c \\
d & & 0& c & a
\end{bmatrix},$$ with $b=\frac{1}{a} (a^2+c^2-d^2)$.
Let us denote the first column of $T$ by $\begin{bmatrix} a & c & 0 &
\cdots & 0 & d \end{bmatrix}^T$. By the Gohberg-Semencul formula we have that $$T^{-1} =\frac{1}{a} ( AA^T-B^TB ),$$ where $$A=\begin{bmatrix}
a & 0 & 0& & 0 \\
c & a & 0 & \ddots & \\
0& c & a & \ddots &0 \\
& \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & 0 \\
d & & 0& c & a
\end{bmatrix}, B= \begin{bmatrix}
0 & d & 0& & c \\
0 & 0 & d & \ddots & \\
0& 0 & 0 & \ddots &0 \\
& \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & d \\
0& & 0& 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}.$$
\[ex:4n\] Let $n=4$ and consider the partial matrix with pattern $P = \{1,3\}$ and data $\{t_0,t_1,t_3\} = \{1+\alpha,\cos(\frac{\theta}{3}), \cos(\theta)\}$ for $\theta \in [0,\pi]$ and $\alpha \ge0$. Let ${\mathcal{F} }(\alpha)$ denote the set of positive semidefinite completions for each $\alpha > 0$ as in Section \[sec:sdp\], let ${\mathcal{F} }= {\mathcal{F} }(0)$, and let $\operatorname{{sd}}({\mathcal{F} })$ denote the singularity degree of any SDP for which ${\mathcal{F} }$ is the feasible set. By Corollary 6 of [@MR1236734] there exists a positive definite completion whenever $\alpha > 0$ and there exists a positive semidefinite completion (but not a positive definite one) when $\alpha = 0$. Then by Theorem \[thm:main\] the maximum determinant completion is Toeplitz whenever $\alpha > 0$ and there exists a maximum rank positive semidefinite completion that is Toeplitz when $\alpha = 0$ by Corollary \[cor:sdp\]. Let $X(\alpha)$ denote the maximum determinant positive definite completion when $\alpha > 0$. Then $$X(\alpha) =: \begin{pmatrix} 1 + \alpha & \cos(\frac{\theta}{3}) & x(\alpha) & \cos(\theta) \cr
\cos(\frac{\theta}{3}) & 1+\alpha & \cos(\frac{\theta}{3}) & x(\alpha) \cr
x(\alpha) & \cos(\frac{\theta}{3}) & 1+\alpha & \cos(\frac{\theta}{3}) \cr
\cos(\theta) & x(\alpha) & \cos(\frac{\theta}{3}) & 1+\alpha \end{pmatrix}.$$ Here $x(\alpha)$ denotes the value of the unspecified entry. Using the symbolic package in MATLAB, we obtain $$x(\alpha) = \frac 12 \left( \sqrt{ \alpha(\alpha+2) + (4\cos^2(\frac{\theta}{3}) - 1)^2 } - (1+\alpha) \right).$$ Taking the limit as $\alpha$ decreases to $0$, we get $$\bar{X} := \lim_{\alpha \searrow 0} X(\alpha) = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & \cos(\frac{\theta}{3}) & \cos(\frac{2\theta}{3}) & \cos(\theta) \cr
\cos(\frac{\theta}{3}) & 1 & \cos(\frac{\theta}{3}) & \cos(\frac{2\theta}{3}) \cr
\cos(\frac{2\theta}{3}) & \cos(\frac{\theta}{3}) & 1 & \cos(\frac{\theta}{3}) \cr
\cos(\theta) & \cos(\frac{2\theta}{3}) & \cos(\frac{\theta}{3}) & 1 \end{pmatrix}.$$ This matrix has maximum rank over all positive semidefinite completions when $\alpha = 0$ due to Corollary \[cor:sdp\]. Specifically, $\bar{X}$ has rank 2 whenever $\theta \in (0,\pi]$ and rank 1 when $\theta = 0$. To derive the singularity degree of ${\mathcal{F} }$ we need to find the maximal rank of an exposing vector having the properties of Theorem \[thm:fr\]. To this end let $Z(\alpha) := \alpha X(\alpha)^{-1}$ and let $\bar{Z} = \lim_{\alpha \searrow 0} Z(\alpha)$. By Theorem \[thm:Xalpha\], $\bar{Z}$ exists and is an exposing vector for ${\mathcal{F} }$ (as long as it is not the zero matrix) as in Theorem \[thm:fr\]. By Proposition \[Tinverse\] we have $$\label{eq:Zalpha}
Z(\alpha) =: \begin{pmatrix} a(\alpha) & c(\alpha) & 0 & d(\alpha) \cr
c(\alpha) & b(\alpha) & c(\alpha) & 0 \cr
0 & c(\alpha) & b(\alpha) & c(\alpha) \cr
d(\alpha) & 0 & c(\alpha) & a(\alpha) \end{pmatrix},$$ where $b(\alpha) = \frac{1}{a(\alpha)}(a(\alpha)^2 + c(\alpha)^2 - d(\alpha)^2)$. Let $a,b,c,$ and $d$ be the limit points of $a(\alpha),b(\alpha),c(\alpha),$ and $d(\alpha)$ respectively, as $\alpha$ decreases to $0$. Then $$\bar{Z} = \begin{pmatrix} a & c & 0 & d \cr
c & b & c & 0 \cr
0 & c & b & c \cr
d & 0 & c & a \end{pmatrix}.$$ We observe that if $b \ne 0$, then $\operatorname{{rank}}(\bar{Z}) \ge 2$ and if $b = 0$ then $\operatorname{{rank}}(\bar{Z}) \le 1$. The first observation is trivial, while for the second observation, suppose $\bar{Z} \ne 0$ from which we get that $a > 0$. Then since $\bar{Z}$ is positive semidefinite, we have $c = 0$ and from the equation $b = \frac{1}{a}(a^2 + c^2 - d^2)$ we get $$0 = \frac{1}{a}(a^2 -d^2),$$ which implies that $a = d$ and $\operatorname{{rank}}(\bar{Z})= 1$. Now since $X(\alpha)Z(\alpha) = \alpha I$ we have $$X(\alpha) \begin{bmatrix}
c(\alpha) \\
b(\alpha) \\
c(\alpha) \\
0
\end{bmatrix} = \alpha \begin{bmatrix}
0 \\
\alpha \\
0 \\
0
\end{bmatrix}.$$ Solving for $b(\alpha)$ we obtain the expression $$b(\alpha) = \begin{cases}
\frac{\alpha(\cos(\frac{\theta}{3}) + \cos(\theta))}{(1+\alpha)(\cos(\frac{\theta}{3}) + \cos(\theta))-2x(\alpha)\cos(\frac{\theta}{3})}, \quad &\theta \in [0,\pi], \ \theta \ne \frac{3\pi}{4}, \\
\frac{\alpha(1+\alpha+x(\alpha))}{(1+\alpha)(1+\alpha +x(\alpha)) - 2\cos^2(\theta)}, &\theta = \frac{3\pi}{4}.
\end{cases}$$ Evaluating the limits we get that $b = 0$ if $\theta = \pi$ and $b$ is non-zero for all other values of $\theta$ in $[0,\pi]$. It follows that $\operatorname{{rank}}(\bar{Z}) \ge 2$ when $\theta \in (0,\pi)$ and since $\operatorname{{rank}}(\bar{X}) =2$ for these values of $\theta$, we conclude that $\operatorname{{sd}}({\mathcal{F} }) = 1$ when $\theta \in (0,\pi)$. When $\theta = 0$ it can be derived that $a = b= \frac 34$ and $c = d = -\frac 38$. Then $\bar{Z}$ is a rank 3 matrix and $\operatorname{{sd}}({\mathcal{F} }) = 1$. For the case $\theta = \pi$ we have that $\operatorname{{rank}}(\bar{Z}) \le 1$ and now we show that every exposing vector for ${\mathcal{F} }$ that lies in ${{\mathbb S}^n_+ }\cap \operatorname{{range}}( {\mathcal{A} }^*)$ has rank at most 1. Indeed, for $\theta = \pi$ we have $$\bar{X} = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & \frac12 & - \frac12 & -1 \cr \frac12 & 1 & \frac12 & - \frac12 \cr
- \frac12 & \frac12 & 1 & \frac12 \cr -1 & - \frac12 & \frac12 & 1 \end{pmatrix} .$$ Now a basis for the kernel of $\bar{X}$ is formed by the vectors $$v := \begin{bmatrix}
1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ -1
\end{bmatrix}, \ u := \begin{bmatrix}
1 \\ -1 \\ 1 \\0
\end{bmatrix}.$$ Observe that $\operatorname{{range}}({\mathcal{A} }^*)$ consists of all the matrices with entries $(1,3)$ and $(2,4)$ identically $0$. Now if $Z$ is any exposing vector for ${\mathcal{F} }$, we have $\bar{X}Z = 0$ and hence $Z = \lambda (vv^T) + \mu (uu^T)$ for some $\lambda, \mu \in {{\mathbb R} }$. But since $uu^T \notin \operatorname{{range}}({\mathcal{A} }^*)$, it follows that $\operatorname{{rank}}(Z) \le 1$ and $\operatorname{{sd}}({\mathcal{F} }) \ge 2$. We conclude this example by summarizing our observations: $$\operatorname{{sd}}({\mathcal{F} }) = \begin{cases}
1, \quad & \theta \in [0,\pi),\\
\ge 2, &\theta =\pi.
\end{cases}$$
Some of the observations of this example extend to general $n \ge 4$. First we show that the partial matrix admits a unique positive semidefinite completion, which is Toeplitz.
\[prop:cosn\] Consider the partial symmetric $n\times n$ Toeplitz matrix with pattern $P=\{ 1, n-1\}$ and data $$\{ t_0, t_1 , t_{n-1} \} = \{ 1, \cos \theta , \cos((n-1)\theta) \} ,$$ where $\theta \le \frac{\pi}{n-1}$. Then the unique positive semidefinite completion is $$\left( \cos \left((i-j)\theta \right) \right)_{i,j=0}^{n-1} = B^T B ,$$ where $$B= \begin{pmatrix} 1 & \cos \theta & \cos (2\theta )& \cdots & \cos ((n-1)\theta) \cr 0
& \sin\theta& \sin (2\theta ) & \cdots & \sin ((n-1)\theta) \end{pmatrix}.$$
Let us denote the first column of a positive semidefinite completion by $\begin{pmatrix} \cos \theta_0 & \cos \theta_1 & \cos \theta_2 & \cdots & \cos \theta_{n-1} \end{pmatrix}^T$, where $\theta_0 = 0 , \theta_1 =\theta$, $\theta_{n-1} = (n-1)\theta$ and $\theta_2, \ldots , \theta_{n-2} \in [0,\pi ]$. If we look at the principal submatrix in rows and columns 1, $n-1$ and $n$, we get the positive semidefinite submatrix $$\begin{pmatrix} 1 & \cos (\theta_{n-2} ) & \cos((n-1)\theta ) \cr \cos( \theta_{n-2} ) & 1 & \cos (\theta ) \cr
\cos((n-1)\theta ) & \cos(\theta) & 1 \end{pmatrix} .$$ [@MR1236734 Proposition 2] yields that $ (n-1)\theta \le \theta_{n-2} +\theta$. Thus $$\label{co} \theta_{n-2} \ge (n-2)\theta .$$ Next, consider the $(n-1)\times (n-1)$ upper left corner with data $$\{ t_0, t_1 , t_{n-2} \} =\{ 1, \cos \theta , \cos \theta_{n-2} \}.$$ By [@MR1236734 Corollary 2] we have that $$\label{cor2} 2 \max \{ \theta_{n-2} , \theta \} \le (n-2) \theta + \theta_{n-2}.$$ This implies that $$\label{cor2a}\theta_{n-2} \le (n-2)\theta.$$ Combining this with we have $\theta_{n-2} = (n-2)\theta$. If instead we looked at the principal submatrix in rows and columns 1,2, and $m$ and combine it with the $(n-1)\times (n-1)$ lower right corner, we obtain that also in the $(n,2)$th position we necessarily have $\cos ((n-2)\theta )$. Thus along the $(n-2)$th diagonal the value is $\cos ((n-2)\theta )$.
One can repeat this argument for smaller matrices (or invoke induction) and obtain that in the $k$th diagonal necessarily all entries equal $\cos \theta_k=\cos (k\theta )$, $k=2,\ldots , n-2$.
Now we show that in case $\theta = \frac{\pi}{n-1}$, we have $\operatorname{{rank}}(\bar{X}) + \operatorname{{rank}}(\bar{Z}) \le 3 < n$ for all $n \ge 4$.
\[ex:generaln\] Let $n\ge 4$ and consider the $n\times n$ symmetric partial Toeplitz matrix with pattern $P=\{ 1, n-1\}$ and data $\{ t_0, t_1 , t_{n-1} \} = \{ 1+\alpha , \cos (\frac{\pi}{n-1}) , -1 \}$ where $\alpha > 0$. As in Example \[ex:4n\], we let ${\mathcal{F} }$ denote the set of positive semidefinite completions when $\alpha = 0$ and we let $X(\alpha)$ denote the maximum determinant completion when $\alpha > 0$. By Proposition \[prop:cosn\], ${\mathcal{F} }$ is the rank $2$ matrix $$\bar{X} := \left( \cos \left(\frac{(i-j)\pi}{n-1}\right) \right)_{i,j=0}^{n-1},$$ and by Theorem \[thm:Xalpha\], $\bar{X} = \lim_{\alpha \searrow 0} X(\alpha)$. If $Z(\alpha) = \alpha X(\alpha)^{-1}$ and $\bar{Z}$ is the limit of $Z(\alpha)$ as $\alpha$ decreases to $0$, we show that $\operatorname{{rank}}(\bar{Z}) \le 1$. Let $a,b,c,$ and $d$ be the limit points of $a(\alpha),b(\alpha),c(\alpha),$ and $d(\alpha)$ respectively. By Proposition \[Tinverse\], $Z(\alpha)$ is as in . We claim that if $a =0$ then $\bar{Z} = 0$. Indeed, by the fact that $\bar{Z}$ is positive semidefinite we have $c=d=0$. Moreover, $$0 = {\rm tr} (\bar{X}\bar{Z} ) = (n-2)b,$$ which implies that $b = 0$ and consequently $\bar{Z} = 0$. Thus we may assume $a>0$ and the equation $$b = \frac 1a (a^2 + c^2 - d^2),$$ holds. From $ \bar{X} \bar{Z} = 0$ and the above equation, we obtain $$2\cos \left(\frac{\pi}{n-1}\right)c + b = 0 ,\ a + \cos \left(\frac{\pi}{n-1}\right)c -d = 0.$$ This gives $c=-b/(2\cos(\frac{\pi}{n-1})), \ d=a -\frac{b}{2}$, and thus $$b=a + \frac{1}{a} \frac{b^2}{4\cos^2(\frac{\pi}{n-1})} -\frac{1}{a} \left(a-\frac{b}{2}\right)^2.$$ After rearranging, we obtain $$\frac{b^2}{a} \left(\frac14 - \frac{1}{4\cos^2(\frac{\pi}{n-1})} \right)=0 .$$ Consequently $b=0$, and $\operatorname{{rank}}( \bar{Z}) \le 1$ follows.
Numerical experiments suggest that $\bar{Z}$ is the rank 1 matrix with $(\bar{Z})_{11}=(\bar{Z})_{nn}=(\bar{Z})_{1n}=(\bar{Z})_{n1}= \frac{n-1}{4}$ and all other entries equal to 0.
\#1
[10]{}
M. Bakonyi and H.J. Woerdeman. Maximum entropy elements in the intersection of an affine space and the cone of positive definite matrices. , 16(2):369–376, 1995.
M. Bakonyi and H.J. Woerdeman. . Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2011.
W. Barrett, C.R. Johnson, and P. Tarazaga. The real positive definite completion problem for a simple cycle. , 192:3–31, 1993. Computational linear algebra in algebraic and related problems (Essen, 1992).
J.M. Borwein and H. Wolkowicz. Characterization of optimality for the abstract convex program with finite-dimensional range. , 30(4):390–411, 1980/81.
J.M. Borwein and H. Wolkowicz. Facial reduction for a cone-convex programming problem. , 30(3):369–380, 1980/81.
J.M. Borwein and H. Wolkowicz. Regularizing the abstract convex program. , 83(2):495–530, 1981.
E.J. Cand[è]{}s and B. Recht. Exact matrix completion via convex optimization. , 9(6):717–772, 2009.
D. Drusvyatskiy and H. Wolkowicz. The many faces of degeneracy in conic optimization. , 3(2):77–170, 2017.
H. Dym and I. Gohberg. Extensions of band matrices with band inverses. , 36:1–24, 1981.
R.L. Ellis, I. Gohberg, and D. Lay. Band extensions, maximum entropy and the permanence principle. In [*Maximum entropy and [B]{}ayesian methods in applied statistics ([C]{}algary, [A]{}lta., 1984)*]{}, pages 131–155. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1986.
I.C. Gohberg and A.A. Semencul. The inversion of finite [T]{}oeplitz matrices and their continual analogues. , 7(2(24)):201–223, 290, 1972.
B. Grone, C.R. Johnson, E. Marques de Sa, and H. Wolkowicz. Positive definite completions of partial [H]{}ermitian matrices. , 58:109–124, 1984.
K.J. Harrison. Matrix completions and chordal graphs. , 19(3):577–590, 2003. International Workshop on Operator Algebra and Operator Theory (Linfen, 2001).
M. He and M.K. Ng. Toeplitz and positive semidefinite completion problem for cycle graph. , 14(1):67–78, 2005.
G. Heinig and K. Rost. Introduction to [B]{}ezoutians. In [*Numerical methods for structured matrices and applications*]{}, volume 199 of [*Oper. Theory Adv. Appl.*]{}, pages 25–118. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2010.
L. Hogben. Graph theoretic methods for matrix completion problems. , 328(1-3):161–202, 2001.
L. Hogben, editor. . Discrete Mathematics and its Applications (Boca Raton). Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2007. Associate editors: Richard Brualdi, Anne Greenbaum and Roy Mathias.
R.A. Horn and C.R. Johnson. . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990. Corrected reprint of the 1985 original.
C.R. Johnson, M. Lundquist, and G. Naevdal. Positive definite [T]{}oeplitz completions. , 59(2):507–520, 1999.
T. Kailath and J. Chun. Generalized [G]{}ohberg-[S]{}emencul formulas for matrix inversion. In [*The [G]{}ohberg anniversary collection, [V]{}ol. [I]{} ([C]{}algary, [AB]{}, 1988)*]{}, volume 40 of [*Oper. Theory Adv. Appl.*]{}, pages 231–246. Birkhäuser, Basel, 1989.
M.G. Kreĭ n and M.A. Naĭ mark. The method of symmetric and [H]{}ermitian forms in the theory of the separation of the roots of algebraic equations. , 10(4):265–308, 1981. Translated from the Russian by O. Boshko and J. L. Howland.
N. Krislock and H. Wolkowicz. Explicit sensor network localization using semidefinite representations and facial reductions. , 20(5):2679–2708, 2010.
M. Laurent. A connection between positive semidefinite and [E]{}uclidean distance matrix completion problems. , 273:9–22, 1998.
M. Marden. . Second edition. Mathematical Surveys, No. 3. American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1966.
B.N. Mukherjee and S.S. Maiti. On some properties of positive definite [T]{}oeplitz matrices and their possible applications. , 102:211–240, 1988.
G. Naevdal. On a generalization of the trigonometric moment problem. , 258:1–18, 1997.
B. Recht, M. Fazel, and P. Parrilo. Guaranteed minimum-rank solutions of linear matrix equations via nuclear norm minimization. , 52(3):471–501, 2010.
S. Sremac, H. J. Woerdeman, and H. Wolkowicz. Complete facial reduction in one step for spectrahedra. Technical report, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, 2017. 34 pages, research report; also available as arXiv:1710.07410.
J.F. Sturm. Error bounds for linear matrix inequalities. , 10(4):1228–1248 (electronic), 2000.
J.F. Sturm and S. Zhang. On sensitivity of central solutions in semidefinite programming. , 90(2, Ser. A):205–227, 2001.
S. Tanigawa. Singularity degree of the positive semidefinite matrix completion problem. Technical Report arXiv:1603.09586, Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Kyoto University, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan, 2016.
[^1]: Research supported by The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
[^2]: Research supported by Simons Foundation grant 355645.
[^3]: Research supported by The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A discontinuous Galerkin method for the ideal 5 moment two-fluid plasma system is presented. The method uses a second or third order discontinuous Galerkin spatial discretization and a third order TVD Runge-Kutta time stepping scheme. The method is benchmarked against an analytic solution of a dispersive electron acoustic square pulse as well as the two-fluid electromagnetic shock [@Shumlak2003] and existing numerical solutions to the GEM challenge magnetic reconnection problem [@Birn2001]. The algorithm can be generalized to arbitrary geometries and three dimensions. An approach to maintaining small gauge errors based on error propagation is suggested.'
author:
- 'John Loverich, Ammar Hakim and Uri Shumlak'
bibliography:
- 'dissertation.bib'
title: 'A Discontinuous Galerkin Method for Ideal Two-Fluid Plasma Equations'
---
Stability
---------
The stability limits of the numerical algorithm just described are defined by the highest oscillation frequency of the system or by the CFL condition based on the speed of light. Typically the highest oscillation frequency is the electron plasma frequency $w_{p\,e}=\left(\frac{n_{e} q_{e}^{2}}{\epsilon_{0}\,m_{e}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$ and a time step is chosen for which the time integration scheme is stable to this frequency of oscillation, this time step is typically $\Delta t<\frac{1}{w_{p\,e}}$. When the CFL condition dominates the time step $\Delta t<\frac{1}{6}\frac{\Delta x}{c}$ is used for the second order spatial discretization in 2D and $\Delta t<\frac{1}{10}\frac{c}{\Delta x}$ for the third order spatial discretization in 2D.
Simulations {#S:Simulations}
===========
Discussion {#S:Discussion}
==========
A discontinuous Galerkin method for the ideal 5-moment two-fluid plasma system is developed. A scalar model problem of the ideal two-fluid system is derived to illustrate the character of the full system. An analytic two-fluid solution to an electron acoustic square pulse in the linear regime is derived and the numerical solution using the fully non-linear two-fluid system is calculated showing convergence for the 2nd and 3rd order discontinuous Galerkin methods. The algorithm is benchmarked against the two-fluid electromagnetic shock originally published in [@Shumlak2003]. The 2nd and 3rd order algorithms are tested on the GEM challenge magnetic reconnection problem and produces results comparable to those generated by particle codes, hybrid codes, and a Hall MHD code in [@Shay2001]. The discontinuous Galerkin method offers a straight forward method for solving the ideal 5-moment two-fluid system. This same algorithm could be applied to 10 and higher moment two-fluid systems. The algorithm can be easily generalized to three dimensions and general geometries.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by AFOSR Grant No. F49620-02-1-0129
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Maria Archidiacono
- Nicolao Fornengo
- Stefano Gariazzo
- Carlo Giunti
- Steen Hannestad
- Marco Laveder
title: 'Light sterile neutrinos after BICEP-2'
---
Introduction
============
Over the past few years cosmology has established itself as one of the primary laboratories for neutrino physics. In particular, observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background and Large Scale Structure have severely constrained parameters such as the absolute neutrino mass and the cosmic energy density in neutrinos (see e.g. [@Ade:2013zuv]). These two parameters are also of significant interest in the context of eV-mass sterile neutrinos currently hinted at by short baseline neutrino oscillation experiments. At the same time neutrino oscillation experiments seem to point to the existence of at least one additional mass state around 1 eV with significant mixing with the active sector. Even though this mass state is mainly sterile the mixing leads to almost complete thermalisation in the early universe (see e.g. [@Hannestad:2012ky; @Melchiorri:2008gq]) and the additional mass state effectively affects structure formation in the same way as a 1 eV active neutrino. Such a high mass has seemed at odds with cosmological data [@Hamann:2011ge], and has led to a number of attempts to reconcile the existence of eV sterile neutrinos with cosmology. Examples include modifications to the background potential due to new interactions in the sterile sector [@Hannestad:2013ana; @Dasgupta:2013zpn; @Bringmann:2013vra; @Ko:2014bka; @Mirizzi:2012we; @Saviano:2013ktj] or modifications to the cosmic expansion rate at the time where sterile neutrinos are produced [@Rehagen:2014vna].
However, the very recent publication of new data from the BICEP2 experiment [@Ade:2014xna] has indicated a high tensor to scalar ratio, and this in turn significantly modifies constraints on neutrino related parameters. Here we investigate how constraints on eV mass sterile neutrinos are influenced by the new BICEP2 discovery, and demonstrate that eV mass sterile neutrinos are not significantly constrained by current cosmological data.
Section 2 contains a discussion of the cosmological parameter estimation and Section 3 a short summary of our SBL likelihood analysis. In Section 4 we present the results of the joint analysis and finally Section 5 contains a thorough discussion of our results.
The cosmological analysis
=========================
The setup under investigation here is a model in which the neutrino sector is described by 3 massless or almost massless active species, as well as one additional sterile species characterised by a temperature, $T_s$. We thus assume that the sterile neutrino has a thermal distribution. Although this almost certainly does not happen unless the sterile species was fully thermalised, it is a more than adequate approximation given the precision of current cosmological data. From the temperature and the mass the contribution to the current matter density is given by $$\Omega_s h^2 = \frac{(T_s/T_\nu)^3 m_s}{94 \, {\rm eV}},$$ where $T_\nu$ is the temperature of the active species and $m_s$ the mass of the additional sterile neutrino. Likewise the contribution to the relativistic energy density in the early universe is given by $$\rho_s = (T_s/T_\nu)^4 \rho_\nu.$$ Most studies work with an effective number of neutrino species, defined by ${\Delta N_{\rm {eff}}}= (T_s/T_\nu)^4$, and we shall also use this parameter in order for our results to be easily comparable other studies. In terms of ${\Delta N_{\rm {eff}}}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_s h^2 & = & \frac{{\Delta N_{\rm {eff}}}^{3/4} m_s}{94 \, {\rm eV}}, \\
\rho_s & = & {\Delta N_{\rm {eff}}}\rho_\nu.\end{aligned}$$ Our cosmological model is a flat $\Lambda$CDM+$r_{0.002}$+$\nu_s$ model with a total of nine parameters $$\label{eq:model}
{\bm \theta} = \{\omega_{\rm cdm},\omega_{\rm b},\theta_{\rm s},\tau,
\ln(10^{10}A_{s}),n_{s},r_{0.002},m_s,{\Delta N_{\rm {eff}}}\}.$$ Here, $\omega_{\rm cdm} \equiv \Omega_{\rm cdm} h^2$ and $\omega_{\rm b}
\equiv \Omega_{\rm b} h^2$ are the present-day physical CDM and baryon densities respectively, $\theta_{\rm s}$ the angular the sound horizon, $\tau$ the optical depth to reionisation, and $\ln(10^{10}A_{s})$ and $n_s$ denote respectively the amplitude and spectral index of the initial scalar fluctuations. $r$ is the tensor to scalar ratio at the pivot scale of $0.002 \, {\rm Mpc}^{-1}$. We assume a flat prior on all of the cosmological parameters but the $m_s$; in the case of the physical mass of the additional sterile neutrino the posterior obtained through the analysis of neutrino oscillations data (see Sec. \[sec:neutrinooscillationdata\]) is applied as a prior on the cosmological parameter $m_s$.
The bayesian analysis is performed through the Monte Carlo Markov Chains package `CosmoMC` [@Lewis:2002ah]. The calculation of the theoretical observables is done through the Boltzman equations solver `CAMB` [@Lewis:1999bs] (Code for Anisotropies in the Microwave Background).
Data sets
---------
This paper is aimed at testing the consistency between the latest cosmological data and the neutrino oscillation data (hereafter SBL). The former consist of CMB data, Large Scale Structure, Hubble constant $H_0$, CFHTLenS and Planck Sunyaev Zel’Dovich.
[*CMB —*]{} The primary cosmological observable in the early universe is the Cosmic Microwave Background. Therefore our basic data sets are: the temperature fluctuations power spectra provided by the Planck satellite [@Planck:2013kta] up to $\ell=2479$ and by Atacama Cosmlogy Telescope [@Dunkley:2013vu] and South Pole Telescope [@Story:2012wx] (hereafter high-$\ell$) whose likelihoods cover the high multipole range, $500<\ell<3500$ and $650<\ell<3000$, respectively. Concerning polarization we include the data of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe nine year data release (hereafter WP) and the newly released B-modes autocorrelation power spectrum of the BICEP2 experiment, either using all of the nine channels ($20<\ell<340$), or only the first five data points ($\ell<200$), as in the BICEP2 paper [@Ade:2014xna].
[*Large Scale Structure (LSS) —*]{} The information on Large Scale Structure is extracted from the WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey [@Parkinson:2012vd], which measures the matter power spectrum at four different redshifts $z=0.22$, $z=0.41$, $z=0.60$ and $z=0.78$.
[*$H_0$ —*]{} The cosmological observable in the local universe consists of the distance measurements of the Cepheids obtained with the Hubble Space Telescope. These measurements provide a precise determination of the Hubble constant [@Riess:2011yx], which acts as a prior on the derived cosmological parameter $H_0$.
[*CFHTLenS —*]{} The Canada-France Hawaii Telescope Lensing Survey (CFHTLenS) [@Kilbinger:2012qz; @Heymans:2013fya] determines the 2D cosmic shear correlation function through the measurements of redshifts and shapes of 4.2 million galaxies spanning the range $0.2<z<1.3$. The weak gravitational lensing signal extracted from these measurements constrains a combination of the total matter density and the standard deviation of the amplitude of the matter density fluctuations on a sphere of radius $8{\rm h}^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$: $\sigma_8(\Omega_m/0.27)^{0.46}=0.774\pm0.040$. This result is included in our analysis, contributing as an additional $\chi^2$.
[*PSZ —*]{} The Planck Sunayev Zel’Dovich catalogue [@Ade:2013lmv] contains 189 galaxy clusters identified through the Sunayev Zel’Dovich effect. The number counts allows to compute the cluster mass function, which is related to a combination of $\Omega_m$ and $\sigma_8$: $\sigma_8(\Omega_m/0.27)^{0.3}=0.782\pm0.010$. This result is incorporated in our analysis following the same prescription used for CFHTLenS.
Neutrino oscillation data {#sec:neutrinooscillationdata}
=========================
Sterile neutrinos are new particles beyond the Standard Model which can mix with the standard active flavor neutrinos $\nu_{e}$, $\nu_{\mu}$, $\nu_{\tau}$ (see [@Bilenky:1998dt; @GonzalezGarcia:2007ib; @Abazajian:2012ys]). In the standard three-neutrino mixing paradigm the three active flavor neutrinos are unitary linear combinations of three massive neutrinos $\nu_{1}$, $\nu_{2}$, $\nu_{3}$ with respective masses $m_{1}$, $m_{2}$, $m_{3}$. The squared mass differences $
\Delta{m}^{2}_{21}
\simeq
8 \times 10^{-5} \, \text{eV}^{2}
$ and $
\Delta{m}^{2}_{31}
\simeq
\Delta{m}^{2}_{32}
\simeq
2 \times 10^{-3} \, \text{eV}^{2}
$ generate the neutrino oscillations which have been observed in many solar, atmospheric and long-baseline experiments (see [@GonzalezGarcia:2012sz; @Bellini:2013wra; @NuFIT-2013; @Capozzi:2013csa]). However, the standard three-neutrino mixing paradigm cannot explain the indications in favor of short-baseline neutrino oscillations found in the LSND experiment [@Aguilar:2001ty], in Gallium experiments [@Abdurashitov:2005tb; @Laveder:2007zz; @Giunti:2006bj; @Acero:2007su; @Giunti:2010zu] and in reactor experiments [@Mueller:2011nm; @Mention:2011rk; @Huber:2011wv]. The results of these experiments can be explained by extending neutrino mixing with the addition of one or more massive neutrinos which generate squared-mass differences larger than about $1 \, \text{eV}^2$ [@Kopp:2011qd; @Giunti:2011gz; @Giunti:2011hn; @Giunti:2011cp; @Conrad:2012qt; @Kopp:2013vaa; @Giunti:2013aea]. Since there are only three active flavor neutrinos, the additional massive neutrinos must be mainly sterile.
In this paper we consider a 3+1 scheme in which the three standard massive neutrinos $\nu_{1}$, $\nu_{2}$, $\nu_{3}$ are much lighter than 1 eV and there is a new massive neutrino $\nu_{4}$ with a mass $m_{4} \sim 1 \, \text{eV}$. In the flavor basis the three standard active flavor neutrinos $\nu_{e}$, $\nu_{\mu}$, $\nu_{\tau}$ are maily composed by $\nu_{1}$, $\nu_{2}$, $\nu_{3}$, but they have a small component of $\nu_{4}$ in order to generate the observed short-baseline oscillations through the squared-mass difference $
\Delta{m}^{2}_{43}
\simeq
\Delta{m}^{2}_{42}
\simeq
\Delta{m}^{2}_{41}
\simeq
m_{4}^2
$. In the flavor basis there is a sterile neutrino $\nu_{s}$ which is mainly composed of the new heavy neutrino $\nu_4$. Hence, in the following we use the common notation $m_{s}=m_{4}$.
We perform a combined analysis of cosmological data and short-baseline neutrino oscillation data using the posterior distribution of $m_s = m_4 \simeq \sqrt{\Delta{m}^2_{41}}$ obtained from the analysis of SBL data presented in Ref. [@Giunti:2013aea] as a prior in the `CosmoMC` analysis of cosmological data [@Archidiacono:2012ri; @Archidiacono:2013xxa; @Gariazzo:2013gua]. As shown in Tab. 3 of Ref. [@Gariazzo:2013gua], the best-fit value of $m_s$ obtained from short-baseline neutrino oscillation data is 1.27 eV and its 95.45% probability range ($2\sigma$) is between 0.97 and 1.42 eV.
Results
=======
[*Cosmological results —*]{}
An interesting question is how the addition of the new BICEP-2 measurement changes the preferred region in $(m_s,{\Delta N_{\rm {eff}}})$ (see Fig. \[fig:ns\_ms\]) space.
![$1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ marginalized contours for different combinations of CMB data sets.[]{data-label="fig:cmbonly"}](cmb_r_ms.pdf "fig:") ![$1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ marginalized contours for different combinations of CMB data sets.[]{data-label="fig:cmbonly"}](cmb_r_ns.pdf "fig:") ![$1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ marginalized contours for different combinations of CMB data sets.[]{data-label="fig:cmbonly"}](cmb_r_ntilt.pdf "fig:")
Therefore, we first look at CMB data only, with and without BICEP-2 data included. The result of this analysis can be seen in Fig. \[fig:cmbonly\] and in Tab. \[tab:cmbonly\]. As can be seen in Fig. \[fig:cmbonly\] $m_s$ and $r$ are anti-correlated (this happens because $r$ adds power on large scales whereas $m_s$ subtracts power on intermediate and small scales). The inclusion of BICEP-2 data therefore tends to strengthen the bound on $m_s$ in order to keep constant the ratio between the small and large scales. Conversely, adding BICEP-2 data allows for higher values of ${N_{\rm {eff}}}$ (this happens because ${N_{\rm {eff}}}$ is strongly correlated with $n_s$ and the addition of tensors shifts the allowed $n_s$ up). For the case of CMB data only, the addition of BICEP-2 data therefore strengthens the bound on $m_s$ slightly while allowing for a much higher ${N_{\rm {eff}}}$. This is consistent with the analysis presented in [@Dvorkin:2014lea] [^1]. When the inclusion of the BICEP2 data is restricted to the first five bins, the results concerning the basic cosmological parameters remain unchanged within $1\sigma$, whereas the bound on the mass becomes slightly weaker and, conversely, ${\Delta N_{\rm {eff}}}$ is tighter constrained. Finally if we remove the high multipole CMB data, the bound on the mass remains almost unchanged, while ${\Delta N_{\rm {eff}}}$ moves towards one additional fully thermalized sterile neutrino.
Having established how constraints change from CMB data only we now proceed to study the influence of auxiliary cosmological data.
In Tab. \[tab:cosmoresults\] we report the marginalized mean values and the $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ errors on the cosmological parameters and on the neutrino parameters in the different combinations of data sets illustrated above, when SBL data are not included.
![$1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ marginalized contours in the plane $(m_s,{\Delta N_{\rm {eff}}})$. The banana shaped regions allowed by cosmology indicate a sub-eV mass and an excess in ${N_{\rm {eff}}}$, while the inclusion of SBL data forces the mass around 1eV, moving the contours towards the warm dark matter limit, which implies a lower value of ${\Delta N_{\rm {eff}}}$ because of the strong correlation between the two parameters.[]{data-label="fig:ns_ms"}](ns_ms.pdf "fig:")\
![$1\sigma$, $2\sigma$ and $3\sigma$ confidence level limits for ${\Delta N_{\rm {eff}}}$, for different dataset combinations. The circles indicate the mean value.[]{data-label="fig:ns"}](ns.pdf "fig:")\
![$1\sigma$, $2\sigma$ and $3\sigma$ confidence level limits for $m_s$, for different dataset combinations. The circles indicate the mean value.[]{data-label="fig:ms"}](ms.pdf "fig:")\
As was seen above, Planck CMB data provide a fairly stringent upper limit on the sterile neutrino mass, except for very low values of ${N_{\rm {eff}}}$, i.e. in the warm dark matter limit. Conversely the preferred value of ${N_{\rm {eff}}}$ is higher than 3, with 4 only being slightly disfavoured. The inclusion of BICEP-2 data pushes the preferred ${N_{\rm {eff}}}$ up, as has also been noted by other authors [@Giusarma:2014zza; @Zhang:2014dxk; @Dvorkin:2014lea]. However, since $m_s$ and ${N_{\rm {eff}}}$ are anti-correlated this actually results in a tighter bound on the sterile neutrino mass from CMB only.
When we include LSS or $H_0$ data the picture remains qualitatively unchanged although, since $m_s$ and $H_0$ are anti-correlated, the addition of the HST $H_0$ data strengthens the upper bound on the sterile neutrino mass. In Fig. \[fig:ms\] and Fig. \[fig:ns\] we can see how the error bars change for $m_s$ and ${\Delta N_{\rm {eff}}}$ respectively, with various dataset combinations.
However, the inclusion of lensing and cluster data leads to an important qualitative change the preferred range for $m_s$. Both data sets indicate a low value of $\sigma_8$. Given that the amplitude of fluctuations is fixed on large scales by the CMB measurements, a low value of $\sigma_8$ can be caused by a non-zero neutrino mass which specifically reduces power on small scales, while leaving large scale power unchanged relative to standard $\Lambda$CDM. The addition of these data sets yields a preferred mass of the sterile neutrino of around 0.5 eV, with ${N_{\rm {eff}}}=4$ allowed.
[*Adding SBL data —*]{}
The next question is how compatible the cosmological and SBL data really are. When we use cosmological data with lensing and cluster data excluded we find a relatively stringent upper bound on $m_s$. This is relaxed when ${\Delta N_{\rm {eff}}}$ is low, simply because the suppression of structure formation scales with the total density in neutrinos at late times, i.e. as ${\Delta N_{\rm {eff}}}^{3/4} m_s$. However, since CMB data prefers a high ${\Delta N_{\rm {eff}}}$ this possibility is disfavoured, and the conclusion is that CMB and LSS data requires the sterile mass to be low. Again, the bound can easily be relaxed in models where additional dark radiation is provided by other particles, but in the simple model discussed here it is disfavoured. When we add lensing and cluster data the sterile mass comes out around 0.5 eV and with fully thermalised sterile neutrinos being allowed.
In Tab. \[tab:sblresults\] we report the marginalized mean values and the $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ errors on the cosmological parameters and on the neutrino parameters in the different combinations of data sets illustrated above, when SBL data are included.
As we stated before, it is easy to see that the anti-correlation between $m_s$ and ${\Delta N_{\rm {eff}}}$, together with the strong bounds on $m_s$ from the SBL data, leaves a very small space to a fully thermalized sterile neutrino. When adding SBL data, the constraints on $m_s$ come only by the oscillation experiments, with very small dependence on the cosmological data. On the other hand, cosmology provides a strong limit on ${\Delta N_{\rm {eff}}}$ that is compatible with 0 within $2\sigma$ in all the cases that do not include CFHTLenS and PSZ data. When LSS data are included, the value of ${\Delta N_{\rm {eff}}}$ is more strongly constrained. Only when CFHTLenS and PSZ are included there is a little evidence that ${\Delta N_{\rm {eff}}}>0$ at more than $1\sigma$: even in this case, however, a fully thermalized sterile neutrino with ${\Delta N_{\rm {eff}}}=1$ is strongly disfavoured.
This tension between cosmology and SBL data, yet studied in past works (see e.g. [@Mirizzi:2013kva]) is not alleviated in the physical case (i.e. by allowing ${\Delta N_{\rm {eff}}}$ to vary in the range $[0,1]$): the mass values preferred by SBL data lay above the hot dark matter limit and therefore they are disfavoured by cosmology, even if there is only one partially (or fully ${\Delta N_{\rm {eff}}}=1$) thermalized sterile neutrino. Quantitatively speaking, a model with one fully thermalized sterile neutrino and with a mass fixed at the SBL best-fit ($m_s=1.27$ eV) compared to the cosmological best-fit model has a $\Delta \chi^2 \simeq 18$ if Planck+WP+high-$\ell$ data are considered. If also BICEP2 data are considered, the value lowers to $\Delta \chi^2 \simeq 12$: this is possible since the inclusion of the BICEP2 data strengthens the limit on the mass, but it weakens the limit on ${\Delta N_{\rm {eff}}}$.
If a partial thermalization is taken into account and ${\Delta N_{\rm {eff}}}$ is free to vary moving towards lower values, the $\Delta\chi^2$ with respect to the best fit is lower. For a $m_s=1.27$ eV neutrino with small ${\Delta N_{\rm {eff}}}$ we have $\Delta \chi^2 \simeq 1$ from Planck+WP+high-$\ell$ and $\Delta \chi^2 \simeq 6$ from Planck+WP+high-$\ell$+BICEP2.
We can conclude that a fully thermalized sterile neutrino with a mass fixed at the SBL best-fit is less disfavoured by cosmology if the BICEP2 data are included. On the contrary if the sterile neutrino is not fully thermalized the inclusion of BICEP2 data worsens the consistency of this hypothesis with cosmology.
Discussion
==========
We have performed an analysis of light sterile neutrinos in the context of both cosmology and short baseline neutrino oscillation experiments. Previous analyses have shown that while SBL data points to the existence of a mainly sterile mass state around 1 eV, this is not compatible with cosmological data unless the additional state is somehow prevented from being fully thermalised in the early Universe [@Archidiacono:2012ri].
The inclusion of new data from the BICEP-2 experiment favours a higher dark radiation content, but this actually tightens the cosmological bound on the mass of the sterile neutrino because $m_s$ and ${\Delta N_{\rm {eff}}}$ are highly anti-correlated. Cosmological data from the CFHTLenS survey and the Planck SZ cluster counts actually favour a non-zero mass of the sterile neutrino because it alleviates the tension between the value of $\sigma_8$ inferred from the CMB measurements and the minimal $\Lambda$CDM model and the lower value indicated by data CFHTLenS and PSZ data. The inclusion of these two data sets points to a sterile mass around 0.5 eV, but with relatively low ${\Delta N_{\rm {eff}}}$. Provided that ${\Delta N_{\rm {eff}}}$ is low the allowed mass stretches to higher values.
The SBL data strongly constrains $m_s$, but not ${\Delta N_{\rm {eff}}}$, and indicates a mass not much lower than 1 eV. At the same time the mixing angle is large enough that the additional state is almost fully thermalised. However, this scenario is highly disfavoured by cosmological data (with a $\Delta \chi^2>10$) which for a mass of 1 eV requires ${\Delta N_{\rm {eff}}}$ to be quite low. Indeed a model with a mass of 1 eV and a low ${\Delta N_{\rm {eff}}}$ is compatible with cosmology within roughly $2\sigma$ confidence level. The conclusion is that light sterile neutrinos as indicated by SBL data are close to being ruled out by cosmological data unless they are somehow prevented from thermalising in the early Universe. Recently, a number of papers on how to resolve this apparent conflict have appeared.
A possible way out of this problem is that sterile neutrinos have new interactions which induce a non-standard matter potential and block thermalisation [@Hannestad:2013ana; @Dasgupta:2013zpn; @Bringmann:2013vra; @Ko:2014bka; @Mirizzi:2012we; @Saviano:2013ktj]. This model can easily have 1 eV sterile neutrinos and an ${N_{\rm {eff}}}$ not much beyond 3 and thus be compatible with all existing data. While this scenario certainly works well and can possibly also explain some of the astrophysical anomalies related to cold dark matter, there are without a doubt other possible ways of making eV sterile neutrino compatible with both SBL and cosmological data. For example some models with low temperature reheating or non-standard expansion rate of the universe at the MeV scale where the new state is thermalised can also prevent thermalisation [@Rehagen:2014vna]. Thus, eV mass sterile neutrinos remain an intriguing possibility which potentially has wide ranging implications for cosmology.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
MA acknowledges European ITN project Invisibles (FP7-PEOPLE-2011-ITN, PITN-GA-2011-289442-INVISIBLES). This work is supported by the research grant [*Theoretical Astroparticle Physics*]{} number 2012CPPYP7 under the program PRIN 2012 funded by the Ministero dell’Istruzione, Università e della Ricerca (MIUR), by the research grant [*TAsP (Theoretical Astroparticle Physics)*]{} funded by the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN), by the [*Strategic Research Grant: Origin and Detection of Galactic and Extragalactic Cosmic Rays*]{} funded by Torino University and Compagnia di San Paolo, by the Spanish MINECO under grants FPA2011-22975 and MULTIDARK CSD2009-00064 (Consolider-Ingenio 2010 Programme).
[10]{}
P. A. R. Ade [*et al.*]{} \[Planck Collaboration\], arXiv:1303.5076 \[astro-ph.CO\]. S. Hannestad, I. Tamborra and T. Tram, JCAP [**1207**]{} (2012) 025 \[arXiv:1204.5861 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. A. Melchiorri, O. Mena, S. Palomares-Ruiz, S. Pascoli, A. Slosar and M. Sorel, JCAP [**0901**]{} (2009) 036 \[arXiv:0810.5133 \[hep-ph\]\]. J. Hamann, S. Hannestad, G. G. Raffelt and Y. Y. Y. Wong, JCAP [**1109**]{} (2011) 034 \[arXiv:1108.4136 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. S. Hannestad, R. S. Hansen and T. Tram, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**112**]{} (2014) 031802 \[arXiv:1310.5926 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. B. Dasgupta and J. Kopp, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**112**]{} (2014) 031803 \[arXiv:1310.6337 \[hep-ph\]\]. T. Bringmann, J. Hasenkamp and J. Kersten, arXiv:1312.4947 \[hep-ph\]. A. Mirizzi, N. Saviano, G. Miele and P. D. Serpico, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{} (2012) 053009 \[arXiv:1206.1046 \[hep-ph\]\]. N. Saviano, A. Mirizzi, O. Pisanti, P. D. Serpico, G. Mangano and G. Miele, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{} (2013) 073006 \[arXiv:1302.1200 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. P. Ko and Y. Tang, arXiv:1404.0236 \[hep-ph\].
T. Rehagen and G. B. Gelmini, arXiv:1402.0607 \[hep-ph\].
P. A. R. Ade [*et al.*]{} \[BICEP2 Collaboration\], arXiv:1403.3985 \[astro-ph.CO\]. A. Lewis and S. Bridle, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 103511 (2002) \[astro-ph/0205436\]. A. Lewis, A. Challinor and A. Lasenby, Astrophys. J. [**538**]{}, 473 (2000) \[astro-ph/9911177\]. P. A. R. Ade [*et al.*]{} \[Planck Collaboration\], arXiv:1303.5075 \[astro-ph.CO\]. J. Dunkley, E. Calabrese, J. Sievers, G. E. Addison, N. Battaglia, E. S. Battistelli, J. R. Bond and S. Das [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1301.0776 \[astro-ph.CO\]. K. T. Story, C. L. Reichardt, Z. Hou, R. Keisler, K. A. Aird, B. A. Benson, L. E. Bleem and J. E. Carlstrom [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys. J. [**779**]{}, 86 (2013) \[arXiv:1210.7231 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
D. Parkinson, S. Riemer-Sorensen, C. Blake, G. B. Poole, T. M. Davis, S. Brough, M. Colless and C. Contreras [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 103518 (2012) \[arXiv:1210.2130 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. A. G. Riess, L. Macri, S. Casertano, H. Lampeitl, H. C. Ferguson, A. V. Filippenko, S. W. Jha and W. Li [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys. J. [**730**]{}, 119 (2011) \[Erratum-ibid. [**732**]{}, 129 (2011)\] \[arXiv:1103.2976 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. M. Kilbinger, L. Fu, C. Heymans, F. Simpson, J. Benjamin, T. Erben, J. Harnois-Deraps and H. Hoekstra [*et al.*]{}, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society [**430**]{} (2013) 3, 2200 \[arXiv:1212.3338 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. C. Heymans, E. Grocutt, A. Heavens, M. Kilbinger, T. D. Kitching, F. Simpson, J. Benjamin and T. Erben [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1303.1808 \[astro-ph.CO\]. P. A. R. Ade [*et al.*]{} \[Planck Collaboration\], arXiv:1303.5080 \[astro-ph.CO\].
S. M. Bilenky, C. Giunti, W. Grimus, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. **43**, 1 (1999), hep-ph/9812360.
M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, Phys. Rept. **460**, 1 (2008), arXiv:0704.1800 \[hep-ph\].
K. N. Abazajian *et al.*, arXiv:1204.5379 \[hep-ph\].
M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, J. Salvado, T. Schwetz, JHEP **12**, 123 (2012), arXiv:1209.3023 \[hep-ph\].
G. Bellini, L. Ludhova, G. Ranucci, F.L. Villante, Advances in High Energy Physics , 191960 (191960), arXiv:1310.7858 \[hep-ph\].
NuFIT, 2013, `http://www.nu-fit.org/`.
F. Capozzi *et al.*, arXiv:1312.2878 \[hep-ph\].
A. Aguilar *et al.* (LSND), Phys. Rev. **D64**, 112007 (2001), hep-ex/0104049.
J. N. Abdurashitov *et al.* (SAGE), Phys. Rev. **C73**, 045805 (2006), nucl-ex/0512041.
M. Laveder, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. **168**, 344 (2007).
C. Giunti, M. Laveder, Mod. Phys. Lett. **A22**, 2499 (2007), hep-ph/0610352.
Mario A. Acero, C. Giunti, M. Laveder, Phys. Rev. **D78**, 073009 (2008), arXiv:0711.4222 \[hep-ph\].
C. Giunti, M. Laveder, Phys.Rev. **C83**, 065504 (2011), arXiv:1006.3244 \[hep-ph\].
Th. A. Mueller *et al.*, Phys. Rev. **C83**, 054615 (2011), arXiv:1101.2663 \[hep-ex\].
G. Mention *et al.*, Phys. Rev. **D83**, 073006 (2011), arXiv:1101.2755 \[hep-ex\].
P. Huber, Phys. Rev. **C84**, 024617 (2011), arXiv:1106.0687 \[hep-ph\].
J. Kopp, M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, Phys. Rev. Lett. **107**, 091801 (2011), arXiv:1103.4570 \[hep-ph\].
C. Giunti, M. Laveder, Phys.Rev. **D84**, 073008 (2011), arXiv:1107.1452 \[hep-ph\].
C. Giunti, M. Laveder, Phys.Rev. **D84**, 093006 (2011), arXiv:1109.4033 \[hep-ph\].
C. Giunti, M. Laveder, Phys. Lett. **B706**, 200 (2011), arXiv:1111.1069 \[hep-ph\].
J.M. Conrad, C.M. Ignarra, G. Karagiorgi, M.H. Shaevitz, J. Spitz, Adv.High Energy Phys. **2013**, 163897 (2013), arXiv:1207.4765 \[hep-ex\].
J. Kopp, Pedro A. N. Machado, M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, JHEP **1305**, 050 (2013), arXiv:1303.3011 \[hep-ph\].
C. Giunti, M. Laveder, Y.F. Li, H.W. Long, Phys.Rev. **D88**, 073008 (2013), arXiv:1308.5288 \[hep-ph\].
M. Archidiacono, N. Fornengo, C. Giunti, A. Melchiorri, Phys. Rev. **D86**, 065028 (2012), arXiv:1207.6515 \[astro-ph\].
M. Archidiacono, N. Fornengo, C. Giunti, S. Hannestad, A. Melchiorri, Phys.Rev. **D87**, 125034 (2013), arXiv:1302.6720 \[astro-ph\].
S. Gariazzo, C. Giunti, M. Laveder, JHEP **1311**, 211 (2013), arXiv:1309.3192 \[hep-ph\].
C. Dvorkin, M. Wyman, D. H. Rudd and W. Hu, arXiv:1403.8049 \[astro-ph.CO\]. E. Giusarma, E. Di Valentino, M. Lattanzi, A. Melchiorri and O. Mena, arXiv:1403.4852 \[astro-ph.CO\]. J. -F. Zhang, Y. -H. Li and X. Zhang, arXiv:1403.7028 \[astro-ph.CO\]. A. Mirizzi, G. Mangano, N. Saviano, E. Borriello, C. Giunti, G. Miele and O. Pisanti, Phys. Lett. B [**726**]{} (2013) 8 \[arXiv:1303.5368 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
[^1]: Notice that here the notation is different: in Ref. [@Dvorkin:2014lea] $m_s$ indicates the effective mass of the sterile neutrino, while our $m_s$ is the physical mass. A direct comparison of the numerical results is not possible due to volume effects in Bayesian marginalization. Here we just want to emphasize that, concerning the effect due to the inclusion of BICEP-2 data, both our results and those of Ref. [@Dvorkin:2014lea] point towards tighter constraints on the additional massive component.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this work we offer a significant improvement on the previous smallest spiking neural P systems and solve the problem of finding the smallest possible extended spiking neural P system. Păun and Păun [@Paun2007] gave a universal spiking neural P system with 84 neurons and another that has extended rules with 49 neurons. Subsequently, Zhang et al. [@Zhang2008B] reduced the number of neurons used to give universality to 67 for spiking neural P systems and to 41 for the extended model. Here we give a small universal spiking neural P system that has only 17 neurons and another that has extended rules with 5 neurons. All of the above mentioned spiking neural P systems suffer from an exponential slow down when simulating Turing machines. Using a more relaxed encoding technique we get a universal spiking neural P system that has extended rules with only 4 neurons. This latter spiking neural P system simulates 2-counter machines in linear time and thus suffer from a double exponential time overhead when simulating Turing machines. We show that extended spiking neural P systems with 3 neurons are simulated by log-space bounded Turing machines, and so there exists no such universal system with 3 neurons. It immediately follows that our 4-neuron system is the smallest possible extended spiking neural P system that is universal. Finally, we show that if we generalise the output technique we can give a universal spiking neural P system with extended rules that has only 3 neurons. This system is also the smallest of its kind as a universal spiking neural P system with extended rules and generalised output is not possible with 2 neurons.'
address: 'Boole Centre for Research in Informatics, University College Cork, Ireland. '
author:
- Turlough Neary
bibliography:
- '2010\_Neary\_arXiv\_SNP1.bib'
title: 'A boundary between universality and non-universality in spiking neural P systems'
---
spiking neural P systems ,small universal spiking neural P systems ,computational complexity ,strong universality ,weak universality
Introduction
============
Spiking neural P systems (SN P systems) [@Ionescu2006] are quite a new computational model that are a synergy inspired by P systems and spiking neural networks. It has been shown that these systems are computationally universal [@Ionescu2006]. Recently, Păun and Păun [@Paun2007] gave two small universal SN P systems; They give an SN P system with 84 neurons and an extended SN P system with 49 neurons (that uses rules without delay). Păun and Păun conjectured that it is not possible to give a significant decrease in the number of neurons of their two universal systems. Zhang et al. [@Zhang2008B] offered such a significant decrease in the number of neurons used to give such small universal systems. They give a universal SN P system with 67 neurons and another, which has extended rules (without delay), with 41 neurons. Here we give a small universal SN P system that has only 17 neurons and another, which has extended rules (without delay), with 5 neurons. Using a more relaxed encoding we get a universal SN P system that has extended rules (without delay), with 4 neurons. Table \[tab:Small\_SNP\] gives the smallest universal SN P systems and their respective simulation time and space overheads. Note from Table \[tab:Small\_SNP\] that, in addition to its small size, our 17-neuron system uses rules without delay. The other small universal SN P systems with standard rules [@Paun2007; @Zhang2008B] do not have this restriction.
In this work we also show that extended SN P systems with 3 neurons and generalised input are simulated by log-space bounded Turing machines. As a result, it is clear that there exists no such universal system with 3 neurons, and thus our 4-neuron system is the smallest possible universal extended SN P system. Following this, we show that if we generalise the output technique we can give a universal SN P system with extended rules that has only 3 neurons. In addition, we show that a universal SN P system with extended rules and generalised output is not possible with 2 neurons, and thus our 3-neuron systems is the smallest of its kind.
----------- ------------------------ -------------- -------------- ---------------------------------------
number of simulation type exhaustive author
neurons time/space of rules use of rules
84 exponential standard no P[ă]{}un and P[ă]{}un [@Paun2007]
67 exponential standard no Zhang et al. [@Zhang2008B]
49 exponential extended no P[ă]{}un and P[ă]{}un [@Paun2007]
41 exponential extended no Zhang et al. [@Zhang2008B]
12 double-exponential extended no Neary [@Neary2008B]
18 exponential extended no Neary [@Neary2008C; @Neary2008B]\*
125 exponential/ extended yes Zhang et al. [@Zhang2008A]
double-exponential
18 polynomial/exponential extended yes Neary [@Neary2008A]
10 linear/exponential extended yes Neary [@Neary]
**17** **exponential** **standard** **no** **Section \[sec:small SNP systems\]**
**5** **exponential** **extended** **no** **Section \[sec:small SNP systems\]**
**4** **double-exponential** **extended** **no** **Section \[sec:small SNP systems\]**
**3** **double-exponential** **extended** **no** **Section \[sec:Lower bounds\]**
----------- ------------------------ -------------- -------------- ---------------------------------------
: Small universal SN P systems. The “simulation time” column gives the overheads used by each system when simulating a standard single tape Turing machine. indicates that there is a restriction of the rules as delay is not used and indicates that a more generalised output technique is used. \*The 18 neuron system is not explicitly given in [@Neary2008B]; it is however mentioned at the end of the paper and is easily derived from the other system presented in [@Neary2008B]. Also, its operation and its graph were presented in [@Neary2008C].[]{data-label="tab:Small_SNP"}
From a previous result [@Neary2008A] it is known that there exists no universal SN P system that simulates Turing machines in less the exponential time and space. It is a relatively straightforward matter to generalise this result to show that extended SN P systems suffer from the same inefficiencies. It immediately follows that the universal systems we present here and those found in [@Paun2007; @Zhang2008B] have exponential time and space requirements. However, it is possible to give a time efficient SN P system when we allow exhaustive use of rules. A universal extended SN P system with exhaustive use of rules has been given that simulates Turing machines in linear time [@Neary]. Furthermore, this system has only 10 neurons. SN P systems with exhaustive use of rules were originally proved computationally universal by Ionescu et al. [@Ionescu2007B]. However, the technique used to prove universality suffered from an exponential time overhead.
Using different forms of SN P systems, a number of time efficient (polynomial or constant time) solutions to NP-hard problems have been given [@Chen2006A; @Leporati2007A; @Leporati2007B]. All of these solutions to NP-hard problems rely on families of SN P systems. Specifically, the size of the problem instance determines the number of neurons in the SN P system that solves that particular instance. This is similar to solving problems with circuits families where each input size has a specific circuit that solves it. Ionescu and Sburlan [@Ionescu2007A] have shown that SN P systems simulate circuits in linear time.
In Section \[sec:small SNP systems\] we give a definition for SN P systems, explain their operation and give other relevant technical details. In Section \[sec:counter machines\] we give a definition for counter machines and we also discuss some notions of universality. Following this, in Section \[sec:small SNP systems\] we give our small universal SN P systems and show how their size can be reduce if we use a more relaxed encoding. In Section \[sec:Lower bounds\] we give our proof showing that extended SN P systems with 3 neurons and generalised input are simulated by log-space bounded Turing machines. Section \[sec:Lower bounds\] also contains our universal 3-neuron system with generalised output. We end the paper with some discussion and conclusions.
SN P systems {#sec:Spiking neural P-systems}
============
\[def:Spiking neural P-systems\]\
A spiking neural P system (SN P system) is a tuple $\Pi=(O,\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\cdots,\sigma_m,syn,in,out)$, where:
1. $O=\{s\}$ is the unary alphabet ($s$ is known as a spike),
2. $\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\cdots,\sigma_m$ are neurons, of the form $\sigma_i=(n_i,R_i),1\leqslant i\leqslant m$, where:
1. $n_i\geqslant 0$ is the initial number of spikes contained in $\sigma_i$,
2. $R_i$ is a finite set of rules of the following two forms:
1. $E/s^b\rightarrow s;d$, where $E$ is a regular expression over $s$, $b\geqslant 1$ and $d\geqslant 0$,
2. $s^e\rightarrow\lambda$, where $\lambda$ is the empty word, $e\geqslant 1$, and for all $E/s^b\rightarrow s;d$ from $R_i$ $s^e\notin L(E)$ where $L(E)$ is the language defined by $E$,
3. $syn\subseteq \{1,2,\cdots,m\}\times\{1,2,\cdots,m\}$ is the set of synapses between neurons, where $i\neq j$ for all $(i,j)\in syn$,
4. $in,out\in\{\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\cdots,\sigma_m\}$ are the input and output neurons, respectively.
A firing rule $r=E/s^b\rightarrow s;d$ is applicable in a neuron $\sigma_i$ if there are $j\geqslant b$ spikes in $\sigma_i$ and $s^j\in L(E)$ where $L(E)$ is the set of words defined by the regular expression $E$. If, at time $t$, rule $r$ is executed then $b$ spikes are removed from the neuron, and at time $t+d$ the neuron fires. When a neuron $\sigma_i$ fires a spike is sent to each neuron $\sigma_j$ for every synapse $(i,j)$ in $\Pi$. Also, the neuron $\sigma_i$ remains closed and does not receive spikes until time $t+d$ and no other rule may execute in $\sigma_i$ until time $t+d+1$. A forgeting rule $r'=s^e\rightarrow\lambda$ is applicable in a neuron $\sigma_i$ if there are exactly $e$ spikes in $\sigma_i$. If $r'$ is executed then $e$ spikes are removed from the neuron. At each timestep $t$ a rule must be applied in each neuron if there is one or more applicable rules at time $t$. Thus, while the application of rules in each individual neuron is sequential the neurons operate in parallel with each other.
Note from 2b(i) of Definition \[def:Spiking neural P-systems\] that there may be two rules of the form $E/s^{b}\rightarrow s;d$, that are applicable in a single neuron at a given time. If this is the case then the next rule to execute is chosen non-deterministically.
An *extended* SN P system [@Paun2007] has more general rules of the form $E/s^b\rightarrow s^p;d$, where $b\geqslant p\geqslant 1$. Thus, a synapse in an SN P system with extended rules may transmit more than one spike in a single timestep. The SN P systems we present in this work use rules without delay, and thus in the sequel we write rules as $E/s^b\rightarrow s^p$. Also, if in a rule $E=s^b$ then we write the rule as $s^b\rightarrow s^p$.
In the same manner as in [@Paun2007], spikes are introduced into the system from the environment by reading in a binary sequence (or word) $w\in\{0,1\}$ via the input neuron $\sigma_1$. The sequence $w$ is read from left to right one symbol at each timestep and a spike enters the input neuron on a given timestep iff the read symbol is 1. The output of an SN P system $\Pi$ is the time between the first and second firing rule applied in the output neuron and is given by the value $\Pi(w)\in\Nset$.
A configuration $c$ of an SN P system consists of a word $w$ and a sequence of natural numbers $(r_1,r_2,\ldots ,r_m)$ where $r_i$ is the number of spikes in $\sigma_i$ and $w$ represents the remaining input yet to be read into the system. A computation step $c_j\vdash c_{j+1}$ is as follows: each number $r_i$ is updated depending on the number of spikes neuron $\sigma_i$ uses up and receives during the synchronous application of all applicable rules in configuration $c_j$. In addition, if $w\neq\lambda$ then the leftmost symbol of $w$ is removed. A SN P system computation is a finite sequence of configurations $c_1,c_2,\ldots,c_t$ that ends in a terminal configuration $c_t$ where for all $j<t$, $c_j\vdash c_{j+1}$. A *terminal configuration* is a configuration where the input sequence has finished being read in via the input neuron (i.e. $w=\lambda$ the empty word) and either there is no applicable rule in any of the neurons or the output neuron has spiked exactly $v$ times (where $v$ is a constant independent of the input).
Let $\phi_{x}$ be the $x^{th}$ $n$-ary partial recursive function in a Gödel enumeration of all $n$-ary partial recursive functions. The natural number value $\phi_{x}(y_1,y_2,\ldots y_n)$ is the result given by $\phi_{x}$ on input $(y_1,y_2,\ldots y_n)$.
\[Universal SN P system\]\[def:Universal spiking neural P system\] A SN P system $\Pi$ is universal if there are recursive functions $g$ and $f$ such that for all $x,y\in\Nset$ we have $\phi_{x}(y_1,y_2,\ldots y_n)=f({\Pi}(g(x,y_1,y_2,\ldots y_n)))$.
In the next section we give some further discussion on the subject of definitions of universality.
Counter machines {#sec:counter machines}
================
\[def:counter machine\] A counter machine is a tuple $C=(z,R,c_{m},Q,q_1,q_h)$, where $z$ gives the number of counters, $R$ is the set of input counters, $c_{m}$ is the output counter, $Q=\{q_1,q_2,\cdots,q_h\}$ is the set of instructions, and $q_1,q_h\in Q$ are the initial and halt instructions, respectively.
Each counter $c_j$ stores a natural number value $y\geqslant0$. Each instruction $q_i$ is of one of the following two forms $q_i:INC(j),q_{l}$ or $q_i:DEC(j),q_{l},q_k$ and is executed as follows:
- $q_i:INC(j),q_{l}$ increment the value $y$ stored in counter $c_j$ by 1 and move to instruction $q_{l}$.
- $q_i:DEC(j),q_{l},q_k$ if the value $y$ stored in counter $c_j$ is greater than $0$ then decrement this value by 1 and move to instruction $q_{l}$, otherwise if $y=0$ move to instruction $q_{k}$.
At the beginning of a computation the first instruction executed is $q_1$. The input to the counter machine is initially stored in the input counters. If the counter machine’s control enters instruction $q_h$, then the computation halts at that timestep. The result of the computation is the value $y$ stored in the output counter $c_m$ when the computation halts.
We now consider some different notions of universality. Korec [@Korec1996] gives universality definitions that describe some counter machines as weakly universal and other counter machines as strongly universal.
\[Korec [@Korec1996]\]\[def:Korec strong universality\] A register machine $M$ will be called strongly universal if there is a recursive function $g$ such that for all $x,y\in\Nset$ we have $\phi_{x}(y)=\Phi_{M}^2(g(x),y)$.
Here $\Phi_M^2(g(x),y)$ is the value stored in the output counter at the end of a computation when $M$ is started with the values $g(x)$ and $y$ in its input counters. Korec’s definition insists that the value $y$ should not be changed before passing it as input to $M$. However, if we consider computing an $n$-arry function with a Korec-strong universal counter machine then it is clear that $n$ arguments must be encoded as a single input $y$. Many Korec-strong universal counter machines would not satisfy a definition where the function $\phi_{x}$ in Definition \[def:Korec strong universality\] is replaced with an $n$-arry function with $n>1$. For example, let us give a new definition where we replace the equation “$\phi_{x}(y)=\Phi_M^2(g(x),y)$” with the equation “$\phi_{x}^n(y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_n)=\Phi_M^{n+1}(g(x),y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_n)$” in Definition \[def:Korec strong universality\]. Note that for any counter machine $M$ with $r$ counters, if $r\leqslant n$ then $M$ does not satisfy this new definition. It could be considered that Korec’s notion of strong universality is somewhat arbitrary for the following reason: Korec’s definition will admit machines that require $n$-arry input $(y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_n)$ to be encoded as the single input $y$ when simulating an $n$-arry function, but his definition will not admit a machine that applies an encoding function to $y$ (e.g. $y^2$ is not permitted). Perhaps when one uses this notion of universality it would be more appropriate to refer to it as strongly universal for unary partial recursive functions instead of simply strongly universal.
Korec [@Korec1996] also gives a number of other definitions of universality. If the equation $\phi_{x}(y)=\Phi_M^2(g(x),y)$ in Definition \[def:Korec strong universality\] above is replaced with any one of the equations $\phi_{x}(y)=\Phi_M^1(g_2(x,y))$, $\phi_{x}(y)=f(\Phi_M^2(g(x),y))$ or $\phi_{x}(y)=f(\Phi_M^1(g_2(x,y)))$ then the counter machine $M$ is weakly universal. Korec gives another definition where the equation $\phi_{x}(y)=\Phi_M^2(g(x),y)$ in Definition \[def:Korec strong universality\] is replaced with the equation $\phi_{x}(y)=f(\Phi_M^2(g(x),h(y)))$. However, he does not include this definition in his list of weakly universal machines even though the equation $\phi_{x}(y)=f(\Phi_M^2(g(x),h(y)))$ allows for a more relaxed encoding than the equation $\phi_{x}(y)=f(\Phi_M^2(g(x),y))$ and thus gives a weaker form of universality.
For each number $m>2$ there exists universal $m$-counter machines that allow $\phi_x^n$ and its input $(y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_n)$ to be encoded separately (e.g. via $g(x)$ and $h^n(y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_n)$). For universal 2-counter machines all of the current algorithms encode the function $\phi_x^n$ and its input $(y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_n)$ together as a single input (e.g. via $g^{n+1}(x,y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_n)$). Using such encodings it is only possible to give universal 2-counter machines that Korec would class as weakly universal. Some other limitations of 2-counter machines were shown independently by Schroeppel [@Schroeppel1972] and Barzdin [@Barzdin1963]. In both cases the authors are examining unary functions that are uncomputable for 2-counter machines when the input value to the counter machine must equal the input to the function. For example Schroeppel shows that given $n$ as input a 2-counter machine cannot compute $2^n$. It is interesting to note that one can give a Korec-strong universal counter machine that is as time/space inefficient as a Korec-weak universal 2-counter machine. Korec’s definition of strong universality deals with input and output only and is not concerned with the (time/space) efficiency of the computation.
In earlier work [@Paun2007], Korec’s notion of strong universality was adopted for SN P systems[^1] as follows: A spiking neural P system $\Pi$ is strongly universal if $\Pi(10^{y-1}10^{x-1}1)=\phi_x(y)$ for all $x$ and $y$ (here if $\phi_x(y)$ is undefined so to is $\Pi(10^{y-1}10^{x-1}1)$). As with the SN P systems given in [@Paun2007; @Zhang2008B], the systems we give in Theorems \[thm:universal extended SNP systems with 5 neurons\] and \[thm:universal SNP systems with 17 neuron\] satisfy the notion of strong universality adopted from Korec in [@Paun2007]. Analogously, our system in Theorem \[thm:universal Extended SNP system with 4 neuron\] could be compared to what Korec refers to as weak universality. However, as we noted in our analysis above, it could be considered that Korec’s notion of strong universality is somewhat arbitrary and we also pointed out some inconsistency in his notion of weak universality. Hence, in this work we rely on time/space complexity analysis to compare the encodings used by small SN P system (see Table \[tab:Small\_SNP\]).
It is well known that counter machines require an exponential time overhead to simulate Turing machines [@Fischer1968]. Counter machines with only 2 counters are universal [@Minsky1967], however, they simulate Turing machines with a double exponential time overhead. In the sequel we give some universal SN P systems that simulate 3-counter machines and others that simulate 2-counter machines. The reason for this is that when using our algorithm there is a trade-off between the size and the time efficiency of the system. This trade-off is dependant on whither we choose to simulate 3-counter machines or 2-counter machines. When simulating Turing machines, 3-counter machines suffer from an exponential time overhead and 2-counter machines suffer from a double-exponential time overhead, and thus the simulation of 3-counter machines is preferable when considering the time efficiency of the system. If we are considering the size of our system then 2-counter machines have an advantage over 3-counter machines as our algorithms require a constant number of neurons to simulate each counter.
Small universal SN P systems {#sec:small SNP systems}
============================
We begin this section by giving our two extended universal systems $\Pi_{C_3}$ and $\Pi_{C_2}$, and following this we give our standard system $\Pi'_{C_3}$. We prove the universality of $\Pi_{C_3}$ and $\Pi'_{C_3}$ by showing that they each simulate a universal 3-counter machine. From $\Pi_{C_3}$ we obtain the system $\Pi'_{C_2}$ which simulates a universal 2-counter machine.
\[thm:universal extended SNP systems with 5 neurons\] Let $C_3$ be a universal counter machine with 3 counters that completes it computation in time $t$ to give the output value $x_o$ when given the pair of input values ($x_1$, $x_2$). Then there is a universal extended SN P system $\Pi_{C_3}$ that simulates the computation of $C_3$ in time $O(t+x_1+x_2+x_o)$ and has only 5 neurons.
=\[draw=none,node distance=1cm\] =\[ellipse,draw=black!75, node distance=1.2cm\] =\[ellipse,draw=black!75, node distance=2.4cm\] =\[ellipse,draw=black!75, node distance=1.6cm\] =\[ellipse,draw=black!75, node distance=.2cm\] =\[draw=none,node distance=1cm\] =\[draw=none,node distance=.2cm\]
(sigma3)\[\] [counter $c_2$]{}; (sigma3)+(-.7,-.44) node [$\sigma_3$]{}; (sigma5)\[below of=sigma3\] [$\quad^{ }$]{}; (sigma5)+(0,0) node [$\sigma_{5}$]{}; (sigma2)\[left of=sigma3\] [counter $c_1$]{}; (sigma2)+(-1.4,0) node [$\sigma_2$]{}; (sigma4)\[right of=sigma3\] [counter $c_3$]{}; (sigma4)+(1.4,0) node [$\sigma_4$]{}; (dummy1)\[above of=sigma3\] ; (sigma1)\[above of=dummy1\] [$\quad^{ }$]{}; (sigma1)+(0,0) node [$\sigma_{1}$]{}; (input)\[above of=sigma1\] ; (output)\[below of=sigma5\] ;
(input)edge node [input]{} (sigma1) (sigma1)edge node (sigma2) (sigma1)edge node (sigma3) (sigma1)edge node (sigma4) (sigma2)edge node (sigma1) (sigma3)edge node (sigma1) (sigma3)edge node (sigma5) (sigma4)edge node (sigma1) (sigma5)edge node [output]{} (output);
Let $C_3=(3,\{c_{1},c_{2}\},c_2,Q,q_1,q_h)$ where $Q=\{q_1,q_2,\cdots,q_h\}$. Our SN P system $\Pi_{C_3}$ is given by Figure \[fig:extended universal SNP system\] and Table \[tab:neurons of Extended SNP 3-counter\]. The algorithm given for $\Pi_{C_3}$ is deterministic.
### Encoding of a configuration of $C_3$ and reading input into $\Pi_{C_3}$
A configuration of $C_3$ is stored as spikes in the neurons of $\Pi_{C_3}$. The next instruction $q_i$ to be executed is stored in each of the neurons $\sigma_2$, $\sigma_{3}$ and $\sigma_{4}$ as $4(h+i)$ spikes. Let $x_1$, $x_2$ and $x_3$ be the values stored in counters $c_1$, $c_2$ and $c_3$, respectively. Then the values $x_1$, $x_2$ and $x_3$ are stored as $8h(x_1+1)$, $8h(x_2+1)$ and $8h(x_3+1)$ spikes in neurons $\sigma_2$, $\sigma_{3}$ and $\sigma_{4}$, respectively.
The input to $\Pi_{C_3}$ is read into the system via the input neuron $\sigma_1$ (see Figure \[fig:extended universal SNP system\]). If $C_3$ begins its computation with the values $x_1$ and $x_2$ in counters $c_1$ and $c_2$, respectively, then the binary sequence $w=10^{x_1-1}10^{x_2-1}1$ is read in via the input neuron $\sigma_1$. Thus, $\sigma_1$ receives a single spike from the environment at times $t_1$, $t_{x_1+1}$ and $t_{x_1+x_2+1}$. We explain how the system is initialised to encode an initial configuration of $C_3$ by giving the number of spikes in each neuron and the rule that is to be applied in each neuron at time $t$. Before the computation begins neuron $\sigma_1$ initially contain $8h$ spikes, $\sigma_3$ contains $2$ spikes, $\sigma_4$ contains $8h+1$ spikes and all other neurons contain no spikes. Thus, when $\sigma_1$ receives it first spike at time $t_1$ we have
[2]{} &t\_[1]{}:\
&\_1=8h+1, & s\^[8h+1]{}/s\^[8h]{}s\^[8h]{},\
&\_3=2, & s\^2/ss,\
&\_4=8h+1, & s\^[8h+1]{}/s\^[8h]{}s\^[8h-1]{}.
where on the left $\sigma_k=z$ gives the number $z$ of spikes in neuron $\sigma_k$ at time $t$ and on the right is the rule that is to be applied at time $t$, if there is an applicable rule at that time. Thus, from Figure \[fig:extended universal SNP system\], when we apply the rule $s^{8h+1}/s^{8h}\rightarrow s^{8h}$ in neuron $\sigma_1$, $s^2/s\rightarrow s$ in $\sigma_3$, and $s^{8h+1}/s^{8h}\rightarrow s^{8h-1}$ in $\sigma_4$ at time $t_1$ we get
[2]{} &t\_[2]{}:\
&\_1=8h+1, & s\^[8h+1]{}/s\^[8h]{}s\^[8h]{},\
&\_2=8h, &\
&\_3=8h+1, & s\^[8h+1]{}/s\^[8h]{}s,\
&\_4=8h+1, & s\^[8h+1]{}/s\^[8h]{}s\^[8h-1]{},\
&\_5=1, & s,\
\
&t\_[3]{}:\
&\_1=8h+1, & s\^[8h+1]{}/s\^[8h]{}s\^[8h]{},\
&\_2=16h, &\
&\_3=8h+1, & s\^[8h+1]{}/s\^[8h]{}s,\
&\_4=8h+1, & s\^[8h+1]{}/s\^[8h]{}s\^[8h-1]{},\
&\_5=1, & s.
Neuron $\sigma_1$ fires on every timestep between times $t_1$ and $t_{x_1+1}$ to send a total of $8hx_1$ spikes to $\sigma_2$ thus we get
[2]{} &t\_[x\_1+1]{}:\
&\_1=8h+2, & s\^[8h+2]{}/s\^[8h+1]{}s\^[8h+1]{},\
&\_2=8hx\_1, &\
&\_3=8h+1, & s\^[8h+1]{}/s\^[8h]{}s,\
&\_4=8h+1, & s\^[8h+1]{}/s\^[8h]{}s\^[8h-1]{},\
&\_5=1, & s,\
\
&t\_[x\_1+2]{}:\
&\_1=8h+1, & s\^[8h+1]{}/s\^[8h]{}s\^[8h]{},\
&\_2=8h(x\_1+1)+1, & (s\^[8h]{})\^s\^[8h+1]{}/s\^[8h]{}s,\
&\_3=8h+2, &\
&\_4=8h+2, & s\^[8h+2]{}/s\^[8h]{}s\^[8h-1]{},\
&\_5=1, & s,\
\
&t\_[x\_1+3]{}:\
&\_1=8h+1, & s\^[8h+1]{}/s\^[8h]{}s\^[8h]{},\
&\_2=8h(x\_1+1)+1, & (s\^[8h]{})\^s\^[8h+1]{}/s\^[8h]{}s,\
&\_3=16h+2, &\
&\_4=8h+2, & s\^[8h+2]{}/s\^[8h]{}s\^[8h-1]{}.
Neuron $\sigma_1$ fires on every timestep between times $t_{x_1+1}$ and $t_{x_1+x_2+1}$ to send a total of $8hx_2$ spikes to $\sigma_3$. Thus, when $\sigma_1$ receives the last spike from its environment we have
[2]{} &t\_[x\_1+x\_2+1]{}:\
&\_1=8h+2, & s\^[8h+2]{}/s\^[8h+1]{}s\^[8h+1]{},\
&\_2=8h(x\_1+1)+1, & (s\^[8h]{})\^s\^[8h+1]{}/s\^[8h]{}s,\
&\_3=8hx\_2+2, &\
&\_4=8h+2, & s\^[8h+2]{}/s\^[8h]{}s\^[8h-1]{}\
\
&t\_[x\_1+x\_2+2]{}:\
&\_1=8h+1, & s\^[8h+1]{}/s\^[8h]{}s\^[8h]{},\
&\_2=8h(x\_1+1)+2, & (s\^[8h]{})\^s\^[8h+2]{}/s\^[8h+2]{}s\^[2h]{},\
&\_3=8h(x\_2+1)+3, & (s\^[8h]{})\^s\^[8h+3]{}/s\^[8h+3]{}s\^[2h]{},\
&\_4=8h+3, & s\^[8h+3]{}s\^[2h]{}.
[2]{} &t\_[x\_1+x\_2+3]{}:\
&\_1=6h+1, & s\^[6h+1]{}s\^[4h+4]{},\
&\_2=8h(x\_1+1), &\
&\_3=8h(x\_2+1), &\
&\_4=8h, &\
&\_5=2h, & s\^[2h]{},\
\
&t\_[x\_1+x\_2+4]{}:\
&\_2=8h(x\_1+1)+4(h+1), &\
&\_3=8h(x\_2+1)+4(h+1), &\
&\_4=8h+4(h+1). &
At time $t_{x_1+x_2+4}$ neuron $\sigma_2$ contains $8h(x_1+1)+4(h+1)$ spikes, $\sigma_3$ contains $8h(x_2+1)+4(h+1)$ spikes and $\sigma_4$ contains $8h+4(h+1)$ spikes. Thus at time $t_{x_1+x_2+4}$ the SN P system encodes an initial configuration of $C_3$.
### $\Pi_{C_3}$ simulating $q_i:INC(1),q_{l}$
Let counters $c_1$, $c_2$, and $c_3$ have values $x_1$, $x_2$, and $x_3$, respectively. Then the simulation of $q_i:INC(1),q_{l}$ begins at time $t_j$ with $8h(x_1+1)+4(h+i)$ spikes in $\sigma_{2}$, $8h(x_2+1)+4(h+i)$ spikes in $\sigma_{3}$ and $8h(x_3+1)+4(h+i)$ spikes in $\sigma_{4}$. Thus, at time $t_j$ we have
[2]{} &t\_[j]{}:\
&\_2=8h(x\_1+1)+4(h+i), & (s\^[8h]{})\^s\^[4(h+i)]{}/s\^[4(h+i)]{}s\^[4(h+i)]{},\
&\_3=8h(x\_2+1)+4(h+i), & (s\^[8h]{})\^s\^[4(h+i)]{}/s\^[8h+4(h+i)]{}s\^[6h]{},\
&\_4=8h(x\_3+1)+4(h+i), & (s\^[8h]{})\^s\^[4(h+i)]{}/s\^[8h+4(h+i)]{}s\^[6h]{}.
From Figure \[fig:extended universal SNP system\], when we apply the rule $(s^{8h})^{\ast}s^{4(h+i)}/s^{4(h+i)}\rightarrow s^{4(h+i)}$ in neuron $\sigma_2$ and the rule $(s^{8h})^{\ast}s^{4(h+i)}/s^{8h+4(h+i)}\rightarrow s^{6h}$ in $\sigma_{3}$ and $\sigma_{4}$ at time $t_j$ we get
[2]{} &t\_[j+1]{}:\
&\_[1]{}=16h+4i, & s\^[16h+4i]{}s\^[12h+4l]{},\
&\_2=8h(x\_1+1), &\
&\_3=8hx\_2, &\
&\_4=8hx\_3, &\
&\_[5]{}=6h, & s\^[6h]{},\
\
&t\_[j+2]{}:\
&\_2=8h(x\_1+2)+4(h+l), &\
&\_3=8h(x\_2+1)+4(h+l), &\
&\_4=8h(x\_3+1)+4(h+l), &\
At time $t_{j+2}$ the simulation of $q_i:INC(1),q_{l}$ is complete. Note that an increment on the value $x_1$ in counter $c_1$ was simulated by increasing the $8h(x_1+1)$ spikes in $\sigma_{2}$ to $8h(x_1+2)$ spikes. Note also that the encoding $4(h+l)$ of the next instruction $q_{l}$ has been established in neurons $\sigma_{2}$, $\sigma_{3}$ and $\sigma_{4}$.
### $\Pi_{C_3}$ simulating $q_i:DEC(1),q_{l},q_k$
There are two cases to consider here. Case 1: if counter $c_1$ has value $x_1>0$, then decrement counter 1 and move to instruction $q_{i+1}$. Case 2: if counter $c_1$ has value $x_1=0$, then move to instruction $q_{k}$. As with the previous example, our simulation begins at time $t_j$. Thus Case 1 ($x_1>0$) gives
[2]{} &t\_[j]{}:\
&\_2=8h(x\_1+1)+4(h+i), & (s\^[8h]{})\^s\^[16h+4(h+i)]{}/s\^[12h+4i]{}s\^[6h+4i]{},\
&\_3=8h(x\_2+1)+4(h+i), & (s\^[8h]{})\^s\^[4(h+i)]{}/s\^[4(h+i)]{}s\^[2h]{},\
&\_4=8h(x\_3+1)+4(h+i), & (s\^[8h]{})\^s\^[4(h+i)]{}/s\^[4(h+i)]{}s\^[2h]{},\
\
&t\_[j+1]{}:\
&\_[1]{}=10h+4i, & s\^[10h+4i]{}s\^[4(h+l)]{},\
&\_2=8hx\_1, &\
&\_3=8h(x\_2+1), &\
&\_4=8h(x\_3+1), &\
&\_[5]{}=2h, & s\^[2h]{},\
\
&t\_[j+2]{}:\
&\_2=8hx\_1+4(h+l), &\
&\_3=8h(x\_2+1)+4(h+l), &\
&\_4=8h(x\_3+1)+4(h+l). &
At time $t_{j+2}$ the simulation of $q_i:DEC(1),q_{l},q_k$ for Case 1 ($x_1>0$) is complete. Note that a decrement on the value $x_1$ in counter $c_1$ was simulated by decreasing the $8h(x_1+1)$ spikes in $\sigma_{2}$ to $8hx_1$ spikes. Note also that the encoding $4(h+l)$ of the next instruction $q_{l}$ has been established in neurons $\sigma_{2}$, $\sigma_{3}$ and $\sigma_{4}$. Alternatively, if we have Case 2 ($x_1=0$) then we get
[2]{} &t\_[j]{}:\
&\_2=8h+4(h+i), & s\^[8h+4(h+i)]{}/s\^[4(h+i)]{}s\^[4(h+i)]{},\
&\_3=8h(x\_2+1)+4(h+i), & (s\^[8h]{})\^s\^[4(h+i)]{}/s\^[4(h+i)]{}s\^[2h]{},\
&\_4=8h(x\_3+1)+4(h+i), & (s\^[8h]{})\^s\^[4(h+i)]{}/s\^[4(h+i)]{}s\^[2h]{},\
\
&t\_[j+1]{}:\
&\_[1]{}=8h+4i, & s\^[8h+4i]{}s\^[4(h+k)]{},\
&\_2=8h, &\
&\_3=8h(x\_2+1), &\
&\_4=8h(x\_3+1), &\
&\_[5]{}=2h, & s\^[2h]{}.
[2]{} &t\_[j+2]{}:\
&\_2=8h+4(h+k), &\
&\_3=8h(x\_2+1)+4(h+k), &\
&\_4=8h(x\_3+1)+4(h+k). &
At time $t_{j+2}$ the simulation of $q_i:DEC(1),q_l,q_k$ for Case 1 ($x_1=0$) is complete. The encoding $4(h+k)$ of the next instruction $q_{k}$ has been established in neurons $\sigma_{2}$, $\sigma_{3}$ and $\sigma_{4}$.
### Halting
The halt instruction $q_h$ is encoded as $4h+5$ spikes. Thus, if $C_3$ enters the halt instruction $q_h$ we get
[2]{} &t\_[j]{}:\
&\_2=8h(x\_1+1)+4h+5, &\
&\_3=8h(x\_o+1)+4h+5, & (s\^[8h]{})\^s\^[20h+5]{}/s\^[12h]{}s\^2,\
&\_4=8h(x\_3+1)+4h+5, &\
\
&t\_[j+1]{}:\
&\_[1]{}=2, & s\^[2]{},\
&\_2=8h(x\_1+1)+4h+5, &\
&\_3=8hx\_o+5, & (s\^[8h]{})\^s\^[16h+5]{}/s\^[8h]{}s,\
&\_4=8h(x\_3+1)+4h+5, &\
&\_[5]{}=2, & s\^[2]{}s,\
\
&t\_[j+2]{}:\
&\_[1]{}=1, & s,\
&\_2=8h(x\_1+1)+4h+5, &\
&\_3=8h(x\_o-1)+5, & (s\^[8h]{})\^s\^[16h+5]{}/s\^[8h]{}s,\
&\_4=8h(x\_3+1)+4h+5, &\
&\_[5]{}=1, & s.
The rule $(s^{8h})^{\ast}s^{16h+5}/s^{8h}\rightarrow s$ is applied a further $x_o-2$ times in $\sigma_{3}$ until we get
[2]{} &t\_[j+x\_o]{}:\
&\_[1]{}=1, & s,\
&\_2=8h(x\_1+1)+4h+5, &\
&\_3=8h+5, & s\^[8h+5]{}s\^2,\
&\_4=8h(x\_3+1)+4h+5, &\
&\_[5]{}=1, & s.
[2]{} &t\_[j+x\_o+1]{}:\
&\_[1]{}=2, & s\^[2]{},\
&\_2=8h(x\_1+1)+4h+5, &\
&\_4=8h(x\_3+1)+4h+5, &\
&\_[5]{}=2, & s\^2s.\
As usual the output is the time interval between the first and second spikes that are sent out of the output neuron. Note from above that the output neuron $\sigma_{5}$ fires for the first time at timestep $t_{j+1}$ and for the second time at timestep $t_{j+x_o+1}$. Thus, the output of $\Pi_{C_3}$ is $x_o$ the value of the output counter $c_2$ when $C_3$ enters the halt instruction $q_h$. Note that if $x_2=0$ then the rule $s^{12h+5}\rightarrow s^2$ is executed at timestep $t_{j}$, and thus only one spike will be sent out of the output neuron.
We have now shown how to simulate arbitrary instructions of the form $q_i:INC(1),q_{l}$ and ${q_i:DEC(1),q_{l},q_k}$ that operate on counter $c_1$. Instructions which operate on counters $c_2$ and $c_3$ are simulated in a similar manner. Immediately following the simulation of an instruction $\Pi_{C_3}$ is configured to simulate the next instruction. Each instruction of $C_3$ is simulated in 2 timesteps. The pair of input values ($x_1,x_2$) is read into the system in $x_1+x_2+4$ timesteps and sending the output value $x_o$ out of the system takes $x_o+1$ timesteps. Thus, if $C_3$ completes it computation in time $t$, then $\Pi_{C_3}$ simulates the computation of $C_3$ in linear time $O(t+x_1+x_2+x_o)$.
\[thm:universal Extended SNP system with 4 neuron\] Let $C_2$ be a universal counter machine with 2 counters that completes it computation in time $t$ to give the output value $x_o$ when given the input value $x_1$. Then there is a universal extended SN P system $\Pi_{C_2}$ that simulates the computation of $C_2$ in time $O(t+x_1+x_o)$ and has only 4 neurons.
Let $C_2=(2,\{c_{1}\},c_{2},Q,q_1,q_h)$ where $Q=\{q_1,q_2,\cdots,q_h\}$. The rules for the SN P system $\Pi_{C_2}$ are given by Table \[tab:neurons of Extended SNP 2-counter\] and a diagram of the system is obtained by removing neuron $\sigma_4$ from Figure \[fig:extended universal SNP system\]. If $C_2$ begins its computation with the value $x_1$ in counter $c_1$ then the binary sequence $w=10^{x_1-1}1$ is read in via the input neuron $\sigma_1$. Before the computation begins neurons $\sigma_1$, $\sigma_2$, $\sigma_3$ and $\sigma_5$ respectively contain $8h$, $8h+1$, $16h+1$ and 0 spikes. Like $\Pi_{C_3}$, $\Pi_{C_2}$ encodes the value $x$ of each counter as $8h(x+1)$ spikes and encodes each instruction $q_i$ as $4(h+i)$ spikes. The operation of $\Pi_{C_2}$ is very similar to the operation of $\Pi_{C_3}$, and thus it would be tedious and repetitive to go through another simulation here. $\Pi_{C_2}$ simulates a single instruction of $C_2$ in $2$ timesteps in a manner similar to that of $\Pi_{C_3}$. The inputting and outputting techniques, used by $\Pi_{C_2}$, also remain similar to those of $\Pi_{C_3}$, and thus the running time of $\Pi_{C_2}$ is $O(t+x_1+x_o)$.
The SN P system in Theorem \[thm:universal SNP systems with 17 neuron\] simulates a counter machine with the following restriction: if a counter is being decremented no other counter has value 0 at that timestep. Note that this does not result in a loss of generality as for each standard counter machine there is a counter machine with this restriction that simulates it in linear time without an increase in the number of counters. Let $C$ be any counter machine with $m$ counters. Then there is a counter machine $C'$ with $m$ counters that simulates $C$ in linear time, such that if $C'$ is decrementing a counter no other counter has value 0 at that timestep. Each counter in $C$ that has value $y$ is simulated by a counter in $C'$ that has value $y+1$. The instruction set of $C'$ is the same as the instruction set of $C$ with the following exception each $q_i:DEC(j),q_l,q_k$ instruction in $C$ is replaced with the instructions $(q_i:DEC(j)q'_{i},q'_{i})$, $(q'_{i}:DEC(j)q^{\star}_l,q^{\star}_{k})$, $(q^\star_{l}:INC(j),q_l)$, and $(q^{\star}_{k}:INC(j),q_k)$. The reason we need these extra instructions is that $y$ is encoded as $y+1$ and we must decrement twice if we wish to test for an encoded 0.
\[thm:universal SNP systems with 17 neuron\] Let $C_3$ be a universal counter machine with 3 counters and $h$ instructions that completes it computation in time $t$ to give the output value $x_o$ when given the input $(x_1,x_2)$. Then there is a universal SN P system $\Pi'_{C_3}$ that simulates the computation of $C_3$ in time $O(ht+x_1+x_2+x_o)$ and has only 17 neurons.
=\[draw=none,node distance=1cm\] =\[ellipse,draw=black!75, node distance=1.4cm\] =\[ellipse,draw=black!75, node distance=1.1cm\] =\[ellipse,draw=black!75, node distance=1.2cm\] =\[ellipse,draw=black!75, node distance=1.75cm\] =\[ellipse,draw=black!75, node distance=2cm\] =\[ellipse,draw=black!75, node distance=2.6cm\] =\[draw=none,node distance=1.2cm\] =\[draw=none,node distance=1cm\] =\[draw=none,node distance=1.14cm\] =\[draw=none,node distance=1.8cm\] =\[draw=none,node distance=1cm\]
(sigma2)\[\] [$\quad^{ }$]{}; (sigma2)+(0,0) node [$\sigma_2$]{}; (sigma3)\[right of=sigma2\] [$\quad^{ }$]{}; (sigma3)+(0,0) node [$\sigma_3$]{}; (sigma4)\[right of=sigma3\] [$\quad^{ }$]{}; (sigma4)+(0,0) node [$\sigma_4$]{}; (sigma5)\[right of=sigma4\] [$\quad^{ }$]{}; (sigma5)+(0,0) node [$\sigma_5$]{}; (sigma6)\[right of=sigma5\] [$\quad^{ }$]{}; (sigma6)+(0,0) node [$\sigma_6$]{}; (sigma7)\[right of=sigma6\] [$\quad^{ }$]{}; (sigma7)+(0,0) node [$\sigma_7$]{}; (dummy1)\[above right of=sigma4\] ; (dummy1a)\[above of=dummy1\] ; (sigma1)\[above of=dummy1a\] [$\quad^{ }$]{}; (sigma1)+(0,0) node [$\sigma_1$]{}; (dummy2)\[below of=dummy1\] ; (dummy3)\[below of=dummy2\] ; (sigma9)\[below of=dummy3\][counter 2]{}; (sigma9)+(-1.44,0) node [$\sigma_{9}$]{}; (dummy8)\[left of=sigma9\] ; (sigma8)\[left of=dummy8\][counter 1]{}; (sigma8)+(-1.42,0) node [$\sigma_{8}$]{}; (dummy10)\[right of=sigma9\] ; (sigma10)\[right of=dummy10\][counter 3]{}; (sigma10)+(-1.43,0) node [$\sigma_{10}$]{}; (sigma11)\[right of=sigma10\] [$\quad^{ }$]{}; (sigma11)+(0,0) node [$\sigma_{11}$]{}; (dummy12)\[right of=sigma1\] ; (dummy12a)\[below right of=dummy12\] ; (sigma12)\[right of=dummy12a\][$\quad^{ }$]{}; (sigma12)+(0,0) node [$\sigma_{12}$]{}; (sigma13)\[right of=sigma12\][$\quad^{ }$]{}; (sigma13)+(0,0) node [$\sigma_{13}$]{}; (sigma14)\[right of=sigma13\][$\quad^{ }$]{}; (sigma14)+(0,0) node [$\sigma_{14}$]{}; (sigma15)\[below of=sigma12\][$\quad^{ }$]{}; (sigma15)+(0,0) node [$\sigma_{15}$]{}; (sigma16)\[right of=sigma15\][$\quad^{ }$]{}; (sigma16)+(0,0) node [$\sigma_{16}$]{}; (sigma17)\[right of=sigma16\][$\quad^{ }$]{}; (sigma17)+(0,0) node [$\sigma_{17}$]{}; (input)\[above of=sigma1\] ; (sigma1)+(-.45,.63) node [input]{}; (output)\[below of=sigma11\] ;
(input)edge node (sigma1) (sigma1)edge node (sigma2) (sigma1)edge node (sigma3) (sigma1)edge node (sigma4) (sigma1)edge node (sigma5) (sigma1)edge node (sigma6) (sigma1)edge node (sigma7) (sigma1)edge node (sigma8) (sigma1)edge node (sigma9) (sigma1)edge node (sigma10) (sigma1)edge node (sigma12) (sigma1)edge \[bend left,in=160\]node (sigma13) (sigma1)edge \[bend left,in=160\]node (sigma14) (sigma2)edge node (sigma3) (sigma2)edge \[bend left,in=140\]node (sigma4) (sigma2)edge \[bend left,in=140\]node (sigma5) (sigma2)edge \[bend left,in=145\]node (sigma6) (sigma2)edge \[bend left,in=152\]node (sigma7) (sigma2)edge node (sigma8) (sigma2)edge node (sigma9) (sigma2)edge node (sigma10) (sigma3)edge node (sigma2) (sigma3)edge node (sigma8) (sigma3)edge node (sigma9) (sigma3)edge node (sigma10) (sigma4)edge node (sigma8) (sigma4)edge node (sigma9) (sigma4)edge node (sigma10) (sigma5)edge node (sigma8) (sigma5)edge node (sigma9) (sigma5)edge node (sigma10) (sigma6)edge node (sigma8) (sigma6)edge node (sigma9) (sigma6)edge node (sigma10) (sigma7)edge node (sigma8) (sigma7)edge node (sigma9) (sigma7)edge node (sigma10) (sigma8)edge node (sigma2) (sigma8)edge node (sigma3) (sigma8)edge node (sigma4) (sigma8)edge node (sigma5) (sigma8)edge node (sigma6) (sigma8)edge node (sigma7) (sigma9)edge node (sigma2) (sigma9)edge node (sigma3) (sigma9)edge node (sigma4) (sigma9)edge node (sigma5) (sigma9)edge node (sigma6) (sigma9)edge node (sigma7) (sigma10)edge node (sigma2) (sigma10)edge node (sigma3) (sigma10)edge node (sigma4) (sigma10)edge node (sigma5) (sigma10)edge node (sigma6) (sigma10)edge node (sigma7) (sigma10)edge node (sigma11) (sigma12)edge node (sigma15) (sigma12)edge node (sigma16) (sigma12)edge node (sigma17) (sigma13)edge node (sigma15) (sigma13)edge node (sigma16) (sigma13)edge node (sigma17) (sigma14)edge node (sigma15) (sigma14)edge node (sigma16) (sigma14)edge node (sigma17) (sigma11)edge node [output]{} (output);
Let $C_3=(3,\{c_{1},c_{2}\},c_{3},Q,q_1,q_h)$ where $Q=\{q_1,q_2,\cdots,q_h\}$. Also, without loss of generality we assume that during $C_3$’s computation if $C_3$ is decrementing a counter no other counter has value 0 at that timestep (see the paragraph before Theorem \[thm:universal SNP systems with 17 neuron\]). The SN P system $\Pi'_{C_3}$ is given by Figures \[fig:small universal SNP system I\] and \[fig:small universal SNP system II\] and Tables \[tab:neurons of SNP I\] and \[tab:neurons of SNP II\]. As a complement to the figures, Table \[tab:synapses\] may be used to identify all the synapses in $\Pi'_{C_3}$. The algorithm given for $\Pi'_{C_3}$ is deterministic.
### Encoding of a configuration of $C_3$ and reading input into $\Pi'_{C_3}$ {#sec:Encoding of a configuration of C_3 and reading in input to Pi'_(C_3)}
A configuration of $C_3$ is stored as spikes in the neurons of $\Pi'_{C_3}$. The next instruction $q_i$ to be executed is stored in each of the neurons $\sigma_{2}$, $\sigma_{3}$, $\sigma_{4}$, $\sigma_{5}$, $\sigma_{6}$, and $\sigma_{7}$ as $21(h+i)+1$ spikes. Let $x_1$, $x_2$ and $x_3$ be the values stored in counters $c_1$, $c_2$ and $c_3$, respectively. Then the value $x_1$ is stored as $6(x_1+1)$ spikes in neuron $\sigma_{8}$, $x_2$ is stored as $6(x_2+1)$ spikes in $\sigma_{9}$, and $x_3$ is stored as $6(x_3+1)$ spikes in $\sigma_{10}$.
The input to $\Pi'_{C_3}$ is read into the system via the input neuron $\sigma_1$ (see Figure \[fig:small universal SNP system I\]). If $C_3$ begins its computation with the values $x_1$ and $x_2$ in counters $c_1$ and $c_2$, respectively, then the binary sequence $w=10^{x_1-1}10^{x_2-1}1$ is read in via the input neuron $\sigma_1$. Thus, $\sigma_1$ receives a spike from the environment at times $t_1$, $t_{x_1+1}$ and $t_{x_1+x_2+1}$. We explain how the system is initialised to encode an initial configuration of $C_3$ by giving the number of spikes in each neuron and the rule that is to be applied in each neuron at time $t$. Before the computation begins neurons $\sigma_{2}$, $\sigma_{3}$, $\sigma_{4}$, $\sigma_{5}$, $\sigma_{6}$ and $\sigma_{7}$ each contain $40$ spikes, neurons $\sigma_{8}$, $\sigma_{9}$ and $\sigma_{10}$ each contain $3$ spikes, and neurons $\sigma_{12}$, $\sigma_{13}$ and $\sigma_{14}$ each contain $21h-2$ spikes. Thus, when $\sigma_1$ receives it first spike at time $t_1$ we have
[2]{} &t\_[1]{}:\
&\_1=1, & ss,\
&\_[2]{},\_[3]{},\_[4]{},\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=40,&\
&\_[8]{},\_[9]{},\_[10]{}=3, &\
&\_[12]{},\_[13]{},\_[14]{}=21h-2, & (s\^3)\^s\^4/s\^3s.
Thus, from Figures \[fig:small universal SNP system I\] and \[fig:small universal SNP system II\], when we apply the rule $s\rightarrow s$ in neuron $\sigma_1$ and the rule $(s^3)^{\ast}s^4/s^3\rightarrow s$ in $\sigma_{12}$, $\sigma_{13}$ and $\sigma_{14}$ at time $t_1$ we get
[2]{} &t\_[2]{}:\
&\_[2]{},\_[3]{},\_[4]{},\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=41, & s\^[41]{}/ss,\
&\_[8]{},\_[9]{},\_[10]{}=4, &\
&\_[12]{},\_[13]{},\_[14]{}=21h-4, &\
&\_[15]{},\_[16]{},\_[17]{}=3, &\
\
&t\_[3]{}:\
&\_[2]{},\_[3]{},\_[4]{},\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=41, & s\^[41]{}/ss,\
&\_[8]{}=10, &\
&\_[9]{},\_[10]{}=10, &(s\^[6]{})\^s\^[10]{}/s\^[6]{}s,\
&\_[11]{}=6, & s\^6,\
&\_[12]{},\_[13]{},\_[14]{}=21h-4, &\
&\_[15]{},\_[16]{},\_[17]{}=3. &
[2]{} &t\_[4]{}:\
&\_[2]{},\_[3]{},\_[4]{},\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=43, & s\^[43]{}/s\^3s,\
&\_[8]{}=16, &\
&\_[9]{},\_[10]{}=10, &(s\^[6]{})\^s\^[10]{}/s\^[6]{}s,\
&\_[11]{}=7, & s\^7,\
&\_[12]{},\_[13]{},\_[14]{}=21h-4, &\
&\_[15]{},\_[16]{},\_[17]{}=3. &
Neurons $\sigma_{2}$, $\sigma_{3}$, $\sigma_{4}$, $\sigma_{5}$, $\sigma_{6}$ and $\sigma_{7}$ fire on every timestep between times $t_2$ and $t_{x_1+2}$ to send a total of $6x_1$ spikes to $\sigma_{8}$, and thus we get
[2]{} &t\_[x\_1+1]{}:\
&\_1=1, & ss,\
&\_[2]{},\_[3]{},\_[4]{},\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=43, & s\^[43]{}/s\^3s,\
&\_[8]{}=6(x\_1-1)+4, &\
&\_[9]{},\_[10]{}=10, &(s\^[6]{})\^s\^[10]{}/s\^[6]{}s,\
&\_[11]{}=7, & s\^7,\
&\_[12]{},\_[13]{},\_[14]{}=21h-4, &\
&\_[15]{},\_[16]{},\_[17]{}=3, &\
\
&t\_[x\_1+2]{}:\
&\_[2]{}=44, & s\^[44]{}/s\^[25]{}s,\
&\_[3]{},\_[4]{},\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=44, & s\^[44]{}/s\^[31]{}s,\
&\_[8]{}=6x\_1+5, &(s\^[6]{})\^s\^[11]{}/s\^6s,\
&\_[9]{}=11, &\
&\_[10]{}=11, &(s\^[6]{})\^s\^[11]{}/s\^[6]{}s,\
&\_[11]{}=7, & s\^7,\
&\_[12]{},\_[13]{},\_[14]{}=21h-3,&\
&\_[15]{},\_[16]{},\_[17]{}=3, &\
\
&t\_[x\_1+3]{}:\
&\_[2]{}=22, & s\^[22]{}/s\^3s,\
&\_[3]{},\_[4]{},\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=16, & s\^[16]{}/s\^3s,\
&\_[8]{}=6x\_1+5, &(s\^[6]{})\^s\^[11]{}/s\^6s,\
&\_[9]{}=17, &\
&\_[10]{}=11, &(s\^[6]{})\^s\^[11]{}/s\^[6]{}s,\
&\_[11]{}=7, & s\^7,\
&\_[12]{},\_[13]{},\_[14]{}=21h-3,&\
&\_[15]{},\_[16]{},\_[17]{}=3.
Neurons $\sigma_{2}$, $\sigma_{3}$, $\sigma_{4}$, $\sigma_{5}$, $\sigma_{6}$ and $\sigma_{7}$ fire on every timestep between times $t_{x_1+2}$ and $t_{x_1+x_2+2}$ to send a total of $6x_2$ spikes to $\sigma_{9}$. Thus, when $\sigma_1$ receives the last spike from its environment we have
[2]{} &t\_[x\_1+x\_2+1]{}:\
&\_1=1, & ss,\
&\_[2]{}=22, & s\^[22]{}/s\^3s,\
&\_[3]{},\_[4]{},\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=16, & s\^[16]{}/s\^3s,\
&\_[8]{}=6x\_1+5, &(s\^[6]{})\^s\^[11]{}/s\^6s,\
&\_[9]{}=6x\_2+5, &\
&\_[10]{}=11, &(s\^[6]{})\^s\^[11]{}/s\^[6]{}s,\
&\_[11]{}=7, & s\^7,\
&\_[12]{},\_[13]{},\_[14]{}=21h-3,&\
&\_[15]{},\_[16]{},\_[17]{}=3, &\
\
&t\_[x\_1+x\_2+2]{}:\
&\_[2]{}=23, & s\^[23]{}/s\^[5]{}s,\
&\_[3]{},\_[4]{},\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=17, &\
&\_[8]{}=6(x\_1+1), &\
&\_[9]{}=6(x\_2+2), &\
&\_[10]{}=12, &\
&\_[11]{}=7, & s\^7,\
&\_[12]{},\_[13]{},\_[14]{}=21h-2, &(s\^[3]{})\^s\^4/s\^3s,\
&\_[15]{},\_[16]{},\_[17]{}=3, &\
\
&t\_[x\_1+x\_2+3]{}:\
&\_[2]{},\_[3]{},\_[4]{},\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=18, &\
&\_[8]{}=6(x\_1+1)+1, &(s\^[6]{})\^s\^[13]{}/ss,\
&\_[9]{}=6(x\_2+2)+1, &(s\^[6]{})\^s\^[7]{}/s\^[7]{}s,\
&\_[10]{}=13, &(s\^[6]{})\^s\^[7]{}/s\^[7]{}s,\
&\_[11]{}=1, & s,\
&\_[12]{},\_[13]{},\_[14]{}=21h-5, &(s\^[3]{})\^s\^4/s\^3s,\
&\_[15]{},\_[16]{},\_[17]{}=6, &\
&t\_[x\_1+x\_2+4]{}:\
&\_[2]{},\_[3]{},\_[4]{},\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=21, &\
&\_[8]{}=6(x\_1+1), &\
&\_[9]{}=6(x\_2+1), &\
&\_[10]{}=6, &\
&\_[11]{}=1, & s,\
&\_[12]{},\_[13]{},\_[14]{}=21h-8, &(s\^[3]{})\^s\^4/s\^3s,\
&\_[15]{},\_[16]{},\_[17]{}=9.
\
After a further $7h-3$ timestep we get
[2]{} &t\_[x\_1+x\_2+7h+1]{}:\
&\_[2]{},\_[3]{},\_[4]{},\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=21, &\
&\_[8]{}=6(x\_1+1), &\
&\_[9]{}=6(x\_2+1), &\
&\_[10]{}=6, &\
&\_[12]{}=1, &ss,\
&\_[13]{},\_[14]{}=1, &s,\
&\_[15]{},\_[16]{},\_[17]{}=21h,\
\
&t\_[x\_1+x\_2+7h+2]{}:\
&\_[2]{},\_[3]{},\_[4]{},\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=21, &\
&\_[8]{}=6(x\_1+1), &\
&\_[9]{}=6(x\_2+1), &\
&\_[10]{}=6, &\
&\_[15]{},\_[16]{},\_[17]{}=21h+1, &(s\^[3]{})\^s\^4/s\^3s,\
\
&t\_[x\_1+x\_2+7h+3]{}:\
&\_[2]{},\_[3]{},\_[4]{},\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=21+3, &\
&\_[8]{}=6(x\_1+1), &\
&\_[9]{}=6(x\_2+1), &\
&\_[10]{}=6, &\
&\_[12]{},\_[13]{},\_[14]{}=3, &\
&\_[15]{},\_[16]{},\_[17]{}=21h-2, &(s\^[3]{})\^s\^4/s\^3s.
Neurons $\sigma_{15}$, $\sigma_{16}$ and $\sigma_{17}$ continue to fire at each timestep. Thus, after a further $7h-1$ steps we get
[2]{} &t\_[x\_1+x\_2+14h+2]{}:\
&\_[2]{},\_[3]{},\_[4]{},\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=21h+21, &\
&\_[8]{}=6(x\_1+1), &\
&\_[9]{}=6(x\_2+1), &\
&\_[10]{}=6, &\
&\_[12]{},\_[13]{},\_[14]{}=21h, &\
&\_[15]{}=1, &ss,\
&\_[16]{},\_[17]{}=1, &s.
[2]{} &t\_[x\_1+x\_2+14h+3]{}:\
&\_[2]{},\_[3]{},\_[4]{},\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=21(h+1)+1, &\
&\_[8]{}=6(x\_1+1), &\
&\_[9]{}=6(x\_2+1), &\
&\_[10]{}=6, &\
&\_[12]{},\_[13]{},\_[14]{}=21h+1.
At time $t_{x_1+x_2+14h+3}$ neurons $\sigma_{2}$, $\sigma_{3}$, $\sigma_{4}$, $\sigma_{5}$, $\sigma_{6}$ and $\sigma_{7}$ each contain $21(h+1)+1$ spikes, $\sigma_8$ contains $6(x_1+1)$ spikes, $\sigma_{9}$ contains $6(x_2+1)$ spikes and $\sigma_{10}$ contains $6$ spikes. Thus, at time $t_{x_1+x_2+14h+3}$ the SN P system encodes an initial configuration of $C_3$.
=\[draw=none,node distance=1cm\] =\[ellipse,draw=black!75, node distance=1.5cm\] =\[ellipse,draw=black!75, node distance=1.2cm\] =\[draw=none,node distance=1cm\] =\[draw=none,node distance=.9cm\]
(sigma2)\[\] [$\quad^{ }$]{}; (sigma2)+(0,0) node [$\sigma_2$]{}; (sigma3)\[right of=sigma2\] [$\quad^{ }$]{}; (sigma3)+(0,0) node [$\sigma_3$]{}; (sigma4)\[right of=sigma3\] [$\quad^{ }$]{}; (sigma4)+(0,0) node [$\sigma_4$]{}; (sigma5)\[right of=sigma4\] [$\quad^{ }$]{}; (sigma5)+(0,0) node [$\sigma_5$]{}; (sigma6)\[right of=sigma5\] [$\quad^{ }$]{}; (sigma6)+(0,0) node [$\sigma_6$]{}; (sigma7)\[right of=sigma6\] [$\quad^{ }$]{}; (sigma7)+(0,0) node [$\sigma_7$]{}; (dummy16)\[above right of=sigma4\] ; (sigma16)\[above of=dummy16\][$\quad^{ }$]{}; (sigma16)+(0,0) node [$\sigma_{16}$]{}; (sigma15)\[left of=sigma16\][$\quad^{ }$]{}; (sigma15)+(0,0) node [$\sigma_{15}$]{}; (sigma17)\[right of=sigma16\][$\quad^{ }$]{}; (sigma17)+(0,0) node [$\sigma_{17}$]{}; (sigma12)\[above of=sigma15\][$\quad^{ }$]{}; (sigma12)+(0,0) node [$\sigma_{12}$]{}; (sigma13)\[right of=sigma12\][$\quad^{ }$]{}; (sigma13)+(0,0) node [$\sigma_{13}$]{}; (sigma14)\[right of=sigma13\][$\quad^{ }$]{}; (sigma14)+(0,0) node [$\sigma_{14}$]{}; (dummy11)\[below of=dummy16\] ; (sigma11)\[below of=dummy11\][$\quad^{ }$]{}; (sigma11)+(0,0) node [$\sigma_{11}$]{}; (output)\[below of=sigma11\] ;
(sigma2)edge node (sigma11) (sigma3)edge node (sigma11) (sigma4)edge node (sigma11) (sigma5)edge node (sigma11) (sigma6)edge node (sigma11) (sigma7)edge node (sigma11) (sigma12)edge node (sigma15) (sigma12)edge node (sigma16) (sigma12)edge node (sigma17) (sigma13)edge node (sigma15) (sigma13)edge node (sigma16) (sigma13)edge node (sigma17) (sigma14)edge node (sigma15) (sigma14)edge node (sigma16) (sigma14)edge node (sigma17) (sigma15)edge node (sigma2) (sigma15)edge node (sigma3) (sigma15)edge node (sigma4) (sigma15)edge node (sigma5) (sigma15)edge node (sigma6) (sigma15)edge node (sigma7) (sigma15)edge node (sigma12) (sigma15)edge node (sigma13) (sigma15)edge node (sigma14) (sigma16)edge node (sigma2) (sigma16)edge node (sigma3) (sigma16)edge node (sigma4) (sigma16)edge node (sigma5) (sigma16)edge node (sigma6) (sigma16)edge node (sigma7) (sigma16)edge node (sigma12) (sigma16)edge node (sigma13) (sigma16)edge node (sigma14) (sigma17)edge node (sigma2) (sigma17)edge node (sigma3) (sigma17)edge node (sigma4) (sigma17)edge node (sigma5) (sigma17)edge node (sigma6) (sigma17)edge node (sigma7) (sigma17)edge node (sigma12) (sigma17)edge node (sigma13) (sigma17)edge node (sigma14) (sigma11)edge node [output]{} (output);
### Algorithm overview {#sec:Algorithm overview Pi'_(C_3)}
Here we give a high level overview of the simulation algorithm used by $\Pi'_{C_3}$. Neurons $\sigma_{8}$, $\sigma_{9}$ and $\sigma_{10}$ simulate the counters of $c_1$, $c_2$ and $c_3$, respectively. Neurons $\sigma_{2}$, $\sigma_{3}$, $\sigma_{4}$, $\sigma_{5}$, $\sigma_{6}$ and $\sigma_{7}$ are the *control neurons*. They determine which instruction is to be simulated next by sending signals to the neurons that simulate the counters of $C_3$ directing them to simulate an increment or decrement. There are four different signals that the control neurons send to the simulated counters. Each of these signals takes the form of a unique number of spikes. If 1 spike is sent to $\sigma_{8}$, $\sigma_{9}$ and $\sigma_{10}$ then the value in $\sigma_{8}$ (counter $c_1$) is tested and $\sigma_{9}$ (counter $c_2$) and $\sigma_{10}$ (counter $c_3$) are decremented. If 2 spikes are sent the value of $\sigma_{9}$ is tested and $\sigma_{8}$ and $\sigma_{10}$ are decremented. If 3 spikes are sent the value of $\sigma_{10}$ is tested and $\sigma_{8}$ and $\sigma_{9}$ are decremented. Finally, if 6 spikes are sent all three counters are incremented. Unfortunately, all of the above signals have the effect of changing the value of more than one simulated counter at a time. We can, however, obtain the desired result by using more than one signal for each simulated timestep. If we wish to simulate $INC$ we send 2 signals and if we wish to simulate $DEC$ we send either 8 or 2 signals. Table \[tab:simulate counter instruction\] gives the sequence of spikes (signals) to be sent in order to simulate each counter machine instruction. To explain how to use Table \[tab:simulate counter instruction\] we will take the example of simulating $INC(2)$. In the first timestep, all three simulated counters $\sigma_{8}$, $\sigma_{9}$ and $\sigma_{10}$ are incremented by sending 6 spikes, and then in the second timestep the simulated counters $\sigma_{8}$ and $\sigma_{10}$ are decremented by sending 2 spikes. This has the effect of simulating an increment in counter $c_2$ and leaving the other two simulated counters unchanged.
Each counter machine instruction $q_i$ is encoded as $21(h+i)+1$ spikes in each of the control neurons. At the end of each simulated timestep the number of spikes in the control neurons must be updated to encode the next instruction $q_k$. The update rule $s^{21(h+i)-21k}\rightarrow s$ is applied in each control neuron leaving a total of $21k$ spikes in each control neuron. Following this, $21h+1$ spikes are sent from neurons $\sigma_{15}$, $\sigma_{16}$ and $\sigma_{17}$ to each of the control neurons. This gives a total of $21(h+k)+1$ spikes in each control neuron. Thus encoding the next instruction $q_k$. (Note that the rule $s^{21(h+i)-21k}\rightarrow s$ is simplification of the actual rule used.)
Instruction Sequence of spikes sent from $\sigma_{2}$, $\sigma_{3}$, $\sigma_{4}$, $\sigma_{5}$, $\sigma_{6}$ and $\sigma_{7}$
------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$INC(1)$ 6, 1
$INC(2)$ 6, 2
$INC(3)$ 6, 3
$DEC(1)$ 1, 0, 6 if $x_1=0$
$DEC(1)$ 1, 0, 6, 6, 6, 3, 3, 2, 2 if $x_1>0$
$DEC(2)$ 2, 0, 6 if $x_2=0$
$DEC(2)$ 2, 0, 6, 6, 6, 3, 3, 1, 1 if $x_2>0$
$DEC(3)$ 3, 0, 6 if $x_3=0$
$DEC(3)$ 3, 0, 6, 6, 6, 2, 2, 1, 1 if $x_3>0$
: This table gives a counter machine instruction in the left column followed, in the right column, by the sequence that is used by $\Pi'_{C_3}$ to simulated that instruction. Each number in the sequence represents the total number of spikes to be sent from the set of neurons $\sigma_{2}$, $\sigma_{3}$, $\sigma_{4}$, $\sigma_{5}$, $\sigma_{6}$ and $\sigma_{7}$ at each timestep.[]{data-label="tab:simulate counter instruction"}
### $\Pi'_{C_3}$ simulating $q_i:INC(1),q_l$
The simulation of $INC(1)$ is given by the neurons in Figures \[fig:small universal SNP system I\] and \[fig:small universal SNP system II\]. Let $x_1$, $x_2$ and $x_3$ be the values in counters $c_1$, $c_2$ and $c_3$ respectively. Then our simulation of $q_i:INC(1),q_l$ begins with $6(x_1+1)$ spikes in $\sigma_{8}$, $6(x_2+1)$ spikes in $\sigma_{9}$, $6(x_3+1)$ spikes in $\sigma_{10}$, $21(h+i)+1$ spikes in each of the neurons $\sigma_{2}$, $\sigma_{3}$, $\sigma_{4}$, $\sigma_{5}$, $\sigma_{6}$ and $\sigma_{7}$, and $21h+1$ spikes in each of the neurons $\sigma_{12}$, $\sigma_{13}$ and $\sigma_{14}$. Beginning our simulation at time $t_j$, we have
[2]{} &t\_[j]{}:\
&\_[2]{}=21(h+i)+1, &s\^[21(h+i)+1]{}/s\^4s,\
&\_[3]{},\_[4]{},\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=21(h+i)+1, &s\^[21(h+i)+1]{}/s\^[21(h+i-l)+6]{}s,\
&\_[8]{}=6(x\_1+1), &\
&\_[9]{}=6(x\_2+1), &\
&\_[10]{}=6(x\_3+1), &\
&\_[12]{},\_[13]{},\_[14]{}=21h+1, &(s\^[3]{})\^s\^4/s\^3s.
Thus, from Figures \[fig:small universal SNP system I\] and \[fig:small universal SNP system II\] we get
[2]{} &t\_[j+1]{}:\
&\_[2]{}=21(h+i)-2, &s\^[21(h+i)-2]{}/s\^[21(h+i-l)+1]{}s,\
&\_[3]{},\_[4]{},\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=21l-4, &\
&\_[8]{}=6(x\_1+2), &\
&\_[9]{}=6(x\_2+2), &\
&\_[10]{}=6(x\_3+2), &\
&\_[11]{}=6, & s\^6,\
&\_[12]{},\_[13]{},\_[14]{}=21h-2, &(s\^[3]{})\^s\^4/s\^3s,\
&\_[15]{},\_[16]{},\_[17]{}=3, &\
\
&t\_[j+2]{}:\
&\_[2]{},\_[3]{},\_[4]{},\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=21l-3, &\
&\_[8]{}=6(x\_1+2)+1, &(s\^[6]{})\^s\^[13]{}/ss,\
&\_[9]{}=6(x\_2+2)+1, &(s\^[6]{})\^s\^[7]{}/s\^[7]{}s,\
&\_[10]{}=6(x\_3+2)+1, &(s\^[6]{})\^s\^[7]{}/s\^[7]{}s,\
&\_[11]{}=1, & s,\
&\_[12]{},\_[13]{},\_[14]{}=21h-5, &(s\^[3]{})\^s\^4/s\^3s,\
&\_[15]{},\_[16]{},\_[17]{}=6, &\
\
&t\_[j+3]{}:\
&\_[2]{},\_[3]{},\_[4]{},\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=21l, &\
&\_[8]{}=6(x\_1+2), &\
&\_[9]{}=6(x\_2+1), &\
&\_[10]{}=6(x\_3+1),&\
&\_[11]{}=1, & s,\
&\_[12]{},\_[13]{},\_[14]{}=21h-8, &(s\^[3]{})\^s\^4/s\^3s,\
&\_[15]{},\_[16]{},\_[17]{}=9. &\
The remainder of this simulation is similar to the computation carried out at the end of the initialisation process (see the last paragraph of Section \[sec:Algorithm overview Pi’\_(C\_3)\] and timesteps $t_{x_1+x_2+4}$ to $t_{x_1+x_2+14h+3}$ of the Section \[sec:Encoding of a configuration of C\_3 and reading in input to Pi’\_(C\_3)\]). Thus, after a further $14h-1$ timesteps we get
[2]{} &t\_[j+14h+2]{}:\
&\_[2]{},\_[3]{},\_[4]{},\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=21(h+l)+1, &\
&\_[8]{}=6(x\_1+2), &\
&\_[9]{}=6(x\_2+1), &\
&\_[10]{}=6(x\_3+1),&\
&\_[12]{},\_[13]{},\_[14]{}=21h+1, &(s\^[3]{})\^s\^4/s\^3s.\
At time $t_{j+14h+2}$ the simulation of $q_i:INC(1),q_l$ is complete. Note that an increment on the value $x_1$ in counter $c_1$ is simulated by increasing the number of spikes in $\sigma_{8}$ from $6(x_1+1)$ to $6(x_1+2)$. Note also that the encoding of the next instruction $q_{l}$ is given by the $21(h+l)+1$ spikes in neurons $\sigma_{2}$, $\sigma_{3}$, $\sigma_{4}$, $\sigma_{5}$, $\sigma_{6}$ and $\sigma_{7}$.
### $\Pi'_{C_3}$ simulating $q_i:DEC(1),q_l,q_k$
If we are simulating $DEC(1)$ then we get
[2]{} &t\_[j]{}:\
&\_[2]{}=21(h+i)+1, &s\^[21(h+i)+1]{}/s\^5s,\
&\_[3]{},\_[4]{},\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=21(h+i)+1, &\
&\_[8]{}=6(x\_1+1), &\
&\_[9]{}=6(x\_2+1), &\
&\_[10]{}=6(x\_3+1),&\
&\_[12]{},\_[13]{},\_[14]{}=21h+1, &(s\^[3]{})\^s\^4/s\^3s.\
To help simplify configurations we will not include neurons $\sigma_{12}$, $\sigma_{13}$, and $\sigma_{14}$ until the end of the example. When simulating $DEC(1)$ there are two cases to consider. Case 1: if counter $c_1$ has value $x_1>0$, then decrement counter 1 and move to instruction $q_{i+1}$. Case 2: if counter $c_1$ has value $x_1=0$, then move to instruction $q_{k}$. In configuration $t_{j+1}$ our system determines if the value $x_1$ in counter 1 is $>0$ by checking if the number of spikes in $\sigma_{8}$ is $>13$. Note that if we have Case 1 then the rule $(s^6)^{\ast}s^{13}/s\rightarrow s$ is applied in $\sigma_{8}$ sending an extra spike to neurons $\sigma_{2}$, $\sigma_{3}$, $\sigma_{4}$, $\sigma_{5}$, $\sigma_{6}$ and $\sigma_{7}$ thus recording that $x_1>0$. Case 1 proceeds as follows:
[2]{} &t\_[j+1]{}:\
&\_[2]{}=21(h+i)-4, &\
&\_[3]{},\_[4]{},\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=21(h+i)+2, &\
&\_[8]{}=6(x\_1+1)+1, &(s\^6)\^s\^[13]{}/ss,\
&\_[9]{}=6(x\_2+1)+1, &(s\^6)\^s\^7/s\^7s,\
&\_[10]{}=6(x\_3+1)+1, &(s\^6)\^s\^7/s\^7s,\
&\_[11]{}=1, & s,\
\
&t\_[j+2]{}:\
&\_[2]{}=21(h+i)-1, &s\^[21(h+i)-1]{}/s\^5s,\
&\_[3]{},\_[4]{},\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=21(h+i)+5, &s\^[21(h+i)+5]{}/s\^[11]{}s,\
&\_[8]{}=6(x\_1+1), &\
&\_[9]{}=6x\_2, &\
&\_[10]{}=6x\_3&\
&\_[11]{}=1, & s.
The method we use to test the value of $\sigma_{8}$ (simulated counter $c_1$) has the side-effect of decrementing $\sigma_{9}$ (simulated counter $c_2$) and $\sigma_{10}$ (simulated counter $c_2$). Following this, in order to get the correct values our algorithm takes the following steps: Each of our simulated counters ($\sigma_{8}$, $\sigma_{9}$ and $\sigma_{10}$) are incremented 3 times, and then the simulated counter $\sigma_{8}$ is decremented 4 times, whilst the simulated counters $\sigma_{9}$ and $\sigma_{10}$ are each decremented twice. Thus, the overall result is that a decrement of $c_1$ is simulated in $\sigma_{8}$ and the other encoded counter values in $\sigma_{9}$ and $\sigma_{10}$ remain the same. Continuing with our simulation we get
[2]{} &t\_[j+3]{}:\
&\_[2]{},\_[3]{},\_[4]{},\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=21(h+i)-5, &s\^[21(h+i)-5]{}/s\^3s,\
&\_[8]{}=6(x\_1+2), &\
&\_[9]{}=6(x\_2+1), &\
&\_[10]{}=6(x\_3+1), &\
&\_[11]{}=6, & s\^6, &\
\
&t\_[j+4]{}:\
&\_[2]{},\_[3]{},\_[4]{}=21(h+i)-7, &s\^[21(h+i)-7]{}/s\^2s,\
&\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=21(h+i)-7, &s\^[21(h+i)-7]{}/s\^[21(h+i-l)+10]{}s,\
&\_[8]{}=6(x\_1+3), &\
&\_[9]{}=6(x\_2+2), &\
&\_[10]{}=6(x\_3+2), &\
&\_[11]{}=6, & s\^6, &\
\
&t\_[j+5]{}:\
&\_[2]{},\_[3]{},\_[4]{}=21(h+i)-8, &s\^[21(h+i)-8]{}/s\^3s,\
&\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=21l-16, &\
&\_[8]{}=6(x\_1+4), &\
&\_[9]{}=6(x\_2+3), &\
&\_[10]{}=6(x\_3+3),&\
&\_[11]{}=6, & s\^6.
In configurations $t_{j+3}$, $t_{j+4}$ and $t_{j+5}$ each of the simulated counters $\sigma_{8}$, $\sigma_{9}$ and $\sigma_{10}$ are incremented. In configurations $t_{j+6}$ to $t_{j+10}$ the simulated counter $\sigma_{8}$ is decremented 4 times and the simulated counters $\sigma_{9}$ and $\sigma_{10}$ are each decremented twice.
[2]{} &t\_[j+6]{}:\
&\_[2]{},\_[3]{}=21(h+i)-10, &s\^[21(h+i)-10]{}/s\^5s,\
&\_[4]{}=21(h+i)-10, &s\^[21(h+i)-10]{}/s\^[21(h+i-l)+5]{}s,\
&\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=21l-15, &\
&\_[8]{}=6(x\_1+4)+3, &(s\^6)\^s\^[9]{}/s\^[9]{}s,\
&\_[9]{}=6(x\_2+3)+3, &(s\^6)\^s\^[9]{}/s\^[9]{}s,\
&\_[10]{}=6(x\_3+3)+3, &(s\^6)\^s\^[15]{}/s\^3s,\
&\_[11]{}=3, & s\^3. &
[2]{} &t\_[j+7]{}:\
&\_[2]{},\_[3]{}=21(h+i)-11, &s\^[21(h+i)-11]{}/s\^6s,\
&\_[4]{},\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=21l-11, &\
&\_[8]{}=6(x\_1+3)+3, &(s\^6)\^s\^[9]{}/s\^[9]{}s,\
&\_[9]{}=6(x\_2+2)+3, &(s\^6)\^s\^[9]{}/s\^[9]{}s,\
&\_[10]{}=6(x\_3+3)+3, &(s\^6)\^s\^[15]{}/s\^3s,\
&\_[11]{}=4, & s\^4, &\
\
&t\_[j+8]{}:\
&\_[2]{},\_[3]{}=21(h+i)-13, &s\^[21(h+i)-13]{}/s\^[21(h+i-l)-6]{}s,\
&\_[4]{},\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=21l-7, &\
&\_[8]{}=6(x\_1+2)+2, &(s\^6)\^s\^[8]{}/s\^[8]{}s,\
&\_[9]{}=6(x\_2+1)+2, &(s\^6)\^s\^[14]{}/s\^[2]{}s,\
&\_[10]{}=6(x\_3+3)+2, &(s\^6)\^s\^[8]{}/s\^[8]{}s,\
&\_[11]{}=3, & s\^3, &\
\
&t\_[j+9]{}:\
&\_[2]{},\_[3]{},\_[4]{},\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=21l-3, &\
&\_[8]{}=6(x\_1+1)+2, &(s\^6)\^s\^[8]{}/s\^[8]{}s,\
&\_[9]{}=6(x\_2+1)+2, &(s\^6)\^s\^[14]{}/s\^[2]{}s,\
&\_[10]{}=6(x\_3+2)+2, &(s\^6)\^s\^[8]{}/s\^[8]{}s,\
&\_[11]{}=3, & s\^3, &\
\
&t\_[j+10]{}:\
&\_[2]{},\_[3]{},\_[4]{},\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=21l, &\
&\_[8]{}=6x\_1, &\
&\_[9]{}=6(x\_2+1), &\
&\_[10]{}=6(x\_3+1), &\
&\_[11]{}=1, & s, &\
&\_[12]{},\_[13]{},\_[14]{}=21h-29, &(s\^[3]{})\^s\^4/s\^3s,\
&\_[15]{},\_[16]{},\_[17]{}=30. &
Note that at time $t_{j+8}$ that rule $(s^6)^{\ast}s^{14}/s^{2}\rightarrow s$ will always be applicable as here $x_2>0$ (see the second line at the start of the proof).
The remainder of this simulation is similar to the computation carried out at the end of the initialisation process (see the last paragraph of Section \[sec:Algorithm overview Pi’\_(C\_3)\] and timesteps $t_{x_1+x_2+4}$ to $t_{x_1+x_2+14h+3}$ of the Section \[sec:Encoding of a configuration of C\_3 and reading in input to Pi’\_(C\_3)\]). Thus, after a further $14h-8$ timesteps we get
[2]{} &t\_[j+14h+2]{}:\
&\_[2]{},\_[3]{},\_[4]{},\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=21(h+l)+1, &\
&\_[8]{}=6x\_1, &\
&\_[9]{}=6(x\_2+1), &\
&\_[10]{}=6(x\_3+1), &\
&\_[12]{},\_[13]{},\_[14]{}=21h+1, &(s\^[3]{})\^s\^4/s\^3s.
At timestep $t_{j+14h+2}$ the simulation of $q_i:DEC(1),q_l,q_k$ for Case 1 ($x_1>0$) is complete. Note that a decrement on the value $x_1$ in counter $c_1$ is simulated by decreasing the value in $\sigma_{8}$ from $6(x_1+1)$ to $6x_1$. Note also that the encoding $21(h+l)+1$ of the next instruction $q_{l}$ has been established in neurons $\sigma_{2}$, $\sigma_{3}$, $\sigma_{4}$, $\sigma_{5}$, $\sigma_{6}$ and $\sigma_{7}$. Alternatively, if we have Case 2 ($x_1=0$) then we get
[2]{} &t\_[j+1]{}:\
&\_[2]{}=21(h+i)-4, &\
&\_[3]{},\_[4]{},\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=21(h+i)+2, &\
&\_[8]{}=7, &s\^7,\
&\_[9]{}=6(x\_2+1)+1, &(s\^6)\^s\^7/s\^7s,\
&\_[10]{}=6(x\_3+1)+1, &(s\^6)\^s\^7/s\^7s,\
&\_[11]{}=1, & s, &\
\
&t\_[j+2]{}:\
&\_[2]{}=21(h+i)-2, &s\^[21(h+i)-2]{}/s\^[21(h+i-k)-1]{}s,\
&\_[3]{},\_[4]{},\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=21(h+i)+4, &s\^[21(h+i)+4]{}/s\^[21(h+i-k)+5]{}s,\
&\_[9]{}=6x\_2, &\
&\_[10]{}=6x\_3,\
&\_[11]{}=1, & s, &\
\
&t\_[j+3]{}:\
&\_[2]{},\_[3]{},\_[4]{},\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=21k, &\
&\_[8]{}=6, &\
&\_[9]{}=6(x\_2+1), &\
&\_[10]{}=6(x\_3+1),\
&\_[11]{}=6, & s\^6, &\
&\_[12]{},\_[13]{},\_[14]{}=21h-8, &(s\^[3]{})\^s\^4/s\^3s,\
&\_[15]{},\_[16]{},\_[17]{}=9. &\
The remainder of this simulation is similar to the computation carried out at the end of the initialisation process (see the last paragraph of Section \[sec:Algorithm overview Pi’\_(C\_3)\] and timesteps $t_{x_1+x_2+4}$ to $t_{x_1+x_2+14h+3}$ of the Section \[sec:Encoding of a configuration of C\_3 and reading in input to Pi’\_(C\_3)\]). Thus, after a further $14h-1$ timesteps we get
[2]{} &t\_[j+14h+2]{}:\
&\_[2]{},\_[3]{},\_[4]{},\_[5]{},\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=21(h+k)+1, &\
&\_[9]{}=6, &\
&\_[9]{}=6(x\_2+1), &\
&\_[10]{}=6(x\_3+1),\
&\_[12]{},\_[13]{},\_[14]{}=21h+1.\
At time $t_{j+14h+2}$ the simulation of $q_i:DEC(1),q_l,q_k$ for Case 2 ($x_1=0$), is complete. Note that the encoding $21(h+k)+1$ of the next instruction $q_{k}$ has been established in neurons $\sigma_{2}$, $\sigma_{3}$, $\sigma_{4}$, $\sigma_{5}$, $\sigma_{6}$ and $\sigma_{7}$.
### Halting
If $C_3$ enters the halt instruction $q_h$ at time $t_j$ then we get the following
[2]{} &t\_[j]{}:\
&\_[2]{},\_[3]{},\_[4]{},\_[5]{}=42h+1, &s\^[42h+1]{}/ss,\
&\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=42h+1, &\
&\_[8]{}=6(x\_1+1), &\
&\_[9]{}=6(x\_2+1), &\
&\_[10]{}=6(x\_o+1), &\
\
&t\_[j+1]{}:\
&\_[2]{},\_[3]{},\_[4]{},\_[5]{}=42h+1, &s\^[42h+1]{}/ss,\
&\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=42h+2, &\
&\_[8]{}=6(x\_1+1)+4, &\
&\_[9]{}=6(x\_2+1)+4, &(s\^[6]{})\^s\^[10]{}/s\^[6]{}s,\
&\_[10]{}=6(x\_o+1)+4, &(s\^[6]{})\^s\^[10]{}/s\^[6]{}s,\
&\_[11]{}=4, &s\^4,\
\
&t\_[j+2]{}:\
&\_[2]{},\_[3]{}=42h+3, &s\^s\^[42h+3]{}/ss,\
&\_[4]{},\_[5]{}=42h+3, &\
&\_[6]{},\_[7]{}=42h+5, &\
&\_[8]{}=6(x\_1+2)+2, &(s\^[6]{})\^s\^[8]{}/s\^[8]{}s,\
&\_[9]{}=6(x\_2+1)+2, &(s\^[6]{})\^s\^[14]{}/s\^[2]{}s,\
&\_[10]{}=6(x\_o+1)+2, &(s\^[6]{})\^s\^[8]{}/s\^[8]{}s,\
&\_[11]{}=5. &
Note that after time $t_{j+2}$ we can ignore neurons $\sigma_{4}$, $\sigma_{5}$, $\sigma_{6}$ and $\sigma_{7}$ as there are no rules applicable in these neurons when the number of spikes is $\geqslant 43h+3$. The number of spikes in $\sigma_{2}$ and $\sigma_{3}$ does not decrease following timestep $t_{j+2}$, and thus the rule $s^{\ast}s^{42h+3}/s\rightarrow s$ is applicable at each subsequent timestep regardless of the operation of neurons $\sigma_{8}$ and $\sigma_{9}$. Thus, neurons $\sigma_{8}$ and $\sigma_{9}$ may also be ignored as their operation has no effect on the remainder of the simulation. Note that in subsequent configurations we write $\sigma_{2},\sigma_{3}\geqslant 42h+3$ as there are more than $42h+3$ spikes in each of these neurons. Thus we have
[2]{} &t\_[j+3]{}:\
&\_[2]{},\_[3]{}42h+3, &s\^s\^[42h+3]{}/ss,\
&\_[10]{}=6x\_o+2, &(s\^[6]{})\^s\^[8]{}/s\^[8]{}s,\
&\_[11]{}=8, &\
\
&t\_[j+4]{}:\
&\_[2]{},\_[3]{}42h+3, &s\^s\^[42h+3]{}/ss,\
&\_[10]{}=6(x\_o-1)+2, &(s\^[6]{})\^s\^[8]{}/s\^[8]{}s,\
&\_[11]{}=11, &s\^[11]{}/s\^2s,\
\
&t\_[j+5]{}:\
&\_[2]{},\_[3]{}42h+3, &s\^s\^[42h+3]{}/ss,\
&\_[10]{}=6(x\_o-2)+2, &(s\^[6]{})\^s\^[8]{}/s\^[8]{}s,\
&\_[11]{}=12. &
The rule $(s^{6})^{\ast}s^{8}/s^{8}\rightarrow s$ is applied in $\sigma_{10}$ a further $x_o-2$ times until we get
[2]{} &t\_[j+x\_o+3]{}:\
&\_[2]{},\_[3]{}42h+3, &s\^s\^[42h+3]{}/ss,\
&\_[10]{}=2, &s\^[2]{},\
&\_[11]{}=3(x\_o-2)+12, &\
\
&t\_[j+x\_o+4]{}:\
&\_[2]{},\_[3]{}42h+3, &s\^s\^[42h+3]{}/ss,\
&\_[10]{}=2, &s\^[2]{},\
&\_[11]{}=3(x\_o-2)+14, &(s\^3)\^s\^[14]{}/ss.
Recall from Section \[sec:Spiking neural P-systems\] that the output of an SN P system is the time interval between the first and second spikes that are sent out of the output neuron. Note from above that the output neuron $\sigma_{11}$ fires for the first time at timestep $t_{j+4}$ and for the second time at timestep $t_{j+x_o+4}$. Thus, the output of $\Pi'_{C_3}$ is $x_o$ the contents of the output counter $c_3$ when $C_3$ enters the halt instruction $q_h$. If $x_o=0$ neuron $\sigma_{11}$ will fire only once. To see this, note that if $x_o=0$ then $s^{2}\rightarrow \lambda$ will be applied in neuron $\sigma_{10}$ at time $t_{j+3}$, and thus $\sigma_{11}$ will have 10 spikes (instead of 11) at time $t_{j+4}$ and the rule $s^{10}\rightarrow s$ will be applied in $\sigma_{11}$ ending the computation.
origin neurons target neurons
--------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\sigma_1$ $\sigma_2,\sigma_3,\sigma_4,\sigma_5,\sigma_6,\sigma_7,\sigma_8,\sigma_9,\sigma_{10},\sigma_{12},\sigma_{13},\sigma_{14}$
$\sigma_2,$ $\sigma_3,\sigma_4,\sigma_5,\sigma_6,\sigma_7,\sigma_8,\sigma_9,\sigma_{10},\sigma_{11}$
$\sigma_3,$ $\sigma_2,\sigma_8,\sigma_9,\sigma_{10},\sigma_{11}$
$\sigma_4,\sigma_5,\sigma_6,\sigma_7$ $\sigma_8,\sigma_9,\sigma_{10},\sigma_{11}$
$\sigma_8,\sigma_9$ $\sigma_2,\sigma_3,\sigma_4,\sigma_5,\sigma_6,\sigma_7$
$\sigma_{10}$ $\sigma_2,\sigma_3,\sigma_4,\sigma_5,\sigma_6,\sigma_7,\sigma_{11}$
$\sigma_{12},\sigma_{13},\sigma_{14}$ $\sigma_{15},\sigma_{16},\sigma_{17}$
$\sigma_{15},\sigma_{16},\sigma_{17}$ $\sigma_2,\sigma_3,\sigma_4,\sigma_5,\sigma_6,\sigma_7,\sigma_{12},\sigma_{13},\sigma_{14}$
: This table gives the set of synapses of the SN P system $\Pi'_{C_3}$. Each origin neuron $\sigma_i$ and target neuron $\sigma_j$ that appear on the same row have a synapse going from $\sigma_i$ to $\sigma_j$.[]{data-label="tab:synapses"}
We have shown how to simulate arbitrary instructions of the form $q_i:INC(1),q_l$ and $q_i:DEC(1),q_l,q_k$. Instructions that operate on counters $c_2$ and $c_3$ are simulated in a similar manner. Immediately following the simulation of an instruction $\Pi'_{C_3}$ is configured to begin simulation of the next instruction. Each instruction of $C_3$ is simulated in $14h+2$ timesteps. The pair of input values ($x_1,x_2$) is read into the system in $x_1+x_2+14h+3$ timesteps and sending the output value $x_o$ out of the system takes $x_o+4$ timesteps. Thus, if $C_3$ completes it computation in time $t$ then $\Pi'_{C_3}$ simulates the computation of $C_3$ in linear time $O(ht+x_1+x_2+x_o)$.
Lower bounds for small universal SN P systems {#sec:Lower bounds}
=============================================
In this section we show that there exists no universal SN P system with only 3 neurons even when we allow the input technique to be generalised. This is achieved in Theorem \[thm:no universal SNP system with 3 neurons\] by showing that these systems are simulated by log-space bounded Turing machines. Following this, we show that if we generalise the output technique we can give a universal SN P system with extended rules that has only 3 neurons. As a corollary of our proof of Theorem \[thm:no universal SNP system with 3 neurons\], we find that a universal SN P system with extended rules and generalised input and output is not possible with 2 neurons.
=\[ellipse,draw=black!75, node distance=1.5cm\] =\[ellipse,draw=black!75, node distance=1.8cm\] =\[draw=none,node distance=1cm\] =\[draw=none,node distance=1.2cm\]
(g1) [$g_1$]{}; (g2) \[right of=g1\] [$g_2$]{}; (g3) \[right of=g2\] [$g_3$]{}; (dots1) \[right of=g3\] […]{}; (gu-1) \[right of=dots1,node distance=1cm\] [$g_{u-1}$]{}; (gu) \[right of=gu-1\] [$g_u$]{}; (gu+1) \[right of=gu\] [$g_{u+1}$]{}; (dots2) \[right of=gu+1\] […]{}; (gv) \[right of=dots2,node distance=1cm\] [$g_v$]{};
(g1) edge node (g2) (g2) edge node (g3) (gu-1) edge node (gu) (gu) edge node (gu+1) (gv) edge \[bend right,in=270\] node \[above\] [$s$]{} (gu);
(g1)+(.75,.15) node [$s$]{}; (g2)+(.75,.15) node [$s$]{}; (gu-1)+(1,.15) node [$s$]{}; (gu)+(.75,.15) node [$s$]{}; (g3)+(.7,1.1) node [$G$]{};
=\[ellipse,draw=black!75, node distance=1.5cm\] =\[ellipse,draw=black!75, node distance=1.8cm\] =\[draw=none,node distance=1cm\] =\[draw=none,node distance=1.2cm\]
(g1) [$g_1$]{}; (g2) \[right of=g1\] [$g_2$]{}; (g3) \[right of=g2\] [$g_3$]{}; (dots1) \[right of=g3\] […]{}; (gu-1) \[right of=dots1,node distance=1cm\] [$g_{u-1}$]{}; (gu) \[right of=gu-1\] [$g_u$]{}; (gu+1) \[right of=gu\] [$g_{u+1}$]{}; (dots2) \[right of=gu+1\] […]{}; (gv) \[right of=dots2,node distance=1cm\] [$g_v$]{};
(g1) edge \[bend left,in=150\] node \[above\] [$+s$]{} (g2) (g2) edge \[bend left,in=150\] node \[below\] [$-s$]{} (g1) (g2) edge \[bend left,in=150\] node \[above\] [$+s$]{} (g3) (g3) edge \[bend left,in=150\] node \[below\] [$-s$]{} (g2) (gu-1) edge \[bend left,in=150\] node \[above\] [$+s$]{} (gu) (gu) edge \[bend left,in=150\] node \[below\] [$-s$]{} (gu-1) (gu) edge \[bend left,in=140\] node \[above\] [$+s$]{} (gu+1) (gu+1) edge \[bend left,in=164\] node \[above\] [$-s$]{} (gu) (gv) edge \[bend right,in=270\] node \[above\] [$+s$]{} (gu) (gu) edge \[bend right,in=270\] node \[below\] [$-s$]{} (gv); (g3)+(.7,1.1) node [$G'$]{};
In this and other work [@Paun2007; @Zhang2008B] on small SN P systems the input neuron only receives a constant number of spikes from the environment and the output neuron fires no more than a constant number of times. Hence, we call input standard if the input neuron receives no more than $y$ spikes from the environment, where $y$ is a constant independent of the input (i.e. the number of 1s in its input sequence is $<y$). Similarly, we call the output standard if the output neuron fires no more than $x$ times, where $x$ is a constant independent of the input. Here we say an SN P system has generalised input if the input neuron is permitted to receive $\leqslant n$ spikes from the environment where $n\in\Nset$ is the length of its input sequence.
\[thm:no universal SNP system with 3 neurons\] Let $\Pi$ be any extended SN P system with only 3 neurons, generalised input and standard output. Then there is a non-deterministic Turing machine $T_{\Pi}$ that simulates the computation of $\Pi$ in space $O(\log n)$ where $n$ is the length of the input to $\Pi$.
Let $\Pi$ be any extended SN P system with generalised input, standard output, and neurons $\sigma_1$, $\sigma_2$ and $\sigma_3$. Also, let $x$ be the maximum number of times the output neuron $\sigma_3$ is permitted to fire and let $q$ and $r$ be the maximum value for $b$ and $p$ respectively, for all $E/s^b\rightarrow s^p;d$ in $\Pi$.
We begin by explaining how the activity of $\sigma_3$ may be simulated using only the states of $T_{\Pi}$ (i.e. no workspace is required to simulate $\sigma_3$). Recall that the applicability of each rule is determined by a regular expression over a unary alphabet. We can give a single regular expression $R$ that is the union of all the regular expressions for the firing rules of $\sigma_3$. This regular expression $R$ determines whither or not there is any applicable rule in $\sigma_3$ at each timestep. Figure \[fig:finite\_state\_machine\_G\] gives the deterministic finite automata $G$ that accepts $L(R)$ the language generated by $R$. During a computation we may use $G$ to decide which rules are applicable in $\sigma_i$ by passing an $s$ to $G$ each time a spike enters $\sigma_3$. However, $G$ may not give the correct result if spikes leave the neuron as it does not record spikes leaving $\sigma_i$. Thus, using $G$ we may construct a second machine $G'$ such that $G'$ records the movement of spikes going into and out of the neuron. $G'$ is construct as follows: $G'$ has all the same states (including accept states) and transitions as $G$ along with an extra set of transitions that record spikes leaving the neuron. This extra set of transitions are given as follows: for each transition on $s$ from a state $g_i$ to a state $g_j$ in $G$ there is a new transition on $-s$ going from state $g_j$ to $g_i$ in $G'$ that records the removal of a spike from $\sigma_3$. By recording the dynamic movement of spikes, $G'$ is able to decide which rules are applicable in $\sigma_3$ at each timestep during the computation. $G'$ is also given in Figure \[fig:finite\_state\_machine\_G\]. To simulate the operation of $\sigma_3$ we emulate the operation of $G'$ in the states of $T_{\Pi}$. Note that there is a single non-deterministic choice to be made in $G'$. This choice is at state $g_u$ if a spike is being removed ($-s$). It would seem that in order to make the correct choice in this situation we need to know the exact number of spikes in $\sigma_3$. However, we need only store at most $u+yq$ spikes. The reason for this is that if there are $\geqslant u+yq$ spikes in $\sigma_3$, then $G'$ will not enter state $g_{u-1}$ again. To see this, note that $\sigma_3$ spikes a maximum of $y$ times using at most $q$ spikes each time, and so once there are $>u+yq$ spikes the number of spikes in $\sigma_3$ will be $>u-1$ for the remainder of the computation. Thus, $T_{\Pi}$ simulates the activity of $\sigma_3$ by simulating the operation of $G'$ and encoding at most $u+yq$ spikes in its states.
In this paragraph we explain the operation of $T_{\Pi}$. Following this, we give an analysis of the space complexity of $T_{\Pi}$. $T_{\Pi}$ has 4 tapes including an output tape, which is initially blank, and a read only input tape. The tape head on both the input and output tapes is permitted to only move right. Each of the remaining tapes, tapes 1 and 2 simulate the activity of the neurons $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$, respectively. These tapes record the number of spikes in $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$. A timestep of $\Pi$ is simulated as follows: $T_{\Pi}$ scans tapes 1 and 2 to determine if there are any applicable rules in $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ at that timestep. The applicability of each neural rule in $\Pi$ is determined by a regular expression and so a decider for each rule is easily implemented in the states of $T_{\Pi}$. Recall from the previous paragraph that the applicability of the rules in $\sigma_3$ is already recorded in the states of $T_{\Pi}$. Also, $T_{\Pi}$ is non-deterministic and so if more than one rule is applicable in a neuron $T_{\Pi}$ simply chooses the rule to simulate in the same manner as $\Pi$. Once $T_{\Pi}$ has determined which rules are applicable in each of the three neurons at that timestep it changes the encodings on tapes 1 and 2 to simulate the change in the number of spikes in neurons $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ during that timestep. As mentioned in the previous paragraph any change in the number of spikes in $\sigma_3$ is recorded in the states of $T_{\Pi}$. The input sequence of $\Pi$ may be given as binary input to $T_{\Pi}$ by placing it on its input tape. Also, if at a given timestep a 1 is read on the input tape then $T_{\Pi}$ simulates a spike entering the simulated input neuron. At each simulated timestep, if the output neuron $\sigma_3$ spikes then a 1 is place on the output tape, and if $\sigma_3$ does not spike a 0 is placed on the output tape. Thus the output of $\Pi$ is encoded on the output tape when the simulation ends.
In a two neuron system each neuron has at most one out-going synapse and so the number of spikes in the system does not increase over time. Thus, the total number of spikes in neurons $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ can only increase when $\sigma_3$ fires or a spike is sent into the system from the environment. The input is of length $n$, and so $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ receive a maximum of $n$ spikes from the environment. Neuron $\sigma_3$ fires a total of $y$ times sending at most $r$ spikes each time and so the maximum number of spikes in $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ during the computation is $n+2ry$. Using a binary encoding tapes 1 and 2 of $T_{\Pi}$ encode the number of spikes in $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ using space of $\log_2 (n+2ry)$. As mentioned earlier no space is used to simulate $\sigma_3$, and thus $T_{\Pi}$ simulates $\Pi$ using space of $O(\log n)$.
It is interesting to note that with a slight generalisation on the system in Theorem \[thm:no universal SNP system with 3 neurons\] we obtain universality. If we remove the restriction that allows the output neuron to fire only a constant number of times then we may construct a universal SN P system with extended rules and only three neurons. Here we define the output of an extended SN P system with generalised output to the time interval between the first and second timesteps where exactly $x$ spikes are sent out of the output neuron.
\[thm:universal Extended SNP system with generalised output and 3 neuron\] Let $C_2$ be a universal counter machine with 2 counters that completes it computation in time $t$ to give the output value $x_o$ when given the input value $x_1$. Then there is a universal extended SN P system $\Pi''_{C_2}$ with standard input and generalised output that simulates the computation of $C_2$ in time $O(t+x_1+x_o)$ and has only 3 neurons.
A graph of $\Pi''_{C_2}$ is constructed by removing the output neuron $\sigma_5$ from the system $\Pi_{C_2}$ given in the proof of Theorem \[thm:universal Extended SNP system with 4 neuron\] and making $\sigma_3$ the new output neuron of $\Pi''_{C_2}$. The rules for $\Pi''_{C_2}$ are given by the first 3 rows of Table \[tab:neurons of Extended SNP 2-counter\] and a diagram of the system is obtained by removing neurons $\sigma_4$ and $\sigma_5$ from Figure \[fig:extended universal SNP system\] and adding a synapse to the environment from the new output neuron $\sigma_3$. The operation of $\Pi''_{C_2}$ is identical to the operation of $\Pi_{C_2}$ with the exception of the new output technique. The output of $\Pi''_{C_2}$ is the time interval between the first and second timesteps where exactly $2$ spikes are sent out of the output neuron $\sigma_3$.
From the third paragraph of the proof of Theorem \[thm:no universal SNP system with 3 neurons\] we get the following immediate corollary.
\[cor:no universal extended SNP system with generalised output and 2 neuron\] Let $\Pi$ be any extended SN P system with only 2 neurons and generalised input and output. Then there is a non-deterministic Turing machine $T_{\Pi}$ that simulates the computation of $\Pi$ in space $O(\log n)$ where $n$ is the length of the input to $\Pi$.
Conclusion
==========
The dramatic improvement on the size of earlier small universal SN P system given by Theorems \[thm:universal extended SNP systems with 5 neurons\] and \[thm:universal SNP systems with 17 neuron\] is in part due to the method we use to encode the instructions of the counter machines our systems simulate. In the systems of P[ă]{}un and P[ă]{}un [@Paun2007] each counter machine instruction was encoded by a unique set of neurons. Thus the size of the system is dependant on the number of instructions in the counter machine being simulated. Some improvement was made by Zhang et al. [@Zhang2008B] by showing that certain types of instructions may be grouped together. However, the number of neurons used by the system remained dependant on the number of instructions in the counter machine being simulated. In our systems each unique counter machine instruction is encoded as a unique number of spikes and thus the size of our SN P systems are independent of the number of instruction used by the counter machine they are simulating. The technique of encoding the instructions as spikes was first used to construct small universal SN P systems in [@Neary2008B].
The results from Theorems \[thm:universal Extended SNP system with 4 neuron\] and \[thm:no universal SNP system with 3 neurons\] give tight upper and lower bounds on the size of the smallest universal SN P system with extended rules. Thus in Theorem \[thm:universal Extended SNP system with 4 neuron\] we have given the smallest possible universal SN P system with extended rules. The results from Theorem \[thm:universal Extended SNP system with generalised output and 3 neuron\] and Corollary \[cor:no universal extended SNP system with generalised output and 2 neuron\] give tight upper and lower bounds on the size of the smallest universal SN P systems with extended rules and generalised output. Thus, Theorem \[thm:universal Extended SNP system with generalised output and 3 neuron\] gives the smallest possible universal SN P system with extended rules and generalised output.
The lower bounds given in Theorem \[thm:no universal SNP system with 3 neurons\] are also applicable to standard SN P systems and thus give a lower bound of 4 neurons for the smallest possible standard system that is universal. However, when compared with extended systems the rules used in standard SN P systems are quite limited, and so it seems likely that this lower bound of 4 neurons can be increased. Note that here and in [@Paun2007; @Zhang2008B] the size of a universal SN P system is measured by the number of neurons in the system. However, the size of an SN P system could also be measured by the number of neural rules in the system.
neuron rules
------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\sigma_1$ $s^{8h+1}/s^{8h}\rightarrow s^{8h},$$s^{8h+2}/s^{8h+1}\rightarrow s^{8h+1},$ $s^{6h+1}\rightarrow s^{4h+4},$$s^{2}\rightarrow \lambda,$$s\rightarrow \lambda$
$s^{16h+4i}\rightarrow s^{12h+4l},$$s^{10h+4i}\rightarrow s^{4(h+l)},$if $l<h$
$s^{16h+4i}\rightarrow s^{12h+5},$$s^{10h+4i}\rightarrow s^{4h+5},$if $l=h$
$s^{8h+4i}\rightarrow s^{4(h+k)},$if $k\neq h$
$s^{8h+4i}\rightarrow s^{4h+5},$if $k=h$
$\sigma_2$ $(s^{8h})^{\ast}s^{8h+1}/s^{8h}\rightarrow s,$$(s^{8h})^{\ast}s^{8h+2}/s^{8h+2}\rightarrow s^{2h}$
$(s^{8h})^{\ast}s^{4(h+i)}/s^{4(h+i)}\rightarrow s^{4(h+i)}$if $q_i:INC(1)\in\{Q\}$
$(s^{8h})^{\ast}s^{4(h+i)}/s^{8h+4(h+i)}\rightarrow s^{6h}$if $q_i:INC(x)\in\{Q\},\, x\neq 1$
$(s^{8h})^{\ast}s^{16h+4(h+i)}/s^{12h+4i}\rightarrow s^{6h+4i}$if $q_i:DEC(1)\in\{Q\}$
$s^{8h+4(h+i)}/s^{4(h+i)}\rightarrow s^{4(h+i)}$if $q_i:DEC(1)\in\{Q\}$
$(s^{8h})^{\ast}s^{4(h+i)}/s^{4(h+i)}\rightarrow s^{2h}$if $q_i:DEC(x)\in\{Q\},\, x\neq 1$
$\sigma_3$ $s^{2}/s\rightarrow s,$$s^{8h+1}/s^{8h}\rightarrow s,$ $(s^{8h})^{\ast}s^{8h+3}/s^{8h+3}\rightarrow s^{2h},$ $(s^{8h})^{\ast}s^{20h+5}/s^{12h}\rightarrow s^{2}$
$(s^{8h})^{\ast}s^{16h+5}/s^{8h}\rightarrow s,$ $s^{8h+5}\rightarrow s^2,$$s^{12h+5}\rightarrow s^2$
$(s^{8h})^{\ast}s^{4(h+i)}/s^{4(h+i)}\rightarrow s^{4(h+i)}$if $q_i:INC(2)\in\{Q\}$
$(s^{8h})^{\ast}s^{4(h+i)}/s^{8h+4(h+i)}\rightarrow s^{6h}$if $q_i:INC(x)\in\{Q\},\, x\neq 2$
$(s^{8h})^{\ast}s^{16h+4(h+i)}/s^{12h+4i}\rightarrow s^{6h+4i}$if $q_i:DEC(2)\in\{Q\}$
$s^{8h+4(h+i)}/s^{4(h+i)}\rightarrow s^{4(h+i)}$if $q_i:DEC(2)\in\{Q\}$
$(s^{8h})^{\ast}s^{4(h+i)}/s^{4(h+i)}\rightarrow s^{2h}$if $q_i:DEC(x)\in\{Q\},\, x\neq 2$
$\sigma_4$ $s^{8h+1}/s^{8h}\rightarrow s^{8h-1},$$s^{8h+2}/s^{8h}\rightarrow s^{8h-1},$ $s^{8h+3}\rightarrow s^{2h}$
$(s^{8h})^{\ast}s^{4(h+i)}/s^{4(h+i)}\rightarrow s^{4(h+i)}$if $q_i:INC(3)\in\{Q\}$
$(s^{8h})^{\ast}s^{4(h+i)}/s^{8h+4(h+i)}\rightarrow s^{6h}$if $q_i:INC(x)\in\{Q\},\, x\neq 3$
$(s^{8h})^{\ast}s^{16h+4(h+i)}/s^{12h+4i}\rightarrow s^{6h+4i}$if $q_i:DEC(3)\in\{Q\}$
$s^{8h+4(h+i)}/s^{4(h+i)}\rightarrow s^{4(h+i)}$if $q_i:DEC(3)\in\{Q\}$
$(s^{8h})^{\ast}s^{4(h+i)}/s^{4(h+i)}\rightarrow s^{2h}$if $q_i:DEC(x)\in\{Q\},\, x\neq 3$
$\sigma_5$ $s\rightarrow\lambda,$ $s^{2h}\rightarrow \lambda,$$s^{6h}\rightarrow \lambda,$$s^{4(h+i)}\rightarrow \lambda,$$s^{6h+4i}\rightarrow \lambda,$$s^{2}\rightarrow s$
: This table gives the rules for each of the neurons of $\Pi_{C_3}$.[]{data-label="tab:neurons of Extended SNP 3-counter"}
neuron rules
------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\sigma_1$ $s^{8h+1}/s^{8h}\rightarrow s^{8h},$$s^{8h+2}/s^{8h-1}\rightarrow s^{4h+3},$ $s^{8h+3}\rightarrow \lambda,$ $s^{2}\rightarrow \lambda,$$s\rightarrow \lambda$
$s^{16h+4i}\rightarrow s^{12h+4l},$$s^{10h+4i}\rightarrow s^{4(h+l)},$if $l<h$
$s^{16h+4i}\rightarrow s^{12h+5},$$s^{10h+4i}\rightarrow s^{4h+5},$if $l=h$
$s^{8h+4i}\rightarrow s^{4(h+k)},$if $k\neq h$
$s^{8h+4i}\rightarrow s^{4h+5},$if $k=h$
$\sigma_2$ $(s^{8h})^{\ast}s^{4(h+i)}/s^{4(h+i)}\rightarrow s^{4(h+i)}$if $q_i:INC(1)\in\{Q\}$
$(s^{8h})^{\ast}s^{4(h+i)}/s^{8h+4(h+i)}\rightarrow s^{12h}$if $q_i:INC(2)\in\{Q\}$
$(s^{8h})^{\ast}s^{16h+4(h+i)}/s^{12h+4i}\rightarrow s^{6h+4i}$if $q_i:DEC(1)\in\{Q\}$
$s^{8h+4(h+i)}/s^{4(h+i)}\rightarrow s^{4(h+i)}$if $q_i:DEC(1)\in\{Q\}$
$(s^{8h})^{\ast}s^{4(h+i)}/s^{4(h+i)}\rightarrow s^{4h}$if $q_i:DEC(2)\in\{Q\}$
$\sigma_3$ $s^{2}/s\rightarrow s,$$s^{16h+1}/s^{8h}\rightarrow s^{8h},$ $(s^{8h})^{\ast}s^{20h+5}/s^{12h}\rightarrow s^{2}$
$(s^{8h})^{\ast}s^{16h+5}/s^{8h}\rightarrow s,$$s^{8h+5}\rightarrow s^2,$ $s^{12h+5}\rightarrow s^2$
$(s^{8h})^{\ast}s^{4(h+i)}/s^{4(h+i)}\rightarrow s^{4(h+i)}$if $q_i:INC(2)\in\{Q\}$
$(s^{8h})^{\ast}s^{4(h+i)}/s^{8h+4(h+i)}\rightarrow s^{12h}$if $q_i:INC(1)\in\{Q\}$
$(s^{8h})^{\ast}s^{16h+4(h+i)}/s^{12h+4i}\rightarrow s^{6h+4i}$if $q_i:DEC(2)\in\{Q\}$
$s^{8h+4(h+i)}/s^{4(h+i)}\rightarrow s^{4(h+i)}$if $q_i:DEC(2)\in\{Q\}$
$(s^{8h})^{\ast}s^{4(h+i)}/s^{4(h+i)}\rightarrow s^{4h}$if $q_i:DEC(1)\in\{Q\}$
$\sigma_5$ $s^{8h}\rightarrow \lambda,$$s^{12h}\rightarrow \lambda,$$s\rightarrow\lambda,$ $s^{4h}\rightarrow \lambda,$$s^{6h+4i}\rightarrow \lambda,$$s^{4(h+i)}\rightarrow \lambda,$$s^{2}\rightarrow s$
: This table gives the rules for each of the neurons of $\Pi_{C_2}$.[]{data-label="tab:neurons of Extended SNP 2-counter"}
neuron rules
------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\sigma_1$ $s\rightarrow s$,
$\sigma_2$ $s^{41}/s\rightarrow s$,$s^{43}/s^3\rightarrow s$,$s^{44}/s^{25}\rightarrow s$,$s^{22}/s^3\rightarrow s$,$s^{23}/s^{5}\rightarrow s$,
$s^{21(h+i)-1}/s^{5}\rightarrow s$,$s^{21(h+i)-5}/s^{3}\rightarrow s$,$s^{21(h+i)-7}/s^{2}\rightarrow s,$$s^{21(h+i)-8}/s^{3}\rightarrow s$
$s^{21(h+i)-10}/s^{5}\rightarrow s$,$s^{42h+1}/s\rightarrow s,$$s^{\ast}s^{42h+3}/s\rightarrow s$
$s^{21(h+i)+1}/s^{4}\rightarrow s$if $q_i:INC \in\{Q\}$
$s^{21(h+i)-2}/s^{21(h+i-l)+1}\rightarrow s$if $q_i:INC(1) \in\{Q\}$
$s^{21(h+i)-2}/s^{21(h+i-l)+2}\rightarrow s$if $q_i:INC(x) \in\{Q\},\;x\neq 1$
$s^{21(h+i)-2}/s^{21(h+i-k)-1}\rightarrow s$if $q_i:DEC \in\{Q\}$
$s^{21(h+i)+1}/s^{5}\rightarrow s$if $q_i:DEC(1)\in\{Q\}$
$s^{21(h+i)+1}/s^{6}\rightarrow s$if $q_i:DEC(x)\in\{Q\},\;x\neq 1$
$s^{21(h+i)-11}/s^{6}\rightarrow s$if $q_i:DEC(1)\in\{Q\}$
$s^{21(h+i)-11}/s^{5}\rightarrow s$if $q_i:DEC(x)\in\{Q\},\;x\neq 1$
$s^{21(h+i)-13}/s^{21(h+i-l)-6}\rightarrow s$if $q_i:DEC(1)\in\{Q\}$
$s^{21(h+i)-13}/s^{21(h+i-l)-7}\rightarrow s$if $q_i:DEC(x)\in\{Q\},\;x\neq 1$
$\sigma_3$ $s^{41}/s\rightarrow s$,$s^{43}/s^3\rightarrow s$,$s^{44}/s^{31}\rightarrow s$,$s^{16}/s^{3}\rightarrow s$, $s^{21(h+i)-1}/s^{5}\rightarrow s$
$s^{21(h+i)+5}/s^{11}\rightarrow s$,$s^{21(h+i)-5}/s^{3}\rightarrow s$, $s^{21(h+i)-7}/s^{2}\rightarrow s$,$s^{21(h+i)-8}/s^{3}\rightarrow s$
$s^{21(h+i)-11}/s^{6}\rightarrow s$ $s^{21(h+i)-13}/s^{21(h+i-l)-6}\rightarrow s$,$s^{21(h+i)+4}/s^{21(h+i-k)+5}\rightarrow s$
$s^{42h+1}/s\rightarrow s$,$s^{\ast}s^{42h+3}/s\rightarrow s$
$s^{21(h+i)+1}/s^{21(h+i-l)+6}\rightarrow s$if $q_i:INC(1)\in\{Q\}$
$s^{21(h+i)+1}/s^{4}\rightarrow s$if $q_i:INC(x)\in\{Q\},\;x\neq 1$
$s^{21(h+i)-2}/s^{21(h+i-l)+2}\rightarrow s$if $q_i:INC(x) \in\{Q\}$
$s^{21(h+i)-2}/s^{21(h+i-k)-1}\rightarrow s$if $q_i:DEC \in\{Q\}$
$s^{21(h+i)+1}/s^{6}\rightarrow s$if $q_i:DEC(x)\in\{Q\},\;x\neq 1$
$s^{21(h+i)-10}/s^{5}\rightarrow s$if $q_i:DEC(1)\in\{Q\}$
$s^{21(h+i)-10}/s^{21(h+i-l)+5}\rightarrow s$if $q_i:DEC(x)\in\{Q\},\;x\neq 1$
: This table gives the rules for neurons $\sigma_1$ to $\sigma_3$ of $\Pi'_{C_3}$.[]{data-label="tab:neurons of SNP I"}
neuron rules
--------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\sigma_4$ $s^{41}/s\rightarrow s$,$s^{43}/s^3\rightarrow s$,$s^{44}/s^{31}\rightarrow s$,$s^{16}/s^{3}\rightarrow s$,$s^{21(h+i)-1}/s^{5}\rightarrow s$
$s^{21(h+i)+5}/s^{11}\rightarrow s$,$s^{21(h+i)-5}/s^{3}\rightarrow s$,$s^{21(h+i)-8}/s^{3}\rightarrow s$
$s^{21(h+i)-10}/s^{21(h+i-l)+5}\rightarrow s,$ $s^{21(h+i)+4}/s^{21(h+i-k)+5}\rightarrow s$,$s^{42h+1}/s\rightarrow s$
$s^{21(h+i)+1}/s^{21(h+i-l)+6}\rightarrow s$if $q_i:INC(x)\in\{Q\},\;x\neq 3$
$s^{21(h+i)+1}/s^{4}\rightarrow s$if $q_i:INC(3)\in\{Q\}$
$s^{21(h+i)-2}/s^{21(h+i-l)+2}\rightarrow s$if $q_i:INC(x) \in\{Q\}$
$s^{21(h+i)-2}/s^{21(h+i-k)-1}\rightarrow s$if $q_i:DEC \in\{Q\}$
$s^{21(h+i)+1}/s^{6}\rightarrow s$if $q_i:DEC(3)\in\{Q\}$
$s^{21(h+i)-7}/s^{21(h+i-l)+10}\rightarrow s$if $q_i:DEC(3)\in\{Q\}$
$s^{21(h+i)-7}/s^{2}\rightarrow s$if $q_i:DEC(x)\in\{Q\},\;x\neq 3$
$\sigma_5$ $s^{41}/s\rightarrow s$,$s^{43}/s^3\rightarrow s$,$s^{44}/s^{31}\rightarrow s$,$s^{16}/s^{3}\rightarrow s$
$s^{21(h+i)+5}/s^{11}\rightarrow s$,$s^{21(h+i)-5}/s^{3}\rightarrow s$,$s^{21(h+i)-7}/s^{21(h+i-l)+10}\rightarrow s$
$s^{21(h+i)+4}/s^{21(h+i-k)+5}\rightarrow s$,$s^{42h+1}/s\rightarrow s$
$s^{21(h+i)+1}/s^{21(h+i-l)+6}\rightarrow s$if $q_i:INC\in\{Q\}$
$\sigma_6,\sigma_7$ $s^{41}/s\rightarrow s$,$s^{43}/s^3\rightarrow s$,$s^{44}/s^{31}\rightarrow s$,$s^{16}/s^{3}\rightarrow s$,
$s^{21(h+i)+5}/s^{11}\rightarrow s$,$s^{21(h+i)-5}/s^{3}\rightarrow s$,$s^{21(h+i)-7}/s^{21(h+i-l)+10}\rightarrow s$
$s^{21(h+i)+4}/s^{21(h+i-k)+5}\rightarrow s$
$s^{21(h+i)+1}/s^{21(h+i-l)+6}\rightarrow s$if $q_i:INC\in\{Q\}$
$\sigma_{8}$ $(s^{6})^\ast s^{11}/s^{6}\rightarrow s$,$(s^{6})^\ast s^{13}/s\rightarrow s$,$s^{7}\rightarrow \lambda$,
$(s^{6})^\ast s^{8}/s^{8}\rightarrow s$,$(s^{6})^\ast s^{9}/s^{9}\rightarrow s$,
$\sigma_{9}$ $(s^{6})^\ast s^{10}/s^{6}\rightarrow s$,$(s^{6})^\ast s^{7}/s^{7}\rightarrow s$,$(s^{6})^\ast s^{14}/s^{2}\rightarrow s$,
$s^{8}\rightarrow \lambda$,$(s^{6})^\ast s^{9}/s^{9}\rightarrow s$,
$\sigma_{10}$ $(s^{6})^\ast s^{10}/s^{6}\rightarrow s$,$(s^{6})^\ast s^{11}/s^{6}\rightarrow s$,$(s^{6})^\ast s^{7}/s^{7}\rightarrow s$,
$(s^{6})^\ast s^{8}/s^{8}\rightarrow s$,$(s^{6})^\ast s^{15}/s^{3}\rightarrow s$,$s^{9}\rightarrow \lambda$,$s^{2}\rightarrow \lambda$
$\sigma_{11}$ $s^7\rightarrow \lambda$,$s^6\rightarrow \lambda$,$s\rightarrow \lambda$,$s^{11}/s\rightarrow s$,$(s^3)^{\ast}s^{14}/s\rightarrow s$,
$s^{4}\rightarrow \lambda$,$s^{2}\rightarrow \lambda$,$s^{3}\rightarrow \lambda$,$s^{10}\rightarrow s$
$\sigma_{12},\sigma_{15}$ $(s^{3})^\ast s^{4}/s^{3}\rightarrow s$,$s\rightarrow s$,
$\sigma_{13},\sigma_{14},\sigma_{16},\sigma_{17}$ $(s^{3})^\ast s^{4}/s^{3}\rightarrow s$,$s\rightarrow \lambda$,
: This table gives the rules for neurons $\sigma_4$ to $\sigma_{17}$ of $\Pi'_{C_3}$.[]{data-label="tab:neurons of SNP II"}
[^1]: Note that no formal definition of this notion was explicitly given in[@Paun2007].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We introduce an affine generalization of counter automata, and analyze their ability as well as affine finite automata. Our contributions are as follows. We show that there is a language that can be recognized by exact realtime affine counter automata but by neither 1-way deterministic pushdown automata nor realtime deterministic $k$-counter automata. We also show that a certain promise problem, which is conjectured not to be solved by two-way quantum finite automata in polynomial time, can be solved by Las Vegas affine finite automata. Lastly, we show that how a counter helps for affine finite automata by showing that the language $ {\mathtt{MANYTWINS}}$, which is conjectured not to be recognized by affine, quantum or classical finite state models in polynomial time, can be recognized by affine counter automata with one-sided bounded-error in realtime.'
author:
- Masaki Nakanishi
- Kamil Khadiev
- 'Krišjānis Prūsis Jevgēnijs Vihrovs Abuzer Yakary[i]{}lmaz'
bibliography:
- 'tcs.bib'
title: 'Exact Affine Counter Automata[^1]'
---
Introduction
============
Quantum computation models can be more powerful than their classical counterparts. This is mainly because quantum models are allowed to use negative amplitudes, by which interference can occur between configurations. In order to mimic quantum interference classically, recently a new concept called affine computation was introduced [@DCY16A] and its finite automata versions (AfAs) have been examined [@DCY16A; @VilY16A; @BMY16A; @HMY17]. Some underlying results are as follows: (i) they are more powerful than their probabilistic and quantum counterparts (PFAs and QFAs) with bounded and unbounded error; (ii) one-sided bounded-error AfAs and nondeterministic QFAs define the same class when using rational number transitions; and, (iii) AfAs can distinguish any given pair of strings by using two states with zero-error. Very recently, affine OBDD was introduced in [@IKPVY17A] and it was shown that they can be exponentially narrower than bounded-error quantum and classical OBDDs.
In this paper, we introduce (realtime) AfA augmented with a counter (AfCAs), and analyze their ability as well as Las Vegas AfAs. It is already known that AfAs can simulate QFAs exactly by a quadratic increase in the number of states [@VilY16A]. However, this simulation cannot be extended to the simulation of QFAs with a counter (QCAs). Therefore, the quantum interference used by QCAs cannot be trivially used by AfCAs. Besides, the well-formed conditions for QCAs can be complicated, but as seen soon, they are easy to check for AfCAs. Thus, we believe that AfCAs may present classical and simpler setups for the tasks done by QCAs.
Our main contribution in this paper is that we show that there is a language that can be recognized exactly (zero-error) by realtime AfCAs but neither by 1-way deterministic pushdown automata nor by realtime deterministic $k$-counter automata. This is the first separation result concerning AfCAs. This is a strong result since an exact one-way probabilistic one-counter automaton (PCA) is simply a one-way deterministic one-counter automaton (DCA) and it is still open whether exact one-way QCAs are more powerful than one-way DCAs and whether bounded-error one-way QCAs are more powerful than one-way bounded-error PCAs (see [@SY12A; @NY15A] for some affirmative results).
In [@RasY14A], it was shown that a certain promise problem can be solved by two-way QFAs (2QCFAs) exactly but in exponential time, and bounded-error two-way PFAs (2PFAs) can solve the problem only if they are allowed to use logarithmic amount of memory. We show that the same problem can be solved by realtime Las Vegas AfAs or AfAs with restart in linear expected time. Lastly, we address the language $ {\mathtt{MANYTWINS}}$, which is conjectured not to be recognized by affine, quantum or classical finite state models in polynomial time. We show how a counter helps for AfAs by showing that $ {\mathtt{MANYTWINS}}$ can be recognized by AfCAs with one-sided bounded-error in realtime read mode.
In the next section, we provide the necessary background. Our main results are given in Sections 3, 4 and 5, respectively. Section 6 concludes the paper.
Background
==========
We assume the reader to have the knowledge of automata theory, and familiarity with the basics of probabilistic and quantum automata. We refer [@SayY14A] and [@AY15A] for the quantum models.
Throughout the paper, the input alphabet is denoted as $ \Sigma $ not including the left end-marker (${\mbox{\textcent}}$) and the right end-marker (${\$}$). The set $ {\widetilde{\Sigma}}$ denotes $ \Sigma \cup \{{\mbox{\textcent}},{\$}\} $. For a given input $ w \in \Sigma^* $, $ |w| $ is the length of $w$, $w[i]$ is the $i$-th symbol of $w$, and $ {\tilde{w}}= {\mbox{\textcent}}w {\$}$. For any given string $ w \in \{1,2\}^* $, $ e(w) $ denotes the encoding of $ w $ in base-3. The value $ \overline{1} $ in a vector represents the value that makes the vector summation equal to 1, i.e., if the summation of all other entries is $ x $, then it represents the value $ 1-x $.
A (realtime) affine finite automaton (AfA) [@DCY16A] $ A $ is a 5-tuple $$A = (S,\Sigma,\{M_\sigma \mid \sigma \in {\widetilde{\Sigma}}\},s_I,S_a),$$ where $ S = \{s_1,\ldots,s_n\} $ is a finite set of states, $ \Sigma $ is a finite set of input symbols, $M_\sigma$ is the $ n\times n $ affine transition matrix for symbol $\sigma \in {\widetilde{\Sigma}}$, $ s_I \in S $ is the initial state, and $ S_a \subseteq S $ is a finite set of accepting states.
We consider a one-to-one correspondence between the set of configurations (i.e., the set of states $ S $) and the standard basis of an $n$-dimensional real vector space. Then, any affine state is represented as an $n$-dimensional real vector such that the summation of all entries is equal to 1. For a given input $w \in \Sigma^*$, $A$ starts its computation in the initial affine state $ v_0 $, where the $I$-th entry is 1 and the others are zeros. Then, it reads $ {\tilde{w}}$ symbol by symbol from the left to the right and for each symbol the affine state is changed as follows: $$v_j = M_{{\tilde w}[j]} v_{j-1},$$ where $ 1 \leq j \leq |{\tilde{w}}| $. To be a well-formed machine, the summation of entries of each column of $ M_\sigma $ must be 1. The final state is denoted as $v_f = v_{|{\tilde{w}}|}$. At the end, the weighting operator[^2] returns the probability of observing each state as $$Pr[\mbox{observing } s_i] = \frac{| v_f[i] | }{|v_f|},$$ where $ 1 \leq i \leq |S| $, $ v_f[i] $ is the $ i $-th entry of $ v_f $, and $ |v_f| $ is $l_1$ norm of $ v_f $. Thus, the input $w$ is accepted by $ A $ with probability $$f_A(w) = \sum_{s_i \in S_a} \frac{| v_f[i] | }{|v_f|}.$$
Next, we define a new affine model. A (realtime) affine counter automaton (AfCA) $A$ is an AfA augmented with a counter. Formally, it is a 5-tuple $$A = (S,\Sigma,\delta,s_I,S_a),$$ where the difference from an AfA $$\delta: S \times {\widetilde{\Sigma}}\times \{Z,NZ\} \times S \times \{-1,0,+1\} \rightarrow {\mathbb R}$$ is the transition function governing the behavior of $A$ such that when it is in the state $ s \in S $, reads the symbol $ \sigma \in {\widetilde{\Sigma}}$, and the current status of the counter is $ \theta \in \{Z,NZ\} $ ($Z:$ zero, $NZ:$ nonzero), it makes the following transition with value $ \delta(s,\sigma,\theta,s',d) $: it switches to the state $ s' \in S $ and updates the value of the counter by $ d \in \{ -1,0,+1 \} $. To be a well-formed affine machine, the transition function must satisfy that, for each triple $ (s,\sigma,\theta) \in S \times {\widetilde{\Sigma}}\times \{Z, NZ\} $, $$\sum\limits_{s' \in S, d\in \{-1,0,+1\}} \delta(s,\sigma,\theta,s',d) = 1.$$ Remark that the value of the counter can be updated by a value in $ \{-t,\ldots,+t\} $ for some $ t>1 $ but this does not change the computational power of the model (see [@YFSA12A] for more details).
Any classical configuration of $ A $ is formed by a pair $ (s,c) \in S \times \mathbb{Z} $, where $ s $ is the deterministic state and $ c $ is the value of the counter. Let $w \in \Sigma^*$ be the given input and $ m = | {\mbox{\textcent}}w {\$}| $. Since all possible values of the counter are in $ \{ -m,\ldots,m \} $, the total number of classical configurations is $ N = m |S| $. We denote the set $ \{ (s,c) \mid s \in S, c \in \{-m,\ldots,m\} \} $ for $ w $ as $\mathcal{C}^w$. In a similar way to AfAs, the automaton $ A $ reads $ {\mbox{\textcent}}w {\$}$ symbol by symbol from the left to the right and $ A $ operates on the classical configurations. Each such configuration, say $ (s,c) $, can be seen as the state of an affine system which we represent as $ {\langle s,c \rangle} $ (a vector in the standard basis of $ \mathbb{R}^N $). During the computation, similarly to quantum models, $ A $ can be in more than one classical configuration with some values, i.e. $$v =\sum_{(s,c) \in \mathcal{C}^w} \alpha_{s,c} {\langle s,c \rangle} \mbox{ satisfying that } \sum_{(s,c) \in \mathcal{C}^w} \alpha_{s,c} = 1.$$ Due to their simplicity, we use such linear combinations to trace the computation of an AfCA. Then we can also define the affine transition matrix $ M_\sigma $ for each $ \sigma \in \tilde{\Sigma} $ as follows: $$M_\sigma{\langle s,c \rangle} = \sum_{s'\in S, d\in \{-1, 0, +1\}} \delta(s, \sigma, \theta(c), s', d){\langle s',c+d \rangle},$$ where $ \theta(c) = Z$ if $ c = 0 $, and $ \theta(c) = NZ $ otherwise. At the beginning of computation, $A$ is in $ v_0 = {\langle s_I,0 \rangle} $. Then, after reading each symbol, the affine state of the machine is updated, i.e. $$v_0 \rightarrow v_1 \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow v_{m}, \mbox{ where } v_{i+1} = M_{\tilde{w}[i+1]}v_i \mbox{ } (0\leq i \leq m-1).$$ After reading the whole input, the final affine state becomes $$v_f = v_m = \sum_{(s,c) \in \mathcal{C}^w} \beta_{s,c} {\langle s,c \rangle},$$ and then the weighting operator is applied and the input is accepted with probability $$f_A(w) = \sum_{s \in S_a, c \in \{-m,\ldots, m\}} \frac{|\beta_{s,c}|}{|v_f|},$$ which is the total weight of “accepting” configurations out of all configurations at the end.
We can extend AfCAs to have multiple counters (affine $k$-counter automata (AfkCAs)) in a straightforward way; the transition function is extended to $ \delta: S\times \tilde{\Sigma} \times \{Z,NZ\}^k \times S \times \{-1,0,+1\}^k \longrightarrow {\mathbb R} $.
A (realtime) Las Vegas automaton is obtained from a standard one by splitting the set of states into three: the set of accepting, rejecting, and neutral states. When it enters one of them at the end of the computation, then the answers of “accepting”, “rejecting”, and ”don’t know” are given, respectively.
A (realtime) automaton with restart [@YS10B] is similar to a Las Vegas automaton, the set of states of it is split into “accepting”, “rejecting”, and “restarting” states. At the end of the computation, if the automaton enters a restarting state, then all the computation is restarted from the beginning. An automaton with restart can be seen as a restricted sweeping two-way automaton. The overall accepting probability can be simply obtained by making a normalization over the accepting and rejecting probabilities in a single round (see also [@YS13A]).
If an affine automaton is restricted to use only non-negative values as an entry of its transition matrix, then it becomes a probabilistic automaton. As a further restriction, if only 1 and 0 are allowed to be used, then it becomes a deterministic automaton. Thus, any (realtime) AfCA using only 0 and 1 as transition values is a (realtime) deterministic counter automaton (realtime DCA).
All the models mentioned above are realtime models, whose tape head moves to the right at each step. Next, we introduce a one-way model, whose tape head is allowed to move to the right or stay at the same position, but not allowed to move to the left.
A one-way deterministic pushdown automaton (1DPA) $ A $ is a 7-tuple $$A=(S, \Sigma, \Gamma, \delta, s_I, Z_0, S_a),$$ where $ S=\{s_1,\ldots, s_n\} $ is a finite set of states, $ \Sigma $ is a finite set of input symbols, $ \Gamma $ is a finite set of stack symbols, $ \delta : S\times \tilde{\Sigma} \times \Gamma \times S \times \Gamma^* \times \{0,1\} \longrightarrow \{0,1\} $ is a transition function, $ s_I $ is the initial state, $ Z_0 $ is the initial stack symbol, and $ S_a\subseteq S $ is the set of accepting states. To be a well-formed machine, the transition function must satisfy that, for each triple $ (s, \sigma, \gamma) $, $$\sum_{s'\in S, \gamma'\in \Gamma^*, D\in\{0,1\}} \delta(s, \sigma, \gamma, s', \gamma', D) = 1.$$
For a given input $ {\mbox{\textcent}}w {\$}$, the automaton $ A $ starts its computation with the following initial configuration:
- the initial state is $ s_I $,
- the stack has only the initial stack symbol $ Z_0 $,
- the tape head points to the left endmarker.
Then, at each step of the computation, $ A $ is updated according to the transition function $ \delta $, i.e., $ \delta(s, \sigma, \allowbreak \gamma, s', \bar{\gamma'}, D) =1 $ implies that if the current state is $ s $, the scanned input symbol is $ \sigma $ and the stack-top symbol is $ \gamma $, then it moves to the state $ s' $ and updates the stack by deleting the stack-top symbol and pushing $ \bar{\gamma'} $. Also, the tape head moves to $D$ where $ D=0 $ means “stationary” and $ D=1 $ means “move to the right”. Note that a move with $ D=0 $ is called an $\varepsilon$-move. For an input word $ w $, if $ A $ reaches an accepting state, then $ w $ is accepted.
A promise problem ${\tt P} \subseteq \Sigma^* $ is formed by two disjoint subsets: yes-instances $ \tt P_{yes} $ and no-instances $ \tt P_{no} $. An automaton $ A $ solves $ P $ with error bound $ \epsilon < \frac{1}{2} $ if each yes-instance (resp. no-instance) is accepted (resp. rejected) with probability at least $ 1 - \epsilon $. If all yes-instances (resp. no-instances) are accepted with probability 1 (resp. 0), then the error bound is called one-sided. If $ \epsilon = 0 $, then the problem is said to be solved exactly (or with zero-error). A promise problem is solved by a Las Vegas algorithm with success probability $ p<1 $ if any yes-instance (resp. no-instance) is accepted (resp. rejected) with probability $ p' \geq p $ and the answer of “don’t know” is given with the remaining probability $ 1 - p' $. If $ \mathtt{P_{yes}} \cup \mathtt{P_{no}} = \Sigma^* $, then it is called language recognition (for $ \tt P_{yes} $) instead of solving a promise problem.
Exact separation
================
We start with defining a new language $ {\mathtt{END}}$: $${\mathtt{END}}= \{ w \in \{0,1,2\}^*2\{0,1,2\}^* \mid w^r[{|w|_2}] = 1 \},$$ where $ |w|_2 $ is the number of symbols $2$ in $ w $, $ w^r $ is the reverse of $w$, and $ w^r[{|w|_2}] $ is the $ (|w|_2) $-th symbol of $ w^r $.
The language $ {\mathtt{END}}$ is recognized by an AfCA $ A $ exactly.
We will use two states $ (s_1,s_2) $ for deterministic computation and five states ($ p_0,p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4 $) for affine computation. The initial states are $ s_1 $ and $p_0 $. In other words, we consider a product of a 2-state deterministic finite automaton and a 5-state affine counter automaton.
The classical part is responsible for checking whether the given input has at least one symbol 2. For this purpose, $ s_1 $ switches to $ s_2 $ after reading a symbol $2 $ and then never leaves $ s_2 $ until the end of the computation. If the automaton ends in state $ s_1 $, the input is rejected.
From now on, we focus on the affine transitions. The computation starts in the following affine configuration: $${\langle p_0,0 \rangle},$$ where $ p_0 $ is the affine state and $ 0 $ represents the counter value.
After reading the left end-marker, $ p_0 $ goes to $ p_0 $, $ p_1 $, and $ p_2 $ with the values $1$, $1 $, and $ -1 $, respectively, without changing the counter value. Then, the affine state becomes $${\langle p_0,0 \rangle}+{\langle p_1,0 \rangle}-{\langle p_2,0 \rangle}.$$
We list the all transitions until reading the right end-marker below, in which $ c $ can be any integer representing the counter value. Remark that the counter status is never checked in these transitions.
- When reading a symbol 0:
- $ {\langle p_0,c \rangle} \rightarrow {\langle p_0,c \rangle} $
- $ {\langle p_1,c \rangle} \rightarrow {\langle p_1,c \rangle} - \frac{1}{2} {\langle p_3,c+1 \rangle} + \frac{1}{2} {\langle p_4,c+1 \rangle} $
- $ {\langle p_2,c \rangle} \rightarrow {\langle p_2,c \rangle} $
- $ {\langle p_3,c \rangle} \rightarrow {\langle p_3,c+1 \rangle} $
- $ {\langle p_4,c \rangle} \rightarrow {\langle p_4,c+1 \rangle} $
- When reading a symbol 1:
- $ {\langle p_0,c \rangle} \rightarrow {\langle p_0,c \rangle} $
- $ {\langle p_1,c \rangle} \rightarrow {\langle p_1,c \rangle} + \frac{1}{2} {\langle p_3,c+1 \rangle} - \frac{1}{2} {\langle p_4,c+1 \rangle} $
- $ {\langle p_2,c \rangle} \rightarrow {\langle p_2,c \rangle} $
- $ {\langle p_3,c \rangle} \rightarrow {\langle p_3,c+1 \rangle} $
- $ {\langle p_4,c \rangle} \rightarrow {\langle p_4,c+1 \rangle} $
- When reading a symbol 2:
- $ {\langle p_0,c \rangle} \rightarrow {\langle p_0,c \rangle} $
- $ {\langle p_1,c \rangle} \rightarrow {\langle p_1,c-1 \rangle} - \frac{1}{2} {\langle p_3,c \rangle} + \frac{1}{2} {\langle p_4,c \rangle} $
- $ {\langle p_2,c \rangle} \rightarrow {\langle p_2,c-1 \rangle} $
- $ {\langle p_3,c \rangle} \rightarrow {\langle p_3,c \rangle} $
- $ {\langle p_4,c \rangle} \rightarrow {\langle p_4,c \rangle} $
Let $ w $ be the input, let $ n=|w| $, $ x = w^r $, and $ |w|_2 = k \geq 1 $. The affine state before reading the right end-marker is $${\langle p_0,0 \rangle} + {\langle p_1,-k \rangle} - {\langle p_2,-k \rangle} + \sum_{i=1}^{|x|=n} (-1)^{x[i]} {\left( -\frac{1}{2} {\langle p_3,i-k \rangle} + \frac{1}{2} {\langle p_4,i-k \rangle} \right)}.$$ Here the first three terms are trivial since (i) $ {\langle p_0,0 \rangle} $ never leaves itself, and, (ii) the values of $ p_1 $ and $ p_2 $ are never changed and the counter value is decreased for each symbol 2 ($ k $ times in total).
In order to verify the last term, we closely look into the step when reading an arbitrary input symbol, say $ w[j] $ ($ 1 \leq j \leq n $). Suppose that $ t \in \{0,\ldots,j-1 \} $ symbols 2 have been read until now. We calculate the final counter values of the configurations with states $ p_3 $ and $ p_4 $ that are created from $ {\langle p_1,-t \rangle} $ in this step.
- If $ w[j] $ is $ 0 $ or $ 1 $, then the following configurations are created: $$-\frac{1}{2} {\langle p_3,-t+1 \rangle} + \frac{1}{2} {\langle p_4,-t+1 \rangle} \mbox{ or } \frac{1}{2} {\langle p_3,-t+1 \rangle} - \frac{1}{2} {\langle p_4,-t+1 \rangle},$$ respectively. In the remaining part of the computation, $ k-t $ symbols 2 and $ n-j-(k-t) $ symbols 0 or 1 are read. When reading a symbol 2, the counter value remains the same and it is increased by 1 when a symbol 0 or 1 is read. Thus, their final counter values hit $ -t+1+n-j-(k-t) = (n-j+1)-k $.
- If $ w[j] $ is 2, then the following configuration is created: $$-\frac{1}{2} {\langle p_3,-t \rangle} + \frac{1}{2} {\langle p_4,-t \rangle}.$$ In the remaining part of the computation, $ k-t-1 $ symbols 2 and $ n-j-(k-t-1) $ symbols 0 or 1 are read. Then, as explained in the previous item, their final counter values hit $ -t+n-j-(k-t-1) = (n-j+1)-k $.
It is clear that $ n-j+1 $ refers to $ i $ in the above equation, i.e. $ x[i] = x[n-j+1] = w[j] $, and so the correctness of this equation is verified. Moreover, we can follow that the counter value for these configurations is zero if and only if $ i = n-j+1 = k $, and, this refers to the input symbol $ x[|w|_2] = (w^r)[|w|_2] $.
Therefore, if we can determine the value of $ w^r[|w|_2] $ with zero error, then we can also determine whether the given input is in the language or not with zero error. For this purpose, we use the following transitions on the right end-marker in which the value of the counter is not changed:
- Both states $ p_1 $ and $ p_2 $ switch to $ p_1 $. Thus, the pair $ {\langle p_1,-k \rangle} - {\langle p_2,-k \rangle} $ disappears.
- If the value of the counter is non-zero, both states $ p_3 $ and $ p_4 $ switch to $ p_3 $. Thus, each pair of the form $ (-1)^{x[i]} {\left( \frac{1}{2} {\langle p_1,\neq 0 \rangle} - \frac{1}{2} {\langle p_2,\neq 0 \rangle} \right)} $ disappears ($ i \neq k $).
- If the value of the counter is zero, both states $ p_3 $ and $ p_4 $ switch to themselves. Moreover, the state $ p_0 $ switches to $ p_3 $ and $ p_4 $ with values of $ \frac{1}{2} $. Then, the following interference appears: $$v_f =
(-1)^{x[i]} {\left( -\frac{1}{2} {\langle p_3,0 \rangle} + \frac{1}{2} {\langle p_4,0 \rangle} \right)}
+
\frac{1}{2} {\langle p_3,0 \rangle} + \frac{1}{2} {\langle p_4,0 \rangle}.$$
If $ x[i] = 1 $, then $ v_f = {\langle p_3,0 \rangle} $. If $ x[i] = 0 $ or $ x[i] =2 $, then $ v_f = {\langle p_4,0 \rangle} $. Thus, by setting $ (s_2,p_3) $ as the only accepting state, we can obtain the desired machine.
Next, we prove that the language $ {\mathtt{END}}$ is recognized neither by 1-way deterministic pushdown automata (1DPAs) nor by realtime deterministic $k$-counter automata (realtime DkCAs)[^3]. For this purpose, we introduce the following lemma (the pumping lemma for deterministic context-free languages (DCFLs)) [@Yu89].
\[lemma:pumping\] (Pumping Lemma for DCFLs [@Yu89]) Let $ L $ be a DCFL. Then there exists a constant $ C $ for $ L $ such that for any pair of words $ w $, $ w' \in L $ if
1. $ w = xy $ and $ w' = xz, |x| > C $, and
2. $ ^{(1)}y = \,^{(1)}z $, where $ ^{(1)}w $ is defined to be the first symbol of $ w $ $$^{(1)}w = \left \{
\begin{array}{ll}
x & \mbox{ if } |w| > 1, w=xy, \mbox{ and } |x| = 1;\\
w & \mbox{ if } |w| \leq 1,
\end{array}\right .$$
then either (3) or (4) is true:
3. there is a factorization $ x=x_1 x_2 x_3 x_4 x_5, |x_2 x_4| \geq 1 $ and $ |x_2 x_3 x_4| \leq C $, such that for all $ i \geq 0 $ $ x_1 x_2^i x_3 x_4^i x_5 y $ and $ x_1 x_2^i x_3 x_4^i x_5 z $ are in $ L $;
4. there exist factorizations $ x = x_1 x_2 x_3 $, $ y = y_1 y_2 y_3 $ and $ z = z_1 z_2 z_3 $, $ |x_2| \geq 1 $ and $ |x_2 x_3| \leq C $, such that for all $ i \geq 0 $ $ x_1 x_2^i x_3 y_1 y_2^i y_3 $ and $ x_1 x_2^i x_3 z_1 z_2^i z_3 $ are in $ L $.
\[theorem:impossibilityDPA\] The language $ {\mathtt{END}}$ cannot be recognized by any 1DPA.
We assume that $ {\mathtt{END}}$ is a DCFL and let $ C $ be the constant for $ {\mathtt{END}}$ in Lemma \[lemma:pumping\]. Choose $ w = 2^p 1 0^{p-1} \in \tt END $ and $ w' = 2^p 1 0^{p-1} 1 0^{p-1} $ for some integer $ p>C+1 $, and set $ x = 2^p 1 0^{p-2}, y = 0 $ and $ z = 0 1 0^{p-1} $. Then, $ w = xy $ and $ w' = xz $ satisfy (1) and (2) in Lemma \[lemma:pumping\].
We first consider the case that (3) holds. In order to satisfy $ x_1 x_2^i x_3 x_4^i x_5 y \in {\mathtt{END}}$ for $ i\geq 0 $, $ x_2 x_4 $ must not have the symbol 1 (otherwise, $ x_1 x_2^0 x_3 x_4^0 x_5 y \not\in {\mathtt{END}}$). Thus, $ x_2 $ and $ x_4 $ are of the form $ 2^t $ or $ 0^t $ for some constant $ t $. If $ x_2 = 2^{t_1} $ and $ x_4 = 2^{t_2} $, $ x_1 x_2^i x_3 x_4^i x_5 y \not\in {\mathtt{END}}$ for $ i\neq 1$. Similarly, $ x_2 = 0^{t_1} $ and $ x_4 = 0^{t_2} $ cannot occur. Thus, the only possible choice is $ x_2 = 2^{t_1} $ and $ x_4 = 0^{t_2} $ for some $ t_1 $ and $ t_2 $. In order to satisfy $x_1 x_2^i x_3 x_4^i x_5 y \in {\mathtt{END}}$ for $ i\geq 0 $, $ t_1 = t_2$ must hold. However, This causes $ x_1 x_2^i x_3 x_4^i x_5 z \not\in {\mathtt{END}}$ for $ i\neq 1 $. Thus, (3) does not hold.
Next, we consider the case that (4) holds. Since $ |x_2 x_3 | \leq C $, $ x_2 $ can have only 0s. Thus, for any factorization $ w = x_1 x_2 x_3 y_1 y_2 y_3 $, $ x_1 x_2^i x_3 y_1 y_2^i y_3 \not\in {\mathtt{END}}$ for $ i \neq 1 $. Thus, (4) does not hold. This is a contradiction. Therefore, $ {\mathtt{END}}$ is not a DCFL, which implies no 1DPA can recognize $ {\mathtt{END}}$.
\[theorem:impossibilityDkCA\] The language $ {\mathtt{END}}$ cannot be recognized by any realtime DkCA.
We assume that there exists a realtime DkCA that recognizes $ {\mathtt{END}}$. We consider an input of the form $ w = 2^m x y (x\in \{0,1\}^m, y\in \{0,1\}^*) $. Then we have $ 2^m $ possible $ x $’s. For any $ x_1 $ and $ x_2 \in \{0,1\}^m (x_1 \neq x_2) $, we will show that there exists a $ y $ such that $ 2^m x_1 y \in {\mathtt{END}}$ and $ 2^m x_2 y \not\in {\mathtt{END}}$ or vice versa.
We assume that $ x_1[i] \neq x_2[i] $. Note that there exists such an $ i $ since $ x_1 \neq x_2 $. We also assume that $ x_1[i] = 1 $ and $ x_2[i] = 0 $ without loss of generality. We set $ y=0^{i-1} $. Then $ (2^m x_1 y)^R[m] = x_1[i] = 1 $ and $ (2^m x_2 y)^R[m] = x_2[i] = 0 $. Thus, $ 2^m x_1 y \in {\mathtt{END}}$ and $ 2^m x_2 y \not\in {\mathtt{END}}$. Therefore, the configurations after reading $ 2^m x_1 $ and $ 2^m x_2 $ must be different. However, the number of possible configurations for a realtime DkCA after reading the partial input $ 2^m x $ is $ O(m) $ while there are $ 2^m $ possible $ x $’s. This is a contradiction.
Currently, we do not know any QCA algorithm solving $ {\mathtt{END}}$. Moreover, recently another promise problem solvable by exact QCAs but not by DCAs was introduced in [@NY15A] and we also do not know whether AfCAs can solve this promise problem.
Las Vegas algorithms
====================
In [@RasY14A], some promise problems were given in order to show the superiority of two-way QFAs (2QCFAs) over two-way PFAs (2PFAs). We show that the same problem can be solved by realtime Las Vegas AfAs or AfAs with restart in linear expected time.
First we review the results given in [@RasY14A]. Let $ {\mathtt{PAL}}= \{ w \in \{1,2\}^* \mid w = w^r \} $ be the language of palindromes. Based on $ {\mathtt{PAL}}$, the following promise problem is defined: $ {\mathtt{PAL \mbox{-} NPAL}}$ composed of
- $ {\mathtt{PAL \mbox{-} NPAL_{yes}}}= \{ x 0 y \mid x \in {\mathtt{PAL}}, y \not\in {\mathtt{PAL}}\} $ and
- $ {\mathtt{PAL \mbox{-} NPAL_{no}}}\mspace{7.1mu} = \{ x 0 y \mid x \not\in {\mathtt{PAL}}, y \in {\mathtt{PAL}}\} $.
It was shown that $ {\mathtt{PAL \mbox{-} NPAL}}$ can be recognized by 2QCFAs exactly but in exponential time and bounded-error 2PFAs can recognize $ {\mathtt{PAL \mbox{-} NPAL}}$ only if they are allowed to use a logarithmic amount of memory. Now we show that $ {\mathtt{PAL \mbox{-} NPAL}}$ can be recognized by realtime Las Vegas AfAs and so also by AfAs with restart in linear expected time.
The promise problem $ {\mathtt{PAL \mbox{-} NPAL}}$ can be solved by Las Vegas AfA $ A $ with any success probability $ p < 1 $.
It is known that AfAs can recognize $ {\mathtt{PAL}}$ with one-sided bounded-error [@VilY16A; @YS10B] and so we can design a Las Vegas automaton for $ {\mathtt{PAL \mbox{-} NPAL}}$ by using similar ideas given in [@RasY14A; @GefY15A].
The automaton $ A $ has 5 states $ S = \{ s_1,\ldots,s_5 \} $ where $ s_1 $ and $ s_2 $ are accepting states; $ s_3 $ and $s_4$ are rejecting states; and $s_5$ is the only neutral state. After reading $ {\mbox{\textcent}}$, the affine state is set to $ v_1 = (0~~0~~1~~0~~0)^T $. Remember that $ e(u) $ denotes the encoding of the string $ u \in \{1,2\}^* $ in base-3.
We apply the following operators when reading symbols 1 and 2: $$M_1 = {\left( \begin{array}{rrrrr} 4 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 3 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ -3 & ~ -1 & ~ -4 & ~ -1 & ~~~ 0 \end{array} \right)}
\mbox{ and }
M_2 = {\left( \begin{array}{rrrrr} 5 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 \\ 0 & 1 & 2 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 3 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ -4 & ~ -2 & ~ -6 & ~ -2 & ~-1 \end{array} \right)}$$ that encode strings $ u $ and $ u^r $ into the values of the first and second states in base-3 after reading $u \in \{1,2\}^*$. Here the third entry helps for encoding $ u^r $, the fourth entry is irrelevant to encoding, and the fifth entry is used to make the state a well-defined affine vector. By using induction, we can show that $ M_1 $ and $ M_2 $ do the aforementioned encoding if the first three entries are respectively 0, 0, and 1.
For $ u = 1 $ or $ u = 2 $, we can have respectively $$v_{|{\mbox{\textcent}}1|} = {\left( \begin{array}{r} 1 \\ 1 \\ 3 \\ * \\ \overline{1}\end{array} \right)}
\mbox{ and }
v_{|{\mbox{\textcent}}2|} = {\left( \begin{array}{r} 2 \\ 2 \\ 3 \\ * \\ \overline{1}\end{array} \right)}.$$ Suppose that $ u $ is read, then we have the following affine state $$v_{|{\mbox{\textcent}}u|} = {\left( \begin{array}{c} e(u) \\ e(u^r) \\ 3^{|u|} \\ * \\ \overline{1}\end{array} \right)}.$$ By using this, we can calculate the new affine states after reading $ u1 $ and $ u2 $ as
[ $$v_{|{\mbox{\textcent}}u1|} = {{\left( \begin{array}{c} 3e(u)+1 = e(u1) \\ e(u^r) + 3^{|u|} = e(1u^r) \\ 3^{|u1|} \\ * \\ \overline{1} \end{array} \right)}}
\mbox{ and }
v_{|{\mbox{\textcent}}u2|} = {{\left( \begin{array}{c} 3e(u)+2 = e(u2) \\ e(u^r) + 2 \cdot 3^{|u|} = e(2u^r) \\ 3^{|u2|} \\ * \\ \overline{1}\end{array} \right)}},$$ ]{} respectively. Thus, our encoding works fine.
Let $ x0y $ be the input as promised. Then, before reading the symbol 0, the affine state will be $$v_{|{\mbox{\textcent}}x|} = {{\left( \begin{array}{c} e(x) \\ e(x^r) \\ 3^{|x|} \\ 0 \\ \overline{1} \end{array} \right)}}.$$ For the symbol 0, we apply the following operator: $$M_0 = {\left( \begin{array}{rrrrr} 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ 1 & ~ -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ -1 & 1 & ~~~ 0 & ~~~ 0 & ~~~ 0 \end{array} \right)}$$ After reading 0, the new affine state will be $$v_{|{\mbox{\textcent}}x0|} = {{\left( \begin{array}{c} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \\ e(x) - e(x^r) \\ \overline{1} \end{array} \right)}},$$ where the first three entries are set to 0, 0, and 1 for encoding $ y $, and, the difference $ e(x) - e(x^r) $ is stored into the fourth entry.
Similarly to above, after reading $ y $, the affine state will be $$v_{|{\mbox{\textcent}}x0y|} = {{\left( \begin{array}{c} e(y) \\ e(y^r) \\ 3^{|y|} \\ e(x) - e(x^r) \\ \overline{1} \end{array} \right)}}.$$ Then, the end-marker is read before the weighting operator is applied. Let $ k $ be an integer parameter. The affine operator for the symbol $ {\$}$ is $$M_{\$}(k) = {\left( \begin{array}{rrrrr} k & ~ - k & ~~~0 & 0 & 0 \\ -k & k & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & k & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & ~ -k & 0 \\ 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & ~~~ 1 \end{array} \right)}$$ and so the final state will be $$v_f = {{\left( \begin{array}{c} k (e(y) - e(y^r)) \\ -k( e(y) - e(y^r) ) \\ k (e(x) - e(x^r)) \\ -k (e(x) - e(x^r)) \\ 1 \end{array} \right)}}.$$
If the input $ x0y $ is a yes-instance, then $ x \in {\mathtt{PAL}}$ and $ y \in {\mathtt{NPAL}}$. Thus, $ e(x)-e(x^r) $ is zero and $ |e(y)-e(y^r)| $ is at least 1. In such a case, after the weighting operator, the input is accepted with probability at least $ \frac{2k}{2k+1} $ and the answer of “don’t know” is given with probability at most $ \frac{1}{2k+1} $.
If the input $ x0y $ is a no-instance, then $ x \in {\mathtt{NPAL}}$ and $ y \in {\mathtt{PAL}}$. Thus, $ |e(x)-e(x^r)| $ is at least 1 and $ e(y)-e(y^r) $ is zero. In such a case, after the weighting operator, the input is rejected with probability at least $ \frac{2k}{2k+1} $ and the answer of “don’t know” is given with probability at most $ \frac{1}{2k+1} $. By picking a sufficiency big $ k $, the success probability can be arbitrarily close to 1.
The promise problem $ {\mathtt{PAL \mbox{-} NPAL}}$ can be solved by an exact AfA with restart in linear expected time.
In the above proof, we change the neutral states to restarting states, and then obtain the desired machine. For any promised input, the input is either only accepted or only rejected. Since the success probability is constant ($ p $), the expected runtime is $ \frac{1}{p} |w| $ for the promised input $w$.
We conjecture that bounded-error 2QCFAs cannot solve $ {\mathtt{PAL \mbox{-} NPAL}}$ and $ {\mathtt{PAL}}$ in polynomial time. Moreover, we leave open whether there exists a promise problem (or a language) solvable by bounded-error AfAs but not by 2QCFAs.
Bounded-error algorithms
========================
Similar to $ {\mathtt{PAL}}$, the language $ {\mathtt{TWIN}}= \{ w0w \mid w \in \{1,2\}^* \} $ can be also recognized by one-sided bounded-error AfAs (see also [@VilY16A]). After making some straightforward modifications, we can show that the language $${{\mathtt{TWIN}(t)}}= \{ w_1 0 w_2 0 \cdots 0 w_t 3 w_t 0 \cdots 0 w_2 0 w_1 \mid w_i \in \{1,2\}^*, 1 \leq i \leq t \}$$ for some $ t>0 $ can also be recognized by negative one-sided bounded-error AfAs.
Since it is a non-regular language, it cannot be recognized by bounded-error PFAs and QFAs [@AY15A]. On the other hand, we can easily give a bounded-error 2QCFA algorithm for ${{\mathtt{TWIN}(t)}}$ [@YS10B] but similarly to $ {\mathtt{PAL}}$ it runs in exponential expected time. By using the impossibility proof given for ${\mathtt{PAL}}$ [@DS92; @RasY14A], we can also show that $ {{\mathtt{TWIN}(t)}}$ can be recognized by 2PFAs only if augmented with a logarithmic amount of memory. From the literature [@Ros66],[^4] we also know that this language can be recognized by a DFA having at least $ k $ heads, where $$t \leq {{\left( \begin{array}{c} k \\ 2\end{array} \right)}}
\mbox{ or }
k = { \left\lceil \sqrt{2t+\frac{1}{4}}-\frac{1}{2} \right\rceil } .$$ Moreover, using nondeterminism and additional pushdown store does not help to save a single head [@ChLi88]. Bounded-error PFAs can recognize $ {{\mathtt{TWIN}(t)}}$ by using two heads but the error increases when $ t $ gets bigger [@Yak11B; @Yak12B]. For a fixed error, we do not know any PFA algorithm using a fixed number of heads. The same result is also followed for bounded-error QFAs with a stack. (It is open whether bounded-error PFAs can recognize $ {{\mathtt{TWIN}(t)}}$ by using a stack [@YFSA12A].)
Based on $ {{\mathtt{TWIN}(t)}}$, we define a seemingly harder language $ {\mathtt{MANYTWINS}}$ that is defined by the union of all $ {{\mathtt{TWIN}(t)}}$s: $${\mathtt{MANYTWINS}}= \bigcup_{t = 1}^\infty {{\mathtt{TWIN}(t)}}.$$ Since the number $t$ is not known in advance, we do not know how to design a similar algorithm for the affine, quantum, and classical models discussed above. On the other hand, this language seems a good representative example for how a counter helps for AfAs.
The language $ {\mathtt{MANYTWINS}}$ can be recognized by an AfCA $A$ with one-sided bounded-error arbitrarily close to zero.
The automaton $A$ has 10 states: $ \{s_1,s_2,s_3,s'_1,s'_2,s'_3,s_e,s'_e,s_a,s_r\} $, $ s_1 $ is the initial state, and $s_a$ is the only accepting state.
Let $ k $ be an arbitrarily big integer. If there is no symbol 3, then the automaton $A$ never switches to the state $ s_a $ and so the input is accepted with zero probability. We assume then the input has at least one symbol 3 from now on.
The automaton $A$ stays in $s_1$ without changing the value of the counter when reading $ {\mbox{\textcent}}$. Then, until reading the first $ 3 $, it uses the following transitions.
Let $ u_1 = w_1 0 w_2 0 \cdots 0 w_t 3 $ be the prefix of the input until the first $ 3 $, where $ w_i \in \{1,2\}^* $ for each $ i \in \{1,\ldots,t\} $ and $ t \geq 1 $.
When reading a block of $ \{1,2\}^* $, say $w_i$, before a symbol 0 or the symbol 3, it encodes $ w_i $ into the value of $ s_2 $ in base-3 by help of the states $s_1$ and $s_3$. If $ w_i $ is the empty string, then the value of $ s_2 $ becomes 0. During encoding, the value of $ s_1 $, which is 1, does not change and the value of $ s_3 $ is updated to have a well-formed affine state.
After reading a 0:
- It stays in $ s_1 $ and increases the value of the counter by 1.
- The value of $ s_2 $ is $ e(w_i) $ before the transition. Then the values of $ s_e $ and $ s'_e $ are set to $ ke(w_i) $ and $-ke(w_i)$, respectively, and the value of the counter does not change. Moreover, the value of $s_2$ is set to zero.
- Due to the above transitions, the value of $ s_3 $ is automatically set to zero.
After reading the first $ 3 $:
- It switches from $ s_1 $ to $ s'_1 $ without changing the value of the counter.
- The value of $ s_2 $ is $ e(w_t) $ before the transition. Then the values of $ s_e $ and $ s'_e $ are set to $ ke(w_t) $ and $-ke(w_t)$, respectively, and the value of the counter does not change. Moreover, the value of $s_2$ is set to zero.
- Due to the above transitions, the value of $ s_3 $ is automatically set to zero.
Then, after reading $u_1$, the affine state will be $${\langle s'_1,t-1 \rangle} + \sum\limits_{i=1}^t \left( ke(w_i){\langle s_e,i-1 \rangle} - ke(w_i){\langle s'_e,i-1 \rangle} \right),$$ where, by using the different values of the counter, $k$ times the encoding of each $ w_i $ is stored as the values of $ s_e $ and $ s'_e $. If $ t=0$ ($ u_1 = 3 $), then the affine state will be $ {\langle s'_1,0 \rangle} $.
If after reading $u_1$ the automaton reads another symbol $ 3 $, then it switches to $ s_r $ from $ s'_1 $, $ s'_2 $, and $ s'_3 $, and then stays there until the end of the computation. Thus, in such a case, the input is also accepted with zero probability. Therefore, in the last part, we assume that the input does not have another symbol $3$.
Let $ u_2 = w'_z 0 w'_{z-1} 0 \cdots 0 w'_1 {\$}$ be the part to be read after the symbol 3, where $ w'_j \in \{1,2\}^* $ for each $ j \in \{1,\ldots,z\} $ and $ z>0 $. With a similar strategy, when reading a block of $ \{1,2\}^* $, say $ w'_j $, before a symbol 0 or the symbol ${\$}$, the automaton encodes it into the value of $ s'_2 $ in base 3 by the help of states $ s'_1 $ and $ s'_3 $. If $ w'_j $ is the empty string, then the value of $ s'_2 $ is zero. During the encoding, the value of $ s'_1 $, which is 1, does not change and the value of $ s'_3 $ is updated to have a well-formed affine state.
After reading a 0:
- It stays in $ s'_1 $ and decreases the value of the counter by 1.
- The value of $ s'_2 $ is $ e(w'_j) $ before the transition. Then the values of$ -ke(w'_j) $ and $ke(w'_j)$ are added to $ s_e $ and $ s'_e $, respectively, and the value of the counter does not change. Moreover, the value of $s'_2$ is set to zero.
- Due to the above transitions, the value of $ s'_3 $ is automatically set to zero.
After reading the $ {\$}$:
- It switches from $ s'_1 $ to $ s_a $ without changing the value of the counter.
- The value of $ s'_2 $ is $ e(w'_1) $ before the transition. Then the values of $ -ke(w'_1) $ and $ke(w'_1)$ are added to $ s_e $ and $ s'_e $, respectively, and the value of the counter does not change. Moreover, the value of $s'_2$ is set to zero.
- Due to the above transitions, the value of $ s'_3 $ is automatically set to zero.
If $ z = 0 $, then the only transition is switching from $ s'_1 $ to $ s_a $.
Suppose that $ t = z > 0 $. Then it is clear that if $ w_t = w'_z $, then the values of the affine state $ {\langle s_e,t-1 \rangle} $ and $ {\langle s'_e,t-1 \rangle} $ will be set to zero. Otherwise, their values will respectively be $ k(e(w_t)-e(w'_z)) $ and $ -k(e(w_t)-e(w'_z)) $, the absolute value of each will be at least $ k $. The same situation holds for each pair $ (w_i,w'_j) $ where $ 1 \leq i=j \leq t $. That means, if the input is a member (including the case of $ t=z=0 $), then the final affine state will be $
{\langle s_a,0 \rangle}
$ and so the input is accepted with probability 1.
On the other hand, if the input is not a member, then the final affine state will have some non-zero coefficients as the values of some configuration like $
{\langle s_e,l \rangle} \mbox{ and } {\langle s'_e,l \rangle}
$ for some $ l $. As described above, the absolute values of these non-zero coefficients are at least $ k $. Thus, any non-member will be accepted with probability at most $ \frac{1}{2k+1} $. By picking a sufficiency big $ k $, the success probability can be arbitrarily close to 1.
In the algorithm given in the proof, the status of the counter is never checked and for each member the value of the counter is set to zero. Thus, it is indeed a blind counter algorithm ([@Gre78]): The status of the counter is never checked during the computation and the input is accepted only if the value of the counter is zero at the end of computation. If the value of the counter is non-zero, the input is automatically rejected regardless of the state.
Concluding remarks
==================
We introduced affine counter automata as an extended model of affine finite automata, and showed a separation result between exact affine and deterministic models. We also showed that a certain promise problem, which cannot be solved by bounded-error 2PFAs with sublogarithmic space and is also conjectured not to be solved by two-way quantum finite automata in polynomial time, can be solved by Las Vegas affine finite automata in linear time. Lastly, we showed that a counter helps for AfAs by showing that $ {\mathtt{MANYTWINS}}$, which is conjectured not to be recognized by affine, quantum or classical finite state models in polynomial time, can be recognized by affine counter automata with one-sided bounded-error in realtime read mode. Since AfCAs are quantum like computation models that can use negative values, we believe that AfCAs can well characterize quantum counter automata and it remains as a future work.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
Nakanishi was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers 24500003, 24106009 and 16K00007, and also by the Asahi Glass Foundation. Khadiev, Vihrovs, and Yakary[i]{}lmaz were supported by ERC Advanced Grant MQC. Prusis was supported by the Latvian State Research Programme NeXIT project No. 1.
[^1]: Parts of the research work were done while Yakary[i]{}lmaz was visiting Yamagata University in November 2016 and all authors were visiting Kyoto University in March 2017.
[^2]: This operator returns the weight of each value in the $l_1$ norm of the vector.
[^3]: Since 1-way (with epsilon moves) deterministic 2-counter automata can simulate Turing machines, the restriction of “realtime” is essential.
[^4]: In the original language, there is a symbol 0 instead of the symbol 3. But since $t$ is fixed, the middle 0 can be easily detected by using internal states and so the results regarding the original language still hold for this modified version.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
[Olav Geil]{}\
Department of Mathematical Sciences\
Aalborg University\
[[[email protected]]([email protected])]{}
[*[[**[Abstract:]{}**]{} Kopparty and Wang studied in [@kopparty2014roots] the relation between the roots of a univariate polynomial over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ and the zero-nonzero pattern of its coefficients. We generalize their results to polynomials in more variables.]{}*]{}\
Introduction
============
In [@kopparty2014roots] Kopparty and Wang considered the zero-nonzero pattern of a univariate polynomial $P(X)$ over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ and its relation to the number of roots in ${\mathbb{F}}_q^\ast$. Their main theorem [@kopparty2014roots Th. 1] states that a polynomial with many zeros cannot have long sequences of consecutive coefficients all being equal to zero. Then in [@kopparty2014roots Th. 2] they gave necessary and sufficient conditions for a product of pairwise different linear factors to have sequences of zero coefficients of maximal possible length for any polynomial with prescribed number of roots. In this note we generalize the abovementioned results to polynomials in more variables.\
In Section \[sec2\] we start by recalling the results by Kopparty and Wang. In Section \[sec3\] we then present and prove the generalizations.
Univariate polynomials {#sec2}
======================
The main theorem in [@kopparty2014roots] is their Theorem 1 which we present in a slightly stronger version.
\[the1\] Let $P(X) \in {\mathbb{F}}_q[X]$ be a nonzero polynomial of degree at most $q-2$, say $P(X)=\sum_{i=0}^{q-2}b_iX^i$. Let $m$ be the number of $x\in {\mathbb{F}}_q^\ast$ with $P(x) \neq 0$. Then there does not exist any $k \in \{0, \ldots , q-2\}$ where all the $m$ coefficients $b_k$, $b_{k+1 {\mbox{ mod }} (q-1)}, \ldots, b_{k+m-1 {\mbox{ mod }}
(q-1)}$ are zero.
The modification made in Theorem \[the1\] is that we consider $k\in
\{0, \ldots , q-2\}$ rather than just $k \in \{0, \ldots ,
q-1-m\}$. The proof in [@kopparty2014roots] is easily modified to cover this more general situation. Alternatively, one can deduce it by writing $P(X)=X^sQ(X)$ with $s$ maximal and then applying [@kopparty2014roots Th. 1] to $Q(X)$.\
Obviously, if we consider a product of $q-1-m$ pairwise different linear factors $X-x$ with $x\neq 0$, this polynomial has exactly $m$ non-roots in ${\mathbb{F}}_q^\ast$ and we have $b_{q-m}=\cdots =b_{q-2}=0$ which is a sequence of $m-1$ consecutive zero coefficients modulo $q-1$. The below theorem, corresponding to [@kopparty2014roots Th. 2], gives sufficient and necessary conditions for a sub-sequence of $m-1$ consecutive zeros among $b_0, \ldots ,
b_{q-m-2}$ to exist.
\[the2\] Let $S$ be a subset of ${\mathbb{F}}_q^\ast$ of size $q-1-m$, where $m
\geq 2$ and consider $$P(X)=\prod_{a \in S}(X-a)=\sum_{i=0}^{q-1-m}b_iX^i. \label{eqtrekant}$$ There exists a $k\in \{1, \ldots , q-2m\}$ such that $b_k= \cdots
=b_{k+m-2}=0$ if and only if ${\mathbb{F}}_q^\ast \backslash S$ is contained in $\gamma H$ for some $\gamma \in {\mathbb{F}}_q^\ast$ and for some proper multiplicative subgroup $H$ of ${\mathbb{F}}_q^\ast$.
Inspecting the proof in [@kopparty2014roots] one sees that for polynomials of the form (\[eqtrekant\]) the existence of one sub-sequence of $m-1$ consecutive zero coefficients in $b_0, \ldots , b_{|S|-1}$ is equivalent to the existence of $(q-1)/|H|$ such disjoint sequences.
\[pro1\] Let $P(X)$ be a polynomial as in (\[eqtrekant\]) satisfying the condition of Theorem \[the2\]. That is, there exists a $k \in \{1,
\ldots , q-2m\}$ such that $b_k=\cdots
=b_{k+m-2}=0$ where $m=| {\mathbb{F}}_q^\ast \backslash S|$. Write $d=|H|$ where $H$ is the subgroup corresponding to $P$. The coefficients $b_{jd}, b_{jd+(d-m)}$, $j=0, \ldots , \frac{q-1}{d}-1$ are nonzero and the only other possible nonzero coefficients of $P(X)$ are $b_{jd+1},
b_{jd+1},\ldots , b_{jd+(d-m)-1}$, $j=0, \ldots ,
\frac{q-1}{d}-1$.
[**[Proof:]{}**]{} According to [@kopparty2014roots Proof of Th. 2], if $P(X)$ satisfies the conditions in Theorem \[the2\] then it can be written $$\bigg( \sum_{j=1}^{(q-1)/d}b_jX^{(q-1)-jd}\bigg) \cdot U(X)$$ where $U$ is a product of $d-m$ pairwise different expressions $X-x$ with $x \in {\mathbb{F}}_q^\ast$.
\[ex1\] Let $\alpha$ be a primitive element of ${\mathbb{F}}_{16}$. We first consider $$T=\{\beta \mid \beta^3=\alpha^3\}=\{\alpha,\alpha^6,\alpha^{11}\}.$$ The support of $P(X)$ becomes $\{1, X^3, X^6,X^9,X^{12}\}$. If we choose $T$ to be a subset of $\{ \alpha, \alpha^6, \alpha^{11}\}$ of size $2$ then the support of $P(X)$ becomes $\{1,
X,X^3,X^4,X^6,X^7,X^9,X^{10},X^{12},X^{13}\}$. Consider next $$T=\{ \beta \mid \beta^5=\alpha^{10} \}=\{\alpha^2,
\alpha^5,\alpha^8,\alpha^{11}, \alpha^{14}\}.$$ The support of $P(X)$ becomes $\{1, X^5,X^{10}\}$. Finally, if we choose $T$ to be a subset of $\{\alpha^2,
\alpha^5,\alpha^8,\alpha^{11}, \alpha^{14}\}$ of size 3 then we can conclude: $$\begin{aligned}
\{1, X^2,X^5, X^7,X^{10},X^{12}\} \subseteq {\mbox{Supp}}P \subseteq \{1, X,X^2,X^5, X^6,X^7,X^{10},X^{11}, X^{12}\}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Multivariate polynomials {#sec3}
========================
The crucial observation used in the proof of Theorem \[the1\] is that a univariate polynomial $F(X)$ can at most have $\deg F$ roots. For multivariate polynomials over general fields there does not exist a similar result as typically such polynomials have infinitely many roots when the field under consideration is infinite. For multivariate polynomials over finite fields, however, we do have a counterpart to the bound used in the proof of Theorem \[the1\]. We describe this bound in terms of roots from $({\mathbb{F}}_q^\ast)^n$ in Proposition \[pro1\] below. To motivate the bound we need a few results from Gröbner basis theory.\
Let ${\mathbb{F}}$ be a field and $I \subseteq {\mathbb{F}}[X_1, \ldots , X_n]$ an ideal. Throughout this section assume that an arbitrary fixed monomial ordering $\prec$ has been chosen. Following [@onorin] we define the footprint of $I$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_\prec (I) &=&\{ X_1^{i_1} \cdots X_n^{i_n} \mid X_1^{i_1}
\cdots X_n^{i_n} {\mbox{ is not }} \nonumber \\
&&\, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, {\mbox{ a leading monomial of any polynomial
in }}I\}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ From [@clo Prop. 4, page 229] we know that $\{M+I \mid M \in
\Delta_{\prec}(I)\}$ constitutes a basis for ${\mathbb{F}}[X_1, \ldots , X_n]/I$ as a vector space over ${\mathbb{F}}$. Assume $I$ is finite dimensional (which simply means that $\Delta_\prec(I)$ is a finite set). Consider $\ell$ pairwise different points $P_1, \ldots , P_\ell$ in the zero-set of $I$ (over ${\mathbb{F}}$). The map ${\mbox{ev}}: {\mathbb{F}}[X_1, \ldots , X_n]/I
\rightarrow {\mathbb{F}}^\ell$ given by ${\mbox{ev}}(F+I)=(F(P_1), \ldots ,
F(P_\ell))$ is a surjective vector space homomorphism (surjectivity follows by Lagrange interpolation). Therefore $$\ell \leq
|\Delta_\prec(I)|\label{eqabove}$$ (this result is often called the footprint bound [@onorin]). In particular we derive:
\[pro2\] Consider $P(\vec{X}) \in {\mathbb{F}}_q[X_1, \ldots , X_n]$ with leading monomial equal to $X_1^{i_1}\cdots X_n^{i_n}$ such that $i_s
< q-1$ for $s=1, \ldots ,n$. Let $m$ be the number of elements in $({\mathbb{F}}_q^\ast)^n$ which are not roots of $P$. Then $m \geq
\prod_{s=1}^n (q-1-i_s)$.
[**[Proof:]{}**]{} The proor follows by applying (\[eqabove\]) to the ideal $I=\langle
P(\vec{X}), X_1^{q-1}-1, \ldots , X_n^{q-1}-1 \rangle$. The footprint of this ideal is a subset of $$\begin{aligned}
\{X_1^{j_1} \cdots X_n^{j_n} \mid 0 \leq j_s < q-1,
s=1, \ldots , n, {\mbox{ not all }} j_s {\mbox{ satisfy }} i_s \leq j_s\}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the number of non-roots is at least $| \{ (j_1, \ldots , j_n) \mid i_s
\leq j_s < q-1, s=1, \ldots , n\}|$.
Observe that for $n=1$ the statement in Proposition \[pro2\] is but the well-known fact that a multivariate polynomial $P$ has at least $q-1-\deg P$ non-roots in ${\mathbb{F}}_q^\ast$.\
Before giving the generalization of Theorem \[the1\] we introduce the set $U(q,m,n)$. This set shall play the role as did the set of consecutive monomials $\{X^{q-1-m}, \ldots , X^{q-2}\}$ in connection with Theorem \[the1\].
Given positive integers $m$ and $n$ let $${\mathcal{M}}(q,n)=\{ X_1^{i_1}\cdots X_n^{i_n} \mid 0 \leq i_1,
\ldots , i_n < q-1\},$$ $$U(q,m,n)=\{X_1^{i_1} \cdots X_n^{i_n} \in {\mathcal{M}}(q,n) \mid \prod_{s=1}^m(q-1-i_s)\leq m\}.$$
\[the3\] Given a positive integer $n$ write $\vec{X}=(X_1, \ldots , X_n)$ and consider a nonzero polynomial $P(\vec{X}) \in
{\mathbb{F}}_q[\vec{X}]$ with $\deg_{X_i}P<q-1$, $i=1, \ldots ,
n$. Let $m$ be the number of $\vec{x} \in ({\mathbb{F}}_q^\ast)^n$ with $P(\vec{x})\neq 0$. Then there does not exist any $(k_1, \ldots
,k_n) \in \{0, 1, \ldots, q-2\}^n$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{Supp}}(X_1^{k_1} \cdots X_n^{k_n} P(\vec{X}) {\mbox{ mod }}
\{X_1^{q-1}-1, \ldots , X_n^{q-1}-1\}) \cap U(q,m,n)=\emptyset. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Observe that for $n=1$ we have $U(q,m,n)=\{X^{q-1-m}, \ldots ,
X^{q-1-1}\}$ which is a list of $m$ consecutive monomials. Hence, Theorem \[the3\] is a natural generalization of Theorem \[the1\] to polynomials in more variables.
[**[Proof:]{}**]{} Let $P(\vec{X})$ and $m$ be as in the theorem. Aiming for a contradiction assume that an $X_1^{k_1} \cdots X_n^{k_n}$ exists such that $$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{Supp}}\big( X_1^{k_1} \cdots X_n^{k_n} P(\vec{X}) {\mbox{ mod }}
\{X_1^{q-1}-1, \ldots , X_n^{q-1}-1\} \big) \cap U(q,m,n) =\emptyset . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ According to Proposition \[pro2\] $$X_1^{k_1} \cdots X_n^{k_n} P(\vec{X}) {\mbox{ mod }}
\{X_1^{q-1}-1, \ldots , X_n^{q-1}-1\}$$ has at least $m+1$ non-roots in ${\mathbb{F}}_q^\ast$; and so has $P(\vec{X})$.\
The generalization of Theorem \[the2\] is as follows:
\[the4\] Consider sets $S_i\subseteq {\mathbb{F}}_q^\ast$, $i=1, \ldots ,
n$. Write $s_i=|S_i|$ and assume $0<s_i <q-1$, $i=1, \ldots , n$, not all $s_i$ being equal to $q-2$. Define $T_i={\mathbb{F}}_q^\ast\backslash S_i$ and let $t_i=|T_i|$ and $m=\prod_{i=1}^nt_i$ (by the above assumption on $s_i$ we have $m \geq
2$). Consider $$P(\vec{X})=\prod_{i=1}^n\prod_{x \in
S_i}(X_i-x).\label{eqtrekantm}$$ There exists an $X_1^{k_1}\cdots X_n^{k_n}$ with $0 <
k_1, \ldots , k_n < q-1$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{Supp}}(X_1^{k_1} \cdots
X_n^{k_n}P(\vec{X}) {\mbox{ mod }} \{X_1^{q-1}-1, \ldots ,
X_n^{q-1}-1\}) \cap U(q,m-1,n)=\emptyset \label{eqsnabel} \end{aligned}$$ if and only if for $i=1, \ldots , n$ it holds that $T_i$ is contained in $\gamma_iH_i$ for some $\gamma_i\in {\mathbb{F}}_q^\ast$ and for some proper multiplicative subgroup $H_i$ of ${\mathbb{F}}_q^\ast$.
We note that the role of the assumption $m \geq 2$ is to make $U(q,m-1,n)$ non-empty.\
As already observed, for $n=1$ we have $U(q,m-1,n)=\{X_1^{q-m},
\ldots , X_1^{q-2}\}$. Therefore for $n=1$ the assumption (\[eqsnabel\]) is equivalent to saying that $${\mathcal{M}}(q,n) \backslash \big( {\mbox{Supp}}P \cup
U(q,m-1,n) \big)$$ contains a set $D$ such that $$U(q,m-1,n) \subseteq
X_1^{k_1}D {\mbox{ mod }} \{X_1^{q-1}-1\}$$ (a similar remark does not hold for $n > 1$.) In other words, for $n=1$, ${\mathcal{M}}(q,n) \backslash
{\mbox{Supp}}P$ contains besides $U(q,m-1,n)$ also a translated copy of $U(q,m-1,n=1)$ which is disjoint from $U(q,m-1,n)$. We have argued that Theorem \[the4\] reduces to Theorem \[the2\] in the case that $n=1$.\
Turning to the general case of $n \geq 1$ one sees by inspection that $U(q,m-1,n) \subseteq {\mathcal{M}}(q,n)
\backslash {\mbox{Supp}}P$. The condition $0<k_i<q-1$, $i=1,\ldots
, n$ means that the sets assumed to exist or proved to exist, respectively, in Theorem \[the4\] are different from $U(q,m-1,n)$ itself; but they may have an overlap with this set.\
Before giving the proof we illustrate the theorem with an example.
\[ex2\] This is a continuation of Example \[ex1\] where we considered polynomials $P(X) \in {\mathbb{F}}_{16}[X]$ of the form (\[eqtrekant\]) satisfying the conditions in Theorem \[the2\]. In this example we consider a polynomial $P(X_1,X_2) \in {\mathbb{F}}_{16}[X_1,X_2]$ of the form (\[eqtrekantm\]) satisfying the condition in Theorem \[the4\]. Choosing $T_1=\{\alpha^2,\alpha^5,
\alpha^8,\alpha^{11},\alpha^{14}\}$ and $T_2=\{\alpha,\alpha^6,\alpha^{11}\}$ we get that the support of $P(\vec{X})$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\{1, X_1^5,X_1^{10}, X_2^3, X_1^5X_2^3,X_1^{10}X_2^3,
X_2^6, X_1^5X_2^6,X_1^{10}X_2^6, \, \, \, \, \, \, \nonumber \\
X_2^9, X_1^5X_2^9,X_1^{10}X_2^9,
X_2^{12}, X_1^5X_2^{12},X_1^{10}X_2^{12}\}. \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Clearly, $m=5 \cdot 3=15$. In Figure \[figo1\] the support is illustrated with diamonds. A set $D$ is illustrated with filled circles. This set satisfies that $D
\subseteq {\mathcal{M}}(q,n) \backslash {\mbox{Supp}}P$ and that $$X_1^5X_2^3D {\mbox{ mod }} \{X_1^{q-1}-1, \ldots X_m^{q-1}-1\}=U(q,m-1,2).$$ Hence, $${\mbox{Supp}}(X_1^5X_2^3 P {\mbox{ mod }} \{X_1^{15}-1,X_2^{15}-1\}) \cap
U(q,m-1,2) = \emptyset.$$
![The situation in Example \[ex2\].[]{data-label="figo1"}](figurver2.eps){width="50mm"}
It is possible to give a proof of Theorem \[the4\] which as a main tool uses Theorem \[the2\] and Proposition \[pro1\] in combination with a study of the shape of $U(q,m-1,n)$. Using this approach the proof of the “if” part becomes straight forward whereas the proof of the “only if” part becomes technical and requires more care. Instead of stating the technical proof of the “only if” part we shall present a self contained proof of the “only if” part based on the technique from [@kopparty2014roots]. Our proof calls for the following lemma which has some interest in itself. We state the lemma in a slightly more general version than shall be needed (we will employ the lemma with ${\mathbb{F}}={\mathbb{F}}_q$ and $A_1=\cdots = A_n= {\mathbb{F}}_q^\ast$).
\[lem1\] Given a field ${\mathbb{F}}$ let $A_1, \ldots , A_n \subseteq
{\mathbb{F}}$ be finite sets. Consider proper subsets $B_1 \subsetneq
A_1, \ldots , B_n \subsetneq A_n$ and write $$P(\vec{X})=\prod_{i=1}^n \prod_{x \in B_i}(X_i-x).$$ Assume that $G(\vec{X}) \in {\mathbb{F}}[\vec{X}]$ is a polynomial with $\deg_{X_i} G<| A_i|$, $i=1, \ldots , n$ such that $$\{ \vec{x} \mid \vec{x} \in A_1 \times \cdots \times A_n,
F(\vec{x})=0\} \subseteq \{ \vec{x} \mid \vec{x} \in A_1 \times \cdots \times A_n,
G(\vec{x})=0\}.$$ Then $F(\vec{X})$ divides $G(\vec{X})$.
[**[Proof:]{}**]{} It is enough to prove that $(X_s-x)$ divides $G(\vec{X})$ for arbitrary $s \in \{1, \ldots , n\}$ and $x \in B_s$. We can write $G(\vec{X})=Q(\vec{X})(X_s-x)+R(\vec{X})$ where $R(\vec{X})$ is a polynomial in ${\mathbb{F}}[X_1, \ldots , X_{s-1},X_{s+1}, \ldots ,
X_n]$ and where $\deg_{X_i} R < |A_i|$ for $i \in \{1, \ldots , s-1,
s+1, \ldots , n\}$. We observe that $(\alpha_1, \ldots ,
\alpha_{s-1},x,\alpha_{s+1}, \ldots , \alpha_n)$ is a root of $P$ and thereby also of $G$, for all $(\alpha_1, \ldots , \alpha_{s-1},\alpha_{s+1}, \ldots ,
\alpha_n)$ in $A_1 \times \cdots \times A_{s-1} \times A_{s+1} \times
\cdots \times A_n$. But then $(\alpha_1, \ldots , \alpha_{s-1},\alpha_{s+1}, \ldots ,
\alpha_n)$ is a root of $R$ and from the Chinese remainder theorem it follows that $R(\vec{X})=0$.\
We are now ready to prove Theorem \[the4\].\
[**[Proof:]{}**]{} Assume that there exists an $X_1^{k_1}\cdots X_n^{k_n}$ with $0 <
k_1, \ldots , k_n < q-1$ such that (\[eqsnabel\]) holds true. Write $$G(\vec{X})=X_1^{k_1} \cdots X_n^{k_n}P(\vec{X}) {\mbox{ mod }}
\{X_1^{q-1}-1, \ldots , X_n^{q-1}-1\}.$$ Clearly the roots of $P(\vec{X})$ in $({\mathbb{F}}_q^\ast)^n$ are also roots of $G(\vec{X})$. Hence, by Lemma \[lem1\], $G(\vec{X})=Q(\vec{X})P(\vec{X})$ for some $Q(\vec{X}) \in
{\mathbb{F}}_q[\vec{X}]$. Recall that $X_1^{s_1}\cdots X_n^{s_n}$ is the leading monomial of $P(\vec{X})$. If we consider a monomial $N$ such that $NX_1^{s_1} \cdots X_n^{s_n} \in {\mathcal{M}}(q,n)$ then either $N=1$ or $NX_1^{s_1} \cdots X_n^{s_n} \in U(q,m-1,n)$. From assumption (\[eqsnabel\]) it therefore follows that $G(\vec{X})=\alpha P(\vec{X})$ for some $\alpha \in
{\mathbb{F}}_q^\ast$. This implies that $$P(\vec{X}) (X_1^{k_1} \cdots X_n^{k_n}-\alpha)=0 {\mbox{ mod }}
\{X_1^{q-1}-1, \ldots , X_n^{q-1}-1\}.$$ However, then all non-roots of $P(\vec{X})$ in $({\mathbb{F}}_q^\ast)^n$ – that is the elements of $T_1 \times \cdots \times T_n$ – must be roots of $X_1^{k_1}\cdots X_n^{k_n}-\alpha$. In other words, for $\vec{x} \in T_1\times \cdots \times T_n$ we have $x_i^{k_i}=\alpha_i$, $i=1, \ldots , n$ where $\prod_{i=1}^n \alpha_i =\alpha$. Consider an $i$ such that $t_i
>1$. Let $y$ and $z$ be two different elements in $T_i$. For fixed $x_j \in T_j$, $j \in \{1, \ldots , i-1, i+1, \ldots , n\}$ both $(x_1, \ldots ,x_{i-1},y,x_{i+1}, \ldots , x_n)$ and $(x_1, \ldots
,x_{i-1},z,x_{i+1}, \ldots , x_n)$ satisfy that they produce the value $\alpha$ when plugged into $X_1^{k_1}\cdots X_n^{k_n}$. Hence, $\alpha_1, \ldots , \alpha_n$ are unique. Let $H_i=\{\beta \in
{\mathbb{F}}_q^\ast \mid \beta^{k_i}=1\}$ (which is a proper subgroup of ${\mathbb{F}}_q^\ast$ as $0 < k_i < q-1$), and $\gamma_i \in
T_i$. Then $T_i \subseteq \gamma_i H_i$.\
We next prove the “if” part of the theorem. Assume that $T_i
\subseteq \gamma_i H_i$, $i=1, \ldots , n$ and write $d_i = |
H_i|$. Define $$W_i=\big\{ X_i^v \mid v\in \{jd_i, \ldots , jd_i+(d_i-t_i)\mid j=0,
\ldots , \frac{q-1}{d_i}-1\} \big\}$$ and $$W=\{X_1^{v_1} \cdots X_n^{v_n} \mid X_i^{v_i} \in W_i, i=1,
\ldots , n\}.$$ Proposition \[pro1\] tells us that ${\mbox{Supp}}P \subseteq W$ and by inspection we find that $U(q-1,m-1,n)$ is contained in ${\mathcal{M}}(q,n)\backslash W$. By symmetry we have $$X_1^{k_1} \cdots X_n^{k_n} W {\mbox{ mod }} \{X_1^{q-1}-1, \ldots ,
X_n^{q-1}-1\}=W$$ for all $(k_1, \ldots , k_n)$ where for $i=1, \ldots , n$, $k_i=\ell_id_i$ for some $\ell_i$. The theorem follows.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work was supported by the Danish Council for Independent Research, grant no. DFF-4002-00367.
[1]{}
D. A. Cox, J. Little, and D. O’Shea. . Springer, 2nd edition, 1997.
T. H[ø]{}holdt. On (or in) [D]{}ick [B]{}lahut’s ’footprint’. , pages 3–9, 1998.
S. Kopparty and Q. Wang. Roots and coefficients of polynomials over finite fields. , 29:198–201, 2014.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'It is well known that Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods scale poorly with dataset size. A popular class of methods for solving this issue is stochastic gradient MCMC. These methods use a noisy estimate of the gradient of the log posterior, which reduces the per iteration computational cost of the algorithm. Despite this, there are a number of results suggesting that stochastic gradient Langevin dynamics (SGLD), probably the most popular of these methods, still has computational cost proportional to the dataset size. We suggest an alternative log posterior gradient estimate for stochastic gradient MCMC, which uses control variates to reduce the variance. We analyse SGLD using this gradient estimate, and show that, under log-concavity assumptions on the target distribution, the computational cost required for a given level of accuracy is independent of the dataset size. Next we show that a different control variate technique, known as zero variance control variates can be applied to SGMCMC algorithms for free. This post-processing step improves the inference of the algorithm by reducing the variance of the MCMC output. Zero variance control variates rely on the gradient of the log posterior; we explore how the variance reduction is affected by replacing this with the noisy gradient estimate calculated by SGMCMC.'
author:
- 'Jack Baker$^1$[^1]2em Paul Fearnhead$^1$2em Emily B. Fox$^2$2em Christopher Nemeth$^1$'
bibliography:
- 'submission.bib'
title: Control Variates for Stochastic Gradient MCMC
---
**Keywords:** Stochastic gradient MCMC; Langevin dynamics; scalable MCMC; control variates; computational cost; big data
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC), one of the most popular methods for Bayesian inference, scales poorly with dataset size. This is because standard methods require the whole dataset to be evaluated at each iteration. Stochastic gradient MCMC (SGMCMC) are a class of MCMC algorithms that aim to account for this issue. The algorithms have recently gained popularity in the machine learning literature, though they were originally proposed in [@Lamberton2002]. These methods use efficient MCMC proposals based on discretised dynamics that use gradients of the log posterior. They reduce the computational cost by replacing the gradients with an unbiased estimate which uses only a subset of the data, referred to as a minibatch. They also bypass the acceptance step by making small discretisation steps .
These new algorithms have been successfully applied to a range of state of the art machine learning problems [e.g. @Patterson2013; @Li2016]. There is a variety of software available implementing these methods . In particular [@Baker2017] implements the control variate methodology we discuss in this article.
This paper investigates stochastic gradient Langevin dynamics (SGLD), a popular SGMCMC algorithm that discretises the Langevin diffusion. There are a number of results suggesting that while SGLD has a lower per iteration computational cost compared with MCMC, its overall computational cost is proportional to the dataset size . This motivates improving the computational cost of SGLD, which can be done by using control variates [@Ripley2009]. Control variates can be applied to reduce the Monte Carlo variance of the gradient estimate in stochastic gradient MCMC algorithms. We refer to SGLD using this new control variate gradient estimate as SGLD-CV.
We analyse the algorithm using the Wasserstein distance between the distribution defined by SGLD-CV and the true posterior distribution, by adapting recent results by [@Dalalyan2017]. Our results are based on assuming the target distribution is strongly log-concave. We get bounds on the Wasserstein distance between the target distribution and the distribution we sample from at a given step of SGLD-CV. These bounds are in terms of the tuning constants chosen when implementing SGLD-CV. By making assumptions on how the posterior distribution changes with the number of data points, we are able to show that the computational cost required for a given level of accuracy does not grow with the dataset size. Though this is providing we can obtain an estimate, $\hat \theta$, of the posterior mode that is sufficiently close. Our results also show the impact on the computational cost of using a poor $\hat{\theta}$ value.
The algorithm requires some additional preprocessing steps before the computational cost benefits come into effect. These preprocessing steps include finding $\hat \theta$ and calculating the full log posterior gradient at $\hat \theta$. Both of these steps have a cost that is linear in the amount of data. However, the cost of finding $\hat \theta$ essentially replaces the burn-in of the chain, and we find empirically that this is often more efficient. The cost of these steps is analysed in more detail in the article.
The use of control variates has also been shown to be important for other Monte Carlo algorithms for simulating from a posterior with a cost that is sub-linear in the number of data points . For previous work that suggests using control variates within SGLD see [@Dubey2016] and [@Chen2017]. These latter papers, whilst showing benefits of using control variates, do not show that the resulting algorithm can have sub-linear cost in the number of data points. A recent paper, [@Nagapetyan2017], does investigate how SGLD-CV peforms in the limit as you have more data under similar log-concavity assumptions on the posterior distribution. They have results that are qualitatively similar to ours, including the sub-linear computational cost of SGLD-CV. Though they measure accuracy of the algorithm through the mean square error of Monte Carlo averages rather than through the Wasserstein distance.
Not only can control variates be used to speed up stochastic gradient MCMC by enabling smaller minibatches to be used; we show that they can be used to improve the inferences made from the MCMC output. In particular, we can use post-processing control variates to produce MCMC samples with a reduced variance. The post-processing methods rely on the MCMC output as well as gradient information. Since stochastic gradient MCMC methods already compute estimates of the gradient, we explore replacing the true gradient in the post-processing step with these free estimates. We also show theoretically how this affects the variance reduction factor; and empirically demonstrate the variance reduction that can be achieved from using these post-processing methods.
Stochastic gradient MCMC {#sec:review}
========================
Throughout this paper we aim to make inference on a vector of parameters $\theta \in \mathbb R^d$, with data ${\mathbf}x = \{x_i\}_{i=1}^N$. We denote the probability density of $x_i$ as $p(x_i | \theta)$ and assign a prior density $p(\theta)$. The resulting posterior density is then $p( \theta | {\mathbf}x ) \propto p( \theta ) \prod_{i=1}^N p( x_i | \theta )$, which defines the posterior distribution $\pi$. For brevity we write $f_i(\theta) = - \log p(x_i | \theta)$ for $i = 1, \dots N$, $f_0(\theta) = - \log p(\theta)$ and $f(\theta) = - \log p(\theta | {\mathbf}x)$.
Many MCMC algorithms are based upon discrete-time approximations to continuous-time dynamics, such as the Langevin diffusion, that are known to have the posterior as their invariant distribution. The approximate discrete-time dynamics are then used as a proposal distribution within a Metropolis-Hastings algorithm. The accept-reject step within such an algorithm corrects for any errors in the discrete-time dynamics. Examples of such an approach include the Metropolis-adjusted Langevin algorithm (MALA; see e.g. [@Roberts1998]) and Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (HMC; see [@Neal2010]).
Stochastic gradient Langevin dynamics {#sec:sgld-review}
-------------------------------------
SGLD, first introduced by [@Lamberton2002], and popularised more recently by [@Welling2011], is a minibatch version of the Metropolis-adjusted Langevin algorithm. At each iteration it creates an approximation of the true gradient of the log-posterior by using a small sample of data.
[ The SGLD algorithm is based upon the discretisation of a stochastic differential equation known as the Langevin diffusion. A Langevin diffusion for a parameter vector $\theta$ with posterior $p(\theta | {\mathbf}x) \propto \exp(-f(\theta))$ is given by $$\label{eq:langevin}
\theta_t = \theta_0 - \int_0^t \nabla f(\theta_s) ds + \sqrt 2 dB_t,$$ where $B_t$ is a $d$-dimensional Wiener process. The stationary distribution of this diffusion is $\pi$. This means that it will target the posterior exactly, but in practice we need to discretize the dynamics to simulate from it, which introduces error. A bottleneck for this simulation is that calculating $\nabla f( \theta)$ is an $O(N)$ operation. So to get around this, [@Welling2011] replace the log posterior gradient with the following unbiased estimate $$\nabla \hat f(\theta) := \nabla f_0(\theta) + \frac{N}{n} \sum_{i \in S_k} \nabla f_i(\theta)
\label{eq:std-grad}$$ for some subsample $S_k$ of $\{1,\dots,N\}$, with $|S_k| = n$. A single update of SGLD is then $$\theta_{k+1} = \theta_k - \frac{h_k}{2} \nabla \hat f(\theta_k) + \zeta_k,$$ where $\zeta_k \sim N(0,h_k)$. ]{}
MALA uses a Metropolis-Hastings accept-reject step to correct for the discretisation of the Langevin process. @Welling2011 bypass this acceptance step, as it requires calculating $p( \theta | {\mathbf}x )$ using the full dataset, and instead use an adaptive rather than fixed stepsize, [where $h_k \rightarrow 0$ as $k \rightarrow \infty$]{}. The motivation is that the noise in the gradient estimate disappears faster than the process noise, so eventually, the algorithm will sample the posterior approximately. In practice, we found the algorithm does not mix well when the stepsize is decreased to zero, so in general a fixed small stepsize $h$ is used in practice, as suggested by @Vollmer2015.
Control variates for SGLD efficiency {#sec:eff}
====================================
The SGLD algorithm has a reduced per iteration computational cost compared to traditional MCMC algorithms. However, there have been a number of results suggesting that the overall computational cost of SGLD is still $O(N)$ . The main reason for this result is that in order to control the variance in the gradient estimate, $\nabla \hat f(\theta)$, we need $n$ to increase linearly with $N$. So intuition would suggest trying to reduce this variance would reduce the computational cost of the algorithm.
A natural choice is to reduce this variance through control variates [@Ripley2009]. Control variates applied to SGLD have also been investigated by @Dubey2016 and [@Chen2017], who show that the convergence bound of SGLD is reduced when they are used. Theoretical results, similar to ours below, on how the use of control variates can improve how the computational cost of SGLD scales with $N$ are given in [@Nagapetyan2017].
In Section \[sec:contr-vari-grad\], we show how control variates can be used to reduce the variance in the gradient estimate in SGLD, leading to the algorithm SGLD-CV. Then in Section \[sec:comp-cost-sgld\] we analyse the Wasserstein distance between the distribution defined by SGLD-CV and the true posterior. There are a number of quantities that affect the performance of SGLD-CV, including the stepsize $h$, the number of iterations $K$ and the minibatch size $n$. We provide sufficient conditions on $h$, $K$ and $n$ in order to bound the Wasserstein distance. We show under certain assumptions, the computational cost, measured as $Kn$, required to bound the Wasserstein distance is independent of $N$.
Control variates for SGMCMC {#sec:contr-vari-grad}
---------------------------
Let $\hat\theta$ be a fixed value of the parameter, chosen to be close to the mode of the posterior $p( \theta | {\mathbf}x )$. The log posterior gradient can then be re-written as $$\nabla f(\theta) = \nabla f( \hat\theta ) + [\nabla f(\theta) - \nabla f(\hat \theta) ],$$ where the first term on the right-hand side is a constant and the bracketed term on the right-hand side can be unbiasedly estimated by $$\left[\nabla \hat f(\theta) - \nabla \hat f(\hat \theta)\right] = \nabla f_0(\theta) - \nabla f_0(\hat \theta) + \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i \in S}\frac{1}{p_i} \left[ \nabla f_i(\theta) - \nabla f_i(\hat \theta) \right]$$ where $p_1,\ldots,p_N$ are user-chosen, strictly positive probabilities, $S$ is a random sample from $\{1,\ldots,N\}$ such that $|S| = n$ and the expected number of times $i$ is sampled is $np_i$. The standard implementation of control variates would set $p_i=1/N$ for all $i$. Yet we show below that there can be advantages in having these probabilities vary with $i$; for example to give higher probabilities to sampling data points for which $\nabla f_i(\theta) - \nabla f_i(\hat \theta)$ has higher variability.
If the gradient of the likelihood for a single observation is smooth in $\theta$ then we will have $$\nabla f_i(\theta) \approx \nabla f_i(\hat \theta) \ \ \mbox{if} \ \ \theta\approx\hat\theta.$$ Hence for $\theta\approx\hat\theta$ we would expect the unbiased estimator $$\label{eq:eff-grad}
\nabla \tilde f(\theta) = \nabla f( \hat \theta ) + [\nabla \hat f(\theta) - \nabla \hat f(\hat \theta) ],$$ to have a lower variance than the simpler unbiased estimator . This is because when $\theta$ is close to $\hat \theta$ we would expect the terms $\nabla \hat f(\theta)$ and $\nabla \hat f(\hat \theta)$ to be correlated. This reduction in variance is shown formally in Lemma 1, stated in Section \[sec:variance-reduction\].
The gradient estimate can be substituted into any stochastic gradient MCMC algorithm in place of $\nabla \hat f(\theta)$. We refer to SGLD using this alternative gradient estimate as SGLD-CV. The full procedure is outlined in Algorithm \[alg:SGLD-CV\].
$\hat \theta$, $\nabla f( \hat \theta)$, $\epsilon$.\
Set $\theta_0 \leftarrow \hat \theta$. Update $\nabla \tilde f( \theta_k)$ using Draw $\zeta_t \sim N( 0, \epsilon I )$ $\theta_{k+1} \leftarrow \theta_k - \frac{h}{2} \nabla \tilde f(\theta_k) + \zeta_k$
\[alg:SGLD-CV\]
Implementing this in practice means finding a suitable $\hat\theta$, which we refer to as the *centering value*. We show below that for the computational cost of SGLD-CV to be $O(1)$, we require both $\hat \theta$ and the starting point of SGLD-CV, $\theta_0$, to be a $O(N^{-\frac 1 2})$ distance from the posterior mean.
In practice, we find $\hat\theta$ using *stochastic optimisation* [@Robbins1951], and then calculate the full log posterior gradient at this point $\nabla f(\hat \theta)$. We then start the algorithm from $\hat \theta$. In our implementations we use a simple stochastic optimisation method, known as *stochastic gradient descent* [SGD, see e.g. @Bottou2010]. The method works similarly to the standard optimisation method gradient descent, but at each iteration replaces the true gradient of the function with an unbiased estimate. A single update of the algorithm is as follows $$\theta_{k+1} = \theta_k - h_k \nabla \hat f(\theta),$$ where $\nabla \hat f(\theta)$ is as defined in and $h_k > 0$ is a small tuning constant referred to as the stepsize. Provided the stepsizes $h_k$ satisfy the following conditions $\sum_k h_k^2 < \infty$ and $\sum_k h_k = \infty$ then this algorithm will converge to a local maximum.
We show in Section \[sec:setup\], under our assumptions of log-concavity of the posterior, that finding $\hat\theta$ using SGD has a computational cost that is linear in $N$, and we can achieve the required accuracy with just a single pass through the data. As we then start SGLD-CV with this value for $\theta$, we can view finding the centering value as a replacement for the burn-in phase of the algorithm, and we find, in practice, that the time to find a good $\hat \theta$ is often quicker than the time it takes for SGLD to burn-in. One downside of this procedure is that the SGD algorithm, as well as the SGLD-CV algorithm itself needs to be tuned, which adds to the tuning burden.
In comparison to SGLD-CV, the SAGA algorithm by [@Dubey2016] also uses control variates to reduce the variance in the gradient estimate of SGLD. They show that this reduces the MSE of SGLD. The main difference is that their algorithm uses a previous state in the chain as the control variate, rather than an estimate of the mode. This means that SAGA does not require the additional optimisation step, so tuning should be easier. However we show in the experiments of Section \[sec:experiments\], that the algorithm gets more easily stuck in local stationary points, especially during burn-in. For more complex examples, the algorithm was prohibitively slow to burn-in because of this tendency to get stuck. [@Dubey2016] also do not show that SAGA has favourable computational cost results.
Variance reduction {#sec:variance-reduction}
------------------
The improvements of using the control variate gradient estimate over the standard become apparent when we calculate the variances of each. For our analysis, we make the assumption that the posterior is strongly log-concave, formally defined in Assumption \[ass:stronvex\]. This has become a common assumption when analysing gradient based samplers that do not have an acceptance step . In all the following analysis we use ${\left\lVert \cdot \right\rVert}$ to denote the Euclidean norm.
\[ass:stronvex\] Strongly log-concave posterior: there exists positive constants $m$ and $M$, such that the following conditions hold for the negative log posterior $$\begin{aligned}
f(\theta) - f(\theta') - \nabla f(\theta')^\top (\theta - \theta') &\geq \frac m 2 {\left\lVert \theta - \theta' \right\rVert}^2 \\
{\left\lVert \nabla f(\theta) - \nabla f(\theta') \right\rVert} &\leq M {\left\lVert \theta - \theta' \right\rVert}.
\end{aligned}$$ for all $\theta, \theta' \in \mathbb R^d$.
We further need a Lipschitz condition for each of the likelihood terms in order to bound the variance of our control-variate estimator of the gradient.
\[ass:Lipschitz\] Lipschitz: there exists constants $L_0,\ldots,L_N$ such that $${\left\lVert \nabla f_i(\theta) - \nabla f_i(\theta') \right\rVert} \leq L_i {\left\lVert \theta - \theta' \right\rVert}, \mbox{ for $i=0,\ldots,N$}.$$
Using Assumption \[ass:Lipschitz\] we are able to derive a bound on the variance of the gradient estimate of SGLD-CV. This bound is formally stated in Lemma \[lem:grad-noise\].
\[lem:grad-noise\] Under Assumption \[ass:Lipschitz\]. Let $\theta_k$ be the state of SGLD-CV at the $k^{th}$ iteration, with stepsize $h$ and centering value $\hat \theta$. Assume we estimate the gradient using the control variate estimator with $p_i=L_i/\sum_{j=1}^N L_j$ for $i=1,\ldots,N$. Define $\xi_k := \nabla \tilde f(\theta_k) - \nabla f(\theta_k)$, so that $\xi_k$ measures the noise in the gradient estimate $\nabla \tilde f$ and has mean 0. Then for all $\theta_k, \hat \theta \in \mathbb R^d$, for all $k = 1, \dots, K$ we have $$ {\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \xi_k \right\rVert}^2 \leq \frac{\left(\sum_{i=1}^N L_i\right)^2}{n} {\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \theta_k - \hat \theta \right\rVert}^2.
\label{grad-var}$$
All proofs are relegated to the Appendix. If Assumption \[ass:stronvex\] also holds, then we can choose an $M=\sum_{i=0}^N L_i$, and our bound implies $${\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \xi_k \right\rVert}^2 \leq \frac{M^2}{n} {\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \theta_k - \hat \theta \right\rVert}^2.$$ We will use this form of the bound for the rest of the analysis. While it looks like picking $p_i$ will require estimates of the Lipschitz constants $L_i$; in practice, under Assumption \[ass:linear\] stated below, we can just use the standard $p_i = 1 / N$ for all $i$. We use $p_i = 1 / N$ in all our implementations in the experiments of Section \[sec:experiments\].
In order to consider how SGLD-CV scales with $N$ we need to make assumptions on the properties of the posterior and how these change with $N$. To make discussions concrete we will focus on the following, strong, assumption that each likelihood-term in the posterior is strongly log-concave. As we discuss later, our results apply under weaker conditions.
\[ass:linear\] Assume there exists positive constants $L$ and $l$ such that $f_i$ satisfies the following conditions $$\begin{aligned}
f_i(\theta) - f_i(\theta') - \nabla f_i(\theta')^\top (\theta - \theta') &\geq \frac l 2 {\left\lVert \theta - \theta' \right\rVert}^2 \\
{\left\lVert \nabla f_i(\theta) - \nabla f_i(\theta') \right\rVert} &\leq L {\left\lVert \theta - \theta' \right\rVert}.
\end{aligned}$$ for all $i \in 0, \dots, N$ and $\theta, \theta' \in \mathbb R^d$.
Under this assumption the log-concavity constants, $m$ and $M$, of the posterior both increase linearly with $N$, as shown by the following Lemma.
\[lem:lin-just\] Suppose Assumption \[ass:linear\] holds. Then the log-posterior, $f$, satisfies the following $$\begin{aligned}
f(\theta) - f(\theta') - \nabla f(\theta')^\top (\theta - \theta') &\geq \frac{l(N+1)}{2} {\left\lVert \theta - \theta' \right\rVert}^2 \\
{\left\lVert \nabla f(\theta) - \nabla f(\theta') \right\rVert} &\leq L(N+1) {\left\lVert \theta - \theta' \right\rVert}.
\end{aligned}$$ Thus the posterior is strongly log-concave with parameters $M=(N+1)L$ and $m=(N+1)l$.
To see the potential benefit of using control variates to estimate the gradient in situations where $N$ is large, we can now compare the variance bound from Lemma \[lem:grad-noise\], with a bound on the variance of the simple estimator, $\nabla \hat f (\theta)$. If we assume that ${\left\lVert \nabla f_i(\theta) \right\rVert}$ is bounded by some constant $\sigma$, for all $i = 0, \dots, N$ and for all $\theta \in \mathbb R^d$, then [@Dubey2016] show that for SGLD $${\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \nabla \hat f(\theta) - \nabla f(\theta) \right\rVert}^2 \leq \frac{2N^2 \sigma^2}{n},$$ for all $\theta \in \mathbb R^d$.
We can see that the bound on the gradient estimate variance in depends on the distance between $\theta_k$ and $\hat \theta$. Appealing to the Bernstein-von Mises theorem [@LeCam2012], under standard asymptotics we would expect the distance ${\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \theta_k - \hat \theta \right\rVert}^2$ to be $O(1 / N)$, if $\hat \theta$ is within $O(N^{-1/2})$ of the posterior mean, once the MCMC algorithm has burnt in. As $M$ is $O(N)$, this suggests that using control variates could give an $O(N)$ reduction in variance, and this plays a key part in the computational cost improvements we show in the next section.
Computational cost of SGLD-CV {#sec:comp-cost-sgld}
-----------------------------
In this section, we investigate how applying control variates to the gradient estimate of SGLD reduces the computational cost of the algorithm. In order to show this, we investigate the Wasserstein-Monge-Kantorovich (Wasserstein) distance $W_2$ between the distribution defined by the SGLD-CV algorithm at each iteration and the true posterior as $N$ is changed. For two measures $\mu$ and $\nu$ defined on the probability space $(\mathbb R^d, B(\mathbb R^d))$, and for a real number $q > 0$, the distance $W_q$ is defined by $$W_q(\mu, \nu) = \left[ \inf_{\gamma \in \Gamma(\mu, \nu)} \int_{\mathbb R^d \times \mathbb R^d} {\left\lVert \theta - \theta' \right\rVert}^q d\gamma(\theta,\theta') \right]^{\frac 1 q},$$ where the infimum is with respect to all joint distributions $\Gamma$ having $\mu$ and $\nu$ as marginals. The Wasserstein distance is a natural distance measure to work with for Monte Carlo algorithms, as discussed in .
One issue when working with the Wasserstein distance is that it is not invariant to transformations. For example scaling all entries of $\theta$ by a constant will scale the Wasserstein distance by the same constant. A linear transformation of the parameters will result in a posterior that is still strongly log-concave, but with different constants $m$ and $M$. To account for this we suggest measuring error by the quantity $\sqrt m W_2$, which is invariant to scaling $\theta$ by a constant. Theorem 1 of [@Durmus2016] bounds the standard deviation of any component of $\theta$ by a constant times $1/\sqrt{m}$, so we can view the quantity $\sqrt m W_2$ as measuring the error on a scale that is relative to the variability of $\theta$ under the posterior distribution.
There are a number of quantities that will affect the performance of SGLD and SGLD-CV. These include the step size $h$, the minibatch size $n$ and the total number of iterations $K$. In the analysis to follow we find conditions on $h$, $n$ and $K$ that ensure the Wasserstein distance between the distribution defined by SGLD-CV and the true posterior distribution $\pi$ are less than some $\epsilon > 0$. We use these conditions to calculate the computational cost, measured as $Kn$, required for this algorithm to reach the satisfactory error $\epsilon$.
The first step is to find an upper bound on the Wasserstein distance between SGLD-CV and the posterior distribution in terms of $h$, $n$, $K$ and the constants $m$ and $M$ declared in Assumption \[ass:stronvex\].
\[thm:wasser-bound\] Under Assumptions \[ass:stronvex\] and \[ass:Lipschitz\], let $\theta_{k}$ be the state of SGLD-CV at the $k^{th}$ iteration of the algorithm with stepsize $h$, initial value $\theta_0$, centering value $\hat \theta$. Let the distribution of $\theta_k$ be $\nu_k$. Denote the expectation of $\theta$ under the posterior distribution $\pi$ by $\bar \theta$. If $h < \frac{2m}{2M^2 + m^2}$, then for all integers $k \geq 0$, $$W_2(\nu_k, \pi) \leq (1 - A)^K W_2(\nu_0, \pi) + \frac C A + \frac{B^2}{C + \sqrt A B},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
A &= 1 - \sqrt{\frac{2h^2M}{n} + (1 - mh)^2}, \\
B &= \sqrt{\frac{2h^2M^2}{n} \left[ {\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \hat \theta - \bar \theta \right\rVert}^2 + \frac d m \right]}, \\
C &= \alpha M (h^3 d)^{\frac 1 2},\end{aligned}$$ $\alpha = 7 \sqrt 2 / 6$ and $d$ is the dimension of $\theta_{k}$.
The proof of this proposition is closely related to the proof of Proposition 2 of [@Dalalyan2017]. The extra complication comes from our bound on the variance of the estimator of the gradient; which depends on the current state of the SGLD-CV algorithm, rather than being bounded by a global constant.
We can now use Proposition \[thm:wasser-bound\] to find conditions on $K$, $h$ and $n$ in terms of the constants $M$ and $m$ such that the Wasserstein distance is bounded by some positive constant $\epsilon_0/\sqrt{m}$ at its final iteration $K$.
\[thm:conditions\] Under Assumptions \[ass:stronvex\] and \[ass:Lipschitz\], let $\theta_{K}$ be the state of SGLD-CV at the $K^{th}$ iteration of the algorithm with stepsize $h$, initial value $\theta_0$, centering value $\hat \theta$. Let the distribution of $\theta_k$ be $\nu_K$. Denote the expectation of $\theta$ under the posterior distribution $\pi$ by $\bar \theta$. Define $R := M / m$. Then for any $\epsilon_0 > 0$, if the following conditions hold: $$\begin{aligned}
h &\leq \frac 1 m \max \left\{ \frac{n}{2R^2 + n}, \frac{\epsilon_0^2}{64 R^2 \alpha^2 d} \right\}, \\
Kh &\geq \frac 1 m \log\left[ \frac{4 m}{\epsilon_0^2} \left( {\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \theta_0 - \bar \theta \right\rVert}_2^2 + d / m \right) \right], \\
n &\geq \frac{64 R^2 \beta}{\epsilon_0^2} m \left[ {\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \hat \theta - \bar \theta \right\rVert}^2 + \frac d m \right],\end{aligned}$$ where $$\beta = \max \left\{ \frac{1}{2R^2 + 1}, \frac{\epsilon_0^2}{64 R^2 \alpha^2 d} \right\},$$ $\alpha = 7 \sqrt 2 / 6$, and $d$ is the dimension of $\theta_k$, then $W_2(\nu_K, \pi) \leq \epsilon_0/\sqrt{m}$.
As a corollary of this result, we have the following, which gives a bound on the computational cost of SGLD, as measured by $Kn$, to achieve a required bound on the Wasserstein distance.
\[thm:scaling\] Assume that Assumptions \[ass:stronvex\] and \[ass:linear\] and the conditions of Theorem \[thm:conditions\] hold. Fix $\epsilon_0$ and define $$C_1 = \min \left\{ 2R^2 + 1, \frac{64 R^2 \alpha^2 d}{\epsilon_0^2} \right\}.$$ and $C_2 := 64 R^2 \beta / \epsilon_0^2$. We can implement an SGLD-CV algorithm with $W_2(\nu_K, \pi) < \epsilon_0 / \sqrt m$ such that $$Kn \leq \left[ C_1 \log \left[ m {\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \theta_0 - \bar \theta \right\rVert}^2 + d \right] + C_1 \log \frac{4}{\epsilon_0^2} + 1 \right] \left[ C_2 m {\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \hat \theta - \bar \theta \right\rVert}^2 + C_2 d + 1 \right].$$
The constants, $C_1$ and $C_2$, in the bound on $Kn$, depend on $\epsilon_0$ and $R=M/m$. It is simple to show that both constants are increasing in $R$. Under Assumption \[ass:linear\] we have that $R$ is a constant as $N$ increases. Corollary \[thm:scaling\] suggests that provided ${\left\lVert \theta_0 - \bar \theta \right\rVert} < c / \sqrt m$ and ${\left\lVert \hat \theta - \bar \theta \right\rVert} < c / \sqrt m$, for some constant $c$; then the computational cost of SGLD-CV will be bounded by a constant. Since we suggest starting SGLD-CV at $\hat \theta$, then technically we just need this to hold for ${\left\lVert \hat \theta - \bar \theta \right\rVert}$. Under Assumption \[ass:linear\] we have that $m$ increases linearly with $N$, so this corresponds to needing ${\left\lVert \hat \theta - \bar \theta \right\rVert}<c_1/\sqrt{N}$ as $N$ increases. Additionally, by Theorem 1 of [@Durmus2016] we have that the variance of the posterior scales like $1/m=1/N$ as $N$ increases, so we can interpret the $1/\sqrt{N}$ factor as being a measure of the spread of the posterior as $N$ increases. The form of the corollary makes it clear that a similar argument would apply under weaker assumptions than Assumption \[ass:linear\]. We only need that the ratio of the log-concavity constants, $M/m$, of the posterior remains bounded as $N$ increases.
This corollary also gives insight into the computational penalty you pay for a poor choice of $\theta_0$ or $\hat \theta$. As ${\left\lVert \theta_0-\bar \theta \right\rVert}$ increases, the bound on the computational cost will increase logarithmically with this distance. By comparison the bound increases linearly with ${\left\lVert \hat\theta-\bar \theta \right\rVert}$.
Setup Costs {#sec:setup}
-----------
There are a number of known results on the convergence of SGD under the strongly log-concave conditions of Assumption \[ass:stronvex\]. These will allow us to quantify the setup cost of finding the point $\hat \theta$ in this setting. More complex cases are explored empirically in the experiments in Section \[sec:experiments\]. Lemma \[lem:sgd\] due to [@Nemirovski2009] quantifies the convergence of the final point of SGD.
\[lem:sgd\] Under Assumption \[ass:stronvex\], let $\hat \theta$ denote the final state of SGD with stepsizes $h_k = 1 / (mk)$ after $K$ iterations. Suppose ${\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \nabla \hat f(\theta) \right\rVert}^2 \leq D^2$ and denote the true mode of $f$ by $\theta^*$. Then it holds that $${\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \hat \theta - \theta^* \right\rVert}^2 \leq \frac{4D^2}{m^2 K}.$$
If we again assume that, as in [@Dubey2016], ${\left\lVert \nabla f_i(\theta) \right\rVert}$ is bounded by some constant $\sigma$, for all $i = 0, \dots, N$ and $\theta \in \mathbb R^d$ then $D^2$ will be $O(N^2 / n)$. This means that under Assumption \[ass:linear\], we will need to process the full dataset once before the SGD algorithm has converged to a mode $\hat \theta$ within $O(N^{-\frac 1 2})$ of the posterior mean. It follows that, for these cases there are two one off $O(N)$ setup costs, one to find an acceptable mode $\hat \theta$ and one to find the full log posterior gradient at this point $\nabla f(\hat \theta)$.
Post-processing control variates {#sec:post}
================================
Control variates can also been used to improve the inferences made from MCMC by reducing the variance of the output directly. The general aim of MCMC is to estimate expectations of functions, $g(\theta)$, with respect to the posterior $\pi$. Given an MCMC sample $\theta^{(1)}, \dots, \theta^{(M)}$, from the posterior $\pi$, we can estimate ${\mathbb{E}}[g(\theta)]$ unbiasedly as $${\mathbb{E}}[g(\theta)] \approx \frac{1}{M} \sum_{i=1}^M g(\theta^{(i)}).$$
Suppose there exists a function $h(\theta)$, which has expectation 0 under the posterior. We can then introduce an alternative function, $$\tilde g( \theta ) = g(\theta) + h(\theta),$$ where ${\mathbb{E}}[\tilde g(\theta)] = {\mathbb{E}}[g(\theta)]$. If $h(\cdot)$ is chosen so that it is negatively correlated with $g(\theta)$, then the variance of $\tilde g(\theta)$ will be reduced considerably.
@Mira2013 introduce a way of choosing $h(\theta)$ almost automatically by using the gradient of the log-posterior. Choosing $h(\cdot)$ in this manner is referred to as a zero variance (ZV) control variate. @Friel2016 showed that, under mild conditions, we can replace the log-posterior gradient with an unbiased estimate and still have a valid control variate. SGMCMC methods produce unbiased estimates of the log-posterior gradient, and so it follows that these gradient estimates can be applied as ZV control variates. For the rest of this section, we focus our attention on SGLD, but these ideas are easily extendable to other stochastic gradient MCMC algorithms. We refer to SGLD with these post-processing control variates as SGLD-ZV.
Given the setup outlined above, @Mira2013 propose the following form for $h( \theta )$, $$h(\theta) = \Delta Q(\theta) + \nabla Q( \theta ) \cdot {\mathbf}z,$$ here $Q(\theta)$ is a polynomial of $\theta$ to be chosen and ${\mathbf}z = f( \theta ) / 2$. $\Delta$ refers to the *Laplace operator* $\frac{ \partial^2 }{ \partial \theta_1^2 } + \dots + \frac{ \partial^2 }{ \partial \theta_d^2 }$. In order to get the best variance reduction, we simply have to optimize the coefficients of the polynomial $Q(.)$. In practice, first or second degree polynomials $Q(\theta)$ often provide good variance reduction [@Mira2013]. For the rest of this section we focus on first degree polynomials, so $Q(\theta) = {\mathbf}a^T \theta$, but the ideas are easily extendable to higher orders [@Papamarkou2014].
The SGLD algorithm only calculates an unbiased estimate of $\nabla f(\theta)$, so we propose replacing $h(\theta)$ with the unbiased estimate $$\hat h (\theta) = \Delta Q(\theta) + \nabla Q(\theta) \cdot {\mathbf}{ \hat z },$$ where ${\mathbf}{\hat z} = \nabla \hat f(\theta) / 2$. By identical reasoning to @Friel2016, $\hat h( \theta)$ is a valid control variate. Note that $\hat{ {\mathbf}z }$ can use any unbiased estimate, and as we will show later, the better the gradient estimate, the better this control variate performs.
We set $Q(\theta)$ to be a linear polynomial ${\mathbf}a^T \theta$, so our SGLD-ZV estimate will take the following form $$\hat g(\theta) = g(\theta) + {\mathbf}a^T {\mathbf}{ \hat z}.
\label{eq:zv-cv}$$ Similar to standard control variates [@Ripley2009], we need to find optimal coefficients ${\mathbf}{ \hat a }$ in order to minimize the variance of $\tilde g(\cdot)$, defined in . In our case, the optimal coefficients take the following form [@Friel2016] $$\hat{ {\mathbf}a} = {\mathbb{V}\mathrm{ar}}^{-1} \left( {\mathbf}{ \hat z } \right) {\mathbb{C}\mathrm{ov}}\left( {\mathbf}{ \hat z }, g(\theta) \right).$$ This means that SGLD already calculates all the necessary terms for these control variates to be applied for free. So the post-processing step can simply be applied once when the SGLD algorithm has finished, provided the full output plus gradient estimates are stored. With this in place, we can write down the full algorithm in the linear case, which is given in Algorithm \[alg:SGLD-ZV\]. For higher order polynomials, the calculations are much the same, but more coefficients need to be estimated [@Papamarkou2014].
$\{ \theta_k, \nabla \hat f(\theta_k) \}_{k=1}^K$ Set ${\mathbf}z_k \leftarrow \frac 1 2 \nabla \hat f(\theta_k) $ Estimate $V_{{\mathbf}z} \leftarrow {\mathbb{V}\mathrm{ar}}({\mathbf}z)$, $C_{g,{\mathbf}z} \leftarrow \text{Cov}(g(\theta), {\mathbf}z)$ $\hat{ {\mathbf}a}_{j} \leftarrow \left[ V_{{\mathbf}z} \right]^{-1} C_{g,{\mathbf}z}$ $\hat g(\theta_k) \leftarrow g(\theta_k) + \hat{{\mathbf}a}^T {\mathbf}z_k$
\[alg:SGLD-ZV\]
The efficiency of ZV control variates in reducing the variance of our MCMC sample is directly affected by using an estimate of the gradient rather than the truth. For the remainder of this section, we investigate how the choice of the gradient estimate, and the minibatch size $n$, affects the variance reduction.
\[ass:bounded\] ${\mathbb{V}\mathrm{ar}}[ \phi(\theta)] < \infty$ and ${\mathbb{V}\mathrm{ar}}[ \hat \psi (\theta)] < \infty$. ${\mathbb{E}}_{\theta | {\mathbf}x} {\left\lVert \nabla f_i(\theta) \right\rVert}^2$ is bounded by some constant $\sigma$ for all $i = 0, \dots N$, $\theta \in \mathbb R^d$.
Under Assumption \[ass:bounded\], define the optimal variance reduction for ZV control variates using the full gradient estimate to be $R$, and the optimal variance reduction using SGLD gradient estimates to be $\hat R$. Then we have that $$\hat R \geq \frac{ R }{ 1 + [\sigma (N + 1)]^{- 1} {\mathbb{E}}_{\theta | {\mathbf}x}[ {\mathbb{E}}_S {\left\lVert \xi_S(\theta) \right\rVert}^2 ]},
\label{eq:var-reduc}$$ where $\xi_S(\theta)$ is the noise in the log-posterior gradient estimate. \[thm:var-reduc\]
The proof of this result is given in the Appendix. An important consequence of Theorem \[thm:var-reduc\] is that if we use the standard SGLD gradient estimate, then the denominator of is $O(n/N)$, so our variance reduction diminishes as $N$ gets large. However, if we use the SGLD-CV estimate instead (the same probably holds for other control variate algorithms such as SAGA), then under standard asymptotics, the denominator of is $O(n)$, so the variance reduction does not diminish with increasing dataset size. It follows that for best results, we recommend using the ZV post-processing step after running the SGLD-CV algorithm, especially for large $N$. The ZV post-processing step can be immediately applied in exactly the same way to other stochastic gradient MCMC algorithms, such as SGHMC and SGNHT .
It is worth noting that there are some storage constraints for SGLD-ZV. This algorithm requires storing the full MCMC chain, as well as the gradient estimates at each iteration. So the storage cost is twice the storage cost of a standard SGMCMC run. However, in some high dimensional cases, the required SGMCMC test statistic is estimated on the fly using the most recent output of the chain and thus reducing the storage costs. We suggest that if the dimensionality is not too high, then the additional storage cost of recording the gradients to apply the ZV post-processing step can offer significant variance reduction for free. However, for very high dimensional parameters, the cost associated with storing the gradients may preclude the use of the ZV step.
Experiments {#sec:experiments}
===========
Logistic regression {#sec:lreg}
-------------------
![Log predictive density over a test set every 10 iterations of SGLD, SGLD-CV and SAGA fit to a logistic regression model as the data size $N$ is varied.[]{data-label="fig:logistic-cv"}](Fig5.pdf){width="300px"}
![Plots of the log predictive density of an SGLD-CV chain when ZV post-processing is applied versus when it is not, over 5 random runs. Logistic regression model on the cover type dataset [@Blackard1999].[]{data-label="fig:logistic-zv"}](Fig6.pdf){width="300px"}
We examine our approaches on a Bayesian logistic regression problem. The probability of the $i^{th}$ output $y_i \in \{ -1, +1 \}$ is given by $$p( y_i | x_i, \beta ) = \frac{1}{1 + \exp(-y_i \beta^{T} x_i)}.$$ We use a Laplace prior for $\beta$ with scale 1.
We used the cover type dataset [@Blackard1999], which has 581012 observations, which we split into a training and test set. First we run SGLD, SGLD-CV and SAGA on the dataset, all with minibatch size 500. The method SAGA was discussed at the end of Section \[sec:contr-vari-grad\]. To empirically support the scalability results of Theorem \[thm:scaling\], we fit the model 3 times. In each fit, the dataset size is varied, from about 1% of the full dataset to the full dataset size $N$. The performance is measured by calculating the log predictive density on a held-out test set every 10 iterations. Some of our examples are high dimensional, so our performance measure aims to reduce dimensionality while still capturing important quantities such as the variance of the chain. We include the burn-in of SGLD and SAGA, to contrast with the optimisation step required for SGLD-CV which is included in the total computational time.
The results are plotted against time in Figure \[fig:logistic-cv\]. The results illustrate the efficiency gains of SGLD-CV over SGLD as the dataset size increases, as expected from Theorem \[thm:scaling\]. SAGA outperforms SGLD-CV in this example because SGLD converges quickly in this simple setting. In the more complicated examples to follow, we show that SAGA can be slow to converge.
We also compare the log predictive density over a test set for SGLD-CV with and without ZV post-processing, averaged over 5 runs at different seeds. We apply the method to SGLD-CV rather than SGLD due to the favourable scaling results as discussed after Theorem \[thm:var-reduc\]. Results are given in Figure \[fig:logistic-zv\]. The plot shows box-plots of the log predictive density of the SGLD sample before and after post-processing using ZV control variates. The plots show excellent variance reduction of the chain.
Probabilistic matrix factorization {#sec:matfac}
----------------------------------
![Log predictive density over a test set of SGLD, SGLD-CV and SAGA fit to a Bayesian probabilistic matrix factorization model as the number of users is varied, averaged over 5 runs. We used the Movielens ml-100k dataset.[]{data-label="fig:matFac-cv"}](Fig7.pdf){width="300px"}
![Plots of the log predictive density of an SGLD-CV chain when ZV post-processing is applied versus when it is not, over 5 random runs. SGLD-CV algorithm applied to a Bayesian probablistic matrix factorization problem using the Movielens ml-100k dataset.[]{data-label="fig:matfac-zv"}](Fig8.pdf){width="300px"}
A common recommendation system task is to predict a user’s rating of a set of items, given previous ratings and the ratings of other users. The end goal is to recommend new items that the user will rate highly. Probabilistic matrix factorization (PMF) is a popular method to train these models [@Mnih2008]. As the matrix of ratings is sparse, over-fitting is a common issue in these systems, and Bayesian approaches are a way to account for this [@Ahn2015].
In this experiment, we apply SGLD, SGLD-CV and SAGA to a Bayesian PMF problem, using a model similar to @Ahn2015 and @Chen2014. We use the Movielens dataset ml-100k[^2], which contains 100,000 ratings from almost 1,000 users and 1,700 movies. We use batch sizes of 5,000, with a larger minibatch size chosen due to the high-dimensional parameter space. As before, we compare performance by calculating the predictive distribution on a held out dataset every 10 iterations.
We investigate the scaling results of SGLD-CV and SAGA versus SGLD by varying the dataset size. We do this by limiting the number of users in the dataset, ranging from 100 users to the full 943. The results are given in Figure \[fig:matFac-cv\]. Once again the scaling improvements of SGLD-CV as the dataset size increases are clear.
In this example SAGA converges slowly in comparison even to SGLD. In fact the algorithm converges slowly in all our more complex experiments. The problem is particularly bad for large $N$. This is likely a result of the starting point for SAGA being far from the posterior mode. Empirically, we found that the gradient direction and magnitude can update very slowly in these cases. This is not an issue for simpler examples such as logistic regression, but for more complex examples we believe it could be a sign that the algorithm is getting stuck in, or moving slowly through, local modes where the gradient is comparatively flatter. The problem appears to be made worse for large $N$ when it takes longer to update $g_\alpha$. This is an example where the optimisation step of SGLD-CV is an advantage, as the algorithm is immediately started close to the posterior mode and so the efficiency gains are quickly noted. This issue with SAGA could be related to the starting point condition for SGLD-CV as detailed in Corollary \[thm:scaling\]. Due to the form of the Wasserstein bound, it is likely that SAGA would have a similar starting point condition.
Once again we compare the log predictive density over a test set for SGLD-CV with and without ZV post-processing when applied to the Bayesian PMF problem, averaged over 5 runs at different seeds. Results are given in Figure \[fig:logistic-zv\]. The plot shows box-plots of the log predictive density of the SGLD sample before and after post-processing using ZV control variates. The plots show excellent variance reduction of the chain.
Latent Dirichlet allocation {#sec:lda}
---------------------------
![Perplexity of SGLD and SGLD-CV fit to an LDA model as the data size $N$ is varied, averaged over 5 runs. The dataset consists of scraped Wikipedia articles.[]{data-label="fig:lda"}](Fig9.pdf){width="300px"}
Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) is an example of a topic model used to describe collections of documents by sets of discovered topics [@Blei2003]. The input consists of a matrix of word frequencies in each document, which is very sparse, motivating the use of a Bayesian approach to avoid over-fitting.
Due to storage constraints, it was not feasible to apply SGLD-ZV to this problem, so we focus on SGLD-CV. We scraped approximately 80,000 documents from Wikipedia, and used the 1,000 most common words to form our document-word matrix input. We used a similar formulation to @Patterson2013, though we did not use a Riemannian sampler.
Once again in our comparison of SGLD, SGLD-CV and SAGA, we vary the dataset size, this time by changing the number of documents used in fitting the model, from 10,000 to the full 81,538. We use batch sizes of 50 documents. We measure the performance of LDA using the *perplexity* on held out words from each document, a standard performance measure for this model. The results are given in Figure \[fig:lda\]. Here the scalability improvements of using SGLD-CV over SGLD are clear as the dataset size increases. This time the batch size is small compared to the dataset size, which probably makes the scalability improvements more obvious. The sudden drop in perplexity for the SGLD-CV plot occurs at the switch from the stochastic optimization step to SGLD-CV. This is likely a result of the algorithm making efficient use of the Gibbs step to simulate the latent topics.
An interesting aspect of this problem is that it appears to have a pronounced local mode where each of the methods become trapped (this can be seen by the blip in the plot at a perplexity of around 850). SGLD-CV is the first to escape followed by SGLD, but SAGA takes a long time to escape. This is probably due to a similar aspect as the one discussed in the previous experiment (Section \[sec:matfac\]). Similar to the previous experiment, we find that while SAGA seems trapped, its gradient estimate changes very little, which could be a sign that the algorithm is moving very slowly through an area with a relatively flat gradient, such as a local mode. A simple solution would be to start SAGA closer to the mode using a stochastic optimisation scheme.
Discussion
==========
We have used control variates for stochastic gradient MCMC to reduce the variance in the gradient estimate. We have shown that in the strongly log-concave setting, and under standard asymptotics, this proposed SGLD-CV algorithm reduces the computational cost of stochastic gradient Langevin dynamics to $O(1)$. Our theoretical results give results on the computational cost under non-standard asymptotics also, and show there should be some benefit provided distance between the centering value $\hat \theta$ and the posterior mean inversely depends on $N$. The algorithm relies on a setup cost that estimates the posterior mode which replaces the burn-in of SGLD. We have explored the cost of this step both theoretically and empirically. We have empirically supported these scalability results on a variety of interesting and challenging problems from the statistics and machine learning literature using real world datasets. The simulation study also revealed that SGLD-CV was less susceptible to getting stuck in local stationary points than an alternative method that performs variance reduction using control variates, SAGA [@Dubey2016]. An interesting future extension would be to reduce the startup cost of SGLD-CV, along with introducing automatic step-size tuning.
We showed that stochastic gradient MCMC methods calculate all the information needed to apply zero variance post-processing control variates. This improves the inference of the output by reducing its variance. We explored how the variance reduction is affected by the minibatch size and the gradient estimate, and show using SGLD-CV or SAGA rather than SGLD can achieve a better variance reduction. We demonstrated this variance reduction empirically. A limitation of these post-processing control variates is they require the whole chain, which can lead to high storage costs if the dimensionality of the sample space is high. Future work could explore ways to reduce the storage costs of stochastic gradient MCMC.
Acknowledgements {#sec:acknowledgements}
================
The first author gratefully acknowledges the support of the EPSRC funded EP/L015692/1 STOR-i Centre for Doctoral Training. This work was supported by EPSRC grant EP/K014463/1, ONR Grant N00014-15-1-2380 and NSF CAREER Award IIS-1350133.
Computational cost proofs
=========================
Proof of Proposition \[thm:wasser-bound\]
-----------------------------------------
Let $\pi$ be the invariant distribution of the underlying dynamics, so that it has density $e^{-f(\theta)} = p(\theta | {\mathbf}x)$, and define $W_2(\nu_k, \pi)$ to be the Wasserstein distance between $\nu_k$ and $\pi$. Define $\xi_{k}$ to be the SGLD-CV gradient noise term. Then we can write a single step of SGLD-CV as $$\theta_{k+1} = \theta_{k} + h \nabla f(\theta_{k}) + h \xi_k + \sqrt{2h} \zeta_k,$$
We have that $\theta_k \sim \nu_k$, and follow similarly to the proof of @Dalalyan2017 [Proposition 2]. First define $Y_0$ to be a draw from the invariant distribution $\pi$, such that the joint distribution of $Y_0$ and $\theta_k$ minimizes ${\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert Y_0 - \theta_k \right\rVert}^2$. Here ${\left\lVert . \right\rVert}$ denotes the Euclidean distance for $\mathbb R^d$. It follows that ${\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert Y_0 - \theta_k \right\rVert}^2 = W_2^2(\nu_k, \pi)$.
Let $B_t$ be a $d$-dimensional Wiener process, independent of $\theta_k$, $Y_0$ and $\xi_k$ but which we couple to the injected noise $\zeta_k$ so that $B_h = \sqrt h \zeta_k$. Now let $Y_t$, $t > 0$, follow the diffusion $$Y_t = Y_0 + \int_0^t \nabla f(Y_s) ds + \sqrt 2 B_t.$$ Let $\Delta_k = Y_0 - \theta_k$ and $\Delta_{k+1} = Y_h - \theta_{k+1}$. Since we started the process $Y_t$ from $Y_0 \sim \pi$, then it follows that $Y_t \sim \pi$ for all $t > 0$. Also since $W_2^2(\nu_{k+1}, \pi)$ minimizes the expected squared distance between two random variables with marginals $\nu_{k+1}$ and $\pi$ then it follows that $W_2^2(\nu_{k+1}, \pi) \leq {\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \Delta_{k+1} \right\rVert}^2$.
Let us define $$\begin{aligned}
U &= \nabla f(\theta_k + \Delta_k) - \nabla f(\theta_k),
\label{eq:U} \\
V &= \int_0^h \left[ \nabla f(Y_t) - \nabla f(Y_0) \right] dt.
\label{eq:V}\end{aligned}$$ Then by the unbiasedness of the gradient estimation, $\xi_k$ has mean 0 regardless of the value of $\theta_k$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \Delta_{k+1} \right\rVert}^2 &= {\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \Delta_k + hU + V \right\rVert}^2 + {\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \xi_k \right\rVert}^2 \\
&\leq \left[{\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \Delta_k - h U \right\rVert} + {\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert V \right\rVert} \right]^2 + h^2 {\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \xi_k \right\rVert}^2.\end{aligned}$$ We can then apply Lemmas 2 and 4 in [@Dalalyan2017], stated below in Lemmas \[lem:dal-1\] and \[lem:dal-3\], as well as applying the gradient noise bound in Lemma \[lem:grad-noise\], to obtain a bound on $W_2^2(\nu_{k+1}, \pi)$ given $W_2^2(\nu_k, \pi)$.
\[lem:dal-1\] With $U$ as defined in , if $h < 2m / (2M^2 + m^2)$, then ${\left\lVert \Delta_k - hU \right\rVert} \leq (1 - mh) {\left\lVert \Delta_k \right\rVert}$.
The original lemma by [@Dalalyan2017] assumed $h < 2 / (m + M)$, but this holds when $h < 2m / (2M^2 + m^2)$ as $m \leq M$.
\[lem:dal-3\] Under Assumption \[ass:stronvex\]. Let $V$ be as defined in , then $${\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert V \right\rVert} \leq \frac 1 2 (h^4 M^3 d)^{\frac 1 2} + \frac 2 3 (2 h^3 d)^{\frac 1 2} M.$$
Finally we can apply Lemma \[lem:grad-noise\], as stated in the main body, to get $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \xi_k \right\rVert}^2
&\leq \frac{M^2}{n} {\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \theta_k - \hat \theta \right\rVert}^2 \\
&\leq \frac{2M^2}{n} {\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \theta_k - Y_0 \right\rVert}^2 + \frac{2M^2}{n^2} {\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert Y_0 - \hat \theta \right\rVert}^2 \\
&\leq \frac{2M^2}{n} W_2^2(\nu_k, \pi) + \frac{2M^2}{n} {\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert Y_0 - \hat \theta \right\rVert}^2\end{aligned}$$ Using Theorem 1 of [@Durmus2016] $${\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert Y_0 - \hat \theta \right\rVert}^2 \leq {\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \hat \theta - \bar \theta \right\rVert}^2 + \frac d m.$$ It follows that $${\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \xi_k \right\rVert}^2 \leq \frac{2M^2}{n} W_2^2(\nu_k, \pi) + \frac{2M^2}{n} \left[ {\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \hat \theta - \bar \theta \right\rVert}^2 + \frac d m \right].$$
Now using that $W_2^2(\nu_{k+1}, \pi) \leq {\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \Delta_{k+1} \right\rVert}^2$ we get the following $$W_2^2(\nu_{k+1}, \pi) \leq \left[ (1 - mh) W_2(\nu_k, \pi) + \alpha M (h^3 d)^{\frac 1 2} \right]^2 + \frac{2h^2M^2}{n} W_2^2(\nu_k, \pi) + \frac{2h^2M^2}{n} \left[ {\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \hat \theta - \bar \theta \right\rVert}^2 + \frac d m \right],$$ where $\alpha = 7 \sqrt 2 / 6$. Gathering like terms we can further bound $W_2^2(\nu_{k+1}, \pi)$ to get the following recursive formula $$\begin{aligned}
W_2^2(\nu_{k+1}, \pi) &\leq \left[ (1 - A) W_2(\nu_k, \pi) + C \right]^2 + B^2\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
A &= 1 - \sqrt{\frac{2h^2M^2}{n} + (1 - mh)^2} \\
B &= \sqrt{\frac{2h^2M^2}{n} \left[ {\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \hat \theta - \bar \theta \right\rVert}^2 + \frac d m \right]} \\
C &= \alpha M (h^3 d)^{\frac 1 2}.\end{aligned}$$ We can now apply Lemma 1 of [@Dalalyan2017], as stated below to solve this recurrence relation.
\[lem:recur\] Let $A$, $B$ and $C$ be non-negative numbers such that $A \in (0,1)$. Assume that the sequence of non-negative numbers $x_k$, $k = 0, 1, \dots$, satisfies the recursive inequality $$x_k^2 \leq \left[(1-A)x_k + C\right]^2 + B^2$$ for every integer $k > 0$. Then for all integers $k \geq 0$ $$x_k \leq (1-A)^k x_0 + \frac C A + \frac{B^2}{C + \sqrt A B}$$
To complete the proof all that remains is to check $A \in (0,1)$ so that Lemma \[lem:recur\] can be applied. Clearly $A < 1$, since $n \geq 1$ we have $$A \geq 1 - \sqrt{2h^2M^2 - (1 - mh)^2},$$ and the RHS is positive when $h \in (0, 2m /(2M^2 + m^2))$.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:conditions\]
-----------------------------------
Starting from Proposition \[thm:wasser-bound\], we have that $$W_2(\nu_K, \pi) \leq (1 - A)^K W_2(\nu_0, \pi) + \frac C A + \frac{B^2}{C + \sqrt A B}.
\label{eq:wasser-bound}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
A = 1 - \sqrt{\frac{2h^2M^2}{n} + (1 - mh)^2},&\qquad
B = \sqrt{\frac{2h^2M^2}{n} \left[ {\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \hat \theta - \bar \theta \right\rVert}^2 + \frac d m \right]}, \qquad
C = \alpha M (h^3 d)^{\frac 1 2},\end{aligned}$$
Suppose we stop the algorithm at iteration $K$. Using , the following are sufficient conditions that ensure $W_2^2(\nu_K, \pi) < \epsilon_0 / \sqrt m$, $$\begin{aligned}
(1 - A)^K W_2(\nu_0, \pi) \leq \frac{\epsilon_0}{2 \sqrt m},
\label{eq:kh-bound} \\
\frac C A \leq \frac{\epsilon_0}{4 \sqrt m},
\label{eq:c-a} \\
\frac{B^2}{C + \sqrt A B} \leq \frac{\epsilon_0}{4 \sqrt m}.
\label{eq:b-sqrta}\end{aligned}$$
The starting point $\theta_0$ is deterministic, so from Theorem 1 of [@Durmus2016] $$W_2^2(\nu_0, \pi) \leq {\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \theta_0 - \bar \theta \right\rVert}^2 + \frac d m.
\label{eq:degenerate}$$
If we rewrite $$h = \frac{\gamma}{m} \left[ \frac{2n}{2R^2 + n} \right],$$ where $\gamma \in (0,1)$ is some constant and $R := M / m$ as defined in the theorem statement, then it follows that we can write $$A = 1 - \sqrt{1 - 2mh(1 - \gamma)}.
\label{eq:A0}$$ Since we have the condition $$h \leq \frac 1 m \left[ \frac{n}{2R^2 + n} \right],$$ then $\gamma \leq \frac 1 2$.
Now suppose, using , we set $$Kh \geq \frac 1 m \log\left[ \frac{4 m}{\epsilon_0^2} \left( {\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \theta_0 - \bar \theta \right\rVert}_2^2 + d / m \right) \right]
\label{eq:kh-cond}$$ Then using the result for the deterministic starting point $\theta_0$ , we find that implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\epsilon_0}{2 \sqrt m} &\geq \exp\left[ - mhK / 2\right] \sqrt{ {\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \theta_0 - \bar \theta \right\rVert}^2 + \frac d m } \\
&\geq \left[ 1 - mh \right]^{\frac K 2} W_2(\nu_0, \pi) \\
&\geq (1 - A)^K W_2(\nu_0, \pi),\end{aligned}$$ Using and that our conditions imply $\gamma < 1/2$. Hence holds.
Using that for some real number $y \in [0,1]$, $\sqrt{1 - y} \leq 1 - y/2$, we can bound $A$ by $$A \geq 1 - \sqrt{1 - 2mh(1 - \gamma)} \geq mh(1 - \gamma) := A_0.$$
As $\gamma \leq 1/2$, for to hold it is sufficient that $$\frac{\epsilon_0}{4\sqrt m} \geq \frac{C}{A_0},$$ where $C/A_0 \geq 2\alpha M \sqrt{hd}/m$. This leads to the following sufficient condition on $h$, $$h \leq \frac{1}{m} \left[ \frac{\epsilon_0^2}{64 R^2 \alpha^2 d} \right]
\label{eq:a1-eq}$$
Similarly for it is sufficient that $$\frac{\epsilon_0}{4 \sqrt m} \geq \frac{B}{\sqrt A_0}$$ Now $$\frac{B}{\sqrt A_0} \geq \frac{2 \sqrt h M \sqrt{{\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \hat \theta - \bar \theta \right\rVert}^2 + d / m}}{\sqrt{mn}}$$ Leading to the following sufficient condition on $n$ $$n \geq \frac{64 h M^2}{\epsilon_0^2} \left[ {\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \hat \theta - \bar \theta \right\rVert}^2 + \frac d m \right].$$ Now due to the conditions on $h$, define $$\beta := \max \left\{ \frac{1}{2L^2 + 1}, \frac{\epsilon_0^2}{64 L^2 \alpha^2 d} \right\}.$$ Then will hold when $$n \geq \frac{64 L^2 \beta}{\epsilon_0^2} m \left[ {\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \hat \theta - \bar \theta \right\rVert}^2 + \frac d m \right]$$
Proof of Lemma \[lem:grad-noise\]
---------------------------------
Our proof follows similarly to [@Dubey2016], $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \xi_k \right\rVert}^2
&= {\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \nabla \tilde f(\theta_k) - \nabla f(\theta_k) \right\rVert}^2 \\
&= {\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \nabla f_0(\theta_k) - \nabla f_0(\hat \theta) + \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i \in S_k} \frac{1}{p_i} \left[ \nabla f_i(\theta_k) - \nabla f_i(\hat \theta) \right] - \left[ \nabla f(\theta_k) - \nabla f(\hat \theta) \right] \right\rVert}^2 \\
&\leq \frac{1}{n^2} {\mathbb{E}}\sum_{i \in S_k} {\left\lVert \left[ \nabla f(\theta_k) - \nabla f(\hat \theta) \right] - \left( \nabla f_0(\theta_k) - \nabla f_0(\hat \theta) + \frac{1}{p_i} \left[ \nabla f_i(\theta_k) - \nabla f_i(\hat \theta) \right] \right) \right\rVert}^2.\end{aligned}$$ Where the third line follows due to independence. For any random variable $R$, we have that ${\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert R - {\mathbb{E}}R \right\rVert}^2 \leq {\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert R \right\rVert}^2$. Using this, the Lipschitz results of Assumption \[ass:Lipschitz\] and our choice of $p_i$, gives the following, where ${\mathbb{E}}_I$ refers to expectation with respect to the sampled datum index, $I$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}{\left\lVert \xi_k \right\rVert}^2
&\leq \frac{1}{n} {\mathbb{E}}_I\left( \frac{1}{p_I} {\left\lVert \nabla f_I(\theta_k) - \nabla f_I(\hat \theta) \right\rVert}^2\right) \\
&\leq \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^N \frac{\sum_{j=1}^N L_j}{L_i} \left( L_i{\left\lVert \theta_k-\hat\theta \right\rVert}\right)^2 \\
&= \frac{1}{n} \left\{\sum_{i=1}^N \left(\sum_{j=1}^N L_j\right) {L_i} \right\} {\left\lVert \theta_k-\hat\theta \right\rVert}^2,\end{aligned}$$ from which the required bound follows trivially.
Proof of Lemma \[lem:lin-just\]
-------------------------------
*Lipschitz condition:* By the triangle inequality $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVert \nabla f(\theta) - \nabla f(\theta') \right\rVert}
&\leq \sum_{i=0}^N {\left\lVert \nabla f_i(\theta) - \sum_{i=0}^N f_i(\theta') \right\rVert} \\
&\leq (N+1)L {\left\lVert \theta - \theta' \right\rVert}.\end{aligned}$$
*Strong convexity:* We have that $$\begin{aligned}
f(\theta) - f(\theta') - \nabla f(\theta')^\top (\theta - \theta')
&= \sum_{i=0}^N \left[ f_i(\theta) - f_i(\theta') - \nabla f_i(\theta')^\top (\theta - \theta') \right] \\
&\geq \frac{(N+1)l}{2} {\left\lVert \theta - \theta' \right\rVert}_2^2.\end{aligned}$$
Postprocessing proofs
=====================
Proof of Theorem \[thm:var-reduc\]
----------------------------------
We start from the bound in Theorem $6.1$ of @Mira2013, stating for some control variate $h$, the optimal variance reduction $R$ is given by $$R = \frac{ \left( {\mathbb{E}}_{\theta | {\mathbf}x} \left[ g(\theta) h(\theta) \right] \right)^2 }{ {\mathbb{E}}_{ \theta | {\mathbf}x} \left[ h(\theta) \right]^2 },$$ so that in our case we have $$\begin{aligned}
\hat R &= \frac{ \left( {\mathbb{E}}_{\theta | {\mathbf}x} \left[ g(\theta) \hat h(\theta) \right] \right)^2 }{ {\mathbb{E}}_{ \theta | {\mathbf}x} \left[ \hat h(\theta) \right]^2 } \\
&= \frac{ \left( {\mathbb{E}}_{\theta | {\mathbf}x} \left[ g(\theta) h(\theta) \right] \right)^2 }{ {\mathbb{E}}_{ \theta | {\mathbf}x} \left[ h(\theta) \right]^2 + \frac 1 4 {\mathbb{E}}_{\theta | {\mathbf}x} \left[ {\mathbf}a \cdot \xi_S(\theta) \right]^2 } \\
&= \frac{R}{1 + \frac{ \frac 1 4 {\mathbb{E}}_{\theta | {\mathbf}x} \left[ {\mathbf}a \cdot \xi_S(\theta) \right]^2 }{ {\mathbb{E}}_{\theta | {\mathbf}x} \left[ h(\theta) \right]^2 } }.\end{aligned}$$ Then we can apply Lemmas \[lem:top\], \[lem:bottom\], defined in Section \[sec:zv-lemmas\], to get the desired result $$\hat R \geq \frac{ R }{ 1 + [\sigma(N + 1)]^{-1} {\mathbb{E}}_{\theta | {\mathbf}x} {\mathbb{E}}_S {\left\lVert \xi_S(\theta) \right\rVert}^2 }.$$
Lemmas {#sec:zv-lemmas}
------
Define $A = \sum_{i=1}^d a_i^2$, and let $\xi_S(\theta) = \widehat{ \nabla \log p(\theta|{\mathbf}x) } - \nabla \log p(\theta|{\mathbf}x)$ be the noise in the gradient estimate. Then $${\mathbb{E}}_{\theta | {\mathbf}x} \left[ {\mathbf}a \cdot \xi_S(\theta) \right]^2 \leq A {\mathbb{E}}_{\theta | {\mathbf}x} {\mathbb{E}}_S {\left\lVert \xi_S(\theta) \right\rVert}^2.$$ \[lem:top\]
We can condition on the gradient noise, and then immediately apply the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to get $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}_{\theta | {\mathbf}x} \left[ {\mathbf}a \cdot \xi_S(\theta) \right]^2
&= {\mathbb{E}}_{\theta | {\mathbf}x} {\mathbb{E}}_S \left[ {\mathbf}a \cdot \xi_S(\theta) \right]^2 \\
& \leq \left( \sum_{i=1}^d a_i^2 \right)
{\mathbb{E}}_{\theta | {\mathbf}x} {\mathbb{E}}_S {\left\lVert \xi_S(\theta) \right\rVert}^2
\end{aligned}$$
Under Assumption \[ass:bounded\], define $A = \sum_{i=1}^d a_i^2$. Then ${\mathbb{E}}_{\theta | x} \left[ h(\theta) \right]^2 \leq A \sigma (N + 1) / 4$. \[lem:bottom\]
Applying the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}_{\theta | x} \left[ h(\theta) \right]^2 & \leq \frac{1}{4} \left( \sum_{i=1}^d a_i^2 \right) {\mathbb{E}}_{\theta | {\mathbf}x} {\left\lVert \nabla f( \theta ) \right\rVert}^2 \\
&\leq \frac{A (N + 1)}{4} \sigma
\end{aligned}$$
[^1]: email: `[email protected]`
[^2]: \[ml-100k\]https://grouplens.org/datasets/movielens/100k/
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Learning how to act when there are many available actions in each state is a challenging task for Reinforcement Learning (RL) agents, especially when many of the actions are redundant or irrelevant. In such cases, it is sometimes easier to learn which actions **not** to take. In this work, we propose the Action-Elimination Deep Q-Network (AE-DQN) architecture that combines a Deep RL algorithm with an Action Elimination Network (AEN) that eliminates sub-optimal actions. The AEN is trained to predict invalid actions, supervised by an external elimination signal provided by the environment. Simulations demonstrate a considerable speedup and added robustness over vanilla DQN in text-based games with over a thousand discrete actions.'
author:
- |
Tom Zahavy$^{*1,2}$, Matan Haroush$^{*1}$, Nadav Merlis$^{*1}$, Daniel J. Mankowitz$^{3}$, Shie Mannor$^1$\
$^1$The Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, $^2$ Google research, $^3$ Deepmind\
- '\* Equal contribution'
- 'Corresponding to `\{tomzahavy,matan.h,merlis\}@campus.technion.ac.il`'
bibliography:
- 'iclr2018\_workshop.bib'
title: 'Learn What Not to Learn: Action Elimination with Deep Reinforcement Learning'
---
Introduction
============
Learning control policies for sequential decision-making tasks where both the state space and the action space are vast is critical when applying Reinforcement Learning (RL) to real-world problems. This is because there is an exponential growth of computational requirements as the problem size increases, known as the curse of dimensionality [@bertsekas1995neuro]. Deep RL (DRL) tackles the curse of dimensionality due to large state spaces by utilizing a Deep Neural Network (DNN) to approximate the value function and/or the policy. This enables the agent to generalize across states without domain-specific knowledge [@tesauro1995temporal; @mnih2015human].
Despite the great success of DRL methods, deploying them in real-world applications is still limited. One of the main challenges towards that goal is dealing with large action spaces, especially when many of the actions are redundant or irrelevant (for many states). While humans can usually detect the subset of feasible actions in a given situation from the context, RL agents may attempt irrelevant actions or actions that are inferior, thus wasting computation time. Control systems for large industrial processes like power grids [@wen2015optimal; @glavic2017reinforcement; @dalal2016hierarchical] and traffic control [@mannion2016experimental; @van2016coordinated] may have millions of possible actions that can be applied at every time step. Other domains utilize natural language to represent the actions. These action spaces are typically composed of all possible sequences of words from a fixed size dictionary resulting in considerably large action spaces. Common examples of systems that use this action space representation include conversational agents such as personal assistants [@dhingra2016end; @li2017end; @su2016continuously; @lipton2016efficient; @liu2017end; @zhao2016towards; @wu2016google], travel planners [@peng2017composite], restaurant/hotel bookers [@budzianowski2017sub], chat-bots [@serban2017deep; @li2016deep] and text-based game agents [@DBLP:journals/corr/NarasimhanKB15; @DBLP:journals/corr/HeCHGLDO15; @zelinka2018using; @yuan2018counting; @cote2018textworld]. RL is currently being applied in all of these domains, facing new challenges in function approximation and exploration due to the larger action space.
In this work, we propose a new approach for dealing with large action spaces that is based on *action elimination*; that is, restricting the available actions in each state to a subset of the most likely ones (Figure \[fig:diagram\]). We propose a method that eliminates actions by utilizing an elimination signal; a specific form of an auxiliary reward [@jaderberg2016reinforcement], which incorporates domain-specific knowledge in text games. Specifically, it provides the agent with immediate feedback regarding taken actions that are not optimal. In many domains, creating an elimination signal can be done using rule-based systems. For example, in parser-based text games, the parser gives feedback regarding irrelevant actions *after* the action is played (e.g., Player: “Climb the tree.” Parser: “There are no trees to climb”). Given such signal, we can train a machine learning model to predict it and then use it to generalize to unseen states. Since the elimination signal provides immediate feedback, it is faster to learn which actions to eliminate (e.g., with a contextual bandit using the elimination signal) than to learn the optimal actions using only the reward (due to long term consequences). Therefore, we can design an algorithm that enjoys better performance by exploring invalid actions less frequently.
More specifically, we propose a system that learns an approximation of the Q-function and *concurrently learns to eliminate actions*. We focus on tasks where natural language characterizes both the states and the actions. In particular, the actions correspond to fixed length sentences defined over a finite dictionary (of words). In this case, the action space is of combinatorial size (in the length of the sentence and the size of the dictionary) and irrelevant actions must be eliminated to learn. We introduce a novel DRL approach with two DNNs, a DQN and an Action Elimination Network (AEN), both designed using a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) that is suited to NLP tasks [@kim2014convolutional]. Using the last layer activations of the AEN, we design a linear contextual bandit model that eliminates irrelevant actions with high probability, balancing exploration/exploitation, and allowing the DQN to explore and learn Q-values only for valid actions.
We tested our method in a text-based game called “Zork”. This game takes place in a virtual world in which the player interacts with the world through a text-based interface (see Figure \[ZRK\_ENV\]). The player can type in any command, corresponding to the in-game action. Since the input is text-based, this yields more than a thousand possible actions in each state (e.g., “open door”, “open mailbox” etc.). We demonstrate the agent’s ability to advance in the game faster than the baseline agents by eliminating irrelevant actions.
Related Work
============
**Text-Based Games (TBG):** Video games, via interactive learning environments like the Arcade Learning Environment (ALE) [@bellemare2013arcade], have been fundamental to the development of DRL algorithms. Before the ubiquitousness of graphical displays, TBG like Zork were popular in the adventure gaming and role-playing communities. TBG present complex, interactive simulations which use simple language to describe the state of the environment, as well as reporting the effects of player actions (See Figure \[ZRK\_ENV\]). Players interact with the environment through text commands that respect a predefined grammar, which must be discovered in each game.
TBG provide a testbed for research at the intersection of RL and NLP, presenting a broad spectrum of challenges for learning algorithms [@cote2018textworld][^1]. In addition to language understanding, successful play generally requires long-term memory, planning, exploration [@yuan2018counting], affordance extraction [@fulda2017can], and common sense. Text games also highlight major open challenges for RL: the action space (text) is combinatorial and compositional, while game states are partially observable since text is often ambiguous or under-specific. Also, TBG often introduce stochastic dynamics, which is currently missing in standard benchmarks [@machado2017revisiting]. For example, in Zork, there is a random probability of a troll killing the player. A thief can appear (also randomly) in each room.
**Representations for TBG:** To learn control policies from high-dimensional complex data such as text, good word representations are necessary. Kim ([-@kim2014convolutional]) designed a shallow word-level CNN and demonstrated state-of-the-art results on a variety of classification tasks by using word embeddings. For classification tasks with millions of labeled data, random embeddings were shown to outperform state-of-the-art techniques [@zahavy2016picture]. On smaller data sets, using *word2vec* [@mikolov2013distributed] yields good performance [@kim2014convolutional].
Previous work on TBG used pre-trained embeddings directly for control [@kostka2017text; @fulda2017can]. Other works combined pre-trained embeddings with neural networks. For example, He et al. ([-@DBLP:journals/corr/HeCHGLDO15]) proposed to use Bag Of Words features as an input to a neural network, learned separate embeddings for states and actions, and then computed the Q function from autocorrelations between these embeddings. Narasimhan et al. ([-@DBLP:journals/corr/NarasimhanKB15]) suggested to use a word level Long Short-Term Memory [@hochreiter1997long] to learn a representation end-to-end, and Zelinka et al. ([-@zelinka2018using]), combined these approaches.
**DRL with linear function approximation:** DRL methods such as the DQN have achieved state-of-the-art results in a variety of challenging, high-dimensional domains. This success is mainly attributed to the power of deep neural networks to learn rich domain representations for approximating the value function or policy [@mnih2015human; @zahavy2016graying; @zrihem2016visualizing]. Batch reinforcement learning methods with linear representations, on the other hand, are more stable and enjoy accurate uncertainty estimates. Yet, substantial feature engineering is necessary to achieve good results. A natural attempt at getting the best of both worlds is to learn a (linear) control policy on top of the representation of the last layer of a DNN. This approach was shown to refine the performance of DQNs [@levine2017shallow] and improve exploration [@azizzadenesheli2018efficient]. Similarly, for contextual linear bandits, Riquelme et al. showed that a neuro-linear Thompson sampling approach outperformed deep (and linear) bandit algorithms in practice [@riquelmedeep].
**RL in Large Action Spaces:** Being able to reason in an environment with a large number of discrete actions is essential to bringing reinforcement learning to a larger class of problems. Most of the prior work concentrated on factorizing the action space into binary subspaces [@pazis2011generalized; @dulac2012fast; @lagoudakis2003reinforcement]. Other works proposed to embed the discrete actions into a continuous space, use a continuous-action policy gradient to find optimal actions in the continuous space, and finally, choose the nearest discrete action [@dulac2015deep; @van2009using]. He et. al. ([-@DBLP:journals/corr/HeCHGLDO15]) extended DQN to unbounded (natural language) action spaces. His algorithm learns representations for the states and actions with two different DNNs and then models the Q values as an inner product between these representation vectors. While this approach can generalize to large action spaces, in practice, they only considered a small number of available actions (4) in each state.
Learning to eliminate actions was first mentioned by [@even2003action] who studied elimination in multi-armed bandits and tabular MDPs. They proposed to learn confidence intervals around the value function in each state and then use it to eliminate actions that are not optimal with high probability. Lipton et al. ([-@lipton2016combating]) studied a related problem where an agent wants to avoid catastrophic forgetting of dangerous states. They proposed to learn a classifier that detects hazardous states and then use it to shape the reward of a DQN agent. Fulda et al. ([-@fulda2017can]) studied affordances, the set of behaviors enabled by a situation, and presented a method for affordance extraction via inner products of pre-trained word embeddings.
Action Elimination {#action_elimination}
==================
We now describe a learning algorithm for MDPs with an elimination signal. Our approach builds on the standard RL formulation [@sutton1998reinforcement]. At each time step $t$, the agent observes a state $s_t$ and chooses a discrete action $a_t \in \left \{1,..,|A| \right \}$. After executing the action, the agent obtains a reward $r_t(s_t,a_t)$ and observes the next state $s_{t+1}$ according to a transition kernel $P(s_{t+1}|s_t,a_t)$. The goal of the algorithm is to learn a policy $\pi(a|s)$ that maximizes the discounted cumulative return $V^\pi(s)=\mathbb{E}^\pi\brs*{\sum_{t=0}^\infty\gamma^tr(s_t,a_t)\vert s_0=s}$ where $0<\gamma<1$ is the discount factor and $V$ is the value function. The optimal value function is given by $V^*(s)=\max_\pi V^\pi(s)$ and the optimal policy by $\pi^*(s)=\arg\max_\pi V^\pi(s)$. The Q-function $Q^{\pi}(s,a)=\mathbb{E}^{\pi}\brs*{\sum_{t=0}^\infty\gamma^tr(s_t,a_t)\vert s_0=s,a_0=a}$ corresponds to the value of taking action $a$ in state $s$ and continuing according to policy $\pi$. The optimal Q-function $Q^*(s,a)=Q^{\pi^*}(s,a)$ can be found using the Q-learning algorithm [@watkins1992q], and the optimal policy is given by $\pi^*(s)=\arg\max_aQ^*(s,a)$.
After executing an action, the agent also observes a binary elimination signal $e(s,a),$ which equals $1$ if action $a$ may be eliminated in state $s$; that is, any optimal policy in state $s$ will never choose action $a$ (and $0$ otherwise). The elimination signal can help the agent determine which actions not to take, thus aiding in mitigating the problem of large discrete action spaces. We start with the following definitions:
Valid state-action pairs with respect to an elimination signal are state action pairs which the elimination process should not eliminate.
As stated before, we assume that the set of valid state-action pairs contains all of the state-action pairs that are a part of some optimal policy, i.e., only strictly suboptimal state-actions can be invalid.
Admissible state-action pairs with respect to an elimination algorithm are state action pairs which the elimination algorithm does not eliminate.
In the following section, we present the main advantages of action elimination in MDPs with large action spaces. Afterward, we show that under the framework of linear contextual bandits [@chu2011contextual], probability concentration results [@abbasi2011improved] can be adapted to guarantee that action elimination is correct in high probability. Finally, we prove that Q-learning coupled with action elimination converges.
Advantages in action elimination
--------------------------------
Action elimination allows the agent to overcome some of the main difficulties in large action spaces, namely: Function Approximation and Sample Complexity.
*Function Approximation:* It is well known that errors in the Q-function estimates may cause the learning algorithm to converge to a suboptimal policy, a phenomenon that becomes more noticeable in environments with large action spaces [@thrun1993issues]. Action elimination may mitigate this effect by taking the $\max$ operator only on valid actions, thus, reducing potential overestimation errors. Another advantage of action elimination is that the Q-estimates need only be accurate for valid actions. The gain is two-fold: first, there is no need to sample invalid actions for the function approximation to converge. Second, the function approximation can learn a simpler mapping (i.e., only the Q-values of the valid state-action pairs), and therefore may converge faster and to a better solution by ignoring errors from states that are not explored by the Q-learning policy [@hester2017learning].
*Sample Complexity*: The sample complexity of the MDP measures the number of steps, during learning, in which the policy is not $\epsilon$-optimal [@kakade2003sample]. Assume that there are $A'$ actions that should be eliminated and are $\epsilon$-optimal, i.e., their value is at least $V^*(s)-\epsilon$. According to lower bounds by [@lattimore2012pac], We need at least $\epsilon^{-2}(1-\gamma)^{-3}\log 1/\delta$ samples per state-action pair to converge with probability $1-\delta$. If, for example, the eliminated action returns no reward and doesn’t change the state, the action gap is $\epsilon=(1-\gamma)V^*(s)$, which translates to ${V^*(s)}^{-2}(1-\gamma)^{-5}\log1/\delta$ ’wasted’ samples for learning each invalid state-action pair. For large $\gamma$, this can lead to a tremendous number of samples (e.g., for $\gamma=0.99,\enspace (1-\gamma)^{-5}=10^{10}$). Practically, elimination algorithms can eliminate these actions substantially faster, and can, therefore, speed up the learning process approximately by $A/A'$ (such that learning is effectively performed on the valid state-action pairs).
Embedding the elimination signal into the MDP is not trivial. One option is to shape the original reward by adding an elimination penalty. That is, decreasing the rewards when selecting the wrong actions. Reward shaping, however, is tricky to tune, may slow the convergence of the function approximation, and is not sample efficient (irrelevant actions are explored). Another option is to design a policy that is optimized by interleaved policy gradient updates on the two signals, maximizing the reward and minimizing the elimination signal error. The main difficulty with this approach is that both models are strongly coupled, and each model affects the observations of the other model, such that the convergence of any of the models is not trivial. Next, we present a method that decouples the elimination signal from the MDP by using contextual multi-armed bandits. The contextual bandit learns a mapping from states (represented by context vectors $x(s)$) to the elimination signal $e(s,a)$ that estimates which actions should be eliminated. We start by introducing theoretical results on linear contextual bandits, and most importantly, concentration bounds for contextual bandits that require almost no assumptions on the context distribution. We will later show that under this model we can decouple the action elimination from the learning process in the MDP, allowing us to learn using standard Q-learning while eliminating actions correctly.
Action elimination with contextual bandits
------------------------------------------
Let $x(s_t)\in \mathbb{R}^d$ be the feature representation of state $s_t.$ We assume (realizability) that under this representation there exists a set of parameters $\theta^*_a\in \mathbb{R}^d$ such that the elimination signal in state $s_t$ is $e_t(s_t,a) = {\theta ^*_a}^T x(s_t)+\eta_t$, where $\norm*{\theta^*_a}_{2}\le S.$ $\eta_t$ is an $R$-subgaussian random variable with zero mean that models additive noise to the elimination signal. When there is no noise in the elimination signal, then $R=0$. Otherwise, as the elimination signal is bounded in $[0,1]$, it holds that $R\le1$. We’ll also relax our previous assumptions and allow the elimination signal to have values $0\le\mathbb{E}\brs*{e_t(s_t,a)}\le \ell$ for any valid action and $u\le\mathbb{E}\brs*{e_t(s_t,a)}\le 1$ for any invalid action, with $\ell<u$. Next, we denote by $X_{t,a}$ ($E_{t,a}$) the matrix (vector) whose rows (elements) are the observed state representation vectors (elimination signals) in which action $a$ was chosen, up to time $t$. For example, the $i^{th}$ row in $X_{t,a}$ is the representation vector of the $i^{th}$ state on which the action $a$ was chosen. Denote the solution to the regularized linear regression $\norm*{X_{t,a} \theta _{t,a}-E_{t,a}}_2^2+\lambda\norm*{\theta _{t,a}}_2^2$ (for some $\lambda>0$) by $\hat{\theta}_{t,a}=\bar{V}_{t,a}^{-1}X_{t,a}^T E_{t,a}$ where $\bar{V}_{t,a}=\lambda I+ X_{t,a}^TX_{t,a}.$
Similarly to Theorem 2 in [@abbasi2011improved][^2], for any state history and with probability of at least $1-\delta$, it holds for all $t>0$ that $\abs*{{\hat{\theta}_{t-1,a}}^T x(s_t)-{\theta ^*_a}^Tx(s_t)}\le \sqrt{\beta_{t-1}(\delta)x(s_t)^T\bar{V}_{t-1,a}^{-1}x(s_t)},
$ where $\sqrt{\beta_t(\delta)}=R\sqrt{2\log(\mbox{det}(\bar{V}_{t,a})^{1/2}\mbox{det}(\lambda I)^{-1/2}/\delta)}+\lambda^{1/2}S.$ If $\forall s, \norm*{x(s)}_2\le L$, then $\beta_t$ can be bounded by $\sqrt{\beta_t(\delta)}\le R\sqrt{d\log\left(\frac{1+tL^2/\lambda}{\delta}\right)}+\lambda^{1/2}S$. Next, we define $\tilde{\delta} = \delta/k$ and bound this probability for all the actions, i.e., $\forall a, t>0$ $$\centering
\label{eq:contextual}
\mbox{Pr} \left\{ \abs*{\hat{\theta}_{t-1,a}^Tx(s_t)-{\theta ^*_a}^Tx(s_t) }
\le \sqrt{\beta_{t-1}(\tilde{\delta})x(s_t)^T\bar{V}_{t-1,a}^{-1}x(s_t)} \right\} \ge 1-\delta$$ Recall that any valid action $a$ at state $s$ satisfies $\mathbb{E}\brs{e_t(s,a)}={\theta ^*_a}^Tx(s_t)\le \ell$. Thus, we can eliminate action $a$ at state $s_t$ if $$\label{eq:el_thr}
\hat{\theta}_{t-1,a}^Tx(s_t)-\sqrt{\beta_{t-1}(\tilde{\delta})x(s_t)^T\bar{V}_{t-1,a}^{-1}x(s_t)}>\ell$$ This ensures that with probability $1-\delta$ we never eliminate any valid action. We emphasize that only the expectation of the elimination signal is linear in the context. The expectation does not have to be binary (while the signal itself is). For example, in conversational agents, if a sentence is not understood by 90$\%$ of the humans who hear it, it is still desirable to avoid saying it. We also note that we assume $\ell$ is known, but in most practical cases, choosing $\ell\approx 0.5$ should suffice. In the current formulation, knowing $u$ is not necessary, though its value will affect the overall performance.
Concurrent Learning
-------------------
We now show how the Q-learning and contextual bandit algorithms can learn simultaneously, resulting in the convergence of both algorithms, i.e., finding an optimal policy and a minimal valid action space. The challenge here is that each learning process affects the state-action distribution of the other. We first define Action Elimination Q-learning.
Action Elimination Q-learning is a Q-learning algorithm which updates only admissible state-action pairs and chooses the best action in the next state from its admissible actions. We allow the base Q-learning algorithm to be any algorithm that converges to $Q^*$ with probability $1$ after observing each state-action infinitely often.
If the elimination is done based on the concentration bounds of the linear contextual bandits, we can ensure that Action Elimination Q-learning converges, as can be seen in Proposition \[prop:convergenceProp\] (See Appendix A for a full proof).
[prop]{}[convergenceProp]{} \[prop:convergenceProp\] Assume that all state action pairs $(s,a)$ are visited infinitely often unless eliminated according to $\hat{\theta}_{t-1,a}^Tx(s)-\sqrt{\beta_{t-1}(\tilde{\delta})x(s)^T\bar{V}_{t-1,a}^{-1}x(s)}>\ell$. Then, with a probability of at least $1-\delta$, action elimination Q-learning converges to the optimal Q-function for any valid state-action pairs. In addition, actions which should be eliminated are visited at most $T_{s,a}(t)\le 4\beta_t/\br{u-\ell}^2+1$ times.
Notice that when there is no noise in the elimination signal ($R=0$), we correctly eliminate actions with probability 1, and invalid actions will be sampled a finite number of times. Otherwise, under very mild assumptions, invalid actions will be sampled a logarithmic number of times.
Method
======
Using raw features like *word2vec*, directly for control, results in exhaustive computations. Moreover, raw features are typically not realizable, i,.e., the assumption that $e_t(s_t,a) = {\theta ^*_a}^T x(s_t)+\eta_t$ does not hold. Thus, we propose learning a set of features $\phi(s_t)$ that are realizable, i.e., $e(s_t,a) = {\theta ^*_a}^T \phi(s_t)$, using neural networks (using the activations of the last layer as features). A practical challenge here is that the features must be fixed over time when used by the contextual bandit, while the activations change during optimization. We therefore follow a batch-updates framework [@levine2017shallow; @riquelmedeep], where every few steps we learn a new contextual bandit model that uses the last layer activations of the AEN as features.
**Input:** $\epsilon,\beta,\ell,\lambda,C,L,N$ Initialize AEN and DQN with random weights $\omega, \theta$ respectively, and set target networks $Q^-,E^-$ with a copy of $\theta,\omega$ Define $\phi(s) \leftarrow \mbox{LastLayerActivations}(E(s))$ Initialize Replay Memory D to capacity N $a_t$ = ACT$(s_t,Q,E^-,V^{-1},\epsilon,\ell,\beta)$ Execute action $a_t$ and observe $\{r_t, e_t, s_{t+1}\}$ Store transition $\{s_t,a_t,r_t,e_t,s_{t+1}\}$ in D Sample transitions $\{s_j,a_j,r_j,e_j,s_{j+1}\}_{j=1}^m \in
D$ $y_j = \text{Targets}\left(s_{j+1},r_j,\gamma,Q^-,E^-,V^{-1},\beta,\ell\right)$ $\theta= \theta - \nabla_\theta \sum_j \left( y_j - Q(s_j,a_j;\theta)\right)^2$ $\omega = \omega - \nabla_\omega \sum_j\left( e_j- \text{E}(s_j,a_j;\omega)\right)^2$ If [$\left(t \text{ mod } C\right) = 0$]{} : $Q^-\gets Q$ If [$\left(t \text{ mod } L\right) = 0$]{} : $E^-,V^{-1} \gets $AENUpdate($E,\lambda,D$)
$A'\leftarrow \{a: E(s)_a - \sqrt{\beta \phi(s)^TV_a^{-1}\phi(s)} < \ell \}$ With probability $\epsilon,$ return $\text{Uniform}(A')$ Otherwise, return $\underset{{a\in A'}}{\arg\max} Q(s,a)$ return $r$ $A'\leftarrow \{a: E(s)_a - \sqrt{\beta \phi(s)^TV_a^{-1}\phi(s)} < \ell \}$ return $(r+\gamma\underset{{a\in A'}}{\text{max}}Q(s,a))$ $V^{-1}_a = \left(\sum_{j:a_j=a} \phi(s_j)\phi(s_j)^T + \lambda I\right)^{-1}$ $b_a = \sum_{j:a_j=a} \phi(s_j)^Te_j $ Set LastLayer($E^-_a$) $\gets V^{-1}_ab_a$ return $E^-, V^{-1}$
\[alg1\]
Our Algorithm presents a hybrid approach for DRL with Action Elimination (AE), by incorporating AE into the well-known DQN algorithm to yield our AE-DQN (Algorithm \[alg1\] and Figure \[fig:diagram\]). AE-DQN trains two networks: a DQN denoted by $Q$ and an AEN denoted by $E$. The algorithm uses $E$, and creates a linear contextual bandit model from it every $L$ iterations with procedure **AENUpdate()**. This procedure uses the activations of the last hidden layer of $E$ as features, $\phi(s) \leftarrow \mbox{LastLayerActivations}(E(s)),$ which are then used to create a contextual linear bandit model ($V_a=\lambda I+\sum_{j:a_j=a} \phi(s_j)\phi(s_j)^T,b_a=\sum_{j:a_j=a} \phi(s_j)^Te_j$). AENUpdate() proceeds by solving this model, and plugging the solution into the target AEN (LastLayer($E^-_a$) $\gets V^{-1}_ab_a$). The contextual linear bandit model ($E^-,V$) is then used to eliminate actions (with high probability) via the **ACT()** and **Targets()** functions. ACT() follows an $\epsilon-$greedy mechanism on the admissible actions set $A'=\{ a: E(s)_a-\sqrt{\beta\phi(s)^TV^{-1}_a\phi(s)}<\ell\}$. If it decides to exploit, then it selects the action with highest $Q$-value by taking an $\arg\max$ on $Q$-values among $A',$ and if it chooses to explore, then, it selects an action uniformly from $A'$. **Targets()** estimates the value function by taking $\max$ over $Q$-values only among admissible actions, hence, reducing function approximation errors.\
**Architectures:** The agent uses an Experience Replay [@lin1992self] to store information about states, transitions, actions, and rewards. In addition, our agent also stores the elimination signal, provided by the environment (Figure \[fig:diagram\]). The architecture for both the AEN and DQN is an NLP CNN, based on [@kim2014convolutional]. We represent the state as a sequence of words, composed of the game descriptor (Figure \[ZRK\_ENV\], “Observation”) and the player’s inventory. These are truncated or zero-padded (for simplicity) to a length of 50 (descriptor) + 15 (inventory) words and each word is embedded into continuous vectors using *word2vec* in $\mathbb{R}^{300}$. The features of the last four states are then concatenated together such that our final state representations $s$ are in $\mathbb{R}^{78,000}$. The AEN is trained to minimize the MSE loss, using the elimination signal as a label. We used $100$ ($500$ for DQN) convolutional filters, with three different 1D kernels of length (1,2,3) such that the last hidden layer size is $300.$ [^3]
Experimental Results
====================
**Grid World Domain:** We start with an evaluation of action elimination in a small grid world domain with 9 rooms, where we can carefully analyze the effect of action elimination. In this domain, the agent starts at the center of the grid and needs to navigate to its upper-left corner. On every step, the agent suffers a penalty of $(-1)$, with a terminal reward of $0$. Prior to the game, the states are randomly divided into $K$ categories. The environment has $4K$ navigation actions, 4 for each category, each with a probability to move in a random direction. If the chosen action belongs to the same category as the state, the action is performed correctly with probability $p_c^T=0.75$. Otherwise, it will be performed correctly with probability $p_c^F=0.5$. If the action does not fit the state category, the elimination signal equals $1$, and if the action and state belong to the same category, then it equals $0$. An optimal policy only uses the navigation actions from the same type as the state, as the other actions are clearly suboptimal. We experimented with a vanilla Q-learning agent without action elimination and a tabular version of action elimination Q-learning. Our simulations show that action elimination dramatically improves the results in large action spaces. In addition, we observed that the gain from action elimination increases as the amount of categories grows, and as the grid size grows, since the elimination allows the agent to reach the goal earlier. We have also experimented with random elimination signal and other modifications in the domain. Due to space constraints, we refer the reader to the appendix for figures and visualization of the domain.
{width="80.00000%"}
**Zork domain:** *“This is an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here. A rubber mat saying ’Welcome to Zork!’ lies by the door”*. This is an excerpt from the opening scene provided to a player in “Zork I: The Great Underground Empire”; one of the first interactive fiction computer games, created by members of the MIT Dynamic Modeling Group in the late 70s. By exploring the world via interactive text-based dialogue, the players progress in the game. The world of Zork presents a rich environment with a large state and action space (Figure \[ZRK\_WORLD\]).\
Zork players describe their actions using natural language instructions. For example, in the opening excerpt, an action might be ‘open the mailbox’ (Figure \[ZRK\_ENV\]). Once the player describes his/her action, it is processed by a sophisticated natural language parser. Based on the parser’s results, the game presents the outcome of the action. The ultimate goal of Zork is to collect the Twenty Treasures of Zork and install them in the trophy case. Finding the treasures require solving a variety of puzzles such as navigation in complex mazes and intricate action sequences. During the game, the player is awarded points for performing deeds that bring him closer to the game’s goal (e.g., solving puzzles). Placing all of the treasures into the trophy case generates a total score of $350$ points for the player. Points that are generated from the game’s scoring system are given to the agent as a reward. Zork presents multiple challenges to the player, like building plans to achieve long-term goals; dealing with random events like troll attacks; remembering implicit clues as well as learning the interactions between objects in the game and specific actions. The **elimination signal** in Zork is given by the Zork environment in two forms, a “wrong parse” flag, and text feedback (e.g. “you cannot take that”). We group these two signals into a single binary signal which we then provide to our learning algorithm.\
Before we started experimenting in the “Open Zork“ domain, i.e., playing in Zork without any modifications to the domain, we evaluated the performance on two subdomains of Zork. These subdomains are inspired by the Zork plot and are referred to as the Egg Quest and the Troll Quest (Figure \[ZRK\_WORLD\], right, and Appendix B). For these subdomains, we introduced an additional reward signal (in addition to the reward provided by the environment) to guide the agent towards solving specific tasks and make the results more visible. In addition, a reward of $-1$ is applied at every time step to encourage the agent to favor short paths. When solving “Open Zork“ we only use the environment reward. The optimal time that it takes to solve each quest is $6$ in-game timesteps for the Egg quest, $11$ for the Troll quest and $350$ for “Open Zork”. The agent’s goal in each subdomain is to maximize its cumulative reward. Each trajectory terminates upon completing the quest or after $T$ steps are taken. We set the discounted factor during training to $\gamma=0.8$ but use $\gamma=1$ during evaluation [^4]. We used $\beta=0.5,\ell=0.6$ in all the experiments. The results are averaged over 5 random seeds, shown alongside error bars (std/3).
\[fig:egg\]
**The Egg Quest:** In this quest, the agent’s goal is to find and open the jewel-encrusted egg, hidden on a tree in the forest. The agent is awarded 100 points upon successful completion of this task. We experimented with the AE-DQN (blue) agent and a vanilla DQN agent (green) in this quest (Figure \[fig:egg\]). The action set in this quest is composed of two subsets. A fixed subset of $9$ actions that allow it to complete the Egg Quest like *navigate* (south, east etc.) *open* an item and *fight*; And a second subset consists of $N_{\text{Take}}$ *“take”* actions for possible objects in the game. The “take” actions correspond to taking a single object and include objects that need to be collected to complete quests, as well as other irrelevant objects from the game dictionary. We used two versions of this action set, $A_1$ with $N_{\text{Take}}=200$ and $A_2$ with $N_{\text{Take}}=300$. **Robustness to hyperparameter tuning:** We can see that for $A_1$, with T=100, (Figure \[fig:egg\]$a$), and for $A_2$, with T=200, (Figure \[fig:egg\]$c$) *Both* agents solve the task well. However, for $A_2$, with T=100, (Figure \[fig:egg\]$b$) the AE-DQN agent learns considerably faster, implying that action elimination is more robust to hyperparameters settings when there are many actions.
[r]{}[0.4]{} {width="1.05\linewidth"} \[troll\]
**The Troll Quest:** In this quest, the agent must find a way to enter the house, grab a lantern and light it, expose the hidden entrance to the underworld and then find the troll, awarding him 100 points. The Troll Quest presents a larger problem than the Egg Quest, but smaller than the full Zork domain; it is large enough to gain a useful understanding of our agents’ performance. The AE-DQN (blue) and DQN (green) agents use a similar action set to $A_1$ with $200$ take actions and $15$ necessary actions (215 in total). For comparison, We also included an “optimal elimination” baseline (red) that consists of only $35$ actions (15 essential, and 20 relevant take actions). We can see in Figure \[troll\] that AE-DQN significantly outperforms DQN, achieving compatible performance to the “optimal elimination” baseline. In addition, we can see that the improvement of the AE-DQN over DQN is more significant in the Troll Quest than the Egg quest. This observation is consistent with our tabular experiments.
[r]{}[0.4]{}
[| l | >m[0.06]{} | >m[0.08]{} |]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& $|A|$ & cumulative reward\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
@kostka2017text [-@kostka2017text] & $\approx150$ & 13.5\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ours, $A_3$ & 131& **39**\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ours, $A_3$, 2M steps& 131& **44**\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
@fulda2017can [-@fulda2017can]& $\approx500$ & 8.8\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ours, $A_4$ & 1227& **16**\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ours, $A_4$, 2M steps & 1227& **16**\
\[table:results\]
**“Open Zork“:** Next, we evaluated our agent in the “Open Zork“ domain (without hand-crafting reward and termination signals). To compare our results with previous work, we trained our agent for 1M steps: each trajectory terminates after $T=200$ steps, and a total of $5000$ trajectories were executed [^5]. We used two action sets: $A_3,$ the “Minimal Zork“ action set, is the minimal set of actions ($131$) that is required to solve the game (comparable with the action set used by @kostka2017text ([-@kostka2017text])). The actions are taken from a tutorial for solving the game. $A_4,$ the “Open Zork“ action set, includes $1227$ actions (comparable with @fulda2017can ([-@fulda2017can])). This set is created from action “templates”, composed of {Verb, Object} tuples for all the verbs $(19)$ and objects $(62)$ in the game (e.g, open mailbox). In addition, we include a fixed set of $49$ actions of varying length (but not of length $2$) that are required to solve the game. Table \[table:results\] presents the average (over seeds) maximal (in each seed) reward obtained by our AE-DQN agent in this domain while using action sets $A_3$ and $A_4$, showing that our agent achieves state-of-the-art results, outperforming all previous work. In the appendix, we show the learning curves for both AE-DQN and DQN agents. Again, we can see that AE-DQN outperforms DQN, learning faster and achieving more reward.
Summary {#sum}
=======
In this work, we proposed the AE-DQN, a DRL approach for eliminating actions while performing Q-learning, for solving MDPs with large state and action spaces. We tested our approach on the text-based game Zork, showing that by eliminating actions the size of the action space is reduced, exploration is more effective, and learning is improved. We provided theoretical guarantees on the convergence of our approach using linear contextual bandits. In future work, we plan to investigate more sophisticated architectures, as well as learning shared representations for elimination and control which may boost performance on both tasks. In addition, we aim to investigate other mechanisms for action elimination, e.g., eliminating actions that result from low Q-values [@even2003action]. Another direction is to generate elimination signals in real-world domains. This can be done by designing a rule-based system for actions that should be eliminated, and then, training an AEN to generalize these rules for states that were not included in these rules. Finally, elimination signals may be provided implicitly, e.g., by human demonstrations of actions that should not be taken.
Proof of Proposition \[prop:convergenceProp\] {#convergencePropProof}
=============================================
We start by proving the convergence of the algorithm and then prove the bound on the number of visits of invalid actions.
Denote the MDP as $M$. According to Equation \[eq:contextual\], with probability of at least $1-\delta$, elimination by Equation \[eq:el\_thr\] never eliminates a valid action, and thus all of these actions are visited infinitely often. If all of the state-action pairs are visited infinitely often even after the elimination, the Q-learning will converge at all state-action pairs. Otherwise, there are some invalid actions, which are strictly suboptimal, and are visited a finite number of times. In this case, there exists some time $T<\infty$ such that all of these actions are never played for any $t>T$. Define a new MDP $\tilde{M}$, as $M$ without any of the eliminated actions. As these actions are strictly suboptimal, the value of $\tilde{M}$ will be identical to the value of $M$ in all states, and so are the Q-values for any action that survived the elimination. Furthermore, $\tilde{M}$ contains all of the valid states, and their Q-values will be identical those of $M$, as they only depend on the reward in the valid state-action pairs and the value in the next state, both which exist in $\tilde{M}$. For any $t>T$, $M$ is equivalent to $\tilde{M}$, and all of its state-actions are visited infinitely often. Therefore, the Q-function will converge to the optimal Q-function with probability 1 in all of $\tilde{M}$’s state-action pairs. Specifically, it will converge in all of valid state-action pairs $(s,a$), which concludes the first part of the proof.
We’ll now prove the sample complexity of any invalid actions. First, note that the confidence bound is strongly related to the number of visits in a state-action pair:
[$$\begin{aligned}
x(s_t)^T\bar{V}_{t-1,a}^{-1}x(s_t)
& = x(s_t)^T \left\{ \lambda I+T_{s,a}(t-1)x(s_t)x(s_t)^T+
\sum_{s'\neq s_t}T_{s',a}(t-1)x(s')x(s')^T\right\}^{-1}x(s_t) \nonumber \\
& \stackrel{(1)}{\le}x(s_t)^T \brc*{ \lambda I+T_{s,a}(t-1)x(s_t)x(s_t)^T }^{-1}x(s_t) \nonumber \\
& \stackrel{(2)}{=} \frac{\norm*{x(s_t)}^2}{\lambda}- \frac{T_{s,a}(t-1)\frac{\norm*{x(s_t)}^4}{\lambda^2}}{1+T_{s,a}(t-1)\frac{\norm*{x(s_t)}^2}{\lambda}}
\nonumber \\
& = \frac{\norm*{x(s_t)}^2}{\lambda +T_{s,a}(t-1) \norm*{x(s_t)}^2} \le \frac{1}{T_{s,a}(t-1)}
\label{eq:countupperbound}\end{aligned}$$]{}
$(1)$ is correct due to the fact that for any positive definite $A$ and positive semidefinite $B$, the difference $A^{-1}-(A+B)^{-1}$ is positive semidefinite. $(2)$ is correct due to the Sherman–Morrison formula [@bartlett1951inverse]. We note that this bound is not tight because it does not use the correlations between different contexts. In fact, the same bound can be probably achieved by placing a multi-armed bandit algorithm in each state. Deriving a tighter bound that utilizes the correlation between contexts is hard, as it is possible to observe a state that its context is not correlated with other states’ contexts. Nevertheless, the confidence bounds for contextual bandits can be used in the non-tabular case, in contrast to a MAB formulation.
This implies that a satisfactory condition for correct elimination is
$$\begin{gathered}
x(s_t)^T\hat{\theta}_{t-1,a} - \sqrt{\beta_{t-1}(\tilde{\delta})x(s_t)^T\bar{V}_{t-1,a}^{-1}x(s_t)} \\ \stackrel{(1)}{\ge} u-2\sqrt{\beta_{t-1}(\tilde{\delta})x(s_t)^T\bar{V}_{t-1,a}^{-1}x(s_t)}
\stackrel{(2)}{\ge} u-2\sqrt{\frac{\beta_{t-1}(\tilde{\delta})}{T_{s,a}(t-1)}}>\ell\end{gathered}$$
where $(1)$ is correct due to Equation \[eq:el\_thr\] with $\mathbb{E}\brs*{e(s_t,a)} ={\theta ^*_a}^T x(s_t)\ge u$, with probability $1-\delta$, and $(2)$ is correct due to Equation \[eq:countupperbound\]. Therefore, if $T_{s,a}(t)\ge 4\frac{\beta_t}{\br{u-\ell}^2} $ then action $a$ in state $s$ is correctly eliminated. We emphasize that the bound does not depend on the algorithm that chooses state-actions, except for the dependency of $\beta_t$, through $\bar{V}_{t,a}$, in the history. Using the fact that $\beta_t$ is monotonically increasing with $t$, with probability $1-\delta$, all of the invalid actions are sampled no more than $$\begin{aligned}
T_{s,a}(t) &\le \sum_{\tau=1}^t\mathds{1}\brc*{T_{s,a}(\tau)\le 4\frac{\beta_\tau}{\br{u-\ell}^2}} \\
& \le \sum_{\tau=1}^t\mathds{1}\brc*{T_{s,a}(\tau)\le4\frac{\beta_t}{\br{u-\ell}^2}}
\le 4\frac{\beta_t}{\br{u-\ell}^2}+1\end{aligned}$$
If the sub-gaussianity parameter is $R=0$, we have $\beta_t=\lambda S^2<\infty$, and therefore an arm will be sampled at most a finite number of times $T_0=4\frac{\lambda S^2}{\br{u-\ell}^2}+1<\infty$. Otherwise, if the state representations are bounded, i.e. $\forall s, \norm*{x(s)}_2\le L$, then, using the simpler form of $\beta_t$, the bound can be written as $\lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{T_{s,a}(t)}{\log \br*{\frac{t}{\delta}}}
\le \frac{4R^2d}{\br{u-\ell}^2} \enspace,$ which means an invalid action is sampled a logarithmic number of times.
Grid world simulations {#gridWorldDetails}
======================
In this Section, we experimented with action elimination in a grid world domain with a tabular Q-learning algorithm. We start with the following default configuration (Figure \[fig:grid\_world\_map\]). The grid size is 30x30, the number of state categories is $K=10,$ and the maximal episode length is $T=150$. If the chosen action is from the same category as the current state, it is performed correctly in probability $p_c^T=0.75$, and if the state and action types are different, the probability is $p_c^F=0.5$. We also study the effect of the domain’s parameters on the performance of action elimination, by changing these parameters one at a time.
![30x30 Grid World - the agent starts at the center (green) and needs to navigate to the upper-left corner (blue) while avoiding walls (yellow).[]{data-label="fig:grid_world_map"}](30on30_grid.png){width="0.6\linewidth"}
On each of the simulations, the results were filtered by a moving average filter of length $200$, which is needed due to the stochastic nature of the domain. The results are averaged over 5 random seeds, shown alongside error bars (std/3).
Since the problem is tabular, we use confidence intervals in the spirit of UCT [@kocsis2006bandit] - denote the empirical mean of the elimination signal by $\bar{e}\br*{s,a}$ and the number of visits in a state-action pair by $N(s,a)$. An action will be eliminated if $\bar{e}\br*{s,a} - \sqrt{\frac{2\sum_a N(s,a)}{N(s,a)}} > \ell \triangleq 0.5$. The Q-function was initially set to $0$, the learning rates were chosen according to [@even2003learning], and we set $\gamma=1$.
We start with comparison between vanilla Q-learning without action elimination (green) and a tabular version of the action elimination Q-learning (blue) (Figure \[fig:grid\]). We also include an “optimal elimination” baseline, i.e., a Q-learning agent with one category (red), i.e., only 4 basic navigation actions, which forms an upper bound on performance with multiple categories. In Figure \[grid1\],\[grid3\], the episode length is $T=150$, and in Figure \[grid2\] it is $T=300$, to allow sufficient exploration for the vanilla Q-Learning.
We can see that action elimination significantly improves the Q-learning algorithm (blue) over the baseline (green). In Figure \[grid2\], we increased the number of state categories. We can see that in this case, the action elimination dramatically improves in comparison to the vanilla algorithms, since there are more invalid actions (compare Figure \[grid1\] with Figure \[grid2\]). Figure \[grid4\] present the simulation results with a 40x40 grid world. When compared to Figures \[grid1\],\[grid3\], with grid of 30x30 and 20x20, respectively, we can conclude that action elimination becomes more effective as the grid size increases. Intuitively, it is relatively easy to reach the goal state on small grids, even if the action space is large, and therefore even random exploration will bring the agent to the goal quickly. From the moment the agent reaches the goal, its policy will be biased towards the goal’s direction, and it becomes easier to distinguish between valid and invalid actions.
Next, we make a small modification in the domain and consider a random elimination signal, i.e., if the action does not fit the state category, an elimination signal will be equal $1$ in probability $p_e^F$. If the action and state belong to the same category, the probability is $p_e^T$. Specifically, we let $p_e^F$ change between $1$ to $0.6$ in invalid actions, and $p_e^T$ between $0$ to $0.4$ in valid actions. Inspecting Figure \[grid5\], we observe that only when the elimination signal is almost completely random, the action elimination algorithm does not present superior performance.
Finally, Figure \[grid6\] present a scenario where valid actions has almost no randomness ($p_c^T=0.9$), while invalid actions are almost completely random ($p_c^F=0.1$). Thus, it is easier to identify the invalid actions, and specifically, understand that these actions are suboptimal. The results indeed show that while action elimination Q-learning converges faster than the vanilla Q-learning, the difference between the convergence rates is smaller.
In summary, the tabular simulations showed a significant improvement due to action elimination, especially when the action space is large, the optimal and suboptimal actions are hard to distinct, and the horizon required to reach the goal is large.
Additional figures
==================
Maps of Zork {#enlargedMaps}
============
![The world of Zork[]{data-label="ZRK_WORLD_LARGE"}](zork_dungeon.jpg){width="0.75\linewidth"}
![Subdomains of Zork; the Troll (green) and Egg (blue) Quests. Credit: S. Meretzky, The Strong National Museum of Play.[]{data-label="ZRK_QUESTS_LARGE"}](QuestsMap.jpg){width="0.6\linewidth"}
[^1]: See also The CIG Competition for General Text-Based Adventure Game-Playing Agents
[^2]: Our theoretical analysis builds on results from [@abbasi2011improved], which can be extended to include Generalized Linear Models (GLMs). We focus on linear contextual bandits as they enjoy easier implementation and tighter confidence intervals in comparison to GLMs. We will later combine the bandit with feature approximation, which will approximately allow the realizability assumption even for linear bandits.
[^3]: Our code, the Zork domain, and the implementation of the elimination signal can be found at:\
[https://github.com/TomZahavy/CB\_AE\_DQN
](https://github.com/TomZahavy/CB_AE_DQN
)
[^4]: We adopted a common evaluation scheme that is used in the ALE. During learning and training we use $\gamma < 1$ but evaluation is performed with $\gamma = 1$. Intuitively, during learning, choosing $\gamma < 1$ helps to learn, while during evaluation, the sum of cumulative returns ($\gamma$ = 1) is more interpretable (the score in the game).
[^5]: The same amount of steps that were used in previous work on Zork [@fulda2017can; @kostka2017text]. For completeness, we also report results for AE-DQN with 2M steps, where learning seemed to converge.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The purpose of this comment is to present the perturbation approach proposed by Maiz \[J. Math. Phys. **60**, 012103 (2019)\] in a clearer way. The results of our straightforward procedure agree with those obtained by that author except for one case in which we obtain the exact result while he obtained an approximate one. In addition to it, we show that for sufficiently deep double-well potentials the perturbation approach deteriorates considerably.'
author:
- 'Francisco M. Fernández'
title: 'Comment on: “Development of the perturbation theory using polynomial solutions” \[J. Math. Phys. **60**, 012103 (2019)\]'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
In a recent paper Maiz[@M19] proposed a modified perturbation approach in which the unperturbed or reference Hamiltonian operator is chosen to be somewhat close to the actual, or perturbed, Hamiltonian operator. The method, named exact polynomial potential solutions (EPPS from now on), was restricted to one-dimensional polynomial potentials. Numerical results of first order in perturbation theory appear to be reasonably accurate for a family of anharmonic oscillators.
In our opinion the author presents the approach in a somewhat unclear and confusing way. The purpose of this comment is to develop that perturbation strategy more clearly. In section \[sec:examples\] we present the method and apply it to the set of anharmonic oscillators discussed in that paper[@M19]. In section \[sec:conclusions\] we summarize the main conclusions and show resuts for some examples not considered by Maiz.
Exact polynomial potential solutions {#sec:examples}
====================================
In what follows we just focus on the dimensionless Schrödinger equation $$\begin{aligned}
\psi ^{\prime \prime }(x) &=&\left[ V(x)-E\right] \psi (x), \nonumber \\
V(x) &=&\sum_{i=1}^{N}b_{i}x^{i}, \label{eq:Schro}\end{aligned}$$ where $N$ is an even number and $b_{N}>0$. Maiz[@M19] proposed an ansatz of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\psi (x) &=&f(x)\exp \left[ h(x)\right] , \nonumber \\
h(x) &=&\sum_{i=1}^{2N}a_{i}x^{i}, \label{eq:ansatz_Maiz}\end{aligned}$$ where $f(x)=1$ for the ground state and $f(x)=\prod_{i=1}^{n}(x-x_{i})$ for the excited states. In this way the author derived a quasi-exactly-solvable Hamiltonian $H_{ex}$ and then improved the exactly known eigenvalue $E^{(0)}$ of $H_{ex}$ by means of perturbation theory of first order: $E^{(1)}=\left\langle H-H_{ex}\right\rangle $. It is clear that one needs a recipe for the calculation of optimal values of the parameters in the ansatz. As stated in the introduction we think that the author’s presentation of his method is rather unclear and the purpose of this comment is to develop it in a somewhat clearer way.
The starting point is a square-integrable trial function $\varphi (x,\mathbf{a})$ where $\mathbf{a}$ is a set of adjustable parametes. From this function we derive a potential $V_{0}(x,\mathbf{a})$ as $$\frac{\varphi ^{\prime \prime }(x,\mathbf{a})}{\varphi (x,\mathbf{a})}=V_{0}(x,\mathbf{a})-E^{(0)}(\mathbf{a}). \label{eq:V_0(x,a)}$$ Then we obtain a correction of first order in the usual way $$E^{(1)}=\frac{\int_{-\infty }^{\infty }\left[ V(x)-V_{0}(x,\mathbf{a})\right] \varphi (x,\mathbf{a})^{2}dx}{\int_{-\infty }^{\infty }\varphi (x,\mathbf{a})^{2}dx}. \label{eq:E^(1)}$$ The accuracy of the result will obviously depend on the choice of the adjustable parameters $\mathbf{a}$.
The equations developed above are quite general (in fact, once can easily write similar equations for more than one dynamical coordinate), but in what follows we restrict ourselves to the ground states of the polynomial potentials considered by Maiz. To this end we choose $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi (x,\mathbf{a}) &=&\exp \left[ h(x,\mathbf{a})\right] , \nonumber \\
h(x,\mathbf{a}) &=&\sum_{i=1}^{M}a_{i}x^{i}, \label{eq:ansatz}\end{aligned}$$ where $M$ is even and $a_{M}>0$. The potential of order zero $$V_{0}(x,\mathbf{a})=h^{\prime }(x,\mathbf{a})^{2}-h^{\prime \prime }(x,\mathbf{a})+E^{(0)}(\mathbf{a}), \label{eq:V_0(x,a)_b}$$ where $E^{(0)}(\mathbf{a})=2a_{2}-a_{1}^{2}$ and the prime stands for derivative with respect to $x$, is a polynomial function of order $2M-2$. We arbitrarily choose the $M$ adjustable parameters $\mathbf{a}=(a_{1},a_{2},\ldots ,a_{M})$ in order to remove $M$ terms of the perturbation potential $V(x)-V_{0}(x,\mathbf{a})$. In order to reproduce the results of Maiz we choose $2M-2>N$ and, obviously, $a_{2j+1}=0$ if $V(-x)=V(x)$.
Our first example is the exactly solvable harmonic oscillator $V(x)=x^{2}$. If $M=4$ we have $$V(x)-V_{0}(x,\mathbf{a})=-16a_{4}^{2}x^{6}-16a_{2}a_{4}x^{4}-x^{2}\left(
4a_{2}^{2}-12a_{4}-1\right) , \label{eq:[V-V_0]_HO}$$ from which it follows that $a_{4}=0$ and $a_{2}=1/2$. We thus obtain, as expected, the exact ground state energy at zero order $E^{(0)}=1$. Curiously enough, Maiz[@M19] obtained an approximate result for this trivial case. At first sight it may seem that both approaches are different.
In the case of $V(x)=x^{4}$ we choose the same ansatz and obtain the following results $$\begin{aligned}
a_{2} &=&\frac{12^{1/3}}{4},\;a_{4}=\frac{18^{1/3}}{24}, \nonumber \\
V(x)-V_{0}(x,\mathbf{a}) &=&-\frac{12^{1/3}}{12}x^{6}=-0.190785707x^{6},
\nonumber \\
E_{0} &=&\frac{12^{1/3}}{2}=1.144714242, \label{eq:x^4}\end{aligned}$$ that exactly agree with those of Maiz[@M19]. The calculation of $E^{(1)}=-0.07198347757$ should be carried out numerically and we appreciate that it also agrees with the result of that author. We thus have $E=E^{(0)}+E^{(1)}=1.072730764$ that closely agrees with accurate results obtained by other means[@M19] (see also Table \[tab:reference\] to be discussed later on). Now it seems that our approach is identical to EPPS but we have not been able to find the source of the discrepancy in the case of the harmonic oscillator.
In the case of the potential $V(x)=x^{2}+x^{3}+x^{4}$ we also choose $M=4$ but we include both even- and odd-parity terms. A straightforward numerical calculation shows that $$\begin{aligned}
a_{1}
&=&0.22892176,\;a_{2}=0.6805239186,\;a_{3}=0.1038578221,\;a_{4}=0.08292525897, \nonumber \\
E_{0} &=&1.308642664,\;V(x)-V_{0}(x,\mathbf{a})=-0.206698483x^{5}-0.1100255772x^{6}, \label{eq:x2x3x4}\end{aligned}$$ in agreement with the results of EPPS, except for a slight discrepancy in the coefficient of $x^{6}$ that is probably due to numerical errors. We also obtain $E^{(1)}=0.004710353228$ and $E=1.313353017$ in perfect agreement with EPPS.
Present approach agrees with EPPS also in the case of the other models considered in that paper[@M19]. In general, the results provided by this approach appear to be quite reasonable. In order to test the accuracy of his results Maiz resorted to reference eigenvalues obtained by means of other approach[@M14]. However, in that paper there are results only for even-parity potentials. Table \[tab:reference\] shows accurate benchmark energies calculated by means of the Riccati-Padé method (RPM)[@FMT89b; @FT96]. We appreciate that Maiz’s reference eigenvalues are less accurate than the reported number of significant digits appears to suggest.
Further comments and conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
================================
It has been our purpose in this comment to develop the EPPS in a simpler and clearer way. In doing so we found out that Maiz[@M19] should have obtained the exact result for the harmonic oscillator instead of the approximate one reported in his paper. The EPPS appears to yield reasonable results for the ground states of polynomial potentials by means of first-order perturbation theory. However, for such simple models one easily obtains very accurate results by means of the straighforward Raleigh-Ritz variational method or any other approach. Here we have resorted to the RPM[@FMT89b; @FT96] that converges exponentially fast. The results in Table \[tab:reference\] were otained from the roots of Hankel determinants of dimension $D\leq 10$.
In the case of double-well potentials the EPPS may perform poorly if the wells are sufficiently deep. For example, in the case of $V(x)=x^{4}-\lambda
x^{2}$ we obtain ($E^{[EPPS]}=0.7122694296,$ $E^{[RPM]}=0.65765300518071512$) for $\lambda =1$ and ($E^{[EPPS]}=0.885893999,$ $E^{[RPM]}=0.63891956378$) for $\lambda =5$. The percent errors $8.3$ and $38.7$, respectively, are considerably larger than those for the models chosen by Maiz[@M19].
[9]{} F. Maiz, J. Math. Phys. **60**, 012103 (2019).
F. Maiz, Physica B **449**, 104 (2014).
F. M. Fernández, Q. Ma, and R. H. Tipping, Phys. Rev. A **40**, 6149 (1989).
F. M. Fernández and R. H. Tipping, Can. J. Phys. **74**, 697 (1996).
[lD[.]{}[.]{}[8]{}D[.]{}[.]{}[15]{}]{} & &\
$x^4$ & 1.06065 & 1.0603620904841829\
$x^2+x^3+x^4$ & 1.310342 & 1.31025752970575\
$x^6$ & 1.14571 & 1.14480245380\
$x^2+x^6$ & 1.43555 & 1.43562461900\
$x^4+x^5+x^6$ & 1.3032 & 1.30272754246\
$x^2-x^3+x^4+x^6$ & 1.586428 & 1.58657805318\
$x^2-x^3+x^4-x^5+x^6$ & 1.470961 & 1.4711571858\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we study the existence phase transition of the random fractal ball model and the random fractal box model. We show that both of these are in the empty phase at the critical point of this phase transition.'
author:
- 'Erik I. Broman[^1] Johan Jonasson[^2] Johan Tykesson[^3]'
title: 'The existence phase transition for two Poisson random fractal models.'
---
Introduction
============
In order to better explain the rest of the paper, we shall start by a rather informal description of the general setup (see for example [@BC] for details). Let $M$ be the set of bounded subsets of ${{\mathbb{R}}}^d$ with non-empty interior, and let ${{\mathcal{M}}}$ be some (suitable) $\sigma$-algebra on $M.$ We consider a measure $\mu$ on $(M,{{\mathcal{M}}})$ which is scale invariant in the following sense. If $A\in {{\mathcal{M}}}$ is such that $\mu(A)<\infty,$ then $\mu(A_s)=\mu(A)$ where $0<s<\infty$ and $$A_s:=\{K:K/s\in A\}.$$ We will also assume that $\mu$ is translation invariant in that $\mu(x+A)=\mu(A)$ for every $A \in {{\mathcal{M}}}.$ Here of course, $x+A=\{L\subset {{\mathbb{R}}}^d:L=x+K \textrm{ for some } K\in A\}$.
In order to define a model which will exhibit a non-trivial behaviour, it is often necessary to restrict $\mu$ to sets of diameter smaller than some cutoff. This is indeed what we do in this paper (see also the discussion in Section \[sec:defmodels\]). For such measures, the property $\mu(A_s)=\mu(A)$ will still hold, but only if neither $A$ nor $A_s$ contains sets with diameter larger than the cutoff. We shall call such a measure [*semi*]{} scale invariant. In the rest of this introduction, any measure $\mu$ we refer to will be semi scale invariant.
Using $\lambda \mu$ where $0<\lambda<\infty$ as the intensity measure, one can define a Poisson process $\Phi_\lambda(\mu)$ on $M$. Thus constructed, $\Phi_\lambda(\mu)$ is a semi scale and translation invariant random collection of bounded sets of ${{\mathbb{R}}}^d.$ This setup contains many interesting examples such as the Brownian loop soup introduced in [@LW], and the semi scale invariant Poisson Boolean model studied for instance in [@BE] (see also the references therein). Throughout, this latter model will be referred to simply as the [*fractal ball model*]{}, and we shall give an exact definition of it in Section \[sec:defmodels\]. In this fractal ball model, the measure $\mu$ above is supported on the set of [*open*]{} balls of ${{\mathbb{R}}}^d$. Of course, one could also consider a process of closed balls, or indeed a mix of open and closed balls. As we will see, the results of this paper are also valid for these cases, see further the remark after the statement of Theorem \[thm:main\].
Throughout this paper, we will let $$\label{eqn:defCC}
{{\mathcal{C}}}(\Phi_\lambda(\mu))
:={{\mathbb{R}}}^d \setminus \bigcup_{K\in \Phi_\lambda(\mu)} K,$$ and we will usually write ${{\mathcal{C}}}(\lambda)$ or simply ${{\mathcal{C}}}.$ Thus, with $\mu$ as above, ${{\mathcal{C}}}$ is a semi scale invariant random fractal and we will be concerned by various properties of ${{\mathcal{C}}}(\lambda)$ as $\lambda$ varies. It is useful to observe that by using a standard coupling, ${{\mathcal{C}}}(\lambda)$ is decreasing in $\lambda.$
Random fractal models exhibits several phase transitions (see for instance [@DM]). However, the perhaps two most natural are the [*existence*]{} and the [*connectivity*]{} phase transitions as we now explain. Define $$\lambda_e:=\inf\{\lambda>0:{{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathcal{C}}}(\lambda)=\emptyset)=1\}.$$ Therefore, for $\lambda>\lambda_e,$ ${{\mathcal{C}}}(\lambda)$ is almost surely empty, and we say that it is in the empty phase. If instead $\lambda<\lambda_e,$ then ${{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathcal{C}}}(\lambda)\neq \emptyset)=1$. We say that $\lambda_e$ is the critical point of the existence phase transition. Analogously, we can define $$\lambda_c:=\sup\{\lambda>0:{{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathcal{C}}}(\lambda)
\textrm{ contains connected components larger than one point})=1\}.$$ Thus, for $\lambda>\lambda_c,$ ${{\mathcal{C}}}(\lambda)$ is almost surely totally disconnected, while for $\lambda<\lambda_c,$ ${{\mathcal{C}}}(\lambda)$ will contain connected components.
Of course, whenever such phase transitions occur, it is natural and interesting to ask what happens at the critical points. In [@BC] it was proven in full generality that $${{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathcal{C}}}(\lambda_c)
\textrm{ contains connected components larger than one point})=1,$$ so that [*at*]{} $\lambda_c$ the fractal is in the connected phase. Thus, this phase transition is very well understood.
The existence phase transition is much less understood. Hitherto, the only exact results appear to be in dimension 1. Indeed, in [@Shepp], exact conditions for when random intervals cover a line were established. However, there has been some progress (see [@BE]) on the case of the fractal ball model in $d\geq 2$, see Section \[sec:defmodels\] for a precise statement of these results.
In analogy with how the fractal ball model is defined, we can also define the [*fractal box model*]{} (again see Section \[sec:defmodels\]) for which the measure $\mu$ is supported on boxes of the form $(a,b)^d$ for $a<b.$ In this case, $\Phi_\lambda(\mu)$ is then a random semi scale invariant collection of boxes in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^d.$ Whenever we need to distinguish between the ball and the box model, we shall write ${{\mathcal{C}}}^{ball}$ and ${{\mathcal{C}}}^{box}$ etc.
Let $v_d$ be the volume of the unit ball in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^d.$ The main result of this paper is the following.
\[thm:main\] For any $d\geq 1,$ we have that $\lambda_e^{ball}=d/v_d$ while $\lambda^{box}_e=d.$ Furthermore, $${{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathcal{C}}}^{box}(\lambda^{box}_e)=\emptyset)
={{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathcal{C}}}^{ball}(\lambda^{ball}_e)=\emptyset)=1.$$
[**Remarks:**]{} The fact that $\lambda_e^{ball}=d/v_d$ is easily deduced from results in [@BE], while we determine $\lambda_e^{box}$ by a straightforward second moment argument. Thus, the main contribution of this paper is to determine what happens [*at*]{} the critical point of these phase transitions.
If we choose to consider closed balls (boxes) in place of open, then of course we would have that ${{\mathcal{C}}}_{closed}\subset {{\mathcal{C}}}_{open}$ (using obvious notation). However, when determining $\lambda_e$, one sees that the argument does not depend on whether we use open or closed sets so that $\lambda_e({{\mathcal{C}}}_{closed})=\lambda_e({{\mathcal{C}}}_{open}).$ It then follows trivially that Theorem \[thm:main\] holds also for the case of closed balls (boxes).
The result does not depend on the specific value of the cutoff (as is clear from the proofs). However, it requires some cutoff.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:defmodels\] we give precise definitions of our models and also provide some further background. In Section \[sec:proofs\], we will prove Theorem \[thm:main\].
Models {#sec:defmodels}
======
We start by defining the fractal ball model, although we will later reuse much of the notation for the box model.
Let $\nu$ be a locally finite measure on $(0,1]$, and let $\mu=dx \times \nu$ (where $dx$ denotes $d$-dimensional Lebesgue measure) denote the resulting product measure on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^d\times (0,1].$ Then, we let $\Phi_\lambda(\mu)$ be a Poisson process on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^d\times (0,1]$ using $\lambda \mu$ as the intensity measure. This definition might seem to clash with $\Phi_\lambda(\mu)$ defined in the introduction (which was a Poisson process on sets). However, this is easily resolved by associating the point $(x,r)\in{{\mathbb{R}}}^d\times (0,1]$ with the open ball $B(x,r)$ centered at $x$ and with radius $r.$ Thus, we might write as $${{\mathcal{C}}}(\Phi_\lambda(\mu))
:={{\mathbb{R}}}^d \setminus \bigcup_{(x,r)\in \Phi_\lambda(\mu)} B(x,r).$$ Let $A:=\{(x,r)\in{{\mathbb{R}}}^d\times [\epsilon,1]: o\in B(x,r)\}$, and let $A_{\epsilon^{-1}}=\{(x,r)\in {{\mathbb{R}}}^d\times [\epsilon^2,\epsilon]: o\in B(x,r)\}$ (where $o$ denotes the origin). We observe that if $\nu(dr)=r^{-d-1}dr,$ then we have that (with $I(\cdot)$ being an indicator function) $$\mu(A)=\int_\epsilon^1 \int_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^d} I(|x|\leq r) dx\nu(dr)
=v_d \int_\epsilon^1 r^d r^{-d-1}dr=-v_d\log \epsilon,$$ and an analogous calculation shows that also $\mu(A_{\epsilon^{-1}})=-v_d\log \epsilon$.
We observe that $\mu$ cannot be fully scale invariant since we have that $\mu(A_\epsilon)=0.$ This follows since $A_\epsilon$ only contains sets with $r\geq 1.$ However, if we in the above replace $\nu$ by $\tilde{\nu}(dr)=r^{-d-1}dr$ supported on $(0,\infty)$, we would obtain a fully scale invariant measure $\tilde{\mu}.$ Thus, our measure $\mu$ is the restriction of $\tilde{\mu}$ to sets with $r\leq 1,$ which is then our cutoff. In particular we have that $\mu(A)=\mu(A_s)$ as long as neither $A$ nor $A_s$ contains sets with $r>1.$ We note that it would perhaps be more proper to write $\nu(dr)=I(0<r\leq 1)r^{-d-1}dr$. However, we will allow ourselves to slightly abuse notation by writing $\nu(dr)=r^{-d-1}dr,$ and remembering that $\nu$ is supported on $(0,1]$.
It is certainly possible to consider other choices of $\nu$, but in this paper we shall focus on the semi scale invariant case. However, we want to mention the following result from [@BE] which deals with other choices of $\nu.$
\[thm:BE\] For the fractal ball model, if ${{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathcal{C}}}=\emptyset)=1$ then $$\label{eqn:nec}
\int_0^1 u^{d-1}
\exp\left(\lambda v_d \int_u^1 r^{d-1}(r-u)\nu(dr)\right)du=\infty,$$ while if $$\label{eqn:suff}
\limsup_{u\to 0}u^d\exp\left(\lambda v_d\int_u^1 (r-u)^d\nu(dr)\right)du=\infty,$$ then ${{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathcal{C}}}=\emptyset)=1$.
[**Remark:**]{} Taking $\nu(dr)=r^{-d-1}dr,$ one concludes from and that $\lambda^{ball}_e=d/v_d$. However, simple calculations reveal that is not satisfied for $\lambda=d/v_d,$ and so we cannot conclude whether ${{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathcal{C}}}(\lambda^{ball}_e)=\emptyset)=1$. As pointed out in [@BE], it follows from Theorem \[thm:BE\] that if $\nu(dr)=r^ {-d-1}(1+2|\log (r)|^{-1})$ and $\lambda=d/v_d,$ then ${{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathcal{C}}}=\emptyset)=1$ while if $\nu(dr)=r^ {-d-1}(1-2|\log (r)|^{-1})$ and $\lambda=d/v_d,$ then ${{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathcal{C}}}=\emptyset)=0$. Thus, although their results do not cover the critical case, it comes logarithmically close. Of course, Theorem \[thm:main\] improves on Theorem \[thm:BE\] in that we here determine the critical case.
We now turn to the fractal box model. Here, we again use the measures $\nu$ and $\mu$ as above, but to any $(x,r)\in {{\mathbb{R}}}\times (0,1],$ we associate the open box $X(x,r):=x+(-r/2,r/2)^d$. We then write $${{\mathcal{C}}}(\Phi_\lambda(\mu))
:={{\mathbb{R}}}^d \setminus \bigcup_{(x,r)\in \Phi_\lambda(\mu)} X(x,r).$$ Letting $A=\{(x,r)\in {{\mathbb{R}}}\times [\epsilon,1]:
X(x,r)\cap [0,1]^d\neq \emptyset\}$ we have that $$\mu(A)=\int_{\epsilon}^1\int_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^d} I(x\in (-r/2,1+r/2)^d) dx\nu(dr)
=\int_{\epsilon}^1(1+r)^dr^{-d-1}dr.
$$ Similarly, if $A_{\epsilon^{-1}}
=\{(x,r)\in {{\mathbb{R}}}\times [\epsilon^2,\epsilon]:
X(x,r)\cap [0,\epsilon]^d\neq \emptyset\}$ then $$\mu(A_{\epsilon^{-1}})
=\int_{\epsilon^2}^\epsilon\int_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^d} I(x\in (-r/2,\epsilon +r/2)^d)dx \nu(dr)
=\int_{\epsilon^2}^\epsilon (\epsilon+r)^d r^{-d-1}dr
=\mu(A),
$$ so that also this model is semi scale invariant.
Whenever convenient, we will write $K\in \Phi$ to mean either a ball or a box, depending on the context.
Proofs {#sec:proofs}
======
We start this section by introducing some useful notation. First, let $$\bar{{{\mathcal{X}}}}_n:=\left\{x+[0,1/n]^d:
x\in \left(\frac{1}{n}{{\mathbb{Z}}}^d\right)\cap[0,1-1/n]^d\right\}.$$ If $\bar{X}\in \bar{{{\mathcal{X}}}}_n,$ we shall refer to $\bar{X}$ as a level $n$ box. Note that the members $\bar{X}$ of $\bar{{{\mathcal{X}}}}_n$ are deterministic, closed boxes. These should not be confused with the open boxes $X(x,r)$ that belong to the Poisson process $\Phi_\lambda^{box}$.
The interpretation of the following definitions differ depending on whether we are considering the ball model or the box model. However, we believe that this should not lead to any confusion. For these models, we let $$\Phi_n:=\{(x,r)\in \Phi_\lambda (\mu):1/n\leq r \leq 1\},$$ and define $${{\mathcal{C}}}_n:={{\mathbb{R}}}^d \setminus \bigcup_{K \in \Phi_{n}} K$$ (where $K$ is then either a ball or a box). Thus, ${{\mathcal{C}}}_n \downarrow {{\mathcal{C}}}.$ For $m>n,$ let $${{\mathcal{C}}}_{m}^n:={{\mathbb{R}}}^d \setminus \bigcup_{K \in \Phi_{m}\setminus \Phi_n} K,$$ so that ${{\mathcal{C}}}_m^n \cap {{\mathcal{C}}}_n={{\mathcal{C}}}_m$, and ${{\mathcal{C}}}_m^n, {{\mathcal{C}}}_n$ are independent. For any integer $n,$ let $$M_n:=\{\bar{X}\in \bar{{{\mathcal{X}}}}_n:
\not \exists K \in \Phi_n\,:\,\bar{X} \subset K \}.$$ Thus, $M_n$ is the set of level $n$ boxes which are not covered by a single set in the Poisson process $\Phi_n.$ Then, let $$m_n:=\{\bar{X}\in \bar{{{\mathcal{X}}}}_n:
\not \exists K \in \Phi_n\,:\,\bar{X} \cap K\neq \emptyset \},$$ which is the set of level $n$ boxes untouched by the Poisson process $\Phi_n$. We see that if $\bar{X}\in m_n,$ then in fact $\bar{X} \subset {{\mathcal{C}}}_n$. Obviously, $|m_n|\leq |M_n|$ since an untouched box cannot be covered.
The following proposition is a part of Theorem \[thm:main\].
\[prop:crit\] For the box model we have that $\lambda_e\geq d$.
[**Proof.**]{} We start by noting that if $m_n\neq \emptyset$ for infinitely many $n\geq 1,$ then ${{\mathcal{C}}}_n\cap[0,1]^d\neq \emptyset$ for every $n\geq 1.$ Since ${{\mathcal{C}}}_n\supset {{\mathcal{C}}}_{n+1}$ for every $n,$ and the sets ${{\mathcal{C}}}_n\cap[0,1]^d$ are compact, we must then have that $${{\mathcal{C}}}\cap[0,1]^d =\bigcap_{n=1}^\infty{{\mathcal{C}}}_n\cap[0,1]^d\neq \emptyset.
$$ We will prove that for $\lambda<d,$ there exists $c=c(\lambda)>0$ such that $$\label{eqn:mnpos}
{{\mathbb{P}}}(m_n>0)\geq c,$$ for every $n\geq 1.$ Then, we can conclude that $${{\mathbb{P}}}(m_n>0 \textrm{ infinitely often})
\geq \limsup_{n \to \infty}{{\mathbb{P}}}(m_n>0)\geq c,
$$ by the reverse Fatou’s lemma.
We shall proceed by proving using a second moment argument. To that end, observe that by translation invariance, for any $\bar{X}\in \bar{{{\mathcal{X}}}}_n,$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:ref1}
\lefteqn{{{\mathbb{P}}}(\bar{X}\in m_n)={{\mathbb{P}}}([0,1/n]^d\in m_n)}\\
& & =\exp\left(-\lambda \mu(\{(x,r)\in {{\mathbb{R}}}^d\times[1/n,1]:\ [0,1/n]^d \cap X(x,r)\neq \emptyset\})\right) \nonumber \\
& & =\exp\left(-\lambda\int_{1/n}^1 \int_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^d} I(x\in(-r/2,r/2+1/n)^d)
dx \nu(dr)\right)\nonumber \\
& & =\exp\left(-\lambda\int_{1/n}^1 (r+1/n)^d r^{-d-1}dr\right) \nonumber \\
& & =\exp\left(-\lambda\int_{1/n}^1 r^{-d-1}
\sum_{k=0}^d {d \choose k} r^k n^{k-d} dr\right)\nonumber \\
& & =\exp\left(-\lambda\sum_{k=0}^d {d \choose k} n^{k-d}
\int_{1/n}^1 r^{k-d-1}dr\right)\nonumber \\
& & =\exp\left(-\lambda\log n-
\lambda\sum_{k=0}^{d-1} {d \choose k} n^{k-d}
\left(\frac{n^{d-k}-1}{d-k}\right)\right).\nonumber
$$ Since $$\label{eqn:ref2}
0\leq \sum_{k=0}^{d-1} {d \choose k} n^{k-d}\left(\frac{n^{d-k}-1}{d-k} \right)
\leq \sum_{k=0}^{d}{d \choose k}=2^d,$$ we conclude that $$\label{eqn:Pmn}
e^{-\lambda 2^d}n^{-\lambda}\leq {{\mathbb{P}}}(\bar{X}\in m_n)\leq n^{-\lambda}.$$ Therefore, $$\label{eqn:fmoment}
{{\mathbb{E}}}[m_n]=n^d{{\mathbb{P}}}([0,1/n]^d\in m_n)\geq e^{-\lambda 2^d} n^{d-\lambda}.$$
For $\bar{X}_1,\bar{X}_2\in \bar{{{\mathcal{X}}}}_n$ let $R^n_i:=\{(x,r)\in {{\mathbb{R}}}^d \times [1/n,1]:\bar{X}_i \cap X(x,r)\neq \emptyset\}$ for $i=1,2.$ We have that $\mu(R_1^n \cup R_2^n)=2\mu(R_1^n)-\mu(R_1^n \cap R_2^n)$. First, we observe that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:muR1}
\lefteqn{\mu(R_1^n) =\int_{1/n}^1 \int_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^d} I(X(x,r)\cap \bar{X}_1 \neq \emptyset)
dx \nu(dr) }\\
& & =\int_{1/n}^1 (r+1/n)^d r^{-d-1}dr
\geq \int_{1/n}^1 r^{-1}dr=\log n. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Next, let $k=(k_1,\ldots,k_d)$ be such that $\bar{X}_2=\bar{X}_1+k/n$, and define $k_{\max} :=\max\{|k_1|,\ldots,|k_d|\}.$ We get that for $k_{\max} \geq 2,$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:muR1R2}
\lefteqn{\mu(R_1^n \cap R_2^n)
=\int_{(k_{\max}-1)/n}^1\int_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^d}I(X(x,r)\cap \bar{X}_1\neq \emptyset,
X(x,r)\cap \bar{X}_2\neq \emptyset)dx \nu(dr) }\\
& & \leq \int_{(k_{\max}-1)/n}^1\int_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^d}
I(X(x,r)\cap \bar{X}_1\neq \emptyset)dx r^{-d-1}dr
=\int_{(k_{\max}-1)/n}^1(r+1/n)^d r^{-d-1}dr \nonumber \\
& & \leq -\log((k_{\max}-1)/n)+2^d , \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality follows by using the calculations in combined with the upper bound of . Therefore, if $\bar{X}_1\neq \bar{X}_2$ and $k_{\max} \geq 2,$ we have that by using and , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:PX1X2}
\lefteqn{{{\mathbb{P}}}(\bar{X}_1,\bar{X}_2\in m_n)
=\exp\left(-\lambda \mu(R_1^n\cup R_2^n)\right)
=\exp(-2\lambda \mu(R_1^n)+\lambda \mu(R_1^n \cap R_2^n))}\\
& & \leq e^{-2\lambda \log n+\lambda 2^d-\lambda\log((k_{\max}-1)/n) }
= n^{-2\lambda}e^{\lambda 2^d}((k_{\max}-1)/n)^{-\lambda}
=e^{\lambda 2^d}(n(k_{\max}-1))^{-\lambda}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ If however $k_{\max}\leq 1,$ then we simply use that $${{\mathbb{P}}}(\bar{X}_1,\bar{X}_2\in m_n)\leq {{\mathbb{P}}}(\bar{X}_1\in m_n)
={{\mathbb{P}}}([0,1/n]^d\in m_n).$$ Thus, by and , $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{{{\mathbb{E}}}[m_n^2]=\sum_{\bar{X}_1\in \bar{{{\mathcal{X}}}}_n}
\sum_{\bar{X}_2\in \bar{{{\mathcal{X}}}}_n}{{\mathbb{P}}}(\bar{X}_1,\bar{X}_2\in m_n)}\\
& & \leq n^d \left(3^d {{\mathbb{P}}}([0,1/n]^d\in m_n)
+\sum_{k_{\max}=2}^n 2d k_{\max}^{d-1}e^{\lambda 2^d}(n(k_{\max}-1))^{-\lambda}\right) \\
& & \leq 3^d n^{d-\lambda}+2^d de^{\lambda 2^d}n^{d-\lambda}
\sum_{k_{\max}=2}^n (k_{\max}-1)^{d-1-\lambda}.
$$ Here, the first inequality uses that there are $n^d$ possible choices of $\bar{X}_1,$ and given the choice of $\bar{X}_1$ there are at most $3^d$ choices of $\bar{X}_2$ that are either the same as, or immediate neighbours to, $\bar{X}_1.$ The remaining boxes $\bar{X}_2$ have $k_{max}\geq 2.$
We see that if $\lambda<d,$ then there exists a $C=C(\lambda)>0$ such that ${{\mathbb{E}}}[m_n^2]\leq C n^{2(d-\lambda)}$. Using we conclude that $${{\mathbb{P}}}(m_n>0)\geq \frac{{{\mathbb{E}}}[m_n]^2}{{{\mathbb{E}}}[m_n^2]}
\geq \frac{\left(e^{-\lambda2^d}n^{d-\lambda}\right)^2}{C n^{2(d-\lambda)}}\geq c,$$ as desired.\
Our next lemma gives a useful consequence of ${{\mathcal{C}}}(\lambda)$ surviving, but first we need some more notation. Let $D_n=D_n({{\mathcal{C}}}_n)$ be a minimal collection of boxes in $\bar{{{\mathcal{X}}}}_n$ such that $${{\mathcal{C}}}_n\cap [0,1]^d \subset \bigcup_{\bar{X}\in D_n} \bar{X}.$$ Note that $D_n$ is not necessarily unique, as a point $x\in {{\mathcal{C}}}_n$ sitting on the boundary between two boxes $\bar{X}_1$ and $\bar{X}_2$ can be covered by either one of them. If there is more than one way of choosing such a set $D_n,$ we pick one according to some predetermined rule. Let $L_n=|\{\bar{X}\in \bar{{{\mathcal{X}}}}_n: \bar{X}\in D_n\}|$.
\[lemma:Dninfty\] Let ${{\mathcal{C}}}(\lambda)$ be either ${{\mathcal{C}}}^{ball}$ or ${{\mathcal{C}}}^{box}$. For any $\lambda>0$ we have that $${{\mathbb{P}}}(\{{{\mathcal{C}}}(\lambda)\cap[0,1]^d\neq \emptyset\} \setminus
\{\lim_{n \to \infty} L_{2^n}=\infty\})=0.$$
[**Remarks:**]{} The reason for proving Lemma \[lemma:Dninfty\] along a subsequence $(2^n)_{n\geq 1}$, is that this will avoid unnecessary technical details. It is also all that we need in order to prove Theorem \[thm:main\].
Observe that if $\lim_{n \to \infty} L_{2^n}=\infty,$ then ${{\mathcal{C}}}_n\cap[0,1]^d\neq \emptyset$ for every $n\geq 1.$ As above, it follows that also ${{\mathcal{C}}}\cap[0,1]^d \neq \emptyset$.
[**Proof.**]{} Let $$E_{2^n}:=\bigcup_{\bar{X} \in D_{2^n}} \bar{X} ,$$ and observe that by definition of $D_{2^n},$ we have that $$({{\mathcal{C}}}_{2^n}\cap[0,1]^d)\setminus E_{2^n}=\emptyset.$$ We have that for some $\alpha=\alpha(\lambda)>0,$ $${{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathcal{C}}}_2\cap [0,1]^d=\emptyset)=\alpha.$$ By using the FKG inequality for Poisson processes together with the semi scale invariance of the models, we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{{{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathcal{C}}}_{2^{n+1}}\cap [0,1]^d=\emptyset | D_{2^n})}\\
& & \geq {{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathcal{C}}}_{2^{n+1}}^{2^n}\cap E_{2^n}=\emptyset | D_{2^n})
\geq \prod_{\bar{X}\in D_{2^n}}
{{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathcal{C}}}_{2^{n+1}}^{2^n}\cap \bar{X}=\emptyset)
= \alpha^{L_{2^n}}>0.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, if there exists $L<\infty$ such that $L_{2^n}\leq L$ for infinitely many $n,$ we can use Lévy’s Borel-Cantelli lemma, to conclude that almost surely ${{\mathcal{C}}}\cap [0,1]^d=\emptyset$.\
We can now prove our main result.
[**Proof of Theorem \[thm:main\].**]{} The fact that $\lambda_e^{ball}=d/v_d$ is an immediate consequence of Theorem \[thm:BE\] as explained in Section \[sec:defmodels\]. Furthermore, Proposition \[prop:crit\] shows that $\lambda_e^{box}\geq d.$ Therefore, it remains to prove that $\lambda^{box}_e\leq d$ and that both the ball and the box models are in the empty phase at their respective critical points.
Obviously, if $\bar{X}\in D_n,$ then $\bar{X}$ cannot be covered by a single set in the Poisson process $\Phi_n$. Therefore, $$\label{eqn:DnNn}
L_n\leq |M_n|.$$
We proceed by bounding ${{\mathbb{E}}}[|M_n|]$ in the case ${{\mathcal{C}}}={{\mathcal{C}}}^{box}.$ Similar to the proof of Proposition \[prop:crit\] we have that for any $\bar{X}\in \bar{{{\mathcal{X}}}}_n,$ $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{{{\mathbb{P}}}(\bar{X}\in M_n)=\exp\left(-\lambda\int_{1/n}^1 \int_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^d} I(x\in(-r/2+1/n,r/2)^d)dx \nu(dr)\right)}\\
& & =\exp\left(-\lambda\int_{1/n}^1 r^{-d-1}
\sum_{k=0}^d {d \choose k} r^k (-n)^{k-d} dr\right)\\
& & =\exp\left(-\lambda\log n-
\lambda\sum_{k=0}^{d-1} {d \choose k} (-n)^{k-d}
\left(\frac{n^{d-k}-1}{d-k}\right)\right).\\
$$ Furthermore, since $$\sum_{k=0}^{d-1} {d \choose k} (-n)^{k-d}
\left(\frac{n^{d-k}-1}{d-k}\right)
\geq -\sum_{k=0}^{d} {d \choose k}=-2^d,$$ we conclude that $$\label{eqn:emn}
{{\mathbb{E}}}[|M_n|]=n^d{{\mathbb{P}}}([0,1/n]^d\in M_n)\leq n^{d-\lambda}e^{\lambda 2^d}.$$ By , together with Lemma \[lemma:Dninfty\], we have that if ${{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathcal{C}}}^{box}\cap[0,1]^d\neq \emptyset)>0,$ then $$\lim_{n \to \infty}e^{\lambda 2^d}\left(2^n\right)^{d-\lambda}
\geq \lim_{n \to \infty}{{\mathbb{E}}}[|M_{2^n}|]
\geq \lim_{n \to \infty}{{\mathbb{E}}}[L_{2^n}]=\infty,$$ and so we conclude that we must have $\lambda<d.$ This proves that $\lambda_e^{box} \leq d$ and that for $\lambda=d$ $${{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathcal{C}}}^{box}(\lambda)\cap[0,1]^d\neq \emptyset)=0.$$
We now turn to the case of ${{\mathcal{C}}}^{ball}.$ First we observe that for any $K\in \Phi,$ $[0,1/n]^d\subset K$ iff the closed ball $\bar{B}(\frac{1}{2n}(1,\ldots,1),\sqrt{d}/(2n))\subset K,$ simply because of the fact that the sets $K\in \Phi$ are balls. We then get that for some constant $C=C(\lambda)<\infty,$ and $n>\sqrt{d}/2$ $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{{{\mathbb{P}}}(\bar{X}\in M_n)
= {{\mathbb{P}}}( \not \exists K\in \Phi: \bar{B}(o,\sqrt{d}/(2n))\subset K)}\\
& & =\exp\left(-\lambda \mu(\{(x,r):\bar{B}(o,\sqrt{d}/(2n))\subset B(x,r)\})\right)\\
& & =\exp\left(-\lambda \int_{\sqrt{d}/(2n)}^1 \int_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^d}
I(|x|\leq r-\sqrt{d}/(2n))dx \nu(dr)\right)\\
& & =\exp\left(-\lambda \int_{\sqrt{d}/(2n)}^1 v_d (r-\sqrt{d}/(2n))^d
r^{-d-1}dr\right)\\
& & =\exp\left(-\lambda v_d \int_{1/n}^{2/\sqrt{d}} (s-1/n)^d
s^{-d-1}ds\right)
\leq Cn^{-\lambda v_d},
$$ where the last inequality follows as above. As for the box model, we obtain that for $\lambda_e=d/v_d$ $${{\mathbb{P}}}({{\mathcal{C}}}^{ball}(\lambda_e)\cap [0,1]^d \neq \emptyset)=0.$$\
[**Acknowledgements**]{} The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees for providing helpful suggestions improving the readability of the paper.
[99]{}
Broman E. and Camia F. Universal behavior of connectivity properties in fractal percolation models. [*Electron. J. Probab.*]{} [**15**]{}, (2010), 1394–1414.
Biermé H. and Estrade A. Covering the whole space with Poisson random balls. [*ALEA Lat. Am. J. Probab. Math. Stat.*]{} [**9**]{}, (2012), 213–229.
Dekking, F. M. and Meester, R. W. J. On the structure of Mandelbrot’s percolation process and other random Cantor sets. [*J. Statist. Phys.*]{} [**58**]{}, (1990), no. 5-6, 1109–1126.
G.F. Lawler and W. Werner, The Brownian loop soup. [*Probab. Theory Relat. Fields*]{}, [**128**]{}, (2004), 565–588.
Shepp L.A. Covering the line with random intervals [*Z. Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verw. Gebiete*]{}, [**23**]{}, (1972), 163–170.
[^1]: Department of Mathematics, Chalmers University of Technology and Gothenburg University, Sweden. E-mail: [email protected]. Research supported by the Swedish research Council
[^2]: Department of Mathematics, Chalmers University of Technology and Gothenburg University, Sweden. E-mail: [email protected]. Research supported by the Knut and Alice Wallenberg foundation
[^3]: Department of Mathematics, Chalmers University of Technology and Gothenburg University, Sweden. E-mail: [email protected]. Research supported by the Knut and Alice Wallenberg foundation
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The $\rm DO \! \! \! \!/ \, $ collaboration has measured a deviation from the standard model (SM) prediction in the like sign dimuon asymmetry in semileptonic $b$ decay with a significance of $3.2 \, \sigma$. We discuss how minimal flavour violating (MFV) models with multiple scalar representations can lead to this deviation through tree level exchanges of new MFV scalars. We review how the two scalar doublet model can accommodate this result and discuss some of its phenomenology. Limits on electric dipole moments suggest that in this model the coupling of the charged scalar to the right handed $u$-type quarks is suppressed while its coupling to the $d$-type right handed quarks must be enhanced. We construct an extension of the MFV two scalar doublet model where this occurs naturally.'
author:
- |
Michael Trott${}^1$ and Mark B. Wise${}^2$\
${}^1$ Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Waterloo ON, N2L 2Y5, Canada.\
${}^2$ California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, 91125, USA,
title: 'On theories of enhanced CP violation in $B_{s,d}$ meson mixing.'
---
=by 60 =99=99 by -60 by 99
Introduction
============
The $\rm DO \! \! \! \!/$ collaboration has reported a $3.2 \, \sigma$ deviation from the standard model (SM) prediction of the like sign dimuon asymmetry in semileptonic $b$ decay [@Abazov:2010hv]. This observation joins past anomalous measurements of $B_s \rightarrow J/\psi \, \phi$ and $B^- \rightarrow \tau \, \nu$ decays that can be interpreted as a pattern of deviations consistent with new physics contributing a new phase in $B_{s,d}$ mixing (for a recent global fit and discussion see [@Lenz:2010gu]).[^1]
If the explanation of the like sign dimuon asymmetry measurement and these correlated deviations are not statistical fluctuations, then new physics interpretations of this pattern are of interest. General operator analyses have been carried out [@Ligeti:2010ia; @Blum:2010mj; @Batell:2010qw] and indicate that operators induced by scalar exchange with unenhanced Yukawa couplings and order one parameters in the potential (i.e. order one Wilson coefficients) the mass scale suppressing the operators of interest is a few hundred $\rm GeV$.
Such a low mass scale is challenging to reconcile with known constraints from flavour physics unless minimal flavour violation (MFV) [@Chivukula:1987py; @Hall:1990ac; @D'Ambrosio:2002ex] is imposed. New physics (NP) models with MFV have the quark flavor group $SU(3)_{U_R} \times SU(3)_{D_R} \times SU(3)_{Q_L}$ only broken by the Yukawa couplings. However this scenario does allow new phases and so provides a framework for explaining the anomalies mentioned above without giving rise to flavor changing neutral current effects that are in conflict with experiment.
In this paper we discuss scalar models with MFV that can explain these anomalies. We first review how tree level exchanges of a neutral complex scalar in a simple two scalar doublet model can lead to enhanced CP violation in the $B_q$ meson system and discuss the phenomenology of this model. We then show that limits on electric dipole moments suggest that the coupling of the charged scalar to the right handed $u$-type quarks is suppressed while its coupling to the $d$-type right handed quarks must be enhanced to be consistent with the data. We construct an extension of the MFV two scalar doublet model where this occurs naturally[^2].
Set up
======
We will utilize the recent fit of [@Lenz:2010gu] to determine the new contribution to $B_q-{\bar B}_q$ mixing (here $q = {s,d}$). This fit is consistent in its conclusions with an earlier analysis [@Ligeti:2010ia]. The $\rm DO \! \! \! \!/ \, \, $ result ($a_{SL}^b$) and the SM prediction [@Lenz:2010gu] ($A_{SL}^b$) are given by a\_[SL]{}\^b &=& ,\
&=& - (9.57 2.51 1.46) 10\^[-3]{},\
A\_[SL]{}\^b &=& (-3.10\^[+0.83]{}\_[-0.98]{}) 10\^[-4]{}. where the number of $X \, b \, \bar{b} \rightarrow \mu^+ \, \mu^+ \, Y$ events is given by $N_b^{++}$ for example. The quoted $a_{SL}^b$ is a combination of the the asymmetry in each $B_q$, denoted $a_{SL}^{bq}$. Each of these contributions to $a_{SL}^b$ can be expressed in terms of the mass and width differences ($M_{12},\Gamma_{12}$) of the $B_q$ meson eigenstates and the CP phase difference between these quantities $\phi_q$ as a\_[SL]{}\^[bq]{} = \_q. Naively one can effect the SM prediction through modifying $M_{12}$ or $\Gamma_{12}$ and both approaches have been explored in the literature. Modifying the decay width significantly [@Dighe:2010nj; @Bauer:2010dg] as an explanation is problematic[^3] and we will focus on MFV NP explanations that involve a NP contribution (that includes a new CP violating phase) to $M^q_{12}$.
The effect of NP on $B_s$ and $B_d$ mass mixing can be parametrized by two real parameters, $h_q>0$ and $\sigma_q$ by writing M\_[12]{}\^q = (M\_[12]{}\^q)\^[SM]{}+ (M\_[12]{}\^q)\^[NP]{}, where the new physics contribution to the mass mixing is related to the standard model value of the mass mixing by, \[hsigma\] (M\_[12]{}\^q)\^[NP]{}=(M\_[12]{}\^q)\^[SM]{} h\_q e\^[2 i \_q]{} . The models we discuss have $h_s = h_d$ and $ \sigma_s = \sigma_d$ which is generally expected in NP models that obey MFV. [^4] This scenario is argued to be a better fit to the current data then the SM in [@Lenz:2010gu], which is disfavoured with a p-value of $3.1 \sigma$. In this case, the best fit values are $h_q =0.255$ and $2\sigma_q=180^{o}+63.4^o$. The best fit magnitude of the correction $h_q$ is small but its phase is large.
For simplicity in this paper we treat perturbative QCD in the leading logarithmic approximation and evaluate the needed matrix elements of four quark operators using the vacuum insertion approximation at the bottom mass scale. At the $t$-quark mass scale, in the SM, the effective Hamiltonian for $B_q-\bar B_q$ mixing is, $${\cal H}^{\rm SM}_q= (V_{tq}^\star \, V_{tb})^2 C^{\rm SM}(m_t) {\bar b}^{\alpha}_L \gamma^{\mu} q^{\alpha}_L{\bar b}^{\beta}_L \gamma_{\mu} q^{\beta}_L,$$ where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are color indices and $$C^{\rm SM}(m_t) = \frac{G_F^2}{4 \, \pi^2} \, M_W^2 \, S(m_t^2/M_W^2).$$ Here $S(m_t^2/M_W^2) \simeq 2.35$ is a function of $m_t^2/M_W^2$ that results from integrating out the top quark and $W$-bosons. Using $$\left(M_{12}^q\right)^{\rm SM}={\langle B_q|{\cal H}^{\rm SM}_q|{\bar B}_q\rangle \over 2 m_{B_q}},$$ we have after running down to the $b$-quark mass scale that, $$\left(M_{12}^q\right)^{\rm SM}= (V_{tq}^\star \, V_{tb})^2C^{\rm SM} (m_t) \left({1 \over 3}\right)\eta f_{B_q}^2 m_{B_q}.$$ Here $\eta \simeq 0.84$ is a QCD correction factor, $C^{\rm SM}_q(m_b) =\eta \, C^{\rm SM}_q(m_t)$.
The models for new physics we discuss generate the effective Hamiltonian at the top scale[^5] $$\label{NPH}
{\cal H}^{\rm NP}_q\simeq (V_{tq}^\star \, V_{tb})^2C^{\rm NP}(m_t) {\bar b}^{\alpha}_R q^{\alpha}_L{\bar b}^{\beta}_R q^{\beta}_L.$$ Running down from $m_b$ operator mixing induces the analogous operator with color indices rearranged. However, its coefficient is very small and we neglect it resulting in the relation, $C^{\rm NP}(m_b) \simeq \eta' C^{\rm NP}(m_t)$, where $\eta' \simeq 1.45$ [@Bagger:1997gg]. Again using the vacuum insertion approximation at the $b$-quark mass scale we arrive at, $$\left(M_{12}^q\right)^{\rm NP}\simeq(V_{tq}^\star \, V_{tb})^2C^{\rm NP}(m_t)\left(-{5 \over 24}\right) \eta' f_{B_q}^2 m_{B_q}.$$ Comparing with Eq. (\[hsigma\]) $$\label{key}
h_q \, e^{2 \, i \, \sigma_q} \simeq-{5 \over 8}\left({C^{\rm NP}(m_t) \over C^{\rm SM}(m_t) }\right) {\eta' \over \eta}.$$
Minimal Two Scalar Doublet Model
================================
We now discuss how the minimal two scalar doublet model with MFV can have enhanced CP violation in $B_q$ mixing due to tree level exchange of neutral scalars.[^6] We denote by $H$ the doublet that gets a vacuum expectation value and by $S$ the doublet that does not. The Lagrangian in the Yukawa sector is \[general\] [L]{}\_Y&=& [|u]{}\^i\_[R]{} g\^[ j]{}\_[U i]{} Q\_[L j]{} H+ [|d]{}\^i\_[R]{} g\^[ j]{}\_[D i]{} Q\_[L j]{} H \^\
&& + [|u]{}\^i\_[R]{} Y\^[ j]{}\_[U i]{} Q\_[L j]{} S + [|d]{}\^i\_[R]{} Y\^[ j]{}\_[D i]{} Q\_[L j]{} S\^+[h.c.]{} where flavour indicies $i,j$ are shown and color and $ SU(2)_L$ indices have been suppressed. [MFV]{} asserts that any [NP]{} also has the quark flavour symmetry group only broken by insertions proportional to Yukawa matrices so that $Y^{~~j}_{U~i}, Y^{~~j}_{D~i}$ are proportional to $g^{~~j}_{U~i}, g^{~~j}_{D~i}$. One can construct allowed NP terms by treating the Yukawa matrices as spurion fields that transform under flavour rotations as, $$g_U \rightarrow V_U \, g_U \, V_Q^{\dagger},~~~~~~~~~~g_D \rightarrow V_D \, g_D \, V_Q^{\dagger},$$ where $V_U$ is an element of $ SU(3)_{U_R}$, $V_D$ is an element of $ SU(3)_{D_R}$, and $V_Q$ is an element of $ SU(3)_{Q_L}$, i.e., the Yukawa matrices transform as $g_U \sim ({\bf 3},{\bf 1}, {\bf {\bar{3}}})$ and $g_D \sim ({\bf 1},{\bf 3},{\bf {\bar{3}}})$ under the flavour group. MFV can be formulated up to linear order in top Yukawa insertions, or extended to a nonlinear representation of the symmetry [@Feldmann:2008ja; @Kagan:2009bn]. For enhanced CP violation in $B_q$ mixing we are interested in a nonlinear realization of MFV. It is sufficient to only expand to next order in insertions of $g_U$ so that \[yuk\] Y\^[ j]{}\_[U i]{} &=& \_U g\^[ j]{}\_[U i]{} + ’\_U g\^[ j]{}\_[U k]{} \[(g\_U\^)\^[k]{}\_[ l]{} (g\_U)\^[l]{}\_[ i]{}\] + ,\
Y\^[ j]{}\_[D i]{} &=& \_D g\^[ j]{}\_[D i]{} + ’\_D g\^[ j]{}\_[D k]{} \[(g\_U\^)\^[k]{}\_[ l]{} (g\_U)\^[l]{}\_[ i]{}\] + . We decompose the second scalar doublet as S = (
[c]{} [S\^+]{}\
[S\^0]{}
), where $S^{0} = (S^{0} _R + i S^{0}_I)/\sqrt{2}$.
The scalar potential is \[pot\] V &=& (H\^[ i]{} H\_i - )\^2 + m\_1\^2 (S\^[i]{} S\_i),\
&+& (m\_2\^2 H\^[ i]{} S\_i + [h.c.]{}) + \_1 (H\^[ i]{} H\_i) (S\^[ j]{} S\_j),\
&+& \_2 (H\^[i]{} H\_j) (S\^[j]{} S\_i) + ,\
&+& ,\
&+& \_6 (S\^[i]{} S\_i)\^2.where $i,j$ are $\rm SU(2)$ indices. Here $v \simeq 246{\rm GeV}$ is the vacuum expectation value (vev) of the Higgs. Since we adopted the convention that the doublet $S$ does not get a vev the parameters $m_2^2$ and $\lambda_5$ are related by, $$m_2^2+\lambda_5^\star{v^2 \over 2}=0.$$ The spectrum of neutral real scalars consists of the Higgs scalar $h$ and $S_R^0$ and $S_I^0$. However, these are not mass eigenstates. In the $(h, S_R^0,S_I^0)$ basis, the neutral mass squared matrix ${\cal M}^2 $, where $\lambda_3$ is chosen real and positive, is
$${\cal M}^2 =\begin{pmatrix}
m_h^2 & \lambda_5^Rv^2 & \lambda_5^Iv^2 \\
\lambda_5^Rv^2 &m_S^2+\lambda_3 v^2 & 0 \\
\lambda_5^Iv^2 & 0 & m_S^2-\lambda_3^2 \\
\end{pmatrix}.$$
Where $m_S^2 = m_1^2 + (\lambda_1 + \lambda_2) v^2/2$. Within the convention that $\lambda_3$ is real, the couplings $\eta_U$, $\eta'_U$, $\eta_D$ and $\eta'_D$ and $\lambda_5=\lambda_R^R + i \lambda_5^I$ are in general complex. The mass eigenstate scalars $N_j^0$ with mass $m_j$ are related to $h, S_R^0, S^0_I$ by the orthogonal transformations h &=& \_j O\_[hj]{} N\_j,\
S\_R &=& \_j O\_[Rj]{} N\_j, S\_I = \_j O\_[Ij]{} N\_j. We find the CP violating NP contribution to $B_q-{\bar B}_q$ mixing from neutral scalar exchange is \[o2coeff\] C\^[NP]{}(m\_t)= ( ’\_D m\_b/v )\^2 ( F ( m\_t/v))\^2 , where $ F(x)=x^2+ ~...~,$ and = \_j . For the rest of this paper we truncate the expansions in ${\sqrt 2} m_t/v$ at the leading non trivial term. So, for example, in Eq. (\[o2coefff\]) we use $F(x)=x^2$.
For simplicity we now focus on the case where $\lambda_5=0$. Then $h$, $S_R^0$ and $S_I^0$ are mass eigenstates and the term in the potential proportional to $\lambda_3$ is of interest as it leads to the mass splitting between the real neutral fields given by $m^2_R - m^2_I = 2\lambda_3 \, v^2$. When this term is non vanishing[^7], the tree level exchange of $S_{R/I}$ generates a CP violating NP contribution to $B_q-{\bar B}_q$ mixing and \[o2coefff\] C\^[NP]{}(m\_t) =(’\_D)\^2 ()\^4 (). In the above equation, the bottom quark mass $m_b\simeq 2.93~{\rm GeV}$ is evaluated at the top quark mass scale and $m^2_{S_{R/I}}=m_S^2 \pm \lambda_3 v^2$.
Using Eq. (\[key\]) the mass scale of the new scalars is given by m\_S\^4 + \_3\^2 v\^4. Using the best fit value $h_q =0.255$ [@Lenz:2010gu] we find that \[upperlimitmass\] m\_S\^4 (154 [GeV]{})\^4 |’\_D|\^2 \_3+ (246 [GeV]{})\^4 \_3\^2. Then for example with a value $|\eta'_D| = 5$ and $\lambda_3=1$ the scalar mass scale is $m_S \simeq 360 \, {\rm GeV}$. As the mass splitting is significant we show in Fig. 1 the masses of the neutral scalars $S_R,S_I$ as a function of $\eta_D'$. Moderate enhancements of $\eta_D'$ avoid a light neutral state.
We have checked that the mass scale $m_S$ required for $B_q-{\rm B}_q$ mixing is compatible with the constraints from $K - \bar{K}$ mixing. This compatibility is due to MFV, which causes the ratio of the relevant Wilson coefficients to scale as $m_s^2/m_b^2 \, |V_{td}/V_{tb}|^2$.
Next we derive constraints on $\eta_U \eta_D$ that come from one loop Feynman diagrams with charged $S$ scalar exchange. We will show that limits on electric dipole moments imply that $|{\rm Im}[\eta_U \eta_D]|\lesssim 10^{-1}$. Note that writing this as a constraint just on $\eta_U \eta_D$ depends on truncating a function of $\sqrt{ 2}m_t/v$ at leading order. We also examine the constraint on $ {\rm Re}[\eta_U \eta_D]$ coming from experimental data on weak radiative $B$ decay.
### Neutron Electric Dipole Moment
The large CP violating phases needed in this two scalar doublet model contribute to other CP violating observables. Notable among them are electric dipole moments (EDM’s). We will restrict our discussion here to the dominant contribution that is not suppressed by small quark masses when naive dimensional analysis (NDA) [@Manohar:1983md] is used. It comes about through the colour electric dipole moment of the b quark [@Boyd:1990bx; @Braaten:1990gq] due to the effective Hamiltonian \_[bg]{} = C\_[gb]{} g\_3 m\_b |[b]{} \_[ ]{} T\_a G\^a\_[ ]{} \^[ ]{} b, inducing the dimension six CP violating operator O\_G = g\_3\^3 f\_[ ]{} \^[ ]{} G\_[ ]{} G\_[ ]{}\^ G\_[ ]{}, of Weinberg [@Weinberg:1989dx] when the $b$ quark is integrated out. Our discussion will largely parallel the discussion of [@Manohar:2006ga]. As $\rm S$ couples both to the up and down type quarks it induces a one loop contribution to the effective Hamiltonian above with C\_[gb]{}(m\_S) = ( )\^2 f(m\_t\^2/m\_[S\^]{}\^2), where f(x) = + . Running to $\mu \sim m_b$ using [@Boyd:1990bx; @Braaten:1990gq] and estimating the matrix element of the operator with NDA[^8] gives in $\rm e$-$\rm cm$ units d\_n \~2 [Im]{}\[\_U\^ \_D\^\] f(m\_t\^2/m\_[S\^]{}\^2) ( )\^2 10\^[-26]{}.
This is a significantly larger effect on EDM’s than quoted in the general operator analysis [@Blum:2010mj] examining the effects of four Fermi operators on EDM’s as this contribution is not suppressed by small mixing angles or light quark masses. For $m_{S^\pm}=360~{\rm GeV} $ the neutron EDM experimental bound of $d_n < 2.9 \times 10^{-26} \, {\rm e}$-$\rm cm$ implies that $|{\rm Im}[ \eta_U^* \eta_D^*]|<0.26$ We plot the allowed $|{\rm Im}[ \eta_U^* \eta_D^*]|$ as a function of mass for this NDA estimate in Fig. 2.
This suggests that $|{\rm Im}[\eta'^*_U \eta'^*_D]|$ (and the sum of the effect of all other cross terms such as $|{\rm Im}[\eta''^*_U \eta''^*_D]|$ etc.) is also small. However, given the uncertainties from hadronic matrix elements and given the fact that the parameters that enter the contribution to EDM’s are not identical to those in $B_q-{\bar B}_q$ mixing it is difficult to draw precise conclusions on the parameters in the model that are important for mixing.
### $B \rightarrow X_s \, \gamma$ Constraints
Of course the two scalar doublet model also gives new contributions to quantities that are not $\rm CP$ violating. Here we briefly review the constraints on this model from $B \rightarrow X_s \, \gamma$ with these assumptions. The extra term in the effective Hamiltonian arises from charged scalar exchange and has the form, \_[[|[B]{}]{}X\_s ]{} = \[V\_[ts]{}\^ V\_[tb]{}\] C\_ ( |[s]{}\_L \_[ ]{} F\^[ ]{} b\_R ), where $e < 0$ is the electric charge. The Wilson coefficient is given by C\_= \_U\^ \_D\^ ( ) , with f\_(x) = ( ) - ( ). This operator’s contribution to the measured branching fraction ${\rm BR}(\bar{B} \rightarrow X_s \, \gamma)_{E_\gamma > 1.6 \, {\rm GeV}}$ is known [@Grzadkowski:2008mf] = 3.15 0.23 - 4.0 v\^2 C\_. This constraint includes the effect of running this operator down to the scale $m_b$. Comparing to the world experimental average [@Barberio:2007cr] we obtain a $1 \sigma$ bound on the parameters of the form -0.17 < Re\[\_U\^ \_D\^\] f\_(m\_t\^2/m\_[S\^]{}\^2) < 0.07. For $m_{S^\pm} = 360 ~{\rm GeV}$ we find $-1.7 < {\rm Re}[\eta_U^\star \eta_D^\star] < 0.7$. Although this constraint is weak it is interesting that EDM’s constrain ${\rm Im}[\eta_U^\star \, \eta_D^\star]$ while $B \rightarrow X_s \, \gamma$ constrains ${\rm Re}[\eta_U^\star \, \eta_D^\star]$.
### Collider Physics: Two Scalar Doublet Model
Pairs of $S$ particles can be produced through the tree level exchange of vector bosons produced through $q \, \bar{q}$ initial states in the case of the Tevatron and LHC and $e^+ \, e^-$ in the case of LEPII.
From LEPII a bound on the mass scale of the new scalar doublet is obtained as no anomalous two and four jet events were seen when operating at $\sqrt{s} = 209 \, {\rm GeV}$ where $0.1 \, fb^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity was collected. The relevant cross sections in this case are given in [@Burgess:2009wm] and the masses are bound to be m\_[S\^]{} 105 [GeV]{}, m\_[S\_R\^0]{} + m\_[S\_I\^0]{} 209 [GeV]{}. We plot the allowed $m_S,\lambda_3$ that satisfy this second bound for the minimal two scalar doublet model in Fig.3. We have also performed an electroweak precision data fit. For scalar masses $\sim 100 \,{\rm GeV}$ the constraints are weak. The allowed mass splitting in this model is $|m_I - m_\pm| \lesssim 200 \, {\rm GeV}$ using the $95 \% {\rm CL}$ region.
A light mass of $S^0_I$ is allowed as these states must be produced in pairs through vector boson exchange and $S^0_R$ can be heavy. However, a single neutral scalar particle can be produced at the Tevatron in association with a charged scalar though $W^\pm$ exchange. The partonic production cross section for producing $S^\pm \, S^0_{I}$ or $S^\pm \, S^0_{R}$ (when the width is neglected) is \[wcross\] = () 1- \^[-2]{}, where $p$ is the center of mass momentum of one of the produced particles and $s$ is the partonic center of mass energy squared. We scan over the parameter space allowed by LEPII using this formula for the Tevatron production cross section (with MSTW 2008 PDF’s [@Martin:2009iq]) where the $W^\pm$ is produced off the valence $u,d$ quarks. The renormalization scale in what follows is always varied between $m_S/2$ and $2 \, m_S$. The cross sections as a function of mass are shown in Fig. 4.
The Tevatron can potentially constraint some of the allowed parameter space. Search strategies for pair production through weak boson fusion of charged $S^\pm$ particles that decay into $\bar{t} \, b \, \bar{b} \, t$ are also somewhat promising. In this case the production cross section for $m_S \sim 200 \, {\rm GeV}$ is $\sigma \sim 1 \, {\rm fb} $ with a signal of two $b$ jets and two $t$ jets is produced in association with tagging light quark jets at large $\rm p_T$.
At the LHC, production through the tree level exchange of a vector boson is no longer dominated by $W^\pm$ exchange. The cross sections for the pair production of scalars are all similar in their dependence on $\lambda_3$ and as a function of $m_S$. We show $\sigma(pp \rightarrow W^\pm \rightarrow S^\pm \, S_{R/I})$ for $\sqrt{s} = 7 \, {\rm TeV}$ in Fig. 5.
Although these vector boson exchange cross sections for LHC are small, potentially observable signals at LHC do exist when $\eta_D$ is larger than one, and $S_{R/I}$ is made with large logarithms associated with collinear gluon splitting [@Dawson:2005vi] and small $p_T$ of the spectator $b$ quarks. The cross-section for the production of the lightest state $b\, \bar{b}\to S_I^0$ at leading log takes the form [@Mantry:2007ar] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bbS}
\sigma(b \bar{b} S_I^0) \simeq \frac{|\eta_D|^2 \pi} {3 \, s} \left(\frac{m_b^2}{v^2}\right) \int _{\frac{m_{S_I}^2}{s}}^1 \frac{dx}{x} b(x,\mu) \bar{b}(\frac{m_{S_I^0}^2}{x s},\mu),\end{aligned}$$ where $b(x,\mu)$ and $\bar{b}(x,\mu)$ are the $b$ quark and antiquark PDFs respectively. The large logs from collinear gluon splitting are summed into the parton distribution functions by choosing $\mu \sim m_S$. When we let $\eta_D = \sqrt{m_S/(154 \, {\rm GeV})}$ and choose $\lambda_3 =1$ the production cross sections for the LHC are given by Fig.6. This production mechanism must compete with the large $b$ production background from QCD. However, we note that this signal has a distinct feature in its reconstruction of a resonance in the highest $p_T$ $b$ quark pair with a larger percentage of its total number of events at high $p_T$ and small rapidity than the SM background, which has an approximate Rutherford scattering angular dependence in its production of $b$ quarks.
A Model with $\eta_U$ Naturally Small
=====================================
The charged scalar in the two Higgs doublet model has couplings to the quarks that (at leading order in the Yukawa matrices) are given by, $${\cal L}_{\rm charged}=\eta_U {\bar u}_R g_U d_L S^+ + \eta_D{\bar d}_R g_D u_L S^- +{\rm h.c.}$$ We need large CP violating phases to get the fit value of $\sigma_q$. For large phases the limits on electric dipole moments suggest that $|\eta_D \eta_U| \lesssim 10^{-1}$ for charged scalars with mass of a few hundred ${\rm GeV}$. Unless the charged scalars are considerably heavier than the neutral ones this bound is expected to hold in the minimal two scalar doublet model if the model is to give the central value for $h_q$. If the limits on the electric dipole moments improve then this may become a more serious constraint.
There does not seem to be any acceptable symmetry reason that this product is small and at the same time $\eta_D$ is enhanced. In order to see that this is the case it is convenient to work in the basis where both $H$ and $S$ get a vevs $v_H$ and $v_S$ respectively. These can be chosen to be real. Then the charged scalar $P^+$ is the linear combination of the fields $h^+$ and $S^+$, $$P^+={v_Sh^+-v_H S^+ \over \sqrt{v_H^2+v_S^2}}$$ Because $H$ no longer plays a special role we write the couplings of the scalars to the quarks as, \[general\] [L]{}\_Y&=& \_H[|u]{} [g]{}\_[U]{}Q\_L H+ \_S[|u]{}\_[R]{} [g]{}\_[U]{} Q\_[L ]{} S\
&+& ’\_H [|d]{}\_[R]{} [g]{}\_DQ\_[L]{} H\^+ ’\_S [|d]{}\_[R]{} [g]{}\_D Q\_LS\^+[h.c.]{} Here we are using MFV and taking the quantities that break the flavor symmetry to be ${\tilde g}_{U/D}$ . These matrices are proportional to the usual Yukawa matrices, g\_U = ([ \_H v\_H+\_S v\_S]{} )[g]{}\_U, g\_D = ([ ’\_H v\_H+’ \_S v\_S]{} )[g]{}\_D. Writing the charged scalar interaction as $${\cal L}_{\rm charged}=\eta_U{\bar u}_R g_U d_L P^+ + \eta_D{\bar d}_R g_D u_L P^- +{\rm h.c.}$$ we find that, \_U=[\_Hv\_S- \_S v\_H \_Hv\_H+\_S v\_S]{}, \_D=[’\_Hv\_S- ’\_S v\_H ’\_Hv\_H+’\_S v\_S]{}. One way to get $\eta_U$ small while $\eta_D$ is large is to have $v_H \gg v_S$ so that $\eta_U \sim -\epsilon_S/\epsilon_H$ and $\eta_D \sim \epsilon'_H/\epsilon'_S$ and take the corresponding ratios of $\epsilon$’s to be small and large respectively. For their product to be small we also need, $\epsilon_S \epsilon_H'/\epsilon_S' \epsilon_H$ to be small. This is clearly possible, however there doesn’t appear to be any symmetry reason behind these choices.
Note that there is an interchange symmetry where $H \leftrightarrow S$ that forces both $\eta_U=\eta_D=0$. But in the limit of that symmetry, $P^+=(h^+-S^+)/\sqrt{2}$, and the symmetry’s action on $P^+$ is $P^+ \rightarrow -P^+$. Hence there is a stable charged scalar.
The Glashow-Weinberg model [@Glashow:1976nt] where $H$ couples to the $u$-type quarks and $S$ couples to the $d$-type quarks has, $\epsilon'_H=\epsilon_S=0$ and so $\eta_U=v_S/v_H$ and $\eta_D=-v_H/v_S$. In this model $\eta_D \eta_U=-1$, so when $\eta_U$ is small $\eta_D$ is large, but their product cannot be made small even with a tuning of parameters.
In this section we construct a $\rm MFV$ model that has $\eta_U$ small for a symmetry reason. New scalars that transform under flavour [@Arnold:2009ay] can naturally have a small $\eta_U$. Consider a scalar field $S_8$ that transforms the same way as the Higgs doublet under the gauge group but as $({\bf 1},{\bf 8},{\bf 1})$ under the flavor group, S\_8 V\_D S\_8 V\_D\^. We choose to represent the scalar in terms of the Gell-Mann matrices $S_8 = S_8^a \, T^a$ where $a = 1, ...,8$ is a flavour index. The Yukawa couplings are given by \[general\] [L]{}\_Y &=& [|u]{}\_[R]{}\^i \^[ l]{}\_[U i]{} (g\_D\^)\^o\_[ l]{} (T\^[a]{})\^n\_[ o]{} (g\_D)\^j\_[ n]{} Q\_[Lj]{} S\_8\^a,\
&& + [|d]{}\_[R]{}\^i (T\^a)\^m\_[ i]{} (\_D)\^j\_[ m]{} Q\_[Lj]{} S\^[ a]{}\_8+[h.c.]{} where we have made the flavour indices explicit. We use hat superscripts to distinguish this model’s parameters from the two scalar doublet model. Recall that, \[yuk1\] [Y]{}\^[ j]{}\_[U i]{} &=& \_U g\^[ j]{}\_[U i]{} + ’\_U g\^[ j]{}\_[U k]{} \[(g\_U\^)\^[k]{}\_[ l]{} (g\_U)\^[l]{}\_[ i]{}\] + ,\
[Y]{}\^[ j]{}\_[D i]{} &=& \_D g\^[ j]{}\_[D i]{} + ’\_D g\^[ j]{}\_[D k]{} \[(g\_U\^)\^[k]{}\_[ l]{} (g\_U)\^[l]{}\_[ i]{}\] + .
The potential is given by V &=& (H\^[i]{} H\_i - )\^2 + 2 \_1\^2 [Tr]{}\[S\^[ i]{}\_8 S\_[8 i]{}\]\
&+& \_1 H\^[i]{} H\_i [Tr]{}\[S\^[j]{}\_8 S\_[8 j]{}\] + \_2 H\^[i]{} H\_j [Tr]{}\[S\^[j]{}\_8 S\_[8 i]{}\]\
&+&\
&+& \_6 [Tr]{}\[S\^[i]{}\_8 S\_[8 i]{} S\^[j]{}\_8 S\_[8 j]{}\] + \_7 [Tr]{}\[S\^[i]{}\_8 S\_[8 j]{} S\^[j]{}\_8 S\_[8 i]{}\]\
&+& \_8 [Tr]{}\[S\^[i]{}\_8 S\_[8 i]{}\] [Tr]{}\[S\^[j]{}\_8 S\_[8 j]{}\] + \_9 [Tr]{}\[S\^[i]{}\_8 S\_[8 j]{}\] [Tr]{}\[S\^[j]{}\_8 S\_[8 i]{}\]\
&+& \_[10]{} [Tr]{}\[S\_[8 i]{} S\_[8 j]{}\] [Tr]{}\[S\^[i]{}\_8 S\^[j]{}\_8\] + \_[11]{} [Tr]{}\[S\_[8 i]{} S\_[8 j]{}\] [Tr]{}\[S\^[j]{}\_8 S\^[i]{}\_8\]. In the potential the index is an $\rm SU(2)$ index and the trace is over the down flavour index. We again rotate the phase of $S_8$ (relative to $H$) so that the $\hat{\lambda}_3$ term is real, then the couplings and $\hat{\lambda}_{4,5}$ and the $\eta$’s are in general complex. In the above potential there are no linear terms in $S_8$ after $H$ gets its vacuum expectation value and so it is natural for it not to have a vev.
In the potential and the ${\hat Y}'s$ one can also insert arbitrary numbers of $g_D \, g_D^\dagger$ matrices between contractions of a down index. We work in the down basis so that $g_D = {\rm diag}(\sqrt{ 2}m_d/v,\sqrt{2}m_s/v,\sqrt{2}m_b/v)$. The interactions in the potential do not change flavour and are suppressed by $m_b^2/v^2$ so we neglect them.
Keeping just the leading term in, $\sqrt{2}m_t/v$, the Wilson coefficient of the effective Hamiltonian as defined in Eq. (\[NPH\]) is \[o2coeff\] C\^[NP]{}(m\_t) = . where $\hat{m}_S^2 = \hat{m}_1^2 + \left(\hat{\lambda}_1 + \hat{\lambda}_2\right) v^2/4$. This leads to the mass bound \[upperlimitmass\] \_S\^2 && (98 [GeV]{})\^4 |’\_D|\^2 \_3 + (174 [GeV]{})\^4 \^2\_3. in terms of the parameters defined in the potential. The mass spectrum of the new doublet is given by m\_[S\^]{}\^2 &=& \_S\^2 - \_2 ,\
m\_[S\_R\^0]{}\^2 &=& \_S\^2 + \_3 ,\
m\_[S\_I\^0]{}\^2 &=& \_S\^2 - \_3 , We show the masses of the neutral scalars for this model in Fig.7.
This model has eight new scalar doublets. Nevertheless, precision electroweak constraints are satisfied (when the Higgs is fixed to be $m_h = 96^{+29}_{-24} \, {\rm GeV}$ for $m_S \gtrsim 100 \, {\rm GeV}$) when $|m_I - m_\pm| < 50 \, {\rm GeV}$ [@Burgess:2009wm]. Conversely, custodial $\rm SU(2)$ violation in such a light scalar doublet leading to a positive contribution to $\Delta T$ can raise the allowed mass of the Higgs in EWPD [@Peskin:2001rw; @Burgess:2009wm].
In this model the coupling constant analogous to $\eta_U$ is naturally of order $(m_b/v)^2 \sim 10^{-3}$ and the $\bar{B} \rightarrow X_S \, \gamma$ and neutron EDM effects of the model are suppressed as phenomenologically required due to MFV.
The collider phenomenology in this model is very similar to the discussion on the two scalar doublet model. The LEPII constraints allow a larger parameter space due to the smaller mass splitting. The main differences for the Tevatron is that the cross sections we have discussed are increased by an order of magnitude due to the larger flavour representation. Slightly smaller production cross sections through $b$ quark fusion with low $p_T$ spectator $b$ quarks are expected at LHC as the normalization of the Gell Mann matrix decreases the cross section by a factor of three.
We consider speculation on the UV origin of such a $S_8$ doublet, or other accompanying non flavour singlet doublets that transform under the $\rm SU(3)_{U_R}$ as an $\bf 8$ to be premature and beyond the scope of this work.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper we discussed the new (i.e., beyond the minimal standard model) physics in the region of parameter space for which the two scalar doublet model with MFV gives the additional contributions to $B_q- {\bar B}_q$ mixing that are hinted at by the data on flavor physics in the $B$-sector. It requires additional light scalars that may be discovered at the Tevatron or LHC. Experimental limits on electric dipole moments suggest a region of parameter space that can occur naturally in some models where the new doublet of scalars transforms non-trivially under the flavour group. We constructed such a model.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank Z. Ligeti and Jim Cline for comments on the manuscript. This work was partially supported by funds from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada. Research at the Perimeter Institute is supported by the Government of Canada through Industry Canada and by the Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Research & Innovation. MBW is greatful to Perimter Institute for their hospitality while this work was done. The work of M.B.W. was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract No. DE-FG02-92ER40701.
Appendix: EWPD calculations
===========================
The one loop results for the $S_8$ model are the same as for the model discussed in [@Manohar:2006ga; @Burgess:2009wm]. We use the $\rm STUVWX$ parameterization [@Maksymyk:1993zm] of EWPD as the mass scale of the new scalars is $\sim 100 \, \rm GeV$. The relevant results in terms of Passarino-Veltman functions [@Passarino:1978jh] with standard definitions[^9] are
$$\begin{aligned}
\delta \Pi_{WW}(p^2) &=& \frac{g_1^2}{2 \pi^2}\Big[ B_{22}(p^2,m_I^2,m_+^2) \nn
+ B_{22}(p^2,m_R^2,m_+^2),\\ &-& \frac{1}{2} A_0(m_+^2)-\frac{1}{4} A_0(m_R^2)-\frac{1}{4} A_0(m_I^2)\Big], \nn \\
\delta \Pi_{ZZ}(p^2) &=& \frac{g_1^2 }{2 \pi^2 c^2}\Big[
(1-2s^2)^2 \left( B_{22}(p^2,m_+^2,m_+^2) -\frac{1}{2} A_0(m_+^2)\right), \nn \\
&+& B_{22}(p^2,m_R^2,m_I^2 )-\frac{1}{4} A_0(m_R^2)-\frac{1}{4} A_0(m_I^2)\Big], \nn \\
\delta \Pi_{\gamma\gamma}(p^2) &=& \frac{2 e^2 }{ \pi^2 }\Big[
B_{22}(p^2,m_+^2,m_+^2) -\frac{1}{2} A_0(m_+^2) \Big], \nn \\
\delta \Pi_{\gamma Z}(p^2) &=& \frac{e g_1(1-2s^2)}{ \pi^2 c }\Big[
B_{22}(p^2,m_+^2,m_+^2) -\frac{1}{2} A_0(m_+^2) \Big]. \nn\end{aligned}$$
For $p^2=0$ these expressions become $$\begin{aligned}
\delta \Pi_{WW}(0) &=& \frac{g_1^2 }{8 \pi^2} \left( \frac{1}{2} f(m_+,m_R) + \frac{1}{2} f(m_+,m_I) \right), \nn \\
\delta \Pi_{ZZ}(0) &=& \frac{g_1^2}{8 \pi^2 c^2} \left( \frac{1}{2} f(m_R,m_I) \right), \nn\end{aligned}$$ where $$f(m_1,m_2)=m_1^2 +m_2^2 -\frac{2 m_1^2 m_2^2}{m_1^2-m_2^2}\log{ \frac{m_1^2}{m_2^2} }. \nn$$
The derivatives of the vacuum polarizations are $$\begin{aligned}
\delta \Pi'_{\gamma\gamma}(0)&=& - \frac{e^2}{6 \pi^2} B_0(0,m_+^2,m_+^2), \nn \\
\delta \Pi'_{\gamma Z}(0) &=& -\frac{e g_1(1-2s^2)}{12 \pi^2 c } B_0(0,m_+^2,m_+^2), \nn\\
\delta \Pi'_{WW}(p^2) &=& \frac{g_1^2}{2 \pi^2} \Big[ -\frac{1}{6}\Delta + \frac{\partial b_{22}(p^2,m_I^2,m_+^2)}{\partial p^2} , \nn \\
&\,& \hspace{1.9cm} + \frac{\partial b_{22}(p^2,m_R^2,m_+^2)}{\partial p^2} \Big], \nn \\
\delta \Pi'_{ZZ}(p^2) &=& \frac{g_1^2}{2 \pi^2 c^2}\Big[
- \frac{1}{12}\Delta +\frac{ \partial b_{22}(p^2,m_R^2,m_I^2 )}{\partial p^2}, \nn \\
&\,& (1-2s^2)^2 \left( -\frac{1}{12}\Delta +\frac{\partial b_{22}(p^2,m_+^2,m_+^2)}{\partial p^2} \right) \Big]. \nn \end{aligned}$$
Using these results we can construct the $\rm STUVWX$ parameters with the standard definitions [@Maksymyk:1993zm]
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\alpha S}{4 s^2 \, c^2} &=& \left[\frac{\delta \Pi_{ZZ}(M_Z^2) - \delta \Pi_{ZZ}(0)}{M_Z^2} \right], \nn \\
&\,&- \frac{(c^2 - s^2)}{s \, c} \delta \Pi'_{Z\, \gamma}(0) - \delta \Pi'_{\gamma \, \gamma}(0), \nn \\
\alpha T &=& \frac{\delta \Pi_{WW}(0)}{M_W^2} - \frac{\delta \Pi_{ZZ}(0)}{M_Z^2}, \nn \\
\frac{\alpha U}{4 s^2} &=& \left[\frac{\delta \Pi_{WW}(M_W^2) - \delta \Pi_{WW}(0)}{M_W^2} \right], \nn \\
&\,& - c^2 \left[\frac{\delta \Pi_{ZZ}(M_Z^2) - \delta \Pi_{ZZ}(0)}{M_Z^2} \right], \nn \\
&\,& - s^2 \, \delta \Pi'_{\gamma\, \gamma}(0) - 2 \, s \, c \, \delta \Pi'_{Z \, \gamma}(0), \nn \\
\alpha V &=& \delta \Pi'_{Z Z}(M_Z^2) - \left[\frac{\delta \Pi_{ZZ}(M_Z^2) - \delta \Pi_{ZZ}(0)}{M_Z^2} \right], \nn \\
\alpha W &=& \delta \Pi'_{WW}(M_W^2) - \left[\frac{\delta \Pi_{WW}(M_W^2) - \delta \Pi_{ZZ}(0)}{M_W^2} \right], \nn \\
\alpha X &=& - s \, c \left[ \frac{\delta \Pi_{Z \, \gamma}(M_Z^2)}{M_Z^2} - \delta \Pi'_{Z \, \gamma}(0) \right]. \nn\end{aligned}$$
Here $\Delta$ is the divergence that cancels in the pseudo-observables $\rm STUVWX$ but we note we calculate in dimensional regularization and $\rm \overline{MS}$ in $d= 4 - 2 \epsilon$ dimensions. As the number of degrees of freedom in this $S_8$ model and in the model [@Manohar:2006ga] are the same, we can directly use the detailed fit results on the allowed masses (determined from these formulas) presented in [@Burgess:2009wm]. These results generally allow masses for fixed $m_h = 96^{+29}_{-24} \, {\rm GeV}$ when $m_S \gtrsim 100 \, {\rm GeV}$ characterized by $|m_I - m_\pm| < 50 \, {\rm GeV}$ for $S_8$.
[99]{}
V. M. Abazov [*et al.*]{} \[D0 Collaboration\], arXiv:1005.2757. A. Lenz [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1008.1593. K. Ikado [*et al.*]{} \[Belle Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 251802 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-ex/0604018\]. I. Adachi [*et al.*]{} \[Belle Collaboration\], arXiv:0809.3834. B. Aubert [*et al.*]{} \[BABAR Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 011107 (2008) \[arXiv:0708.2260 \[hep-ex\]\]. B. Aubert [*et al.*]{} \[BABAR Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 051101 (2010) \[arXiv:0809.4027 \[hep-ex\]\]. T. Aaltonen [*et al.*]{} \[CDF Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 161802 (2008) \[arXiv:0712.2397 \[hep-ex\]\]. V. M. Abazov [*et al.*]{} \[D0 Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 241801 (2008) \[arXiv:0802.2255 \[hep-ex\]\]. E. Lunghi and A. Soni, Phys. Lett. B [**666**]{}, 162 (2008) \[arXiv:0803.4340 \[hep-ph\]\].
Z. Ligeti, M. Papucci, G. Perez and J. Zupan, arXiv:1006.0432 \[hep-ph\].
K. Blum, Y. Hochberg and Y. Nir, arXiv:1007.1872.
B. Batell and M. Pospelov, arXiv:1006.2127 \[hep-ph\]. R. S. Chivukula and H. Georgi, “Composite Technicolor Standard Model,” Phys. Lett. B [**188**]{} (1987) 99.
L. J. Hall and L. Randall, “Weak scale effective supersymmetry,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{}, 2939 (1990).
G. D’Ambrosio, G. F. Giudice, G. Isidori and A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. B [**645**]{} (2002) 155 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0207036\]. A. Dighe, A. Kundu and S. Nandi, Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 031502 (2010) \[arXiv:1005.4051 \[hep-ph\]\].
C. W. Bauer and N. D. Dunn, arXiv:1006.1629 \[hep-ph\].
Y. Grossman, Y. Nir and G. Perez, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 071602 (2009) \[arXiv:0904.0305 \[hep-ph\]\]. D. A. Demir, M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 015007 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0208257\].
J. A. Bagger, K. T. Matchev and R. J. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B [**412**]{}, 77 (1997) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9707225\]. B. A. Dobrescu, P. J. Fox and A. Martin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 041801 (2010) \[arXiv:1005.4238 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. J. Buras, M. V. Carlucci, S. Gori and G. Isidori, arXiv:1005.5310 \[hep-ph\]. A. J. Buras, G. Isidori and P. Paradisi, arXiv:1007.5291 \[hep-ph\]. A. Pich and P. Tuzon, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 091702 (2009) \[arXiv:0908.1554 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Jung, A. Pich and P. Tuzon, arXiv:1006.0470 \[hep-ph\].
T. Feldmann and T. Mannel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{} (2008) 171601 \[arXiv:0801.1802 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. L. Kagan, G. Perez, T. Volansky and J. Zupan, arXiv:0903.1794 \[hep-ph\]. A. Manohar and H. Georgi, Nucl. Phys. B [**234**]{}, 189 (1984).
G. Boyd, A. K. Gupta, S. P. Trivedi and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B [**241**]{}, 584 (1990). E. Braaten, C. S. Li and T. C. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 1709 (1990). S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**63**]{}, 2333 (1989).
A. V. Manohar and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{}, 035009 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0606172\].
B. Grzadkowski and M. Misiak, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 077501 (2008) \[arXiv:0802.1413 \[hep-ph\]\]. E. Barberio [*et al.*]{} \[Heavy Flavor Averaging Group (HFAG) Collaboration\], arXiv:0704.3575 \[hep-ex\].
C. P. Burgess, M. Trott and S. Zuberi, JHEP [**0909**]{}, 082 (2009) \[arXiv:0907.2696 \[hep-ph\]\].
A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne and G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. C [**63**]{}, 189 (2009) \[arXiv:0901.0002 \[hep-ph\]\].
S. Dawson, C. B. Jackson, L. Reina, and D. Wackeroth, Mod. Phys. Lett. [**A21**]{}, 89 (2006), hep-ph/0508293.
S. Mantry, M. Trott and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 013006 (2008) \[arXiv:0709.1505 \[hep-ph\]\].
S. L. Glashow and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D [**15**]{}, 1958 (1977). J. M. Arnold, M. Pospelov, M. Trott and M. B. Wise, JHEP [**1001**]{}, 073 (2010) \[arXiv:0911.2225 \[hep-ph\]\].
M. E. Peskin and J. D. Wells, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 093003 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0101342\]. G. Passarino and M. J. G. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B [**160**]{}, 151 (1979). I. Maksymyk, C. P. Burgess and D. London, Phys. Rev. D [**50**]{}, 529 (1994) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9306267\].
[^1]: The observed $2.6 \, \sigma$ deviation from the standard model (SM) expectation [@Lenz:2010gu] in the averaged measurements of $B^- \rightarrow \tau \, \nu$ performed at Belle and Babar [@Ikado:2006un; @Aubert:2007xj; @:2008gx; @:2008ch] correlates correctly with a new physics (NP) contribution of a phase to $B_d$ with a sign consistent with the NP phase implied by the $\rm DO \! \! \! \!/ \, $ dimuon measurement. Such a NP phase also correlates with the expectation of a shift in $\sin 2 \, \beta$ extracted from $B_s \rightarrow J/\psi \, \phi$ compared to the SM expectation [@Aaltonen:2007he; @:2008fj] and extractions from measurements in $B_s \rightarrow J/\psi \, K_s$. Such a consistent deviation is also observed, its statistical significance is $2.1 \, \sigma$. Also see [@Lunghi:2008aa] for a discussion on the evidence for a NP phase in $B_d$ and $B_s$ meson mixing.
[^2]: Of course models with scalar doublets that are not supersymmetric suffer from the well know naturalness problem of keeping the doublets light compared to the Planck scale.
[^3]: The decay width can be removed in the relation between measured quantities under the assumption of small CP violation in NP induced tree level decays of $B_q$ [@Grossman:2009mn; @Ligeti:2010ia] and the anomalous measurements can still be fit to finding $\sim 3 \, \sigma$ evidence for a deviation from the SM [@Lenz:2010gu; @Ligeti:2010ia]. Also, an explanation of the like sign dimuon asymmetry through a NP contribution to $|\Gamma_{12}^q|$ would not necessarily explain the anomalies in $B_s \rightarrow J/\Psi \, \phi$ and $B \rightarrow \tau \, \nu$ with the correct correlation.
[^4]: It has been proven in [@Kagan:2009bn] that new CP violating effects can be larger in $B_s$ than in $B_d$ in nonlinear MFV. This observation has recently been explored in a general operator analysis [@Batell:2010qw] which showed that enhancements of CP violation in $B_s$ mixing over $B_d$ mixing by $m_s/m_d$ requires contributions in the MFV expansion out to forth order in both the up and down Yukawas for operators induced by scalar exchange. The results on the neutron EDM using naive dimensional analysis (NDA) on page 4 disfavour order one down and up Yukawas with CP violating phases for these operators, so such contributions are expected to be very small. For alternative estimates of the relevant matrix element not using NDA see [@Demir:2002gg].
[^5]: For QCD running we don’t distinguish between the top scale, weak scale and the mass scale of the new scalars we shall add.
[^6]: Previous analyses focused on scalar exchange to explain the like sign dimuon asymmetry include [@Dobrescu:2010rh; @Buras:2010mh; @Buras:2010zm]. Also see [@Pich:2009sp; @Jung:2010ik] for some phenomenological studies of models of this form.
[^7]: Note that imposing custodial symmetry on the potential does not force $\lambda_3 \rightarrow 0$. Custodial symmetry violation is a measure of the total mass splitting $(m_R^2 - m^2_\pm) (m^2_I - m_\pm^2) \propto (\lambda_2^2 - (2 \lambda_3)^2) \, v^4$ in terms of the potential given in Eq. (\[pot\]).
[^8]: We use method (a) of [@Manohar:2006ga] with $\alpha_s(\mu = 1 \, {\rm GeV}) \sim 4 \, \pi$.
[^9]: With $c,s$ the cosine and sine of the weak mixing angle.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose a reliable scheme to realize a generalized ultrastrong optomechanical coupling in a two-mode cross-Kerr-type coupled system, where one of the bosonic modes is strongly driven. The effective optomechanical interaction takes the form of a product of the photon number operator of one mode and the quadrature operator of the other mode. The coupling strength and quadrature phase are both tunable via the driving field. The coupling strength can be strongly enhanced to reach the ultrastrong-coupling regime, where the few-photon optomechanical effects such as photon blockade and macroscopically distinct quantum superposition become accessible. The presence of tunable quadrature phase also enables the implementation of geometric quantum operations. Numerical simulations show that this method works well in a wide parameter space. We also present an analysis of the experimental implementation of this scheme.'
author:
- 'Jie-Qiao Liao'
- 'Jin-Feng Huang'
- Lin Tian
- 'Le-Man Kuang'
- 'Chang-Pu Sun'
title: Generalized Ultrastrong Optomechanics
---
*Introduction.*—Light-matter interaction is at the heart of cavity optomechanics [@Kippenberg2008rev; @Aspelmeyer2012rev; @Aspelmeyer2014] and is the root of various quantum coherence effects in optomechanical systems. The studies of cavity optomechanics focus primarily on the understanding, manipulation, and exploitation of the optomechanical couplings, and aim to explore both the fundamentals of quantum theory and modern quantum technology. Of particular interest is the study of optomechanics at the few-photon level [@Nunnenkamp2011; @Rabl2011; @Liao2012; @Liao2013; @Hong2013; @Xu2013; @Marshall2003; @Liao2016]. This is because the nonlinear optomechanical interaction is an intrinsic characteristic of optomechanics. Many interesting effects appear in this regime, such as phonon sideband spectrum [@Nunnenkamp2011; @Liao2012], photon blockade in the cavity driven by a continuous wave [@Rabl2011] or a wave packet [@Liao2013], and macroscopic quantum coherence [@Marshall2003; @Liao2016]. However, the few-photon optomechanical effects have not been observed in experiments because the single-photon optomechanical coupling is too weak to be resolved from the environmental noise. How to enhance the optomechanical coupling remains an important challenge in this field. Until now, people proposed several methods to enhance the single-photon optomechanical coupling. These methods include the construction of an array of mechanical resonators [@Xuereb2012], the use of the nonlinearity in Josephson junctions [@Rimberg2014; @Heikkila2014; @Pirkkalainen2015], the modulation of the couplings [@Liao2014], and the utilization of quantum squeezing resources [@Lue2015; @Li2016], and mechanical amplification [@Lemonde2016].
In this Letter, we propose an efficient approach to realize ultrastrong optomechanical coupling in the few-photon regime [@seeSM]. Here ultrastrong coupling is defined as the strength of the single-photon optomechanical coupling is a considerable fraction of the mechanical frequency [@Hu2015]. Our scheme is realized by applying strong driving on one of the two bosonic modes coupled by the cross-Kerr interaction. Note that the cross-Kerr interaction has been widely used in quantum state preparation [@Paternostro2003; @Kuang2003], quantum information protocols [@Milburn1989PRL; @Vitali2000; @Kok2007; @Nemoto2004], quantum nondemolition photon measurement [@Imoto1985; @Grangier1998], and phonon counting [@Ding2017]. In particular, the generalized optomechanical coupling takes the form of the product of the occupation number operator of one mode and the quadrature operator of the other mode. Here, the strength of single-photon optomechanical coupling is enhanced by the driving to reach the single-photon strong coupling regime. Our scheme has the following features. (i) The driving field enhances the optomechanical coupling strength to reach the ultrastrong coupling regime, and the generalized optomechanical coupling can be used to implement geometric quantum operations with proper quadrature angle sequences. (ii) This method works for both steady-state and transient displacements, which correspond to constant and modulated optomechanical coupling cases. (iii) In the displacement representation, the driving detuning plays the role of the effective mechanical frequency, and hence it is possible to choose a high natural frequency of the mechanical mode to suppress its thermal noise.
*Model.*—We consider two bosonic modes $a$ and $b$ coupled by a cross-Kerr interaction. One of the modes (for instance mode $b$) is driven by a monochromatic field with frequency $\omega_{Lb}$. In a rotating frame with respect to $H_{0}=\omega_{Lb}b^{\dagger}b$, the Hamiltonian of this system reads ($\hbar=1$) $$H_{I}=\omega_{a}a^{\dagger}a+\Delta_{b}b^{\dagger}b+\chi a^{\dagger}ab^{\dagger}b+\Omega_{b}b^{\dagger}+\Omega_{b}^{\ast}b,$$ where $a$ ($a^{\dagger}$) and $b$ ($b^{\dagger}$) are the annihilation (creation) operators of the two bosonic modes, with the corresponding resonance frequencies $\omega_{a}$ and $\omega_{b}$. The parameter $\Delta_{b}=\omega_{b}-\omega_{Lb}$ is the detuning of the resonance frequency of mode $b$ with respect to the driving frequency $\omega_{Lb}$, and the parameter $\Omega_{b}$ is the driving amplitude. The two modes are coupled to each other through a cross-Kerr interaction, with the coupling strength $\chi$.
To treat the damping and noise in this system, we assume that the two bosonic modes are coupled to two independent Markovian environments, the evolution of the system is hence governed by the quantum master equation $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\rho}&=&i[\rho, H_{I}]+\gamma_{a}(\bar{n}_{a}+1)\mathcal{D}[a]\rho+\gamma_{a}\bar{n}_{a}\mathcal{D}[a^{\dag}]\rho\nonumber\\
&&+\gamma_{b}(\bar{n}_{b}+1)\mathcal{D}[b]\rho+\gamma_{b}\bar{n}_{b}\mathcal{D}[b^{\dag}]\rho,\label{mastereqoriMT}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{D}[o]\rho=o\rho o^{\dagger}-(o^{\dagger}o\rho+\rho o^{\dagger}o)/2$ is the standard Lindblad superoperator for bosonic-mode damping, $\gamma_{a}$ ($\gamma_{b}$) and $\bar{n}_{a}$ ($\bar{n}_{b}$) are the damping rate and environment thermal excitation occupation of mode $a$ ($b$), respectively.
*Generalized ultrastrong coupling.*—Our motivation in this work is to obtain an ultrastrong optomechanical coupling between the two modes. Under strong driving, the mode $b$ is excited with large occupation number, and the operator $b$ can be written as a summation of its mean value and a quantum fluctuation $b\rightarrow\beta+b$, and similarly $b^{\dagger}\rightarrow\beta^{\ast}+b^{\dagger}$. Note that the occupation number of mode $a$ is independent of the driving on mode $b$ because the operator $a^{\dag}a$ is a conserved quantity. The cross-Kerr interaction then becomes $\chi a^{\dagger}a(\beta^{\ast}+b^{\dagger})(\beta+b)=\chi\beta^{\ast}\beta a^{\dagger}a+\chi a^{\dagger}a(\beta^{\ast}b+\beta b^{\dagger})+\chi a^{\dagger}ab^{\dagger}b$. Here the first term is a frequency shift on mode $a$, the second term is the generalized optomechanical coupling with a coupling strength enhanced by a factor $|\beta|$, and the third term is the cross-Kerr interaction between mode $a$ and the fluctuation of mode $b$.
To prove the above analysis, we perform the transformation $\rho'=D_{b}(\beta)\rho D_{b}^{\dagger}(\beta)$ to the quantum master equation (\[mastereqoriMT\]), where $\beta=\vert\beta\vert e^{i\theta}$ is the mean displacement of mode $b$. By performing this transformation, we obtain the equation of motion of the displacement as $\dot{\beta}=-(i\Delta_{b}+\gamma_{b}/2)\beta+i\Omega_{b}$. We consider the case where the time scale of system relaxation is much shorter than other time scales. The steady-state displacement reads $\beta_{\textrm{ss}}=\Omega_{b}/(\Delta_{b}-i\gamma_{b}/2)$, which is a tunable complex number by choosing proper $\Omega_{b}$ and $\Delta_{b}$. In the displacement representation, the quantum master equation takes the same form as Eq. (\[mastereqoriMT\]) under the replacement $\rho\rightarrow\rho'$ and $H_{I}\rightarrow H_{\textrm{tra}}$, where the transformed Hamiltonian is given by $H_{\textrm{tra}}=\omega_{a}^{\prime}a^{\dagger}a+\Delta_{b}b^{\dagger}b-\chi a^{\dagger}a(\beta_{\textrm{ss}}b^{\dagger}+\beta_{\textrm{ss}}^{\ast}b)+\chi a^{\dagger}ab^{\dagger}b$, with the frequency $\omega_{a}^{\prime}=\omega_{a}+\chi|\beta_{\textrm{ss}}|^{2}$. In this Hamiltonian, the cross-Kerr term is an effective frequency shift for the two modes. When this frequency shift $m\chi$ associated with $m$ excitations in mode $a$ is much smaller than the effective frequency of mode $b$, namely $m\chi\ll\Delta_{b}$, we can neglect the cross-Kerr interaction term safely. In this case, a generalized ultrastrong optomechanical interaction can be obtained.
In this work, we focus on few-photon optomechanics and hence consider the regime $\chi\ll\Delta_{b}$ and $\chi\vert\beta_{\textrm{ss}}\vert\sim \Delta_{b}$, then the cross-Kerr interaction term in $H_{\textrm{tra}}$ can be safely discarded and we obtain the generalized optomechanical Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\textrm{app}}=\omega_{a}^{\prime}a^{\dagger}a+\Delta_{b}b^{\dagger}b-g_{0}a^{\dagger}a(b^{\dagger}e^{i\theta}+be^{-i\theta}),\label{HapproxedMT}\end{aligned}$$ where $g_{0}=\chi\vert\beta_{\textrm{ss}}\vert$ is the single-photon optomechanical coupling strength. The Hamiltonian (\[HapproxedMT\]) possesses three features: (i) The effective resonance frequency $\Delta_{b}$ of the mechanical mode is tunable by choosing proper driving frequency $\omega_{Lb}$. Therefore, we can choose a small $\Delta_{b}$ such that a near-resonant displacement interaction is obtained and further the displacement effect of single photons is enhanced. (ii) The single-photon optomechanical coupling between the two modes is enhanced by a factor of the displacement amplitude $|\beta_{\textrm{ss}}|$, which is determined by the driving amplitude $\Omega_{b}$. Therefore, the coupling strength $g_{0}$ can be enhanced to be larger than the decay rate $\gamma_{a}$ of mode $a$ and even the resonance frequency $\Delta_{b}$ when we take $|\beta_{\textrm{ss}}|\gg 1$, and consequently the system can enter the ultrastrong coupling regime. (iii) The phase angle $\theta$ of the quadrature operator mode $b$ can be controlled by choosing proper driving phase in $\Omega_{b}$. This feature can be used to implement various geometric quantum operations such as the Kerr interaction and quantum gates.
The only approximation in the above derivation is the omission of the cross-Kerr interaction in the transformed Hamiltonian $H_{\textrm{tra}}$ in the regime of $\chi\ll \Delta_{b}$. To evaluate the adequacy of this approximation [@seeSM], we conduct numerical simulation of this system with the full Hamiltonian and the approximated Hamiltonian (\[HapproxedMT\]). To avoid the crosstalk of the dissipations on the approximation, we consider the closed system case [@seeSM] by numerically solving the Schrödinger equation. We then calculate the fidelity between the exact state $\vert \psi_{\textrm{ext}}(t)\rangle$ and the approximate state $\vert \psi_{\textrm{app}}(t)\rangle$ from the simulation of (\[HapproxedMT\]). We choose the initial state of the system as $\vert \psi(0)\rangle=|1\rangle_{a}|0\rangle_{b}$. In this case, the fidelity $F(t)=|\langle \psi_{\textrm{ext}}(t)\vert \psi_{\textrm{app}}(t)\rangle|$ can be obtained for the case of $\theta=0$ as $F(t)=\exp[-\Lambda(t)/2]$, with $\Lambda(t)=\left|g_{0}(1-e^{-i\Delta_{b}t})/\Delta_{b}-g_{0}(1-e^{-i(\Delta_{b}+\chi)t})/(\Delta_{b}+\chi)\right|^{2}$.
In Fig. \[Fig1\](a), we show the fidelity $F(t)$ as a function of the time $t$ with $\chi/\Delta_{b}=0.005$ and $|\beta_{\text{ss}}|=100$, $500$, and $1000$. We see that the fidelity decreases for larger values of $|\beta_{\text{ss}}|$. This can be explained from the expression of $F(t)$ that the exponential decreasing rate is proportional to $|\beta_{\text{ss}}|^{2}$ in this case. Nevertheless, the fidelity can be very high because of $\chi\ll\Delta_{b}$. In Fig. \[Fig1\](b), we display the fidelity $F(t_{s})$ at time $t_{s}=\pi/\Delta_{b}$ (the time for generation of cat state in mode $b$) as a function of $|\beta_{\text{ss}}|$ and $\chi/\Delta_{b}$. Here the fidelity is large in a wide parameter space and it is higher for smaller $\chi/\Delta_{b}$. For a given value of $\chi/\Delta_{b}$, $F$ is higher for a smaller value of $\vert\beta_{\text{ss}}\vert$. With the parameters for creating moderate displacement, for example $\chi|\beta_{\text{ss}}|=\Delta_{b}$, the fidelity could be larger than $0.99$. Note that this fidelity is independent of $\omega_{a}^{\prime}$ because the term $\omega_{a}^{\prime}a^{\dagger}a$ commutates with other terms in the Hamiltonian.
*Photon blockade*—One important application of the optomechanical interaction in the ultrastrong coupling regime is the photon blockade effect [@Rabl2011]. The photon blockade effect can be seen from the dressed Kerr nonlinearity in the diagonalized Hamiltonian $V^{\dagger}H_{\textrm{app}}V=\omega_{a}^{\prime}a^{\dagger}a+\Delta_{b}b^{\dagger}b-(g_{0}^{2}/\Delta_{b})a^{\dagger}aa^{\dagger}a$, with $V=\exp[(g_{0}/\Delta_{b})a^{\dagger}a(b^{\dagger}e^{i\theta}-be^{-i\theta})]$ [@seeSM]. To observe the photon blockade effect, the magnitude of the self-Kerr nonlinearity should be much larger than the decay rate, namely $g_{0}^{2}/\Delta_{b}\gg\gamma_{c}$, such that the anharmonicity in the energy levels can be resolved. In our scheme, the single-photon optomechanical coupling strength is enhanced by the large coherent displacement $|\beta_{\text{ss}}|$ and a small driving detuning $\Delta_{b}$. Here we should point out that the small detuning will not affect the thermal occupation number because $\bar{n}_{b}$ is determined by the natural frequency $\omega_{b}$ of mode $b$. In Fig. \[Fig2\](a), we plot the equal-time second-order correlation function $g^{(2)}(0)=\langle a^{\dag}a^{\dag}aa\rangle_{\text{ss}}/\langle a^{\dag}a\rangle_{\text{ss}}^{2}$ as a function of the enhanced factor $|\beta_{\text{ss}}|$ at various values of $\gamma_{a}/\Delta_{b}$. Here operator averages are for the steady state of the system [@numericalcal]. We can see that the photon blockade effect (corresponding to $g^{(2)}(0)\ll1$) can be observed in the resolved-sideband limit $\gamma_{a}/\Delta_{b}\ll1$. The decay of mode $a$ will harm the photon blockade effect, as shown in the inset, where we display $g^{(2)}(0)$ as a function of $\gamma_{a}/\Delta_{b}$ at $g_{0}/\Delta_{b}=0.5$, which corresponds to the optimal $|\beta_{\text{ss}}|$ for photon blockade.
*Macroscopic mechanical coherence*—Another important application of the optomechanical interaction in the ultrastrong coupling regime is the generation of the Schrödinger cat state [@Marshall2003] in mode $b$. The dynamical evolution of this system can be used to create the Schrödinger cat states for both mode $a$ [@Mancini1997; @Bose1997; @Bose1999] and mode $b$ [@Marshall2003]. Up to the free evolution $\exp(-i\omega_{a}^{\prime}ta^{\dagger}a-i\Delta_{b}tb^{\dagger}b)$, the unitary evolution operator associated with the generalized optomechanical coupling $H_{\textrm{app}}$ can be written as $U_{\textrm{app}}(t)=\exp(i\lambda a^{\dagger}aa^{\dagger}a)D_{b}[(g_{0}/\Delta_{b})(e^{i\Delta_{b}t}-1)e^{i\theta}a^{\dagger }a]$, where the Kerr parameter is given by $\lambda=(g_{0}^{2}/\Delta _{b}^{2})[\Delta_{b}t-\sin(\Delta_{b}t)]$ and $D_{b}[\beta]\equiv \exp(\beta b^{\dag}-\beta^{\ast}b)$ is the conditional displacement operator for mode $b$ with the conditional excitation number $a^{\dagger}a$ in mode $a$. At specific times $\Delta_{b}t=2n\pi/\Delta_{b}$ for natural numbers $n$, the two modes decouple and then the dynamics of mode $a$ corresponds to a Kerr interaction, which can used to create cat states. The conditional displacement for mode $b$ can also be used to create macroscopically distinct superposition. To this end, we consider an initial state of the system $|\Psi(0)\rangle=(1/\sqrt{2})(|0\rangle_{a}+|1\rangle_{a})|0\rangle_{b}$. The state at time $t$ of the system can be obtained as $|\Psi(t)\rangle=(1/2)[|+\rangle_{a}(|0\rangle_{b}+e^{i\vartheta(t)}|\eta(t)\rangle_{b})+|-\rangle_{a}(|0\rangle_{b}-e^{i\vartheta(t)}|\eta(t)\rangle_{b})]$, where $|\pm\rangle_{a}=(|0\rangle_{a}\pm |1\rangle_{a})/\sqrt{2}$, $\vartheta(t)=(g^{2}_{0}/\Delta^{2}_{b})[\Delta_{b}t-\sin(\Delta_{b}t)]-\omega_{a}^{\prime}t$, and $\eta(t)=(g_{0}/\Delta_{b})(1-e^{-i \Delta_{b} t})$. The maximal displacement $\eta_{\textrm{max}}=2g_{0}/\Delta_{b}$ is obtained at $t=(2n+1)\pi/\Delta_{b}$ for natural numbers $n$. When $g_{0}/\Delta_{b}>1$, the coherent state $|\eta(t)\rangle_{b}$ can be approximately distinguished from the vacuum state $|0\rangle_{b}$, and hence macroscopically distinct superposed coherent states in mode $b$ can be generated by measuring mode $a$ in states $|\pm\rangle_{a}$. The single-photon displacement of mode $b$ can be seen by calculating the average excitation $\langle n_{b}(t)\rangle=\langle b^{\dag}b\rangle=|\eta(t)|^{2}$ in mode $b$. In Fig. \[Fig2\](b), we show the dynamics of $\langle n_{b}(t)\rangle$ for several values of $|\beta_{\text{ss}}|$ in the presence of dissipations. The plots show that a larger maximal accessible displacement can be obtained for a larger $|\beta_{\text{ss}}|$, and that the dissipations will decrease the peak value of the displacement. In the inset, we plot the variable $\langle n_{b}(t_{s})\rangle$, which corresponds to the maximal displacement $\eta_{\text{max}}$, as a function of $|\beta_{\text{ss}}|$. We see that the maximal displacement could be larger than the zero-point fluctuation of mode $b$ (i.e., $\langle n_{b}\rangle>1$). This means that a quantum superposition of macroscopically distinct states in mode $b$ can be prepared with this method [@seeSM].
*Geometrical quantum operations*—The generalized nonlinear interaction between the two modes $a$ and $b$ in Hamiltonian $H_{\textrm{app}}$ can be used to create a self-Kerr nonlinear interaction of mode $a$ via a sequence of operations. Consider the resonant driving case $\Delta_{b}=0$, and the corresponding unitary evolution operator becomes $U(t,\theta)=\exp(-i\omega_{a}^{\prime}ta^{\dagger}a)\exp[ig_{0}ta^{\dagger}a(b^{\dagger}e^{i\theta}+be^{-i\theta})]$, which takes the form of an evolution operator associated with the conditional quadrature operator $X(\theta)=(b^{\dagger}e^{i\theta}+be^{-i\theta})/\sqrt{2}$. With the above unitary evolution operator, a self-Kerr interaction of mode $a$ can be obtained by designing a chain of unitary evolution based on the unconventional geometrical phase effect [@Zhu2003] as $U_{\textrm{tot}}=U(t,3\pi/2)U(t,\pi)U(t,\pi/2)U(t,0)=\exp(-4i\omega^{\prime}_{a}ta^{\dagger }a)\exp(2ig_{0}^{2}t^{2}a^{\dagger}aa^{\dagger}a)$. The unitary evolution operator $U_{\textrm{tot}}$ represents a pure self-Kerr interaction of mode $a$, and it is different from the transformed Kerr nonlinearity $U_{\textrm{app}}(t)$ associated with the optomechanical coupling $H_{\textrm{app}}$. The pure self-Kerr interaction is independent of the phonon states and hence the two modes are decoupled from each other with no phonon sidebands. However, in the optomechanical interactions, the eigenstates are the number state for mode $a$ dressed by the displaced number states for mode $b$ [@Liao2012]. Moreover, the phase shift associated with the Kerr interaction $2g_{0}^{2}t^{2}$ is continuously tunable and it can reach $\pi$ which is needed for realization of logic gate for quantum computation. The Kerr interaction in $U_{\textrm{app}}(t)$ only works at time $t=2n\pi/\Delta_{b}$.
![(Color online) The Wigner functions of the generated states at $\tau=\pi$ and $\tau=2\pi/3$ in the presence of dissipation. The corresponding states in the idea case are the cat state $\psi(\tau=\pi)\rangle_{a}$ and the kitten state $\vert\psi(\tau=2\pi/3)\rangle_{a}$, respectively. Other parameters are given by $\alpha=2$, $\gamma_{a}/\Delta_{b}=\gamma_{b}/\Delta_{b}=0.05$, and $\bar{n}_{a}=\bar{n}_{b}=0$.[]{data-label="Fig3"}](Fig3.eps){width="47.00000%"}
The geometric Kerr interaction can also be used to create the Schrödinger cat and kitten states [@Birula1968; @Miranowicz1990]. For simplicity, we express the unitary evolution operator as $U_{\textrm{tot}}=\exp[-i\phi(t)a^{\dagger}a]\exp[-i(\tau/2)a^{\dagger}a(a^{\dagger}a-1)]$, with $\phi(t)=4\omega^{\prime}_{a}t-2g^{2}_{0}t^{2}$ and $\tau=4g_{0}^{2}t^{2}$. For the initial state $|\psi(0)\rangle_{a}=|\alpha\rangle_{a}$, we consider the case of some specific times $\tau=2\pi M/N$ with two coprime integers $M$ and $N$, the state of mode $a$ can be expressed as $|\psi(\tau)\rangle_{a}=\sum_{k=0}^{2N-1}c_{k}|\alpha e^{i\varphi_{k}}\rangle_{a}$, where $\varphi_{k}=2\pi k/(2N)$ and the coefficients are given by $c_{k}=(1/2N)\sum_{k=0}^{2N-1}\exp\{-i\frac{\pi}{N}[kn-Mn(n-1)]\}$. Here we omit the free evolution $\exp[-i\phi(t=\sqrt{M\pi/(2Ng^{2}_{0})})a^{\dagger}a]$ because this operator corresponds to a whole rotation of the state in phase space. For example, we choose $N=2$ and $M=1$, the state becomes $\vert \psi(\tau=\pi)\rangle_{a}=(1/\sqrt{2})(e^{-i\pi/4}\vert i\alpha\rangle_{a}+e^{i\pi/4}\vert-i\alpha\rangle_{a})$. When $N=3$ and $M=1$, we obtain a kitten state with three superposition components as $\vert\psi(\tau=2\pi/3)\rangle_{a}=(1/\sqrt{3})(e^{i\pi/6}\vert \alpha\rangle_{a}-i\vert\alpha e^{i2\pi/3}\rangle_{a}+e^{i\pi/6}\vert \alpha e^{i4\pi/3}\rangle_{a})$. In Fig. \[Fig3\] we plot the Wigner function $W(\xi)=\frac{2}{\pi}\text{Tr}[D_{a}^{\dagger}(\xi)\rho_{a}D_{a}(\xi)(-1)^{a^{\dagger}a}]$ [@Barnettbook] of the exact generated states, where $\xi$ is a complex variable, $\rho_{a}$ is the density matrix of the state, and $D_{a}(\xi)$ is the usual displacement operator for mode $a$. We can observe quantum interference pattern, which is a clear signature of quantum superposition [@seeSM].
*Discussions*—Though we focus on the steady-state displacement in the above discussions, this method works for both the steady-state and the transient displacements $\beta_{\textrm{ss}}$ and $\beta(t)$. In the latter case, we can obtain a modulated optomechanical coupling $g(t)=\chi\beta(t)$. For example, we can choose a proper driving amplitude $\Omega_{b}(t)$ such that a sinusoidal enhancement $g_{0}\sin(\omega_{d}t)$ is obtained, where $\omega_{d}$ is the modulation frequency. It has been proved that the modulated optomechanical coupling can be used to enhance the photonic nonlinearity and to generate macroscopic superposition states [@Liao2014].
Our scheme can be implemented either by two electromagnetic field modes or by one electromagnetic mode and one mechanical mode coupled by the cross-kerr interaction [@seeSM]. The requirements on the parameters are: $m\chi\ll\Delta_{b}$, $\chi|\beta_{\textrm{ss}}|\sim\Delta_{b}$, and $\Delta_{b}\gg\gamma_{a}$. We can choose proper driving frequency $\omega_{Lb}$ and amplitude $\Omega_{b}$ such that $\Delta_{b}\gg \gamma_{a}$ and $\chi|\beta_{\textrm{ss}}|\sim\Delta_{b}$. For two cross-Kerr coupled microwave field modes, $\gamma_{a,b}/(2\pi)$ are of the order of $10^{4}$ - $10^{5}$ Hz [@Aspelmeyer2014]. For one microwave field and one mechanical mode, the decay rates can be $\gamma_{a}/(2\pi)\sim10^{4}$ - $10^{5}$ Hz and $\gamma_{b}/(2\pi)\sim10^{2}$ - $10^{3}$ Hz [@Aspelmeyer2014]. In these two cases, we choose $\Delta_{b}\sim10\gamma_{a}$. Corresponding to $\chi|\beta_{\textrm{ss}}|\sim\Delta_{b}$, we can choose $\chi/(2\pi)\sim10^{2}$ - $10^{3}$ Hz and $|\beta_{\textrm{ss}}|=10^{3}$. These parameters are accessible with current experimental technology. Note that the Kerr-type interactions in various quantum optical systems have been evaluated [@Rebic2009; @Hu2011; @Nigg2012; @Hoi2013; @Holland2015; @Bourassa2012; @Majer2007; @Thompson2008; @Sankey2010; @Karuza2013; @Gong2009; @Semiao2005; @Maurer2004].
*Conclusions.*—We proposed a practical method to realize a generalized ultrastrong optomechanical coupling. This is achieved by driving one of the two bosonic modes coupled through a cross-Kerr interaction. We analyzed the parameter conditions under which this proposal works. We also studied the application of this scheme on the photon blockade effect, the cat state generation, and the implementation of geometric gates. This proposal provide a reliable method for studying few-photon optomechanics or simulating the optomechanical-type interactions between two electromagnetic fields with current experimental techniques.
*Acknowledgments.*—J.-Q.L. is supported in part by NSFC Grant No. 11774087 and HNNSFC Grant No. 2017JJ1021. J.-F.H. is supported by the NSFC Grant No. 11505055. L.T. is supported by the NSF (USA) under Award No. PHY-1720501. L.-M.K. is supported by the NSFC Grants No. 11375060, No. 11434011, and No. 11775075. C.P.S. is supported by the National Basic Research Program of China Grants No. 2014CB921403 and No. 2016YFA0301201, the NSFC Grants No. 11421063 and No. 11534002, and the NSAF Grant No. U1530401.
[9]{} T. J. Kippenberg and K. J. Vahala, Cavity Optomechanics: Back-Action at the Mesoscale, Science **321**, 1172 (2008). M. Aspelmeyer, P. Meystre, and K. Schwab, Quantum optomechanics, Phys. Today **65**(7), 29 (2012). M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, Cavity optomechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. **86**, 1391 (2014).
A. Nunnenkamp, K. B[ø]{}rkje, and S. M. Girvin, Single-Photon Optomechanics, Phys. Rev. Lett. **107**, 063602 (2011). J.-Q. Liao, H. K. Cheung, and C. K. Law, Spectrum of single-photon emission and scattering in cavity optomechanics, Phys. Rev. A **85**, 025803 (2012).
P. Rabl, Photon Blockade Effect in Optomechanical Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. **107**, 063601 (2011). J.-Q. Liao and C. K. Law, Correlated two-photon scattering in cavity optomechanics, Phys. Rev. A **87**, 043809 (2013).
T. Hong, H. Yang, H. Miao, and Y. Chen, Open quantum dynamics of single-photon optomechanical devices, Phys. Rev. A **88**, 023812 (2013).
X.-W. Xu, Y.-J. Li, and Y.-x. Liu, Photon-induced tunneling in optomechanical systems, Phys. Rev. A **87**, 025803 (2013).
W. Marshall, C. Simon, R. Penrose, and D. Bouwmeester, Towards Quantum Superpositions of a Mirror, Phys. Rev. Lett. **91**, 130401 (2003). J.-Q. Liao and L. Tian, Macroscopic Quantum Superposition in Cavity Optomechanics, Phys. Rev. Lett. **116**, 163602 (2016).
A. Xuereb, C. Genes, and A. Dantan, Strong Coupling and Long-Range Collective Interactions in Optomechanical Arrays, Phys. Rev. Lett. **109**, 223601 (2012). A. J. Rimberg, M. P. Blencowe, A. D. Armour, and P. D. Nation, A cavity-Cooper pair transistor scheme for investigating quantum optomechanics in the ultra-strong coupling regime, New J. Phys. **16**, 055008 (2014). T. T. Heikkilä, F. Massel, J. Tuorila, R. Khan, and M. A. Sillanpää, Enhancing Optomechanical Coupling via the Josephson Effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. **112**, 203603 (2014).
J.-M. Pirkkalainen, S. U. Cho, F. Massel, J. Tuorila, T. T. Heikkilä, P. J. Hakonen, and M. A. Sillanpää, Cavity optomechanics mediated by a quantum two-level system, Nat. Commun. **6**, 6981 (2015).
J.-Q. Liao, K. Jacobs, F. Nori, and R. W. Simmonds, Modulated electromechanics: large enhancements of nonlinearities, New J. Phys. **16**, 072001 (2014). X.-Y. Lü, Y. Wu, J. R. Johansson, H. Jing, J. Zhang, and F. Nori, Squeezed Optomechanics with Phase-Matched Amplification and Dissipation, Phys. Rev. Lett. **114**, 093602 (2015).
P.-B. Li, H.-R. Li, and F.-L. Li, Enhanced electromechanical coupling of a nanomechanical resonator to coupled superconducting cavities, Sci. Rep. **6**, 19065 (2016).
Marc-Antoine Lemonde, N. Didier, and A. A. Clerk, Enhanced nonlinear interactions in quantum optomechanics via mechanical amplification, Nat. Commun. **7**, 11338 (2016).
See Supplemental Material, which includes Refs. [@Ludwig2008; @Qian2012; @Buek1990; @Liu2017; @Schmidt1996; @Kang2003; @Sinclair2007; @Sinclair2008; @Matsko2003; @Kimble1998], for the analyses of the parameter space of the optomechanical model, the derivation of the approximate Hamiltonian $H_{\text{app}}$ and the evaluation of the parameter condition of the approximation, the detailed calculations of the applications of the generalized optomechanical coupling, and the discussions on the experimental implementation.
M. Ludwig, B. Kubala, and F. Marquardt, The optomechanical instability in the quantum regime, New J. Phys. **10**, 095013 (2008). J. Qian, A. A. Clerk, K. Hammerer, and F. Marquardt, Quantum Signatures of the Optomechanical Instability, Phys. Rev. Lett. **109**, 253601 (2012). F. A. M. de Oliveira, M. S. Kim, P. L. Knight, and V. Buek, Properties of displaced number states, Phys. Rev. A **41**, 2645 (1990).
T. Liu, Y. Zhang, B.-Q. Guo, C.-S. Yu, and W.-N. Zhang, Circuit QED: cross-Kerr effect induced by a superconducting qutrit without classical pulses, Quantum. Inf. Process. **16**, 209 (2017). H. Schmidt and A. Imamoǧlu, Giant Kerr nonlinearities obtained by electromagnetically induced transparency, Opt. Lett. **21**, 1936 (1996). H. Kang and Y. Zhu, Observation of Large Kerr Nonlinearity at Low Light Intensities, Phys. Rev. Lett. **91**, 093601 (2003). G. F. Sinclair and N. Korolkova, Cross-Kerr interaction in a four-level atomic system, Phys. Rev. A **76**, 033803 (2007). G. F. Sinclair and N. Korolkova, Effective cross-Kerr Hamiltonian for a nonresonant four-level atom, Phys. Rev. A **77**, 033843 (2008).
A. B. Matsko, I. Novikova, G. R. Welch, and M. S. Zubairy, Enhancement of Kerr nonlinearity by multiphoton coherence, Opt. Lett. **28**, 96 (2003).
H. J. Kimble, Strong Interactions of Single Atoms and Photons in Cavity QED, Phys. Scr. **T76**, 127 (1998).
D. Hu, S.-Y. Huang, J.-Q. Liao, L. Tian, and H.-S. Goan, Quantum coherence in ultrastrong optomechanics, Phys. Rev. A **91**, 013812 (2015).
M. Paternostro, M. S. Kim, and B. S. Ham, Generation of entangled coherent states via cross-phase-modulation in a double electromagnetically induced transparency regime, Phys. Rev. A **67**, 023811 (2003). L.-M. Kuang and L. Zhou, Generation of atom-photon entangled states in atomic Bose-Einstein condensate via electromagnetically induced transparency, Phys. Rev. A **68**, 043606 (2003).
G. J. Milburn, Quantum optical Fredkin gate, Phys. Rev. Lett. **62**, 2124 (1989). D. Vitali, M. Fortunato, and P. Tombesi, Complete Quantum Teleportation with a Kerr Nonlinearity, Phys. Rev. Lett. **85**, 445 (2000). P. Kok, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, T. C. Ralph, J. P. Dowling, and G. J. Milburn, Linear optical quantum computing with photonic qubits, Rev. Mod. Phys. **79**, 135 (2007). K. Nemoto and W. J. Munro, Nearly Deterministic Linear Optical Controlled-NOT Gate, Phys. Rev. Lett. **93**, 250502 (2004).
N. Imoto, H. A. Haus, and Y. Yamamoto, Quantum nondemolition measurement of the photon number via the optical Kerr effect, Phys. Rev. A **32**, 2287 (1985). P. Grangier, J. A. Levenson, and J. P. Poizat, Quantum non-demolition measurements in optics, Nature (London) **396**, 537 (1998). S. Ding, G. Maslennikov, R. Hablütze, and D. Matsukevich, Cross-Kerr Nonlinearity for Phonon Counting, Phys. Rev. Lett. **119**, 193602 (2017).
Our numerical results on the photon blcoakde are calculated based on the quantum optics toolbox by Tan \[S. M. Tan, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclassical Opt. **1**, 424 (1999)\], and some important data are checked with the QuTiP package \[J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, Comput. Phys. Commun. **183**, 1760 (2012); **184**, 1234 (2013)\].
S. Mancini, V. I. Man’ko, and P. Tombesi, Ponderomotive control of quantum macroscopic coherence, Phys. Rev. A **55**, 3042 (1997) S. Bose, K. Jacobs, and P. L. Knight, Preparation of nonclassical states in cavities with a moving mirror, Phys. Rev. A **56**, 4175 (1997). S. Bose, K. Jacobs, and P. L. Knight, Scheme to probe the decoherence of a macroscopic object, Phys. Rev. A **59**, 3204 (1999).
S.-L. Zhu and Z. D. Wang, Unconventional Geometric Quantum Computation, Phys. Rev. Lett. **91**, 187902 (2003).
Z. Bialynicki-Birula, Properties of the Generalized Coherent State, Phys.Rev. **173**, 1207 (1968). A. Miranowicz, R. Tanaś, and S. Kielich, Generation of discrete superpositions of coherent states in the anharmonic oscillator model, Quantum Opt. **2**, 253 (1990).
S. M. Barnett and P. M. Radmore, *Methods in Theoretical Quantum Optics* (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1997).
S. Rebić, J. Twamley, and G. J. Milburn, Giant Kerr Nonlinearities in Circuit Quantum Electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. **103**, 150503 (2009).
Y. Hu, G.-Q. Ge, S. Chen, X.-F. Yang, and Y.-L. Chen, Cross-Kerr-effect induced by coupled Josephson qubits in circuit quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. A **84**, 012329 (2011).
S. E. Nigg, H. Paik, B. Vlastakis, G. Kirchmair, S. Shankar, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, R. J. Schoelkopf, and S. M. Girvin, Black-Box Superconducting Circuit Quantization, Phys. Rev. Lett. **108**, 240502 (2012).
J. Bourassa, F. Beaudoin, Jay M. Gambetta, and A. Blais, Josephson-junction-embedded transmission-line resonators: From Kerr medium to in-line transmon, Phys. Rev. A **86**, 013814 (2012).
I. C. Hoi, A. F. Kockum, T. Palomaki, T. M. Stace, B. Fan, L. Tornberg, S. R. Sathyamoorthy, G. Johansson, P. Delsing, and C. M. Wilson, Giant Cross-Kerr Effect for Propagating Microwaves Induced by an Artificial Atom, Phys. Rev. Lett. **111**, 053601 (2013).
E. T. Holland, B. Vlastakis, R. W. Heeres, M. J. Reagor, U. Vool, Z. Leghtas, L. Frunzio, G. Kirchmair, M. H. Devoret, M. Mirrahimi, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Single-Photon-Resolved Cross-Kerr Interaction for Autonomous Stabilization of Photon-Number States, Phys. Rev. Lett. **115**, 180501 (2015).
J. Majer, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, Jens Koch, B. R. Johnson, J. A. Schreier, L. Frunzio, D. I. Schuster, A. A. Houck, A. Wallraff, A. Blais, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Coupling superconducting qubits via a cavity bus, Nature (London) **449**, 443 (2007). J. D. Thompson, B. M. Zwickl, A. M. Jayich, F. Marquardt, S. M. Girvin, and J. G. E. Harris, Strong dispersive coupling of a high-finesse cavity to a micromechanical membrane, Nature (London) **452**, 72 (2008). J. C. Sankey, C. Yang, B. M. Zwickl, A. M. Jayich, and J. G. E. Harris, Strong and tunable nonlinear optomechanical coupling in a low-loss system, Nat. Phys. **6**, 707 (2010). M. Karuza, M. Galassi, C. Biancofiore, C. Molinelli, R. Natali, P. Tombesi, G. Di Giuseppe, and D. Vitali, Tunable linear and quadratic optomechanical coupling for a tilted membrane within an optical cavity: theory and experiment, J. Opt. **15**, 025704 (2013).
Z. R. Gong, H. Ian, Y.-x. Liu, C. P. Sun, and F. Nori, Effective Hamiltonian approach to the Kerr nonlinearity in an optomechanical system, Phys. Rev. A **80**, 065801 (2009). F. L. Semião and A. Vidiella-Barranco, Effective cross-Kerr nonlinearity and robust phase gates with trapped ions, Phys. Rev. A **72**, 064305 (2005). C. Maurer, C. Becher, C. Russo, J. Eschner, and R. Blatt, A single-photon source based on a single Ca$^{+}$ ion, New J. Phys. **6**, 94 (2004).
**Supplementary materials for “Generalized Ultrastrong Optomechanics"**
This document consists of four parts: (I) Analyses of the parameter space of the optomechanical model; (II) Derivation of the approximate Hamiltonian $H_{\text{app}}$ and evaluation of the parameter condition of the approximation; (III) Detailed calculations of the applications of the generalized optomechanical coupling; (IV) Discussions on the experimental implementation.
I. Analyses of the parameter space of the optomechanical model
==============================================================
In this section, we present some analyses on the parameter space of a standard cavity optomechanical system driven by a monochromatic field. First of all, we want to point out that the notations in this section are independent of the notations used in the main text and other sections in this supplemental material. This is because the motivation of this section is just to discuss the parameter space of a typical optomechanical system without other additional interaction terms.
For a typical optomechanical model, it is formed by a single-mode cavity field coupled to a single-mode mechanical oscillation via a radiation-pressure interaction (i.e., the optomechanical coupling). In order to manipulate this coupled system, a monochromatic laser field is usually introduced to drive the cavity field. The Hamiltonian of this system reads $$H=\omega_{a}a^{\dagger}a+\omega_{b}b^{\dagger}b-g_{0}a^{\dagger}a(b^{\dagger}+b)+(\Omega_{a}a^{\dag}e^{-i\omega_{d}t}+\Omega_{a}^{\ast}ae^{i\omega_{d}t}), \label{Hoptdrivn}$$ where $a$ ($a^{\dagger}$) and $b$ ($b^{\dagger}$) are the annihilation (creation) operators of the cavity field and the mechanical mode, respectively, with the corresponding resonance frequencies $\omega_{a}$ and $\omega_{b}$. The parameter $g_{0}$ is the single-photon optomechanical-coupling strength between the cavity field and the mechanical mode. The parameters $\omega_{d}$ and $\Omega_{a}$ are the driven frequency and driving amplitude, respectively. By performing a rotating transformation with respect to $\omega_{d}a^{\dag}a$, the time factor in Hamiltonian (\[Hoptdrivn\]) can be eliminated and then the Hamiltonian becomes $$H_{I}=\Delta_{a}a^{\dagger}a+\omega_{b}b^{\dagger}b-g_{0}a^{\dagger}a(b^{\dagger}+b)+(\Omega_{a}a^{\dag}+\Omega_{a}^{\ast}a), \label{Hopttimeindep}$$ where the driving detuning $\Delta_{a}=\omega_{a}-\omega_{d}$ is introduced.
To include the dissipations in this system, we assume that the cavity mode is coupled to a vacuum bath and the mechanical mode is coupled to a heat bath at a finite temperature. In this case, the evolution of the optomechanical system is governed by the quantum master equation $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\rho}=i[\rho,H_{I}]+\gamma_{a}\mathcal{D}[a]\rho+\gamma_{b}(\bar{n}_{b}+1)\mathcal{D}[b]\rho+\gamma_{b}\bar{n}_{b}\mathcal{D}[b^{\dag}]\rho,\label{mastereqori} \label{Hopttimeindep}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{D}[o]\rho=o\rho o^{\dagger}-(o^{\dagger}o\rho+\rho o^{\dagger}o)/2$ is the standard Lindblad superoperator for bosonic-mode damping. The parameters $\gamma_{a}$ and $\gamma_{b}$ are the damping rates of the cavity mode and the mechanical mode, respectively. The parameter $\bar{n}_{b}$ is the thermal excitation occupation number of mode $b$’s heat bath.
In a typical open cavity optomechanical system, the relating parameters can be listed as: $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{a}&\rightarrow& \textrm{cavity field resonance frequency},\nonumber\\
\omega_{b}&\rightarrow& \textrm{mechanical mode resonance frequency},\nonumber\\
g_{0}&\rightarrow& \textrm{single-photon optomechanical-coupling strength},\nonumber\\
\Omega_{a}&\rightarrow& \textrm{cavity field driving magnitude}, \textrm{tunable parameter},\nonumber\\
\Delta_{a}&=&\omega_{a}-\omega_{d}\rightarrow\textrm{cavity field driving detuning}, \textrm{tunable parameter through the driving frequency $\omega_{d}$},\nonumber\\
\gamma_{a}&\rightarrow& \textrm{cavity field decay rate},\nonumber\\
\gamma_{b}&\rightarrow& \textrm{mechanical mode deday rate},\nonumber\\
\bar{n}_{b}&\rightarrow& \textrm{thermal excitation occupation number of the mechanical environment}.\end{aligned}$$
Below we will analyze the relationship among these parameters. In this system, the cavity frequency is usually sufficient large such that the thermal excitation occupation number in the cavity’s bath is negligible. From the view point of energy level transition, the cavity driving detuning $\Delta_{a}$ is a more important parameter to affect the dynamics of the system, and $\Delta_{a}$ is a tunable parameter via changing the driving frequency $\omega_{d}$. The mechanical frequency $\omega_{b}$ is an important parameter in this system because the ratio $\omega_{b}/\gamma_{a}>1$ is the sideband-resolution condition. This condition decides if the phonon sidebands can be resolved from the cavity emission spectrum. The single-photon optomechanical-coupling strength $g_{0}$ is also a very important parameter. This is because, on one hand, this ratio $g_{0}/\gamma_{a}$ is used to characterize the single-photon strong-coupling regime in optomechanics. Only when $g_{0}>\gamma_{a}$, the optomechanical phenomenon induced by a single photon can be observed in this system. On the other hand, the optomechanical coupling describes a constant force performed on the mechanical resonator and hence this is an unresonant interaction with a detuning $\omega_{b}$. In order to create quantum superposition of macroscopically distinct states, the relation $g_{0}/\omega_{b}>1$ should be satisfied. In few-photon optomechanics, the involved photon number is small and hence the driving magnitude $\Omega_{a}$ should be much smaller than the cavity-field decay rate, i.e., $\Omega_{a}/\gamma_{a}\ll1$. As described above, the cavity-field decay rate $\gamma_{a}$ is an important parameter because this quantity determines the condition for the sideband resolution and the single-photon strong coupling. In most optomechanical systems, the decay rate of the mechanical mode is very small. However, the thermal excitation number $\bar{n}_{b}$ in mode $b$ is an important parameter. This is because the thermal noise will prevent the observation of quantum effect in this system. As a result, the system should be cooled in advance to approach its ground state for observing quantum effects.
![(Color online) A parameter space diagram for cavity optomechanics in the weak-driving case. The parameter space is described by the single-photon optomechanical-coupling strength $g_{0}$, the photon decay rate $\gamma_{a}$, the resonance frequency $\omega_{b}$ of the mechanical resonator.[]{data-label="parameterspace"}](paraspace.eps){width="70.00000%"}
To analyze the parameter space, below we will focus on these three important parameters $g_{0}$, $\omega_{b}$, and $\gamma_{a}$. Usually, there are six cases of distribution for the three parameters, as shown in Fig. \[parameterspace\](a). Relating to the single-photon optomechanical-coupling strength $g_{0}$, there exist three important parameter regimes: (i) The single-photon strong-coupling condition $g_{0}>\gamma_{a}$ [@Nunnenkamp2011; @Rabl2011], which is also related to the quantum parameter $g_{0}/\gamma_{a}>1$ [@Ludwig2008; @Qian2012], this condition guarantees that the cavity frequency shift caused by a zero-point fluctuation of the mechanical resonator can be resolved from the cavity spectrum. (ii) The strong dispersive coupling condition $g_{0}^{2}/\omega_{b}>\gamma_{a}$ [@Rabl2011], which shows the condition for resolving the photonic Kerr nonlinear energy nonharmonicity from the cavity spectrum when $g_{0}\ll\omega_{b}$. (iii) The deep-strong coupling condition $g_{0}>\omega_{b}$, this condition depicts if the mechanical displacement forced by a single photon can be distinguished from the mechanical vacuum state. In addition, we should mention the resolved-sideband limit $\omega_{b}\gg\gamma_{a}$, which is not related to the coupling strength, but it is also very important in nonlinear optomechanics. This limit guarantees that the phonon sidebands can be well resolved in the cavity emission spectrum. Though the former three parameter regimes are very important in nonlinear optomechanics, they are not accessible by current experimental technologies. Based on the above analyses, we can introduce Fig. \[parameterspace\](b) to describe the parameter space of an optomechanical system. The line $\gamma_{a}/\omega_{b}=1$ characterizes the sideband resolution condition. In Fig. \[parameterspace\](b), the line $g_{0}/\omega_{b}=1$ describes the condition for creation of quantum superposition of macroscopically distinct states. The diagonal line $\gamma_{a}/g_{0}=1$ confirms that if the system satisfies the single-photon strong-coupling condition. In addition, the curve $L$ is determined by the relation $g_{0}^{2}/\omega_{b}=\gamma_{a}$. We should emphasize that the parameter condition $g_{0}^{2}/\omega_{b}>\gamma_{a}$ for evaluation of the photon blockade effect only works in the case of $g_{0}\ll\omega_{b}$. This is because the phonon sideband states will participate the photon transitions in the optomechanical system. The photon blockade effect is not monotonously stronger for a larger value of $g_{0}$. In particular, at the photon sideband resonance $g_{0}/\omega_{b}=\sqrt{m/2}$ for positive integers $m$, there is no photon blockade effect because the second photon transition is resonant [@Liao2013]. In typical few-photon optomechanics, there are two important tasks. One is realization of the photon blockade effect, and the other is the generation of mechanical cat states. For observing photon blockade in optomechanics, the two conditions $\omega_{b}\gg \gamma_{a}$ and $g_{0}>\gamma _{a}$ (also $g_{0}^{2}/\omega_{b}>\gamma_{a}$) should be satisfied. It means that region $A$ and part of region $B$ are ok for observing photon blockade effect. To create a macroscopic mechanical cat state, the conditions $g_{0}>\omega_{b}$ and $\omega_{b}>\gamma_{a}$ should be satisfied. Therefore, only the region $A$ is ok. Note the the condition $\omega_{b}>\gamma_{a}$ guarantees that the maximal displacement has been created before the single photon emits out of the cavity.
II. Derivation of the approximate Hamiltonian $H_{\text{app}}$ and evaluation of the parameter condition of the approximation
=============================================================================================================================
In this section, we present a detailed derivation of the approximate Hamiltonian $H_{\text{app}}$. Hereafter, the notations are consistent with those used in the main text. We consider two bosonic modes $a$ and $b$ coupled via the cross-Kerr interaction. One of the two modes (for instance mode $b$) is driven by a monochromatic field. The Hamiltonian of the system reads $$H=\omega_{a}a^{\dagger}a+\omega_{b}b^{\dagger}b+\chi a^{\dagger}ab^{\dagger}b
+(\Omega_{b}b^{\dagger}e^{-i\omega_{Lb}t}+\Omega_{b}^{\ast}be^{i\omega_{Lb}t}),$$ where $a$ ($a^{\dagger}$) and $b$ ($b^{\dagger}$) are the annihilation (creation) operators of the two bosonic modes, with the corresponding resonance frequencies $\omega_{a}$ and $\omega_{b}$. The parameter $\chi$ is the coupling strength of the cross-Kerr interaction between the two modes. The mode $b$ is driven by a monochromatic field, with $\omega_{Lb}$ and $\Omega_{b}$ being the driving frequency and amplitude, respectively.
In a rotating frame with respect to $H_{0}=\omega_{Lb}b^{\dagger}b$, the Hamiltonian becomes $$H_{I}=\omega_{a}a^{\dagger}a+\Delta_{b}b^{\dagger}b+\chi a^{\dagger}ab^{\dagger}b+(\Omega_{b}b^{\dagger}+\Omega_{b}^{\ast}b),$$ where we introduce the driving detuning $\Delta_{b}=\omega_{b}-\omega_{Lb}$.
In the presence of dissipations, the evolution of the system is governed by the quantum master equation $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\rho}&=&i[\rho,H_{I}] +\frac{\gamma_{a}}{2}(\bar{n}_{a}+1)(2a\rho a^{\dagger}-a^{\dagger}a\rho-\rho a^{\dagger}a)
+\frac{\gamma_{a}}{2}\bar{n}_{a}(2a^{\dagger }\rho a-aa^{\dagger}\rho-\rho aa^{\dagger})\nonumber \\
&&+\frac{\gamma_{b}}{2}(\bar{n}_{b}+1)(2b\rho b^{\dagger}-b^{\dagger}b\rho-\rho b^{\dagger}b)
+\frac{\gamma_{b}}{2}\bar{n}_{b}(2b^{\dagger}\rho b-bb^{\dagger}\rho-\rho bb^{\dagger}),\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma_{a}$ ($\gamma_{b}$) and $\bar{n}_{a}$ ($\bar{n}_{b}$) are the damping rate and environment thermal excitation occupation number of mode $a$ ($b$), respectively. In the strong-driving regime, the excitation number in mode $b$ is large and then mode $b$ contains a coherent part. This coherent part can be seen by performing the following displacement transformation $$\rho^{\prime}=D_{b}(\beta)\rho D_{b}^{\dagger}(\beta),$$ where $\rho^{\prime}$ is the density matrix of the two-mode system in the displacement representation, $D_{b}(\beta)=\exp(\beta b^{\dagger}-\beta^{\ast}b)$ is the displacement operator, and $\beta$ is the coherent displacement amplitude, which needs to be determined in the transformed master equation. Under the displacement transformation, the left-hand side of the master equation becomes $$\dot{\rho}=\frac{d}{dt}[D_{b}^{\dagger}(\beta) \rho^{\prime }D_{b}(\beta)]
=\dot{D}_{b}^{\dagger}(\beta) \rho^{\prime}D_{b}(\beta)+D_{b}^{\dagger}(\beta) \dot{\rho}^{\prime }D_{b}(\beta)+D_{b}^{\dagger}(\beta)\rho^{\prime}\dot{D}_{b}(\beta).$$ In terms of the relations $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt}D_{b}(\beta) &=&\dot{D}_{b}(\beta)=\frac{1}{2}(\dot{\beta}\beta ^{\ast }-\beta \dot{\beta}^{\ast})D_{b}(\beta)+D_{b}(\beta)(\dot{\beta}b^{\dagger }-\dot{\beta}^{\ast }b), \nonumber \\
\frac{d}{dt}D_{b}^{\dagger}(\beta) &=&\dot{D}_{b}^{\dagger}(\beta) =-\frac{1}{2}( \dot{\beta}\beta^{\ast}-\beta\dot{\beta}^{\ast}) D_{b}^{\dagger }(\beta)+(\dot{\beta}^{\ast}b-\dot{\beta}b^{\dagger}) D_{b}^{\dagger}(\beta),\end{aligned}$$ the left-hand side of the master equation can be calculated as $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\rho}=\frac{d}{dt}[D_{b}^{\dagger}(\beta)\rho^{\prime}D_{b}(\beta)]=D_{b}^{\dagger}(\beta)\dot{\rho}^{\prime }D_{b}(\beta) +[D_{b}^{\dagger}(\beta) \rho ^{\prime}D_{b}(\beta),( \dot{\beta}b^{\dagger }-\dot{\beta}^{\ast}b)].\end{aligned}$$ Using the relations $$\begin{aligned}
D_{b}(\beta)bD_{b}^{\dagger}(\beta)&=&b-\beta,\hspace{1 cm}
D_{b}(\beta)b^{\dagger}D_{b}^{\dagger}(\beta)=b^{\dagger}-\beta^{\ast},\end{aligned}$$ we proceed to derive the transformed master equation as $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\rho}^{\prime}&=&i[\rho^{\prime},(\omega_{a}+\chi\beta^{\ast}\beta)a^{\dagger}a+\Delta_{b}b^{\dagger}b
+\chi a^{\dagger}ab^{\dagger}b-\chi\beta a^{\dagger}ab^{\dagger}-\chi\beta^{\ast}a^{\dagger}ab] \nonumber \\
&&+[\dot{\beta}+(i\Delta_{b}+\gamma_{b}/2)\beta -i\Omega_{b}](b^{\dagger}\rho^{\prime}-\rho^{\prime}b^{\dagger})
+[\dot{\beta}^{\ast}+(-i\Delta_{b}+\gamma_{b}/2)\beta^{\ast }+i\Omega _{b}^{\ast }](\rho^{\prime}b-b\rho^{\prime}) \nonumber \\
&&+\frac{\gamma_{a}}{2}(\bar{n}_{a}+1)(2a\rho^{\prime}a^{\dagger }-a^{\dagger }a\rho^{\prime }-\rho ^{\prime }a^{\dagger}a)
+\frac{\gamma_{a}}{2}\bar{n}_{a}(2a^{\dagger}\rho^{\prime}a-aa^{\dagger}\rho^{\prime}-\rho^{\prime }aa^{\dagger })\nonumber \\
&&+\frac{\gamma_{b}}{2}(\bar{n}_{b}+1)(2b\rho^{\prime}b^{\dagger }-b^{\dagger}b\rho^{\prime }-\rho ^{\prime }b^{\dagger}b)
+\frac{\gamma_{b}}{2}\bar{n}_{b}(2b^{\dagger}\rho^{\prime}b-bb^{\dagger}\rho ^{\prime}-\rho^{\prime }bb^{\dagger}).\end{aligned}$$ The coherent part can be determined in the displacement representation when the coherent displacement amplitude $\beta$ obeys the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\beta}+\left(i\Delta_{b}+\frac{\gamma_{b}}{2}\right)\beta-i\Omega_{b}=0.\label{betaEQ}\end{aligned}$$ Then the quantum master equation in the displacement representation becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\rho}^{\prime}&=&i[\rho^{\prime},H_{\text{tra}}]+\frac{\gamma_{a}}{2}(\bar{n}_{a}+1)( 2a\rho^{\prime}a^{\dagger}-a^{\dagger}a\rho^{\prime}-\rho^{\prime }a^{\dagger}a)+\frac{\gamma_{a}}{2}\bar{n}_{a}(2a^{\dagger}\rho^{\prime}a-aa^{\dagger}\rho^{\prime}-\rho^{\prime}aa^{\dagger})\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{\gamma_{b}}{2}(\bar{n}_{b}+1)(2b\rho^{\prime}b^{\dagger}-b^{\dagger}b\rho^{\prime}-\rho^{\prime}b^{\dagger}b)
+\frac{\gamma_{b}}{2}\bar{n}_{b}(2b^{\dagger}\rho^{\prime}b-bb^{\dagger}\rho^{\prime}-\rho^{\prime}bb^{\dagger}),\label{mateqexact}\end{aligned}$$ where the transformed Hamiltonian in the displacement representation becomes $$H_{\text{tra}}=(\omega_{a}+\chi\beta^{\ast}\beta)a^{\dagger}a+\Delta_{b}b^{\dagger}b-\chi a^{\dagger}a(\beta b^{\dagger}+\beta^{\ast}b)+\chi a^{\dagger}ab^{\dagger }b.\label{Hamtrasformed}$$
Based on the tasks, we consider two cases of displacement: the steady-state displacement and the transient displacement. In the former case, the steady-state displacement amplitude can be obtained as $$\beta_{\text{ss}}=\frac{\Omega_{b}}{\Delta_{b}-i\gamma_{b}/2}.\label{betassolutn}$$ It can be seen from Eq. (\[betassolutn\]) that the coherent displacement amplitude $\beta_{\text{ss}}$ is tunable by choosing proper parameter $\Omega_{b}$ and $\Delta_{b}$. The value of $|\beta_{\text{ss}}|$ could be very large in the strong-driving case $\Omega_{b}\gg\{\Delta_{b},\gamma_{b}\}$. For the transient-solution case, the optomechanical coupling becomes a time-dependent interaction. In particular, the interaction strength $g_{0}(t)$ is tailorable because we can obtain a desired $\beta(t)$ by designing a proper driving amplitude $\Omega_{b}(t)$.
In this work, we mainly focus on the steady-state displacement case, in which the time scale of the system approaching to its steady state is much shorter than other evolution time scales. In this case, the Hamiltonian becomes $$H_{\text{tra}}=\omega_{a}^{\prime}a^{\dagger}a+\Delta_{b}b^{\dagger}b-g_{0}a^{\dagger}a(b^{\dagger}e^{i\theta}+be^{-i\theta})+\chi a^{\dagger}ab^{\dagger}b.\label{Hamtrasformedss}$$ where we introduced the normalized frequency $\omega_{a}^{\prime}=\omega_{a}+\chi\vert\beta_{\text{ss}}\vert^{2}$, the enhanced coupling strength $$\begin{aligned}
g_{0}=\chi\vert\beta_{\text{ss}}\vert,\end{aligned}$$ and the phase angle $\theta$ of the quadrature operator of mode $b$, which is defined by $\beta_{\text{ss}}=\vert\beta_{\text{ss}}\vert e^{i\theta}$.
The motivation of ultrastrong optomechanics is to study the few-photon physics in optomechanical system, then we focus the few-photon regime, and under the condition $$\vert m\chi\vert \ll \Delta_{b},\label{approxcondition}$$ with $m$ being the largest photon number involved in the system, we can neglect the cross-Kerr interaction term to obtain the approximate Hamiltonian as $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\text{app}}=\omega_{a}^{\prime}a^{\dagger}a+\Delta_{b}b^{\dagger}b-g_{0}a^{\dagger}a(b^{\dagger}e^{i\theta}+be^{-i\theta}).\label{Hamapproxim}\end{aligned}$$ This approximate Hamiltonian is the main result of this work. Here we can see that the effective frequency of mode $b$ is given by $\Delta_{b}$, and that the effective coupling strength of the generalized optomechanical coupling is given by $g_{0}\equiv\chi|\beta_{\text{ss}}|$. The effective frequency $\Delta_{b}$ is controllable by tuning the driving frequency $\omega_{Lb}$, and the generalized coupling strength could be largely enhanced to enter the ultrastrong coupling regime by choosing a proper driving amplitude $\Omega_{b}$. The form of the optomechanical coupling is generalized because this coupling takes the form of a product of the occupation number operator of mode $a$ and the quadrature operator of mode $b$. The quadrature angle $\theta$ can be tuned by choosing the driving frequency $\omega_{Lb}$ and amplitude $\Omega_{b}$.
In the derivation of the approximate Hamiltonian $H_{\text{app}}$, the only approximation is the omission of the cross-Kerr interaction term in the transformed Hamiltonian $H_{\text{tra}}$. The condition under which the approximation is justified is that the frequency shift of mode $b$ induced by the cross-Kerr interaction should be much smaller than its effective frequency $\Delta_{b}$ in the displacement representation. Blow, we evaluate the reasonability of this approximation by calculating the fidelity between the exact state and the approximate state. To avoid the crosstalk from the dissipations, we first consider the closed-system case, in which the evolutions of the exact state and the approximate state are governed by the exact Hamiltonian $H_{\text{tra}}$ and the approximate Hamiltonian $H_{\text{app}}$, respectively. We assume that the initial state of the system is $|\psi(0)\rangle=|m\rangle_{a}|0\rangle_{b}$ so that we can calculate the exact state and the approximate state analytically.
![(Color online) The fidelity defined by Eq. (\[Fidvstclosed\]) as a function of the evolution time when the parameters $\chi$ and $\beta$ take different values: (a) $\chi=0.001$ and $\beta=1000$, (b) $\chi=0.01$ and $\beta=100$, and (c) $\chi=0.1$ and $\beta=10$. The initial state of the system is $|1\rangle_{a}|0\rangle_{b}$.[]{data-label="Fvst1photonvarichi"}](Fvst1photonvarichi.eps){width="100.00000%"}
Based on the exact Hamiltonian (\[Hamtrasformed\]), the exact state of the system at time $t$ can be obtained as $$\begin{aligned}
\vert\psi_{\text{ext}}(t)\rangle=e^{-im\omega_{a}^{\prime}t}e^{i\zeta(t)}\vert m\rangle_{a}\vert\eta(t)\rangle_{b},\end{aligned}$$ where the phase and the displacement amplitude are defined by $$\zeta(t)=\frac{m^{2}\chi^{2}\vert\beta_{\text{ss}}\vert^{2}}{(\Delta_{b}+m\chi)^{2}}[(\Delta_{b}+m\chi)t-\sin[(\Delta_{b}+m\chi)t]],$$ and $$\eta(t)=\frac{m\chi\beta_{\text{ss}}}{(\Delta_{b}+m\chi)}[1-e^{-i(\Delta_{b}+m\chi)t}].$$ Similarly, the approximate state of the system at time $t$ can be obtained, in terms of the approximate Hamiltonian (\[Hamapproxim\]), as $$\begin{aligned}
\vert\psi_{\text{app}}(t)\rangle=e^{-im\omega_{a}^{\prime}t}e^{i\zeta^{\prime}(t)}\vert m\rangle_{a}\vert\eta^{\prime}(t)\rangle_{b}.\end{aligned}$$ The phase and the displacement amplitude in this case are defined by $$\zeta^{\prime}(t)=\frac{m^{2}\chi^{2}\vert\beta_{\text{ss}}\vert^{2}}{\Delta_{b}^{2}}[\Delta_{b}t-\sin(\Delta_{b}t)],$$ and $$\eta^{\prime}(t)=\frac{m\chi\beta_{\text{ss}}}{\Delta_{b}}(1-e^{-i\Delta_{b}t}).$$ The fidelity between the exact state $\vert\psi_{\text{ext}}(t)\rangle$ and the approximate state $\vert\psi_{\text{app}}(t)\rangle$ can be calculated as $$\begin{aligned}
F(t)&=&\left\vert\langle\psi_{\text{app}}(t)\vert\psi_{\text{ext}}(t)\rangle\right\vert\nonumber\\
&=&\exp\left[-\frac{1}{2}\left\vert\frac{m\chi\beta_{\text{ss}}}{\Delta_{b}}(1-e^{-i\Delta_{b}t})
-\frac{m\chi\beta_{\text{ss}}}{(\Delta_{b}+m\chi)}(1-e^{-i(\Delta_{b}+m\chi)t})\right\vert^{2}\right].\label{Fidvstclosed}\end{aligned}$$ The properties of the fidelity corresponding to the single-photon initial state (i.e., $m=1$) have been shown in the main text. We want to point out, the fidelity is very high at the time scale characterized by the resonance frequency $\Delta_{b}$ (i.e., the typical time scale for manipulation of the mechanical mode). In addition, we show the fidelity in Fig. \[Fvst1photonvarichi\] as a function the evolution time. We can see that the fidelity will experience an approximate periodic oscillation between zero and one, with the time period $2\pi/\chi$, which is much longer than the time scale $\pi/\Delta_{b}$ for generation of mechanical cat states because of $\Delta_{b}\gg\chi$. For our purpose of state generation, the time scale is much shorter than the oscillation period, and hence the fidelity in our state generation scheme is very high. In addition, for a small value of $\chi/\Delta_{b}$, the fidelity experiences an approximate sinusoidal oscillation. With the increase of $\chi/\Delta_{b}$, the fidelity has some slight deviation of the sinusoidal function. In the presence of dissipation, the relaxation time is of the order of $1/\gamma_{a}$ and $1/\gamma_{b}$. The relaxation time is also much shorter than the time scale $2\pi/\chi$ because of $\gamma_{a,b}\gg\chi$, which shows that our scheme works in the weak-coupling regime of the cross-Kerr interaction.
![(Color online) The dynamics of the fidelity defined by Eq. (\[fidelityopen\]) between the exact state and the approximate state in the open system case, when the parameter $\chi$ takes different values: (a) and (d) $\chi/\Delta_{b}=0.001$, (b) and (e) $\chi/\Delta_{b}=0.01$, and (c) and (f) $\chi/\Delta_{b}=0.1$. Here, the parameter $|\beta_{\text{ss}}|$ is chosen such that $\chi|\beta_{\text{ss}}|=\Delta_{b}$. We choose the initial state of the two modes as (a)-(c) $|1\rangle_{a}|0\rangle_{b}$ and (d)-(f) $|\alpha_{0}\rangle_{a}|\beta_{0}\rangle_{b}$ with $\alpha_{0}=\beta_{0}=0.2$. We take $\omega'_{a}=0$ because the fidelity is independent of this variable $\omega'_{a}$. Other parameters are given by $\bar{n}_{a}=\bar{n}_{b}=0$.[]{data-label="FvstopenSM"}](FvstopenSM.eps){width="100.00000%"}
Below, we investigate the fidelity in the presence of dissipations. In this case, the evolution of the exact state and the approximate state is, respectively, governed by the exact master equation (\[mateqexact\]) and the approximation master equation, which takes the same form as Eq. (\[mateqexact\]) under the replacement $H_{\text{tra}}\rightarrow H_{\text{app}}$. To unify describe the equations of motion for the density matrix elements, we introduce a parameter $\eta$ into the equation of motion by the replacement $\chi\rightarrow \eta\chi$ only in the last term in Eq. (\[Hamtrasformed\]). The values of $\eta=1$ and $\eta=0$ correspond to the exact solution case and the approximate solution case, respectively. By expressing the density matrix of the two-mode system in the number-state representation as $$\rho^{\prime}=\sum_{m,j,n,k=0}^{\infty}\rho^{\prime}_{m,j,n,k}\vert m\rangle_{a}\vert j\rangle_{b}\;_{a}\langle n\vert_{b}\!\langle k\vert,\hspace{1 cm}\rho_{m,j,n,k}^{\prime}=\;_{a}\!\langle m\vert_{b}\!\langle j\vert\rho^{\prime}\vert n\rangle_{a}\vert k\rangle_{b},$$ we obtain the equations of motion for the density matrix elements as $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\rho}_{m,j,n,k}^{\prime}&=&\left\{i(n-m)\omega_{a}^{\prime}+i(k-j)\Delta_{b}+i\eta(nk-mj)\chi\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.-\frac{\gamma_{a}}{2}[(m+n)(2\bar{n}_{a}+1)+2\bar{n}_{a}]-\frac{\gamma_{b}}{2}[(j+k)(2\bar{n}_{b}+1) +2\bar{n}_{b}]\right\}\rho_{m,j,n,k}^{\prime}\nonumber\\
&&-in\sqrt{k+1}\chi\beta\rho_{m,j,n,k+1}^{\prime}-in\sqrt{k}\chi\beta^{\ast}\rho_{m,j,n,k-1}^{\prime}+im\sqrt{j+1}\chi \beta^{\ast}\rho
_{m,j+1,n,k}^{\prime}+im\sqrt{j}\chi\beta\rho_{m,j-1,n,k}^{\prime}\nonumber\\
&&+\gamma_{a}(\bar{n}_{a}+1)\sqrt{(m+1)(n+1)}\rho_{m+1,j,n+1,k}^{\prime}+\gamma_{a}\bar{n}_{a}\sqrt{mn}\rho_{m-1,j,n-1,k}^{\prime}\nonumber\\
&&+\gamma_{b}(\bar{n}_{b}+1)\sqrt{(j+1)(k+1)}\rho_{m,j+1,n,k+1}^{\prime}+\gamma_{b}\bar{n}_{b}\sqrt{jk}\rho_{m,j-1,n,k-1}^{\prime}.\end{aligned}$$ Based on the initial conditions, we can solve the equations of motion for these density matrix elements. Without loss of generality, in the simulations we assume that the initial state of the system is $\vert\alpha\rangle_{a}\otimes\vert\beta\rangle_{b}$, where $\vert\alpha\rangle$ and $\vert\beta\rangle$ are coherent states, then we have $$\rho^{\prime}_{m,j,n,k}(0)=e^{-\vert\alpha\vert^{2}}e^{-\vert\beta\vert^{2}}\frac{\alpha^{m}\alpha^{\ast n}\beta^{j}\beta^{\ast k}}{\sqrt{m!j!n!k!}}.$$ We denote the density matrix corresponding to the two cases of $\eta=1$ and $\eta=0$ as $\rho_{\text{ext}}$ and $\rho_{\text{app}}$, respectively, then the fidelity between the exact density matrix $\rho_{\text{ext}}$ and the approximate density matrix $\rho_{\text{app}}$ can be calculated by $$F=\text{Tr}\left[\sqrt{\sqrt{\rho_{\text{ext}}}\rho_{\text{app}}\sqrt{\rho_{\text{ext}}}}\right].\label{fidelityopen}$$ In Fig. \[FvstopenSM\], we plot the fidelity given by Eq. (\[fidelityopen\]) as a function of the evolution time in the open-system case. Here we choose the initial state of the system as either $|1\rangle_{a}|0\rangle_{b}$ or $|\alpha\rangle_{a}|\beta\rangle_{b}$. In addition, we choose the parameters as $\chi/\Delta_{b}=0.001$, $0.01$, and $0.1$. The value of the displacement amplitude $|\beta_{\text{ss}}|$ is chosen such that $\chi|\beta_{\text{ss}}|=\Delta_{b}$. We can see that the fidelity is larger for a smaller value of the ratio $\chi/\Delta_{b}$, which is in consistent with the analysis on the parameter condition of the approximation. Owing to the dissipation, the fidelity experiences some oscillation and then approaches gradually to a stationary value. For a given value of $\chi$, the fidelity approaches to its stationary value in a faster manner for a larger decay rate.
III. Detailed calculations of the applications of the generalized optomechanical coupling
=========================================================================================
Below, we present the calculations of three applications of the generalized optomechanical coupling: the photon blockade effect in mode $a$, the generation of the Schrödinger cat state in mode $b$, and the geometrically induced Kerr interaction and the generation of the Schrödinger cat and kitten state.
1. Photon blockade effect in mode $a$
-------------------------------------
In this section, we study the photon blockade effect based on the generalized ultrastrong optomechanical coupling. For the Hamiltonian $$H_{\text{app}}=\omega_{a}^{\prime}a^{\dagger}a+\Delta_{b}b^{\dagger}b-g_{0}a^{\dagger}a(b^{\dagger}e^{i\theta}+be^{-i\theta}),$$ it can be diagonalized by the canonical transformation $$\begin{aligned}
V=e^{\frac{g_{0}}{\Delta_{b}}a^{\dagger }a(b^{\dagger}e^{i\theta}-be^{-i\theta})}.\end{aligned}$$ The transformed Hamiltonian becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{H}_{\text{app}}=V^{\dagger}H_{\text{app}}V =\omega_{a}^{\prime}a^{\dagger}a+\Delta_{b}b^{\dagger }b-\frac{g_{0}^{2}}{\Delta_{b}}a^{\dagger}aa^{\dagger}a.\end{aligned}$$ The effective Kerr parameter is given by $g_{0}^{2}/\Delta_{b}$, which is largely enhanced by either increasing the coupling strength $g_{0}$ or choosing a small driving detuning $\Delta_{b}$. We can choose proper parameters such that the Kerr parameter is much larger than the decay rate of mode $a$, i.e., $g_{0}^{2}/\Delta_{b}\gg\gamma_{a}$, then this Kerr effect can be used to realize the photon blockade effect.
To observe the photon blockade effect in mode $a$, we introduce a weak driving on mode $a$. Similar to the previous discussions, a strong driving is still performed on mode $b$ to enhance the optomechanical coupling. Then the Hamiltonian of the system can be written as $$H'=\omega_{a}a^{\dagger}a+\omega_{b}b^{\dagger}b+\chi a^{\dagger}ab^{\dagger}b+(\Omega_{a}a^{\dagger}e^{-i\omega_{La}t}+\Omega_{a}^{\ast}a^{\dagger}e^{i\omega_{La}t})+(\Omega_{b}b^{\dagger}e^{-i\omega_{Lb}t}+\Omega
_{b}^{\ast}be^{i\omega_{Lb}t}),$$ Where $\Omega_{a}$ ($\Omega_{b}$) and $\omega_{La}$ ($\omega_{Lb}$) are the driving amplitude and frequency of mode $a$ ($b$). For observation of photon blockade, the driving field on mode $a$ is weak, i.e., $\Omega_{a}/\gamma_{a}\ll 1$. For enhancement of the optomechanical coupling, the driving of mode $b$ is strong. i.e., $\Omega_{b}/\gamma_{b}\gg 1$. Then we can treat the driving on mode $a$ as a perturbation in our calculations.
In a rotating frame with respect to $$H'_{0}=\omega_{La}a^{\dagger}a+\omega_{Lb}b^{\dagger}b,$$ the Hamiltonian becomes $$H'_{I}=\Delta_{a}a^{\dagger}a+\Delta_{b}b^{\dagger}b+\chi a^{\dagger}ab^{\dagger}b
+(\Omega_{b}b^{\dagger}+\Omega_{b}^{\ast}b)+(\Omega_{a}a^{\dagger}+\Omega_{a}^{\ast}a^{\dagger})$$ where we introduce the driving detunings $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{a}=\omega_{a}-\omega_{La},\hspace{1 cm}\Delta_{b}=\omega_{b}-\omega_{Lb}.\end{aligned}$$
In the open-system case, we add the same dissipation terms as the derivation in the above section. Since the driving on mode $a$ is weak and the driving on mode $b$ is strong, then we only perform the displacement transformation on mode $b$ as $\rho^{\prime}=D_{b}(\beta)\rho D_{b}^{\dagger}(\beta)$. Based on the fact that the displacement transformation operator commutates with the driving term of mode $a$, then the quantum master equation in the displacement representation reads $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\rho}^{\prime}&=&i\left[\rho^{\prime},H'_{\text{tra}}\right]\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{\gamma_{a}}{2}\left(\bar{n}_{a}+1\right)\left(2a\rho^{\prime}a^{\dagger}-a^{\dagger}a\rho^{\prime}-\rho^{\prime}a^{\dagger
}a\right)+\frac{\gamma_{a}}{2}\bar{n}_{a}\left(2a^{\dagger}\rho^{\prime}a-aa^{\dagger}\rho^{\prime}-\rho^{\prime}aa^{\dagger}\right)\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{\gamma_{b}}{2}\left(\bar{n}_{b}+1\right)\left(2b\rho^{\prime}b^{\dagger}-b^{\dagger}b\rho^{\prime}-\rho^{\prime}b^{\dagger
}b\right)+\frac{\gamma_{b}}{2}\bar{n}_{b}\left(2b^{\dagger}\rho^{\prime}b-bb^{\dagger}\rho^{\prime}-\rho^{\prime}bb^{\dagger}\right).\label{maseqphoblock}\end{aligned}$$ Here the transformed Hamiltonian is given by $$H'_{\text{tra}}=(\Delta_{a}+\chi\beta^{\ast}\beta)
a^{\dagger}a+\Delta_{b}b^{\dagger}b-\chi\beta a^{\dagger}ab^{\dagger}-\chi\beta^{\ast}a^{\dagger}ab+\chi a^{\dagger}ab^{\dagger}b+(\Omega_{a}a^{\dagger}+\Omega_{a}^{\ast}a^{\dagger}),$$ where the displacement amplitude $\beta$ is determined by Eq. (\[betaEQ\]).
Under the parameter condition (\[approxcondition\]) we can neglect the cross-Kerr interaction term to obtain the approximate Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
H'_{\text{app}}=\Delta_{a}^{\prime}a^{\dagger}a+\Delta_{b}b^{\dagger}b-g_{0}a^{\dagger}a(b^{\dagger}e^{i\theta}+be^{-i\theta})
+(\Omega_{a}a^{\dagger}+\Omega_{a}^{\ast}a^{\dagger}),\end{aligned}$$ where we also consider the steady-state displacement case and then $\Delta_{a}^{\prime}=\Delta_{a}+\chi\vert\beta_{\text{ss}}\vert^{2}$ and $g_{0}=\chi\vert\beta_{\text{ss}}\vert$. Below, we consider the case of $\theta=0$. Then the Hamiltonian becomes $$H'_{\text{app}}=\Delta_{a}^{\prime}a^{\dagger}a+\Delta_{b}b^{\dagger}b-g_{0}a^{\dagger}a(b^{\dagger}+b)+\chi a^{\dagger}ab^{\dagger}b+\Omega_{a}(a^{\dagger}+a).\label{happphoblock}$$ The undriven Hamiltonian of the system can be diagonalized as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\exp\left[-\frac{g_{0}a^{\dagger }a}{(\Delta_{b}+\chi a^{\dagger}a)}(b^{\dagger}-b)\right][
\Delta_{a}^{\prime }a^{\dagger}a+(\Delta_{b}+\chi a^{\dagger}a)b^{\dagger}b-g_{0}a^{\dagger}a(b^{\dagger}+b)]\exp\left[\frac{g_{0}a^{\dagger}a}{(\Delta_{b}+\chi
a^{\dagger}a)}(b^{\dagger}-b)\right]\nonumber \\
&=&\Delta_{a}^{\prime }a^{\dagger }a+(\Delta_{b}+\chi a^{\dagger}a)b^{\dagger}b-\frac{g_{0}^{2}(a^{\dagger}a)^{2}}{(\Delta_{b}+\chi a^{\dagger}a)}.\end{aligned}$$ Then the eigensystem of the undriven Hamiltonian can be obtained as $$\begin{aligned}
&&[\Delta_{a}^{\prime}a^{\dagger}a+(\Delta_{b}+\chi a^{\dagger}a)b^{\dagger}b-g_{0}a^{\dagger}a(b^{\dagger}+b)]\vert m\rangle_{a}\vert\tilde{j}(m)\rangle_{b}\nonumber\\
&=&\left[\Delta_{a}^{\prime }m+(\Delta_{b}+m\chi) j-\frac{g_{0}^{2}m^{2}}{(\Delta_{b}+\chi m)}\right]\vert m\rangle_{a}\vert\tilde{j}(m)\rangle_{b},\label{eigensystempb}\end{aligned}$$ where the photon-number-dependent displaced Fock state of mode $b$ is defined by $$\vert\tilde{j}(m)\rangle_{b}=\exp\left[\frac{g_{0}m}{(\Delta_{b}+\chi m)}(b^{\dagger}-b)\right]\vert j\rangle_{b}.$$
Equation (\[eigensystempb\]) shows the photonic nonlinearity in the eigenstate energy spectrum, and this energy-level nonharmonicity is the physical origin of the appearance of photon blockade. Under the parameter condition $\chi\ll\Delta_{b}$, we can make the approximation $\Delta_{b}+m\chi\approx\Delta_{b}$, and then the present case is reduced to the approximate Hamiltonian case. In our numerical simulations, we solve the quantum master equation (\[maseqphoblock\]) numerically under the replacement of $H'_{\text{tra}}\rightarrow H'_{\text{app}}$ in Eq. (\[happphoblock\]). By calculating the equal-time second-order correlation function $g^{(2)}(0)$ in the steady state, we can evaluate the photon blockade effect in this system. To show the photon blockade effect, in Fig. \[photonblockadeg2\] we plot the correlation function $g^{(2)}(0)$ of mode $a$ as a function of the displacement amplitude $|\beta_{\text{ss}}|$ and the decay rate $\gamma_{a}/\Delta_{b}$. Here we choose the driving detuning $\Delta_{a}=(\chi\beta_{\text{ss}}|)^{2}/(\Delta_{b}+\chi)$ such that the first-photon transition is resonant. We can see that the correlation function $g^{(2)}(0)$ increases with the increase of the decay rate $\gamma_{a}$. For a small decay rate $\gamma_{a}$, the correlation function $g^{(2)}(0)$ exhibits some resonance peaks, which are induced by the phonon sideband resonant transitions. At some parameter spaces (the valley region) where the first photon transition is resonant and the second-photon transition is far-off-resonant, then mode $a$ will exhibit the photon blockade effect.
The thermal noise of the environment of mode $b$ will affect the photon blockade effect in mode $a$. This point can be seen by calculating the equal-time second-order correlation function $g^{(2)}(0)$. In Fig. \[g2vsbetanbfiniteT\], we show the correlation function $g^{(2)}(0)$ as a function of $|\beta_{\text{ss}}|$ when the thermal occupation number takes different values $\bar{n}_{b}=5$, $8$, and $12$. Here we choose different values of the decay rate of mode $b$: $\gamma_{b}/\Delta_{b}=0.001$ in panel (a) and $\gamma_{b}/\Delta_{b}=0.01$ in panel (b). We can see that the lower envelop of the correlation function will increase with the increase of the thermal occupation number. This means that the thermal noise will harm the appearance of the photon blockade effect. For a small decay rate $\gamma_{b}/\Delta_{b}=0.001$, the photon blockade effect still exists for a moderately large thermal occupation number $\bar{n}_{b}$. For a larger value of $\gamma_{b}/\Delta_{b}=0.01$, the photon blockade effect in the large region of $|\beta_{\text{ss}}|$ will disappear gradually with the increase of the thermal occupation number $\bar{n}_{b}$.
2. Generation of the Schrödinger cat state in mode $b$
------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we show the generation of the Schrödinger cat state of mode $b$ in terms of the generalized optomechanical coupling. We start our discussion by considering the Hamiltonian $H_{\text{app}}$ given by Eq. (\[Hamapproxim\]). In the rotating frame with respect to $$H_{\text{app}}^{(0)}=\omega_{a}^{\prime}a^{\dagger}a+\Delta_{b}b^{\dagger}b,$$ the Hamiltonian $H_{\text{app}}$ becomes $$H_{\text{app}}^{(I)}(t)=-g_{0}a^{\dagger}a(b^{\dagger}e^{i\Delta_{b}t}e^{i\theta}+be^{-i\Delta_{b}t}e^{-i\theta}).$$ The unitary evolution operator associated with the Hamiltonian $H_{\text{app}}$ can be expressed as $$U(t)=e^{-iH_{\text{app}}^{(0)}t}U_{\text{app}}(t),\label{totevounitopt}$$ where $U_{\text{app}}(t)$ is the unitary evolution operator associated with the Hamiltonian $H_{\text{app}}^{(I)}(t)$, its form is $$U_{\text{app}}(t)=\mathcal{T}e^{-i\int_{0}^{t}H_{\text{app}}^{(I)}(t')dt^{\prime}},$$ where “$\mathcal{T}$" stands for the time-ordering integral. The $U_{\text{app}}(t)$ is determined by the equation of motion $$\dot{U}_{\text{app}}(t)=-iH_{\text{app}}^{(I)}(t)U_{\text{app}}(t),$$ under the initial condition $U_{\text{app}}(0)=I$. Using the Magnus proposal, the solution for $U_{\text{app}}(t)$ is a matrix exponential $$U_{\text{app}}(t)=\exp[\Omega(t)],\hspace{1 cm}\Omega(t)=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\Omega_{k}(t),$$ where $\Omega_{k}(t)$ are determined by the commutation between the Hamiltonian at different times. Since the commutation of two Hamiltonian operators at different times $[H_{\text{app}}^{(I)}(t_{1}),H_{\text{app}}^{(I)}(t_{2})] $ is a c-number, so there are no higher-order terms for $k>2$, namely $\Omega_{k>2}(t)=0$. In terms of the expression of $H_{\text{app}}^{(I)}(t) $, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_{1}(t)&=&\int_{0}^{t}dt_{1}[-iH_{\text{app}}^{(I)}(t_{1})]=\frac{g_{0}}{\Delta_{b}}a^{\dagger}a[b^{\dagger}(e^{i\Delta_{b}t}-1) e^{i\theta}-b(e^{-i\Delta_{b}t}-1)e^{-i\theta}],\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_{2}(t)&=&\frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{t}dt_{1}\int_{0}^{t_{1}}dt_{2}[-iH_{\text{app}}^{(I)}(t_{1}),-iH_{\text{app}}^{(I)}(t_{2})]=i\frac{g_{0}^{2}}{\Delta_{b}^{2}}[ \omega_{b}t-\sin(\Delta_{b}t)]a^{\dagger}aa^{\dagger}a,\end{aligned}$$ then $$\begin{aligned}
U_{\text{app}}(t)&=&\exp[\Omega_{1}(t)+\Omega_{2}(t)] \nonumber \\
&=&\exp\left\{ i\frac{g_{0}^{2}}{\Delta _{b}^{2}}[\Delta_{b}t-\sin(\Delta_{b}t)]a^{\dagger}aa^{\dagger}a\right\}\exp\left\{\frac{g_{0}}{\Delta _{b}}a^{\dagger }a[b^{\dagger}(e^{i\Delta_{b}t}-1)e^{i\theta}-b(e^{-i\Delta _{b}t}-1)e^{-i\theta}]\right\}.\label{evoluoptcatstae}\end{aligned}$$ We see clearly that this unitary evolution operator can be used to create the Schrödinger cat states for mode $b$. To this end, we assume that the initial state of the system is $$\vert\Psi(0)\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\vert 0\rangle_{a}+\vert 1\rangle_{a})\vert 0\rangle_{b}.\label{initstatecatmodeb}$$ Then in terms of the unitary evolution operator (\[totevounitopt\]) we can calculate the state of the system at time $t$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\vert\Psi(t)\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[\vert 0\rangle_{a}\vert0\rangle_{b}+\exp[i\vartheta''(t)]\vert 1\rangle_{a}\vert\eta''(t)\rangle_{b}],\end{aligned}$$ where the phase and displacement amplitude are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\vartheta''(t)&=&\frac{g_{0}^{2}}{\Delta_{b}^{2}}[\Delta_{b}t-\sin(\Delta_{b}t)]-\omega_{a}^{\prime}t,\nonumber \\
\eta''(t)&=&\frac{g_{0}}{\Delta_{b}}(1-e^{-i\Delta_{b}t})e^{i\theta}.\end{aligned}$$ We see that the displacement reaches its maximum $\eta''_{\textrm{max}}=2g_{0}e^{i\theta}/\Delta_{b}$ at time $\Delta_{b}t=(2n+1)\pi$ for natural numbers $n$.
To create quantum superposition of mode $b$, we measure the state of mode $a$ with the bases $$\vert\pm\rangle_{a}=(\vert0\rangle_{a}\pm\vert 1\rangle_{a})/\sqrt{2}.$$ If we express the state of mode $a$ with the basis states $\vert\pm\rangle_{a}$, then the state of the system becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\vert\Psi(t)\rangle&=&\frac{1}{2}\left[\vert+\rangle_{a}(\vert0\rangle_{b}+e^{i\vartheta''(t)}\vert\eta''(t)\rangle_{b})+\vert-\rangle_{a}(\vert 0\rangle_{b}-e^{i\vartheta''(t)}\vert\eta''(t)\rangle_{b})\right].\end{aligned}$$ Corresponding to the states $\vert\pm\rangle_{a}$ are measured, mode $b$ collapses into the states $$\begin{aligned}
|\phi_{\pm}(t)\rangle_{b}=\mathcal{N}_{\pm}(\vert0\rangle_{b}\pm e^{i\vartheta''(t)}\vert\eta''(t)\rangle_{b}),\end{aligned}$$ where the normalization constants are defined by $$\mathcal{N}_{\pm}=\left[2\left(1\pm e^{-\frac{\vert\eta''(t)\vert^{2}}{2}}\cos\vartheta''(t)\right)\right]^{-1/2}.$$ The corresponding probabilities for the measured states $\vert\pm\rangle_{a}$ are $$\begin{aligned}
P_{\pm}(t)=\frac{1}{2}\left[1+e^{-\frac{\vert\eta''(t)\vert^{2}}{2}}\cos\vartheta''(t)\right].\end{aligned}$$
In numerical simulations, we consider the transformed Hamiltonian $H_{\text{tra}}$ and include the dissipations of the two modes. By numerically solving the quantum master equations and performing the measurement at time $t_{s}=\pi/(\Delta_{b}+\chi)$, we can obtain two density matrices of mode $b$ corresponding to the two measurement states $|\pm\rangle$ of mode $a$. To solve this master equation, we denote the density matrix of the system at time $t$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(t)=\sum\limits_{m,j,n,k=0}^{\infty}\rho_{m,j,n,k}(t)\vert m\rangle_{a}\vert j\rangle_{b}\;_{a}\langle n\vert\;_{b}\langle k\vert.\end{aligned}$$ By solving the equations of motion for the density matrix elements, we can obtain the density matrix $\rho(t)$. We proceed performing the measurement of mode $a$ into the states $\vert\pm\rangle_{a}$. After the measurement, the density matrices of mode $b$ become $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{b}^{(\pm)}(t_{s})=\mathcal{M}_{\pm}\sum\limits_{j,k=0}^{\infty}(\rho_{0,j,0,k}\pm\rho_{0,j,1,k}\pm\rho_{1,j,0,k}+\rho_{1,j,1,k})\vert j\rangle_{b}\;_{b}\langle k\vert,\end{aligned}$$ where we introduce the variables $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{\pm}=1/\sum\limits_{j=0}^{\infty}(\rho_{0,j,0,j}\pm\rho_{0,j,1,j}\pm\rho_{1,j,0,j}+\rho_{1,j,1,j}).\end{aligned}$$
The Wigner function of the two density matrices can be calculated with the formula $$\begin{aligned}
W(\xi)=\frac{2}{\pi}\text{Tr}[D_{b}^{\dagger}(\xi)\rho_{b}D_{b}(\xi)(-1)^{b^{\dagger}b}],\end{aligned}$$ where $\xi$ is a complex variable, $\rho_{b}$ is the density matrix of mode $b$, and $D_{b}(\xi)=\exp(\xi b^{\dagger}-\xi^{\star}b)$ is the usual displacement operator for mode $b$. The Wigner functions for the density matrices $\rho_{b}^{(\pm)}$ can be calculated as $$\begin{aligned}
W_{\rho_{b}^{(\pm)}}(\xi)=\frac{2}{\pi}M_{\pm}\sum_{l,j,k=0}^{\infty}(\rho_{0,j,0,k}\pm\rho_{0,j,1,k}\pm\rho
_{1,j,0,k}+\rho_{1,j,1,k})(-1)^{l}\;_{b}\langle l\vert D_{b}(-\xi)\vert j\rangle
_{b}\;_{b}\langle k\vert D_{b}(\xi)\vert l\rangle_{b},\label{Wigfunccatstate}\end{aligned}$$ where the matrix elements of the displacement operator in the Fock space can be calculated by [@Buek1990] $$\begin{aligned}
_{b}\!\langle m\vert D_{b}(\beta)\vert n\rangle\!_{b}=\left\{\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{\frac{m!}{n!}}e^{-\vert\beta\vert^{2}/2}(-\beta^{\ast})^{n-m}L_{m}^{n-m}(\vert\beta\vert^{2}),\hspace{0.3 cm}n>m, \\
\sqrt{\frac{n!}{m!}}e^{-\vert\beta\vert^{2}/2}(\beta)^{m-n}L_{n}^{m-n}(\vert\beta\vert^{2}),\hspace{0.3 cm}m>n,
\end{array}\right.\label{matrixelemD}\end{aligned}$$ with $L_{n}^{m}(x)$ being the associated Laguerre polynomials.
In Fig. \[Wigfunmodebcat\], we plot the Wigner functions $W_{\rho_{b}^{(\pm)}}(\xi)$ of the generated states $\rho_{b}^{(\pm)}(t_{s})$ in mode $b$ when the decay rates take different values: (a) and (e) $\gamma_{a}/\Delta_{b}=0$, (b) and (f) $\gamma_{a}/\Delta_{b}=0.05$, (c) and (g) $\gamma_{a}/\Delta_{b}=0.1$, and (d) and (h) $\gamma_{a}/\Delta_{b}=0.5$. Panels (a)-(d) and (e)-(h) are plotted for the states $\rho_{b}^{(+)}$ and $\rho_{b}^{(-)}$, respectively. Here we can see that the Wigner functions exhibit clear evidence of macroscopically distinct superposition components and quantum interference pattern. With the increase of the decay rate, the interference pattern disappears gradually, and the main peak corresponding to the coherent component $|\eta''\rangle$ moves approaching to the origin, this is because the coherent state decays to the vacuum state in the presence of dissipation.
We also study the influence of the thermal occupation number in mode $b$ on the cat state generation. This consideration makes sense in the case where the mode $b$ is a mechanical resonator and hence the thermal occupation number cannot be neglected. Usually, for mechanical mode $b$, the decay rate $\gamma_{b}$ is smaller then that ($\gamma_{a}$) of the electromagnetic mode $a$. In Fig. \[WFmodebfiniteT\], we plot the Wigner functions $W_{\rho_{b}^{(\pm)}}(\xi)$ of the states $\rho_{b}^{(\pm)}(t_{s})$ when the thermal occupation number takes different values: (a) and (e) $\bar{n}_{b}=1$, (b) and (f) $\bar{n}_{b}=3$, (c) and (g) $\bar{n}_{b}=5$, and (d) and (h) $\bar{n}_{b}=8$. The panels in the first and second rows correspond to states $\rho_{b}^{(+)}$ and $\rho_{b}^{(-)}$, respectively. We can see that the interference phenomenon (i.e., the oscillation between the main peaks) disappears gradually with the increase of the thermal occupation number $\bar{n}_{b}$.
3. Geometrically induced Kerr interaction and Schrödinger’s cat and kitten state generation
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
### (a) The closed-system case
In this section, we study how to obtain a continuous self-Kerr interaction evolution of mode $a$ without the sidebands of mode $b$ by designing a chain of unitary operation. To this end, we consider the resonant driving case $\Delta_{b}=0$ of mode $b$. In this case, the Hamiltonian becomes $$H=\omega_{a}^{\prime}a^{\dagger}a-g_{0}a^{\dagger}a(b^{\dagger}e^{i\theta}+be^{-i\theta}).$$ The unitary evolution operator associated with this resonant driving Hamiltonian is given by $$U(t,\theta)=\exp[-i\omega_{a}^{\prime}ta^{\dagger}a]\exp[ig_{0}ta^{\dagger}a(b^{\dagger}e^{i\theta}+be^{-i\theta})].$$ Here the phase angle $\theta$ is an important parameter to realize the geometric scheme. To implement a self-Kerr interaction for mode $a$, we need to use the following evolution sequence, which is formed by four steps of evolution, $$\begin{aligned}
U(t,0)&=&\exp[-i\omega_{a}^{\prime}ta^{\dagger}a]\exp[ig_{0}ta^{\dagger}a(b^{\dagger}+b)],\nonumber \\
U(t,\pi/2)&=&\exp[-i\omega_{a}^{\prime}ta^{\dagger}a]\exp[-g_{0}ta^{\dagger}a(b^{\dagger}-b)],\nonumber \\
U(t,3\pi/2)&=&\exp[-i\omega_{a}^{\prime}ta^{\dagger}a]\exp[g_{0}ta^{\dagger}a(b^{\dagger}-b)],\nonumber \\
U(t,\pi)&=&\exp[-i\omega_{a}^{\prime}ta^{\dagger}a]\exp[-ig_{0}ta^{\dagger}a(b^{\dagger}+b)].\end{aligned}$$ The total evolution operator can be calculated as $$\begin{aligned}
U_{\text{tot}}&=&U(t,3\pi/2)U(t,\pi)U(t,\pi/2) U(t,0)\nonumber\\
&=&\exp[-4i\omega_{a}^{\prime}ta^{\dagger}a]\exp[2ig_{0}^{2}t^{2}a^{\dagger}aa^{\dagger}a]\nonumber\\
&=&\exp[-i\theta(t) a^{\dagger }a]\exp[2ig_{0}^{2}t^{2}(a^{\dagger }aa^{\dagger}a-a^{\dagger}a)],\end{aligned}$$ with $$\theta(t)=4\omega _{a}^{\prime}t-2g_{0}^{2}t^{2}.$$ It is worth noting that this self-Kerr interaction is continuously accessible in the time domain, which is different from the dynamical evolution case, in which the self-Kerr interaction only accessible at the specific times \[cf. Eq. (\[evoluoptcatstae\]), at time $\Delta_{b}t=2n\pi$ for positive integer number, the evolution operator is reduced to a self-Kerr interaction evolution\].
To generate the Schrödinger cat states, we assume that the initial state of mode $a$ is $\vert\alpha\rangle=e^{-\frac{\vert \alpha\vert ^{2}}{2}}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }\frac{\alpha ^{n}}{\sqrt{n!}}\vert n\rangle$, then, up to a free evolution $\exp(-4i\omega_{a}^{\prime}ta^{\dagger}a)$, the state of the system at time $t$ becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\vert\psi(\tau)\rangle_{a}=\exp[2ig_{0}^{2}t^{2}(a^{\dagger }aa^{\dagger}a-a^{\dagger}a)]\vert\alpha\rangle_{a}=e^{-\frac{\vert \alpha\vert ^{2}}{2}}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\alpha ^{n}}{\sqrt{n!}}\exp\left[i\frac{\tau }{2}n(n-1)\right]\vert n\rangle_{a},\end{aligned}$$ where we introduce $\tau=4g_{0}^{2}t^{2}$. Since $n(n-1)$ is an even number, then we know that $\vert\Psi(\tau+2\pi)\rangle$ is a periodic function of $\tau$ with the period $T=2\pi$, $$\begin{aligned}
\vert\psi(\tau+2\pi)\rangle_{a} &=&e^{-\frac{\vert\alpha\vert^{2}}{2}}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{\alpha^{n}
}{\sqrt{n!}}\exp\left[i\frac{\tau+2\pi}{2}n(n-1)\right]\vert n\rangle_{a}=e^{-\frac{\vert\alpha\vert^{2}}{2}}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\alpha^{n}}{\sqrt{n!}}e^{i\frac{\tau}{2}n(n-1)}\vert n\rangle_{a}.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, based on this relation $$\begin{aligned}
e^{i\frac{\tau }{2}(n+2N)(n+2N-1)}=e^{i\frac{\tau }{2}n(n-1)}e^{i\tau N(2N+2n-1)},\end{aligned}$$ we can see that if we choose the $\tau =\frac{M}{N}2\pi$, then we can express the state as $$\begin{aligned}
\left\vert\psi\left(\frac{M}{N}T\right)\right\rangle_{a}=e^{-\frac{\vert\alpha\vert^{2}}{2}}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{\alpha^{n}}{\sqrt{n!}}\exp\left[i\frac{M}{N}\pi n(n-1)\right]\vert n\rangle_{a}=\sum_{k=0}^{2N-1}c_{k}\vert\alpha e^{i\varphi_{k}}\rangle_{a},\end{aligned}$$ where $\vert\alpha e^{i\varphi_{k}}\rangle_{a}$ are coherent states, with the phase $\varphi_{k}=\frac{k}{N}\pi$, $k=0,1,2,...,2N-1$. The superposition coefficients are given by $$c_{k}=\frac{1}{2N}\sum_{n=0}^{2N-1}e^{-i\frac{\pi}{N}[kn-Mn(n-1)]}.$$ The evolution time is $4t$ with $t=\sqrt{\frac{\tau}{4g_{0}^{2}}}=\sqrt{\frac{M2\pi}{4g_{0}^{2}N}}$.
We now show two examples for the generation of the Schrödinger cat and kitten states. When $N=2$ and $M=1$, by calculating the above superposition coefficients and phase angles, we obtain the cat state as $$\begin{aligned}
\vert \psi_{\text{cat}}(\tau=\pi)\rangle_{a}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(e^{-i\pi/4}\vert i\alpha\rangle_{a}+e^{i\pi/4}\vert-i\alpha\rangle_{a}\right).\label{catstageome}\end{aligned}$$ When $N=3$ and $M=1$, we obtain a kitten state with three superposition components as $$\vert\psi_{\text{kitten}}(\tau=2\pi/3)\rangle_{a}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(e^{i\pi/6}\vert \alpha\rangle_{a} -i\vert
\alpha e^{i\frac{2}{3}\pi }\rangle_{a} +e^{i\pi/6}\vert \alpha e^{i\frac{4}{3}\pi}\rangle_{a}\right).\label{kittenstageome}$$
The generated cat state and kitten state can be characterized by plotting their Wigner functions. For mode $a$ with the density matrix $\rho_{a}$, its Wigner function is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
W(\xi)=\frac{2}{\pi}\text{Tr}[D_{a}^{\dagger}(\xi)\rho_{a}D_{a}(\xi)(-1)^{a^{\dagger}a}],\end{aligned}$$ where $\xi$ is a complex variable and $D_{a}(\xi)=\exp(\xi a^{\dag}-\xi^{\star} a)$ is the usual displacement operator for mode $a$. Corresponding to the above two states $\vert \psi_{\text{cat}}(\tau=\pi)\rangle_{a}$ and $\vert\psi_{\text{kitten}}(\tau=2\pi/3)\rangle_{a}$, their Wigner functions can be calculated as $$\begin{aligned}
W_{\vert\psi_{\text{cat}}(\tau=\pi)\rangle_{a}}(\xi)=\frac{1}{\pi}\left[\exp(-2\vert\xi-i\alpha\vert^{2})+\exp(-2\vert\xi+i\alpha\vert^{2})
+2\exp(-2\vert\xi\vert^{2})\sin[4\text{Re}(\alpha\xi^{\ast})]\right],\label{Wigfuncatstaanaly}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
W_{\vert\psi_{\text{kitten}}(\tau=2\pi/3)\rangle_{a}}(\xi)&=&\frac{2}{3\pi}\left[\exp(-2\vert\xi-\alpha\vert^{2})+\exp(-2\vert\xi-\alpha e^{i\frac{2}{3}\pi}\vert^{2})+\exp(-2\vert\xi-\alpha e^{i\frac{4}{3}\pi}\vert^{2})\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+2\text{Re}\left[-i\exp[i\text{Im}(\xi\alpha^{\ast}-\xi\alpha^{\ast}e^{-i\frac{2}{3}\pi})] e^{-i\frac{\pi}{6}}\;_{a}\langle\xi-\alpha\vert-\xi+\alpha e^{i\frac{2}{3}\pi}\rangle_{a}\right.\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.\left.+\exp[i\text{Im}(\xi\alpha^{\ast}-\xi\alpha^{\ast}e^{-i\frac{4}{3}\pi})]\;_{a}\langle\xi-\alpha\vert-\xi+\alpha e^{i\frac{4}{3}\pi}\rangle_{a}\right.\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.\left.+i\exp[i\text{Im}(\xi\alpha^{\ast}e^{-i\frac{2}{3}\pi}-\xi\alpha^{\ast}e^{-i\frac{4}{3}\pi})]e^{i\frac{\pi}{6}}\;_{a}\langle\xi-\alpha e^{i\frac{2}{3}\pi}\vert-\xi
+\alpha e^{i\frac{4}{3}\pi}\rangle_{a}\right]\right],\label{Wigfunkittenstaanaly}\end{aligned}$$ where the overlaps between the coherent states $|\alpha\rangle$ and $|\beta\rangle$ can be calculated using the formula $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\alpha|\beta\rangle=\exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}|\alpha|^2+\beta\alpha^{*}-\frac{1}{2}|\beta|^2\right).\end{aligned}$$ In Fig. \[Wignerfuncclose\], we show the two Wigner functions when the coherent amplitude is taken as $\alpha=2$. Here we can see that there are two and three main peaks, which correspond to the two and three superposition components in the two states $\vert \psi_{\text{cat}}(\tau=\pi)\rangle_{a}$ and $\vert\psi_{\text{kitten}}(\tau=2\pi/3)\rangle_{a}$, defined in Eqs. (\[catstageome\]) and (\[kittenstageome\]), respectively. These main peaks can be well resolved because the magnitude of the coherent state components is sufficiently large. For genertation of quantum superposition of macroscopically distinct states, the coherent amplitudes of superposed coherent states usually should be larger than $2$. Moreover, in the areas between the main peaks, we can see some oscillation pattern caused by quantum interference effect. These oscillation patterns are the signature of quantum superposition.
### (b) The open-system case
In this section, we study the influence of the dissipations on the generation of the cat state and the kitten state. To evaluate the influence of the dissipations, we need to divide the evolution as four steps, as explained in the above section. In principle, we can solve the four master equations corresponding to the evolution of the four steps. For the four steps, the Hamiltonians are different because the phase angles are different, and the final state of the previous step will be the initial state of the next step. However, in our simulations, we adopt the quantum trajectory method instead of the quantum mater equation. This is because the dimension of the Hilbert space is too large to be calculated with our computational resource. In our simulations, we choose $\alpha=2$ for the initial state of mode $a$. For the first three steps, the mode $b$ will be displaced by the generalized optomechanical coupling, and hence the dimension of the Hilbert space for mode $b$ should be taken as a large value (as estimated, $n_{b}$ should be larger than $120$ for high fidelity). For the master equation method, the number of the equations of motion is the square of the dimension of the total system, and hence the equations of motion become untreatable. Instead, by using the quantum trajectory method, the number of the equations of motion is largely decreased because it is equal to the dimension of the total Hilbert space. Below, we consider the zero-temperature case of the environments. In this case, the system can be described by a non-Hermite Hamiltonian by adding two imaginary terms phenomenologically as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
H^{(l=1-4)}=\omega_{a}^{\prime}a^{\dagger}a-g_{0}a^{\dagger}a(b^{\dagger}e^{i\theta_{l}}+be^{-i\theta_{l}})-i\frac{\gamma_{a}}{2}a^{\dag}a-i\frac{\gamma_{b}}{2}b^{\dag}b,\end{aligned}$$ where the phase angles are taken as $\theta_{1}=0$, $\theta_{2}=\pi/2$, $\theta_{3}=\pi$, and $\theta_{4}=3\pi/2$. Using these Hamiltonians, we can numerically solve the Schrödinger equations step by step, then we can obtain the final state of the system. Based on the reduced density matrix of mode $a$, we can calculate the Wigner function of mode $a$.
To see the influence of the dissipation of the system on the cat state generation, in Fig. \[Wignerfuncdissip\] we plot the Wigner functions of the two- and three-component superposition states when the decay rates of the two modes take different values. Here, panels (a)-(d) correspond to the Wigner function of the cat state in the open-system case, while panels (e)-(h) correspond to the Wigner function of the kitten state in the open-system case. We can see that with the increase of the decay rate, the quantum interference evidence in the Wigner function disappears gradually. Therefore, the dissipation of the two modes will harm the quantum interference effect in the generated Schrödinger cat and kitten states.
IV. Discussions on the experimental implementation
==================================================
In this section, we present some discussions on the experimental implementation of this scheme with several possible candidate systems in quantum optics. The main result in this work is the realization of a generalized ultrastrong optomechanical coupling in a cross-Kerr-type coupled two-mode system, in which one of the two modes is driven by a monochromatic field. As a result, the nominated physical systems should contain a cross-Kerr interaction, and one of the two modes should be driven by a monochromatic field. In addition, the parameter condition for this scheme is that the cross-Kerr parameter should be much smaller than the driving detuning $\Delta_{b}$ of mode $b$ such that the approximation used in discarding the cross-Kerr term in the transformed Hamiltonian is justified. For observing some quantum nonlinear effects in the ultrastrong coupling regime, we need a relatively large displacement amplitude $|\beta_{\text{ss}}|$ ($\sim10^{3}$ in our simulations) to enhance the generalized optomechanical coupling. Lastly, for resolving some sideband effects induced by mode $b$, the sideband-resolution condition $\Delta_{b}\gg\gamma_{a}$ should be satisfied. Therefore, the parameter conditions for implementation of this scheme are given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{b}\gg\chi,\hspace{1 cm}\Delta_{b}\gg\gamma_{a},\hspace{1 cm}g_{0}\equiv\chi\vert\beta_{\text{ss}}\vert\sim\Delta_{b}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the generalized optomechanical coupling strength $g_{0}$ should be much larger than the decay rate $\gamma_{a}$ of mode $a$, however, the cross-Kerr interaction strength $\chi$ could be either larger or smaller than the decay rate $\gamma_{a}$. This relaxed condition of the cross-Kerr interaction raises the possibility for implementation of this scheme with many quantum optical systems. In addition, since the driving detuning $\Delta_{b}$ (playing the role of the effective frequency of mode $b$ in the displacement representation) is a controllable parameter by choosing a proper driving frequency $\omega_{Lb}$, then we can design a proper $\Delta_{b}$ such that the relations $\Delta_{b}\gg\chi$ and $\Delta_{b}\gg\gamma_{a}$ are satisfied. We also choose a proper driving amplitude $\Omega_{b}$ such that the displacement amplitude $|\beta_{\text{ss}}|$ is large enough to confirm the relation $g_{0}\sim\Delta_{b}$.
In principle, our method is general and hence it can be implemented in various cross-Kerr-type coupled two-mode systems. In quantum optics, the cross-Kerr interaction between two bosonic modes is usually obtained by coupling these two modes to a common intermediate, which could be a three-level atom [@Liu2017], an “$N$"-type atom [@Schmidt1996; @Kang2003; @Sinclair2007; @Sinclair2008], and an “$M$"-type atom [@Matsko2003], where the atom could be either a natural or an artificial atom, which corresponds to cavity-QED [@Kimble1998] or circuit-QED [@Hu2011; @Nigg2012; @Bourassa2012; @Holland2015; @Majer2007; @Hoi2013]. We also discuss the implementation of this cross-Kerr interaction in a quadratic optomechanical system with a “membrane-in-the-middle" configuration [@Thompson2008; @Sankey2010; @Karuza2013] and in a coupled cavity-ion system [@Semiao2005; @Maurer2004]. Below, we will present some analyses on the current experimental conditions in these systems. For the purpose of comparison, we list in Table \[tablesm1\] some relating parameters reported in either theoretical proposals or realistic experiments concerning the two-mode cross-Kerr-type-coupled systems. Note that great advances have been made in circuit-QED [@Hu2011; @Nigg2012; @Bourassa2012; @Holland2015; @Majer2007; @Hoi2013]. From Table \[tablesm1\] we can see that depending on the task, the coupled two-mode systems can be designed to have a wide range of parameters.
Ref. description $\frac{\omega_{a}}{2\pi}$ (GHz) $\frac{\omega_{b}}{2\pi}$ (GHz) $\frac{\chi}{2\pi}$ (kHz) $\frac{\gamma_{a}}{2\pi}$ (kHz) $\frac{\gamma_{b}}{2\pi}$ (kHz) $\bar{n}_{a}$ $\bar{n}_{b}$
----------------------------------- --------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------- ---------------
[@Holland2015]$_{E}$ circuit-QED $8.493$ $9.32$ $2.59\times10^{3}$ $1.25$ $5.25$ $\sim0$ $\sim0$
[@Hu2011]$_{T}$, [@Majer2007] circuit-QED $\sim5$ $\sim5$ $2.5\times10^{3}$ $\sim30\times10^{3}$ $\sim30\times10^{3}$ $\sim0$ $\sim 0$
[@Sankey2010]$_{E}$ quadratic optomech. $282\times10^{3}$ $0.134\times10^{-3}$ $0.395\times10^{-4}$ $5.94\times10^{2}$ $ 0.122\times10^{-3}$ $ \sim0 $ $46648$
[@Semiao2005]$_{T}$,[@Maurer2004] cavity-ion system $351\times10^{3}$ $\gg15.1\times10^{-3}$ $0.796$ $41.7$ $\sim0$
: Parameters of the cross-Kerr-type coupled systems reported in literature: the resonance frequencies $\omega_{a}$ and $\omega_{b}$ of modes $a$ and $b$, the cross-Kerr interaction strength $\chi$, the decay rates $\gamma_{a}$ and $\gamma_{b}$ for modes $a$ and $b$, the thermal excitation occupations $\bar{n}_{a}$ and $\bar{n}_{b}$ in the baths of modes $a$ and $b$. Here the subscripts $``E"$ and $``T"$ of the reference number denote the reference as an experimental work and a theoretical work, respectively.[]{data-label="tablesm1"}
Some proposals on the cross-Kerr interaction are based on the system consisting of two continuous-wave optical fields coupled to an ensemble of atoms with an “N"-type configuration [@Schmidt1996; @Kang2003; @Sinclair2007; @Sinclair2008]. This method also works for the cavity field case and hence a cross-Kerr interaction between two cavity fields can be obtained. For optical cavity modes, the resonance frequencies ($\sim10^{14}$ Hz) are much larger than the decay rates ($\sim10^{7}$ Hz), and the thermal occupation numbers are negligible. In typical optical cavity-QED systems, the atom-field coupling strength is of the order of $10^{8}$ Hz [@Kimble1998]. Since the cross-Kerr interaction is of the order of the atom-field coupling strength times the cube of a small ratio (the value of the ratio is much smaller than one, for example $10^{-1}$), then the effective cross-Kerr parameter could be of the order of $10^{4}$-$10^{5}$ Hz. For microwave field modes, the resonance frequencies might be of the order of $5$ - $10$ GHz and the decay rates are $10^{4}$ - $10^{5}$ Hz. The thermal occupation numbers are negligible at the temperature around $20$ mK. The cross-Kerr parameters are of the order of $10^{6}$ Hz.
\(i) If we consider the case where the two bosonic modes in our model are electromagnetic fields, then the sideband-resolution condition is satisfied. In addition, we choose proper driving frequency $\omega_{Lb}$ such that $\Delta_{b}=\omega_{b}-\omega_{Lb}\gg\gamma_{a}$ and $\Delta_{b}\gg\chi$, then the sideband-resolution condition is satisfied and the approximation is justified. We also choose a proper driving amplitude $\Omega_{b}$ such that $g_{0}=\chi|\beta_{\text{ss}}|\sim\Delta_{b}$.
\(ii) If the coupled two-mode system is composed by an electromagnetic field and a mechanical mode, then the resonance frequency of mode $b$ is of the order of $10^{7}$ - $10^{8}$ Hz, and the decay rate of mechanical mode is of the order of $10^{2}$ - $10^{3}$ Hz. In this case, the system can still work in the resolved-sideband regime. The coupling strength $g_{0}$ can also be enhanced to be larger than the decay rate $\gamma_{a}$ and the effective frequency $\Delta_{b}$. However, the thermal occupation number $\bar{n}_{b}$ in the mechanical resonator case will be a finite number (dozens of thermal phonons).
\(iii) For the quadratic optomechanical systems, the quadratic optomechanical coupling can be approximated as a cross-Kerr interaction. However, the magnitude of the cross-Kerr interaction is small. For obtaining a $g_{0}\sim\Delta_{b}\gg\{\chi,\gamma_{a}\}$, the displacement $|\beta_{\text{ss}}|$ needs to be a very large number.
\(iv) For a coupled cavity-ion system, the sideband-resolution condition is satisfied, and the cross-Kerr parameter $\chi$ takes a moderate value. It can be enhanced to be larger than $\Delta_{b}$ and $\gamma_{a}$ by designing a displacement $|\beta_{\text{ss}}|$. For this system, a key point is to suppress the thermal noise as much as possible.
Notation Remarks Scaled parameters Parameters
--------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- ----------------------------------
$\omega'_{a}$ arbitrary
$\Delta_{b}$ as the frequency scale $1$ $2\pi\times 1$ MHz
$\chi$ $\chi/\Delta_{b}\ll1$ for approximation $\chi/\Delta_{b}=0.001$ - $0.01$ $2\pi\times$ ($1$ - $10$) kHz
$|\beta_{\text{ss}}|$ $|\beta_{\text{ss}}|\gg1$ for coupling enhancement $1000$ - $2000$ or $100$ - $200$
$g_{0}=\chi|\beta_{\text{ss}}|$ enhanced optomechanical-coupling strength $g_{0}/\Delta_{b}\sim1$ - $2$ $2\pi\times$ ($1$ - $2$) MHz
$\gamma_{a}$ decay rate of mode $a$ $\gamma_{a}/\Delta_{b}=0.01$ - $0.1$ $2\pi\times$ ($10$ - $100$) kHz
$\gamma_{b}$ decay rate of mode $b$ $\gamma_{b}/\Delta_{b}=0.01$ - $0.1$ $2\pi\times$ ($10$ - $100$) kHz
$\bar{n}_{a}$ negligible for optical and microwave fields $0$
$\bar{n}_{b}$ a finite number for a mechanical resonator $0$ - $10$
$g_{0}/\gamma_{a}$ single-photon strong-coupling condition $10$ - $200$
: The parameters used in our simulations: the resonance frequency $\omega'_{a}=\omega_{a}+\chi|\beta_{\text{ss}}|^2$ of mode $a$, the driving detuning (the effective frequency in the transformed representation) $\Delta_{b}=\omega_{b}-\omega_{Lb}$ of mode $b$, the cross-Kerr interaction strength $\chi$, the displacement amplitude $|\beta_{\text{ss}}|$, the single-photon optomechanical-coupling strength $g_{0}=\chi|\beta_{\text{ss}}|$, the decay rates $\gamma_{a}$ and $\gamma_{b}$ of modes $a$ and $b$, the thermal occupation numbers $\bar{n}_{a}$ and $\bar{n}_{b}$ in the baths of modes $a$ and $b$, and the single-photon strong-coupling condition $g_{0}/\gamma_{a}$.[]{data-label="table2sm"}
Based on the above discussions, in Table \[table2sm\] we suggest some parameters for simulation of this scheme. In our model, the involved parameters include: the resonance frequencies $\omega_{a}$ and $\omega_{b}$, the cross-Kerr interaction strength $\chi$, the decay rates of the two bosonic modes $\gamma_{a}$ and $\gamma_{b}$, dimensionless displacement amplitude $|\beta_{\text{ss}}|$, the driving amplitude $\Omega_{b}$ and frequency $\omega_{Lb}$ of mode $b$. Below we analyze the feasibility of our scheme based on the above listed parameters. Mode $a$ could be either optical or microwave mode. In the cat state generation tasks, the free Hamiltonian of mode $a$ will not affect the dynamics of the system, because it commutates the other terms in the Hamiltonian. For the photon blockade task, the single photon resonance is taken and then useful parameter is the driving detuning $\Delta_{a}=\omega_{a}-\omega_{La}$. For optical mode $a$, its frequency is of the order of hundreds of terahertz, the decay rate might be $\gamma_{a}\sim2\pi\times10$ - $100$ MHz. For microwave mode $a$, its frequency might be $\omega_{a}\sim2\pi\times5$ - $10$ GHz, the decay rate might be $\gamma_{a}\sim2\pi\times100$ kHz. The cross-Kerr interaction between the two modes is of the order of $1$ - $10$ kHz [@Holland2015]. By choosing proper driving amplitude and frequency, the system can work in the ultrastrong-coupling regime.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- '[Bob Briscoe]{}[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'aqm-details.bib'
date: '[15 Apr 2019]{}'
title: |
[\
The Native AQM for L4S Traffic]{}
---
CCS Concepts {#ccs-concepts .unnumbered}
------------
**Networks** $\to$ **Cross-layer protocols; Network algorithms; Network dynamics;**
### Keywords {#keywords .unnumbered}
[Data Communication, Networks, Internet, Control, Congestion Control, Quality of Service, Performance, Latency, Responsiveness, Dynamics, Algorithm, Standards, Active Queue Management, AQM, Sojourn time, Virtual queue, Explicit Congestion Notification, ECN, Gradient Marking, Ramp]{}
Document history {#document-history .unnumbered}
================
Version Date Author Details of change
--------- ----------------- ------------- ------------------------------
01 07 Sep 2017 Bob Briscoe First complete version.
[02]{} [15 Apr 2019]{} Bob Briscoe Added abstract and keywords.
[^1]: [<[email protected]>]{},
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Alan N. Heays'
- Ruud Visser
- Roland Gredel
- Wim Ubachs
- 'Brenton R. Lewis'
- 'Stephen T. Gibson'
- 'Ewine F. van Dishoeck'
bibliography:
- 'anhrefs.bib'
date: '**Draft –** '
title: Isotope selective photodissociation of by the interstellar radiation field and cosmic rays
---
[Photodissociation of and occurs in interstellar clouds, circumstellar envelopes, protoplanetary discs, and other environments due to ultraviolet radiation originating from stellar sources and the presence of cosmic rays. This source of N atoms initiates the formation of more complex N-bearing species and may influence their isotopic composition.]{} [To study the photodissociation rates of by ultraviolet continuum radiation and both isotopologues in a field of cosmic ray induced photons. To determine the effect of these on the isotopic composition of more complex molecules.]{} [High-resolution theoretical photodissociation cross sections of N$_2$ are used from an accurate and comprehensive quantum-mechanical model of the molecule based on laboratory experiments, as presented for Li et al. 2013. A similarly high-resolution spectrum of H$_2$ emission following interactions with cosmic rays has been constructed. The spectroscopic data are used to calculate photodissociation rates which are then input into isotopically differentiated chemical models, describing an interstellar cloud and a protoplanetary disc. ]{} [The photodissociation rate of in a Draine field assuming 30K excitation is $1.73\times 10^{-10}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$, within 4% of the rate for , and the rate due to cosmic ray induced photons [assuming an ionisation rate of $\zeta=10^{-16}$s$^{-1}$]{} is about $10^{-15}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$, with up to a factor of 10 difference between isotopologues. Shielding functions for by , , and H are presented. [Incorporating these into an interstellar cloud model, an enhancement]{} of the atomic $\mathrm{{}^{15}N/{}^{14}N}$ ratio over the elemental value is obtained due to the self-shielding of external radiation at an extinction of about 1.5mag. This effect is larger where assumed grain growth has reduced the opacity of dust to ultraviolet radiation. The transfer of photolytic isotopic fractionation of N and N$_2$ to other molecules is demonstrated to be significant [in a protoplanetary disc model with grain growth]{}, and is species dependent with enhancement approaching a factor of 10 for HCN. [The cosmic ray induced dissociation of CO is revisited employing a more recent photodissociation cross section, leading to a rate that is $\sim$40% lower than previously calculated.]{} ]{}
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Nitrogen is the fifth most abundance element in the universe and comprises two isotopes with relative populations ${}^{14}\mathrm{N}/{}^{15}\mathrm{N}\simeq 400$. The dominant reservoir of elemental N is in the form of atoms and N$_2$, which are essentially unobservable outside of the solar system, the former because its ionic form, N$^+$, is readily removed by charge exchange with neutral hydrogen with the latter lacking a rotational emission spectrum because it is homonuclear. The observation of electronic transitions of N$_2$ is limited to technically-challenging ultraviolet (UV) wavelengths shorter than 1000Å.
There have been numerous detections of N-derived molecules such as , $\mathrm{CN}$, $\mathrm{HCN}$, and in interstellar space, protostellar envelopes and discs, and extra-galactically, [e.g., @van_zadelhoff2001; @bergin2002; @gerin2009; @oberg2010; @tobin2012], as well as for their isotopologues [e.g., @wannier1991; @gerin2009; @adande2012; @hily-blant2013; @bizzocchi2013; @daniel2013]. The balance of chemically active N and highly stable N$_2$ is an important parameter in the chemistry of these more complex amines and nitriles. The primary driver of this balance in environments exposed to an ultraviolet flux is photodissociation of N$_2$.
The value of $\mathrm{{}^{14}N}/\mathrm{^{15}N}$ in observable species constitutes an astronomical puzzle. The solar elemental ratio, 440 [@marty2010], is considered representative of the local interstellar medium, but differs from the terrestrial value, 270; in the atmospheric of Titan, 180 [@niemann_etal2005]; and in interplanetary dust, meteorites and comets, [68–330 [@floss2006; @jehin2009; @aleon2010; @mumma2011]]{}. Observational surveys have been made of galactic star-forming regions [@adande2012] and dark clouds [@hily-blant2013] and also point to a range of values, as well as variations by source and the molecular species observed. Some variation of ${}^{14}$N/${}^{15}$N is clearly due to the details of local nuclear synthesis, with an increasing excess of ${}^{15}$N towards the galactic centre [@wilson1999; @adande2012]. Another proposed explanation for the observed ratios of $\mathrm{C^{14}N}/\mathrm{C^{15}N}$, $\mathrm{HC^{14}N}/\mathrm{HC^{15}N}$ and $\mathrm{{}^{14}NH_3}/\mathrm{{}^{15}NH_3}$ is low-temperature isotopic-exchange chemistry. Models considering this mechanism [[e.g., @rodgers2008; @wirstrom2012; @le_gal2013]]{} have been successful in introducing strongly non-elemental abundance ratios under specific conditions. The critical exchange reactions, e.g., $$\rm
HC^{14}NH^+ + {}^{15}N \leftrightharpoons HC^{15}NH^+ + {}^{14}N + energy,$$ rely on the lower zero-point energy of the heavier molecular species and are exothermic by $\leq30$K [@terzieva2000], limiting their significance to cold environments. This is in contrast to similar reactions affecting the H/D abundance in molecules which may proceed at temperatures as high as 170K.
An alternative route to the mass fractionation of molecules is isotope selective photodissociation. For the case of $\mathrm{N_2}$ dissociation, self-shielding has been shown to drive the $\mathrm{HC^{14}N}/\mathrm{HC^{15}N}$ ratio in the atmosphere of Titan [@liang_etal2007]. Additionally, there is strong observational evidence that the fractionation of protostellar oxygen isotopes is assisted by the self-shielding of CO, which has very similar molecular structure to N$_2$ [@sheffer2002; @lyons_young2005; @smith2009]. The investigation of isotope selective N$_2$ photodissociation in interstellar clouds and protoplanetary environments is then highly warranted.
The importance of photodissociation due to the interstellar radiation field (ISRF) or an ultraviolet emitting star will decrease as the radiation is attenuated below the surface of an interstellar cloud, circumstellar envelope, or protoplanetary disc. @li2013 made a detailed assessment of the dissociation rate of and the shielding of ultraviolet radiation by relevant materials (H$_2$, H, itself, and dust grains). This work considered in detail the sharply structured absorption spectrum of N$_2$ and shielding species. This was made possible by means of an accurate and comprehensive quantum-mechanical model of N$_2$ photoabsorption and dissociation, which was informed by an extensive history of N$_2$ spectroscopy in the laboratory [e.g., @ajello_etal1989; @helm_etal1993; @sprengers_etal2003; @sprengers_etal2004b; @sprengers_etal2005b; @stark_etal2008; @lewis_etal2008a; @heays_etal2009; @heays2011b] and theoretically [e.g., @spelsberg_meyer2001; @lewis_etal2005a; @lewis_etal2005b; @haverd_etal2005; @lewis_etal2008c; @lewis_etal2008b; @ndome_etal2008]. This model, detailed in Sec. \[sec:CSE model\], explicitly accounts for the nuclear masses and so is equally applicable to the case of . In Sec. \[sec:pd rates\] of this paper, we describe new calculations of photodissociation rates in interstellar and blackbody radiation fields.
The interior regions of interstellar clouds and protoplanetary discs may be completely shielded from external sources of ultraviolet photons. However, collisions between high-energy cosmic rays and produce a weak local UV field that could be important for photodissociation. The cosmic ray induced photoionisation and photodissociation of molecular and atomic species is well established [@gredel1987; @gredel1989; @dalgarno2006; @padovani2009]. In Sec. \[sec:CR\] we combine our model of N$_2$ photoabsorption with a similarly thorough theoretical treatment of the H$_2$ line emission associated with cosmic rays. This is, to study in detail for the first time the photodissociation of and in cloud and disc interiors. [We also revisit calculations of the CO dissociation rate due to cosmic rays [@gredel1987] taking advantage of an updated photodissociation cross section.]{}
In Sec. \[sec:photochemical models\] of this paper we present the results of chemical models of an interstellar cloud and protoplanetary disc. These include linked chemical networks for species containing ${}^{14}$N and ${}^{15}$N and the photodissociation rates of @li2013 and Secs. \[sec:pd rates\] and \[sec:CR\]. Using these models we investigate the consequences of isotope selective photodissociation on the abundances of atomic and molecular nitrogen and other N-bearing species observed in clouds and discs.
The model of photoabsorption and photodissociation {#sec:CSE model}
==================================================
The photodissociation of N$_2$ first requires excitation into bound states that then rapidly predissociate. Thus, the photoabsorption spectrum contains well separated electronic-rovibrational lines and must be treated at high resolution ($\mathord{\sim}\!10^{-3}$Å) but over a comparatively large wavelength range (912–1000Å). Actually, absorbs strongly at considerably shorter wavelengths but the present application is limited to longwards of the atomic H ionisation threshold at 912Å. Here, a broadband and detailed spectrum is calculated by means of a quantum mechanical model which solves a coupled Schrödinger equation (CSE) for the vibrational wavefunction of the molecule. Properties of the electronic wavefunction are described by potential-energy curves and state coupling parameters optimised with respect to a large database of laboratory line positions, oscillator strengths, and predissociation rates. These empirical parts of the CSE model formulation are independent of molecular mass, and so are unchanged by isotopic substitution of one or both nuclei. Then, the explicit calculation of vibrational wavefunctions models the quantum mixing of electronic states and its dependence on the nuclear masses. A more detailed description of the method, the important electronic states and potential-energy curves used in the model is given in our previous publication [@li2013], and the chemical physics literature [@lewis_etal2005a; @lewis_etal2005b; @haverd_etal2005; @lewis_etal2008b; @heays2011] with specific discussion of given in @vieitez_etal2008a and @heays2011b.
Electric-dipole-allowed photoabsorption from the ground state occurs for wavelengths shorter than 1000Å and accesses two valence states and several Rydberg series of $^1\Pi_u$ and $^1\Sigma_u^+$ symmetry. Potential-energy curves depicting these states are shown in Fig. \[fig:N2potentials\] with the lowest-energy photoabsorbing state, $b\,{}^1\Pi_u$, occurring at 12.6eV. There is strong electronic coupling between valence and Rydberg states of the same symmetry which leads to a very perturbed spectrum, including constructive and destructive interference in the absorption strength and predissociation rates of vibrational bands [@dressler1969; @spelsberg_meyer2001; @lewis_etal2005a]. Additional rotational interactions between $^1\Pi_u$ and $^1\Sigma_u^+$ states lead to strong rotational dependence of line strengths and predissociation rates (or linewidths) [@stark_etal2005; @heays2011b].
![Diabatic-basis potential-energy curves of N$_2$ excited states relevant to ultraviolet photoabsorption and photodissociation. The energy scale is referenced to $v=0$, $J=0$ of the $X\,{^1\Sigma_g^+}$ ground state and is related to the wavelength scale assuming transitions from this fundamental level. Also indicated are the excitation states of atomic products arising from dissociation and the absorption limit imposed by the ionisation of atomic H. The potential-energy curves of the $c_n{}^1\Pi_u$ and $c'_{n+1}{}^1\Sigma^+_u$ states are indistinguishable at the plotted scale. The ionisation potential energy occurs at 15.4eV in this figure.[]{data-label="fig:N2potentials"}](all_potentials){width="0.9\hsize"}
Predissociation occurs through spin-orbit coupling of ${}^1\Pi_u$ states with a number of states with ${}^3\Pi_u$ symmetry, including an unbound level, and one state of ${}^3\Sigma_u^+$ symmetry. These are shown in Fig. \[fig:N2potentials\] and lead to dissociation into N atoms in the ${}^4S$, ${}^2D$, or ${}^2P$ states. The spin-selection rules forbid the appearance triplet states in optical spectra although many have been observed in the laboratory regardless, due to their coupling with ${}^1\Pi_u$ levels [@sprengers_etal2005b; @lewis_etal2008a]. The majority of excited vibrational states predissociate after an absorption event with near certainty, that is, they have a predissociation fraction of $\mathord{\sim}1$. [For those states that decay substantially by emission, a reduction of the CSE-calculated photoabsorption cross section, $\sigma^\text{abs}$, has been made by their less-than-unity predissociation fractions, $\eta^\text{pre}$, leading to a photodissociation cross section $\sigma^\text{pd}$, so that $$\sigma^\text{pd} = \eta^\text{pre} \sigma^\text{abs}.$$ ]{} This provides an example of the utility of the physically-based CSE model. That is, the $b\,{}^1\Pi_u(v=1)$ level of is known to predissociate significantly less rapidly than for [@sprengers_etal2004b; @sprengers_etal2005; @wu2011] because of mass-change-induced shifts of the interacting ${}^1\Pi_u$ and ${}^3\Pi_u$ levels. These shifts are evaluated explicitly by the CSE model and calculated predissociation fractions for $b\,{}^1\Pi_u(v=1)$ are shown in Fig. \[fig:b01 predissoc frac\] [for rotational levels with angular momentum quantum number, $J\leq 30$.]{}
![An example of isotopically-dependent predissociation. The predissociation fraction[, $\eta^\text{pre}$,]{} of individual rotational levels, $J$, of $b\,{}^1\Pi_u(v=1)$ calculated by the CSE model for and . []{data-label="fig:b01 predissoc frac"}](b01_predissoc_frac)
There is a strong dependence on rotational angular momentum, $J$, for both isotopologues. At the low temperatures of interstellar space only rotational levels with $J<10$ are accessible. Then, photons absorbed by and leading to excitation of the $b\,{}^1\Pi_u(v=1)$ level are nearly twice as likely to lead to a dissociation event than for .
We have calculated photoabsorption and photodissociation cross sections as @li2013 did for . A comparison is made in Fig. \[fig:cross sections\] between transmission functions derived from the two CSE-calculated photoabsorption cross sections. The principal difference is a shift of absorption bands to longer wavelengths which mostly increases with vibrational excitation, that is, with shortening wavelength. However, there are many further differences between the spectra of different N$_2$ isotopologues due to the strong coupling between excited states, such as depicted in Fig. \[fig:b01 predissoc frac\] with respect to the $b\,{}^1\Pi_u(v=1)$ predissociation fraction, and these should not be neglected [e.g., @vieitez_etal2008a; @lewis_etal2008a; @heays2011b].
{width="\textwidth"}
The wavelengths of the majority of the modelled rovibrational lines are accurate to within 0.01Å when compared with laboratory measurements [@heays2011]. The magnitudes of the calculated cross sections are accurate to about 10%, with their principal uncertainty arising from the absolute calibration of the laboratory absorption oscillator strengths used to constrain the model electronic transition moments [@stark_etal2005; @stark_etal2008; @heays_etal2009]. The predissociation fractions pertaining to the longest wavelength bands are well known and modelled [@lewis_etal2005a] but are less certain at shorter wavelengths. For these, a predissociation fraction of 1 is assumed. This is a reliable assumption with respect to ${}^1\Pi_u$ states, many of which are known to exhibit significant predissociation broadening [@stark_etal2008; @heays2011b]. It is less certain that all ${}^1\Sigma^+_u$ levels responsible for absorption at shorter wavelengths are completely predissociative. Further practical details regarding the calculation of N$_2$ cross sections and dissociation fractions at different temperatures may be found in @li2013.
Also shown in Fig. \[fig:cross sections\] are transmission functions representing further line-absorbing species relevant to the following treatment of the shielding of N$_2$ absorption in astrophysical environments. For these, photoabsorption cross sections for H$_2$ are synthesised from data obtained from the Meudon PDR code website [@le_petit2006], and those for CO are taken from the model of @visser2009.
Photodissociation rates and shielding functions {#sec:pd rates}
===============================================
\[sec:shielding functions\]
The photodissociation rate, $k_0$, of N$_2$ exposed to UV radiation can be calculated according to $$\label{eq:kpd}
k_0 = \int \sigma^\mathrm{pd} (\lambda) I(\lambda)d \lambda, $$ where $\sigma^\mathrm{pd}(\lambda)$ is the N$_2$ photodissociation cross section described in Sec. \[sec:CSE model\], $I$ is the intensity of the radiation field, and $\lambda$ the wavelength. [The unattenuated interstellar radiation field (ISRF) of @draine1978, in units of photons cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$Å$^{-1}$sr$^{-1}$, is used in most of the following calculations and is given by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:draine field differential}
F(\lambda) = \frac{1}{4\pi} ( 3.2028 \times 10^{15} \lambda^{-3} - 5.1542 \times 10^{18} \lambda^{-4} \\ + 2.0546 \times 10^{21} \lambda^{-5} ) ,\end{gathered}$$ with $\lambda$ in Å. In the following we employ an angle-integrated intensity, $$I(\lambda) = 4\pi \chi F(\lambda),
\label{eq:draine field}$$ with an additional scaling factor relative to the Draine field, $\chi$. ]{} The integral in Eq. (\[eq:kpd\]) must be computed between 912 and 1000Å. This range is defined by the long-wavelength onset of the N$_2$ absorption spectrum and the complete suppression of ultraviolet radiation for wavelengths shorter than the atomic H ionisation limit.
The photodissociation rates of and $\mathrm{{}^{14}N{}^{15}N}$ calculated from Eq. (\[eq:kpd\]) are given in Tab. \[tab:kpd0\] assuming several different radiation fields. In all cases the difference between and $\mathrm{{}^{14}N{}^{15}N}$ rates is below 5%, and the calculated dependences on the N$_2$ ground state excitation temperature and the form of the incident field (a Draine ISRF, or blackbody radiation) are similar to those calculated by @li2013 for .
For N$_2$ embedded in an externally irradiated cloud or disc, the intervening gaseous and granular material acts as a shield [and leads to a reduced photodissociation rate, $k<k_0$.]{} The precise nature of shielding by H, H$_2$, , and $\mathrm{{}^{14}N{}^{15}N}$ is influenced by the wavelength dependence of their absorption cross sections, but is more usefully applied as a wavelength-integrated ratio of shielded and unshielded dissociation rates. That is, the shielding function given by $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\theta &= \frac{k}{k_0} \\
\label{eq:def shielding function}
&= \frac{
\int I(\lambda)
\exp\left[-\sum_\mathrm{X} N_\mathrm{X}\sigma^\mathrm{abs}_\mathrm{X}(\lambda)\right]
\exp\left( -\gamma_\mathrm{dust} A_V \right)
\sigma^\mathrm{pd}(\lambda)\,d\lambda}
{\int I(\lambda)\sigma^\mathrm{pd}(\lambda)\,d\lambda}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\sigma_\mathrm{X}^\mathrm{abs}(\lambda)$, is the absorption cross section of shielding species X and $N_\mathrm{X}$ its shielding column density.
[rcc]{}\
\
$T_\mathrm{ex}$(K) & & $\mathrm{{}^{14}N{}^{15}N}$\
\
10 & $1.64\times 10^{-10}$ & $1.68\times 10^{-10}$\
20 & $1.65\times 10^{-10}$ & $1.70\times 10^{-10}$\
30 & $1.66\times 10^{-10}$ & $1.71\times 10^{-10}$\
50 & $1.67\times 10^{-10}$ & $1.72\times 10^{-10}$\
100 & $1.70\times 10^{-10}$ & $1.74\times 10^{-10}$\
1000 & $1.79\times 10^{-10}$ & $1.87\times 10^{-10}$\
\
\
\
$T_{\rm bb}$(K) & & $\mathrm{{}^{14}N{}^{15}N}$\
\
4000 &$2.35\times 10^{-16}$ & $2.44\times 10^{-16}$\
6000 &$1.04\times 10^{-13}$ & $1.07\times 10^{-13}$\
8000 &$1.95\times 10^{-12}$ & $2.01\times 10^{-12}$\
10000 &$1.05\times 10^{-11}$ & $1.08\times 10^{-11}$\
20000 &$1.98\times 10^{-10}$ & $2.02\times 10^{-10}$\
The term $\exp\left( -\gamma_\mathrm{dust} A_V \right)$ in Eq. (\[eq:def shielding function\]) describes shielding of the UV flux by dust grains, where the visual (5500Å) extinction is assumed proportional to the column density of hydrogen nuclei, $N_\mathrm{H}$, according to $A_V = N_\mathrm{H}/1.6\times 10^{21}$ [@savage1977]. In principle, this is a wavelength dependent quantity which depends on the distribution of dust grain sizes, their composition, and their geometries. The use of a simple parameterisation of declining intensity with increasing visual extinction is warranted by the significant uncertainties in these parameters. Radiative transfer calculations considering the destruction and scattering of photons by a realistic distribution of interstellar dust grains were made by @roberge1981 [@roberge1991]. The ultraviolet extinction relevant to various molecules was parameterised by @van_dishoeck2006 as a decaying exponential like that in Eq. (\[eq:def shielding function\]) using the the dust optical properties of @roberge1991. Their extinction calculated for the wavelength range appropriate to CO is adopted here for , that is with $\gamma_\mathrm{dust} = 3.53$. Further calculations were made by @van_dishoeck2006 assuming larger dust grains ($>1\mu$m in size) as identified in protoplanetary discs [@li2003a; @jonkheid2006]. For this case $\gamma_\mathrm{dust}=0.6$.
[cc]{}  & \
Detailed shielding functions for were given in @li2013 and the associated on-line material. Here, new calculations are made for $\mathrm{{}^{14}N{}^{15}N}$ using Eq. (\[eq:def shielding function\]), with some representative results plotted in Fig. \[fig:shielding functions\], and full details available from the Leiden photodissociation database.[^1] The data in Fig. \[fig:shielding functions\] assume that the lines of shielding H and H$_2$ are Doppler broadened by $b=1$ and $3\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$, respectively. The N$_2$ lines are assigned thermal Doppler widths according to their excitation temperatures but are also naturally broadened by the predissociation process, in some cases by a few .
Unsurprisingly, the similarity of the two isotopologues leads to very similar shielding functions. There is some difference evident in Fig. \[fig:shielding functions\] with respect to shielding by atomic hydrogen. That is, the shielding of $\mathrm{{}^{14}N{}^{15}N}$ by a $N(\mathrm{H})=10^{20}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}$ column is somewhat more effective than for . This is the result of a nearer alignment of the $b\,{}^1\Pi_u(v=3)\leftarrow X\,{}^1\Sigma_g^+(v''=0)$ absorption band of and the line-centre of the shielding $4p\leftarrow 1s$ transition of atomic hydrogen. The relevant , , and H features are plotted in Fig. \[fig:cross sections\] near 972Å. For a larger H column, like that in Fig. \[fig:cross sections\], with heavily saturated and broadened H lines, the misalignment of H and transitions near 972Å loses its significance.
Also shown in Fig. \[fig:shielding functions\] is the shielding of photodissociation by . This rivals self-shielding because of the much greater abundance of . This is particularly true at higher temperatures where the wavelength offset between isotopologues is compensated for by their broader rotational distributions and Doppler widths. A discussion of the relative importance of different species in mixed shielding media is given in Sec. \[sec:photochemical models\] with respect to an example protoplanetary disc.
[ Shielding functions calculated according to Eq. (\[eq:def shielding function\]) describe the reduction in photodissociation rate due to the attenuation of unidirectional radiation. A related quantity, $\theta_\text{iso}(N)$, describes this reduction as a function of column density for an extended medium illuminated isotropically at its surface. The resultant non-perpendicular rays penetrate less deeply and $\theta_\text{iso}(N)$ is smaller than the shielding function in the unidirectional case, $\theta(N)$ [@roellig2007]. For a plane-parallel shielding medium with $N$ defined perpendicular to its surface, the two shielding functions are related geometrically by the formula $$\label{eq:semi-infinit isotropic shielding functions}
\theta_\text{iso}(N) = \int_0^{\frac{\pi}{2}} \theta\left(\frac{N}{\cos \phi}\right)\sin\phi\,d\phi.$$ ]{}
Photodissociation due to cosmic-rays {#sec:CR}
====================================
Cosmic-ray induced emission and photodissociation model
-------------------------------------------------------
The ionisation of H$_2$ by cosmic ray collisions leads to the generation of free electrons. These may collisionally excite (or ionise) further H$_2$ whose radiative relaxation generates an ultraviolet flux [@prasad1983; @cecchi-pestellini1992b]. @sternberg1987, @gredel1987, and @gredel1989 estimated the photodissociation properties of several small molecules due to ultraviolet photons arising from this process. Similar calculations are made here for the dissociation of N$_2$ including the detailed effects of line absorption as modelled by the CSE dissociation cross sections.
[ The H$_2$ emission flux between 912 and 1000Å is dominated by line transitions. This emission occurs primarily through the Lyman and Werner bands connecting the ground state with the $B\,{}^1\Sigma_u^+$ and $C\,{}^1\Pi_u$ excited states [@sternberg1987], and with a smaller contribution arising from other excited states [@gredel1989]. Here, we use a model simulating the excitation of 9 electronic states of by cosmic-ray generated electrons and the resulting emission, developed and expounded in detail by @gredel1987 and @gredel1989. This model includes the effects of cascading from sufficiently high-energy states into $B\,{}^1\Sigma_u^+$ and competing predissociative decay. ]{}
[ The final result of the H$_2$ emission model is a spectrum, $P(\lambda)$, describing the number of photons generated per unit spectral density per H$_2$ ionisation event. A plot of $P(\lambda)$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:cross sections\] and demonstrates a large number of narrow emission lines which actually occupy very little of the wavelength interval shown. The widths of these lines are Doppler limited and assigned full-width half-maxima of 0.005Å, which is appropriate for a typical dark-cloud non-thermal Doppler broadening of $b=1\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$. This is comparable to the widths of N$_2$ absorption lines, also shown in Fig. \[fig:cross sections\], so model spectra of both species are treated at similarly high resolution. Spectra are shown in Fig. \[fig:cross sections\] assuming limiting high- and low-temperature ratios for the ortho:para H$_2$ populations, $o\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2\!:\!p\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2=3:1$ and $0:1$, respectively. The difference is quite apparent and is significant in the following calculations of N$_2$ photodissociation. Despite the 170K energy separation of $o\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2$ and $p\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2$ ground-state levels it is not evident that their low-temperature equilibrium populations are always attained in real molecular clouds [@tielens2013]. Thus, we choose to contrast high and low temperature limits in the present study. ]{}
[The rate of ultraviolet photons generated by cosmic ray collisions per unit spectral density per hydrogen nucleus is given by $$\label{eq:CR UV intensity}
R(\lambda) = \zeta x_\mathrm{H_2} P(\lambda),$$ where $x_\mathrm{H_2}= n(\mathrm{H}_2) / \left[ n(\mathrm{H})+2n(\mathrm{H}_2) \right]$ is the relative abundance of molecular hydrogen with respect to H nuclei and $\zeta$ is the cosmic-ray-induced ionisation rate per H$_2$ molecule.]{} A value of $\zeta=10^{-16}\ \text{s}^{-1}$ per is adopted for the following calculations and falls within the broad range of rates estimated from observations of [ions in diffuse and translucent clouds]{} [@dalgarno2006; @padovani2009; @indriolo2012; @rimmer2012]. This collection of observations suggest a rate as high as $10^{-15}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ at the edge of an interstellar cloud, which decreases with extinction to $\mathord{\sim}10^{-16}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ for $A_V=10$mag as the lowest-energy cosmic rays are attenuated. Our adopted value is higher than observed in the interiors of the densest clouds with $\zeta < 10^{-17}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ [@hezareh2008]. Theoretical consideration of a range of source and attenuation mechanisms influencing the cosmic ray flux [[@padovani2009; @cleeves2013]]{} suggest a smaller rate $\zeta$ than $10^{-16}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ may be expected in circumstellar environments, because of the possible influence of any stellar wind and magnetic field. The photodissociation results presented here may be adapted to ionisation rates other than $\zeta=10^{-16}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ by a simple scaling.
The cosmic-ray generated photons may be absorbed by dust grains and by abundant line-absorbing species: H$_2$, H, N$_2$, and CO. The idea of an absorbing column density is inappropriate because of the local nature of the photon source. Instead, the fraction of ultraviolet radiation absorbed by a particular species, X, and leading to its dissociation is determined from its relative abundance $x_\text{X}$, according to $$\label{eq:absorption fraction}
p_\text{X}(\lambda) = \frac{x_\text{X}\sigma^\mathrm{pd}_\text{X}(\lambda)}{x_\mathrm{dust}\sigma_\mathrm{dust} + \sum_i x_i\sigma^\mathrm{abs}_i(\lambda)}.$$ Here, $x_i$ and $\sigma_i^\mathrm{abs}(\lambda)$ are the abundances and photoabsorption cross sections of various species, $x_\mathrm{dust}\sigma_\mathrm{dust}$ represents dust absorption, and $\sigma^\mathrm{pd}_\text{X}(\lambda)$ is a photodissociation cross section.
An important term in the summation in Eq. (\[eq:absorption fraction\]) arises from H$_2$. For the cases of X being or CO, self-shielding is important and must also be included. Self-shielding and shielding by are both important for the case of photodissociation. Atomic hydrogen is also a source of UV shielding at the edge of a cloud or disc but is assumed here to have too low abundance (about $10^{-4}$ relative to H$_2$) to be important in fully shielded regions. Consequently, the common assumption that all radiation shortwards of 912Å is completely consumed by H ionisation does not apply here. However, the N$_2$ photodissociation cross section at shorter wavelengths and approaching the photoionisation limit at 800Å contributes less than 10% to its total photodissociation rate, and is neglected here.
Shielding of a penetrating interstellar radiation field by dust grains was discussed in Sec. \[sec:shielding functions\]. The extinction of cosmic-ray induced radiation is treated differently. In this case, all photons are assumed absorbed before traversing a significant fraction of the dark interior of the interstellar cloud or disk where they are generated. Then, the detailed angular scattering of photons by dust grains is inconsequential and only the absorption cross section need be considered. The dust absorption cross section is related to its extinction cross section by $$\label{eq:dust abs ext}
\sigma^\text{abs}_\text{dust} = \sigma^\text{ext}_\text{dust}(1-\omega),$$ where $\omega$ is the grain albedo. We adopt a commonly used value derived from observations [@savage1977; @bohlin1978] for the dust extinction cross section per hydrogen nucleus of $2\times 10^{-21}\,\mathrm{cm}^2$ and assume an albedo of $\omega=0.5$. Then, $x_\mathrm{dust}\sigma^\text{abs}_\mathrm{dust} = 10^{-21}\,\mathrm{cm^2}$ in Eq. (\[eq:absorption fraction\]).
[The assumption of locally-absorbed UV photons is only appropriate for a sufficiently large and homogeneous medium. The mean-free-path of cosmic-ray generated photons in an interstellar cloud of density $n_\text{H}=10^3$cm$^{-3}$ is 30000AU, assuming the UV-to-visual extinction factor of 3.53 discussed in Sec. \[sec:shielding functions\]. For the larger densities found near the midplane of a protoplanetary disc [@jonkheid2006] this distance is accordingly reduced, e.g., $n_\text{H}=10^8$cm$^{-3}$ and $\sim1$AU. In principle, the various cosmic-ray induced photodissociation rates calculated below will be overestimated for objects which are not significantly larger than this mean-free-path, due to the escape of some UV photons. However, the significance of cosmic-ray induced photon fluxes is generally limited to regions fully-shielded from external UV radiation, and such regions also necessarily shield the escape of internally-generated photons. ]{}
The dust grains in a protoplanetary disc are likely larger than those in interstellar space, which have radii $<1\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ [@mathis1977]. @li2003a deduced properties of the dust grains in one protoplanetary system, HD4796A, by reference to observed infrared and sub-millimetre wavelength emission. Their modelling required a lower limit of 1$\mu$m on the grain size distribution. The N$_2$-dissociating cosmic-ray induced UV flux considered here has wavelengths shorter than 1000Å and will not be as strongly absorbed by grains larger than this. However, a population of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) has been inferred in a number of discs [e.g., @li2003b; @geers2006; @geers2007; @maaskant2013] and will absorb extra UV radiation [@siebenmorgen]. @chaparro_molano2012a assumed a dust distribution with a minimum grain size of 0.1$\mu$m in their study of cosmic-ray induced photodissociation in a model disc. Following from this assumption they deduced a value of $x_\mathrm{dust}\sigma^\text{abs}_\mathrm{dust} = 1.47\times 10^{-22}\,\mathrm{cm^2}$, significantly below the commonly-adopted interstellar value. Here, we explore an even lower value, $x_\mathrm{dust}\sigma^\text{abs}_\mathrm{dust} = 10^{-23}\,\mathrm{cm^2}$, in order to contrast a more extreme case of grain growth in a protoplanetary disc with interplanetary dust.
Finally, the photodissociation rate of species X (per molecule X) due to cosmic ray induced photons may be calculated according to $$\label{eq:CR abs pd rate}
k_\text{X} = \frac{1}{x_\mathrm{X}}\int R(\lambda)p_\mathrm{X}(\lambda)\,d\lambda.$$ In some previous descriptions of cosmic-ray induced photodissociation [@gredel1989; @mcelroy2013] an efficiency is defined by factoring the H$_2$ ionisation rate and dust grain albedo from Eq. (\[eq:CR abs pd rate\]). In this case, the importance of molecular line absorption in Eq. (\[eq:absorption fraction\]) prevents the factoring of dust properties.
Cosmic-ray induced photodissociation of {#sec:CR pd N2}
----------------------------------------
[lrrr]{}\
Dissociation rate ($\times10^{-16}\,\mathrm{s^{-1}}$): & & &\
\
\
\
$\zeta=10^{-16}\,\mathrm{s^{-1}}$ & & &\
$x_\mathrm{{}^{14}N_2}=10^{-5}$ & & &\
$x_\mathrm{{}^{14}N^{15}N}=x_\mathrm{{}^{14}N_2}/225$ & & &\
$x_\mathrm{CO}=7\times 10^{-5}$ & & &\
$T_\mathrm{ex}=20\,\mathrm{K}$ & 14 & 21 & 8.1\
$b=1\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ & & &\
$o\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2\!:\!p\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2=3:1$ & & &\
$x_\mathrm{dust}\sigma^\text{abs}_\mathrm{dust} = 10^{-21}\,\mathrm{cm}^2$ & & &\
\
\
\
\
$T_\mathrm{ex}=10\,\mathrm{K}$ & 13 & 44 & 12\
$T_\mathrm{ex}=30\,\mathrm{K}$ & 18 & 28 & 9.2\
$T_\mathrm{ex}=100\,\mathrm{K}$ & 8.7 & 30 & 7.5\
$T_\mathrm{ex}=300\,\mathrm{K}$ & 6.8 & 20 & 10\
\
$b=3\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ & 17 & 11 & 9.1\
$b=5\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ & 19 & 12 & 10\
\
$x_\mathrm{{}^{14}N_2}=10^{-8}$, $x_\mathrm{CO}=7\times10^{-8}$ & 47 & 36 & 54\
$x_\mathrm{{}^{14}N_2}=10^{-7}$, $x_\mathrm{CO}=7\times10^{-7}$ & 45 & 36 & 40\
$x_\mathrm{{}^{14}N_2}=10^{-6}$, $x_\mathrm{CO}=7\times10^{-6}$ & 33 & 33 & 21\
$x_\mathrm{{}^{14}N_2}=10^{-4}$, $x_\mathrm{CO}=7\times10^{-4}$ & 2.8 & 8.4 & 2.1\
\
$T_\mathrm{ex}=10\,\mathrm{K}$, $o\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2\!:\!p\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2=0\!:\!1$ & 8.0 & 6.6 & 8.0\
$T_\mathrm{ex}=20\,\mathrm{K}$, $o\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2\!:\!p\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2=0\!:\!1$ & 8.9 & 22 & 9.5\
$T_\mathrm{ex}=30\,\mathrm{K}$, $o\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2\!:\!p\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2=0\!:\!1$ & 9.2 & 42 & 10\
\
$x_\mathrm{{}^{14}N^{15}N}=x_\mathrm{{}^{14}N_2}/100$ & & 17 &\
$x_\mathrm{{}^{14}N^{15}N}=x_\mathrm{{}^{14}N_2}/50$ & & 14 &\
\
\
\
\
\
$T_\mathrm{ex}=10\,\mathrm{K}$, $o\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2\!:\!p\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2=3\!:\!1$ & 18 & 69 & 19\
$T_\mathrm{ex}=20\,\mathrm{K}$, $o\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2\!:\!p\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2=3\!:\!1$ & 21 & 52 & 15\
$T_\mathrm{ex}=30\,\mathrm{K}$, $o\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2\!:\!p\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2=3\!:\!1$ & 23 & 75 & 16\
\
$T_\mathrm{ex}=10\,\mathrm{K}$, $o\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2\!:\!p\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2=0\!:\!1$ & 11 & 18 &17\
$T_\mathrm{ex}=20\,\mathrm{K}$, $o\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2\!:\!p\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2=0\!:\!1$ & 12 & 62 &18\
$T_\mathrm{ex}=30\,\mathrm{K}$, $o\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2\!:\!p\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2=0\!:\!1$ & 14 & 118 &17\
\
\[tab:cosmic ray photodissociation rates\]
The rate of dissociation of and due to cosmic-ray induced ultraviolet radiation has been calculated and listed in Tab. \[tab:cosmic ray photodissociation rates\]. This rate is dependent on the local physical conditions, and a set of base conditions is chosen which plausibly simulate the interior of a dark interstellar cloud:
- The assumed abundances of and CO relative to $n_\mathrm{H}=n(\ce{H})+{2}n(\ce{H2})$ are $10^{-5}$ and $7\times10^{-5}$, respectively, and reflect typical dense cloud abundances [@aikawa2008].
- A $\mathrm{{}^{14}N_2}\!:\!\mathrm{{}^{14}N{}^{15}N}$ ratio of 225 is chosen, appropriate for the solar elemental ratio of 450 [@marty2010].
- All molecular species are assumed to have a thermal excitation of $T_\mathrm{ex}=20\,\mathrm{K}$ and be turbulently broadened with Doppler velocity $b=1\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$.
- Dust grains are assumed to have a scattering cross section per H nucleus of $x_\mathrm{dust}\sigma^\text{abs}_\mathrm{dust} = 10^{-21}\,\mathrm{cm^2}$.
- The high temperature limit, 3:1, is assumed for the ortho:para ratio of emitting H$_2$.
Further calculations listed in Tab. \[tab:cosmic ray photodissociation rates\] probe variations on this set of parameters.
For the base set of parameters considered in Tab. \[tab:cosmic ray photodissociation rates\], the photodissociation rate is $\mathrm{14\times10^{-16}\,s^{-1}}$. This is 5 orders of magnitude below the rate calculated for a standard interstellar radiation field in Sec. \[sec:pd rates\]. The cosmic-ray induced photodissociation rates calculated by @gredel1989 for a large number of other molecular species are generally larger than the value determined here, in many cases by multiple orders of magnitude. For example, assuming $\zeta=10^{-16}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ and a grain albedo of $\omega=0.5$, their photodissociation rates for and are $2.0\times 10^{-14}$ and $1.8\times 10^{-13}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$, respectively.
The self-shielding of ${}^{14}$N$_2$ cannot be neglected because of the resonant nature of its spectrum. For this reason, decreasing the density rapidly increases the dissociation rate, until the abundance relative to H nuclei, $x_\mathrm{{}^{14}N_2}$, falls below about $10^{-7}$, as is evident from the values in Tab. \[tab:cosmic ray photodissociation rates\]. Line absorption of H$_2$ also effectively shields N$_2$ dissociation, reducing its rate by a factor of 2. Dust opacity reduces the ${}^{14}\mathrm{N}_2$ dissociation rate by a further 35%, and shielding by CO less than 5%.
--------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
 
--------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
The effective dissociation of arises from relatively few overlaps between its absorption lines and H$_2$ emission lines. These are indicated by steps in an accumulation of the integrated dissociation rate with wavelength, as shown in Fig. \[fig:14N2 cumulative CR dissoc rate\]. This accumulation is dominated by a line overlap occurring at 960.45Å, plotted in detail in Fig. \[fig:CR overlaps 960A and 913A\]. This corresponds to the $P(4)$ line of the $c_3\,{}^1\Pi_u(v'=0)\leftarrow X\,{}^1\Sigma_g^+(v''=0)$ absorption band of and the $P(3)$ line of the $B\,{}^1\Sigma_u^+(v'=13)\rightarrow X\,{}^1\Sigma_g^+(v''=0)$ H$_2$ Lyman emission band. The significance of this overlap is dependent on the assumed excitation temperatures of absorbing and shielding H$_2$. When $T_\mathrm{ex}=20$K, also indicated in Figs. \[fig:CR overlaps 960A and 913A\] and \[fig:14N2 cumulative CR dissoc rate\], the fraction of N$_2$ ground state molecules in the $J=4$ rotational level is low and the significance of the 960.45Å overlap is small. For $T_\mathrm{ex}=100$K, the $J=3$ level population of ground state H$_2$ becomes significant and $P(3)$ absorption effectively shields photodissociation. Thus, the largest photodissociation rate occurs at intermediate temperature.
![[The dissociation rate of N$_2$ due to cosmic-ray induced H$_2$ emission under interstellar cloud conditions, integrated cumulatively with increasing wavelength. Rates for are plotted with $o\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2\!:\!p\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2=3\!:\!1$ for several temperatures *(solid curves)*, for $o\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2\!:\!p\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2=3\!:\!1$ and $T_\text{ex}=20$K *(black dotted curve)*, and a single case is included for *(red dotted curve)*.]{}[]{data-label="fig:14N2 cumulative CR dissoc rate"}](cumulative_CR_dissoc_rate_N2)
Only small increases in the photodissociation rate occur for increased turbulent broadening, $b$. Greater sensitivity is found with respect to the assumed $o\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2\!:\!p\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2$ ratio. This is limited to 0:1 and 3:1 at high and low temperatures, respectively, given sufficiently high densities for thermal equilibrium to be maintained. The photodissociation rate is approximately halved when the low temperature limit is adopted, primarily because the H$_2$ emission at 960.45Å arises from an excited $o\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2$ level.
Table \[tab:cosmic ray photodissociation rates\] also includes photodissociation rates assuming reduced absorption by dust grains, in order to simulate the interior of a protoplanetary disc. The adopted value of $x_\mathrm{dust}\sigma^\text{abs}_\mathrm{dust}$ effectively removes dust from the competitive absorption of photons. The N$_2$ photodissociation rate is then somewhat higher than for an interstellar cloud, but follows the same trends with respect to temperature and the $o\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2\!:\!p\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2$ ratio.
Calculations of the cosmic-ray induced photodissociation of $\mathrm{{}^{14}N{}^{15}N}$ are also presented in Tab. \[tab:cosmic ray photodissociation rates\]. The resultant rate assuming the base conditions designed to represent a typical dark interstellar cloud is $21\times 10^{-16}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$. This is slightly larger than for and is the result of a different collection of overlapping N$_2$ absorption and H$_2$ emission lines. The dissociation rate is found to be much larger than for in the cold-temperature limit $o\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2\!:\!p\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2=0\!:\!1$ and for $T\simeq 30\,\mathrm{K}$. This is due to a strong overlap of H$_2$ emission lines near 913.1 and 913.3Å with absorption lines corresponding to low rotational levels of the $o_3\,{}^1\Pi_u(v=2)\leftarrow X{}^1\Sigma_g^+(v=0)$ transition of , plotted in Fig. \[fig:CR overlaps 960A and 913A\]. The influence of these overlaps dominate the accumulated dissociation rate shown in Fig. \[fig:14N2 cumulative CR dissoc rate\]. The isotopologue difference between dissociation rates is increased significantly when the reduced dust shielding in a protoplanetary disc is accounted for and approaches a factor of 8. Thus, from Tab. \[tab:cosmic ray photodissociation rates\], the most likely candidate for isotopic fractionation and an enhancement of atomic ${}^{15}$N due to cosmic ray induced photodissociation occurs in disc material around 30K and with a small $o\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2\!/\!p\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2$ ratio. The difference between and dissociation rates diminishes for temperatures below 30K, and is negligible at 10K when assuming a low-temperature is $o\!-\!\ce{H2}\!/\!p\!-\!\ce{H2}$.
Cosmic-ray induced photodissociation of CO {#sec:CR pd CO}
------------------------------------------
We also combined the high-resolution cosmic-ray induced emission model with the CO photodissociation cross sections of @visser2009. There is an example CO transmission spectrum plotted in Fig. \[fig:cross sections\] which exhibits similar band structure as for . The reduced symmetry of heteronuclear CO allows for greater perturbation of its excited states and leads to more rapid predissociation on average than for . The CO rotational absorption lines are then somewhat broader than for .
The CO photodissociation rates in a cosmic-ray induced UV field assuming various physical parameters are listed in Tab. \[tab:cosmic ray photodissociation rates\] and are of a similar magnitude to the rates. The on-average broader absorption lines of CO overlaps with emission lines more frequently than for , and the resulting photodissociation is then less sensitive to variations in the assumed excitation temperature and $o\!-\!\ce{H2}\!:\!p\!-\!\ce{H2}$ ratio.
The calculated CO photodissociation rate in Tab. \[tab:cosmic ray photodissociation rates\] for the base conditions representing an interstellar cloud is $8.1\times 10^{-16}$s$^{-1}$. This is somewhat less than the value calculated by @gredel1987, $13\times 10^{-16}$s$^{-1}$ (assuming $\omega=0.5$ and $\zeta=10^{-16}$s$^{-1}$), who used a less sophisticated model of CO photodissociation.
Chemical models including photodissociation {#sec:photochemical models}
===========================================
Interstellar cloud model {#sec:interstellar cloud}
------------------------
A chemical model simulating an interstellar cloud was studied in order to explore the details of $\mathrm{{}^{14}N{}^{15}N}$ photodissociation due to an interstellar radiation field impinging on its surface and a flux of cosmic rays within its interior. The model is similar to that of @li2013. Here, we used a modified version of the UMIST 2012 chemical network [@mcelroy2013]. The network was stripped down to species containing only H, He, C, N and O; and a maximum of two C, N or O atoms. Supra-thermal chemistry was included to enhance the formation of CH$^+$ (and thus also CO) at low $A_V$, following @visser2009. This boosts the rate of ion-neutral reactions after setting the Alfv[é]{}n speed to 3.3kms$^ {-1}$ for column densities less than $4\times 10^{20}$cm$^{-2}$.
Freeze-out and thermal evaporation for all neutral species were added to the gas-phase only UMIST network as well as the grain-surface hydrogenation reactions used by @visser2011. The latter include H$_2$ formation and the conversion of C to , N to , O to , and S to . [ Photodesorption due to the UV field generated from cosmic-ray ionisation and the attenuated ISRF were included, but direct cosmic-ray desorption was not. ]{}
[The wavelength dependence of the Draine ISRF was adopted for a unidirectional radiation field perpendicularly incident on the model cloud’s edge. This was scaled by a factor of [$\chi=1$]{} so that one-sided irradiation of the cloud leads to the same unshielded dissociation rates at its edge as those given in Tab. \[tab:kpd0\]. The cloud is assumed sufficiently thick that no radiation penetrates from the far side. Self-shielding of CO is computed using the shielding functions of @visser2009, for we use those calculated by @li2013 at 30K, and the presently calculated shielding functions are used for . The scattering of UV radiation out of the incident beam is not included in our model. ]{}
[ The wavelength dependence of the Draine ISRF was designed to simulate an isotropic field generated from a remote stellar population [@draine1978], and some previous interstellar cloud models also assume isotropic radiation [@roellig2007]. The transition between atomic and molecular H$_2$ was shown by @roellig2007 to differ between irradiation geometries, occurring at lower $A_V$ for the isotropic case relative to unidirectional radiation. The transition for N$_2$ occurring in our unidirectional model would be similarly shifted to shallower depth if the incident radiation were isotropic. ]{}
The elemental abundances relative to H are those of @aikawa2008: $0.0975$ for He, $7.86\times10^{-5}$ for C, $2.47\times10^{-5}$ for N, and $1.80\times10^{-4}$ for O. The elemental ${}^{14}$N:${}^{15}$N ratio was fixed to the protosolar value, 450:1. The rate of H$_2$ ionisation due to cosmic rays was set to $5\times 10^{-17}$s$^{-1}$. The abundances of N, N$_2$ and CO reach steady state after $\mathord{\sim}$1Myr, regardless of whether the gas starts in atomic or molecular form.
The cloud was assumed to have a constant hydrogen-nuclei density of $n_\ce{H} = n(\mathrm{H})+2n(\mathrm{H}_2)=10^3\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$ and a temperature of 30K. The turbulent broadening, $b$, of CO, H$_2$, and H were set to 0.3, 3, and 5kms$^{-1}$; respectively; and N$_2$ lines were assigned linewidths equivalent to their thermal Doppler width at 30K, [in an identical fashion to the similar model of [@li2013]]{}.
The dust population was assigned a coefficient $\gamma_\mathrm{dust}=3.53$ in Eq. (\[eq:def shielding function\]) to simulate grains with an interstellar size distribution, with radius $\mathord{\sim}0.1\,\mu\textrm{m}$ size. A value for the cosmic-ray induced photodissociation rate of N$_2$ was adopted corresponding to the low temperature $o\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2\!:\!p\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2$ ratio, 0:1.
The nitrogen reaction network was augmented so that separate accounting of pure ${}^{14}$N and single-${}^{15}$N containing species was possible. For this, all N-containing species and reactions were cloned and a ${}^{14}$N to ${}^{15}$N substitution made. [ Two kinds of isotope-differentiating reactions are included in our model chemical network: photodissociation and low-temperature ion-molecule exchange reactions. The selective effects of photodissociation are encoded in the shielding functions and cosmic-ray induced photodissociation rates presented in Secs. \[sec:shielding functions\] and \[sec:CR pd N2\]. Exchange reactions were added to our network using the rates listed in Tab. 2 of @terzieva2000. These reactions exothermically favour increased abundances of in more complex species because of the lower zero-point energy of molecules with heavier nuclei, with typical excess energies of 10 to 30K. ]{}
Figure \[fig:trans results\] shows the calculated abundances of ${}^{14}$N, ${}^{15}$N, , and $\mathrm{{}^{14}N{}^{15}N}$ as well as their accumulated column densities, i.e., $$\label{eq:accumulated column density with AV}
\textrm{Cumulative column density} = \int_0^{z(A_V)} \!\!\!n(\textrm{X})\,dz,$$ where $n(\textrm{X})$ is the absolute abundance of species X and $z(A_V)$ is the distance from the clouds edge for a particular extinction. The trend of these quantities as a function of $A_V$ is qualitatively very similar for either isotopologue. Nitrogen is preserved in atomic form near the edge of the cloud due to the intense photodissociating interstellar radiation field. Increasing shielding with depth into the cloud permits a significant population in molecular form beginning around $A_V=1.5$.
The relative abundances of ${}^{14}$N/${}^{15}$N and /$\mathrm{{}^{14}N{}^{15}N}$ calculated by the model are shown in Fig. \[fig:trans results\]. Any fractionation process will alter the isotopic abundances from the assumed elemental ratios ${}^{14}$N/${}^{15}$N=450 and /$\mathrm{{}^{14}N{}^{15}N}$=225. There is indeed an enhancement of in atomic form for $A_V$ between 1 and 3mag, and its concurrent depletion in the form of . This range of extinction corresponds to a column-density of sufficiently large to significantly self-shield the ISRF and slow its rate of photodissociation. The lower column of is not as effectively self-shielding and leads to a larger photodissociation rate and the calculated excess of atoms.
[A modified model was also run neglecting ion-molecule exchange reactions in order to test their contribution to the calculated fractionation. The modelled abundances were not significantly altered by this modification and the fractionation between $A_V=1$ and 3mag is completely dominated by isotope-selective photodissociation due to self-shielding, at least at the adopted temperature of 30K. ]{} [ In contrast, significant enhancements of in and HCN were produced in the models of @charnley2002, @rodgers2004, and @wirstrom2012 which simulate dense protostellar cores. These models included isotope-exchange reactions similar to those adopted here and neglected isotope-selective photodissociation. They also simulated somewhat colder conditions than ours (10 versus 30K), enhancing the rate of the fractionating exchange reactions, and assumed significant depletion of CO relative to by condensation onto grains, slowing the effect of fractionation-reducing reprocessing to . It is then possible that the observed fractionation of N-isotopes may have a combined chemical and photolytic origin. ]{}
There is no indication in Fig. \[fig:trans results\] for fractionation in the abundance of N$_2$ or N in the completely shielded interior of the interstellar cloud model ($A_V\gtrsim 3$). [This is despite the inclusion of isotope-selective ion-molecule exchange reactions]{} and a 40% faster rate of cosmic ray induced photodissociation for relative to given the physical parameters selected for this cloud model. Ultimately, cosmic-ray induced photodissociation is rendered irrelevant by faster and isotopologue-independent destruction mechanisms included in our model: $$\label{eq:destruction N2 He+}
\ce{N2 ->[\ce{He+}] N+ + N}$$ and $$\label{eq:destruction N2 H3+}
\ce{N2 ->[\ce{H3+}] N2H+ }.$$ The combined destruction rate due to these processes exceeds $10^{-13}$s$^{-1}$ and is two orders of magnitude faster than cosmic-ray induced photodissociation.
The total-column fractionation of N and depends on the assumed depth of the modelled cloud, and is also plotted in Fig. \[fig:trans results\] as a function of $A_V$. For our plane-parallel single-side-illuminated model this is maximal for $A_V$ between 1.5 and 2mag, but never exceeds a factor of two for atomic or molecular species.
The minor contribution of cosmic-ray induced photodissociation to the nitrogen chemistry in our model does not presuppose a similar conclusion for other molecules, some of which have significantly higher cosmic-ray induced predissociation rates [@gredel1989].
Protoplanetary disc model {#sec:protoplanetary disc}
-------------------------
[We have run a second chemical model for a vertical slice through a circumstellar disc using the same network of reactions as in Sec. \[sec:interstellar cloud\]. The model setup is identical to that of @visser2009 and @li2013. Briefly, we take the disc geometry, dust density and temperature distributions directly from the previous model of @alessio1999 without modification. This simulates a disc of mass of 0.07$M_\odot$ and outer radius 400AU surrounding a T Tauri star of mass 0.5$M_\odot$ and radius 2$R_\odot$. The simulated vertical slice is located at a radius of 105AU.]{}
[A radiation field with the Draine wavelength dependence is perpendicularly incident on the surface of the slice, 120AU above the midplane. The use of a scaled Draine field to represent the combined UV flux from the central star and the ISRF has been previously investigated in detail for the same disc geometry employed here [@van_zadelhoff2003; @jonkheid2004]. From these studies, a Draine field with $\chi=516$ is a satisfactory proxy for a more realistic field including the details of the stellar spectrum at a disc radius of 105AU. Dust grains of radius 1$\mu$m are assumed to populate the disc which leads to weaker shielding and a greater penetration of ultraviolet radiation than for the interstellar cloud model of Sec. \[sec:interstellar cloud\]. ]{}
The abundances and cumulative column densities of atomic and molecular nitrogen in the disc model are plotted in Fig. \[fig:disc results N N2\].
The abundance of N$_2$ becomes significant about 40AU above the midplane and a rapid freeze-out of gaseous N$_2$ onto dust grains occurs 20AU above the midplane, where the temperature falls below 20K. The effect of photodissociative fractionation in the intervening 20 to 40AU region is evident in the abundance ratios plotted in Fig. \[fig:disc results N N2\], where the atomic ratio of $\mathrm{{}^{14}N/^{15}N}$ dips by a factor of 10 below the elemental ratio. However, fractionation of the total atomic N column is negligible because of its low abundance in this region. As for the interstellar cloud model, cosmic-ray induced photodissociation of N$_2$ is found to be negligible throughout the disc slice, and does not contribute to isotopic fractionation. [Similarly, the contribution of ion-molecule exchange reactions to the calculated chemical abundances was found to be negligible following comparison with an alternative model where these are neglected.]{} [That is, the ice-phase predominance of nitrogen species in our model for disc heights with sufficiently low-temperature for chemical fractionation to occur suppresses these reactions.]{}
The contribution of different species to the shielding of and photodissociation were calculated as a function of height and $A_V$ and are plotted in Fig. \[fig:disc model shielding functions\]. These calculations include all shielding species in an integral with the form in Eq. (\[eq:def shielding function\]) by adopting column densities output from the disc model.
From this, it is evident that shielding by 1$\mu$m dust grains (approximated for Fig. \[fig:disc model shielding functions\] by assuming $\gamma_\mathrm{dust}=0.6$) and the hydrogen column are comparably effective. The shielding by CO is quite negligible because of the rarity of its overlaps with N$_2$, evident in Fig. \[fig:cross sections\]. The significance of photodissociation-induced isotopic fractionation of atomic N relies on the relative importance of self-shielding of and . For this becomes important around 40AU above the midplane and is comparable to dust and hydrogen shielding between 20 and 35AU. For , self-shielding never contributes more than 10% of the total shielding and is about equivalent to its shielding by .
The appearance of N and fractionation between 20 and 40AU in Fig. \[fig:disc results N N2\] has consequences for other nitrogen bearing species. For example, Fig. \[fig:disc results CN HCN\] shows the abundances, column densities, and isotopic ratios of CN, HCN, and their ices; which are formed primarily from atomic N via the reactions $$\label{eq:CN formation}
\ce{N ->[\ce{CH}] CN},$$ and $$\label{eq:HCN formation}
\ce{N ->[\ce{CH_2}] HCN}.$$ Additionally, CN and HCN are themselves susceptible to photodissociation and do not survive far from the midplane. Then, their maximum abundances occur within the region of enhanced ${}^{15}$N atoms and this enhancement is mirrored in their integrated column densities. The isotopic fractionation of HCN gas and ice columns is plotted in Fig. \[fig:disc results CN HCN\] and approaches a factor of 10, whereas the fractionation of gaseous CN is somewhat less because a major portion of its column forms above 40AU and outside the region of photo-fractionated N.
A different isotope fractionation pattern is evident in Fig. \[fig:disc results NH3\] for . The majority of the population is frozen onto grain surfaces and its abundance has a sharp maximum at the inner edge of the fractionation zone, near 20AU. We do not compute much difference between the integrated column densities of and in either gas or ice phases but the local abundance is significantly enhanced and depleted in the ranges 20–25 and 25–40AU, respectively. The pattern of photolytic fractionation is more complex than for CN and HCN due to a more complex formation mechanism. There are two pathways leading to in our model, the first occurring entirely in the gas phase and initiated from molecular , that is, $$\label{eq:NH3 formation path N+}
\ce{ N2 ->[\ce{He+}] N + N+ ->[n\ce{H2}] NH4+ ->[e^-] NH3 },$$ and the second follows from the hydrogenation of atomic N after its condensation onto ice grains, $$\label{eq:NH3 formation path ice}
\ce{N ->[T\lesssim 20\,\textrm{K}] N\ ice ->[n\ce{H}] NH3\ ice }.$$ Intermediate species and in the reaction series summarised by Eq. (\[eq:NH3 formation path ice\]) are also allowed to evaporate in our model and contribute to the gaseous beginning with their ionisation by , e.g., $$\label{eq:NH3 formation path ice extra}
\ce{NH2 ->[\ce{H+}] NH2+ ->[\ce{H2}] NH3}.$$
The balance between formation routes given in Eqs. (\[eq:NH3 formation path N+\]), (\[eq:NH3 formation path ice\]), and (\[eq:NH3 formation path ice extra\]) dictates the height-dependent isotopic fractionation of in sympathy with the fractionation of their respective precursors, or N. The occurrence of formation route (\[eq:NH3 formation path N+\]) is limited to approximately 20 to 40AU above the midplane, where there is an abundance of gaseous . The process in Eq. (\[eq:NH3 formation path ice\]) requires condensed atomic N and is even more restricted. That is, sufficiently low temperatures only occur within 25AU of the midplane in our model, whereas the necessary source of gaseous N is limited to above 20AU. Then, the fractionation pattern resembles that of atomic N between 20 and 25AU, and above this.
Overall, the complexity of photodissociative fractionation of deduced here suggests the induced column density ratio in a particular environment will depend sensitively on its temperature and density profiles. The photodissociative fractionation of CN and HCN is likely more robust because the formation routes of these molecules are relatively simple. [The enhancement of in CN and HCN within the self-shielding zone of our model disc ($10\times$) is actually larger than for observations of cometary CN and HCN ($2-3\times$) [@jehin2009; @mumma2011].]{} This supports the feasibility of photodissociation as a mechanism for cometary fractionation. The greater fractionation of and relative to calculated for our particular protoplanetary disc also suggests that photodissociation may contribute to the explanation of a similar difference observed in the cold prestellar core L1544 [@hily-blant2013; @bizzocchi2013], but not necessarily elsewhere in the galaxy [@daniel2013].
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
We used a high-resolution theoretical spectroscopic model of to calculate its dissociation rate in interstellar space due to ultraviolet radiation, as well as the shielding of this radiation by dust grains and gas phase species. We obtain an unshielded rate of $1.73\times 10^{-10}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ assuming a Draine ISRF and an excitation temperature of 30K, which is very near to the rate for obtained in our previous study [@li2013]. Comprehensive tabulated shielding functions for and are available online.[^2]
To calculate the rate of photodissociation in regions fully shielded from external radiation, the model of and was combined with a detailed theoretical spectrum of H$_2$ emission arising from cosmic rays. [Assuming $\zeta=10^{-16}$s$^{-1}$, a variable]{} rate of $\sim10^{-15}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ was found to depend on the assumed details of the local environment, most significantly, the excitation temperature of N$_2$ and shielding species, the $o\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2\!:\!p\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2$ ratio, and the dust opacity at ultraviolet wavelengths. Isotope-dependent cosmic-ray induced photodissociation was also investigated, with the most extreme difference occurring when assuming 30K, $o\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2\!:\!p\!-\!\mathrm{H}_2=0\!:\!1$, and a low dust absorption cross section appropriate to a protoplanetary disc experiencing grain growth. Then, the dissociation rate of exceeds that of by a factor of 8. This large isotopic difference does not occur at a lower excitation temperature of 10K. We also calculated the rate of CO dissociation by cosmic-ray induced photons previously determined by @gredel1987 using more accurate photodissociation cross sections, and deduced a $\mathord{\sim}40\,\%$ lower value.
Chemical models were run simulating an interstellar cloud and a protoplanetary disc to test the importance of self-shielding of external radiation and cosmic ray initiated photodissociation to the balance of ${}^{14}\mathrm{N}$- and ${}^{15}\mathrm{N}$-bearing species. An enhancement of atomic ${}^{15}\mathrm{N}$ relative to ${}^{14}\mathrm{N}$ is found at extinctions with $1 \lesssim A_V \lesssim 3$, and is due to more effective self-shielding of the ISRF by than by . This fractionation is larger for our disc model where weaker dust shielding was assumed to simulate the growth and depletion of small dust grains. The photodissociation due to cosmic-ray induced ultraviolet radiation is found to be too slow to significantly influence the chemistry in the dark interiors of our models.
The isotopically-dependent photodissociation of N$_2$ in our protoplanetary disc model leads to a significant enhancement in the column densities of relative to . Our model predicts a value of $\ce{HC^{14}N}/\ce{HC^{15}N}\simeq100$, when assuming an elemental nitrogen abundance ratio of $\ce{{}^{14}N}/\ce{{}^{15}N}=450$. This corresponds to an isotopic fractionation in $\delta$-notation of ${}^{15}\delta_\ce{HCN}\simeq -800\,\text{\textperthousand}$. This enhancement mirrors the fractionation of atomic N induced by photodissociation. Our model predicts a lower fractionation ratio for CN, with $\ce{C^{14}N}/\ce{C^{15}N}\simeq250$. This is because the region where forms does not coincide as neatly with the peak of isotope dependent photodissociation. The formation chemistry of is more complex and can be initiated from both N$_2$ and atomic N. This species is then less fractionated in our model.
Many assumptions must be made when modelling the chemistry of complex and remote objects such as protoplanetary discs. However, the calculations underpinning our predictions of photodissociative fractionation are based on reliable laboratory and theoretical spectroscopy and may be resilient to many structural details of astrophysical objects.
Astrochemistry in Leiden is supported by the Netherlands Research School for Astronomy (NOVA), by a Spinoza grant and grant 648.000.002 from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) via the Dutch Astrochemistry Network, and by the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreements 291141 (CHEMPLAN) and 238258 (LASSIE). Calculations of the N$_2$ photodissociation cross sections were supported by the Australian Research Council Discovery Program, through Grant Nos. DP0558962 and DP0773050. We would also like to thank Simon Bruderer and Xiaohu Li for discussions on the optical properties of protoplanetary dust grains and photodissociation, respectively.
[^1]: www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/\~ewine/photo
[^2]: www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/\~ewine/photo
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider finite element discretizations of the Biot’s consolidation model in poroelasticity with MINI and stabilized P1-P1 elements. We analyze the convergence of the fully discrete model based on spatial discretization with these types of finite elements and implicit Euler method in time. We also address the issue related to the presence of non-physical oscillations in the pressure approximation for low permeabilities and/or small time steps. We show that even in 1D a Stokes-stable finite element pair fails to provide a monotone discretization for the pressure in such regimes. We then introduce a stabilization term which removes the oscillations. We present numerical results confirming the monotone behavior of the stabilized schemes.'
address:
- 'Departamento de Matemática Aplicada, Universidad de Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts 02155, USA'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Penn State, University Park, Pennsylvania, 16802, USA'
author:
- 'C. Rodrigo'
- 'F.J. Gaspar'
- 'X. Hu'
- 'L.T. Zikatanov'
bibliography:
- 'bib\_PoroE.bib'
title: 'Stability and monotonicity for some discretizations of the Biot’s consolidation model'
---
Stable finite elements ,monotone discretizations ,poroelasticity.
Introduction {#sec:Intro}
============
Pressure oscillatory behaviour: one dimensional example {#sec:oscillations}
=======================================================
Stability of discretizations and perturbations of Biot’s model {#sec:Schur}
==============================================================
Error estimates for the fully discrete problem {#sec:fully-discrete}
==============================================
Numerical Experiments {#sec:numerics}
=====================
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
In this paper we have analyzed the convergence and the monotonicity properties of low order discretizations of the Biot’s consolidation model in poromechanics. While the convergence results are complete in some sense, there are still several open theoretical questions regarding the monotonicity of the resulting discretizations. Clearly, our numerical results show that choosing the stabilization parameters correctly lead to oscillation-free solutions, but justifying this rigorously is difficult and a topic of ongoing research. We have to say though that as a rule of thumb, one can choose stabilizations that are optimal in 1D, and, the resulting approximations in higher spatial dimensions will be oscillation-free.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The work of Francisco J. Gaspar and Carmen Rodrigo is supported in part by the Spanish project FEDER /MCYT MTM2013-40842-P and the DGA (Grupo consolidado PDIE). The research of Ludmil Zikatanov is supported in part by NSF DMS-1217142 and NSF DMS-1418843. Ludmil Zikatanov gratefully acknowledges the support for this work from the Institute of Mathematics and Applications at University of Zaragoza and Campus Iberus, Spain.
Local elimination of bubbles {#sect:local-Schur}
============================
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We give a simple proof of the finite presentation of Sela’s limit groups by using free actions on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–trees. We first prove that Sela’s limit groups do have a free action on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree. We then prove that a finitely generated group having a free action on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree can be obtained from free abelian groups and surface groups by a finite sequence of free products and amalgamations over cyclic groups. As a corollary, such a group is finitely presented, has a finite classifying space, its abelian subgroups are finitely generated and contains only finitely many conjugacy classes of non-cyclic maximal abelian subgroups.'
address: |
Laboratoire E. Picard, UMR 5580, Bât 1R2\
Université Paul Sabatier, 118 rte de Narbonne\
31062 Toulouse cedex 4, France
author:
- Vincent Guirardel
title: 'Limit groups and groups acting freely on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–trees'
---
Introduction
============
Limit groups have been introduced by Z Sela in the first paper of his solution of Tarski’s problem [@Sela_diophantine1]. These groups appeared to coincide with the long-studied class of finitely generated fully residually free groups (see [@Baumslag_residually], [@Baumslag_generalised], [@KhMy_irreducible1; @KhMy_irreducible2], [@Chi_introduction] and references).
A limit group is a limit of free groups in the space of marked groups. More precisely, if $n$ is a fixed integer, a marked group is a group together with an ordered generating family $S=(s_1,\dots,s_n)$. Two marked groups $(\Gamma,S)$ and $(\Gamma',S')$ are close to each other in this topology if for some large $R$, $(\Gamma,S)$ and $(\Gamma',S')$ have exactly the same relations of length at most $R$ (see section \[sec\_prelim\_limit\]).
Limit groups have several equivalent characterisations: a finitely generated group $G$ is a limit group if and only if it is fully residually free, if and only if it has the same universal theory as a free group, if and only if it is a subgroup of a non-standard free group [@Remeslennikov_exist_siberian; @CG_compactifying].
One of the main results about limit groups is a structure theorem due to Kharlampovich–Myasnikov, Pfander and Sela [@KhMy_irreducible1; @KhMy_irreducible2; @Pfander_finitely; @Sela_diophantine1]. This theorem claims that a limit group can be inductively obtained from free abelian groups and surface groups by taking free products and amalgamations over ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$ (see Theorem \[devissage\_simple\] below). This structure theorem implies that a limit group is finitely presented, and that its abelian subgroups are finitely generated. The goal of the paper is to give a simpler proof of this result in the broader context of groups acting freely on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–trees.
After completing this work, the author learnt about the unpublished thesis of Shalom Gross, a student of Z Sela, proving the finite presentation of finitely generated groups having a free action on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree [@Gross_these]. Both proofs deeply rely on Sela’s structure theorem for super-stable actions of finitely generated groups on ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–trees ([@Sela_acylindrical Theorem 3.1], see also Theorem \[thm\_structure\] below). However, Gross does not state a dévissage theorem over cyclic groups, but over finitely generated abelian groups.
Let’s recall briefly the definition of a $\Lambda$–tree. Given a totally ordered abelian group $\Lambda$, there is a natural notion of $\Lambda$–metric space where the distance function takes its values in $\Lambda$. If $\Lambda$ is archimedean, then $\Lambda$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of ${{\mathbb{R}}}$ and we have a metric in the usual sense. When $\Lambda$ is not archimedean, there are elements which are infinitely small compared to other elements. A typical example is when $\Lambda={{\mathbb{R}}}^n$ endowed with the lexicographic ordering.
A $\Lambda$–tree may be defined as a geodesic $0$–hyperbolic $\Lambda$–metric space. Roughly speaking, an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree may be thought of as a kind of bundle over an ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–tree where the fibres are (infinitesimal) ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$–trees.
In his list of research problems, Sela conjectures that a finitely generated group is a limit group if and only if it acts freely on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree [@Sela_problems]. However, it is known that the fundamental group $\Gamma=\langle a,b,c\,|\, a^2b^2c^2=1\rangle$ of the non-orientable surface $\Sigma$ of Euler characteristic $-1$ is not a limit group since three elements in a free group satisfying $a^2b^2c^2=1$ must commute ([@Lyndon_equation],[@Chi_book p.249]). But this group acts freely on a ${{\mathbb{Z}}}^2$–tree: $\Sigma$ can be obtained by gluing together the two boundary components of a twice punctured projective plane, so $\Gamma$ can be written as an HNN extension $F_2*_{{\mathbb{Z}}}$. The ${{\mathbb{Z}}}^2$–tree can be roughly described as the Bass–Serre tree of this HNN extension, but where one blows up each vertex into an infinitesimal tree corresponding to a Cayley graph of $F_2$ (see [@Chi_book p.237] for details).
In this paper, we start by giving a proof that every limit group acts freely on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree. This is an adaptation a theorem by Remeslennikov saying that a fully residually free groups act freely on a $\Lambda$–tree where $\Lambda$ has finite ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$–rank, [i.e. ]{}$\Lambda{\otimes}{{\mathbb{Q}}}$ is finite dimensional ([@Remeslennikov_exist_ukrainian], see also [@Chi_book Theorem 5.10]). However, Remeslennikov claims that $\Lambda$ can be chosen finitely generated, but this relies on a misquoted result about valuations (see section \[sec\_remeslennikov\]).
We actually prove that there is a closed subspace of the space of marked groups consisting of groups acting freely on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–trees. In the following statement, an action of a group $\Gamma$ on a Bruhat–Tits tree is the action on the Bruhat–Tits tree of $SL_2(K)$ induced by a morphism $j\co \Gamma{\rightarrow}SL_2(K)$ where $K$ is a valuation field. Note that $K$ may vary with $\Gamma$.
[thm\_closed]{}
Let ${{{{\mathcal {B}}}{{\mathcal {T}}}}}\subset{{\mathcal {G}}}_n$ be the set of marked groups $(\Gamma,S)$ having a free action on a Bruhat–Tits tree.
Then ${{{{\mathcal {B}}}{{\mathcal {T}}}}}$ is closed in ${{\mathcal {G}}}_n$, and ${{{{\mathcal {B}}}{{\mathcal {T}}}}}$ consists in groups acting freely on $\Lambda$–trees where $\Lambda{\otimes}{{\mathbb{Q}}}$ has dimension at most $3n+1$ over ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$. In particular, ${{{{\mathcal {B}}}{{\mathcal {T}}}}}$ consists in groups acting freely on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{3n+1}$–trees where ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{3n+1}$ has the lexicographic ordering.
[Remeslennikov]{}
[[@Remeslennikov_exist_ukrainian]]{}A limit group has a free action on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree.
As a corollary of their study of the structure of limit groups [@KhMy_irreducible1; @KhMy_irreducible2], Kharlampovich and Myasnikov prove the more precise result that a limit group is a subgroup of an iterated free extension of centralizers of a free group, and has therefore a free action on a ${{\mathbb{Z}}}^n$–tree [@KhMy_irreducible2 Corollary 6]. An alternative proof of this fact using Sela’s techniques is given in [@CG_compactifying].
The main result of the paper is the following structure theorem for groups acting freely on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–trees (see theorem \[cyclic\_devissage\] for a more detailed version). In view of the previous corollary, this theorem applies to limit groups.
[devissage\_simple]{}
Consider a finitely generated, freely indecomposable group $\Gamma$ having a free action on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree. Then $\Gamma$ can be written as the fundamental group of a finite graph of groups with cyclic edge groups and where each vertex group is finitely generated and has a free action on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$–tree.
For $n=1$, Rips theorem says that $\Gamma$ (which is supposed to be freely indecomposable) is either a free abelian group, or a surface group (see [@GLP1; @BF_stable]). Hence, a limit group can be obtained from abelian and surface groups by a finite sequence of free products and amalgamations over ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$. It is therefore easy to deduce the following result:
[cor\_FP]{}
Let $\Gamma$ be a finitely generated group having a free action on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree. Then
$\Gamma$ is finitely presented [@Gross_these Corollary 6.6];
if $\Gamma$ is not cyclic, then its first Betti number is at least $2$;
there are finitely many conjugacy classes of non-cyclic maximal abelian subgroups in $\Gamma$, and abelian subgroups of $\Gamma$ are finitely generated. More precisely, one has the following bound on the ranks of maximal abelian subgroups: $$\sum_A (\operatorname{Rk}A-1)\leq b_1(\Gamma)-1$$ where the sum is taken over the set of conjugacy classes of non-cyclic maximal abelian subgroups of $\Gamma$, and where $b_1(\Gamma)$ denotes the first Betti number of $\Gamma$;
$\Gamma$ has a finite classifying space, and the cohomological dimension of $\Gamma$ is at most $\max(2,r)$ where $r$ is the maximal rank of an abelian subgroup of $\Gamma$.
A combination theorem by Dahmani also shows that $\Gamma$ is hyperbolic relative to its non-cyclic abelian subgroups [@Dahmani_combination].
[[@Sela_diophantine1; @KhMy_irreducible1; @KhMy_irreducible2; @Pfander_finitely]]{}A limit group is finitely presented, its abelian subgroups are finitely generated, it has only finitely many conjugacy classes of maximal non-cyclic abelian subgroups, and it has a finite classifying space.
Finally, we can also easily derive from the dévissage theorem the existence of a *principal* splitting, a major step in Sela’s proof of the finite presentation of limit groups (see corollary \[cor\_principal\] and [@Sela_diophantine1 Theorem 3.2]).
Unlike Sela’s proof, the proof we give doesn’t need any JSJ theory, and does not use the shortening argument. The proof is also much shorter than the one by Kharlampovich–Myasnikov in [@KhMy_irreducible1; @KhMy_irreducible2] using algebraic geometry over groups, and the study of equations in free groups.
The paper is organized as follows: after some premilinaries in section \[sec\_prelim\], section \[sec\_remeslennikov\] is devoted to the proof of the fact that limit groups act freely on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–trees. Section \[sec\_gluing\] sets up some preliminary work on graph of actions on $\Lambda$–trees, which encode how to glue equivariantly some $\Lambda$–trees to get a new $\Lambda$–tree. In section \[sec\_abelian\], starting with a free action of a group $\Gamma$ on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree $T$, we study the action on the ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–tree ${\overline{T}}$ obtained by identifying points at infinitesimal distance, and we deduce a weaker version of the dévissage Theorem where we obtain a graph of groups over (maybe non-finitely generated) abelian groups. Section \[sec\_flawless\] contains the core of the argument: starting with a free action of $\Gamma$ on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree $T$, we build a free action on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree $T'$ such that the ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–tree ${{{\overline{T}}}{}}'$ has *cyclic* arc stabilizers. The dévissage theorem and its corollaries will then follow immediately, as shown in section \[sec\_devissage\].
The author thanks the referee for useful presentation suggestions.
Preliminaries {#sec_prelim}
=============
Marked groups and limit groups {#sec_prelim_limit}
------------------------------
Sela introduced limit groups in [@Sela_diophantine1]. For background about Sela’s limit groups, see also [@CG_compactifying] or [@Pau_theorie].
A *marked group* $(G,S)$ is a finitely generated group $G$ together with a finite ordered generating family $S=(s_1,\dots,s_n)$. Note that repetitions may occur in $S$, and some generators $s_i$ may be the trivial element of $G$. Consider two groups $G$ and $G'$ together with some markings of the same cardinality $S=(s_1,\dots,s_n)$ and $S'=(s'_1,\dots,s'_n)$. A *morphism of marked groups* $h\co (G,S){\rightarrow}(G',S')$ is a homomorphism $h\co G{\rightarrow}G'$ sending $s_i$ on $s'_i$ for all $i\in\{1,\dots,n\}$. Note that there is at most one morphism between two marked groups, and that all morphisms are epimorphisms.
A *relation* in $(G,S)$ is an element of the kernel of the natural morphism $F_n{\rightarrow}G$ sending $a_i$ to $s_i$ where $F_n$ is the free group with basis $(a_1,\dots,a_n)$. Note that two marked group are isomorphic if and only if they have the same set of relations.
Given any fixed $n$, we define ${{\mathcal {G}}}_n$ to be the set of isomorphism classes of marked groups. It is naturally endowed with the topology such that the sets $N_R(G,S)$ defined below form a neighbourhood basis of $(G,S)$. For each $(G,S)\in{{\mathcal {G}}}_n$ and each $R>0$, $N_R(G,S)$ is the set of marked groups $(G',S')\in{{\mathcal {G}}}_n$ such that $(G,S)$ and $(G',S')$ have exactly the same relations of length at most $R$. For this topology, ${{\mathcal {G}}}_n$ is a Hausdorff, compact, totally disconnected space.
A *limit group* $(G,S)\in{{\mathcal {G}}}_n$ is a marked group which is a limit of markings of free groups in ${{\mathcal {G}}}_n$.
Actually, being a limit group does not depend on the choice of the generating set. Moreover, limit groups have several equivalent characterizations: a finitely generated group is a limit group if and only if it is fully residually free, if and only if it has the same universal theory as a free group, if and only if it is a subgroup of a non-standard free group [@Remeslennikov_exist_siberian; @CG_compactifying]. We won’t need those characterizations in this paper.
$\Lambda$–trees
---------------
For background on $\Lambda$–trees, see [@Bass_non-archimedean; @Chi_book].
#### Totally ordered abelian groups
A totally ordered abelian group $\Lambda$ is an abelian group with a total ordering such that for all $x,y,z\in \Lambda$, $x\leq y \Rightarrow x+z\leq y+z$. Our favorite example will be ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$, with the lexicographic ordering. In all this paper, ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$ will always be endowed with its lexicographic ordering. To fix notations, we use the *little endian* convention: the leftmost factor will have the greatest weight. More precisely, if $\Lambda_1$ and $\Lambda_2$ are totally ordered abelian groups, the lexicographic ordering on $\Lambda_1\oplus\Lambda_2$ is defined by $(x_1,x_2)\leq (y_1,y_2)$ if $x_1<y_1$ or ($x_1=y_1$ and $x_2\leq y_2$).
A morphism ${\varphi}\co \Lambda{\rightarrow}\Lambda'$ between two totally-ordered abelian groups is a non-decreasing group morphism. Given $a,b\in\Lambda$, the subset $[a,b]=\{x\in\Lambda \,|\, a\leq x\leq b\}$ is called the *segment* between $a$ and $b$. A subset $E\subset\Lambda$ is *convex* if for all $a,b\in E$, $[a,b]\subset E$. The kernel of a morphism is a convex subgroup, and if $\Lambda_0\subset \Lambda$ is a convex subgroup, then $\Lambda/\Lambda_0$ has a natural structure of totally ordered abelian group. By *proper* convex subgroup of $\Lambda$, we mean a convex subgroup strictly contained in $\Lambda$.
The set of convex subgroups of $\Lambda$ is totally ordered by inclusion. The height of $\Lambda$ is the (maybe infinite) number of proper convex subgroups of $\Lambda$. Thus, the height of ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$ is $n$. $\Lambda$ is *archimedean* if its height is at most 1. It is well known that a totally ordered abelian group is archimedean if and only if it is isomorphic to a subgroup of ${{\mathbb{R}}}$ (see for instance [@Chi_book Theorem 1.1.2])
If $\Lambda_0\subset \Lambda$ is a convex subgroup, then any element $\lambda_0\in\Lambda_0$ may be thought as infinitely small compared to an element $\lambda\in\Lambda\setminus\Lambda_0$ since for all $n\in{{\mathbb{N}}}$, $n\lambda_0\leq \lambda$. Therefore, we will say that an element in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$ is *infinitesimal* if it lies in the maximal proper convex subgroup of ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$, which we casually denote by ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$. Similarly, for $p\leq n$, we will identify ${{\mathbb{R}}}^p$ with the corresponding convex subgroup of ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$. The *magnitude* of an element $\lambda\in{{\mathbb{R}}}^n$ is the smallest $p$ such that $\lambda\in {{\mathbb{R}}}^p$. Thus $\lambda\in{{\mathbb{R}}}^n$ is infinitesimal if and only if its magnitude is at most $n-1$.
Given a totally ordered abelian group $\Lambda$, $\Lambda{\otimes}{{\mathbb{Q}}}$ has a natural structure of a totally ordered abelian group by letting $\frac{\lambda}{n}\leq\frac{\lambda'}{n'}$ if and only if $n'\lambda\leq n\lambda'$.
#### $\Lambda$–metric spaces and $\Lambda$–trees
A *$\Lambda$–metric space* $(E,d)$ is a set $E$ endowed with a map $d\co E\times E{\rightarrow}\Lambda_{\geq 0}$ satisfying the three usual axioms of a metric: separation, symmetry and triangle inequality. The set $\Lambda$ itself is a $\Lambda$–metric space for the metric $d(a,b)=|a-b|=\max(a-b,b-a)\in\Lambda$. A *geodesic segment* in $E$ is an isometric map from a segment $[a,b]\subset\Lambda$ to a subset of $E$. A $\Lambda$–metric space is *geodesic* if any two points are joined by a geodesic segment. We will denote by $[x,y]$ a geodesic segment between two points in $E$ (which, in this generality, might be non-unique).
Note that even in a set $\Lambda$ like ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$, the upper bound is not always defined so one cannot easily define a $\Lambda$–valued diameter (see however [@Chi_book p.99] for a notion of diameter as a interval in $\Lambda$). Nevertheless, we will say that a subset $F$ of a ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–metric space $E$ is *infinitesimal* if the distance between any two points of $F$ is infinitesimal. Similarly, we define the *magnitude* of $F$ as the smallest $p\leq n$ such that the distance between any two points of $F$ has magnitude at most $p$.
We give two equivalent definitions of a $\Lambda$–tree. The equivalence is proved for instance in [@Chi_book Lemma 2.4.3, p.71].
A $\Lambda$–tree $T$ is a geodesic $\Lambda$–metric space such that
$T$ is $0$–hyperbolic in the following sense: $$\forall x,y,u,v\in T,\ d(x,y)+d(u,v)\leq \max\{d(x,u)+d(y,v),d(x,v)+d(y,u)\}$$
$\forall x,y,z\in T,\ d(x,y)+d(y,z)-d(x,z) \in 2\Lambda$
Equivalently, a geodesic $\Lambda$–metric space is a $\Lambda$–tree if
the intersection of any two geodesic segments sharing a common endpoint is a geodesic segment
if two geodesic segments intersect in a single point, then their union is a geodesic segment.
In the first definition, the second condition is automatic if $2\Lambda=\Lambda$, which is the case for $\Lambda={{\mathbb{R}}}^n$.
It follows from the definition that there is a unique geodesic joining a given pair of points in a $\Lambda$–tree.
Clearly, $\Lambda$ itself is $\Lambda$–tree. Another simple example of a $\Lambda$–tree is the vertex set $V(S)$ of a simplicial tree $S$: $V(S)$ endowed with the combinatorial distance is a ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$–tree.
Killing infinitesimals and extension of scalars
-----------------------------------------------
The following two operations are usually known as the *base change functor*.
#### Killing infinitesimals
Consider $\Lambda_0\subset \Lambda$ a convex subgroup (a set of infinitesimals), and let ${\overline{\Lambda}}=\Lambda/\Lambda_0$. If $\Lambda={{\mathbb{R}}}^n$, we will usually take $\Lambda_0={{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$, so that ${\overline{\Lambda}}\simeq{{\mathbb{R}}}$. Consider a $\Lambda$–metric space $E$. Then the relation $\sim$ defined by $x\sim y \Leftrightarrow d(x,y)\in \Lambda_0$ is an equivalence relation on $E$, and the $\Lambda$–metric on $E$ provides a natural ${\overline{\Lambda}}$–metric on $E/\sim$. We say that ${\overline{E}}=E/\sim$ is obtained from $E$ by *killing infinitesimals*. Clearly, if $T$ is a $\Lambda$–tree, then ${\overline{T}}$ is a ${\overline{\Lambda}}$–tree. Thus, killing infinitesimals in an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree $T$ provides an ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–tree ${\overline{T}}$. By extension, we will often denote ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–trees with a bar.
#### Extension of scalars
Consider a $\Lambda$–tree $T$, and an embedding $\Lambda\hookrightarrow \Tilde\Lambda$ (for example, one may think of ${{\mathbb{Z}}}\subset{{\mathbb{R}}}$). Then $T$ may be viewed as a $\Tilde\Lambda$–metric space, but it is not a $\Tilde\Lambda$–tree if $\Lambda$ is not convex in $\Tilde\Lambda$: as a matter of fact, $T$ is not geodesic as a $\Tilde\Lambda$–metric space (there are holes in the geodesics). However, there is a natural way to *fill the holes*:
There exists a $\Tilde\Lambda$–tree $\Tilde T$ and an isometric embedding $T\hookrightarrow \Tilde T$ which is canonical in the following sense: if $T'$ is another $\Tilde\Lambda$–tree with an isometric embedding $T\hookrightarrow T'$, then there is a unique $\Tilde\Lambda$–isometric embedding $\Tilde T{\rightarrow}T'$ commuting with the embeddings of $T$ in $\Tilde T$ and $T'$.
For example, take $T$ to be the ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$–tree corresponding corresponding to the set of vertices of a simplicial tree $S$. Then the embedding ${{\mathbb{Z}}}\subset {{\mathbb{R}}}$ gives an ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–tree $\Tilde T$ which is isometric to the geometric realization of $S$.
The proposition also holds if one only assumes that $T$ is $0$–hyperbolic. In this case, taking $\Tilde\Lambda=\Lambda$, one gets a natural $\Lambda$–tree containing $T$.
Subtrees
--------
A *subtree* $Y$ of a $\Lambda$–tree $T$ is a convex subset of $T$, [i.e. ]{}such that for all $x,y\in Y$, $[x,y]\subset Y$. A subtree is *non-degenerate* if it contains at least two points. One could think of endowing $\Lambda$, and $T$, with the order topology. However, this is usually not adapted. For instance: ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$ is not connected with respect to this topology for $n>1$. This is why we need a special definition of a *closed* subtree. The definition coincides with the topological definition for ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–trees.
A subtree $Y\subset T$ is a *closed subtree* if the intersection of $Y$ with a segment of $T$ is either empty or a segment of $T$.
There is a natural projection on a closed subtree. Consider a base point $y_0\in Y$. Then for any point $x\in T$, there is a unique point $p\in Y$ such that $[y_0,x]\cap Y=[y_0,p]$. One easily checks that $p$ does not depend on the choice of the base point $y_0$ ($[p,x]$ is the *bridge* between $x$ and $Y$, see [@Chi_book]). The point $p$ is called the *projection* of $x$ on $Y$.
The existence of a projection is actually equivalent to the fact that the subtree $Y$ is closed. Be aware that a non-trivial proper convex subgroup of $\Lambda$ is never closed in $\Lambda$. In particular, the intersection of infinitely many closed subtrees may fail to be closed.
A *linear* subtree of $T$ is a subtree in which any three points are contained in a segment. It is an easy exercise to prove that a maximal linear subtree of $T$ is closed in $T$. Finally, any linear subtree $L\subset T$ is isometric to a convex subset of $\Lambda$ and any two isometries $L{\rightarrow}\Lambda$ differ by an isometry of $\Lambda$.
Isometries
----------
An isometry $g$ of a $\Lambda$–tree $T$ can be of one of the following exclusive types:
elliptic: $g$ has a fix point in $T$
inversion: $g$ has no fix point, but $g^2$ does
hyperbolic: otherwise.
In all cases, the set $A_g=\{x\in T\,|\, [g{^{-1}}x,x]\cap[x,g.x]=\{x\}$ is called the *characteristic set* of $g$.
If $g$ is elliptic, $A_g$ is the set of fix points of $g$ which is a closed subtree of $T$. Moreover, for all $x\in T$, the midpoint of $[x,g.x]$ exists and lies in $A_g$.
If $g$ is an inversion, then $A_g={\emptyset}$. Actually, for any $x\in T$, $d(x,g.x)\notin 2\Lambda$ so $[x,g.x]$ has no midpoint in $T$. In particular, if $2\Lambda=\Lambda$ (which occurs for instance if $\Lambda={{\mathbb{R}}}^n$), inversions don’t exist. Moreover, one can perform the analog of barycentric subdivision for simplicial trees to get rid of inversions: consider $\Tilde\Lambda=\frac12 \Lambda$, and let $\Tilde T$ be the $\Tilde\Lambda$–tree obtained by the extension of scalars $\Lambda\subset\Tilde\Lambda$. Then the natural extension of $g$ to $\Tilde T$ fixes a unique point in $\Tilde T$ (in particular, $g$ is elliptic in $\Tilde T$). If $g$ is elliptic or is an inversion, its translation length $l_T(g)$ is defined to be $0$.
If $g$ is hyperbolic, then the set $A_g$ is non-empty, and is a maximal linear subtree of $T$, and is thus closed in $T$. It is called *the axis* of $g$. Moreover, the restriction of $g$ to $A_g$ is conjugate to the action of a translation $\tau\co a\mapsto a+l_T(g)$ on a $\tau$–invariant convex subset of $\Lambda$ for some positive $l_T(g)\in\Lambda$. The *translation length* of $g$ is the element $l_T(g)\in\Lambda_{>0}$. If $p$ is the projection of $x$ on $A_g$, then for $k\neq 0$, $d(x,g^k.x)=2d(x,p)+|k|l_T(g)$.
Note that it may happen that $A_g$ is not isometric to $\Lambda$. For instance, if $\Lambda={{\mathbb{R}}}^2$, the axis of an element $g$ with infinitesimal translation length can be of the form $I\times {{\mathbb{R}}}$ where $I$ is any non-empty interval in ${{\mathbb{R}}}$ which can be open, semi-open or closed.
If $g$ is hyperbolic, then for all $x\in T$, the projection of $x$ on $A_g$ is the projection of $x$ on $[g{^{-1}}.x,g.x]$. In particular, if the midpoint of $[x,g.x]$ exists, then it lies in $A_g$. It also follows that if $g$ is hyperbolic and if $g{^{-1}}.x,x,g.x$ are aligned (in any order) then they lie on the axis of $g$.
If an abelian group $A$ acts by isometries on $\Lambda$–tree $T$ and contains a hyperbolic element $g$, then all the hyperbolic elements of $A$ have the same axis $l$, $A$ contains no inversion, and all elliptic elements fix $l$. We say that $l$ is the *axis* of the abelian group $A$. The axis of $A$ can be characterized as the only *closed* $A$–invariant linear subtree of $T$, or as the only *maximal* $A$–invariant linear subtree of $T$.
Finally if a group $\Gamma$ has a non-abelian action without inversion on a $\Lambda$–tree $T$, then there is a unique minimal non-empty $\Gamma$–invariant subtree ${T_{\mathrm{min}}}(\Gamma)$ [@Chi_introduction Theorem 3.4.1]. This applies if $\Gamma$ is non-abelian and acts freely on $T$. Note however that ${T_{\mathrm{min}}}(\Gamma)$ is not a closed subtree of $T$ in general (even if $\Lambda={{\mathbb{R}}}$); if $\Lambda$ is not archimedean, ${T_{\mathrm{min}}}(\Gamma)$ may also fail to coincide with the union of the translation axes of $\Gamma$; finally, there is no unique such minimal subtree for the action of $\Gamma=\{0\}\times {{\mathbb{Z}}}$ on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^2$.
Elementary properties of groups acting freely on $\Lambda$–trees
----------------------------------------------------------------
We now recall some elementary properties of groups acting freely (without inversion) on $\Lambda$–trees. They are proved for instance in [@Chi_book].
\[lem\_elementary\] Let $\Gamma$ be a group acting freely without inversion on a $\Lambda$–tree. Then
$\Gamma$ is torsion free;
two elements $g,h\in\Gamma$ commute if and only if they have the same axis. If they don’t commute, the intersection of their axes is either empty or a segment ([@Chi_book], proof of Lemma 5.1.2 p.218 and Rk p.111);
maximal abelian subgroups of $\Gamma$ are malnormal (property CSA) and $\Gamma$ is commutative transitive: the relation of commutation on $\Gamma\setminus \{1\}$ is transitive [@Chi_book Lemma 5.1.2 p.218].
Property CSA implies that $\Gamma$ is commutative transitive.
A result known as *Harrison Theorem*, proved by Harrison for ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–trees and by Chiswell and Urbanski–Zamboni for general $\Lambda$–trees, says that a $2$–generated group acting freely without inversion on a $\Lambda$–tree is either a free group or a free abelian group. (see [@Chi_harrison; @Urbanski-Zamboni_Free; @Harrison_real]). We won’t use this result in this paper.
A limit group acts freely on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree {#sec_remeslennikov}
=======================================================
The goal of this section is to prove that limit groups act freely on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–trees. This is an adaptation of an argument by Remeslennikov concerning fully residually free groups ([@Remeslennikov_exist_ukrainian], see also [@Chi_book Theorem 5.5.10 p.246]). Note that it is claimed in [@Remeslennikov_exist_ukrainian] that finitely generated fully residually free groups act freely on a $\Lambda$–tree where $\Lambda$ is a *finitely generated* ordered abelian group. However, the proof is not completely correct since it relies on a misquoted result about valuations (Theorem 3 in [@Remeslennikov_exist_ukrainian]) to which there are known counterexamples (for any subgroup $\Lambda\subset{{\mathbb{Q}}}$, there is valuation on ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(X,Y)$, extending the trivial valuation on ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$, whose value group is $\Lambda$ [@Zariski-Samuel_commutative2 ch.VI, 15, ex.3,4] or [@Kuhlmann_value Theorem 1.1]). Nevertheless, Remeslennikov’s argument proves the following weaker statement: a finitely generated fully residually free group acts freely on a $\Lambda$–tree where $\Lambda$ has finite ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$–rank, [i.e. ]{}$\Lambda{\otimes}{{\mathbb{Q}}}$ is finite dimensional over ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$.
The fact that a limit group acts freely on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$ tree will be deduced from a more general result about group acting freely on Bruhat–Tits trees. But we first state a simpler result in this spirit (see also [@GaSp_does; @GaSp_every]). Remember that ${{\mathcal {G}}}_n$ denotes the space of groups marked by a generating family of cardinality $n$.
Let ${{\mathcal {T}}}_n\subset{{\mathcal {G}}}_n$ be the set of marked groups having a free action without inversion on some $\Lambda$–tree ($\Lambda$ may vary with the group).
Then ${{\mathcal {T}}}_n$ is closed in ${{\mathcal {G}}}_n$.
We won’t give the proof of this result since this proposition is not sufficient for us as it does not give any control over $\Lambda$. This is why we rather prove the following more technical result.[^1]
For general information of the action of $SL_2(K)$ on its Bruhat–Tits $\Lambda$–tree $BT_K$ where $K$ a field, and $v\co K{\rightarrow}\Lambda\cup\{\infty\}$ is a valuation, see for instance [@Chi_book 4.3, p.144]. Essentially, we will only use the existence of the Bruhat–Tits $\Lambda$–tree and the formula for the translation length of a matrix $m\in SL_2(K)$: $l_{BT_K}(m)=\max\{-2v(\operatorname{Tr}(m)),0\}$. Also note that the action of $SL_2(K)$ on its Bruhat–Tits tree has no inversion (however, there may be inversions in $GL_2(K)$).
By an action of $\Gamma$ on a Bruhat–Tits tree, we mean an action of $\Gamma$ on the Bruhat–Tits $\Lambda$–tree for $SL_2(K)$ induced by a morphism $j\co \Gamma{\rightarrow}SL_2(K)$ where $K$ is a valuated field with values in $\Lambda$.
[thm\_closed]{}
Let ${{{{\mathcal {B}}}{{\mathcal {T}}}}}\subset{{\mathcal {G}}}_n$ be the set of marked groups $(\Gamma,S)$ having a free action on a Bruhat–Tits tree.
Then ${{{{\mathcal {B}}}{{\mathcal {T}}}}}$ is closed in ${{\mathcal {G}}}_n$, and ${{{{\mathcal {B}}}{{\mathcal {T}}}}}$ consists in groups acting freely on $\Lambda$–trees where $\Lambda{\otimes}{{\mathbb{Q}}}$ has dimension at most $3n+1$ over ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$. In particular, ${{{{\mathcal {B}}}{{\mathcal {T}}}}}$ consists in groups acting freely on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{3n+1}$–trees where ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{3n+1}$ has the lexicographic ordering.
[Remeslennikov]{}
[[@Remeslennikov_exist_ukrainian]]{}A limit group has a free action on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree.
This follows from the theorem above since a free group acts freely on a Bruhat–Tits tree.
We first prove that ${{{{\mathcal {B}}}{{\mathcal {T}}}}}$ is closed. Let $(\Gamma_i,S_i)\in{{{{\mathcal {B}}}{{\mathcal {T}}}}}$ be a sequence of marked groups converging to $(\Gamma,S)$. For each index $i$, consider a field $K_i$ and a valuation $v_i\co K_i{\rightarrow}\Lambda_i\cup\{\infty\}$ and an embedding $j_i\co \Gamma_i{\rightarrow}SL_2(K_i)$ such that $j_i(\Gamma_i)$ acts freely without inversions on the corresponding Bruhat–Tits tree $BT_i$.
Consider $\omega$ an ultrafilter on ${{\mathbb{N}}}$, [i.e. ]{} a finitely additive measure of total mass $1$ (a *mean*), defined on all subsets of ${{\mathbb{N}}}$, and with values in $\{0,1\}$, and assume that this ultrafilter is non-principal, [i.e. ]{} that the mass of finite subsets is zero. Say that a property $P(k)$ depending on $k\in{{\mathbb{N}}}$ is true *$\omega$–almost everywhere* if $\omega(\{k\in{{\mathbb{N}}}|P(k)\})=1$. Note that a property which is not true almost everywhere is false almost everywhere. Given a sequence of sets $(E_i)_{i\in{{\mathbb{N}}}}$, the ultraproduct $E^*$ of $(E_i)$ is the quotient $(\prod_{i\in {{\mathbb{N}}}} E_i)/{{\sim}}_\omega$ where ${{\sim}}_\omega$ is the natural equivalence relation on $\prod_{i\in {{\mathbb{N}}}} E_i$ defined by equality $\omega$–almost everywhere.
Consider $K^*$ the ultraproduct of the fields $K_i$, $\Gamma^*$ the ultraproduct of the groups $\Gamma_i$, and $\Lambda^*$ the ultraproduct of the totally ordered abelian groups $\Lambda_i$. As a warmup, we prove the easy fact that the natural ring structure on $K^*$ makes it a field: if $k^*=(k_i)_{i\in{{\mathbb{N}}}}\neq 0$ in $K^*$, then for almost all $i\in{{\mathbb{N}}}$, $k_i\neq 0$, and $1/k_i$ is defined for almost every index $i$, and defines an inverse $(1/k_i)_{i\in{{\mathbb{N}}}}$ for $k^*$ in $K^*$.
Similarly, $\Gamma^*$ is a group, and $\Lambda^*$ a totally ordered abelian group (for the total order $(x_i)_{i\in{{\mathbb{N}}}}\leq (y_i)_{i\in{{\mathbb{N}}}}$ if and only if $x_i\leq y_i$ almost everywhere). Now consider the map $v^*\co K^*{\rightarrow}\Lambda^*\cup\infty$ defined by $v^*((k_i)_{i\in{{\mathbb{N}}}})=(v_i(k_i))_{i\in{{\mathbb{N}}}}$, and the map $j^*\co \Gamma^*{\rightarrow}SL_2(K^*)$ defined by $j^*((g_i)_{i\in{{\mathbb{N}}}})=(j_i(g_i))_{i\in{{\mathbb{N}}}}$. Then $v^*$ is a valuation on $K^*$, and $j^*$ a monomorphism of groups. We denote by $BT^*$ the Bruhat–Tits tree of $SL_2(K^*)$.([^2])
Now, given a field $K$ with a valuation $v\co K{\rightarrow}\Lambda\cup\{\infty\}$, a subgroup $H\subset SL_2(K)$ acts freely without inversions on the corresponding Bruhat–Tits tree $BT$ if and only if the translation length of any element $h\in H\setminus\{1\}$ is non-zero. But the translation length of a matrix $m\in SL_2(K)$ can be computed in terms of the valuation of its trace by the formula $l_{BT}(m)=\max\{0,-2v(\operatorname{Tr}(m))\}$, so the freeness (without inversion) of the action translates into $v(\operatorname{Tr}(h))<0$ for all $h\in H\setminus\{1\}$ [@Chi_book Lemma 4.3.5 p.148]. Therefore, since for all $i$ and all $g_i\in \Gamma_i\setminus\{1\}$, $\operatorname{Tr}(j_i(g_i))$ has negative valuation, all the elements $g^*\in \Gamma^*\setminus\{1\}$ satisfy $v^*(\operatorname{Tr}(j^*(g^*)))<0$, which means that $\Gamma^*$ acts freely without inversion on $BT^*$.
Finally, there remains to check that the marked group $(\Gamma,S)$ embeds into $\Gamma^*$ (see for instance [@CG_compactifying]). We use the notation $S=(s_1,\dots,s_n)$ and $S_i=(s_1^{(i)},\dots,s_n^{(i)})$. Consider the family $S^*=(s_1^*,\dots,s_n^*)$ of elements of $\Gamma^*$ defined by $s_1^*=(s_1^{(i)})_{i\in{{\mathbb{N}}}}, \dots,s_n^*=(s_n^{(i)})_{i\in{{\mathbb{N}}}}$. The definition of the convergence of marked groups says that if an $S$–word represents the trivial element (resp. a non-trivial element) in $\Gamma$, then for $i$ sufficiently large, the corresponding $S_i$–word is trivial (resp. non-trivial) in $\Gamma_i$. Since $\omega$ is non-principal, this implies that the corresponding $S^*$–word is trivial (resp. non-trivial). This means that the map sending $(s_1,\dots,s_n)$ to $(s_1^*,\dots,s_n^*)$ extends to an isomorphism between $\Gamma$ and $\langle S^* \rangle\subset \Gamma^*$. Therefore, $(\Gamma,S)\in{{{{\mathcal {B}}}{{\mathcal {T}}}}}$, so ${{{{\mathcal {B}}}{{\mathcal {T}}}}}$ is closed.
We now prove the fact that any group $(\Gamma,S)$ in ${{{{\mathcal {B}}}{{\mathcal {T}}}}}$ acts freely on a $\Lambda$–tree where $\Lambda{\otimes}{{\mathbb{Q}}}$ has dimension at most $3n+1$. So consider an embedding $j\co \Gamma{\rightarrow}SL_2(K)$ where $K$ has a valuation $v\co K{\rightarrow}\Lambda\cup\{\infty\}$ such that the induced action of $\Gamma$ on the Bruhat–Tits tree for $SL_2(K)$ is free without inversion. Consider the subfield $L\subset K$ generated by the $4n$ coefficient of the matrices $j(s_1),\dots,j(s_n)$. Since the matrices have determinant $1$, $L$ can be written as $L=k_0(x_1,\dots,x_{3n})$ where $k_0$ is the prime subfield of $K$. Let $\Lambda_L=v(L\setminus\{0\})$ be the value group of $L$. Since $\Gamma$ embeds in $SL_2(L)$, $\Gamma$ acts freely on the corresponding Bruhat–Tits $\Lambda_L$–tree. We now quote a result about valuations which implies that $\Lambda_L$ has finite ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$–rank.
[[@Bourbaki_valuations Corollary 1 in VI.10.3]]{}\[thm\_Bourbaki\] Let $L=L_0(x_1,\dots,x_p)$ be a finitely generated extension of $L_0$, and $v\co L{\rightarrow}\Lambda\cup\{\infty\}$ a valuation. Denote by $\Lambda_L=v(L\setminus\{0\})$ (resp. $\Lambda_0=v(L_0\setminus\{0\})$) the corresponding value group. Then the ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$–vector space $(\Lambda_L{\otimes}{{\mathbb{Q}}})/(\Lambda_0{\otimes}{{\mathbb{Q}}})$ has dimension at most $p$.
Taking $L_0=k_0$, one gets that $\Lambda_L$ has ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$–rank at most $3n+1$ since $\Lambda_0$ is either trivial or isomorphic to ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$.
Using the extension of scalars (base change functor), there remains to prove that if a totally ordered group $\Lambda$ has finite ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$–rank, then it is isomorphic to a subgroup of ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$.
Consider $\Lambda$ a totally ordered group of ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$–rank $p$. Then $\Lambda$ is isomorphic (as an ordered group) to a subgroup of ${{\mathbb{R}}}^p$ with its lexicographic ordering.
However, $\Lambda{\otimes}{{\mathbb{Q}}}$ is usually not isomorphic to ${{\mathbb{Q}}}^p$ with its lexicographic ordering as shows an embedding of ${{\mathbb{Q}}}^2$ into ${{\mathbb{R}}}$.
We first check that the height of $\Lambda$ is at most $p$ (see [@Bourbaki_valuations prop 3 in VI.10.2]). First, $\Lambda$ embeds into $\Lambda{\otimes}{{\mathbb{Q}}}$, so we may replace $\Lambda$ by $\Lambda{\otimes}{{\mathbb{Q}}}$ and assume that $\Lambda$ is a totally ordered ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$–vector space of dimension $p$. Any convex subgroup $\Lambda_0\subset\Lambda$ is a ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$ vector subspace in $\Lambda$ since if $0\leq x\in\Lambda_0$, for all $k\in{{\mathbb{N}}}\setminus\{0\}$, $\frac{1}{k}x \in \Lambda_0$ since $0\leq \frac{1}{k}x \leq x$. Now the height of $\Lambda$ is at most $p$ since a chain of convex subgroups $\Lambda_0\subsetneqq \Lambda_1 \subsetneqq \dots \subsetneqq \Lambda_i$ is a chain of vector subspaces.
We now prove by induction that a totally ordered group $\Lambda$ of finite height $q$ embeds as an ordered subgroup of ${{\mathbb{R}}}^q$ with its lexicographic ordering. Once again, one can replace $\Lambda$ by $\Lambda{\otimes}{{\mathbb{Q}}}$ without loss of generality. We argue by induction on the height. If $\Lambda$ has height $1$, [i.e. ]{}if $\Lambda$ is archimedean, then $\Lambda$ embeds in ${{\mathbb{R}}}$ (see for instance [@Chi_book Theorem 1.1.2]). Now consider $\Lambda_0\subset\Lambda$ the maximal proper convex subgroup of $\Lambda$, and let ${\overline{\Lambda}}=\Lambda/\Lambda_0$. Since $\Lambda,\Lambda_0$ and ${\overline{\Lambda}}$ are ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$ vector spaces, one has algebraically $\Lambda= {\overline{\Lambda}} \oplus \Lambda_0$.
The fact that $\Lambda_0$ is convex in $\Lambda$ implies that the ordering on $\Lambda$ corresponds to the lexicographic ordering on $\Lambda\oplus \Lambda_0$ [@Bourbaki_valuations lemma 2 in VI.10.2]. Indeed, one first easily checks that any section $j\co {\overline{\Lambda}}{\rightarrow}\Lambda$ is increasing. Now let’s prove that the isomorphism $f\co {\overline{\Lambda}}\times \Lambda_0{\rightarrow}\Lambda$ defined by $f({\overline{x}},x_0)=j({\overline{x}})+x_0$ is increasing for the lexicographic ordering on ${\overline{\Lambda}}\times \Lambda_0$. So assume that $({\overline{x}},x_0)\geq 0$. If ${\overline{x}}=0$, then $f({\overline{x}},x_0)=x_0\geq 0$. If ${\overline{x}}>0$, then $f({\overline{x}},x_0)=j({\overline{x}})+x_0>0$ since otherwise, one would have $0\leq j({\overline{x}})\leq -x_0$, hence $j({\overline{x}})\in \Lambda_0$ by convexity, a contradiction.
Finally, by induction hypothesis, $\Lambda_0$ embeds as an ordered subgroup of ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{q-1}$ and ${\overline{\Lambda}}$ embeds as an ordered subgroup of ${{\mathbb{R}}}$, so $\Lambda$ embeds as an ordered subgroup of ${{\mathbb{R}}}^q$.
Gluing $\Lambda$–trees {#sec_gluing}
======================
The goal of this section is to define graph of actions on $\Lambda$–trees which show how to glue actions on $\Lambda$–trees along closed subtrees to get another action on a $\Lambda$–tree, and to give a criterion for the resulting action to be free. We will finally study more specifically gluings of ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–trees along points, and show that a decomposition of an ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–tree $T$ into a graph of actions on ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–trees above points correspond to a *transverse* covering of $T$ by closed subtrees.
Gluing $\Lambda$–trees along points
-----------------------------------
Here, we recall that one can glue $\Lambda$ trees together along a point to get a new $\Lambda$–tree (see [@Chi_book Lemma 2.1.13]).
[[@Chi_book Lemma 2.1.13]]{}\[lem\_points\] Let $(Y,d)$ be a $\Lambda$–tree, and $(Y_i,d_i)_{i\in I}$ be a family of $\Lambda$–trees. Assume that $Y_i\cap Y=\{x_i\}$ and that for all $i,j\in I$, $Y_i\cap Y_j=\{x_i\}\cap\{x_j\}$. Let $X=(\bigcup_{i\in I}Y_i)\cup Y$ and let ${\overline{d}}\co X\times X{\rightarrow}\Lambda$ defined by: ${\overline{d}}_{|Y\times Y}=d$; ${\overline{d}}_{|Y_i\times Y_i}=d_i$; for $x\in Y_i,y\in Y$ ${\overline{d}}(x,y)=d(x,x_i)+d(x_i,y)$; for $x\in Y_i,y\in Y_j$ ${\overline{d}}(x,y)=d(x,x_i)+d(x_i,x_j)+d(x_j,y)$.
Then $(X,{\overline{d}})$ is a $\Lambda$–tree.
Gluing two trees along a closed subtree
---------------------------------------
The following gluing construction will be used for gluing trees along maximal linear subtrees.
Assume that we are given two $\Lambda$–trees $(Y_1,d_1),(Y_2,d_2)$, two *closed* subtrees $\delta_1\subset Y_1$ and $\delta_2\subset Y_2$, and an isometric map ${\varphi}\co \lambda_1{\twoheadrightarrow}\lambda_2$. By definition of a closed subtree, we have two orthogonal projections $p_{\lambda_i}\co Y_i{\rightarrow}\lambda_i$ for $i\in\{1,2\}$.
Let $X=Y_1 {\sqcup}Y_2$, and let $\sim$ be the equivalence relation on $X$ generated by $x\sim {\varphi}(x)$ for all $x\in \lambda_1$. The set $(Y_1\cup_{\varphi}Y_2):=X/\sim$ is now endowed with the following metric which extends $d_i$ on $Y_i$: if $x\in Y_1$ and $y\in Y_2$, we set $$\begin{aligned}
d(x,y)&:=&d_1(x,p_{\lambda_1}(x))+d_2({\varphi}(p_{\lambda_1}(x)),p_{\lambda_2}(y))+d_2(y,p_{\lambda_2}(y)){}\\
&=&d_1(x,p_{\lambda_1}(x))+d_2({\varphi}(p_{\lambda_1}(x)),y) \notag \\
&=&\min \{d_1(x,x_1)+d_2({\varphi}(x_1),y)\ | \ x_1\in\lambda_1\}{}\end{aligned}$$
To prove the last equality, introduce $z_1=p_{\lambda_1}(x)$; then for any $x_1\in\lambda_1$, $$\begin{aligned}
d_1(x,x_1)+d_2({\varphi}(x_1),y)&=&d_1(x,z_1)+d_1(z_1,x_1)+d_2({\varphi}(x_1),y)\\
&=&d_1(x,z_1)+d_1({\varphi}(z_1),{\varphi}(x_1))+d_2({\varphi}(x_1),y)\\
&\geq& d_1(x,z_1)+d_1({\varphi}(z_1),y)\\
&=&d(x,y)\end{aligned}$$
\[lem\_glue2\] With the definitions above, $(Y_1\cup_{\varphi}Y_2,d)$ is a $\Lambda$–tree. Moreover, any closed subtree of $Y_i$ is closed in $(Y_1\cup_{\varphi}Y_2,d)$.
Let $T=Y_1\cup_{\varphi}Y_2$. Then $T$ can be viewed as the tree $L=\lambda_1=\lambda_2$ on which are glued some subtrees of $Y_1,Y_2$ at some points. More precisely, for $x\in \lambda_1$, let $A_x=(p_{\lambda_1}){^{-1}}(x)$, and similarly, for $x\in \lambda_2$, let $B_x=(p_{\lambda_2}){^{-1}}(x)$. Then, because of the formula for the metric, $T$ is isometric to the $\Lambda$–tree obtained by gluing the trees $A_x$ and $B_x$ on $L$ along the point $x$ as in lemma \[lem\_points\]. Therefore, by lemma \[lem\_points\], $(T,d)$ is an $\Lambda$–tree.
Now let $Z\subset Y_1$ be a closed subtree. Let’s prove that $Z$ is closed in $T$. Consider $z\in Z$, $y\in T$, and let’s prove that there exists $z_0\in Z$ such that $[z,y]\cap Z=[z,z_0]$. If $y\in Y_1$, then one can take $z_0$ to be the projection of $y$ on $Z$ by hypothesis. If $y\in Y_2$, let $y_0$ be the projection of $y$ on $\lambda_2$, and $z_0$ be the projection of ${\varphi}{^{-1}}(y_0)$ on $Z$. Of course, $[y,z_0]\subset Z$. Now $[y_0,y]\setminus\{y_0\}$ does not meet $Z$ since it is contained in $T\setminus Y_1$, and neither does $[z_0,y_0]\setminus\{z_0\}$. Thus $[z,y]\cap Z=[z,z_0]$ and $Z$ is closed in $T$.
Equivariant gluing: graphs of actions on $\Lambda$–trees
--------------------------------------------------------
The combinatorics of the gluing will be given by a simplicial tree $S$, endowed with an action without inversion of a group $\Gamma$. We denote by $V(S)$ and $E(S)$ the set of vertices and (oriented) edges of $S$, by $t(e)$ and $o(e)$ the origin and terminus of an (oriented) edge $e$, and by ${\overline{e}}$ the edge with opposite orientation as $e$. A graph of actions on trees is usually defined as a graph of groups with some additional data like vertex trees. Here, we rather use an equivariant definition at the level of the Bass–Serre tree.
Given a group $\Gamma$, a *$\Gamma$–equivaiant graph of actions on $\Lambda$–trees* is a triple $(S,(Y_v)_{v\in V(S)},({\varphi}_e)_{e\in E(S)})$ where
$S$ is a simplicial tree,
for each vertex $v\in V(S)$, $Y_v$ is a $\Lambda$–tree (called *vertex tree*),
for each edge $e\in E(S)$, ${\varphi}_e\co \lambda_{{\overline{e}}}{\twoheadrightarrow}\lambda_e$ is an isometry between closed subtrees $\lambda_{{\overline{e}}}\subset Y_{o(e)}$ and $\lambda_e\subset Y_{t(e)}$ such that ${\varphi}_{{\overline{e}}}={\varphi}_e{^{-1}}$. We call the subtrees $\lambda_e$ the *edge subtrees*.
This data is assumed to be $\Gamma$–*equivariant* in the following sense:
$\Gamma$ acts on $S$ without inversion,
$\Gamma$ acts on $X={\sqcup}_{v\in V(S)} Y_v$ so that the restriction of each element of $\Gamma$ to a vertex tree is an isometry,
the natural projection $\pi\co X{\rightarrow}V(S)$ (sending a point in $Y_v$ to $v$) is equivariant
the family of gluing maps is equivariant: for all $g\in\Gamma$, $\lambda_{g.e}=g.\lambda_e$, and ${\varphi}_{g.e}=g\circ{\varphi}_e\circ g{^{-1}}$.
We say that such a graph of actions is *over* its edge subtrees.
#### The $\Lambda$–tree dual to a graph of actions
Given ${{\mathcal {G}}}$ a $\Gamma$–equivariant graph of actions on $\Lambda$–trees, we consider the smallest equivalence relation $\sim$ on $X={\sqcup}_{v\in V(S)} Y_v$ such that for all edge $e\in E(S)$ and $x\in \lambda_{{\overline{e}}}$, $x\sim {\varphi}_e(x)$. The $\Lambda$–tree dual to ${{\mathcal {G}}}$ is the quotient space $T_{{\mathcal {G}}}=X/\!\!\sim$. To define the metric on $T_{{\mathcal {G}}}$, one can alternatively say that $T_{{\mathcal {G}}}$ is obtained by gluing successively the vertex trees along the edge trees according to lemma \[lem\_glue2\] in previous section. Formula in previous section shows that the metric does not depend on the order in which the gluing are performed. Indeed, an induction shows that the distance between $x\in Y_u$ and $y\in Y_v$ can be computed as follows: let $e_1,\dots,e_n$ the edges of the path from $u$ to $v$ in $S$, and $v_0=u,v_1,\dots,v_n=v$ the corresponding vertices then $$d(x,y)=\min\{ d_{Y_u}(x,x_1)+d_{Y_{v_1}}({\varphi}_{{e_1}}(x_1),x_2)+\dots+
d_{Y_{v_n}}({\varphi}_{{e_n}}(x_n),y)$$ where the minimum is taken over all $x_i\in \lambda_{{\overline{e}}_i}$. By finitely many applications of lemma \[lem\_glue2\], one gets that the gluings corresponding to finite subtrees of $S$ are $\Lambda$–trees. Now apply the fact that an increasing union of $\Lambda$–trees is a $\Lambda$–tree to get that $T$ is a $\Lambda$–tree (see [@Chi_book Lemma 2.1.14]). We thus get the following lemma:
\[dfn\_goa\] Consider ${{\mathcal {G}}}=(S,(Y_v),({\varphi}_e))$ a $\Gamma$–equivariant graph of actions on $\Lambda$–trees. The dual tree $T_{{\mathcal {G}}}$ is the set $X/\!\!\sim$ endowed with the metric $d$ defined above. It is a $\Lambda$–tree on which $\Gamma$ acts by isometries.
We say that a $\Lambda$–tree $T$ *splits* as a graph of actions ${{\mathcal {G}}}$ if there is an equivariant isometry between $T$ and $T_{{\mathcal {G}}}$.
Consider an increasing union of trees $T_i$ such that $Y\subset T_0$ is a closed subtree of each $T_i$. Then $Y$ is closed in $\cup_i T_i$. Therefore, using lemma \[lem\_glue2\], one gets that a closed subtree of a vertex tree is closed in $T_{{\mathcal {G}}}$. In particular, vertex trees themselves are closed in $T_{{\mathcal {G}}}$.
Gluing free actions into free actions
-------------------------------------
We next give a general criterion saying that an action obtained by gluing is free. It is stated in terms of the equivalence relation $\sim$ on $X={\sqcup}_{v\in V(S)} Y_v$ defined above. Each equivalence class has a natural structure of a connected graph: elements of the equivalence class are vertices, put an oriented edge between two vertices $x$ and $y$ if $y={\varphi}_e(x)$ for some edge $e\in E(S)$. Since this graph embeds into $S$ via the map $\pi\co X{\rightarrow}S$, so this graph is a simplicial tree. This graph structure defines a natural combinatorial metric on each equivalence class.
\[lem\_criterion\_free\] Consider ${{\mathcal {G}}}=(S,Y_v,{\varphi}_e)$ a $\Gamma$–equivariant graph of actions on $\Lambda$–trees. For each vertex $v\in V(S)$, denote by $\Gamma_v$ its stabilizer, and assume that the action of $\Gamma_v$ on $Y_v$ is free. Assume furthermore that each equivalence class of $\sim$ has finite diameter (for the combinatorial metric).
Then the action of $\Gamma$ on $T_{{\mathcal {G}}}$ is free.
If the equivalence classes are allowed to have infinite diameter, then the resulting action may fail to be free. The simplest example is as follows: take $S$ a simplicial tree with a free action of a non-trivial free group $\Gamma$, for instance $S$ is a line and $\Gamma={{\mathbb{Z}}}$. Define each vertex tree $Y_v$ as a point (having a free action of the trivial group), and ${\varphi}_e$ the only map. Then $T_{{\mathcal {G}}}$ is a point.
One can cook up a less trivial example where $\Gamma=G\times F$ where $G$ has a free action on a $\Lambda$–tree $Y$, and $F$ is a free group acting freely on a simplicial tree $S$. $\Gamma$ acts on $S$ with kernel $G$. Now take $Y_v=Y$ and ${\varphi}_e={\mathrm{Id}}$. Then $T_{{\mathcal {G}}}=Y$, and $F$ is in the kernel of the action of $\Gamma$.
If an element $g\in\Gamma$ fixes a point in $T_{{\mathcal {G}}}$, then $g$ globally preserves the corresponding equivalence class in $X$. Since this equivalence class has the structure of a tree with finite diameter, $g$ must fix a vertex in this equivalence class (there are no inversions because the action on $S$ has no inversion). Hence $g$ fixes a point of $X$, which means that $g$ fixes a point in a vertex tree.
Transverse coverings and graph of actions on ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–trees {#sec_transverse_coverings}
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we restrict to the case of a graph of actions on ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–trees along points. We prove that an action on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–tree splits as such a graph of actions if and only if it has a certain kind of covering by subtrees. The argument could in fact be generalised to graph of actions on $\Lambda$–trees along points but we won’t need it.
\[dfn\_transverse\_covering\]Let $T$ be an ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–tree, and $(Y_u)_{u\in U}$ be a family of non-degenerate closed subtrees of $T$. We say that $(Y_u)_{u\in U}$ is a transverse covering of $T$ if
transverse intersection:
: whenever $Y_u\cap Y_v$ contains more than one point, $Y_u=Y_v$;
finiteness condition:
: every arc of $T$ is covered by finitely many $Y_u$’s.
When $T$ is endowed with an action of a group $\Gamma$, we always require that the family $(Y_u)$ is $\Gamma$–invariant.
\[lem\_transverse\] Consider an action of a group $\Gamma$ on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–tree $T$. If $T$ splits as a graph of actions on ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–trees along points ${{\mathcal {G}}}$, then the image in $T$ of non-degenerate vertex trees of ${{\mathcal {G}}}$ gives a transverse covering of $T$.
Conversely, if $T$ has a $\Gamma$–invariant transverse covering, then there is a natural graph of actions ${{\mathcal {G}}}$ whose non-degenerate vertex trees correspond to the subtrees of the transverse covering and such that $T\simeq T_{{\mathcal {G}}}$.
We first check that the family of vertex trees of a graph of actions ${{\mathcal {G}}}=(S,(Y_v),({\varphi}_e))$ forms a transverse covering of $T_{{\mathcal {G}}}$. We have already noted that vertex trees are closed in $T_{{\mathcal {G}}}$. The transverse intersection condition follows from the fact that edge trees are points. To prove the finiteness condition, consider $x\in Y_u$ and $y\in Y_v$ and note that $[x,y]$ is covered by the trees $Y_w$ for $w\in [u,v]$.
To prove the converse, we need to define the simplicial tree $S$ encoding the combinatorics of the gluing.
\[dfn\_skeletton\]Consider a transverse covering $(Y_u)_{u\in U}$ of $T$. The *skeleton* of this transverse covering is the bipartite simplicial tree $S$ defined as follows:
$V(S)=V_0(S)\cup V_1(S)$ where $V_1(S)=\{Y_u \,|\ u\in U\}$, and $V_0(S)$ is the set of points of $T$ which belong to a least two distinct trees $Y_u\neq Y_v$
there is an edge between $x\in V_0(S)$ and $Y\in V_1(S)$ if and only if $x\in Y$.
The connectedness of $S$ follows from the finiteness condition (using the fact that the subtrees $Y_u$ are closed in $T$). Now let’s prove the simple connectedness. Consider a path $p=x_0,Y_0,x_1,\dots,x_{n-1},Y_{n-1},x_n$ in $S$, and let $\Tilde p=[x_0,x_1].[x_1,x_2]\dots [x_{n-1},x_n]$ be the corresponding path in $T$. If $p$ does not backtrack, then $Y_i\cap Y_{i+1}=\{x_{i+1}\}$ so $\Tilde p$ does not backtrack. Therefore, $x_0\neq x_n$ and $p$ is not a closed path.
Now there is a natural graph of actions ${{\mathcal {G}}}$ corresponding to $S$: for $x\in V_0(S)$, the corresponding vertex tree is the point $\{x\}$, for $Y\in V_1(S)$, the corresponding vertex tree is $Y$, and the gluing maps ${\varphi}_e\co \{x\}{\rightarrow}Y$ are given by inclusion. Finally, consider the natural map $\Psi\co T_{{\mathcal {G}}}{\rightarrow}T$ given by the inclusion of vertex trees. This application is an isometry in restriction to vertex trees, and if $[a,b]$, $[a,c]$ are two arcs in $T_{{\mathcal {G}}}$ lying in two distinct vertex trees $Y_1,Y_2$ of $T_{{\mathcal {G}}}$, then $\Psi([a,b])\cap \Psi([a,c])\subset\Psi(Y_1)\cap \Psi(Y_2)$ is reduced to one point. This implies that $\Psi$ is an isometry in restriction to each segment, and hence an isometry.
We will often prefer using a transverse covering (or the graph of actions corresponding to such a covering) to a general graph of actions because of the following *acylindricity* property of the dual graph of actions ${{\mathcal {G}}}=(S,(Y_v)_{v\in V(S)},({\varphi}_e)_{e\in E(S)})$: if two points $x\in Y_v$, and $x'\in Y_{v'}$ have the same image in $T_{{\mathcal {G}}}$, then $v,v'$ are at distance at most $2$ in $S$.
It is also worth noticing the following simple minimality result:
Consider an ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–tree $T$ endowed with a minimal action of $\Gamma$. Consider $(Y_u)_{u\in U}$ an equivariant transverse covering of $T$, and let $S$ be the skeleton of the transverse covering.
Then the action of $\Gamma$ on $S$ is minimal.
Assume that $S'\subset S$ is an invariant subtree. Let $T'\subset T$ be the union of vertex trees of $S'$. One easily checks that $T'$ is connected using the connectedness of $S'$. Thus, by minimality of $T$, one has $T'=T$. Using the *acylindricity* remark above, $S$ is contained in the $2$–neighbourhood of $S'$. In particular, if $S'\neq S$, then $S$ contains a terminal vertex $v$. By definition, every vertex in $V_0(S)$ has at least two neighbours, so $v\in V_1(S)$. We thus get a contradiction since $Y_v$ is contained in $T'$, contradicting the transverse intersection property of the transverse covering.
The action modulo infinitesimals, abelian dévissage {#sec_abelian}
===================================================
In this section, we prove a weaker version of the cyclic dévissage theorem, where (maybe non-finitely generated) abelian groups may appear in place of cyclic groups (see Proposition \[abelian\_devissage\]).
Start with a finitely generated group $\Gamma$ acting freely on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree $T$ with $n\geq 2$, and assume that $\Gamma$ is freely indecomposable. Denote by ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$ the maximal proper convex subgroup of ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$, and consider elements of ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$ as *infinitesimals*. Now consider the ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–tree ${{{\overline{T}}}{}}$ obtained from $T$ by identifying points at infinitesimal distance (this is often called the *base change functor* in the literature, see for instance [@Chi_nontrivial], [@JaZa_Chiswell], [@Bass_non-archimedean], see also [@Chi_book Theorem 2.4.7]). Note that the canonical projection $f\co T{\rightarrow}{{{\overline{T}}}{}}$ preserves alignment, and that the preimage of a convex set is convex. The preimage in $T$ of a point of ${{{\overline{T}}}{}}$ is thus an infinitesimal subtree of $T$. Of course, the action of $\Gamma$ on $T$ induces an isometric action of $\Gamma$ on ${{{\overline{T}}}{}}$.
However, this action generally fails to be free. It may even happen that $\Gamma$ fixes a point ${\overline{x}}$ in ${{{\overline{T}}}{}}$, but in this case, the dévissage theorem holds trivially since $\Gamma$ acts freely on the ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$–tree $f{^{-1}}({\overline{x}})$. Therefore, we assume that $\Gamma$ acts non-trivially on ${{{\overline{T}}}{}}$, and, up to taking a subtree of ${{{\overline{T}}}{}}$ and its preimage in $T$, we can assume that the action on ${{{\overline{T}}}{}}$ is minimal, [i.e. ]{}that there is no non-empty proper invariant subtree.
We first analyse how far from free this action can be.
\[fact\_elem\] If a group $\Gamma$ acts freely on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n}$–tree $T$, then the action of $\Gamma$ on ${{{\overline{T}}}{}}$ satisfies the following:
tripod fixators are trivial (a *tripod* is the convex hull of 3 points which are not aligned)
for every pair of commuting, elliptic elements $g,h\in \Gamma\setminus\{1\}$, $\operatorname*{Fix}_{{{{\overline{T}}}{}}} g=\operatorname*{Fix}_{{{{\overline{T}}}{}}} h$; in particular, $\operatorname*{Fix}_{{{{\overline{T}}}{}}} g=\operatorname*{Fix}_{{{{\overline{T}}}{}}} g^k$ for $k\neq 0$;
arc fixators are abelian; the global stabilizer of a line is maximal abelian if it is non-trivial;
the action is superstable: for every non-degenerate arc $I\subset {{{\overline{T}}}{}}$ with non-trivial fixator, for every non degenerate sub-arc $J\subset I$, one has $\operatorname{Stab}I=\operatorname{Stab}J$.
This fact does not use the fact that we have an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree rather than a more general $\Lambda$–tree. The statement holds for every $\Lambda$–tree $T$ with a free action of $\Gamma$ without inversion and every $\Lambda/\Lambda_0$–tree ${{{\overline{T}}}{}}$ obtained from $T$ by killing a convex subgroup $\Lambda_0$ of infinitesimals.
We start with the proof of the two first items. Consider $g\in\Gamma\setminus\{ 1\}$, and consider $\operatorname*{Fix}_{{{\overline{T}}}{}}g$ its set of fix points in ${{{\overline{T}}}{}}$. The preimage of $\operatorname*{Fix}_{{{\overline{T}}}{}}g$ is the set of points in $T$ moved by an infinitesimal amount. This set is either empty if $l_T(g)$ is not infinitesimal, or, it is the set of points whose distance to the axis $A_g$ of $g$ is infinitesimal. Therefore, if $\operatorname*{Fix}_{{{\overline{T}}}{}}g$ is not empty, then it is the image of $A_g$ in ${{{\overline{T}}}{}}$ which contains no tripod since the quotient map preserves alignment. Moreover, for any element $h\in \Gamma$ commuting with $g$, $h$ globally preserves the axis of $g$, so $A_h=A_g$. Therefore, if $h$ is elliptic in ${{{\overline{T}}}{}}$ then it has the same set of fixed points as $g$.
Now we prove superstability and that arc fixators are abelian. Consider some non-degenerate arcs ${\overline{J}}\subset{\overline{I}}\subset {{{\overline{T}}}{}}$, two elements $g,h\in\Gamma\setminus \{1\}$ fixing pointwise ${\overline{I}}$ and ${\overline{J}}$ respectively. We want to prove that $h$ fixes ${\overline{I}}$ and commutes with $g$. By hypothesis, the translation length of $g$ and $h$ are infinitesimal in $T$, their axes $A_g$ and $A_h$ must intersect in a subset of non-infinitesimal diameter.
Now since the diameter of $A_g\cap A_h$ is much (infinitely) larger than $l_T(g)+l_T(h)$, $ghg{^{-1}}h{^{-1}}$ is elliptic in $T$ (see for instance [@Chi_book Rk. p.111]). Since the action is free, this means that $g$ and $h$ commute and in particular, the fixator of ${\overline{I}}$ is abelian. This implies that $h(A_g)=A_g$, thus $A_h\supset A_g$ since $A_h$ is the maximal $h$–invariant linear subtree of $T$, and $A_h=A_g$ by symmetry of the argument. Therefore, $\operatorname*{Fix}_{{{\overline{T}}}{}}h=\operatorname*{Fix}_{{{\overline{T}}}{}}g$ and in particular, $h$ fixes ${\overline{I}}$.
Let’s prove that the global stabilizer $\Gamma_l$ of a line $l\subset {{{\overline{T}}}{}}$ is abelian. Since $\operatorname*{Fix}g=\operatorname*{Fix}g^2$ for all $g\in \Gamma$, $\Gamma_l$ acts on $l$ by translations. If the fixator $N_l$ of $l$ is trivial, then we are done. Otherwise, $N_l$ is a normal abelian subgroup of $\Gamma_l$, and let $\Tilde l$ be its axis in $T$. Since $\Gamma_l$ normalizes $N_l$, $\Gamma_l$ preserves $\Tilde l$, so $\Gamma_l$ acts freely by translations on $\Tilde l$, so $\Gamma_l$ is abelian. Finally, any element normalising $\Gamma_l$ must preserve $l$, so $\Gamma_l$ is maximal abelian.
Therefore, one can apply Sela’s theorem which claims that superstable actions on ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–trees are obtained by gluing equivariantly some simpler ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–trees along points (see definition \[dfn\_goa\]). In this statement a *simplicial arc* in ${{{\overline{T}}}{}}$ is an arc $[a,b]$ which contains no branch point of ${{{\overline{T}}}{}}$ except maybe at $a$ or $b$.
\[thm\_structure\] Let $({{{\overline{T}}}{}},\Gamma)$ be a minimal action of a finitely generated group on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–tree. Assume that $\Gamma$ is freely indecomposable, that tripod fixators are trivial, and that the action is super-stable. Then ${{{\overline{T}}}{}}$ can be decomposed into a graph of actions on ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–trees along points, each vertex tree being either
a point;
a simplicial arc, which is fixed pointwise by its global stabilizer;
a line $l$ together with an action $\Gamma_l{\,\raisebox{1.8ex}[0pt][0pt]{\begin{turn}{-90}\ensuremath{\circlearrowright}\end{turn}}\,}l$ having dense orbits, such that the image of $\Gamma_l$ in $\operatorname{Isom}(l)$ is finitely generated;
or an action on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–tree dual to an arational[^3] measured foliation on a $2$–orbifold (with boundary).
In [@Gui_Rips], simplicial arcs are incorporated in the skeleton of the decomposition of the action (as edges of positive length) and hence do not appear in the statement of the theorem.
Since $\Gamma$ is torsion-free, the orbifold groups occurring in the structure theorem are actually surface groups.
#### Agglutination of simplicial arcs
We now make the decomposition given in the structure theorem nicer with respect to abelian groups. In particular, we want to gather simplicial arcs having the same fixator into bigger vertex subtrees. This will imply that the stabilizer of the new corresponding vertex trees are maximal abelian. The goal is to reformulate the Structure Theorem as follows:
\[thm\_reformulation\] There is a $\Gamma$–invariant transverse covering of ${{{\overline{T}}}{}}$ by a family $({{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_u)_{u\in U}$ of non-degenerate closed subtrees such that, denoting by $\Gamma_u$ be the global stabilizer of ${{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_u$, one of the following holds:
abelian-type:
: ${{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_u$ is an arc or a line, the image ${{{\overline{\Gamma}}}}_u$ of $\Gamma_u$ in $\operatorname{Isom}({{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_u)$ is finitely generated, and $\Gamma_u$ is maximal abelian in $\Gamma$; moreover for any two abelian-type subtrees ${{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_u\neq{{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_v$, $\Gamma_u$ and $\Gamma_v$ don’t commute;
surface-type:
: or the action $\Gamma_u{\,\raisebox{1.8ex}[0pt][0pt]{\begin{turn}{-90}\ensuremath{\circlearrowright}\end{turn}}\,}{{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_u$ is dual to an arational measured foliation on a surface with boundary.
Consider the transverse covering of ${{{\overline{T}}}{}}$ by the non-degenerate vertex subtrees $({{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_u)_{u\in U}$ of the decomposition given by the structure theorem \[thm\_structure\] (lemma \[lem\_transverse\]). Consider the equivalence relation on $U$ generated by $u\sim u'$ if ${{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_u$ and ${{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_{u'}$ are simplicial arcs and the fixators of ${{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_u$ and ${{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_{u'}$ commute (note that the fixators of these arcs are non-trivial since $\Gamma$ is freely indecomposable). The commutation of the fixators implies that those fixators coincide since commuting elliptic elements have the same set of fix points (fact \[fact\_elem\]).
For any equivalence class $[u]$, let ${{{\overline{Z}}}}_{[u]}=\bigcup_{u\in[u]} {{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_u$. We prove that $({{{\overline{Z}}}}_{[u]})_{u\in U/{\sim}}$ is the wanted transverse covering. For $u$ such that ${{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_u$ is a simplicial arc, let $N_{[u]}$ be the common fixator of the simplicial arcs ${{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_u$ for $u\in [u]$. One has $\operatorname*{Fix}N_u={{{\overline{Z}}}}_{[u]}$. As a matter of fact, $N_u$ cannot fix an arc in a surface type vertex tree since the fixator of an arc in a surface-type vertex tree is trivial, and $N_u$ cannot fix an arc in a line-type vertex tree because tripod fixators are trivial. This implies that ${{{\overline{Z}}}}_{[u]}$ is closed and connected, and is a linear subtree of ${{{\overline{T}}}{}}$ since tripod fixators are trivial. Since the case of a semi-line is easy to rule out, ${{{\overline{Z}}}}_{[u]}$ is either an arc of a line. In particular, the family of subtrees $({{{\overline{Z}}}}_{[u]})_{[u]\in U/{{\sim}}} $ is a transverse covering of ${{{\overline{T}}}{}}$.
The global stabilizer $\Gamma_{[u]}$ of ${{{\overline{Z}}}}_{[u]}$ is maximal abelian in $\Gamma$: this was already noted in the case where ${{{\overline{Z}}}}_{[u]}$ is a line; if ${{{\overline{Z}}}}_{[u]}$ is an arc, then $\Gamma_{[u]}$ coincides with its fixator $N_u$ since there can be no reflection (because $\operatorname*{Fix}g=\operatorname*{Fix}g^2$) so in particular, $\Gamma_{[u]}$ is abelian. Now any element $g$ commuting with the elements of $N_u$ must globally preserve ${{{\overline{Z}}}}_{[u]}$, so $g\in \Gamma_{[u]}$. Therefore, $\Gamma_{[u]}$ is maximal abelian. If $u,v$ are such that $\Gamma_{[u]}$ and $\Gamma_{[v]}$ commute, then $N_u$ and $N_v$ commute, so $N_u=N_v$ and $[u]=[v]$.
We now focus on the skeleton $S$ of this transverse covering, and we analyse the corresponding splitting of $\Gamma$. We prove that this splitting satisfies the abelian dévissage. We give a simple version before giving a more detailed statement.
\[abelian\_devissage\_simple\] If a finitely generated freely indecomposable group $\Gamma$ acts freely on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree ($n\geq 2$), then $\Gamma$ can be written as the fundamental group of a finite graph of groups where
each edge group is abelian; more precisely, an edge group is either cyclic or fixes an arc in ${{{\overline{T}}}{}}$;
each vertex group acts freely on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$–tree.
\[abelian\_devissage\] If a finitely generated freely indecomposable group $\Gamma$ acts freely on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree, then $\Gamma$ can be written as the fundamental group of a finite graph of groups with 3 types of vertices named *abelian*, *surface* and *infinitesimal*, and such that the following holds:
each edge is incident to exactly one infinitesimal vertex;
for each abelian vertex $v$, $\Gamma_v$ is abelian maximal in $\Gamma$, $\Gamma_v={{{\overline{\Gamma}}}}_v\oplus N_v$ where ${{{\overline{\Gamma}}}}_v$ is a finitely generated (maybe trivial) free abelian group, $N_v$ is an arc fixator, and the image in $\Gamma_v$ of all incident edges coincide with the (maybe infinitely generated) abelian group $N_v$; moreover, if $v\neq v'$ are distinct abelian vertices, then $\Gamma_v$ does not commute with any conjugate of $\Gamma_{v'}$;
for each surface vertex $v$, $\Gamma_v$ is the fundamental group of a surface ${\Sigma}$ with boundary holding an arational measured foliation; there is one edge for each boundary component of ${\Sigma}$, and the image of its edge group in $\Gamma_v$ is conjugate to the fundamental group of the corresponding boundary component of ${\Sigma}$;
for each infinitesimal vertex $v$, $\Gamma_v$ acts freely on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$–tree; moreover, any element $g\in\Gamma\setminus\{1\}$ commuting with an element of $\Gamma_v\setminus\{1\}$ either belongs to $\Gamma_v$, or is conjugate into ${{{\overline{\Gamma}}}}_w$ where $w$ is an abelian vertex neighbouring $v$.
Finally, ${{\mathcal {G}}}$ is $4$–acylindrical and any non-cyclic abelian subgroup of $\Gamma$ is conjugate into a vertex group.
A surface with empty boundary could occur in this graph of groups, but in this case, the graph of groups contains no edge, and $\Gamma$ is a surface group.
Note that the edge and vertex groups could a priori be non-finitely generated in the abelian dévissage. On the other hand, if one knew somehow[^4] that abelian subgroups of $\Gamma$ were finitely generated, then the finite presentation of $\Gamma$ would follow easily: finite generation of edge groups would imply the finite generation of vertex groups (since $\Gamma$ is finitely generated), and thus vertex groups would be finitely presented by induction hypothesis.
If one knows that arc fixators of ${{{\overline{T}}}{}}$ are cyclic, then it is immediate to deduce the conclusion of the cyclic dévissage theorem from the abelian dévissage theorem. The strategy for the proof of the Cyclic Dévissage Theorem will thus consist in finding an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree $T'$ such that arc fixators of ${{{\overline{T}}}{}}'$ are cyclic (see next section).
The claim about edge groups follows from the fact that each edge is either incident on a surface vertex or on an abelian vertex. The claim about vertex groups follows from the fact that countable torsion free abelian groups and surface groups holding an arational measured foliation (which are free groups in the case where the surface have non-empty boundary) have a free action on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–tree.
Let $S$ be the skeleton of the transverse covering given by the reformulation of the structure theorem (Theorem \[thm\_reformulation\]). We prove that the graph of groups decomposition $\Gamma=\pi_1({{\mathcal {G}}})$ induced by the action of $\Gamma$ on $S$ satisfies the abelian dévissage theorem.
Remember that $S$ is bipartite, with $V(S)=V_0(S){\sqcup}V_1(S)$ where $V_1(S)$ is the set of non-degenerate subtrees in the transverse covering, and $V_0(S)$ is the set of points of ${{{\overline{T}}}{}}$ which belong to at least two distinct subtrees of the transverse covering. The set $V_0(S)$ will be the set of our infinitesimal vertices. Since the stabilizer of such a vertex fixes a point in $T$, it acts freely on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$–tree. By the reformulation of the Structure Theorem, $V_1(S)$ is a disjoint union of abelian-type and surface type vertices $V_1(S)=V_{ab}{\sqcup}V_{surf}$, where $V_{ab}$ is the set of vertices corresponding to abelian-type subtrees and $V_{surf}$ to surface-type subtrees (excluding tori). The fact that $S$ is bipartite means that each edge of ${{\mathcal {G}}}$ is incident on exactly one infinitesimal vertex.
Let’s first consider an abelian vertex $v$, and let $N_v$ be the fixator of the linear subtree ${{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_{v}$, and ${{{\overline{\Gamma}}}}_v$ the image of $N_v$ in $\operatorname{Isom}({{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_v)$. The direct sum follows from the fact that $\Gamma_v$ is abelian and that ${{{\overline{\Gamma}}}}_v$ is a free abelian group. The only thing to check is that the image of all edge groups incident on $v$ coincide with $N_v$. This follows from the fact that an edge $e\in E(S)$ is a pair $(x,{{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_v)$ where $x\in{{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_v$, so the fixator of $e$ is the stabilizer of $x$ in $\Gamma_v$, which is $N_v$.
The acylindricity follows from the fact that if two edges $(x,{{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_v)$ $(x',{{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_{v'})$ have commuting fixators $\Gamma_e,\Gamma_{e'}$, then $\Gamma_e$ and $\Gamma_{e'}$ have the same (non-empty) set of fix points in ${{{\overline{T}}}{}}$ which is either a point, or an abelian subtree. In the first case, one has $x=x'$ so the two edges have a common endpoint at an infinitesimal vertex. In the second case, the endpoints $x$ and $x'$ of the two edges are at distance at most $2$ in $S$. The acylindricity implies that any non-cyclic abelian group $A$ is conjugate into a vertex group since otherwise, a non-trivial subgroup of $A$ would fix its axis in $S$, contradicting acylindricity.
Let’s turn to a surface vertex $v$. We know that its stabilizer $\Gamma_v$ is the fundamental group of a surface with boundary holding an arational measured foliation. Moreover, since $\Gamma$ is freely indecomposable, edge fixators are non-trivial. The fixator of an edge $e=(x,{{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_v)$ is non-trivial and fixes a point in ${{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_v$. Since ${{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_v$ is dual to an arational measured foliation on a surface $\Sigma$, the elliptic elements of $\Gamma_v$ are exactly those which can be conjugate into the fundamental group of a boundary component of $\Sigma$, and an elliptic element fixes exactly one point. Thus, $\Gamma_e$ is conjugate to a boundary component $b_e$ of $\Sigma$ (and not to a proper subgroup since $\Gamma_e$ is the whole stabilizer of $x$ in $\Gamma_v$). Moreover, if two edges $e=(x,{{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_v),e'=(x',{{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_v)$ of $S$ correspond to the same boundary component $b_e=B_{e'}$ of $\Sigma$, then $\Gamma_e$ and $g\Gamma_{e'}g{^{-1}}$ for some $g\in \Gamma_v$, which implies that $x'=g.x$ since $\Gamma_e$ fixes exactly one point in ${{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_v$, so $e'=g.e$. This proves that two distinct edges of ${{\mathcal {G}}}$ incident on a surface vertex of ${{\mathcal {G}}}$ correspond to *distinct* boundary components of the surface. If a boundary component of $\Sigma$ does not correspond to any incident edge, it is easy to check that $\Gamma$ has a non-trivial free splitting, contradicting the hypothesis.
There remains to check the last affirmation about elements commuting with an element stabilising an infinitesimal vertex. So let $v\in V_0(S)$, $g\in \Gamma_v\setminus\{1\}$ and $h\in \Gamma$ commuting with $g$. If $h$ is elliptic, then $h\in \Gamma_v$ since two commuting elliptic elements have the same fixed points. If $h$ is hyperbolic, then $g$ must fix pointwise its axis $A_h$. Since surface-type subtrees have trivial arc fixators, $A_h$ cannot meet any surface-type subtree in more than a point. So $A_h$ is contained in a union of abelian subtrees. But since $g$ fixes $A_h$, $A_h$ is a single abelian subtree. Now $x\in A_h$ since $g$ fixes no tripod and the last claim follows.
Obtaining cyclic arc fixators {#sec_flawless}
=============================
To prove the cyclic dévissage theorem, we will find an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree $T'$ such that arc fixators of the ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–tree ${{{\overline{T}}}{}}'$ are cyclic. The cyclic dévissage theorem will then follow from the abelian dévissage theorem.
\[thm\_cyclic\_flawless\] Assume that a freely indecomposable finitely generated group $\Gamma$ acts freely on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree $T$. Then $\Gamma$ has a free action on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree $T'$ such that the action on the ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–tree ${{{\overline{T}}}{}}'$ obtained by killing infinitesimals has cyclic arc fixators.
The strategy of the proof is the following: starting with the decomposition of $\Gamma$ given by the structure theorem for the action of $\Gamma$ on ${\overline{T}}$, we build a more adapted decomposition of $\Gamma$ as a graph of groups with abelian edge groups, such that the action of its non-abelian vertex groups on their minimal subtree in $\overline{T}$ has cyclic arc fixators. Taking the Bass–Serre tree of this decomposition as a skeleton, we define a graph of actions on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–trees satisfying the conclusion of Theorem \[thm\_cyclic\_flawless\].
But to clarify the exposition, we first sketch the proof of Theorem \[thm\_cyclic\_flawless\] in two important particular cases.
Main examples
-------------
### Acylindrical case
The first case concerns a decomposition of $\Gamma$ as an amalgamated product of non-abelian groups over a maximal abelian subgroup. The CSA property of $\Gamma$ immediately implies the $1$–acylindricity of the splitting.
Consider a free action of a finitely generated group $\Gamma$ on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree, and assume that ${{{\overline{T}}}{}}$ is a simplicial tree, dual to an amalgamated product $\Gamma=A*_C B$. In particular, $A$ and $B$ both stabilize a ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$–tree in $T$. For simplicity, also assume that $C$ contains an element whose translation length has magnitude $n-1$.
If $C$ is not cyclic and maximal abelian in both $A$ and $B$, then $\Gamma$ has a free action on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$–tree $T'$.
The hypothesis that $C$ is not cyclic is crucial here. Indeed, a group of the from $\Gamma=F_2*_C F_2$ where $C$ is maximal cyclic in both copies of $F_2$ has a free action on a ${{\mathbb{Z}}}^2$–tree (see [@Bass_non-archimedean]). However, if $C$ is chosen so that $\Gamma$ is not a free product of surface or abelian groups, then $C$ has no free action on any ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–tree.
Take $S={{{\overline{T}}}{}}$ endowed with its natural set of vertices and edges. For each vertex $v\in V(S)$, let $Y_v$ be the preimage of $v$ in the ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree $T$. Note that $Y_v$ is an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$–tree. For each edge $e\in E(S)$, denote by $\Gamma_e$ its fixator, and let $\lambda_e$ be the axis of $\Gamma_e$ in $Y_{t(e)}$. We will construct $T'$ as a graph of actions on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$–trees with $S$ as skeleton, and whose vertex and edge trees are $Y_v$ and $\lambda_e$. The main point is to define the gluing isometries so that the resulting action is free.
One technical problem which may occur in general is that $\lambda_e$ may not be isometric to $\lambda_{{\overline{e}}}$: it might be isometric to a strict convex subset of ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$. However, our hypothesis which claims that some element of $C$ has a translation length of magnitude $n-1$ prevents this. In general, this problem will be fixed by enlarging the vertex trees using an *end completion* procedure.
Now, we need to define the gluing maps ${\varphi}_e$. To prove that we get a free action, we will apply our criterion for freeness (lemma \[lem\_criterion\_free\]). Indeed, we will choose the maps ${\varphi}_e$ so that no point of $Y_v$ gets identified with a point of $Y_w$ where $v$ and $w$ are at distance more than $2$ in $S$. This is of course automatic if for each vertex $v\in V(S)$ and for each pair of distinct edges $e,e'$ incident on $v$, $\lambda_e$ does not intersect $\lambda_{e'}$.
We argue that for two edges $e\neq e'$ incident on $v$, $\lambda_e\cap\lambda_{e'}$ is small: it has magnitude at most $n-2$. This is where the non-cyclicness of $C$ is crucial. The hypothesis that $C$ is maximal abelian in both $A$ and $B$ implies that for each pair of distinct edges, $\Gamma_e$ and $\Gamma_{e'}$ don’t commute (this is an easy exercise about the CSA property). The smallness of $\lambda_e\cap\lambda_{e'}$ follows from the following fact applied to the action of $\Gamma_v$ on $Y_v$ with $p=q=n-1$, $H=\Gamma_e$, and $H'=\Gamma_{e'}$.
\[fact\_small\] Let $\Gamma{\,\raisebox{1.8ex}[0pt][0pt]{\begin{turn}{-90}\ensuremath{\circlearrowright}\end{turn}}\,}Y$ be a free action of a group on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^p$–tree. Let $H,H'$ be two non-commuting abelian subgroups of $\Gamma$. Assume that for some $q\leq p$, the subgroups of $H$ and $H'$ consisting of elements whose translation length is of magnitude at most $q$ are both non-cyclic.
Then the intersection of the axes of $H$ and $H'$ has magnitude at most $q-1$.
We keep the proof of the fact for later.
\[dfn\_branching\_locus\]The *branching locus of axes* in $Y_v$ is the set $$B_v=\bigcup_{\text{\textup{$e\neq e'\in E(S)$ incident on $v$}}} \big[\lambda_e\cap \lambda_{e'}\big].$$
The fact says that this branching locus is a countable union of sets of magnitude at most $n-2$.
Now choose an oriented edge $e$, and any isometry ${\varphi}_e\co \lambda_{{\overline{e}}}{\rightarrow}\lambda_e$. Up to composing ${\varphi}_e$ by a generic translation of $\lambda_e\simeq{{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$, we can assume that ${\varphi}_e(B_{o(e)})$ does not intersect $B_{t(e)}$ (there are countably many classes of prohibited translations mod ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-2}$). Now extend this choice of ${\varphi}_e$ equivariantly to get an equivariant graph of actions on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$–trees.
There remains to prove that no point of $Y_v$ gets identified with a point of $Y_w$ where $v$ and $w$ are at distance more than $2$ in $S$. Take $x\in Y_v$ and assume that $x$ is identified with two points $y\in Y_u$ and $z\in Y_w$ where $u,w$ are two distinct neighbours of $v$. If $e,e'$ denote the edges joining $v$ to $u$ and $w$, we have that $x\in\lambda_e\cap\lambda_{e'}$ so $x\in B_v$. Therefore, our choice of gluing isometries implies that $y\notin B_u$ and $z\notin B_w$. This implies that $y$ and $z$ are not identified with any other point. Therefore, Lemma \[lem\_criterion\_free\] applies and the action dual to our graph of actions is free.
This is just a consequence of the fact that if the axes of two hyperbolic elements $g,h$ intersect in a segment whose diameter is larger than the sum of the translation lengths of $g$ and $h$, then the commutator $[g,h]$ fixes a point, so that $g$ and $h$ commute.
Up to taking subgroups, one can assume that every element of $H$ and $H'$ have translation length of magnitude at most $q$. We just need to prove that for any positive ${\varepsilon}\in{{\mathbb{R}}}^q\setminus{{\mathbb{R}}}^{q-1}$, $H$ (resp. $H'$) contain non-trivial elements of translation length at most ${\varepsilon}$. This clearly holds if some element of $H\setminus\{1\}$ has a translation length of magnitude at most $q-1$. Otherwise, consider a morphism $\rho\co H{\rightarrow}{{\mathbb{R}}}^q$ having the same translation length function. Composing $\rho$ by the collapse of infinitesimals in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^q$, we get an embedding of $H$ as a subgroup of ${{\mathbb{R}}}$. This subgroup has to be dense since $H$ is not cyclic.
### Non acylindrical case
The next case occurs when one allows different edge fixators to commute. In this case we need to modify the graph of groups to get a more adapted one. The major example is the following: $\Gamma=A*_C$ where both inclusions of $C$ in $A$ are identical. Then we can consider the following modified decomposition: $\Gamma=A*_C (C\oplus {{\mathbb{Z}}})$. The corresponding Bass–Serre tree has the following nice feature which will be generalised later: if $\Gamma_e$ commutes with $\Gamma_{e'}$ then $e,e'$ are incident on a common vertex whose stabilizer is abelian (see Lemma \[lem\_adapted\_decompo\]).
Consider a free action of a group $\Gamma$ on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree $T$. Assume that $\Gamma$ splits as an amalgamated product $A*_C \Hat C$ where $A$ is non-abelian and preserves an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$–subtree of $T$, that $\Hat C$ is abelian and $\Hat C\simeq C\oplus {\overline{C}}$ for some non-trivial finitely generated free abelian group ${\overline{C}}$. Also assume for simplicity that $C$ contains an element whose translation length has magnitude $n-1$.
If $C$ is not cyclic, then $\Gamma$ has a free action on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$–tree.
We want to define a $\Gamma$–equivariant graph of actions on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$–trees. Let $S$ be the Bass–Serre tree of the splitting $\Gamma=A*_C \Hat C$. We denote by $a$ and $c$ the vertices of $S$ whose stabilizers are $A$ and $\Hat C$ respectively, and by $e_0$ the edge connecting them with $t(e_0)=c$.
For each $v\in V(S)$ in the orbit of $a$, define $Y_v={T_{\mathrm{min}}}(\Gamma_v)$ as the minimal $\Gamma_v$–invariant subtree of $T$. Remember that $B_a$ denote the branching locus of axes of $Y_a$, [i.e. ]{}the set of points of $Y_a$ which belong to the intersection of the axes of two distinct conjugates of $C$. Let $D=\{d(x,x')|\ x,x'\in B_a\}$ be the set of mutual distances between points of the branching locus of axes. By Fact \[fact\_small\], $D$ is a countable union of sets of magnitude at most $n-2$ (as a metric space); in other words, each of these countably many sets has the property that the difference of two of is elements lies in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-2}$.
For each $v\in \Gamma.c$, define $Y_v$ as a copy of ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$. We choose any action of $\Hat C=C\oplus {\overline{C}}$ on $Y_v$ so that the translation length of elements of $C$ is the same as in $T$, and so that the translation length of any element of $\Hat C\setminus C$ lies in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}\setminus D$. We extend equivariantly this action to an action of $\Gamma$ on the union of those copies of ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$.
Define $\lambda_{e_0}$ as $Y_c={{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$ and $\lambda_{{\overline{e}}_0}$ as the axis of $C$ in $Y_a$. Since $C$ contains an element of translation length $n-1$, $\lambda_{{\overline{e}}_0}\simeq {{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$, and choose for ${\varphi}_{e_0}$ any isometry. Define $\lambda_e$ and ${\varphi}_e$ for every edge by equivariance.
Thus, we have defined a graph of actions on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$–trees, and we need to prove that the action of $\Gamma$ on the dual ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$–tree is free. To apply our criterion for freeness (Lemma \[lem\_criterion\_free\]), there remains to prove that no point of $Y_v$ gets identified with a point of $Y_w$ where $v$ and $w$ are at distance more than $4$ in $S$.
Assume on the contrary that there are two such points at distance $5$. Denote by $u=u_0,u_1,\dots,u_5=v$ the vertices of $[u,v]$, $e_i$ the edge $[u_{i-1},u_i]$ and let $x_i\in Y_{u_i}$ such that ${\varphi}_{e_i}(x_{i-1})=x_i$. If $u_i\in\Gamma.a$ for some $i\in\{1,\dots,4\}$, then $x_i$ lies in $B_{v_i}$. Since any edge of $S$ joins a vertex in $\Gamma.a$ to a vertex in $\Gamma.c$, one can find two indices $i,i+2\in\{1,\dots,4\}$ such that $u_i,u_{i+2}\in \Gamma.a$. By equivariance, we can assume that $u_i=a$, $u_{i+1}=c$, and $u_{i+2}=g.a$ for some $g\in \Hat C$. Since $u_{i+2}\neq u_i$, $g\notin C$. The two points $x_i$ and $g{^{-1}}x_{i+2}$ both lie in $B_a$, so $d_{Y_a}(x_i,g{^{-1}}x_{i+2})\in D$. Besides, ${\varphi}_{{\overline{e}}_{i+2}}(x_{i+2})=x_{i+1}$ so ${\varphi}_{e_{i+1}}(g{^{-1}}x_{i+2})=g{^{-1}}x_{i+1}$. Since ${\varphi}_{e_{i+1}}(x_i)=x_{i+1}$, one gets $d_{Y_c}(x_{i+1},g{^{-1}}x_{i+1})=d_{Y_a}(x_i,g{^{-1}}x_{i+2}) \in D$, a contradiction with our choice for the action of $\Hat C$ on $Y_c$ since $g\notin C$.
General case
------------
The following definition will be convenient.
Let $T$ be an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree endowed with an action of $\Gamma$, and let ${{{\overline{T}}}{}}$ be the ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–tree obtained by killing infinitesimals. One says that $T$ is *flawless* if ${{{\overline{T}}}{}}$ has cyclic arc fixators.
By extension, we will also say that the ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–tree ${{{\overline{T}}}{}}$ is flawless accordingly.
With this terminology, Theorem \[thm\_cyclic\_flawless\] means that any finitely generated group having a free action on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree, has a *flawless* free action on another ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree.
Gluing flawless trees along infinitesimals is flawless
------------------------------------------------------
We will build our flawless action as a graph of flawless actions over infinitesimal subtrees. We first check that such an action is always flawless.
\[lem\_flawless1\] Consider an action of a group $\Gamma$ on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–tree ${\overline{T}}$. Assume that ${\overline{T}}$ is transversely covered (Definition \[dfn\_transverse\_covering\]) by a $\Gamma$–invariant family of subtrees $({{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_v)$ such that the action on ${{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_v$ of its global stabilizer is flawless.
Then $\Gamma{\,\raisebox{1.8ex}[0pt][0pt]{\begin{turn}{-90}\ensuremath{\circlearrowright}\end{turn}}\,}{\overline{T}}$ is flawless.
Consider an arc ${\overline{I}}\subset {{{\overline{T}}}{}}$. Using the finiteness condition in a transverse covering, up to making ${\overline{I}}$ smaller, one can assume that ${\overline{I}}$ is contained in a non-degenerate subtree ${{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_v$ of the transverse covering. Any element fixing ${\overline{I}}$ must preserve ${{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_v$ by the transverse intersection property. Since $\Gamma_v{\,\raisebox{1.8ex}[0pt][0pt]{\begin{turn}{-90}\ensuremath{\circlearrowright}\end{turn}}\,}{{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_v$ is flawless, this implies that the fixator of ${\overline{I}}$ is cyclic, which means that ${\overline{T}}$ is flawless.
We immediately deduce the following lemma:
\[lem\_flawless2\] Consider a graph of flawless actions on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–trees over infinitesimal subtrees.
Then the ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree dual to this graph of actions is flawless.
Recall that a graph of actions on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–trees is *over infinitesimal subtrees* if the edge subtrees are infinitesimal.
Let $S$ be the skeleton of the graph of actions, and denote by $Y_v$ the vertex ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–trees and by ${\varphi}_e\co \lambda_{{\overline{e}}}{\rightarrow}\lambda_e$ the gluing isometries between infinitesimal closed subtrees of the corresponding vertex trees. Let $T$ be the ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$ tree dual to this graph of actions, and let ${{{\overline{T}}}{}}$ be the ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–tree obtained by killing infinitesimals. The images ${{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_v$ of the vertex trees in ${{{\overline{T}}}{}}$ give a transverse covering of ${{{\overline{T}}}{}}$ because the gluing occurs along infinitesimal trees.
### Decomposition of the group
The next step in the proof is to build an adapted decomposition of $\Gamma$ from the structure of the action of $\Gamma$ on ${\overline{T}}$. This is the analogue of the transformation of $\Gamma=A*_C$ into $\Gamma=A*_C (C\oplus{{\mathbb{Z}}})$ in the second example. We state it in terms of the corresponding Bass–Serre tree.
\[lem\_adapted\_decompo\] Let $\Gamma$ be a finitely generated group acting freely on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree $T$. Then $\Gamma$ has an action on a simplicial tree $S$ such that $S$ is bipartite for the partition of $V(S)$ into the set of vertices ${V_{\mathrm{ab}}}(S)$ whose stabilizer is abelian and the set $V_F(S)$ (F for flawless) whose stabilizer is non-abelian and such that
1. \[enum\_nonabelian\] $\forall v\in V_F(S)$, the action of $\Gamma_v$ on the minimal subtree ${T_{\mathrm{min}}}(\Gamma_v)$ is flawless;
2. \[enum\_abelian\] $\forall v\in {V_{\mathrm{ab}}}(S)$, $\Gamma_v$ is maximal abelian in $\Gamma$, and $\Gamma_v=N_v\oplus {\overline{\Gamma}}_v$ where $N_v$ coincides with the fixator of all edges incident on $v$ and ${{{\overline{\Gamma}}}}_v$ is a finitely generated free abelian group;
3. \[enum\_edge\] $\forall e\in E(S)$, $\Gamma_e$ is abelian, not cyclic, and the translation length of its elements in $T$ is infinitesimal;
4. \[enum\_commutation\] if $e,e'\in E(S)$ are distinct edges such that $\Gamma_e$ and $\Gamma_{e'}$ commute, then $e$ and $e'$ share a common vertex in ${V_{\mathrm{ab}}}(S)$.
Start with $S_0$ the tree dual to the graph of groups given by the Abelian Dévissage Theorem \[abelian\_devissage\]. We can assume that the action $\Gamma{\,\raisebox{1.8ex}[0pt][0pt]{\begin{turn}{-90}\ensuremath{\circlearrowright}\end{turn}}\,}S_0$ is minimal. We keep the terminology of Proposition \[abelian\_devissage\] about abelian type vertices: by an *abelian type vertex* we mean a vertex of $S_0$ of abelian type in the sense of Proposition \[abelian\_devissage\]; we will not use this term to designate a vertex of $S_0$ (or $S$) whose stabilizer is abelian ([i.e. ]{}an element of ${V_{\mathrm{ab}}}(S)$).
Take $S$ the tree obtained from $S_0$ by collapsing all the edges whose fixator is cyclic. Denote by $\pi\co S_0{\rightarrow}S$ the collapsing map. Most requirements for $S$ will follow from the properties of $S_0$ described in Proposition \[abelian\_devissage\].
First, for each edge $e\in E(S_0)$, the translation length of $\Gamma_e$ is infinitesimal because because one of the vertices of $e$ is of infinitesimal type. Therefore, the same holds for edge fixators of $S$ and point (\[enum\_edge\]) is clear.
Note that all edges of $S_0$ incident on a surface type vertex are collapsed by $\pi$, so any edge of $S_0$ which is not collapsed under $\pi$ joins an infinitesimal type vertex $u_0$ to an abelian type vertex $v_0$ whose stabilizer is of the form $\Gamma_{v_0}=N_{v_0}\oplus{\overline{\Gamma}}_{v_0}$ for some non-cyclic $N_{v_0}$. Since all the edges incident on $v_0$ have the same fixator $N_{v_0}$, no edge incident on $v_0$ is collapsed. Denoting $v=\pi(v_0)$, it follows that $\pi{^{-1}}(v)=\{v_0\}$ so $\Gamma_v=\Gamma_{v_0}$ and $v$ satisfies (\[enum\_abelian\]). To complete the proof of (\[enum\_abelian\]), we only need to check that for all $v$ with $\Gamma_v$ abelian, $\pi{^{-1}}(v)=\{v_0\}$ for an abelian-type vertex as above. Let $v\in V(S)$ with $\Gamma_v$ abelian. The subtree $\pi{^{-1}}(v)$ cannot contain any surface-type vertex (because its stabilizer is non-abelian). It can neither contain a vertex neighbouring a surface-type vertex (because the corresponding edge would be collapsed in $S$). If $\pi{^{-1}}(v)$ contains an infinitesimal-type vertex $v_0$, then $\Gamma_{v_0}$ is abelian, and all its neighbours are of abelian type. There are at least two such neighbours $u_1,u_2$ by minimality, and $\Gamma_{u_1}$ and $\Gamma_{u_2}$ commute because $\Gamma_{v_0}$ is abelian (commutative transitivity). Since $\Gamma_{u_1}$ is maximal abelian in $\Gamma$, CSA property implies that $u_1$ and $u_2$ cannot be in the same orbit. But Proposition \[abelian\_devissage\] prohibits the commutation of stabilizers of abelian-type vertices in distinct orbits, a contradiction. It follows that the subtree $\pi{^{-1}}(v)$ is reduced to a single abelian type vertex, and (\[enum\_abelian\]) is proved.
It follows that $S$ is bipartite: consider $e\in E(S)$ and $\Tilde e\in E(S_0)$ its preimage; since $\Gamma_{\Tilde e}$ is non-cyclic, $\Tilde e$ has no surface type endpoint, so $\Tilde e=[x,a]$ for an infinitesimal vertex $x$ and an abelian type vertex $a$; since all edges incident on $a$ have the same non-cyclic fixator, $\pi{^{-1}}(\pi(a))=a$ so the stabilizer of $\pi(a)$ is abelian; the stabilizer of $\pi(x)$ can’t be abelian by the argument above.
Now take $v\in V(S)$ with $\Gamma_v$ non-abelian, and let’s prove that the action of $\Gamma_v$ on ${T_{\mathrm{min}}}(\Gamma_v)$ is flawless. Remember that $S_0$ was obtained as the skeleton of the transverse covering of ${\overline{T}}$ given by Theorem \[thm\_reformulation\], so to each vertex $v_0\in V(S_0)$ corresponds either a point or a non-degenerate subtree ${{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_{v_0}$ (according to whether $v_0$ is of infinitesimal type or not). Denote by $Y_{v_0}$ the preimage of the ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–tree ${{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_{v_0}$ in the ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree $T$. Note that the action of $\Gamma_{v_0}$ on $Y_{v_0}$ is flawless except when $v_0$ is of abelian type with $N_{v_0}$ non-cyclic, which occurs only when $\Gamma_{\pi(v_0)}$ is abelian. Now consider $Y_v=\bigcup_{v_0\in \pi{^{-1}}(v)} Y_{v_0}$, and let ${{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_v$ its image in ${\overline{T}}$. If ${{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_v$ is reduced to a point, then $\Gamma{\,\raisebox{1.8ex}[0pt][0pt]{\begin{turn}{-90}\ensuremath{\circlearrowright}\end{turn}}\,}Y_v$ and thus $\Gamma_v{\,\raisebox{1.8ex}[0pt][0pt]{\begin{turn}{-90}\ensuremath{\circlearrowright}\end{turn}}\,}{T_{\mathrm{min}}}(\Gamma_v)$ are clearly flawless. Otherwise, ${{{\overline{Y}}}\!}_v$ it is transversely covered by the non-degenerate subtrees of the family $(Y_{v_0})_{v_0\in \pi{^{-1}}(v)}$. Moreover, each action $\Gamma_{v_0}{\,\raisebox{1.8ex}[0pt][0pt]{\begin{turn}{-90}\ensuremath{\circlearrowright}\end{turn}}\,}Y_{v_0}$ is flawless, so the action of $\Gamma_v$ on $Y_v$ is flawless by Lemma \[lem\_flawless1\]. Since the flawless condition is stable under taking invariant subtrees, this proves (\[enum\_nonabelian\]).
Now consider two edges $e,e'\in E(S)$ whose stabilizers commute. Denote by $\Tilde e,\Tilde e'\in E(S_0)$ their preimages. Since $\Gamma_{\Tilde e}$ is non-cyclic, its non-infinitesimal endpoint is an abelian type vertex $u$. Similarly, $\Tilde e'$ has an abelian type endpoint $u'$. By commutative transitivity, $\Gamma_u$ commutes with $\Gamma_{u'}$. Proposition \[abelian\_devissage\] then implies that $u=u'$, so $\Tilde e$ and $\Tilde e'$ share an abelian type vertex. Since $\pi(u)$ has an abelian stabilizer, (\[enum\_commutation\]) is proved.
This concludes the proof of the lemma.
### Construction of the graph of actions
Now we use the tree $S$ constructed in the previous lemma as a skeleton for a graph of actions on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–trees to build a flawless action of $\Gamma$ on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree.
Let’s first define the vertex ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–trees $(Y_v)_{v\in V(S)}$ of our graph of actions. For $v\in {V_{\mathrm{ab}}}(S)$, we take for $Y_v$ a copy of ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$ (we will define the action of $\Gamma_v$ on $Y_v$ later). For $v\in V_F(S)$, we would like to take $Y_v={T_{\mathrm{min}}}(\Gamma_v)$, the minimal $\Gamma_v$–invariant subtree of $T$. For each edge $e\in E(S)$, denote by $l_e$ the axis of $\Gamma_e$ in ${T_{\mathrm{min}}}(\Gamma_{o(e)})$ (resp. $l_e={{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$ if $t(e)\in {V_{\mathrm{ab}}}(S)$). We would next like to glue $l_e$ on $l_{{\overline{e}}}$ for each edge $e$. Unfortunately, this might not be possible as it might happen that $l_e$ is not isometric to $l_{{\overline{e}}}$.
However, for every vertex $v\in V_F(S)$, and for any edge $e$ incident on $v$, $l_e$ has magnitude at most $n-1$ because $\Gamma_e$ is non-cyclic and ${T_{\mathrm{min}}}(\Gamma_{o(e)})$ is flawless. As a remedy, we are going enlarge the vertex trees so that all axes of edge groups become isometric to ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$.
In what follows, we call *line* in an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree $T$ a *maximal* linear subtree of $T$.
If $(Z,\Gamma)$ is an action on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree, and $(l_e)$ is an invariant family of lines in $Z$ with magnitude at most $n-1$, then there is a natural enlargement $\Hat Z$ of $Z$ (endowed with an action of $\Gamma$) such that each $l_e$ is contained in a unique maximal line $\Hat l_e$ of $\Hat Z$, and $\Hat l_e$ is isometric to ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$.
This fact follows for instance from [@Bass_non-archimedean Appendix E]: take $\Hat Z$ to be the ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$–neighbourhood of $Z$ in the ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n}$–fulfilment of $Z$. We give an alternative simple sketch of proof for completeness, under the assumption that any two distinct lines of the family intersect in a segment (and not a semi-line for example). This assumption is satisfied in our setting.
Fix a line $l_e$, choose an embedding $j_e$ of $l_e$ into ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$, and glue $Z$ to ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$ along the maximal line $l_e$ using $j_e$. There is actually no choice for doing this since any two embeddings of $l_e$ into ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$ differ by an isometry of ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$. It is easily seen that the glued tree $Z\cup_{j_e}{{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$ is an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree (although $j_e(l_e)$ is generally not closed in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$ in the sense of $\Lambda$–trees). The additional assumption we made says that any other line $l_{e'}$ is a maximal linear subtree in the extended tree. Therefore, we can iterate this construction, and the obtained tree does not depend on the order chosen to extend the lines. Since an increasing union of ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–trees is an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree, the fact is proven.
This allows us to define our vertex and edge trees as follow:
for $v\in {V_{\mathrm{ab}}}(S)$, take for $Y_v$ a copy of ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$;
for $v\in V_F(S)$, take $Y_v=\widehat{{T_{\mathrm{min}}}(\Gamma_v)}$ to be the end completion of ${T_{\mathrm{min}}}(\Gamma_v)$ given by the fact above;
for $e\in E(S)$ take either $\lambda_e={{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$ or $\lambda_e=\Hat l_e$ (which coincides with the axis of $\Gamma_e$ in $Y_{t(e)}$).
The end completion being canonical, the group $\Gamma$ acts naturally on the disjoint union ${\sqcup}_{v\in \cup V_F(S)} Y_v$, but we still have to define an action on ${\sqcup}_{v\in {V_{\mathrm{ab}}}(S)} Y_v$ (the set of copies of ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$).
Remember that for $v\in V_F(S)$, the branching locus of axes in $Y_v$ is the set $$B_v=\bigcup_{\text{$e\neq e'\in E(S)$ incident on $v$}} \big[\lambda_e\cap \lambda_{e'}\big].$$ Since two distinct edges incident on $v$ have non-commuting fixators, Fact \[fact\_small\] implies that $B_v$ is a countable union of sets of magnitude at most $n-2$. Let $D_v=\{d(x,x')\,|\ x,x'\in B_v\}\subset{{\mathbb{R}}}^n$ be the set of mutual distances between points of the branching locus, and let $D=\bigcup \{D_v|v\in V_F(S)\}$. As above, $D$ is a countable union of sets of magnitude at most $n-2$ of ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$ (as a ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–metric space).
To get an action of $\Gamma$ on ${\sqcup}_{v\in {V_{\mathrm{ab}}}(S)} Y_v$, we just need to define an action of $\Gamma_v$ on $Y_v$ for one vertex $v$ of each orbit in ${V_{\mathrm{ab}}}(S)/\Gamma$, and to extend this action equivariantly. Now remember that for $v\in {V_{\mathrm{ab}}}(S)$, $\Gamma_v=N_v\oplus {{{\overline{\Gamma}}}}_v$, and $N_v$ comes with a natural action on its axis in $T$ (and its translation length is infinitesimal), so we take an action of $N_v$ on $Y_v\simeq{{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$ having the same translation length as in $T$. We choose the action of ${{{\overline{\Gamma}}}}_v$ on $Y_v$ so that the translation length of any element of $\Gamma_v\setminus N_v$ lies in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}\setminus D$.
We define the gluing maps ${\varphi}_e$ inductively in a generic set as follows. First, up to changing $e$ to ${\overline{e}}$, we can assume that $t(e)\in {V_{\mathrm{ab}}}(S)$ while $o(e)\in V_F(S)$. For the first orbit of edges, we choose any $\Gamma_e$–equivariant gluing isometry ${\varphi}_e\co \lambda_{{\overline{e}}}{\rightarrow}\lambda_e$, and we extend this choice equivariantly. Then, if some choices of gluing maps are already made for some other edges incident on $v$, we choose ${\varphi}_e$ so that ${\varphi}_e(B_{o(e)})$ does not meet ${\varphi}_{e'}(B_{o(e')})$ for any edge $e'$ such that $t(e')=t(e)$ and on which ${\varphi}_{e'}$ was already defined. This is possible since one can compose ${\varphi}_e$ by any translation in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$, and there are only countably many classes of translations mod ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-2}$ which are prohibited. Then, we extend this choice equivariantly on the orbit of $e$. This completes the definition of our graph of actions on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n}$–trees ${{\mathcal {G}}}=(S,(Y_v)_{v\in V(S)},({\varphi}_e)_{e\in E(S)})$.
To sum up, our generic choices with respect to the branching locus of axes ensure that the following holds:
\[resume\_phi\]
For any vertex $v\in {V_{\mathrm{ab}}}(S)$, the translation length of any element of $\Gamma_v\setminus N_v$ in $Y_v$ does not lie in $D$.
Assume that two edges $e,e'$ are incident on a common vertex $v\in {V_{\mathrm{ab}}}(S)$ so that ${\varphi}_e{^{-1}}B_{o(e)}\cap{\varphi}_{e'}{^{-1}}B_{o(e')}\neq {\emptyset}$; then $e$ and $e'$ are in the same orbit.
### The dual action is free
Let $T'=T_{{\mathcal {G}}}$ be the ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree dual to the graph of actions defined above. By lemma \[lem\_flawless2\], the action of $\Gamma$ on $T'$ is flawless. Therefore, Theorem \[thm\_cyclic\_flawless\] will be proved as soon as we prove that the action of $\Gamma$ on $T'$ is free.
The action of $\Gamma$ on $T'=T_{{\mathcal {G}}}$ is free.
We prove the freeness using our criterion (lemma \[lem\_criterion\_free\]). We will prove that no point of $Y_v$ gets identified with a point of $Y_w$ where $v$ and $w$ are at distance more than $4$ in $S$.
Let’s first consider a point $x\in Y_v$ where $v\in V_F(S)$ such that $x$ is identified with two points $y_1\in Y_{u_1}$, $y_2\in Y_{u_2}$ for two distinct neighbours $u_1$, $u_2$ of $v$. Then there are two edges $e\neq e'$ incident on $v$ such that $x\in\lambda_e\cap\lambda_{e'}$, so $x$ lies in the branching locus of axes $B_v$.
Assume that there are two points of $Y_u$ and $Y_v$ which are identified in $T_{{\mathcal {G}}}$, for some $u,v$ at distance $5$ in $S$. Since every edge of $S$ joins a vertex in ${V_{\mathrm{ab}}}(S)$ to a vertex in $V_F(S)$, there is a sub-path $(v_1,w,v_2)$ of $[u,v]\setminus\{u,v\}$ and some points $x_1\in Y_{v_1}$, $y\in Y_w$, $x_2\in Y_{v_2}$ with $v_1,v_2\in V_F(S)$, $w\in {V_{\mathrm{ab}}}(S)$. In particular, for both $i=1,2$, $x_i\in B_{v_i}$. By the second item of lemma \[resume\_phi\], the edges $e_1=[v_1,w]$ and $e_2=[v_2,w]$ are in the same orbit. So let $g\in\Gamma$ sending $e_1$ on $e_2$. Note that $g\in\Gamma_w$ since $w$ and $v_i$ are not in the same orbit. Since $N_w$ fixes all the edges incident on $w$, $g\in\Gamma_w\setminus N_w$. Now, since $x_1\in B_{v_1}$, $g.x_1\in B_{v_2}$, and $d(g.x_1,x_2)\in D_{v_2}$. Let $y={\varphi}_{e_1}(x_1)$, so $g.y={\varphi}_{e_2}(g.x_1)$ so $d(y,g.y)=d(x_2,g.x_1)\in D$, a contradiction with the first item of lemma \[resume\_phi\].
Dévissage theorem and corollaries {#sec_devissage}
=================================
[devissage\_simple]{}
Consider a finitely generated, freely indecomposable group $\Gamma$ having a free action on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree. Then $\Gamma$ can be written as the fundamental group of a finite graph of groups with cyclic edge groups and where each vertex group is finitely generated and has a free action on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$–tree.
This is a consequence of the following detailed version.
\[cyclic\_devissage\] If a finitely generated freely indecomposable group $\Gamma$ acts freely on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree, then $\Gamma$ can be written as the fundamental group of a finite graph of groups ${{\mathcal {G}}}$ with cyclic edge groups, finitely generated vertex groups, with 3 types of vertices named *abelian*, *surface* and *infinitesimal*, and such that the following holds:
each edge is incident to exactly one infinitesimal vertex;
for each abelian vertex $v$, $\Gamma_v$ is abelian maximal in $\Gamma$, $\Gamma_v={{{\overline{\Gamma}}}}_v\oplus N_v$ where ${{{\overline{\Gamma}}}}_v$ is a finitely generated (maybe trivial) free abelian group, $N_v$ is maximal cyclic in $G$, and the image in $\Gamma_v$ of all incident edges coincide with $N_v$; moreover, if $v\neq v'$ are distinct abelian vertices, then $\Gamma_v$ does not commute with any conjugate of $\Gamma_{v'}$;
for each surface vertex $v$, $\Gamma_v$ is the fundamental group of a surface ${\Sigma}$ with boundary holding an arational measured foliation; there is one edge for each boundary component of ${\Sigma}$, and the image of its edge group in $\Gamma_v$ is conjugate to the fundamental group of the corresponding boundary component of ${\Sigma}$;
for each infinitesimal vertex $v$, $\Gamma_v$ acts freely on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$–tree; moreover, any element $g\in\Gamma\setminus\{1\}$ commuting with an element of $\Gamma_v\setminus\{1\}$ either belongs to $\Gamma_v$, or is conjugate into ${{{\overline{\Gamma}}}}_w$ where $w$ is an abelian vertex neighbouring $v$.
Finally, ${{\mathcal {G}}}$ is $4$–acylindrical and any non-cyclic abelian subgroup of $\Gamma$ is conjugate into a vertex group.
Using Theorem \[thm\_cyclic\_flawless\], consider a free action $\Gamma{\,\raisebox{1.8ex}[0pt][0pt]{\begin{turn}{-90}\ensuremath{\circlearrowright}\end{turn}}\,}T'$ such that the action on the ${{\mathbb{R}}}$–tree ${{{\overline{T}}}{}}'$ obtained by killing infinitesimals has cyclic arc fixators. The Theorem is then a direct consequence of the abelian dévissage (Proposition \[abelian\_devissage\]): the fact that $\Gamma$ and the edge groups of ${{\mathcal {G}}}$ are finitely generated implies that vertex groups are finitely generated.
The dévissage theorem does not claim that the splitting is non-trivial. This occurs if $\Gamma$ is abelian, if $\Gamma$ is the fundamental group of a surface with empty boundary, or if $\Gamma$ acts freely on some ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$–tree.
It follows from the commutative transitivity of $\Gamma$ that any non-cyclic maximal abelian subgroup of an infinitesimal vertex group is maximal abelian in $\Gamma$. However, some edge groups may fail to be maximal cyclic in $\Gamma$ for some edges incident on surface vertices.
The following corollary is due to Sela and Kharlampovich–Myasnikov for limit groups [@Sela_diophantine1; @KhMy_irreducible1].
[cor\_FP]{}
Let $\Gamma$ be a finitely generated group having a free action on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree. Then
$\Gamma$ is finitely presented [@Gross_these Corollary 6.6];
if $\Gamma$ is not cyclic, then its first Betti number is at least $2$;
there are finitely many conjugacy classes of non-cyclic maximal abelian subgroups in $\Gamma$, and abelian subgroups of $\Gamma$ are finitely generated. More precisely, one has the following bound on the ranks of maximal abelian subgroups: $$\sum_A (\operatorname{Rk}A-1)\leq b_1(\Gamma)-1$$ where the sum is taken over the set of conjugacy classes of non-cyclic maximal abelian subgroups of $\Gamma$, and where $b_1(\Gamma)$ denotes the first Betti number of $\Gamma$;
$\Gamma$ has a finite classifying space, and the cohomological dimension of $\Gamma$ is at most $\max(2,r)$ where $r$ is the maximal rank of an abelian subgroup of $\Gamma$.
For $n=1$, all the statements of the corollary follow from Rips theorem which claims that $\Gamma$ is a free product of finitely generated abelian groups and fundamental groups of closed surfaces (see [@GLP1; @BF_stable]).
For $n>1$, we argue by induction and assume that the corollary holds for smaller values of $n$. The conclusion of the corollary is stable under free product since any non-cyclic abelian subgroup of a free product is conjugate into a vertex group. Thus one can assume that $\Gamma$ is freely indecomposable. Then the dévissage theorem says that $\Gamma$ is the fundamental group of a finite graph of groups ${{\mathcal {G}}}$ with cyclic edge groups, and vertex groups satisfy the corollary by induction hypothesis. If this splitting of $\Gamma$ is trivial, then $\Gamma$ is a vertex group and we are done.
The finite presentation of vertex groups implies that $\Gamma$ is finitely presented. Moreover, induction hypothesis shows that $\Gamma$ has a finite classifying space, and the cohomological dimension of $X$ is clearly at most $\max(2,r)$ (see for instance [@Brown_cohomology Proposition VIII.2.4 and Ex.8b in VIII.6]).
We have the following bound about Betti numbers: $$b_1(\Gamma)\geq \sum_{v\in V({{\mathcal {G}}})} b_1(\Gamma_v) +b_1({{\mathcal {G}}}) -\# E({{\mathcal {G}}})$$ where $b_1({{\mathcal {G}}})$ denotes the first Betti number of the graph underlying ${{\mathcal {G}}}$. Indeed, consider the graph of groups ${{\mathcal {G}}}_0$ obtained from ${{\mathcal {G}}}$ by replacing edge group by a trivial group so that $\pi_1{{\mathcal {G}}}_0$ is a free product of the vertex groups and of a free group of rank $b_1({{\mathcal {G}}})$. Since edge groups of ${{\mathcal {G}}}$ are cyclic, one obtains $\Gamma$ from $\pi_1{{\mathcal {G}}}_0$ by adding one relation for each edge of ${{\mathcal {G}}}$, and the inequality follows. Now since $b_1({{\mathcal {G}}})-1=\#E({{\mathcal {G}}})-\#V({{\mathcal {G}}})$, one gets that $b_1(\Gamma)-1\geq \sum_{v\in V({{\mathcal {G}}})} (b_1(\Gamma_v)-1)$.
By induction hypothesis, each term in the sum is non-negative. In particular, $b_1(\Gamma)\geq b_1(\Gamma_v)$ for all $v\in V({{\mathcal {G}}})$. Thus if some vertex group is non-cyclic then $b_1(\Gamma)\geq 2$; but all vertex groups cannot be cyclic because of acylindricity.
The dévissage theorem claims that a non-cyclic abelian subgroup $A$ fixes a vertex $v$ in the Bass–Serre tree $S$ of ${{\mathcal {G}}}$. Let’s prove that there are finitely many conjugacy classes of non-cyclic maximal abelian subgroups. Since edge stabilizers are cyclic, such a subgroup $A$ fixes exactly one point in $S$. Since there are only finitely many orbits of vertices in $S$, there remains to prove that for any vertex $v\in V(S)$, there are only finitely many $\Gamma$–conjugacy classes of abelian subgroups $A$ which fix $v$. The induction hypothesis says that there are at most finitely many such subgroups up to conjugacy in $\Gamma_v$, and therefore in $\Gamma$.
Denote by ${\mathrm{Ab}}(\Gamma)$ the set of conjugacy classes of abelian subgroups of $\Gamma$. The argument above shows that the natural map ${\sqcup}_{v\in V({{\mathcal {G}}})} {\mathrm{Ab}}(\Gamma_v){\rightarrow}{\mathrm{Ab}}(\Gamma)$ is onto. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{A\in {\mathrm{Ab}}(\Gamma)} (\operatorname{Rk}A-1)&\leq& \sum_{v\in V({{\mathcal {G}}})}\sum_{A\in {\mathrm{Ab}}(\Gamma_{v})} (\operatorname{Rk}A-1)\\
&\leq& \sum_{v\in V({{\mathcal {G}}})} (b_1(\Gamma_{v})-1)\\
&\leq& b_1(\Gamma)-1.\end{aligned}$$ This terminates the proof of the corollary.
\[cor\_principal\] Consider a freely indecomposable, non-abelian, finitely generated group having a free action on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n$–tree. Then $\Gamma$ has a non-trivial splitting which is *principal* in the following sense: either $\Gamma=A*_C B$ or $\Gamma=A*_C$ where $C$ is maximal abelian in $\Gamma$, or $\Gamma=A*_C (C\oplus {{\mathbb{Z}}}^k)$.
We argue by induction on $n$. The statement is clear for $n=1$. Otherwise, consider the graph of groups given by the dévissage theorem. If ${{\mathcal {G}}}$ contains a surface-type vertex, then cutting along an essential curve provides a splitting over a cyclic subgroup which is maximal abelian. If ${{\mathcal {G}}}$ contains an abelian-type vertex $v$, write $G_v=N_v\oplus {{{\overline{\Gamma}}}}_v$. If ${{{\overline{\Gamma}}}}_v$ is trivial, then $N_v=G_v$ is maximal abelian, so each of the edges of ${{\mathcal {G}}}$ incident on $v$ provides a principal splitting of $\Gamma$. If ${{{\overline{\Gamma}}}}_v$ is non-trivial, then $\Gamma=A*_{N_v}(N_v\oplus {{{\overline{\Gamma}}}}_v)$ where $A$ is the fundamental group of the graph of groups ${{\mathcal {G}}}'$ obtained from ${{\mathcal {G}}}$ by replacing the vertex group $\Gamma_v=N_v\oplus {{{\overline{\Gamma}}}}_v$ by the cyclic group $N_v$. If ${{\mathcal {G}}}$ has no abelian-type and no surface-type vertex, then ${{\mathcal {G}}}$ consists in a single infinitesimal vertex. This means that $\Gamma$ acts freely on an ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n-1}$–tree.
**Hyman Bass**, *Group actions on non-[A]{}rchimedean trees*, from: “Arboreal group theory (Berkeley, CA, 1988)”, Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ. 19, Springer, New York (1991) 69–131
**Benjamin Baumslag**, *Residually free groups*, Proc. London Math. Soc. 17 (1967) 402–418
**Gilbert Baumslag**, *On generalised free products*, Math. Z. 78 (1962) 423–438
**Mladen Bestvina**, **Mark Feighn**, *Stable actions of groups on real trees*, Invent. Math. 121 (1995) 287–321
**N Bourbaki**, *Éléments de mathématique. [F]{}asc. [XXX]{}. [A]{}lgèbre commutative. [C]{}hapitre 5: [E]{}ntiers. [C]{}hapitre 6: [V]{}aluations*, Actualités Scientifiques et Industrielles, No. 1308, Hermann, Paris (1964)
**Kenneth S Brown**, *Cohomology of groups*, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 87, Springer–Verlag, New York (1982)
**Christophe Champetier**, **Vincent Guirardel**, *Limit groups as limits of free groups: compactifying the set of free groups*, Israel J. Math. (to appear)
**IM Chiswell**, *Nontrivial group actions on [$\Lambda$]{}–trees*, Bull. London Math. Soc. 24 (1992) 277–280
**IM Chiswell**, *Harrison’s theorem for [$\Lambda$]{}–trees*, Quart. J. Math. Oxford 45 (1994) 1–12
**IM Chiswell**, *Introduction to [$\Lambda$]{}–trees*, from: “Semigroups, formal languages and groups (York, 1993)”, NATO Adv. Sci. Inst. Ser. C Math. Phys. Sci. 466, Kluwer (1995) 255–293
**Ian Chiswell**, *Introduction to $\Lambda$–trees*, World Scientific Publishing Co. Inc., River Edge, NJ (2001)
**Fran[ç]{}ois Dahmani**, *Combination of convergence groups*, 7[2003]{}[27]{}[933]{}[963]{}
**D Gaboriau**, **G Levitt**, **F Paulin**, *Pseudogroups of isometries of [$\mathbb{R}$]{} and [R]{}ips’ theorem on free actions on [$\mathbb{R}$]{}–trees*, Israel J. Math. 87 (1994) 403–428
**Anthony M Gaglione**, **Dennis Spellman**, *Every “universally free” group is tree-free*, from: “Group theory (Granville, OH, 1992)”, World Sci. Publishing, River Edge, NJ (1993) 149–154
**Anthony M Gaglione**, **Dennis Spellman**, *Does [L]{}yndon’s length function imply the universal theory of free groups?*, from: “The mathematical legacy of Wilhelm Magnus: groups, geometry and special functions (Brooklyn, NY, 1992)”, Contemp. Math. 169, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI (1994) 277–281
**Shalom Gross**, *Group actions on [$\Lambda$]{}–trees*, Ph.D. thesis, Hebrew University, Jerusalem (1998)
**Vincent Guirardel**, *Rips theory for actions of finitely generated groups on [$\mathbb R$]{}–trees*, in preparation
**Nancy Harrison**, *Real length functions in groups*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 174 (1972) 77–106
**Stephen Jackson**, **Luca Q Zamboni**, *A note on a theorem of [C]{}hiswell*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 123 (1995) 2629–2631
**O Kharlampovich**, **A Myasnikov**, *Irreducible affine varieties over a free group. [I]{}. [I]{}rreducibility of quadratic equations and [N]{}ullstellensatz*, J. Algebra 200 (1998) 472–516
**O Kharlampovich**, **A Myasnikov**, *Irreducible affine varieties over a free group. [II]{}. [S]{}ystems in triangular quasi-quadratic form and description of residually free groups*, J. Algebra 200 (1998) 517–570
**F-V Kuhlmann**, *Value groups, residue fields and bad places of rational function fields*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. (to appear)
**RC Lyndon**, *The equation [$a\sp{2}b\sp{2}=c\sp{2}$]{} in free groups*, Michigan Math. J. 6 (1959) 89–95
**Fr[é]{}d[é]{}ric Paulin**, *Sur la th[é]{}orie élémentaires des groupes libres [\[]{}d’apr[ès]{} [S]{}ela[\]]{}*, (2003) s[é]{}minaire Bourbaki No. 922 (Juin 2003)
**Patrick H Pfander**, *Finitely generated subgroups of the free [${\bf Z}[t]$]{}–group on two generators*, from: “Model theory of groups and automorphism groups (Blaubeuren, 1995)”, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser. 244, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (1997) 166–187
**VN Remeslennikov**, *[$\exists$]{}–free groups*, Siberian Math. J. 30 (1989) 998–1001, translation (1990) from Sibirsk. Mat. Zh. [30]{} (1989), 193–197
**VN Remeslennikov**, *[$\exists$]{}–free groups as groups with a length function*, Ukrainian Math. J. 44 (1992) 733–738, translation (1993) from Ukraïn. Mat. Zh. 44(6):813–818 (1992)
**Z Sela**, *Acylindrical accessibility for groups*, Invent. Math. 129 (1997) 527–565
**Zlil Sela**, *A list of research problems*,
**Zlil Sela**, *Diophantine geometry over groups. [I]{}. [M]{}akanin–[R]{}azborov diagrams*, Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. 93 (2001) 31–105
**Mariusz Urba[ń]{}ski**, **Luca Zamboni**, *On free actions on [$\Lambda$]{}–trees*, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 113 (1993) 535–542
**Oscar Zariski**, **Pierre Samuel**, *Commutative algebra. [V]{}ol. [II]{}*, Reprint of the 1960 edition, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 29, Springer–Verlag, New York (1975)
[^1]: The proof is actually very similar to the proof of the more technical result: instead of taking ultraproducts of valuated fields, take an ultraproduct of trees to get a free action without inversion on a $\Lambda^*$–tree (see also [@Chi_book p.239] where the behavior $\Lambda$–trees under ultrapowers is studied in terms of Lyndon length functions).
[^2]: It may also be checked that $BT^*$ is actually the ultraproduct of the $\Lambda_i$–trees $BT_i$.
[^3]: A measured foliation on a surface with boundary is *arational* if any non simply-connected leaf (or generalised leaf) actually has a cyclic fundamental group and contains a boundary component of ${\Sigma}$. Equivalently, ${{\mathcal {F}}}$ is arational if every simple closed curve having zero intersection with the measured foliation is boundary parallel.
[^4]: Note that the claim of Remeslennikov that limit groups act freely on a $\Lambda$–tree with $\Lambda$ finitely generated would imply that abelian subgroup are finitely generated since they are isomorphic to subgroups of $\Lambda$ since an abelian subgroup of $\Gamma$ acts freely by translation on its axis, and is thus isomorphic to a subgroup of $\Lambda$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A recent study shows that bars can be induced via interaction of galaxy clusters, but it has been unclear if the bar formation by the interaction between clusters is related to the enhancement of star formation. We study galaxies in 105 galaxy clusters at $0.015<z<0.060$ detected from Sloan Digital Sky Survey data, in order to examine whether the fraction of star-forming galaxies ($f_\mathrm{sf}$) in 16 interacting clusters is enhanced compared with that of the other non-interacting clusters and to investigate the possible connection between the $f_\mathrm{sf}$ enhancement and the bar formation in interacting clusters. We find that $f_\mathrm{sf}$ is moderately higher ($\sim20\%$) in interacting clusters than in non-interacting clusters and that the enhancement of star formation in interacting clusters occurs only in moderate-mass disk-dominated galaxies ($10^{10.0} \le M_\mathrm{star}/M_{\odot} < 10^{10.4}$ and the bulge-to-total light ratio is $\le0.5$). We also find that the enhancement of $f_\mathrm{sf}$ in moderate-mass disk-dominated galaxies in interacting clusters is mostly due to the increase of the number of barred galaxies. Our result suggests that the cluster–cluster interaction can simultaneously induce bars and star formation in disk galaxies.'
author:
- Yongmin Yoon
- Myungshin Im
title: Star Formation Enhancement in Barred Disk Galaxies in Interacting Galaxy Clusters
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Galaxy clusters grow by accretion of galaxies and mergers of galaxy groups and clusters in the $\Lambda$ cold dark matter universe [@Berrier2009; @McGee2009; @Schellenberger2019]. A merger or interaction between galaxy clusters is the most violent event in the universe with kinetic energies up to $\sim10^{64}\,\mathrm{erg}$. Thus, the interacting cluster is a good laboratory to understand how galaxy properties are affected under a violent change of the large-scale environment. For example, @Yoon2019 [hereafter ] recently found observational evidence that cluster–cluster interaction can form bars in disk galaxies, suggesting that such a violent phenomenon is an important mechanism for bar formation.
One of possible interesting consequences of the cluster–cluster interaction is the enhancement of star formation in the cluster member galaxies. Hence, many studies have been carried out to reveal whether the star formation in galaxies is affected by cluster mergers or interactions. However, the results are somewhat controversial. Several studies based on observation [@Owen1999; @Owen2005; @Miller2003; @Hwang2009; @Hou2012; @Cohen2014; @Cohen2015; @Stroe2014; @Stroe2017; @Sobral2015; @Ebeling2019; @Soares2019] and simulations [@Bekki1999; @Bekki2010] show that the star formation is enhanced in merging or interacting clusters. Some of the observational studies [@Hou2012; @Cohen2014; @Cohen2015] found that the fraction of star-forming galaxies is as much as $\sim20$–$30\%$ higher in interacting clusters (clusters with substructures or unrelaxed clusters), and galaxies transform to quiescent ones as the cluster merger process proceeds [e.g., @Cava2017]. These studies suggest various physical mechanisms to enhance star-formation activities of galaxies in interacting clusters: the enhanced time-dependent tidal gravitational field [@Bekki1999; @Owen2005], turbulence induced by cluster-wide shock waves in intracluster medium [ICM; @Stroe2014; @Sobral2015], and compression of cold gas by increased external pressure of ICM during interaction [@Bekki2010].
On the other hand, a number of studies suggest that star formation is suppressed or not enhanced in interacting clusters [@Tomita1996; @Fujita1999; @Poggianti2004; @Chung2009; @Haines2009; @Shim2011; @Tyler2014; @Deshev2017; @Mansheim2017]. In a recent work, @Okabe2019 examined the fraction of red galaxies with $\log(M_\mathrm{star}/M_{\odot}) > 10.45$ in $\sim180$ merging clusters and $1800$ single clusters from the Hyper Supreme-Cam Subaru Strategic Program. They found that the red fractions are consistent between two cluster classes at $<2\sigma$, although they caution that their result does not exclude the possibility of star formation triggered by cluster interactions. @Fujita1999 argued in their simulation that the increased ram-pressure during cluster–cluster interaction can strip interstellar medium (ISM) of galaxies and thereby suppress star-formation activities. They also showed that the star-formation enhancement by compression of ISM is not significant, which is contrary to the results of @Bekki2010. @Mansheim2017 suggested that the amplified tidal force and its time variation can remove bound gas in galaxies, which results in suppression of star formation. This is an opposite stand to those of @Bekki1999 and @Owen2005.
Another important aspect in interacting clusters is the bar formation by cluster–cluster interactions and how it is related to the star formation in cluster galaxies. For example, @Bekki1999 shows that time-dependent tidal force in interacting clusters can not only trigger star formation but also can contribute to bar formation. In our earlier study , we have shown that the bar formation can be enhanced by a factor of 1.5 in interacting clusters, backing up the theoretical prediction of @Bekki1999.
The bar fraction enhancement in interacting clusters suggests that the bar fraction enhancement might be responsible for the star-formation enhancement in the interacting clusters. Due to the elongated potentials of the structures and materials in bars, it has been suggested that bars can efficiently channel cold gas to the central regions of galaxies and thereby trigger the nuclear star formation in galaxies [@Kim2012; @Oh2012; @Seo2013; @Carles2016] or even trigger active galactic nuclei [@Oh2012]. Therefore, if the bars are preferentially induced in interacting clusters, one would expect that the star formation in such clusters is also induced in relation to the bar formation.
Motivated by the need for confirming the previously reported star-formation enhancement in interacting clusters and the possible connection between the bar and star formation enhancement in such clusters, we carried out a statistical study using 16 interacting clusters and 89 non-interacting clusters from . Member galaxies in these clusters are classified as barred or non-barred galaxies, and thus this cluster sample is ideal for investigating the connection between bars and star formation in clusters. In the following, we show that star formation is indeed enhanced in interacting clusters as found in previous studies but the enhancement is dependent on the stellar mass of member galaxies and that the star-formation enhancement is closely related to the bar fraction enhancement in interacting clusters.
Throughout this paper, we use *H$_0=70$* km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$, and $\Omega_\mathrm{m}=0.3$ as cosmological parameters, which is supported by observational studies in the past decades [e.g., @Im1997].\
![Density maps and radial velocity distributions of three representative types of clusters: undisturbed clusters (top), clusters in close pair (middle), and clusters with substructures (bottom). The left panels show maps of the surface number density of galaxies around clusters and spatial distributions for the cluster member galaxies superimposed onto the maps. The right panels show the velocity distributions for the cluster member galaxies. To construct the density map, we made a grid over a rectangular area of 8 Mpc. Each grid size in the $x$ and $y$ directions was set to be 80 kpc so that total of $100\times100$ points were generated in the grid. At each point, we calculated the surface galaxy number density in an aperture with a radius of 1 Mpc within a rest-frame velocity slice of $\pm2000$ km s$^{-1}$ (see the color bar in the bottom for the color-coded surface number density scale). The member galaxies are split into two groups in the velocity space: one with low redshifts (dark blue) and the other with high redshifts (light blue). We note that in the case of a cluster with substructures (Cluster1110+28), galaxies of the two groups have different spatial distributions. \[fig:example\]](example.pdf)
![Bottom panel shows distributions of $M_{200}$ for all the clusters, interacting clusters, and non-interacting clusters used in this study. The top panel compares the cluster mass function of all clusters with those of previous studies [@Reiprich2002; @Rines2007; @Bohringer2017]. The vertical error bars are the $2\sigma$ Poisson errors of cluster number counts, while the horizontal gray bars indicate the mass ranges. We set the mass ranges in a sense that the similar number of clusters are included in each mass range. We note that the scales of the $x$ axes of the upper and bottom panels are identical. \[fig:halodist\]](massfunc.pdf)
Sample and Method {#sec:sample}
=================
The samples of galaxies and clusters used in this study are identical to those of . Details about the samples, cluster identification, selection of interacting clusters, and bar classifications can be found in . Here, we only briefly describe them.
Cluster Identification
----------------------
Our sample is based on the MPA–JHU catalog[^1] that lists positions and spectroscopic redshifts of galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Data Release (DR) 8 [@Aihara2011]. This catalog also provides galaxy properties such as stellar masses ($M_\mathrm{star}$) and specific star formation rates (sSFRs: star formation rate per unit $M_\mathrm{star}$).
Galaxy clusters were selected from a volume-limited sample of galaxies with $\log(M_\mathrm{star}/M_{\odot}) \ge 10.0$ at $0.010 < z < 0.065$. The stellar mass cut ensures that galaxies satisfy the magnitude cut ($m_r<17.77$) of SDSS main galaxy sample [@Strauss2002] for spectroscopy. We note that $91\%$ of the spectroscopy target galaxies in the cluster regions (within $R_{200}$) were observed in spectroscopic follow-up,[^2] while this fraction decreases to $86\%$ in the case of the cluster core regions (within $0.2\times R_{200}$) due to the fiber collision between close targets (within $55\arcsec$). Here, $R_{200}$ is a radius within which the mean density is 200 times the critical density of the universe. This lowered fraction of spectroscopically observed galaxies in the cluster core may slightly increase the fraction of star-forming galaxies in clusters, but this should not cause a problem in comparing the star-forming galaxy fractions between clusters of different kinds, since the same spectroscopic target selection bias applies to all the clusters. We also note that there is virtually no difference in the sampling rate for the spectroscopy between the areas of interacting clusters and non-interacting clusters (difference of $\sim1\%$).
The cluster search is performed in the following way. First, we measured the number of galaxies around each galaxy within a projected radius of 1 Mpc and a rest-frame redshift slice of $\delta v = \pm 1000$ km s$^{-1}$ from the galaxy.[^3] Then, we applied the Friends-of-friends algorithm to connect galaxies in dense environments[^4] into an overdense region, with a linking length of 1 Mpc in the projected distance and $3000\,$km s$^{-1}$ in the radial velocity.
For the overdense regions, we measured $M_{200}$ that is a cluster mass in $R_{200}$. $M_{200}$ and $R_{200}$ were calculated using all galaxies with $\log(M_\mathrm{star}/M_{\odot}) \ge 10.0$ within a 1 Mpc radius from the center of the overdense region. After excluding non-member galaxies and outliers in the radial velocity space, the one-dimensional (radial) velocity dispersion was derived. $M_{200}$ and $R_{200}$ were calculated from the one-dimensional velocity dispersions of overdense regions and equations used in the previous studies [@Demarco2010; @Kim2016].[^5] Through this procedure, we identified 105 galaxy clusters with $M_{200}>7\times10^{13}\,M_{\odot}$ at $0.015 < z < 0.060$.[^6] Note that this redshift range is a bit smaller than the redshift range of the volume-limited galaxy sample to avoid exclusion of member galaxies of clusters near the redshift limits. In total, 4595 galaxies are used in this study, and they are all members of the 105 clusters.[^7]
Among these clusters, we define interacting clusters as clusters that are in close pairs or clusters with substructures in the space and velocity space. The clusters in close pairs are defined as clusters that do not largely overlap within their $R_{200}$, yet that are close enough so that they can be considered to be in a gravitational bound orbit. The conditions can be summarized as (1) the radial velocity difference of the two clusters, $\Delta v$, to be $\Delta v <750$ km s$^{-1}$ (equivalent to $R\lesssim10$ Mpc), and (2) the projected distance between the two clusters 1 and 2, $D$, to be $D<2\times (R_{200,1} + R_{200,2})$, where $R_{200,1}$ and $R_{200,2}$ are $R_{200}$ values of the two clusters in close separation. For more details, see . We identified clusters with clear substructures using the Dressler–Shectman test [@DS88] that finds substructures in clusters by detecting large deviations of local velocity distributions in clusters.[^8]
The clusters in a pair are regarded as two individual clusters and hence cluster masses were calculated individually. On the other hand, we regard the cluster with substructure as a single cluster, since substructures are intermingled in the same projected region, which makes it difficult to split the cluster into multiple components. This may lead to overestimation in $M_{200}$ of clusters with substructures. Indeed, three out of five clusters with substructures have $\log(M_{200}/M_{\odot}) > 14.8$ (see Supplementary Table 1 of ).
We found five clusters that have substructures and seven cluster pairs (hence in total 14 clusters are in pairs). Since three clusters belong to both categories, we identified 16 interacting clusters in total. Figure \[fig:example\] shows examples of the surface number density maps and velocity distributions of galaxies for clusters in isolation, in a pair, and with substructures. The $M_{200}$ distributions for all the clusters, interacting clusters, and non-interacting clusters used in this study are shown in Figure \[fig:halodist\]. The top panel of Figure \[fig:halodist\] compares our cluster mass function[^9] with those of previous studies [@Reiprich2002; @Rines2007; @Bohringer2017], showing that they are all consistent with each other. The bottom panel shows that the fraction of interacting clusters is higher for higher-mass clusters. This trend is also in the clusters used in @Stroe2017 and @Okabe2019. This is perhaps due to the $M_{200}$ overestimation for clusters with substructures and/or due to more frequent merging history of massive clusters. The fact that finding substructures could be more efficient for massive clusters with a large number of member galaxies [e.g., @Okabe2019] could also be the reason for the trend.
To check the robustness of the cluster-finding method, we matched the clusters detected here with the Abell clusters [@Abell1989] in the SDSS survey area and at $0.02<z<0.055$. The richness parameters (from 0 to 5), indicating how rich the group is in terms of member galaxies, are assigned to the Abell clusters. We find that $91\%$ (20/22) of the Abell clusters with richness larger than or equal to 1 were detected by our cluster-finding method. This value is the same as the detection rate ($91\%$; 91/100) of mock clusters in GALFORM simulation [@Cole2000; @Lagos2012], as found in the test in that used the same cluster-finding method. For clusters with richness larger than or equal to 2, our method detected all ($100\%$; 5/5). However, only $50\%$ (11/22) of the Abell clusters with the richness of 0 were detected by our method. Therefore, our cluster-finding method is robust in detecting clusters with the Abell richness from 1 to 5.
The definition of interacting or unrelaxed clusters varies between different works, some defining it from the existence of radio-emitting structures [@Stroe2017], symmetry of member galaxy distribution [@Cohen2014; @Cohen2015; @Okabe2019], and the dynamical state detected from Sunyaev–Zeldovich effect or X-ray emission [@Rossetti2016]. Although the fraction of unrelaxed or interacting clusters is found to be $\sim10\%$ in @Okabe2019, some works find $40\%$, significantly more than what we found here. This discrepancy must be due to how interacting clusters are defined. If we loosen our criteria for selecting interacting clusters, using the (projected and radial) pair separation distance that is 1.25 (or 1.5) times larger than what we originally adopted and the probability of having substructures above $95\%$ (or $90\%$) instead of $99.99\%$, the number of interacting clusters is 41 (or 52). We note that the use of the loosened definition does not reverse the basic results on the $f_\mathrm{sf}$ difference between interacting and non-interacting clusters in Section \[sec:results\], although the difference is reduced from a factor of 1.2 to 1.1.\
Bar Classification, $B/T$, and sSFR of Galaxies
-----------------------------------------------
Bars were identified through a quantitative method using the IRAF ELLIPSE [@Jedrzejewski1987], augmented by visual classification. For the bar classification, we used galaxies that have ellipticities less than or equal to 0.5, which corresponds to an inclination angle smaller than or equal to $60^{\circ}$. This is because it is difficult to detect bars in highly inclined galaxies. We detected bars with several quantitative criteria that find an elongated structure (high ellipticity) for several consecutive ellipses, but an abrupt drop of the ellipticity at the end of the elongated structure, and an almost constant position angle over the high-ellipticity region. We visually inspected all galaxies to complement the automated bar classification. By doing so, we excluded false detections and added apparent bar galaxies that were missed in the automated classification.
We derived the ($r$-band) bulge-to-total light ratio ($B/T$) of each galaxy based on radial surface brightness profiles that were extracted by the ELLIPSE and using a model that is combination of the de Vaucouleurs law for bulges and the exponential profile for disks. The $B/T$ value traces how a bulge is dominant in a galaxy total luminosity. Thus, $B/T$ values are usually used to quantitatively define the morphology of galaxies: generally, $B/T\lesssim0.5$ corresponds to disk-dominated late-type galaxies, while $B/T\gtrsim0.5$ indicates bulge-dominated early-type galaxies [@Fukugita1998; @Im2002; @Oohama2009].
We used galaxy sSFRs from the MPA–JHU catalog. In the catalog, SFRs were derived from nebular emission lines. In addition, galaxy photometry is also used to compute SFRs outside of fibers. In the case of active galactic nuclei and galaxies with weak emission lines, SFRs were derived from photometry.[^10]
Because 34 among 4595 galaxies do not have sSFR information, we assigned sSFRs derived from spectral energy distribution fitting to these galaxies. For this purpose, we utilized the code Fitting and Assessment of Synthetic Templates [FAST;[^11] @Kriek2009], which performs $\chi^2$ fitting of the broadband photometry ($u, g, r, i,$ and $z$ in this study) and works with stellar population grids to derive the best-fit model and its properties.[^12]
Figure \[fig:ssfrdist\] shows the distribution of all galaxies in the $M_\mathrm{star}$ and sSFR plane. Low-sSFR galaxies are clustered at $\log(\mathrm{sSFR}/\mathrm{yr}^{-1})<-11.0$ but with a gradient in the $M_\mathrm{star}$–sSFR plane. Therefore, to divide galaxies into high- and low-sSFR ones, rather than adopting a single sSFR cut, we fit the low-sSFR sequence and divide galaxies into high- and low-sSFR ones. To do so, we conducted a linear fit using robust least absolute deviation[^13] to galaxies with $\log(\mathrm{sSFR}/\mathrm{yr}^{-1})<-11.0$. During the process, we obtained the mean of the absolute deviation (in a logarithmic value) between the linear relation and sSFR values (hereafter, MAD). Then, galaxies that have sSFRs higher than $3.5 \times \mathrm{MAD}$ above the linear relation were excluded. With the remaining galaxies, we repeated the above procedure until the linear fit result converged. The converged linear relation represents the low-sSFR sequence, indicated by the yellow solid line in Figure \[fig:ssfrdist\]. The converged MAD is 0.26 dex. Finally, we set a dividing line between high- and low-sSFR galaxies at $3.5 \times \mathrm{MAD}$ (i.e., 0.91 dex) above the low-sSFR sequence relation, denoted by the green dashed line in Figure \[fig:ssfrdist\]. The equation of this dividing line is $$\log(\mathrm{sSFR}/\mathrm{yr}^{-1})=-0.56 \log(M_\mathrm{star}/M_{\odot}) - 5.22.
\label{eq:divide}$$ We note that use of a simple cut of $\log(\mathrm{sSFR}/\mathrm{yr}^{-1})=-11.0$ instead of the dividing line for separation does not change the results presented in Section \[sec:results\], which means our results are insensitive to minor changes in the specific definition for high- and low-sSFR galaxies.
In this study, we divide galaxies into several categories according to sSFR, $M_\mathrm{star}$, $B/T$, and presence of bar. In Table \[tb:num\], we show the total numbers of galaxies in each category.\
[rcc]{} All&3577&1018\
$B/T\le0.5$ and $\log(M_\mathrm{star}/M_{\odot}) < 10.4$& 903& 272\
$B/T\le0.5$ and $\log(M_\mathrm{star}/M_{\odot}) \ge 10.4$& 803& 251\
$B/T>0.5$ and $\log(M_\mathrm{star}/M_{\odot}) < 10.4$& 691& 195\
$B/T>0.5$ and $\log(M_\mathrm{star}/M_{\odot}) \ge 10.4$&1072& 285\
Barred, $B/T\le0.5$ and $\log(M_\mathrm{star}/M_{\odot}) < 10.4$& 130& 53\
Non-barred, $B/T\le0.5$ and $\log(M_\mathrm{star}/M_{\odot}) < 10.4$& 457& 111\
Barred, $B/T\le0.5$ and $\log(M_\mathrm{star}/M_{\odot}) \ge 10.4$& 158& 79\
Non-barred, $B/T\le0.5$ and $\log(M_\mathrm{star}/M_{\odot}) \ge 10.4$& 314& 75\
Results {#sec:results}
=======
![sSFR distributions for galaxies with $B/T\le0.5$ and $\log(M_\mathrm{star}/M_{\odot}) < 10.4$ in interacting clusters and non-interacting clusters. The vertical lines denote median values of the distributions. The total count of each distribution is normalized to unity. \[fig:indgal\]](ssfr_indgal_pre.pdf)
We calculated fractions of high-sSFR galaxies ($f_\mathrm{sf}$) of interacting and non-interacting clusters. $f_\mathrm{sf}$ is defined as $N_\mathrm{high}/N_\mathrm{all}$, where $N_\mathrm{high}$ is the number of galaxies located above the sSFR dividing line (Equation \[eq:divide\]) in Figure \[fig:ssfrdist\] and $N_\mathrm{all}$ is the number of all galaxies (high- and low-sSFR galaxies). The error for the fraction in this study is the standard error for the proportion for a binomial distribution (see Equation 8 in ).
As shown in the left panel of Figure \[fig:sffrac\], we find that $f_\mathrm{sf}$ is $1.19\pm0.08$ times higher in interacting clusters than in non-interacting clusters ($0.228\pm0.013$ versus $0.191\pm0.007$). In order to find out which galaxies account for the difference in $f_\mathrm{sf}$, we divided galaxies into four categories on the basis of their $M_\mathrm{star}$ and $B/T$ values: $\log(M_\mathrm{star}/M_{\odot}) < 10.4$ (moderate mass), $\log(M_\mathrm{star}/M_{\odot}) \ge 10.4$ (high mass),[^14] $B/T>0.5$ (bulge dominated), and $B/T\le0.5$ (disk dominated). show that the bar fraction enhancement in interacting clusters is significant at $B/T\le0.5$. Thus, used the criterion of $B/T\le0.5$ to define disk-dominated galaxies for further investigation. Here, we also used the same criterion as in to define disk-dominated galaxies for the purpose of examining correlation between the enhancement of bar fraction in interacting clusters and star formation. Minor adjustments of this criterion (e.g., $B/T\le0.3$–$0.7$) do not essentially change our main conclusion.
The middle and right panels of Figure \[fig:sffrac\] show $f_\mathrm{sf}$ of each category. We find that $f_\mathrm{sf}$ of bulge-dominated galaxies in non-interacting clusters is comparable to that of interacting clusters within the error, for both mass ranges. $f_\mathrm{sf}$ of high-mass disk-dominated galaxies in non-interacting clusters is also similar to that of interacting clusters within the error. However, in the case of moderate-mass disk-dominated galaxies only, $f_\mathrm{sf}$ of the non-interacting clusters is different from that of interacting clusters, in such a way that $f_\mathrm{sf}$ of interacting clusters is $1.24\pm0.10$ times higher than that of non-interacting clusters ($0.445\pm0.030$ versus $0.358\pm0.016$). This is confirmed by sSFR distributions for moderate-mass disk-dominated galaxies in interacting clusters and non-interacting clusters shown in Figure \[fig:indgal\]. The probability $(0\le P \le1)$ of the null hypothesis that the two distributions in the figure are drawn from the same distribution is 0.044 by the Kolmogrov–Smirnov test. We note that the $f_\mathrm{sf}$ increase in moderate-mass disk-dominated galaxies is responsible for $\sim90\%$ of the total $f_\mathrm{sf}$ increase in interacting clusters compared to non-interacting clusters.
![Distributions for $f_\mathrm{sf}$ of individual clusters in which only galaxies with $B/T\le0.5$ and $\log(M_\mathrm{star}/M_{\odot}) < 10.4$ are used. The vertical dashed lines indicate median values of the distributions. \[fig:sffrac2\]](sf_frac.pdf)
A similar result is derived from distributions for $f_\mathrm{sf}$ of individual clusters in which only moderate-mass disk-dominated galaxies are used. The distributions are shown in Figure \[fig:sffrac2\]. In the figure, the distribution for interacting clusters is skewed to higher $f_\mathrm{sf}$ compared to that of non-interacting clusters. The probability $(0\le P \le1)$ of the null hypothesis that the two distributions are drawn from the same distribution is 0.105 based on the Kolmogrov–Smirnov test.
To understand the interplay between bars in galaxies and their sSFRs, we investigated changes in proportions of four populations of disk-dominated galaxies (barred high-sSFR, non-barred high-sSFR, barred low-sSFR, and non-barred low-sSFR galaxies) in each mass bin (moderate-mass or high-mass bin).[^15] The results are shown in Figure \[fig:num\] as bar charts and differences of the normalized counts of each population. The difference in the normalized counts were derived by subtracting the normalized counts of non-interacting clusters from those of interacting clusters.
In the case of $\log(M_\mathrm{star}/M_{\odot}) < 10.4$, the fraction of non-barred low-sSFR galaxies in interacting clusters decreases by $10.8\pm4.4\%$ point in comparison with that of non-interacting clusters. Meanwhile, almost the same amount of barred high-sSFR galaxies ($10.0\pm3.3\%$) increases. However, the barred low-sSFR and non-barred high-sSFR galaxies show negligible changes in the proportion within the errors. The net effect is that $f_\mathrm{sf}$ in interacting clusters increases by $10.7\pm4.3\%$ point (or a factor of $\sim1.3$) compared with that of non-interacting clusters, which is consistent with the middle panel of Figure \[fig:sffrac\]. Another net effect is the enhancement of bar fraction ($1.45$ times) in interacting clusters as in . Although many different paths can be considered for the change in $f_\mathrm{sf}$ of galaxies in each category, the most straightforward interpretation is that the enhancement of $f_\mathrm{sf}$ in interacting clusters is almost entirely due to the transformation of non-barred low-sSFR galaxies into barred high-sSFR galaxies. This implies that the star-formation enhancement in moderate-mass disk-dominated galaxies of interacting clusters is related to the bar formation via cluster–cluster interactions.
In the case of $\log(M_\mathrm{star}/M_{\odot}) \ge 10.4$, the transition between low-sSFR galaxies and high-sSFR galaxies is negligible ($1.4\pm4.1\%$ point), when comparing interacting clusters to non-interacting clusters, which is also in agreement with the middle panel of Figure \[fig:sffrac\]. However, the fraction of barred galaxies in interacting clusters increases by a factor of $\sim1.5$ within each low- or high-sSFR bin as in . Adopting the most simplistic interpretation again, this result suggests that the bar formation by cluster–cluster interaction is not noticeably related to star-formation enhancement in high-mass disk-dominated galaxies, which is in contrast with their moderate-mass counterparts.\
![sSFR distributions for galaxies with $B/T\le0.5$ and $\log(M_\mathrm{star}/M_{\odot}) < 10.4$ in interacting clusters and non-interacting clusters. We divided the moderate-mass disk-dominated galaxies into barred and non-barred galaxies. The vertical lines correspond to median sSFRs of the four distributions. In each panel, we show $f_\mathrm{sf}$ of galaxies in each category. \[fig:4p\]](ssfr_indgal.pdf)
Discussion {#sec:discuss}
==========
In the previous section, we show that $f_\mathrm{sf}$ is moderately enhanced in interacting clusters compared with non-interacting clusters, and the enhancement occurs only in moderate-mass disk-dominated galaxies. This is in contrast to the bar fraction enhancement that was found to occur more in high-mass disk-dominated galaxies in interacting clusters . Furthermore, the enhancement of $f_\mathrm{sf}$ in moderate-mass disk-dominated galaxies is found to be directly related to the increase in the number of galaxies with bars.
Our result on the enhancement of $f_\mathrm{sf}$ in interacting clusters is comparable to the results found in @Cohen2014 [@Cohen2015], who used SDSS data and a large number (over 100) of clusters. They found that $f_\mathrm{sf}$ is $\sim20$–$30\%$ higher in clusters with substructures or unrelaxed clusters, which is similar to or slightly higher than the value of our result ($20\%$ or up to $24\%$ depending on the galaxy types). The result of @Cohen2014 is mainly based on galaxies brighter than $M_r=-20.5$. Borrowing the $M_r$–$M_\mathrm{star}$ conversion formula[^16] in @Yoon2017, $M_r=-20.5$ corresponds to $\log(M_\mathrm{star}/M_{\odot})\sim10.0$ for star-forming galaxies and $\log(M_\mathrm{star}/M_{\odot})\sim10.4$ for quiescent galaxies. Therefore, their magnitude-cut sample is similar to our mass-cut sample, except that they miss moderate-mass quiescent galaxies in our sample, and hence their result is consistent with ours.
Our result is also similar to the result of @Hou2012, in which they used 15 rich groups and reported the enhancement of $f_\mathrm{sf}$ ($\sim28\%$) in groups with substructures. @Stroe2017 used 19 clusters with a total sample of over 3000 galaxies and found that the H$\alpha$ luminosity function for clusters in mergers shows a higher characteristic density than relaxed clusters, which qualitatively agrees with our result. Overall, our finding of the $f_\mathrm{sf}$ enhancement in interacting clusters confirms results from previous works.
On the other hand, we find an unique aspect of the $f_\mathrm{sf}$ enhancement in that the $f_\mathrm{sf}$ enhancement is mostly from moderate-mass galaxies with $10.0 \le \log(M_\mathrm{star}/M_{\odot}) < 10.4$. Note that @Okabe2019 did not find the $f_\mathrm{sf}$ enhancement (within $2\sigma$) between merging and single clusters for galaxies with $\log(M_\mathrm{star}/M_{\odot}) > 10.45$, although they did not completely reject the possibility of star-formation enhancement in merging clusters. Their result can be understood as a result of the mass dependence of the $f_\mathrm{sf}$ enhancement.
The $M_\mathrm{star}$-dependent trend in $f_\mathrm{sf}$ can be explained by the different amount of gas in disk galaxies with different $M_\mathrm{star}$. It is known that lower-mass disk galaxies have more plentiful gas than higher-mass disk galaxies [@Erb2006; @Hopkins2009; @Masters2012]. According to this notion, for moderate-mass disk-dominated galaxies, the bar formation in interacting clusters can be easily accompanied with the SFR enhancement, since they have a relatively high amount of gas.[^17] On the other hand, the gas contents are less abundant for high-mass disk-dominated galaxies. Thus, bars can be triggered easily in those galaxies as shown in and Figure \[fig:num\], since the less abundant gas contents for a given $M_\mathrm{star}$ in disk galaxies are more favorable for formation of bars [@Berentzen1998; @Berentzen2004; @Bournaud2005; @Villa-Vargas2010; @Masters2012]. However, due to the low amount of gas, the formation of bars in interacting clusters is not translated into the triggering of star formation in high-mass disk-dominated galaxies.
In , we argued that the time-dependent tidal gravitational field during the cluster–cluster interaction is responsible for inducing bars as suggested by a simulation work of @Bekki1999. The enhancement of $f_\mathrm{sf}$ in moderate-mass disk-dominated galaxies can be understood under the same framework. Specifically, the time-dependent tidal force in interacting clusters exerts non-axisymmetric perturbation to a disk galaxy and subsequently creates a bar. Then, the bar structure exerts forces onto gas components and makes the gas funnel into the central region of the galaxy, thereby triggering the star formation there [@Kim2012; @Seo2013; @Carles2016]. In this manner, galaxies with the newly formed bars in interacting clusters can also become the newly triggered high-sSFR galaxies. Indeed, as shown in sSFR distributions in Figure \[fig:4p\], the $f_\mathrm{sf}$ of barred moderate-mass disk-dominated galaxies in interacting clusters ($0.585\pm0.068$) is far higher than that of non-barred ones ($0.387\pm0.046$) in the same clusters.
As shown in Figure \[fig:4p\], the $f_\mathrm{sf}$ in barred moderate-mass disk-dominated galaxies in non-interacting clusters ($0.400\pm0.043$) is slightly higher (but not statistically significant as in the case of the interacting clusters) than that of non-barred ones in non-interacting clusters ($0.328\pm0.022$). This could be also attributed to the bar-driven enhancement of star formation. However, in non-interacting clusters, the bar formation is likely not due to a cluster-wide mechanism occurring in a narrow time period as in the case of interacting clusters. Therefore, a number of bars formed recently (and subsequent star-formation activities triggered recently) would be smaller in non-interacting clusters than in interacting clusters. Accordingly, the $f_\mathrm{sf}$ value in barred moderate-mass disk-dominated galaxies is not as high as that of the counterparts in interacting clusters, since cluster environments are disadvantageous for preservation of star-formation activities.
According to our results, the ages of bar structures in interacting clusters are expected to be statistically younger than their counterparts in non-interacting clusters. Future studies on the ages of bar structures in interacting and non-interacting clusters should be able to verify this fact.\
Summary {#sec:summary}
=======
The first aim of this study is to investigate whether $f_\mathrm{sf}$ in interacting clusters is enhanced compared with that of non-interacting clusters. The second aim is to examine the link between the $f_\mathrm{sf}$ enhancement and the bar fraction enhancement in interacting clusters. To do so, we used the samples of galaxies and clusters from , which are based on the MPA–JHU catalog. In total, 105 galaxy clusters at $0.015<z<0.060$ were examined, among which 16 are interacting clusters. The main conclusions are summarized as follows.
1. $f_\mathrm{sf}$ is moderately enhanced in interacting clusters compared with non-interacting clusters: $f_\mathrm{sf}$ is $1.19\pm0.08$ times higher in interacting clusters than in non-interacting clusters.
2. The enhancement of $f_\mathrm{sf}$ in interacting clusters occurs only in moderate-mass disk-dominated galaxies ($B/T\le0.5$ and $\log(M_\mathrm{star}/M_{\odot}) < 10.4$). This can be attributed to the relatively abundant gas contents in those galaxies compared to high-mass or bulge-dominated ones.
3. The enhancement of $f_\mathrm{sf}$ in moderate-mass disk-dominated galaxies in interacting clusters is directly related to the increase of the number of barred galaxies, which implies a connection between the star-formation enhancement and the bar formation by cluster–cluster interactions.
4. Our results can be well explained by a mechanism that induces bars and triggers subsequent star-formation through the newly induced bars in disk galaxies in interacting clusters. One plausible physical mechanism is the time-dependent tidal gravitational field during the cluster–cluster interaction [@Bekki1999].
Our results imply that the most energetic phenomenon in large-scale environments such as cluster–cluster interaction can induce bars and star formation at the same time in cluster galaxies. The exact details of how the cluster–cluster interaction induces star formation and bars need to be understood through future simulation and observational studies with a larger sample.\
We thank the anonymous referee for constructive comments that helped improve the content of the paper. This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant, No. 2017R1A3A3001362, funded by the Korea government (MSIP). This work was supported by a KIAS Individual Grant PG076301 at Korea Institute for Advanced Study.
Abell, G. O., Corwin, H. G., & Olowin, R. P. 1989, , 70, 1
Aihara, H., Allende Prieto, C., An, D., et al. 2011, , 193, 29
Bekki, K. 1999, , 510, L15
Bekki, K., Owers, M. S., & Couch, W. J. 2010, , 718, L27
Berentzen, I., Athanassoula, E., Heller, C. H., & Fricke, K. J. 2004, , 347, 220
Berentzen, I., Heller, C. H., Shlosman, I., & Fricke, K. J. 1998, , 300, 49
Berrier, J. C., Stewart, K. R., Bullock, J. S., et al. 2009, , 690, 1292
B[ö]{}hringer, H., Chon, G., & Fukugita, M. 2017, , 608, A65
Bournaud, F., Combes, F., & Semelin, B. 2005, , 364, L18
Cairns, J., Stroe, A., De Breuck, C., et al. 2019, , 882, 132
Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, , 533, 682
Carles, C., Martel, H., Ellison, S. L., et al. 2016, , 463, 1074
Cava, A., Biviano, A., Mamon, G. A., et al. 2017, , 606, A108
Chabrier, G. 2003, , 115, 763
Chung, S. M., Gonzalez, A. H., Clowe, D., et al. 2009, , 691, 963
Cohen, S. A., Hickox, R. C., Wegner, G. A., et al. 2014, , 783, 136
Cohen, S. A., Hickox, R. C., & Wegner, G. A. 2015, , 806, 85
Cole, S., Lacey, C. G., Baugh, C. M., et al. 2000, , 319, 168
Cybulski, R., Yun, M. S., Erickson, N., et al. 2016, , 459, 3287
Demarco, R., Wilson, G., Muzzin, A., et al. 2010, , 711, 1185
Deshev, B., Finoguenov, A., Verdugo, M., et al. 2017, , 607, A131
Dressler, A., & Shectman, S. A. 1988, , 95, 985
Ebeling, H., & Kalita, B. S. 2019, , 882, 127
Erb, D. K., Steidel, C. C., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2006, , 646, 107
Fujita, Y., Takizawa, M., Nagashima, M., et al. 1999, , 51, L1
Fukugita, M., Hogan, C. J., & Peebles, P. J. E. 1998, , 503, 518
Haines, C. P., Smith, G. P., Egami, E., et al. 2009, , 704, 126
Hopkins, P. F., Somerville, R. S., Cox, T. J., et al. 2009, , 397, 802
Hou, A., Parker, L. C., Wilman, D. J., et al. 2012, , 421, 3594
Hwang, H. S., & Lee, M. G. 2009, , 397, 2111
Im, M., Griffiths, R. E., & Ratnatunga, K. U. 1997, , 475, 457
Im, M., Simard, L., Faber, S. M., et al. 2002, , 571, 136
Jedrzejewski, R. I. 1987, , 226, 747
Kim, J.-W., Im, M., Lee, S.-K., et al. 2016, , 821, L10
Kim, W.-T., Seo, W.-Y., Stone, J. M., Yoon, D., & Teuben, P. J. 2012, , 747, 60
Kelvin, L. S., Driver, S. P., Robotham, A. S. G., et al. 2014, , 444, 1647
Kriek, M., van Dokkum, P. G., Labb[é]{}, I., et al. 2009, , 700, 221
Lagos, C. del P., Bayet, E., Baugh, C. M., et al. 2012, , 426, 2142
Lee, S.-K., Im, M., Hyun, M., et al. 2019, , 490, 135
Mansheim, A. S., Lemaux, B. C., Tomczak, A. R., et al. 2017, , 469, L20
Masters, K. L., Nichol, R. C., Haynes, M. P., et al. 2012, , 424, 2180
McGee, S. L., Balogh, M. L., Bower, R. G., et al. 2009, , 400, 937
Miller, N. A., & Owen, F. N. 2003, , 125, 2427
Oh, S., Oh, K., & Yi, S. K. 2012, , 198, 4
Okabe, N., Oguri, M., Akamatsu, H., et al. 2019, , 71, 79
Oohama, N., Okamura, S., Fukugita, M., et al. 2009, , 705, 245
Owen, F. N., Ledlow, M. J., Keel, W. C., et al. 1999, , 118, 633
Owen, F. N., Ledlow, M. J., Keel, W. C., et al. 2005, , 129, 31
Poggianti, B. M., Bridges, T. J., Komiyama, Y., et al. 2004, , 601, 197
Reiprich, T. H., & B[ö]{}hringer, H. 2002, , 567, 716
Rines, K., Diaferio, A., & Natarajan, P. 2007, , 657, 183
Rossetti, M., Gastaldello, F., Ferioli, G., et al. 2016, , 457, 4515
Schellenberger, G., David, L., O’Sullivan, E., et al. 2019, , 882, 59
Seo, W.-Y., & Kim, W.-T. 2013, , 769, 100
Shim, H., Im, M., Lee, H. M., et al. 2011, , 727, 14
Soares, N. R., & Rembold, S. B. 2019, , 483, 4354
Sobral, D., Stroe, A., Dawson, W. A., et al. 2015, , 450, 630
Strauss, M. A., Weinberg, D. H., Lupton, R. H., et al. 2002, , 124, 1810
Stroe, A., Oosterloo, T., R[ö]{}ttgering, H. J. A., et al. 2015, , 452, 2731
Stroe, A., Sobral, D., Paulino-Afonso, A., et al. 2017, , 465, 2916
Stroe, A., Sobral, D., R[ö]{}ttgering, H. J. A., et al. 2014, , 438, 1377
Tomita, A., Nakamura, F. E., Takata, T., et al. 1996, , 111, 42
Tyler, K. D., Bai, L., & Rieke, G. H. 2014, , 794, 31
Villa-Vargas, J., Shlosman, I., & Heller, C. 2010, , 719, 1470
Yoon, Y., Im, M., & Kim, J.-W. 2017, , 834, 73
Yoon, Y., Im, M., Lee, G.-H., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 844
[^1]: <http://www.sdss.org/dr14/spectro/galaxy_mpajhu/>
[^2]: The fraction is $92\%$ for targets in all environments.
[^3]: We note that the application of wider velocity slices of 1800 and 2500 km s$^{-1}$ here does not find additional clusters but reduces the number of discovered clusters by $\sim20\%$, especially for those with lower mass. Also see @Lee2019 regarding how the cluster selection can be affected if one chooses a wide velocity cut.
[^4]: Environments of which surface number densities of galaxies are above 95.4 percentile (or $2\sigma$).
[^5]: Equations 2 and 3 in
[^6]: Halos with $\sim7\times10^{13}\,M_{\odot}$ can be called groups, rather than clusters. However, for convenience, we define them as clusters in this study.
[^7]: Member galaxies of a cluster were defined as galaxies within $R_{200}$ from the cluster center and within a rest-frame velocity slice of $\pm3\sigma$, centered on the redshift of the cluster; $\sigma$ is the radial velocity dispersion of the galaxies.
[^8]: See Equation 6 in
[^9]: The cluster mass function was calculated by dividing the number of clusters in each bin by the bin size and the comoving volume within the SDSS DR8 Legacy spectroscopic coverage of 7966 square degrees [@Aihara2011] and $0.015 < z < 0.060$.
[^10]: We find that the linear Pearson correlation coefficient between sSFRs and $u-r$ color values of galaxies is $-0.88\pm0.01$. The sSFR values have a strong anticorrelation with $u-r$ color, which is a well-known proxy for young stellar populations. We note that use of $u-r$ color instead of sSFRs does not change our main results.
[^11]: <http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~mariska/FAST.html>
[^12]: More specifically, we used the initial mass function of @Chabrier2003 and assumed a delayed exponentially decreasing SFR. We modeled the stellar population with the $e$-folding time scales, $8.9\leq$ $\log$($\tau$/yr) $\leq11.0$ with a step size of 0.1 and the ages of $9.5\leq$ $\log$($t$/yr) $\leq10.0$ with a step size of 0.1. We used several metallicity values (Z = 0.004, 0.008, 0.02, and 0.05). For dust attenuation model, we used the attenuation law from @Calzetti2000. We adopted the extinction values at $V$ band in $0.0\leq$ $A_{V}$ $\leq3.0$ with a step size of 0.1.
[^13]: IDL LADFIT procedure
[^14]: We can clearly see a different trend, when galaxies are segregated at $\log(M_\mathrm{star}/M_{\odot}) = 10.4$, which is also close to the median $M_\mathrm{star}$ of 4595 galaxies. In this paper, we use the expression “moderate-mass galaxies” instead of “low-mass galaxies” as a counterpart of the high-mass galaxies, since the stellar masses of these galaxies ($10.0\le \log(M_\mathrm{star}/M_{\odot}) < 10.4$) are barely below $M^*$, which is $\sim10^{10.6}\,M_{\odot}$ [@Kelvin2014].
[^15]: As mentioned in Section \[sec:sample\], we used galaxies with $e\le0.5$ hereafter.
[^16]: $\log(M_\mathrm{star}/M_{\odot})=-0.39M_r+1.05(g-r)+1.60$
[^17]: Several previous studies show that some galaxies in clusters in merging processes or with substructures can have large amounts of gas or molecular gas contents that are comparable to field galaxies [@Stroe2015; @Cybulski2016; @Cairns2019].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Nowadays, autonomous driving has attracted much attention from both industry and academia. Convolutional neural network (CNN) is a key component in autonomous driving, which is also increasingly adopted in pervasive computing such as smartphones, wearable devices, and IoT networks. Prior work shows CNN-based classification models are vulnerable to adversarial attacks. However, it is uncertain to what extent regression models such as driving models are vulnerable to adversarial attacks, the effectiveness of existing defense techniques, and the defense implications for system and middleware builders.
This paper presents an in-depth analysis of five adversarial attacks and four defense methods on three driving models. Experiments show that, similar to classification models, these models are still highly vulnerable to adversarial attacks. This poses a big security threat to autonomous driving and thus should be taken into account in practice. While these defense methods can effectively defend against different attacks, none of them are able to provide adequate protection against all five attacks. We derive several implications for system and middleware builders: (1) when adding a defense component against adversarial attacks, it is important to deploy multiple defense methods in tandem to achieve a good coverage of various attacks, (2) a black-box attack is much less effective compared with a white-box attack, implying that it is important to keep model details (e.g., model architecture, hyperparameters) confidential via model obfuscation, and (3) driving models with a complex architecture are preferred if computing resources permit as they are more resilient to adversarial attacks than simple models.
author:
- |
Yao Deng$^{1}$, Xi Zheng$^{1}$, Tianyi Zhang$^{2}$, Chen Chen$^{3}$, Guannan Lou$^{3}$, Miryung Kim$^{4}$\
[$^{1}$Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia]{}\
[$^{2}$Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA]{}\
[$^{3}$[University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia]{}]{}\
[$^{4}$[University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA]{}]{}\
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],\
{cche4088, glou2030}@uni.sydney.edu.au, [email protected]
bibliography:
- 'reference.bib'
title: An Analysis of Adversarial Attacks and Defenses on Autonomous Driving Models
---
Autonomous driving, adversarial attack, defense
Conclusion
==========
This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of adversarial attacks and defenses on autonomous driving models. To that end, we implemented five adversarial attacks and four defensive techniques on three CNN based driving models. From experiment results, all of these three driving models are not robust against these adversarial attacks apart from IT-FGSM, while none of four defensive techniques can defend all of five adversarial attacks. We also raise several insights for future research including building middleware that leverages multiple defense methods in tandem, leveraging distributed complex regression driving models, and techniques to defend model information extraction.
Acknowledgments
===============
We would like to thank anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback. This work is in part supported by NSF grants CCF1764077, CCF-1527923, CCF-1723773, ONR grant N00014- 18-1-2037, Intel CAPA grant, and Samsung grant.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'By a result due to Ziltener, there exist no closed embedded Bohr–Sommerfeld Lagrangians inside ${\mathbb{C}P}^n$ for the prequantisation bundle whose total space is the standard contact sphere. On the other hand, any embedded monotone Lagrangian torus has a canonical nontrivial cover which is a Bohr–Sommerfeld immersion. We draw the front projections for the corresponding Legendrian lifts inside a contact Darboux ball of the threefold covers of both the two-dimensional Clifford and Chekanov tori (the former is the Legendrian link of the Harvey–Lawson special Lagrangian cone), and compute the associated Chekanov–Eliashberg algebras. Although these Legendrians are not loose, we show that they both admit exact Lagrangian cobordisms to the loose Legendrian sphere; they hence admit exact Lagrangian caps in the symplectisation, which are non-regular Lagrangian cobordisms. Along the way, we also compute bilinearised Legendrian contact homology of a general Legendrian surface in the standard contact vector space when all Reeb chords are of positive degree, as well as the augmentation variety in the case of tori.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, Uppsala University, Box 480, SE-751 06, Uppsala, Sweden'
- 'Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University, Sokolovská 83, 18000 Praha 8, Czech Republic'
author:
- Georgios Dimitroglou Rizell
- Roman Golovko
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Legendrian submanifolds from Bohr–Sommerfeld covers of monotone Lagrangian tori'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Prequantisation $S^1$-bundles $\pi \colon E \to M$ form an important class of contact manifolds $(E^{2n+1},\alpha)$ that have been well studied from many different points-of-view. The contact form $\alpha$ is a connection one-form for the $S^1$-bundle, and the curvature is a symplectic two-form $\omega \in \Omega^2(M)$ on $M^{2n}.$ For that reason, there is a close relationship between the symplectic geometry of $(M,\omega)$ and the contact geometry of $(E,\ker \alpha).$ For instance, every Legendrian immersion inside $E$ projects to a so-called Bohr–Sommerfeld Lagrangian immersion inside $(M,\omega).$ Our goal here is to study certain embedded Legendrians $\Lambda \subset (E,\ker\alpha)$ whose projection $\pi(\Lambda) \subset M$ again has an embedded *image* (but which is possibly multiply covered). In fact, we are mainly interested in the case $M={\mathbb{C}P}^n$ and the line-bundle $\mathcal{O}(-1),$ which produces the standard round contact sphere $(E,\alpha)=(S^{2n+1},\alpha_{{\operatorname}{st}})$. The general connection between Bohr–Sommerfeld Lagrangian immersions in the projective plane and Legendrians in the standard contact sphere was recently studied in [@LiftingImmersions] by Baldrige–McCarthy–Vela-Vick.
If the image of the Legendrian is embedded, then it necessarily is a *nontrivial* multiple cover. Namely, as was shown by Ziltener:
\[noembeddedBSLagr\] Any closed Legendrian submanifold inside the round contact $(S^{2n+1},\alpha_{{\operatorname}{st}})$ admits a Reeb chord of length $(0,\pi/2]$ (i.e. at most half the minimal period of a Reeb orbit). In particular, there exists no closed Bohr–Sommerfeld Lagrangian embeddings inside the standard symplectic ${\mathbb{C}P}^n$ for the prequantisation bundle $\mathcal{O}(-1).$
On the other hand, there exists plenty of Bohr–Sommerfeld immersions that are *multiply covered* Lagrangian embeddings. Here we are interested mainly in the case of monotone tori. By the very recent result of Vianna [@Vianna16] there are infinitely many different monotone Lagrangian tori inside ${\mathbb{C}P}^2$ up to Hamiltonian isotopy. They all admit Bohr–Sommerfeld covers by the following result shown in Section \[sec:bscovers\].
\[thm:bscovers\] Any monotone Lagrangian torus inside ${\mathbb{C}P}^n$ has a canonically defined $n+1$-fold cover which is a Bohr–Sommerfeld immersion for the prequantisation bundle $\mathcal{O}(-1).$ Moreover, the corresponding Legendrian lift is embedded inside $(S^{2n+1},\xi_{{\operatorname}{st}}),$ has vanishing Maslov class, and only Reeb chords of positive degree. (Here we mean the degree in the Bott sense as explained in Section \[sec:maslov\].)
In Section \[furtherdirections\] we conjecture that the canonical Bohr–Sommerfeld covers of Vianna’s different Lagrangian tori have lifts that remain different up to Legendrian isotopy. Vianna’s infinite family of tori exhibit intricate Floer homological properties. As objects in the Fukaya category they constitute the infinite charts on the cluster variety that is the mirror to ${\mathbb{C}P}^2$ (in the sense of homological mirror symmetry); see recent work of Pascaleff–Tonkonog [@PascaleffTonkonog]. One should expect that this structure has a rich counterpart for also the Legendrian lifts of their Bohr–Sommerfeld covers. This paper is the starting point for such an investigation, since we compute the Legendrian invariants for the first two tori that appear in the family. For the first torus in the family (the well-known Clifford torus) we recover Nadler’s computation [@Nadler] which exhibits the mirror to the one-dimensional pair of pants.
Then we turn our eye to some particular examples of Bohr–Sommerfeld covers of embedded Lagrangians inside ${\mathbb{C}P}^2.$ Since $S^{2n+1} \setminus \{{\mathrm{pt}}\}$ is contactomorphic to a Darboux ball $({\mathbb{R}}^{2n+1},dz-ydx)$ by [@Geiges Proposition 2.1.8], they can all be described by their associated front projections to the $(z,\mathbf{x})$-plane. Recall that the front-projection recovers the Legendrian embedding. However, since the aforementioned contactomorphism is not strict, this identification of a Darboux ball is not so easy to work with. For that reason, we instead take a different path, and produce an explicit contact isotopy of the Legendrian into a small contact-form preserving Darboux ball with respect to the prequantisation contact form $\alpha.$ The advantage of placing the Legendrians inside a Darboux ball is that it makes their Legendrian contact homology as defined by Eliashberg–Givental–Hofer and Chekanov [@IntroToSFT; @DiffGradedAlgebraLegLinks] computable by using Ekholm’s theory of gradient flow trees [@MorseFlowTrees]. Legendrian contact homology is a Legendrian invariant which is a homology of a differential graded algebra (DGA for short) called the [**Chekanov–Eliashberg algebra**]{}; in the setting considered here the precise construction was carried out in [@LegendrianContactPxR] by Ekholm–Etnyre–Sullivan.
Notably we study the Legendrian link of the Harvey–Lawson cone from [@HarveyLawson Example III.3.A]. This is a conical special Lagrangian inside ${\mathbb{C}}^3,$ whose intersection with the standard contact sphere $S^5$ is a Legendrian torus whose projection to ${\mathbb{C}P}^2$ is a threefold cover of the monotone Clifford torus. This example was also studied in [@LiftingImmersions Example 4.1] from the perspective of contact geometry. After a Legendrian isotopy into a small contact Darboux ball, we obtain the Legendrian $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Cl}}$ whose front projection is shown in Figure \[fig:Clifford\]; it is the symmetric figure-8 curve with two horizontal cusps rotated along its $z$-axis of symmetry. The Chekanov–Eliashberg algebra of $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Cl}}$ was computed by the first author in [@KnottedLegendrianSurface]; see Section \[sec:comp-cliff\].
$x$ at -5 13 $y$ at 72 43 $z$ at 25 93 $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Cl}}$ at 310 43 ![Front projection of the Legendrian lift $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Cl}}$ of the threefold Bohr–Sommerfeld cover of the Clifford torus placed inside a Darboux ball.[]{data-label="fig:Clifford"}](knottedT2 "fig:")
A different front associated to this Legendrian was described by Treumann–Zaslow in [@TreumannZaslow Section 3.1], who placed it as a type of satellite around the standard Legendrian sphere. The front inside the standard neighbourhood $J^1S^2$ of the standard Legendrian two-sphere then has a caustic which is the tetrahedron cubic graph on $S^2.$ Our front projection is simpler, at least in the sense that the number of Reeb chords for a small and generic perturbation is minimal for our representative.
The second example that we study is the Legendrian lift of the threefold canonical Bohr–Sommerfeld cover of the monotone Chekanov torus inside ${\mathbb{C}P}^2$ [@Ch96]. The front projection of a representative $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Ch}}$ placed inside a small contact Darboux ball is shown in Figure \[fig:Chekanov\] in Section \[sec:examples-plane\]. Again the front is symmetric with respect to rotation around the $z$-axis. We compute its Chekanov–Eliashberg algebra and deduce that it is not Legendrian isotopic to $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Cl}}$; recall that Chekanov–Schlenk [@TwistTori] proved that the underlying Lagrangian torus also is not Hamiltonian isotopic to the Clifford torus inside ${\mathbb{C}P}^2.$ To conclude:
The threefold canonical Bohr–Sommerfeld covers of the Clifford and Chekanov tori in ${\mathbb{C}P}^2$ has embedded Legendrian lifts to the prequantisation space $S^5\to{\mathbb{C}P}^2$ that are not Legendrian isotopic. Moreover, both tori have vanishing Maslov classes and are subloose but not loose.
We call a Legendrian subloose if there exists an exact Lagrangian cobordism to a loose Legendrian; see Definition \[def:subflex\] below in Section \[sec:subflex\]. Subloose but not loose Legendrian submanifolds first appeared in the work of the first author [@KnottedLegendrianSurface]. They play an important role in understanding the geography of Legendrian submanifolds. More precisely, the Chekanov-Eliashberg algebra of such submanifolds has an unusual behaviour: it is acyclic with field coefficients, but is linearisable with the so-called Novikov coefficients. There are plenty of subloose Legendrians that can be obtained from the examples in [@KnottedLegendrianSurface] by taking cusp-connect sums with e.g. appropriate families of Legendrian spheres. However, note that almost nothing is known when it comes to what augmentation varieties are realisable by such examples (in fact this is also the case for more general Legendrian tori). In view of Vianna’s infinite family of monotone tori, it seems like there is a very rich family of augmentation varieties for Legendrian tori inside the standard contact sphere.
Since the Legendrians $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Cl}}$ and $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Ch}}$ both satisfy a symmetry of their fronts with respect to rotation around the $z$-axis, they have Lagrangian projections that are well-behaved with respect to the standard Lefschetz fibration ${\mathbb{C}}^2 \to {\mathbb{C}}$ given by $(z_1,z_2) \mapsto z_1 \cdot z_2.$ (One must first translate the Legendrians to ensure that the axis of the $S^1$-symmetry is precisely $\{x_1=x_2=0\}.$) Namely, they project to generic immersions of a closed curve inside ${\mathbb{C}}^*$; see the curves $\gamma_{{\operatorname}{Ch}}$ and $\gamma_{{\operatorname}{Cl}}$ in the bottom right of Figures \[fig:homotopy-clifford\] and \[fig:homotopy-chekanov\], respectively.
We also consider the lift of the canonical twofold cover of the monotone product torus $S^1 \times S^1$ inside the monotone quadric surface $({\mathbb{C}P}^1 \times {\mathbb{C}P}^1,\omega_{{\operatorname}{FS}}\oplus\omega_{{\operatorname}{FS}}).$ It turns out that its Legendrian lift is Legendrian isotopic to the conormal lift of the unknot inside $S^3$; see Theorem \[thm:unknot\]. Recall that the conormal lift of any submanifold of ${\mathbb{R}}^n \subset S^n$ has a front projection associated to its representation inside the jet-space $(J^1{\mathbb{R}}^n,dz-ydx) \cong UT^*{\mathbb{R}}^n \subset (UT^*S^n,pdq)$ which can be recovered from the geometric properties of the smooth submanifold itself.
It should be possible to apply the same strategy to all of the infinitely many monotone Lagrangian tori produced by Vianna [@Vianna16], even though the explicit isotopy into a Darboux ball is more complicated. However, once this has been found, note that the Legendrian contact homology is possible to compute for Legendrians inside a Darboux ball by using Ekholm’s theory of gradient flow trees [@MorseFlowTrees]. In this manner interesting enumerative invariants for these Legendrians are thus possible to compute (at least in theory). In particular, in Section \[sec:potential\] we formulate a conjecture relating the augmentation polynomial and the superpotential. Since the underlying Lagrangian live in pairwise different Hamiltonian isotopy classes, as detected by their different superpotentials, we expect that two different monotone tori also have different Legendrian lifts. We expect that this family of subloose Legendrian tori exhibits interesting properties reflecting the invariants of Vianna’s family. For instance, their augmentations varieties should correspond to certain threefold covers of the zero loci of the superpotentials of the tori in Vianna’s family. In general, not much is known, what varieties are possible to obtain as augmentation varieties of Legendrian surfaces in ${\mathbb{R}}^5$. Here we compute the invariants for the two first tori in the family. The Legendrian torus corresponding to the Clifford torus has augmentation variety being the one-dimensional pair of pants. This is in accordance with the verification of the mirror of the pair of pants done by Nadler in [@Nadler]. We will study these questions further in future investigations.
Along the way, we also provide the following reasonably general computational result:
\[lchgeneralintro\] Let $\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_1 \colon (\mathcal{A},\partial) \to ({\mathbb{F}},0)$ be two graded augmentations for a Legendrian oriented genus $g\geq 0$ surface $\Lambda \subset ({\mathbb{R}}^5,\xi_{{\operatorname}{st}})$ of vanishing Maslov class and with all Reeb chords in positive degrees. Then
- when $\varepsilon_0 = \varepsilon_1$: $$LCH_k^{\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_1}(\Lambda)=\begin{cases} {\mathbb{F}}, & k=2,\\ {\mathbb{F}}^{g}, & k=1, \\ 0, & k\neq 1,2,
\end{cases}$$
- when $0\leq g\leq 1$ and $\varepsilon_0 \neq \varepsilon_1$: $LCH_k^{\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_1}(\Lambda) = 0$ for all $k,$
is satisfied for the bilinearised Legendrian contact homology groups.
(In other words, in the case $g=1,$ the $LCH_*$ groups for augmentations behave as the ${\operatorname}{Ext}$-groups for skyscraper sheaves on an algebraic curve under the above assumptions.) In addition, we obtain restrictions on the variety of augmentations of a Legendrian torus that satisfies the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:lchgeneral\].
Let $\Lambda \subset ({\mathbb{R}}^5,\xi_{{\operatorname}{st}})$ be a Legendrian torus of vanishing Maslov class and with all Reeb chords in positive degrees. Its augmentation variety over ${\mathbb{C}}$ is then either empty, or of complex dimension equal to one.
The restriction on the degree of Reeb chords given by Theorem \[thm:bscovers\] should imply that the two results above are applicable to the Legendrian lift of the canonical Bohr–Sommerfeld cover of an arbitrary monotone Lagrangian torus in ${\mathbb{C}P}^2.$
Then in Section \[sec:subflex\] we construct an infinite family of non-regular exact Lagrangian caps in the symplectisation of the contact Euclidean space of all odd dimensions $\geq 5$. This provides a partial negative answer to the question of Eliashberg–Ganatra–Lazarev [@FlexibleLagrangians; @EliashbergSurvey]; see Question \[questionfromGanatra-Eliashberg-Lazarev\].
For any $g>0$ and $k_1,\ldots,k_r \ge 0$ there exists infinitely many different Legendrian isotopy classes of subloose Legendrian embeddings $\Lambda \subset ({\mathbb{R}}^{2k_1+\ldots+2k_r+5},\xi_{{\operatorname}{st}})$ of the manifold $S^{k_1} \times \ldots \times S^{k_r} \times \Sigma_g,$ where $\Sigma_g$ denotes the surface of genus $g,$ which:
- have vanishing Maslov classes;
- have Chekanov–Eliashberg algebras with Novikov coefficients $R={\mathbb{C}}[H_1(\Lambda)]$ that admit (0-graded) augmentations; and
- admit orientable exact Lagrangian caps inside the symplectisation with vanishing Maslov classes.
In particular, none of these Legendrian surfaces are loose.
In addition, we provide a refinement of the question of Eliashberg–Ganatra–Lazarev, see Question \[refinedquestionfromGanatra-Eliashberg-Lazarev\].
Finally, in Section \[sec:disc\] we investigate the “standard” Legendrian disc from the point of view of the standard Lefschetz fibration ${\mathbb{C}}^n \to {\mathbb{C}}.$ We conclude that:
The Legendrian disc inside $(S^{2n+1},\alpha_{{\operatorname}{st}})$ given by the upper hemisphere of the standard Legendrian sphere, i.e. $$\Lambda_0 \coloneqq \{x_{n+1} \ge 0\} \cap \Re {\mathbb{C}}^{n+1} \cap S^{2n+1} \subset (S^{2n+1},\alpha_{{\operatorname}{st}}),$$ admits a loose chart contained entirely in the complement of a neighbourhood of its boundary.
Note that $(S^{2n+1} \setminus \{x_{n+1} = 0\},\xi_{{\operatorname}{st}})$ is the local model of the trivial contact open book structure with page a critical Weinstein handle, i.e. the contact structure on $\partial(D^2 \times DT^*B^n),$ with $B^n$ the open ball, induced by the standard product Weinstein structure $(D^2 \times DT^*B^n,r^2d\theta\oplus pdq).$ We refer to [@Giroux] for the definitions of an open book in the settings of contact geometry. The Legendrian $\Lambda_0$ can be identified with the Legendrian $\{1\} \times 0_{B^n} \subset S^1 \times DT^*B^n$ that is contained entirely in a page of this open book, where it moreover intersects the Lagrangian cocore $DT_0^*B^n$ of the handle transversely in a single point. The above theorem thus in particular reproves the following criterion for looseness established in [@AffineFronts Proposition 2.9] by Casals–Murphy: inside a trivial open book $\partial (W \times D^2)$ with page being a Weinstein manifold $(W,d\eta),$ any Legendrian which is contained entirely inside a page and which intersects some cocore disc transversely in a single point is loose (i.e. a Legendrian that coincide with a closed regular Lagrangian inside a page $(W,d\eta)$).
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This project started when the authors visited the University of Ottawa during the workshop on “Lagrangian cobordisms,” and we are grateful to the organisers of the workshop and the University of Ottawa for their hospitality. We would also like to thank Emmy Murphy who told us the expectation of the relation between the Clifford torus and the front considered here, Otto van Koert for useful discussions and Frédéric Bourgeois for helpful comments on the first version of the paper which led to the correction of Theorem \[lchgeneralintro\].
The first author is supported by the grant KAW 2016.0198 from the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation. The second author is supported by the ERC Consolidator Grant 646649 “SymplecticEinstein” and by the GAČR EXPRO Grant 19-28628X.
Background
==========
Prequantisation spaces and Bohr–Sommerfeld Lagrangians
------------------------------------------------------
A [**prequantisation space**]{} is a contact manifold $(E,\alpha)$ equipped with a contact form $\alpha$ whose Reeb flow defines a free $S^1$-action. It follows that $(M=E/S^1,\omega=d\alpha)$ naturally is a symplectic manifold via symplectic reduction. Phrased differently, the $S^1$-bundle $\pi \colon E \to M$ has a connection 1-form $\alpha$ with a curvature 2-form given by $\omega$. We fix the convention that the lengths of the corresponding simple Reeb orbits on $(E,\alpha)$ all are equal to $\pi,$ i.e. the fibre is canonically identified with $S^1={\mathbb{R}}/\pi{\mathbb{Z}}$ when parametrised by the Reeb flow. In this case the latter symplectic form then satisfies $$[\omega] =\pi\cdot c_1(E) \in \pi\cdot {\operatorname{im}}(H^2(M,{\mathbb{Z}}) \to H^2(M,{\mathbb{R}}))$$ where $c_1(E)$ denotes the first Chern class of the $S^1$-bundle.
A closed Lagrangian $L \subset (M,\omega)$ satisfies the [**Bohr–Sommerfeld condition for the (prequantisation) $S^1$-bundle $E \to M$**]{} if the symplectic action class of $L$ satisfies $$[\omega] \in {\operatorname{im}}(\pi\cdot{\operatorname{im}}(H^2(M,L,{\mathbb{Z}}) \to H^2(M,L,{\mathbb{R}})))$$ and the symplectic form is cohomologous to the multiple $[\omega]=\pi\cdot c_1(E)$ of the first Chern class of the $S^1$-bundle $E \to M.$
In the following, when it is clear to which prequantisation bundle we are referring, we will simply say that a Lagrangian immersion is Bohr–Sommerfeld.
The following lemma is standard.
\[lem:prequant\] Any closed immersed Legendrian submanifold $\Lambda \subset (E,\alpha)$ projects to a Bohr–Sommerfeld Lagrangian immersion $\pi(\Lambda) \subset (M,\omega).$ If $M$ is simply connected, then the converse is true as well: any Bohr–Sommerfeld immersion lifts to a Legendrian immersion which is uniquely determined up to a global application of the Reeb flow.
The prequantisation bundle is flat when pulled back under a Lagrangian immersion. The Bohr–Sommerfeld condition together with the simple connectivity implies that the monodromy of the parallel transport moreover is trivial along any loop in the Lagrangian. It is thus possible to construct the lift as a parallel section along the immersion.
The Legendrian lift is in fact an embedding given that a condition on the double points of the Lagrangian immersion is met; this can always be made to hold after a small generic perturbation through Bohr–Sommerfeld Lagrangian immersions.
For simplicity we will in the following assume that $\pi_1(M)=0.$ In this case, any symplectic form satisfying the above cohomological condition can conversely be seen to give rise to a line bundle with the structure of a prequantisation space.
The prequantisation spaces that we will study here are the following.
- The standard round contact sphere $$S^{2n-1} \subset {\mathbb{C}}^n$$ equipped with the coordinates $(z_1=x_1+iy_1,\dots,z_n=x_n+iy_n)$ and the contact form $$\alpha_{{\operatorname}{st}} := \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^n(x_idy_i-y_idx_i).$$ The corresponding symplectic reduction is the quotient under the Hopf map, which gives $M={\mathbb{C}P}^{n-1}$ equipped with the [**Fubini–Study Kähler form**]{} $\omega_{\mathrm{FS}}$ for which the symplectic area of a line has been normalised to $\int_\ell \omega_{\mathrm{FS}}=\pi.$ This is also the length of a minimal periodic Reeb orbit for the above contact form.
- The unit cotangent bundle $(UT^*S^n,pdq)$ of the round $n$-sphere of radius $1/2$ has a completely periodic Reeb flow with minimal length of a periodic orbit equal to $\pi$. The symplectic reduction gives $UT^*S^n$ the structure of a prequantisation space over the monotone projective quadric $(n-1)$-fold. In particular, when $n=3,$ this unit cotangent bundle is a prequantisation space over the monotone quadric surface $({\mathbb{C}P}^1 \times {\mathbb{C}P}^1,\omega_{\mathrm{FS}} \oplus \omega_{\mathrm{FS}})$.
The contact structures of the prequantisation spaces in the above examples both have vanishing first Chern classes $c_1(E,\alpha) \in H^2(E).$ This is of course obvious for the sphere, while it is also a general fact for all unit cotangent bundles. For completeness we also recall the following standard result; since the above examples are prequantisation spaces over *monotone* symplectic manifolds, it can also be used to deduce the vanishing of $c_1(E,\alpha).$
\[lem:chern\] Suppose that $c_1(M,\omega)$ vanishes on any $A \in \pi_2(M)$ with $\int_A \omega=0.$ Then $c_1(E,\alpha)$ vanishes on $\pi_2(E).$
Even more can be said: prequantisation spaces over simply connected monotone symplectic manifolds have torsion first Chern class, as follows from the argument of [@BoothbyWangbundles Lemma 7.3].
Here follows basic examples of Lagrangian Bohr–Sommerfeld immersions inside the projective space and quadric.
1. The anti-diagonal $\{(z,\overline{z})\} \subset {\mathbb{C}P}^1 \times {\mathbb{C}P}^1$ is an embedded Lagrangian sphere and it is thus automatically Bohr–Sommerfeld. In general, every affine complex quadric is symplectomorphic to $(T^*S^n,d(pdq))$ and thus it contains an embedded Lagrangian sphere as well (i.e. the zero section). The Legendrian lift can be readily seen to be Legendrian isotopic to a unit cotangent fibre $UT^*_{{\operatorname}{pt}}S^n.$
2. The standard Legendrian sphere $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{std}} \subset (S^{2n+1},\alpha_{{\operatorname}{st}})$ is the intersection of the sphere with the real part $\Re{\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}.$ This Legendrian is the lift of the twofold cover of ${\mathbb{R}P}^n \subset {\mathbb{C}P}^n,$ which thus is a Bohr–Sommerfeld immersion. It can be readily seen to be Legendrian isotopic to a representative inside a contact Darboux ball which has a rotationally symmetric front projection given by the “flying saucer” with precisely one Reeb chord, and singularities consisting of a spherical cusp edge. The Lagrangian projection of this representative is the so-called (exact Lagrangian) Whitney immersion of a sphere with a single transverse double point.
Lagrangians and Legendrians from Lefschetz fibrations {#sec:lefschetz}
-----------------------------------------------------
It will be convenient for us to describe Lagrangians inside $({\mathbb{C}P}^n,\omega_{{\operatorname}{FS}}),$ as well as Legendrian lifts to the prequantisation space $(S^{2n+1},\alpha_{{\operatorname}{st}}),$ via their images under the standard Lefschetz fibration $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathbb{C}}^n \to {\mathbb{C}}\\
(z_1,\ldots,z_n) \mapsto z_1^2+\ldots+z_n^2\end{gathered}$$ in an affine chart of the symplectic base ${\mathbb{C}P}^n.$ To consider Lagrangians in relation to a Lefschetz fibration has turned out to be a useful perspective, which goes back to the work [@Eliashberg:Georgia] by Eliashberg–Polterovich. We call a Lagrangian which projects to a curve under a symplectic fibration [**compatible**]{} with the fibration.
We proceed to give details in the case $n=2;$ the general case needed in Section \[sec:disc\] is treated analogously in the end of this subsection.
In dimension $n=2$ we choose coordinates so that the Lefschetz fibration becomes $(z_1,z_2) \mapsto z_1\cdot z_2.$ In order to fix notation, we endow ${\mathbb{C}}^2$ with the standard linear symplectic form $\omega_0=dx_1\wedge dy_1+dx_2 \wedge dy_2.$ For any $r>0$ and primitive $\mathbf{a}=(a_1,a_2)\in{\mathbb{Z}}^2$ we construct the three-dimensional hypersurface $$\Sigma_{\mathbf{a},r} \coloneqq \{z(a_1,a_2); \: z \in {\mathbb{C}}^*, \} \cap D^4_r \subset {\mathbb{C}}^2 \setminus \{0\}.$$ This hypersurface is smooth and foliated by holomorphic lines. In addition it is foliated by the Lagrangian product tori $a_1S^1_{s} \times a_2S^1_{s}$ for $s \in \left(0,\frac{r}{\|\mathbf{a}\|}\right].$
The symplectic fibration $(z_1,z_2) \mapsto z_1^{a_1}\cdot z_2^{a_2}$ with a singularity at the origin restricts to a surjective and smooth $S^1$-fibration $$f_{\mathbf{a}} \colon \Sigma_{{\mathbf{a},r}} \to D_{\widetilde{r}}^2 \setminus \{0\}$$ of the radius $$\widetilde{r}=a_1^{a_2}a_2^{a_1}(r/\|\mathbf{a}\|)^{a_1+a_2}.$$
The following lemma allows us to easily understand the Lagrangians inside $\Sigma_{\mathbf{a},r}$ via the fibration $f_{\mathbf{a}}.$
\[lem:char\] The characteristic distribution $\ker(\omega|_{T\Sigma_{\mathbf{a},r}})$ is spanned by the infinitesimal generator of the ${\mathbb{R}}$-action $$(z_1,z_2) \mapsto (e^{ia_2t}z_1,e^{-ia_1t}z_2),$$ with $t \in {\mathbb{R}},$ i.e. it is tangent to the fibres of $f_{\mathbf{a}}.$
In particular, by dimensional reasons, any (two-dimensional) Lagrangian immersion that is contained inside $\Sigma_{\mathbf{a},r}$ projects to a smooth immersed curve inside $D_{\widetilde{r}}^2 \setminus \{0\}$ under $f_{\mathbf{a}}$ and vice versa: since the fibres of $f_{\mathbf{a}}$ are tangent to the characteristic distribution, the preimage of any curve inside the base $D_{\widetilde{r}}^2 \setminus \{0\}$ under the same map is a Lagrangian immersion of $\Sigma_{\mathbf{a},r}.$
In the following we will be interested in $\Sigma_{\mathbf{a},r}$ with $\mathbf{a}=(1,1),$ in which case we will drop the subscript $\mathbf{a}.$ To be able to study the symplectic action properties of such Lagrangians, the following simple computation is useful.
\[lem:pullback\] Denote by $\omega_0|_{T\Sigma_r}$ the pullback to $\Sigma_r \subset {\mathbb{C}}^2$ of the standard symplectic form $$\omega_0=d\left(\frac{r_1^2}{2}d\theta_1+\frac{r_2^2}{2}d\theta_2\right)$$ on ${\mathbb{C}}^2.$ Then $\omega_0|_{T\Sigma_r}=f^*\,d(r/2\,d\theta),$ where $d(r/2\,d\theta)$ is a symplectic form on $D^2_{\widetilde{r}} \setminus \{0\}$ of total area $\pi\widetilde{r}.$
It will be necessary to consider a certain compactification of the symplectic hypersurfaces $\Sigma_r,$ but rather of certain compactifications. For any primitive vector $\mathbf{n}=(n_1,n_2) \in {\mathbb{Z}}^2$ for which $n_1a_1+n_2a_2\neq0$ we now construct $\Sigma_{\mathbf{a},r}^{\mathbf{n}}$ from $\Sigma_{\mathbf{a},r}$ by taking the quotient of its Lagrangian boundary $$\partial \Sigma_{\mathbf{a},r}=a_1S^1_{r/\|\mathbf{a}\|} \times a_2S^1_{r/\|\mathbf{a}\|}$$ under the action of the closed subgroup $$e^t\mathbf{n} \subset {\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}\times {\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}\cong a_1 S^1_{r/\|\mathbf{a}\|} \times a_2 S^1_{r/\|\mathbf{a}\|}.$$ The compactification $\Sigma_{\mathbf{a},r}^{\mathbf{n}}$ can explicitly seen to again be the the hypersurface of a symplectic manifold.
The projective plane ${\mathbb{C}P}^2$ with the Fubini–Study symplectic form can be obtained by performing symplectic reduction to the boundary $\partial B^4=S^3$ of the standard symplectic ball $(B^4,\omega_0).$ The symplectic reduction is the quotient under the Hopf fibration, which when restricted to $\Sigma_{(1,1),1}$ produces the space $\Sigma_{(1,1),1}^{(1,1)}.$
The image of the torus $\partial \Sigma_{\mathbf{a},r} \to \Sigma_{\mathbf{a},r}^{\mathbf{n}}$ inside the above compactification is an embedded closed curve $S_{\mathbf{a},r}^{\mathbf{n}} \subset \Sigma_{\mathbf{a},r}^{\mathbf{n}}.$ It has a neighbourhood given as a disc normal-bundle $D_\epsilon^2 \times S$ with the following explicit description. Choose $\mathbf{c}=(c_1,c_2) \in {\mathbb{Z}}^2$ for which $n_1c_2-n_2c_1=1$ (here we use that $\mathbf{n}$ is primitive). Then compactify the family $$\left\{(a_1\cdot s\cdot e^{i(n_1\varphi+c_1\theta)},a_2\cdot s\cdot e^{i(n_2\varphi+c_2\theta)}); \:\: \frac{r}{\|\mathbf{a}\|}-\epsilon \le s \le \frac{r}{\|\mathbf{a}\|}\right\} \subset \Sigma_{\mathbf{a},r}$$ of symplectic annuli; each annulus are parametrised by $(r,\varphi)$ while the family is parametrised by $\theta \in [0,2\pi),$ which collapses each boundary components $\{s=r/\|\mathbf{a}\|\}$ to a point. Hence, the above family of annuli becomes naturally identified with a solid torus $D_\epsilon^2 \times S_{\mathbf{a},r}^{\mathbf{n}}$ inside the quotient foliated by the symplectic discs $D_{\epsilon}^2 \times \{{\mathrm{pt}}\}.$ The symplectic condition means that the characteristic distribution of $\Sigma_{\mathbf{a},r}^{\mathbf{n}}$ is transverse to these disc leafs.
The characteristic distribution on the solid torus $D_\epsilon^2 \times S_{\mathbf{a},r}^{\mathbf{n}}$ integrates to a symplectic monodromy of any $D_\epsilon^2 \times \{{\mathrm{pt}}\}$ given by the rotation $$\varphi \mapsto \varphi + \frac{2\pi}{a_1n_1+a_2n_2}$$ with respect to the above coordinates, where $a_1n_1+a_2n_2$ is the intersection number between the two curves $t\cdot(a_2,-a_1)$ (i.e. an integral curve of the characteristic distribution) and $t\cdot\mathbf{n}$ on the torus ${\mathbb{R}}^2/{\mathbb{Z}}^2.$
Any Lagrangian submanifold contained inside $\Sigma_{\mathbf{a},r}^{\mathbf{n}}$ must be tangent to the characteristic distribution. The above lemma thus in particular implies that
\[lem:symmetry\] Any properly immersed Lagrangian contained inside $B_\epsilon^2 \times S_{\mathbf{a},r}^{\mathbf{n}}$ without boundary must intersect each $B_\epsilon^2 \times \{{\mathrm{pt}}\}$ in a curve which is invariant under the rotation $$\varphi \mapsto \varphi + \frac{2\pi}{a_1n_1+a_2n_2}$$ with respect to the above coordinates. Conversely, any such submanifold is Lagrangian.
Our main technique will be to present Lagrangians inside $\Sigma_{(1,1),1}^{(1,1)} \subset {\mathbb{C}P}^2$ that are disjoint from the divisor $\ell_\infty$ at infinity as the curves being their images under $f.$ Regular homotopies through Bohr–Sommerfeld Lagrangians will then be constructed by families of such curves, while making careful area configurations considerations using Lemma \[lem:pullback\]. In order to describe a Lagrangian regular homotopy that traverses the line at infinity $\ell_\infty \cap \Sigma_{(1,1),1}^{(1,1)}$ the projection $f$ cannot be used; we instead use the presentation of the Lagrangian in the normal bundle over the divisor given by Lemma \[lem:symmetry\].
In the above case we will write $\Sigma \coloneqq \Sigma_{(1,1),1},$ $\overline{\Sigma} \coloneqq \Sigma_{(1,1),1}^{(1,1)},$ and $f \coloneqq f_{(1,1)} \colon \Sigma \to \dot{D}^2_{1/2}$ for the restriction of the Lefschetz fibration.
$\pi$ at 220 15 $x$ at 280 30 $\mathbf{n}$ at 173 173 $\frac{\pi}{3}$ at 95 11 $\frac{\pi}{3}$ at 15 98 $y$ at 34 282 $\color{blue}L_{{\operatorname}{Cl}}$ at 118 78 $\pi$ at 15 224 ![The standard momentum polytope for ${\mathbb{C}P}^2,$ the fibre over the point $(\pi/3,\pi/3)$ (shown in blue) is the Clifford torus while the subset over the line $\{u=v\}$ (shown in green) is symplectomorphic to $\Sigma_{(1,1),1}^{\mathbf{n}}$ with $\mathbf{n}=(1,1)$.[]{data-label="fig:moment_polytope"}](moment_polytope "fig:")
In the case $n > 2,$ the subset $\overline{\Sigma} \subset {\mathbb{C}P}^n$ that we are interested in is the quotient of the real $(n+1)$-dimensional submanifold $$\Sigma \coloneqq \{ z(x_1,\ldots,x_n); \: z \in S^1 \subset {\mathbb{C}}^*, x_i \in {\mathbb{R}}\} \cap D^{2n}$$ under the symplectic reduction $D^n \to {\mathbb{C}P}^n$ along the boundary $S^{2n-1}=\partial D^{2n}.$ Again the characteristic distribution are the tangencies to the $S^{n-1}$-fibres of the symplectic Lefschetz fibration $z_1^2+\ldots+z_n^2$ restricted to $\Sigma.$ Observe that there is a similar description in the case $n=2$ as well which is equivalent to the previous one after a suitable coordinate change.
The Chekanov–Eliashberg algebra
-------------------------------
Here we give a brief recollection of the Chekanov–Eliashberg algebra in the contact manifold $({\mathbb{C}}^n \times {\mathbb{R}},dz-ydx)$ as developed in [@LegendrianContactPxR]. More precisely, the algebraic formalism from [@KnotContHom] will be used (called the “fully noncommutative Legendrian DGA”) where the Novikov coefficients do not commute with the Reeb chord generators; also c.f. [@Noncomm]. For tori, this DGA computes partially wrapped Floer homology where the Legendrian is used as a stop [@EkholmLekili].
Let $\Lambda \subset {\mathbb{C}}^n \times {\mathbb{R}}$ be a closed Legendrian submanifold with a set $\mathcal{Q}$ of Reeb chords, which are assumed to be finite. Denote by $R \coloneqq {\mathbb{F}}[H_1(\Lambda)]$ the group ring of $H_1(\Lambda)$ over the field ${\mathbb{F}}$; there is also a weaker version of the invariant where we take $R \coloneqq {\mathbb{F}}.$ We can thus consider the free graded $R$-bimodule $A$ generated by $\mathcal{Q},$ where the grading is induced by the Conley–Zehnder index as in [@LegendrianContactPxR]. The underlying unital algebra of the Chekanov–Eliashberg DGA in our setting is the tensor ring $$\mathcal{A}(\Lambda) \coloneqq \bigoplus_{k \ge 0} A^{\otimes_R k}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
& A^{\otimes_R 0}=R,\\
& A^{\otimes_R k} \coloneqq \underbrace{A \otimes_R \cdots \otimes_R A}_k, \:\: k \ge 1,\end{aligned}$$ all are $R$-bimodules. The contributions from the homotopy classes of the pseudoholomorphic discs in the definition of the differential $\partial$ is then determined by auxiliary choices of *capping paths* from each of the two endpoints of every Reeb chord to a fixed based point $\star \in \Lambda.$ We refer to [@KnotContHom; @Noncomm] for more details.
Recall that an [**augmentation**]{} is a unital DGA-morphism $$\varepsilon \colon \mathcal{A}(\Lambda) \to {\mathbb{F}}$$ which thus satisfies $\varepsilon \circ \partial=0.$ Here we will only consider [**graded augmentations**]{} which by definition vanish on all generators in nonzero degrees. Observe that an augmentation restricts to a unital algebra map $$\varepsilon \colon {\mathbb{F}}[H_1(\Lambda)] \to {\mathbb{F}},$$ which can be identified with a local system in ${\mathbb{F}}$ when $\pi_1(\Lambda)$ is abelian. Following [@FramedKnotContactHomology] we define the [**augmentation variety**]{} to be the Zariski closure of the set of points in ${\operatorname}{Sp}({\mathbb{F}}[H_1(\Lambda)]),$ i.e. unital ${\mathbb{F}}$-algebra maps ${\mathbb{F}}[H_1(\Lambda)] \to {\mathbb{C}},$ which extend to an augmentation via the canonical inclusion ${\mathbb{F}}[H_1(\Lambda)] \subset \mathcal{A}(\Lambda).$
Given a pair of augmentations, Bourgeois and Chantraine defined the [**bilinearised Legendrian contact homology**]{} in [@BilinearisedLCH], which is a chain complex with underlying vector space $\mathcal{Q}^{{\mathbb{F}}}.$ In the setting of the fully noncommutative Legendrian DGA we refer to [@Noncomm] for more details.
Lagrangian cobordisms and subloose Legendrian submanifolds {#sec:sublfex}
----------------------------------------------------------
The class of loose Legendrian submanifolds of dimension two and more was introduced by Murphy in [@LooseLegendrianEmbeddings]. By definition a Legendrian is loose if one can find a so-called *loose chart*, which is a contact Darboux ball where the Legendrian is in a particular position. In the aforementioned article an h-principle was established for this class of Legendrians, which implies that their classification up to Legendrian isotopy is determined by their formal Legendrian isotopy classes.
The Chekanov–Eliashberg algebra of a loose Legendrian can be computed, in some suitable standard model, to be acyclic. This is equivalent to the unit being a boundary. Note that an acyclic DGA admits no augmentations.
We now describe a loose chart that is well-behaved with respect to the restricted Lefschetz fibration $f \colon \Sigma \to \dot{D}^2_{1/2}$ given in Section \[sec:lefschetz\]. Consider a Legendrian inside $(S^{2n+1},\alpha_{{\operatorname}{st}})$ whose Lagrangian projection in ${\mathbb{C}P}^n$ has the following description. Inside some $f^{-1}(U) \subset \Sigma$ for an open domain $U \subset \dot{D}^2_{1/2}$ with smooth boundary, the projection of $\Lambda \cap f^{-1}(U)$ under $f$ is a single arc $\gamma$ intersecting $\partial U$ transversely in two points, where this arc moreover has a single transverse self-intersection; see Figure \[fig:loose\]. Let $A \subset U \setminus \gamma$ be the connected component which is bounded in ${\mathbb{C}}\setminus \gamma$ while $B \subset U \setminus \gamma$ is the connected component which is adjacent to $A$ only at the double-point of $\gamma$; again c.f. Figure \[fig:loose\].
\[lem:loose\] If the $(1/2)dr\wedge d\theta$-area of $A$ is strictly smaller than that of $B,$ then we can assume that $A$ is arbitrarily small after a compactly supported Legendrian isotopy supported inside $f^{-1}(U) \subset \Sigma.$ In this case, $\Lambda$ is moreover loose.
The compactly supported Legendrian isotopy is readily constructed explicitly as the lifts of $f^{-1}(\gamma_t)$ for a suitable deformation $\gamma_t$ of the curve $\gamma_0=\gamma.$
After a suitable such isotopy one can then show that there exists a neighbourhood of the form $$(D_\epsilon T^*S^{n-1} \times [-\epsilon,\epsilon]^3,-pdq-ydx+dz) \hookrightarrow (S^{2n+1},\alpha_{{\operatorname}{st}})$$ in which the Legendrian coincides with $0_{S^n} \times \Lambda_{{\operatorname}{stab}},$ for a stabilised Legendrian arc $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{stab}} \subset ([-\epsilon,\epsilon]^3,dz-ydx).$ I.e. the Legendrian coincides with the $S^{n-1}$-spun of a stabilised Legendrian arc in some neighbourhood, which implies looseness [@Endocobordism].
$x$ at 195 92 $y$ at 92 198 $U$ at 73 140 $\color{blue}\gamma$ at 82 108 $B$ at 65 112 $A$ at 44 127 ![A loose chart described by using the standard Lefschetz fibration, in the sense that $f(\Lambda)=\gamma$ is an arc with a single self-intersection. The area of the region $A$ must be greater than the area of the region $B.$[]{data-label="fig:loose"}](loose "fig:")
Given two closed Legendrian submanifolds $\Lambda_{-}$ and $\Lambda_{+}$ of a contact manifold $(M,\alpha)$. An [**exact Lagrangian cobordism from $\Lambda_-$ to $\Lambda_+$**]{} is a properly embedded submanifold $L \subset ({\mathbb{R}}\times M, d(e^t \alpha))$ in the symplectisation such that for some $T>0$
- $L\cap (- \infty, -T) \times M= (-\infty, -T)\times \Lambda_{-}$ and $L\cap (T, +\infty)\times M = (T,+\infty)\times \Lambda_{+}$,
- $L \cap [-T,T] \times M$ is compact.
- there is a function $f_L\in C^{\infty}(L)$ such that
- $e^{t}\alpha|_{TL} = df_L$,
- $f_L|_{(-\infty,-T)\times \Lambda_{-}}$, $f_L|_{(T,+\infty)\times \Lambda_{+}}$ are constant functions.
We call $(T,+\infty)\times \Lambda_+$ and $(-\infty,-T) \times \Lambda_-$ the [**positive end**]{} and the [**negative end**]{} of $L$, respectively.
Recall the fact established in [@RationalSFT] that an exact Lagrangian cobordism from $\Lambda_-$ to $\Lambda_+$ induced a unital DGA morphism $$\Phi \colon (\mathcal{A}(\Lambda_+),\partial_+) \to (\mathcal{A}(\Lambda_-),\partial_-)$$ with the following caveat: the Novikov “coefficients” from the cobordism must be used in the definition of both Chekanov–Eliashberg algebras. In particular, note that an augmentation of $\Lambda_-$ can be *pulled back* to an augmentation of $\Lambda_+$ (again under the above caveat concerning the coefficients used). This means that an exact Lagrangian [**filling**]{} of $\Lambda,$ i.e. an exact cobordism with $\Lambda_-=\emptyset$ and $\Lambda_+=\Lambda,$ induces an augmentation of $\mathcal{A}(\Lambda)$ with coefficients in $R={\mathbb{F}}.$
\[def:subflex\] A Legendrian submanifold $\Lambda$ is said to be [**subloose**]{} if there exists an exact Lagrangian cobordism from $\Lambda$ to a loose Legendrian submanifold.
Observe that according to the definition of a subloose Legendrian, every loose Legendrian submanifold is subloose (taking a trivial exact Lagrangian cobordism ${\mathbb{R}}\times \Lambda$ of a loose Legendrian $\Lambda$, we see that $\Lambda$ is subloose).
\[sub-looseacyclic\] Any subloose Legendrian has an acyclic Chekanov–Eliashberg algebra *without* Novikov coefficients, i.e. when we take $R={\mathbb{F}}.$ In particular, it admits no exact Lagrangian filling.
The exact Lagrangian cobordism induces a DGA morphism from the trivial ring to the homology of the Chekanov–Eliashberg algebra of the subloose Legendrian. (Here it is important that we do not use Novikov coefficients.) The result then follows from the algebraic fact: if a given ring admits a unital map from the trivial ring (i.e. for which $1=0$) then the former ring is trivial as well.
In Section \[sec:subflex\] we show that the Legendrian tori $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Cl}}$ and $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Ch}}$ both are subloose. This, however, does not mean that their Chekanov–Eliashberg algebras are uninteresting. As computed in Section \[sec:dga\], they even admit augmentations when Novikov coefficients are used. (While they a priori must have acyclic DGAs without Novikov coefficients by Proposition \[sub-looseacyclic\].)
Canonical Bohr–Sommerfeld covers {#sec:bscovers}
================================
In this section we present some fairly general considerations on how to obtain canonically defined Bohr–Sommerfeld covers from rational Lagrangian embeddings, and how to compute the Maslov classes of their lifts. Theorem \[thm:bscovers\] then follows as a special case of this. Here we assume that $(E,\alpha)$ is a given prequantisation bundle on $(M,\omega)$; when talking about Bohr–Sommerfeld Lagrangians it is with respect to this choice of bundle.
Bohr–Sommerfeld covers
----------------------
Any Lagrangian submanifold whose symplectic action class satisfies $$\label{eq:k}
[\omega] \in \frac{\pi}{k}\cdot{\operatorname{im}}(H^2(M,L,{\mathbb{Z}}) \to H^2(M,L,{\mathbb{R}}))$$ for some $k =1, 2,3,\ldots,$ admits a canonical $k$–fold cover which is a Bohr–Sommerfeld Lagrangian immersion. Here we describe the construction.
For simplicity we now assume that $\pi_1(L)=H_1(L,{\mathbb{Z}})$ is abelian and that $H_1(M,{\mathbb{Z}})=0$. The symplectic action class $\sigma \colon H_2(M,L,{\mathbb{Z}}) \to {\mathbb{R}}$ descends to a well-defined morphism $$\overline{\sigma} \colon H_1(L,{\mathbb{Z}}) \to \left(\frac{\pi}{k}\cdot {\mathbb{Z}}\right)/(\pi\cdot {\mathbb{Z}}) \cong {\mathbb{Z}}_k,$$ which we assume is surjective.
Consider the subgroup $\ker \overline{\sigma} \subset H_1(L,{\mathbb{Z}})$ and the corresponding $k$-fold cover $\widetilde{L} \to L \subset M$, which can be considered as a Lagrangian immersion $\widetilde{L} \looparrowright (M,\omega).$
In the case when $k = 1,2,\ldots$ is chosen to be *minimal* with the property that Equation is satisfied, then we will call $\widetilde{L}$ the [**canonical Bohr–Sommerfeld cover of $L$.**]{}
From Lemma \[lem:prequant\], together with the main theorem of [@LiftingImmersions] (in order to ensure embeddedness), we deduce that:
\[prop:lift\] Assume that $L$ is a closed embedded Lagrangian submanifold of $(M,\omega)$ that satisfies Equation . Its canonical $k$-fold Bohr–Sommerfeld cover $\widetilde{L} \looparrowright (M,\omega)$ then admits an embedded Legendrian lift $\Lambda_{\widetilde{L}} \hookrightarrow (E,\alpha).$
Computing the Maslov class and degrees {#sec:maslov}
--------------------------------------
In order to compute the Maslov class of a Legendrian lift produced by Proposition \[prop:lift\] above we use the following general result. Here we assume that the Chern class of the contact manifold $(E,\alpha)$ vanishes. This is the case for both the contact sphere and unit cotangent bundles. Further we assume that $\pi_1(M)=0=\pi_1(E),$ which again is the case for the contact spheres as well as for unit cotangent bundles of spheres of dimension at least three. Now consider a Bohr–Sommerfeld immersion $\iota \colon L \looparrowright (M,\omega)$ together with a Legendrian lift $\Lambda \subset (E,\alpha).$
Recall the definition of the Bott version of the Conley–Zehnder index $\mu(\gamma)$ of a periodic Reeb orbit from [@RobbinSalamon] (c.f. Remark 5.4 in the same) and [@Bourgeois:Bott], which also is called the “Maslov index.” Its significance is as follows: the integer $\mu(\gamma)$ of a periodic Reeb orbit in $\gamma$ of $(E,\alpha)$ which is non-degenerate in the Bott sense is equal to the expected dimension of the moduli space of pseudoholomorphic planes inside the symplectisation $({\mathbb{R}}\times E,d(e^t\alpha))$ that are asymptotic to the given orbit, for an almost complex structure which is cylindrical with respect to $\alpha.$
When $\gamma$ is the periodic Reeb orbit of minimal period $\pi$ inside $(S^{2n+1},\alpha_{{\operatorname}{st}})$ and $UT^*S^n$ we compute $\mu(\gamma)=2n$ and $\mu(\gamma)=2(n-1),$ respectively. For the latter computation, recall that $UT^*S^n$ is the prequantisation of a projective conic of complex dimension $n-1,$ and that the dimension of the aforementioned moduli space of planes coincides with the dimension of lines inside ${\mathbb{C}P}^{n+1}$ that are contained inside an affine conic of dimension $2n$ and which are asymptotic to a fixed point at the projective conic at infinity.
Let $A \in H_2(M,\iota(L))$ be a relative cycle with boundary in class $\iota_*(\eta)$ for some $\eta \in H_1(L).$ The Maslov classes of $L$ and its Legendrian lift $\Lambda \subset (E,\alpha)$ are related by the formula $$\mu_M(A)=\mu_E(\eta)+\frac{\mu(\gamma)}{\pi}\int_A\omega$$ where $\mu(\gamma)$ denotes the Bott version of the Conley–Zehnder index of a Reeb orbit of $\alpha$ of smallest period (this period is $\pi$ with our convention).
We start by noting that both the determinant bundle of $TM$ and the line bundle $E$ become trivial over the chain $A.$
The restriction to the boundary of $A$ of the Legendrian lift of $L$ is a section that has winding number $w=\frac{1}{\pi}\int_A\omega$ proportional to the curvature in this trivialisation of $E.$ In order to lift the chain $A$ to $E$ with boundary on $\Lambda$ we must thus first remove a number $w$ of points on the chain $A,$ and make it into a chain with a number $w$ of additional boundary component on Reeb orbits of minimal period on $(E,\alpha)$ parametrised by the backwards Reeb flow.
The statement finally follows from the fact that the trivialisations of along the Reeb orbit induced by a frame of $TM$ at the point beings its projection, and the trivialisation induced by a capping disc inside $E$ have determinant lines that differ by precisely by the winding number $\mu(\gamma).$
Finally we compute the degree of the Reeb chords on the above Legendrian lift. Since the prequantisation space is foliated by Reeb chords for the prequantisation form, this is of course a very degenerate situation. In addition, since the projection of the Legendrian has an embedded image, all Reeb chords on the Legendrian $\Lambda$ automatically come in $\dim \Lambda$-dimensional Bott families. By the (Bott) version of the degree of such a Reeb chord we mean the expected dimension of a pseudoholomorphic half-plane inside the symplectisation $({\mathbb{R}}\times E,d(e^t\alpha))$ that has boundary on ${\mathbb{R}}\times \Lambda$ and which is asymptotic to a fixed orbit inside the Bott family, where the almost complex structure is cylindrical.
Denote by $\Lambda \subset (E,\alpha)$ a Legendrian lift of the canonical $k$-fold Bohr–Sommerfeld cover of a monotone Lagrangian embedding in $(M^{2n},\omega).$ The degree of a Reeb chord on $\Lambda$ which has length $l\pi/k,$ $l \in {\mathbb{N}},$ is equal to $-2+\mu+1,$ where $\mu$ is the Maslov index of a disc $D$ inside $M$ with boundary on $L$ and of symplectic area $\int_D\omega=l\pi/k.$
Assume the existence of a disc $D$ with the given symplectic area $l\pi/k.$ Fix a point ${\mathrm{pt}}\in L$ through which $\partial D$ is passing, and now consider $D$ as a half-plane (i.e. a punctured disc) with boundary on $L.$ By curvature considerations it thus follows that there is a trivialisation of $E$ along the half-plane in which $\Lambda$ is a constant section over the boundary, and such that the constant section over the puncture parametrises the given Reeb chord of length $l\pi/k$ over the point ${\mathrm{pt}}.$
In other words, the disc $D$ lifts to a half-plane with boundary on ${\mathbb{R}}\times \Lambda$ inside the symplectisation, such that it has a positive puncture asymptotic to the Reeb chord on $\Lambda$ of length $l\pi/k$ under consideration. It thus remains to compute the expected dimension of the pseudoholomorphic half-planes in this class, with the asymptotic constraint to the same Reeb chord.
Recall that $-2+\mu$ is the expected dimensions of pseudoholomorphic discs in $M$ in the class under consideration with boundary on $L$ and a single boundary-point constraint at ${\mathrm{pt}}\in L$; see e.g. [@Auroux06]. The expected dimension of the lift of the disc to the symplectisation can be seen to be equal to $-2+\mu+1,$ where the additional degree of freedom is due to the presence of the symmetry by translations in the symplectisation. To that end, one must again use the properties of the trivialisation of $E$ along $D$ as established in the first paragraph of the proof.
Some concrete Lagrangian tori and their lifts {#sec:examples}
=============================================
It is now time to restrict attention to some particular examples of Legendrian tori produced by Proposition \[prop:lift\] as lifts of canonical Bohr–Sommerfeld covers.
Lifts of monotone tori in the quadric surface
---------------------------------------------
The quadric surface is cut out by the polynomial equation $\overline{\{z_1^2+z_2^2+z_3^2=1\}} \subset {\mathbb{C}P}^3$. We endow this variety with the restriction of the Fubini–Study symplectic form, which descends to the standard monotone symplectic form $$(\overline{\{z_1^2+z_2^2+z_3^2=1\}}, \omega_{{\operatorname}{FS}}) \cong ({\mathbb{C}P}^1 \times {\mathbb{C}P}^1,\omega_{{\mathbb{C}P}^1} \oplus \omega_{{\mathbb{C}P}^1}))$$ under a suitable identification. The affine part of this variety $\{z_1^2+z_2^2+z_3^2=1\} \subset
{\mathbb{C}}^3$ is symplectomorphic to an open subset $(DT^*S^2,d(pdq))$ of the cotangent bundle. We consider the prequantisation space $E$ which is the unit cotangent bundle $(E.\alpha)=(UT^*S^3,pdq)$ of the round three-sphere of radius $1/2.$ This bundle can be identified with the $S^1$-bundle corresponding to the complex line-bundle $\mathcal{O}(-1,-1)$ over the conic.
Recall that a Lagrangian is said to be [**monotone**]{} if its symplectic action class is a nonnegative multiple of its Maslov class. Any monotone Lagrangian torus inside ${\mathbb{C}P}^1 \times {\mathbb{C}P}^1$ thus has a symplectic action class which lives inside $$\frac{\pi}{2}\cdot{\operatorname{im}}(H^2({\mathbb{C}P}^1 \times {\mathbb{C}P}^1,L,{\mathbb{Z}}) \to H^2({\mathbb{C}P}^1 \times {\mathbb{C}P}^1,L,{\mathbb{R}})).$$ In fact, the symplectic action class cannot be an integer multiple of $\pi$ by the result [@CM17 Theorem 1.21] by Cieliebak–Mohnke.
The most basic example is the monotone product torus $S^1 \times S^1 \subset
{\mathbb{C}P}^1 \times {\mathbb{C}P}^1,$ which we now proceed to direct our attention to. (This torus also goes under the name of “the Clifford torus,” but in order to avoid confusion we will not call it by that.)
Recall that given a knot $K$ in $S^3$, one can define the conormal lift of it in the following way. First one takes $L_K$ defined by $$L_K=\{(q,p)\ | \ q\in K, \langle p,v \rangle=0\ \mbox{for all}\ v\in T_qK\}\subset T^{\ast}S^3.$$ It is a standard exercise to check that $L_K$ is a Lagrangian submanifold of $T^{\ast}S^3$. Then one takes the unit cotangent bundle $UT^{\ast} S^3$ of unit covectors of $S^3$ with respect to some metric. The conormal lift $\Lambda_K$ is given by $\Lambda_K=L_K\cap UT^{\ast} S^3$, and it is a Legendrian torus in $UT^{\ast} S^3$.
\[thm:unknot\] Under the identification of $E$ with $(UT^*S^3,pdq)$ the Legendrian lift of the twice covered monotone product torus is Legendrian isotopic to the conormal lift of the unknot.
The monotone product torus $S^1 \times S^1 \subset {\mathbb{C}P}^1 \times {\mathbb{C}P}^1$ given as the product of equators is invariant under the standard Hamiltonian ${\mathbb{T}}^2$-action on the conic (which is toric). One can readily check that this ${\mathbb{T}}^2$-action lifts to strict contactomorphisms of the prequantisation space, and that the Legendrian lift of the canonical Bohr–Sommerfeld cover is invariant under the latter ${\mathbb{T}}^2$-action.
From the point of view of $UT^*S^3,$ this ${\mathbb{T}}^2$-action is induced by lifting the restriction to $S^3$ of the standard toric ${\mathbb{T}}^2$-action on ${\mathbb{C}}^2$ to the cotangent bundle. (Observe that this ${\mathbb{T}}^2$-action is by isometries on the round three-sphere.) We refer to e.g. [@ContactToric Section 6.1] for a careful treatment of this contact toric structure on $UT^*S^3.$ It follows that any Legendrian which is invariant under this ${\mathbb{T}}^2$-action must thus live above a (possibly degenerate) torus in the base of the form $S^1_a \times S^1_b \subset S^3$ with $a^2+b^2=1.$ In other words, the Legendrian lift of the Bohr–Sommerfeld cover as considered is the conormal lift of one of these tori.
Finally, since the one-sided conormal lifts of all these tori can be seen to be Legendrian isotopic to the conormal lift of an unknot $S^1_1 \times \{0\} \subset S^3$ by a suitable application of the Reeb flow induced by the round metric, the result now follows.
Alternatively, the result can be proven following the same recipe as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:frontsoflifts\] below in Section \[sec:frontsoflifts\]. There the Legendrian isotopy is obtained by describing a homotopy of Bohr–Sommerfeld Lagrangian immersions via their images under a Lefschetz fibration. In this case one then uses the Lefschetz fibration which on the affine part $\{z_1^2+z_2^2+z_3^2=1\} \subset {\mathbb{C}}^3$ of the conic is equal to the restriction of $(z_1,z_2,z_3) \mapsto z_3.$ In fact, the present situation is significantly simpler compared to the situation in Theorem \[thm:frontsoflifts\], due to the fact that this defines a Lefschetz fibration on the full conic, and not just its affine part. In order to identify the conormal lift of the unknot, we refer to [@KnotContHom], where it is shown that a suitable representative has a Lagrangian projection inside the conic that lives above an immersed figure-8 curve that encircles both critical values in the Lefschetz fibration. The proof below instead uses a more direct approach.
There are infinitely many monotone Lagrangian tori inside the quadric surface by a result [@Vianna17] due to Vianna. We do not know if any other of these tori have a lift that is isotopic to the conormal lift of a smooth knot.
In any case, the above Legendrian lift of the product torus is not subloose since the conormal lift of the unknot admits an exact Lagrangian filling inside $(T^*S^3,d(pdq))$; e.g. the Lagrangian conormal of the knot. In fact, since the canonical Bohr–Sommerfeld covers of monotone Lagrangians in the conic are *two*-fold covers, it is not difficult to show the following.
\[prp:monotonefilling\] Any monotone Lagrangian torus $L \subset ({\mathbb{C}P}^1\times{\mathbb{C}P}^1,\omega_{{\operatorname}{FS}}\oplus\omega_{{\operatorname}{FS}})$ has a two-fold canonical Bohr–Sommerfeld cover whose Legendrian lift admits a monotone Lagrangian filling inside the complex line bundle $\mathcal{O}(-1,-1)$ which is contained in the preimage of $L$ under the bundle projection.
We believe that these monotone Lagrangian fillings also are obstructions to being subloose.
Lifts of monotone tori in the projective plane {#sec:examples-plane}
----------------------------------------------
A monotone Lagrangian torus $L$ inside the projective plane has a symplectic action class which lives inside $$\frac{\pi}{3}\cdot{\operatorname{im}}(H^2({\mathbb{C}P}^2,L,{\mathbb{Z}}) \to H^2({\mathbb{C}P}^2,L,{\mathbb{R}})).$$ By Theorem \[noembeddedBSLagr\] this symplectic action class is not an integer multiple of $\pi.$ In other words, an appropriate three-fold cover of any monotone Lagrangian torus is Bohr–Sommerfeld for the prequantisation space $$S^1 \to S^5 \to {\mathbb{C}P}^2.$$
The first two well-known examples of monotone Lagrangian tori are the Clifford and the Chekanov torus [@Ch98; @TwistTori]. In terms of the fibration $$f \colon \Sigma \to \dot{D}^2_{1/2}$$ from Section \[sec:lefschetz\], i.e. the restriction of the Lefschetz fibration $(z_1,z_2) \mapsto z_1 \cdot z_2$ to the subset $\Sigma \subset {\mathbb{C}P}^2,$ these two tori have the following descriptions.
- The [**Clifford torus**]{} is the preimage of an embedded closed curve in $(\dot{D}^2_{1/2},(1/2)d(r\,d\theta))$ of symplectic area $\pi/3$ which *encircles* the origin; while
- The [**Chekanov torus**]{} is the preimage of an embedded closed curve in $(\dot{D}^2_{1/2},(1/2)d(r\,d\theta))$ of symplectic area $\pi/3$ which does *not* encircle the origin.
See Lemma \[lem:pullback\] for more details concerning the area considerations.
The Legendrian lift of the Bohr–Sommerfeld cover of the Clifford torus is already well studied, since it is the link of the singularity of the Harvey–Lawson cone [@HarveyLawson]. Its contact topology was been studied by Nadler [@Nadler], Treumann–Zaslow [@TreumannZaslow], as well as Baldrige–McCarthy–Vela-Vick [@LiftingImmersions]. By Theorem \[thm:frontsoflifts\] below, this torus is, in addition, Legendrian isotopic to the “knotted” Legendrian torus considered in [@KnottedLegendrianSurface] by the first author.
\[thm:frontsoflifts\] The threefold Bohr–Sommerfeld coverings of the Clifford and Chekanov tori in ${\mathbb{C}P}^2$ have Legendrian lifts in the prequantisation space $S^5\to{\mathbb{C}P}^2$ that are Legendrian isotopic into a Darboux ball with front projections as shown in Figures \[fig:Clifford\] and \[fig:Chekanov\].
$x$ at -5 11 $y$ at 72 40 $z$ at 25 90 $\color{red}a$ at 279 43 $\color{red}b$ at 205 92 $\color{red}c$ at 213 91 $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Ch}}$ at 258 83 ![Front projection of the Legendrian lift of the threefold Bohr–Sommerfeld cover of the Chekanov torus placed inside a Darboux ball. There are three Bott $S^1$-families of Reeb chords.[]{data-label="fig:Chekanov"}](LegTorusChekanov "fig:")
$x$ at 180 182 $x$ at 387 182 $y$ at 291 280 $y$ at 83 280 $x$ at 132 29 $x$ at 340 29 $y$ at 84 80 $y$ at 292 80 ![Top left: the image under $f \colon \Sigma \to \dot{D}^2_{1/2}$ of a Lagrangian cylinder inside $\overline{\Sigma}.$ Top right: the cylinder after a Lagrangian regular homotopy that slides it over the embedded circle $S_{(1,1),1}^{(1,1)} \subset \overline{\Sigma}$ (which lives over the boundary of $\dot{D}^2_{1/2}$ as shown in red). The bottom pictures show the respective intersection of the Lagrangian in a fibre of the normal bundle $D_\epsilon^2 \times S_{(1,1),1}^{(1,1)} \to S_{(1,1),1}^{(1,1)}$ inside $\overline{\Sigma}.$[]{data-label="fig:overinfinity"}](overinfinity "fig:")
$\frac{\pi}{3}$ at 80 310 $\frac{\pi}{6}$ at 63 353 $\frac{\pi}{6}-\epsilon$ at 288 356 $\frac{\pi}{3}+\epsilon$ at 299 306 $\frac{\pi}{10}$ at 305 90 $\frac{\pi}{10}$ at 337 100 $x$ at 402 296 $x$ at 402 87 $x$ at 194 87 $x$ at 194 296 $y$ at 297 403 $y$ at 297 193 $y$ at 89 403 $y$ at 89 193 $\color{blue}\gamma_{{\operatorname}{Cl}}$ at 318 137 ![The sequence of curves depicts the projection to $\dot{D}^2_{1/2}$ of a homotopy of Bohr–Sommerfeld immersions contained inside $\overline{\Sigma}\subset {\mathbb{C}P}^2$ under the fibration$f \colon \Sigma \to \dot{D}^2_{1/2}.$ The numbers denote approximate symplectic areas of the regions with respect to the symplectic form from Lemma \[lem:pullback\], for which $\dot{D}^2_{1/2}$ has total area $\pi/2.$[]{data-label="fig:homotopy-clifford"}](homotopy-clifford "fig:")
$\frac{\pi}{3}$ at 103 320 $\frac{\pi}{6}$ at 50 307 $\frac{\pi}{10}$ at 309 71 $\frac{\pi}{10}$ at 332 92 $x$ at 402 296 $x$ at 402 87 $x$ at 194 87 $x$ at 194 296 $y$ at 297 403 $y$ at 297 193 $y$ at 89 403 $y$ at 89 193 $\color{blue}\gamma_{{\operatorname}{Ch}}$ at 320 126 ![A homotopy of Bohr–Sommerfeld immersions of tori inside $\overline{\Sigma}$ which starts at the canonical threefold Bohr–Sommerfeld cover of the Chekanov torus and ends at the Lagrangian projection of $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Ch}}.$ The curves depict the projections under the fibration $f \colon \Sigma \to \dot{D}^2_{1/2}.$[]{data-label="fig:homotopy-chekanov"}](homotopy-chekanov "fig:")
Proof of Theorem \[thm:frontsoflifts\] {#sec:frontsoflifts}
--------------------------------------
Both the Clifford and Chekanov tori live inside the subset $\overline{\Sigma} \subset {\mathbb{C}P}^2$ described in Section \[sec:lefschetz\], and they project to simple closed curves under the Lefschetz fibration $f \colon \Sigma \to \dot{D}^2_{1/2}$ described in the same; the former encircles the origin, while the latter does not. The sought Legendrian isotopies will be constructed inside the prequantisation bundle above the same subset $\overline{\Sigma} \subset {\mathbb{C}P}^2$; we describe the corresponding Lagrangian projection, which thus is a Lagrangian regular homotopy of Bohr–Sommerfeld immersions inside the same. While doing this one must of course also take precaution so that no self-intersections arise in the Legendrian lifts.
Recall that any immersed Lagrangian torus inside $\Sigma$ projects to an immersed closed curve inside $\dot{D}^2_{1/2}$ under the fibration $f$ by Lemma \[lem:char\], and that conversely preimages of such curves are Lagrangian immersions. The sought regular homotopies are described in Figures \[fig:homotopy-clifford\] and \[fig:homotopy-chekanov\], respectively, by regular homotopies of immersed curves inside $\dot{D}^2_{1/2},$ with one caveat: at one moment we must let our Lagrangian immersion pass through the intersection $S_{(1,1),1}^{(1,1)}$ of the line at infinity of ${\mathbb{C}P}^2$ and $\overline{\Sigma}.$ In that region $f$ is no longer suitable for describing the Lagrangian, and we instead use Lemma \[lem:symmetry\]. We proceed with some more details.
We start on the top left in either of Figures \[fig:homotopy-clifford\] or \[fig:homotopy-chekanov\]. Here we see the threefold canonical Bohr–Sommerfeld covers of the respective monotone Lagrangian tori that have been generically perturbed inside the subset $\overline{\Sigma}$ through Lagrangian immersions.
Going from the top right projection to the bottom left projection we must let the Legendrian pass over the line at infinity of ${\mathbb{C}P}^2,$ i.e. the Lagrangian intersects $S_{(1,1),1}^{(1,1)} \subset \overline{\Sigma}.$ The fact that the Lefschetz fibration $(z_1,z_2) \mapsto z_1 \cdot z_2$ defined on ${\mathbb{C}}^2$ obtains a singular fibre (a twofold branched cover of the line at infinity) when extended to ${\mathbb{C}P}^2$ makes this move slightly complicated. Instead of using $f$ we therefore pass to the description given in Lemma \[lem:symmetry\] of a neighbourhood of the intersection $S_{(1,1),1}^{(1,1)}$ of the line at infinity and $\overline{\Sigma}$; see Figure \[fig:overinfinity\].
In the end we produce the Lagrangian projection living over the immersed curves $\gamma_{{\operatorname}{Ch}}$ and $\gamma_{{\operatorname}{Cl}}$ shown on the bottom right in Figures \[fig:homotopy-clifford\] and \[fig:homotopy-chekanov\], respectively. Note that these curves bound signed symplectic area equal to zero for the symplectic form on $\dot{D}^2_{1/2}$ from Lemma \[lem:pullback\]. Shrinking these curves are thus obviously a regular homotopy through exact, and hence Bohr–Sommerfeld, Lagrangian immersions inside ${\mathbb{C}}^2.$ Shrinking these curves sufficiently, the corresponding Legendrians end up inside a small contact Darboux ball and have front projections as shown in Figures \[fig:Clifford\] and \[fig:Chekanov\], respectively.
Computations of the Chekanov–Eliashberg algebras {#sec:dga}
================================================
For Legendrian surfaces inside the standard contact vector space $({\mathbb{R}}^5,dz-ydx)$ the full Chekanov–Eliashberg algebra as constructed in [@LegendrianContactPxR] can readily be computed by using Ekholm’s theory of gradient flow-trees [@MorseFlowTrees]. Here we compute this invariant for the Legendrian tori $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Cl}}$ and $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Ch}}$ when considered as Legendrian submanifolds inside a strict contact Darboux ball. (The DGA inside the full $(S^5,\alpha_{{\operatorname}{st}})$ is of a more complicated form with infinitely many generators, but up to quasi-isomorphism we should get the same result; c.f. [@Refined].)
The Chekanov–Eliashberg algebra computed in a contact Darboux ball is a priori a Legendrian invariant of the Legendrian also when considered inside the entire contact sphere. Namely, any Legendrian isotopy can be assumed to miss a generic point after a small perturbation. By [@Geiges Proposition 2.1.8] it may thus be assumed to actually be confined to the contact Darboux ball itself.
We have found representatives for the Legendrians $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Cl}}$ and $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Ch}}$ that live in a Darboux ball $({\mathbb{C}}^2 \times {\mathbb{R}},dz-ydx)$ and which moreover satisfy a rotational symmetry around the $z$-axis. This is equivalent to the fact that they live inside $\Sigma \subset {\mathbb{C}}^2$ as considered in Section \[sec:lefschetz\], and can thus be described by their projections under $f \colon \Sigma \to \dot{D}^2_{1/2}.$ Their projections are the closed immersed curves $\gamma_{{\operatorname}{Cl}}$ and $\gamma_{{\operatorname}{Ch}} \subset {\mathbb{C}}^*$ shown at the bottom right in Figures \[fig:homotopy-clifford\] and \[fig:homotopy-chekanov\], respectively. This symmetry will significantly facilitate the computations of their Chekanov–Eliashberg algebras.
In the case when the origin is contained in the unbounded component of ${\mathbb{C}}\setminus \gamma,$ then a Legendrian satisfying the above symmetry is the so-called $S^1$-spun of the Legendrian knot with Lagrangian projection $\gamma \subset {\mathbb{C}}$; see [@EkholmKalman] for the definition, where Ekholm–Kálmán moreover give a description of the full Chekanov–Eliashberg algebra of such a Legendrian torus entirely in terms of the Chekanov–Eliashberg algebra of the knot alone. In practice, this means that we can compute the differential of the torus simply by counting polygons on $\gamma$ in ${\mathbb{C}}.$
The case considered here is not the $S^1$-spun but rather the so-called *symmetric* $S^1$-spun of a Legendrian knot. Computing the full DGA in this case is slightly harder, but it can be done e.g. using the cellular DGA by Rutherford–Sullivan [@CellularI; @CellularII] as done by Li [@Li Proposition 6.2] in a particular case. Here we only do a partial computation of the DGA of $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Ch}}$; we postpone the computation of the full DGA to future work.
Generators and grading {#sec:computing}
----------------------
Let $\gamma \subset {\mathbb{C}}^*$ be a generic immersion of a closed curve which is the image of a Legendrian torus $\Lambda \subset ({\mathbb{C}}^2 \times {\mathbb{R}},dz-ydx)$ under the above standard Lefschetz fibration. The Legendrian condition translates to an exactness property of this curve (i.e. that it bounds zero symplectic area); c.f. Lemma \[lem:pullback\] for the relevant area form for that purpose.
The Chekanov–Eliashberg algebra of $\Lambda$ is the unital noncommutative DGA $(\mathcal{A}(\Lambda),\partial)$ freely generated by the Reeb chords of a generic perturbation of $\Lambda$ (in order to make all Reeb chords transverse) over the commutative group ring ${\mathbb{F}}[H_1(\Lambda)].$
*A choice of basis of $H_1(\Lambda)$:* We begin by pin-pointing a ${\mathbb{Z}}$-basis $\langle \mu,\lambda \rangle =H_1(\Lambda).$ This gives an identification ${\mathbb{F}}[H_1(\Lambda)] \cong {\mathbb{F}}[\mu^{\pm 1},\lambda^{\pm 1}]$ with the ring of Laurent polynomials in two variables.
First we take $\mu \in H_1(\Lambda)$ that is represented by (a suitably orientated) $S^1$-fibre of $\Lambda$ under the Lefschetz fibration. Such a curve can be taken to lie e.g. parallel to one of the circular cusp edges in the front projection of $\Lambda.$ Then we take $\lambda$ to be represented by a simple closed curve inside $\Lambda$ that projects to the curve in ${\mathbb{C}}$ (covered precisely once). Note that this choice of class is only well-defined up to an addition of $k \mu,$ $k \in {\mathbb{Z}}.$ Any such curve becomes a curve in the front projection of the Legendrian which traverses all the cusp edges and front-cone singularities. The ambiguity of the choice of $\lambda$ can be seen also here: lifting such a curve on the front to the Legendrian itself, the homotopy class depends precisely on a choice made at each cone-point (where the lift is ambiguous).
*The Reeb chords:* Closed Legendrians that satisfy the $S^1$-symmetry considered here never have transverse Reeb chords; the preimage of a double point in the base ${\mathbb{C}}$ of the Lefschetz fibration is always a *circle* of Reeb chords. In the case when the intersection point of the projection is a transverse double point, the circle of Reeb chords is still generic in the Bott sense. For a generic perturbation constructed by a Morse function on the Bott manifold (i.e. $S^1$) having precisely two critical points, each Bott manifold gives rise to precisely two Reeb chords $x$ and $\hat{x}$ corresponding to the minimum and maximum of the Morse function, respectively. The grading of these generators are then $|\hat{x}|=|x|+1$ and $|x|={\operatorname}{CZ}(x)-1,$ where ${\operatorname}{CZ}(x)$ moreover coincides with the Bott version of the Conley–Zehnder index for the corresponding $S^1$-family of Reeb chords. For a small generic perturbation we thus get precisely two Reeb chords $x$ and $\hat{x}$ for any double point of $\gamma.$ Moreover, the gradings of the Novikov parameters are given by their respective Maslov indices.
The following result allows us to compute the gradings entirely in terms of data on the projection $\gamma \subset {\mathbb{C}}.$
1. The Maslov index of $\mu$ vanishes, while the Maslov index of $\lambda$ is equal to twice the tangent winding number $\tau \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ of the closed curve $\gamma.$
2. The Conley–Zehnder index ${\operatorname}{CZ}(x)$ is equal to the Conley–Zehnder index of the corresponding transverse self-intersection of $\gamma \subset {\mathbb{C}}$ as defined for immersed curves in [@DiffGradedAlgebraLegLinks].
(1): The Maslov index of $\mu$ vanishes by an explicit computation e.g. using the formula in [@NonIsotopicLegendrianSubmanifolds Lemma 3.4]. To that end, observe that $\mu$ can be represented by an embedded path which is invariant under the $S^1$-symmetry and hence which traverses no cusp-edge in the front projection of the Legendrian. For the computation of the Maslov index of $\lambda$ we argue as follows.
It is clear that the Maslov index of $\lambda$ is computed by the formula $2\tau+cw$ for some universal constant $c \in {\mathbb{Z}},$ where $w$ is the total winding number of $\gamma$ around the origin. Indeed, this formula holds for the Lagrangian $f^{-1}(s+\gamma)$ over the translation $s+\gamma,$ $s > 0,$ of the curve to the right halfplane (and thus in particular satisfying $w=0$). To show that the same formula also holds for the initial Lagrangian $f^{-1}(\gamma),$ it suffices to compare the difference in Maslov index between the Lagrangians living over a vertical arc just to the right and just to the left of the origin, respectively. Since we claim that the contribution to the Maslov class is the same for both curves in this dimension, we conclude that $c=0$ as sought. (One can e.g. use the computation [@NonIsotopicLegendrianSubmanifolds Lemma 3.4] in terms of the front projection; the Lagrangian above the arc to the left is the front cone, whose generic resolution was described in [@KnotContHom Section 3.1] and [@KnottedLegendrianSurface] while the Lagrangian above the arc to the right is the $S^1$-spun of a single cusp edge; an arc from the top to the bottom thus in particular traverses precisely *one* cusp edge in downwards direction in either case.)
(2): In view of the considerations of the behaviour of the Maslov index in the previous paragraph, this is the same as the computation of the degrees of the Reeb chords on the $S^1$-spun of a Legendrian knot in terms of the degrees of the Reeb chords of the knot itself; see [@EkholmKalman].
$x_1$ at 196 45 $x_2$ at 143 97 $x_1$ at 91 45 $x_2$ at 38 97 ![The blue curve depicts the caustic of the front projection of a generic resolution of the front cone that involves four swallow-tail singularities. We also depict the two possibilities for a rigid partial gradient flow-tree that involves a single front-cone; the tree on the left has a single vertex being (an edge-vertex at the cusp edge), while the tree on the right has three vertices (one three-valent vertex of type $Y_1$ and two edges-vertices at two cusp-edges).[]{data-label="fig:coneres"}](coneres "fig:")
Computations for $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Cl}}$ {#sec:comp-cliff}
------------------------------------------------
The Chekanov–Eliashberg algebra $(\mathcal{A}(\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Cl}}),\partial)$ of $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Cl}} \subset ({\mathbb{R}}^5, \alpha_{st})$ was computed by the first author in [@KnottedLegendrianSurface]. Here we redo this computation in the present algebraic setting (in which the Novikov coefficients ${\mathbb{C}}[H_1(\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Cl}})]$ do not commute with the Reeb chord generators).
The $S^1$-symmetric version of $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Cl}}$ has a single $S^1$-Bott manifold of Reeb chords that correspond to the unique double point of the curve shown at bottom right in Figure \[fig:homotopy-clifford\]. A small generic perturbation of the $S^1$-symmetric front of $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Cl}}$ produces two generic chords $a$ and $\hat{a},$ where we compute $|\hat{a}|=|a|+1$ and $|a|=1.$
\[thm:dgacliff\] For the Lie group spin structure and suitable choices of capping paths and basis $\langle \mu,\lambda \rangle = H_1(\Lambda)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
& \partial a=\partial a = 1+\lambda(1+\mu),\\
& \partial \hat{a}=a-\mu a \mu^{-1}.
\end{aligned}$$ In particular, the augmentation variety of $(\mathcal{A}(\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Cl}}),\partial)$ is equal to the one-dimensional complex pair of pants $${\operatorname}{Sp}({\mathbb{C}}[\mu^{\pm1},\lambda^{\pm1}]/\langle 1+\lambda(1+\mu)\rangle)$$ and for two augmentations $\varepsilon_0, \varepsilon_1 \colon H_0(\mathcal{A}) \to {\mathbb{C}}$ the bilinearised Legendrian contact homology group satisfies $$LCH_*^{\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_1}(\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Cl}}) = \begin{cases} H_{*-1}(S^1;{\mathbb{C}}), & \varepsilon_0=\varepsilon_1, \\ 0, & \varepsilon_0 \neq \varepsilon_1.
\end{cases}$$
In [@KnottedLegendrianSurface] the differential $$\partial a = 1+\lambda(1+\mu)$$ was computed for some suitable (but unspecified) choice of spin structure (and choice of sign of the generator “$a$”), where the terms are in bijection with the rigid pseudoholomorphic discs with exactly one puncture. The term “1” corresponds to the rightmost immersed teardrop bounded by $\gamma_{{\operatorname}{Cl}}$ (c.f. Figure \[fig:homotopy-clifford\]), i.e. which does not contain the origin. The capping paths of $a$ are chosen to be the two curves in $\Lambda$ that correspond to the edge of this flow-tree, and the basepoint is thus located precisely at the cusp-edge. The remaining two terms both correspond to the immersed teardrop to the left bounded by $\gamma_{{\operatorname}{Cl}}$, i.e. that pass through the origin. After generically resolving the front-cone singularity as described in [@KnotContHom] or [@KnottedLegendrianSurface], these flow-trees flow towards the cone-point where they then proceed in either of the two manners shown in Figure \[fig:coneres\].
In order to show that the signs of all three discs are the same for the Lie group spin structure we argue as follows.
First, we claim that the discs counted by $\partial a$ which appears from the resolution shown on the left in Figure \[fig:coneres\] and the disc that corresponds to the term “$1$” both are counted with the same sign (and hence $+1$ without loss of generality). The claim follows by the computation of DGA for the $S^1$-spun of the standard unknot with a single Reeb chord, since the two aforementioned discs can be identified with the two discs that contribute to $\partial a'=1-\lambda$ for the unique generator $a'$ in degree one and the spin structure that extends over the solid torus in which $\lambda$ is a longitude (this is different from the Lie group spin structure along $\lambda$). To see the sign in the case of the $S^1$-spun of the unknot, note that the latter spin structure extends to the standard exact Lagrangian filling of the aforementioned $S^1$-spun by a solid torus in the symplectisation, in which the two discs become the endpoints of a one-dimensional moduli space of discs with boundary on the filling.
Second, we claim that the disc counted by $\partial a$ that corresponds to the term $\lambda\mu$ also is counted with the same sign as the previous discs. If not we would have $\partial a=1+\lambda(1+\mu)$ for the spin structure that extends to the exact Lagrangian cobordism to the loose unknot as constructed in Section \[sec:subflex\], in particular see Figure \[fig:loosesphere\]. (Note that this spin structure differs from the Lie group spin structure along the cycle $\mu.$) This, however, would mean that $\partial a=0$ with coefficients in ${\mathbb{Z}}_3,$ thus contradicting the fact that the loose two-sphere has no augmentation with any choice of coefficients.
In the setting of the “fully noncommutative Legendrian DGA” considered here we also compute $$\partial \hat{a}=a-\mu a \mu^{-1},$$ where the two terms correspond to the two flow-lines in the Bott $S^1$-manifold of Reeb chords that appear after the generic perturbation. (The signs of the two terms can be determined by $\partial^2\hat{a}=0,$ after a choice of sign of the generator $\hat{a}.$) Here we have taken the capping paths of $\hat{a}$ to follow the $S^1$-manifolds of Reeb chords (before the Morse perturbation) to the corresponding endpoint of the chord $a,$ concatenated with the corresponding capping path for the chord $a.$
For the computation of the bilinearised Legendrian contact homology, we can either allude to Theorem \[thm:lchgeneral\] below or perform the following computation by hand.
For the explicit computation, we first note that the bilinearised differential satisfies $$\partial^{\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_1}(\hat{a})=(1-\varepsilon_0(\mu)\varepsilon_1(\mu)^{-1})a.$$ Finally, two augmentations are the same if and only if they take the same value on the variable $\mu \in {\mathbb{C}}[H_1(\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Ch}})],$ as follows from the relation $\lambda^{-1}=-(1+\mu).$
In other words, the homology groups $LCH_*$ behave like the ${\operatorname}{Ext}$ groups for different skyscraper sheaves on the augmentation variety. This should be compared to Nadler’s computation [@Nadler] based upon the technique of sheaves with microsupport on the Lagrangian cone on $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Cl}} \subset \partial B^4.$
Computations for $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Ch}}$ {#sec:comp-ch}
------------------------------------------------
Here we compute the homology of the Chekanov–Eliashberg algebra $(\mathcal{A}(\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Ch}}),\partial)$ of $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Ch}} \subset ({\mathbb{R}}^5, \alpha_{st})$ in degree zero. This is sufficient for computing its augmentation variety, and to distinguish it from the Legendrian torus $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Cl}}$ up to Legendrian isotopy. The computation of the full DGA is postponed to future studies. For the bilinearised Legendrian contact homologies, we refer to the general computation in Section \[sec:lchgeneral\].
The $S^1$-symmetric version of $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Cl}}$ has the three $S^1$-Bott manifolds of Reeb chords corresponding to the double point shown in the bottom right of Figure \[fig:homotopy-clifford\]. The Bott indices are $|a|=1$, $|c|=3,$ and $|b|=2,$ for the rightmost, middle, and leftmost double points, respectively. A small generic perturbation thus gives us a Legendrian with six Reeb chords $a,\hat{a},$ $c,\hat{c},$ $b,\hat{b},$ with $$|a|=|\hat{a}|-1=1, \:\:\: |c|=|\hat{c}|-1=3, \:\:\: \text{and} \:\:\: |b|=|\hat{b}|-1=2.$$
For the Lie group spin structure and suitable choices of capping paths and basis $\langle \mu,\lambda \rangle = H_1(\Lambda)$ we have $$\partial a=1+\lambda(1+\mu)^2,\:\:\partial\hat{a}=a-\mu a \mu^{-1},$$ and in particular $H_0(\mathcal{A},\partial)={\mathbb{C}}[\mu^{\pm1},\lambda^{\pm1}]/\langle 1+\lambda(1+\mu)^2\rangle.$
The version of the Legendrian that satisfies the $S^1$-symmetry shown in Figure \[fig:Chekanov\] is degenerate for two different reasons: first, the Reeb chords come in $S^1$-Bott manifolds and, second, it has two double-cone singularities in its front projection both located inside the axis of the rotational symmetry.
We will compute the rigid gradient flow-trees [@MorseFlowTrees] after a generic perturbation which, by the same work, computes the differential for a suitable choice of almost complex structure. Since we only care about such flow-trees with a single positive puncture at the chord $a$ of degree $|a|=1,$ these flow-trees will have no additional (negative) punctures.
If we keep the $S^1$-Bott family of Reeb chords, then this is the same as a rigid gradient flow-tree with a positive puncture at the Bott family of chords itself, but with a fixed asymptotic constraint.
We start with the flow-trees that do not enter the region near the axis of symmetry. Here there is single rigid gradient flow-tree with a single positive puncture at $a,$ which is as shown in Figure \[fig:chekanov-disk1\]. This flow-tree has precisely two vertices (one puncture at $a$ and one so-called edge-vertex at the cusp-edge) and one edge. We take the capping paths of $a$ to coincide with the two arcs on $\Lambda$ that correspond to the edge of the flow-tree; the basepoint is hence located precisely at the cusp-edge. With this choice, together with an appropriate choice of sign for the generator, we obviously get a disc that contributes to a term $$\partial(a)=\ldots + (\pm 1) + \ldots$$ of the differential.
We then consider gradient flow-trees which enter the region near the axis of symmetry. By action reasons, and using the fact that the positive puncture is unique, it is not possible for such a gradient flow-tree to have an edge that involves two sheets corresponding to *different* cones. (The difference in $z$-coordinate for two such sheets is always greater than the length of $a.$) In other words, the only edges that we need to consider near the cone-region in this case are those which are associated to precisely one of the two cones. Such edges are given simply by a gradient flow towards the cone-point, and the vertex at the cone-point will be called a [**cone-vertex**]{}. See Figure \[fig:chekanov-disk2\] for an example of a partial flow tree with precisely two such vertices.
In the perturbed Legendrian which resolves the cone-point to a generic front, the rigid partial gradient flow-trees with cone-vertices in the sense described above can be resolved to honest rigid gradient flow-trees by the following process. First use the perturbations of the Legendrian described in [@KnotContHom] and [@KnottedLegendrianSurface] in order to resolve the front-cone singularities to a generic front. In this perturbation, every cone-vertex has precisely the two possibilities of a completion to an honest gradient flow tree that are shown in Figure \[fig:coneres\]. Conversely, every rigid gradient flow tree corresponds to a unique partial rigid flow-tree after reintroducing the degenerate front-cone.
In view of the above, we are able to postpone the perturbation that makes the front generic near the cone points, and simply start by finding the rigid partial gradient flow-trees that have cone-vertices and a puncture at a fixed point on the Bott manifold of Reeb chords $a.$ There is precisely one such partial flow-tree; see Figure \[fig:chekanov-disk2\]. By considering all possible completions of the latter partial flow-tree after the perturbation of the front cone, we thus find the remaining four rigid gradient flow-trees that contribute to the four terms $$\partial a=\ldots + (\pm)\lambda\pm\lambda\mu\pm\lambda\mu\pm\lambda\mu^2 + \ldots$$ of the differential.
We have now found all five rigid flow-trees that contribute to $\partial a.$ As in the proof of Theorem \[thm:dgacliff\] we can show that the disc contributing to the term “$1$” and the disc whose resolutions at both cone-points is as shown on the left in Figure \[fig:coneres\] are counted with the same signs. A neck-stretching argument near the cone regions then show that the local sign contribution from the two resolutions shown in Figure \[fig:coneres\] are the same at both cone points, from which we conclude that $$\partial a=1+\lambda(1 \pm \mu)^2$$ (as opposed to $ \partial a=1+\lambda(1 - \mu)(1+\mu)$). As in the proof of Theorem \[thm:dgacliff\] the fact that $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Ch}}$ is subloose then pin-points the final sign in the last factor.
The computation of $\partial \hat{a}$ is the same as for $\mathcal{A}(\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Ch}})$ in the proof of Theorem \[thm:dgacliff\].
$\gamma_{{\operatorname}{Ch}}$ at 23 30 $x$ at 135 52 $y$ at 48 110 $\color{red}a$ at 346 51 $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Ch}}$ at 210 95 ![A rigid gradient front-tree with precisely one edge and two vertices: one vertex being a positive puncture at $a,$ and one edge-vertex at the central cusp-edge.[]{data-label="fig:chekanov-disk1"}](chekanov-disk1 "fig:")
$\gamma_{{\operatorname}{Ch}}$ at 23 30 $x$ at 135 52 $y$ at 48 110 $\gamma_{{\operatorname}{Ch}}$ at 23 30 $x$ at 135 52 $y$ at 48 110 $\color{red}a$ at 335 51 $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Ch}}$ at 210 95 ![A rigid partial gradient front-tree with one positive puncture at $a,$ one vertex at the outer cusp-edge, a cone-vertex at either of the two cone points, and two three-valent vertices of type $Y_1.$[]{data-label="fig:chekanov-disk2"}](chekanov-disk2 "fig:")
A general computation of bilinearised LCH {#sec:lchgeneral}
-----------------------------------------
Even if we do not compute the full DGA of $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Ch}}$ we can still compute its bilinearised Legendrian contact homologies by a general result that we establish. Assume for now that we have a general Legendrian embedding of an oriented genus $g\geq 0$ surface $\Lambda \subset ({\mathbb{R}}^{5},\xi_{{\operatorname}{st}}).$ Further assume that $\Lambda$ has vanishing Maslov class and only Reeb chords of positive degree. The duality long exact sequence [@DualityLeg] by Ekholm–Etnyre–Sabloff and its generalisation [@BilinearisedLCH] by Bourgeois–Chantraine to the setting of bilinearised contact homology can then be used to compute all different bilinearised contact homologies.
\[thm:lchgeneral\]
Let $\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_1 \colon (\mathcal{A},\partial) \to ({\mathbb{F}},0)$ be two graded augmentations for a Legendrian oriented genus $g\geq 0$ surface $\Lambda \subset ({\mathbb{R}}^5,\xi_{{\operatorname}{st}})$ of vanishing Maslov class and with all Reeb chords in positive degrees. Then
- when $\varepsilon_0 = \varepsilon_1$: $$LCH_k^{\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_1}(\Lambda)=\begin{cases} {\mathbb{F}}, & k=2,\\ {\mathbb{F}}^{g}, & k=1, \\ 0, & k\neq 1,2,
\end{cases}$$
- when $0\leq g\leq 1$ and $\varepsilon_0 \neq \varepsilon_1$: $LCH_k^{\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_1}(\Lambda) = 0$ for all $k,$
is satisfied for the bilinearised Legendrian contact homology groups.
In the present situation two different augmentations are always inequivalent in the sense of [@BilinearisedLCH], due to the fact that there are no Reeb chords of negative degree.
Let $\Sigma_g$ be an oriented genus $g\ge 0$ surface. First, assume that $0\leq g\leq 1$. Denote by $H_{k}(\Sigma_g;\varepsilon_0 \otimes \varepsilon_1^{-1})$ the Morse homology of $\Sigma_g$ with coefficients in ${\mathbb{F}}$ which is induced by the local system which takes the value $\varepsilon_0(\alpha)\varepsilon_1(\alpha)^{-1} \in {\mathbb{F}}$ on the class $\alpha \in H_1(\Sigma_g;{\mathbb{F}}).$ Recall the standard fact that this homology vanishes in all degrees unless the latter local system is trivial, i.e. unless $\varepsilon_0=\varepsilon_1,$ while in the latter case we simply get the standard singular homology $H_k(\Sigma_g;{\mathbb{F}})$ of the surface. (Of course when $g=0$ all local systems are trivial.)
The duality long-exact sequence [@BilinearisedLCH Theorem 1.5] applied in this situation is equal to $$\cdots \to H_{k+1}(\Sigma_g;\varepsilon_0\otimes \varepsilon_1^{-1}) \to LCH^{1-k}_{\varepsilon_1,\varepsilon_0}(\Lambda) \to LCH_k^{\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_1}(\Lambda) \to H_{k}(\Sigma_g;\varepsilon_0\otimes \varepsilon_1^{-1}) \to \cdots$$ The assumption on the gradings of the Reeb chords of $\Lambda$ immediately implies the vanishing $LCH_k^{\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_1}(\Lambda)=0$ whenever $k\le 0$ and that $LCH^{1-k}_{\varepsilon_1,\varepsilon_0}(\Lambda)=0$ whenever $k \ge 1.$ Combined with the vanishing of the homology of the oriented genus $0\leq g\leq 1$ surface with nontrivial local systems, the conclusion now follows in the case when $\varepsilon_0 \neq \varepsilon_1.$ (Recall that two different augmentations automatically induce different local systems by our degree assumptions.)
What remains is the case when $\varepsilon_0=\varepsilon_1.$ Now we consider all $g\geq 0$. The immediate conclusion of the above vanishing result is that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:vanishing}
LCH^k_{\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0}(\Lambda)=0\ \mbox{when}\ k \neq 1,2,\end{aligned}$$ and hence we can write part of the duality long exact sequence as $$\begin{aligned}
0=LCH^{-1}_{\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0}(\Lambda)\to LCH_2^{\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0}(\Lambda) \to H_{2}(\Sigma_g;{\mathbb{F}}) \to LCH^{0}_{\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0}(\Lambda)=0,\end{aligned}$$ which implies that $$\begin{aligned}
LCH^{\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0}_2(\Lambda) = {\mathbb{F}}.\end{aligned}$$
Recall that $$\label{eq:adjoint}
\dim LCH^{\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0}_*(\Lambda)=\dim LCH_{\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0}^*(\Lambda)$$ is satisfied in general.
We now claim that $\dim LCH^{\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0}_1(\Lambda)=g.$ In order to show it, consider the following part of the duality long exact sequence, where zero terms appear because of Equations \[eq:vanishing\] and \[eq:adjoint\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:secondformles}
0\to LCH_{1}^{\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0}(\Lambda) \to H_{1}(\Sigma_g;{\mathbb{F}})\to LCH^{1}_{\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0}(\Lambda)\to 0.\end{aligned}$$ Using Equation \[eq:adjoint\] and the fact that $H_{1}(\Sigma_g;{\mathbb{F}}) \cong {\mathbb{F}}^{2g}$, we can rewrite long exact sequence \[eq:secondformles\] as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:finalles}
0\to LCH_{1}^{\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0}(\Lambda) \to {\mathbb{F}}^{2g}\to LCH_{1}^{\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0}(\Lambda)\to 0.\end{aligned}$$ Since all terms in long exact sequence \[eq:finalles\] are ${\mathbb{F}}$-vector spaces, we see that $LCH_{1}^{\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0}(\Lambda) \cong {\mathbb{F}}^{g}$. This finishes the proof.
In addition, it is also possible to obtain restrictions on the variety of augmentations of a Legendrian torus satisfying the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:lchgeneral\].
\[thm:augvar\] Let $\Lambda \subset ({\mathbb{R}}^5,\xi_{{\operatorname}{st}})$ be a Legendrian torus of vanishing Maslov class and with all Reeb chords in positive degrees. Its augmentation variety over ${\mathbb{C}}$ is then either empty, or of complex dimension equal to one.
First we argue that the augmentation variety is not all of ${\operatorname}{Sp}({\mathbb{C}}[H_1(\Lambda)]) \cong ({\mathbb{C}}^*)^2.$ It suffices to show that there exists a a Reeb chord of degree one with a nontrivial boundary (whose image necessarily is an element of ${\mathbb{C}}[H_1(\Lambda)]$). We prove that there exists such a nonvanishing boundary with ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-coefficients, which simplifies the considerations essentially, and implies the claim.
Argue by contradiction and assume that all such boundaries vanish. Thus the canonical unital DGA morphism $\varepsilon_0 \colon (\mathcal{A},\partial) \to {\mathbb{Z}}_2$ is clearly an augmentation. Consider the map $$LCH_{1}^{\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0}(\Lambda) \xrightarrow{\rho} H_{1}({\mathbb{T}}^2;{\mathbb{Z}}_2)$$ that arises in the duality long exact sequence [@DualityLeg], which is defined by the choice of an auxiliary generic Morse function and Riemannian metric on $\Lambda.$ By [@DualityLeg Theorem 3.6(3) and Section 3.3.3] the value $\langle \rho(c),s\rangle$ for a Reeb chord $c \in LCH_{1}^{\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0}(\Lambda)$ and a critical point $s \in H_{1}({\mathbb{T}}^2;{\mathbb{Z}}_2)$ of index one is given as the count of generalised pseudoholomorphic discs which consist of:
- a pseudoholomorphic polygon in ${\mathbb{R}}^4$ with boundary on the Lagrangian projection $\Pi_{{\operatorname}{Lag}}(\Lambda) \subset {\mathbb{R}}^4$ and a single positive puncture at the double point that corresponds to $c,$ together with
- a negative gradient flow-line in $\Lambda$ that connects the boundary of the polygon to $s,$
such that the configuration moreover is rigid. Under suitable identifications, this count can be seen to be equal to the gradient $\nabla\partial(c) \in {\mathbb{C}}[\lambda^{\pm1},\mu^{\pm1}]$ of the Laurent polynomial $\partial(c)$ evaluated at $(1,1) \in {\mathbb{Z}}_2^2.$ The assumption that $\partial(c)$ vanishes for all Reeb chords $c$ of degree one is now seen to contradict the fact that $\rho$ is an inclusion of a one-dimensional ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-vector space, as was shown in the proof of Theorem \[thm:lchgeneral\] above.
Now consider an augmentation $\varepsilon_0 \colon (\mathcal{A},\partial) \to {\mathbb{C}}.$ We will show that there exists a one-dimensional component of the augmentation variety that passes through the corresponding point $\varepsilon_0 \in {\operatorname}{Sp}({\mathbb{C}}[H_1(\Lambda)]).$ Choose a basis $\langle a_0,a_1,\ldots,a_m\rangle $ of the degree-one subspace of the complex $(LCC_*^{\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0}(\Lambda),\partial^{\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0}),$ which automatically consists of cycles, together with a basis $\langle b_1,\ldots,b_m\rangle $ of the degree-two subspace, such that $\partial^{\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0}(b_i)=a_i$ moreover is satisfied for $i\ge 1.$ This is possible by Theorem \[thm:lchgeneral\] above.
On the level of the DGA, after making the Novikov generators $\mu,\lambda$ commute with the Reeb chord generators, we thus conclude that $$\partial b_i=\sum_{j=0}^m P^i_j(\mu,\lambda)a_j,$$ where $P^i_j \in {\mathbb{C}}[\mu^{\pm1},\lambda^{\pm1}]$ for $i=1,\ldots,m;$ $j=0,1,\ldots,m$ are Laurent polynomials that satisfy $\varepsilon_0(P^i_j)=\delta^i_j.$
Then consider the localisation $${\mathbb{C}}[\mu^{\pm1},\lambda^{\pm1}] \to {\mathbb{C}}[\mu^{\pm1},\lambda^{\pm1}][(P^1_1\cdots P^m_m)^{-1}],$$ and the induced DGA $(\widetilde{A},\widetilde{\partial})$ with coefficients in ${\mathbb{C}}[\mu^{\pm1},\lambda^{\pm1}][(P^1_1\cdots P^m_m)^{-1}]$ together with the canonical unital DGA morphism $(\mathcal{A},\partial) \to (\widetilde{\mathcal{A}},\widetilde{\partial}).$ Since none of the polynomials $P^i_i$ vanish at the point corresponding to $\varepsilon_0,$ the augmentation $\varepsilon_0$ descends to an augmentation $\widetilde{\varepsilon_0} \colon (\widetilde{A},\widetilde{\partial}) \to {\mathbb{C}}.$ In other words, we have $$\label{eq:deltilde}
\widetilde{\partial}b_i=\sum_{j=0}^m P^i_ja_j, \:\: i \in [1,m],$$ where $P^i_i \in {\mathbb{C}}[\mu^{\pm1},\lambda^{\pm1}][(P^1_1\cdots P^m_m)^{-1}]$ is a unit and $\widetilde{\varepsilon_0}(P^i_j)=0$ if $i \neq j.$
By induction we assume that we can perform a ${\mathbb{C}}[\mu^{\pm1},\lambda^{\pm1}][(P^1_1\cdots P^m_m)^{-1}]$-linear change of coordinates of the ${\mathbb{C}}[\mu^{\pm1},\lambda^{\pm1}][(P^1_1\cdots P^m_m)^{-1}]$-submodule generated by $\langle a_1,\ldots,a_m \rangle$ after which, in additional to Equality , also $\widetilde{\partial} a_i=0$ is satisfied for the (possibly empty) set of values $i \in [m_0+1,m]$ and some $m_0 \in [1,m].$ Since $\widetilde{\partial}^2b_{m_0}=0$ is satisfied, we can express $$\widetilde{\partial}a_{m_0}=-(P^{m_0}_{m_0})^{-1}\sum_{j < m_0} P^{m_0}_j\widetilde{\partial}a_j,\:\:\:i=1,\ldots,m.$$ Hence we can make $\widetilde{\partial}a_{m_0}=0$ satisfied as well after the change of coordinates $$a_{m_0} \mapsto a_{m_0} + (P^{m_0}_{m_0})^{-1}\sum_{j < m_0} P^{m_0}_ja_j.$$ By induction we may thus readily assume that $\widetilde{\partial}a_i=0$ is satisfied for all $i \in [1,m]$ in addition to Equality .
In conclusion, we have shown that the augmentation variety is cut out by the single function $\widetilde{\partial}a_0 \in {\mathbb{C}}[\mu^{\pm1},\lambda^{\pm1}][(P^1_1\cdots P^m_m)^{-1}]$ inside the principal open subset $$\{P^1_1\cdots P^m_m \neq 0\} \subset {\operatorname}{Sp}({\mathbb{C}}[\mu^{\pm1},\lambda^{\pm1}]),$$ which implies the claim.
Sublooseness and existence of exact caps {#sec:subflex}
========================================
There exists an elementary exact Lagrangian cobordism from both $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Cl}},\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Ch}} \subset (S^5,\xi_{{\operatorname}{st}})$ to the loose sphere. This elementary cobordism arises as the handle attachment of a single handle as constructed in [@Surgery].
We recall this construction. The critical version of Legendrian surgery can be performed given that we have a Legendrian disc $D \subset (S^5,\xi_{{\operatorname}{st}})$ that intersects a Legendrian $\Lambda_-$ cleanly precisely along its boundary. Given this data, Legendrian ambient surgery produces an embedded Legendrian $\Lambda_+$ which is topologically obtained from $\Lambda_-$ by surgery along the embedded codimension one sphere $\partial D \subset \Lambda_-.$ There is also an associated exact Lagrangian handle attachment cobordism that goes from $\Lambda_-$ (at the negative end) to $\Lambda_+$ (at the positive end). Note that the handle attachment cobordism can be assumed to be a trivial cylinder outside of an arbitrarily small neighbourhood of ${\mathbb{R}}\times D \subset ({\mathbb{R}}\times S^5,d(e^t\alpha_{{\operatorname}{st}}))$ in the symplectisation.
The ambient surgery can be described using the Lefschetz fibration $f$ from Section \[sec:lefschetz\]. On the left in Figure \[fig:surgery\] is the local model for the Legendrian $\Lambda_-$ together with the Legendrian surgery disc, while the effect of the surgery is shown on the right side. In terms of the front projection, the Legendrian $\Lambda_-$ is just a double-cone with the surgery disc $D$ living above the cone-point, while the result $\Lambda_+$ of the surgery resolves the cone-point to two smooth sheets that intersects transversely along an embedded $S^1$; see Figure \[fig:loosesphere\].
$x$ at 195 92 $y$ at 93 197 $x$ at 403 92 $y$ at 300 197 $\color{blue}\Lambda^-$ at 55 105 $\color{blue}\Lambda^+$ at 263 105 $D$ at 80 100 ![The local model of the (critical) Legendrian ambient surgery described using the Lefschetz fibration $f$ from Section \[sec:lefschetz\]. To the left: the Legendrian $\Lambda_-$ before the surgery together with the Legendrian surgery disc $D.$ To the right: the effect of the surgery $\Lambda_+,$ which is a Legendrian with one additional Reeb chord (which in this case projects to the origin).[]{data-label="fig:surgery"}](surgery "fig:")
*The lift of the Clifford torus:* In this case both the surgery disc and the result of the Legendrian ambient surgery are shown in Figure \[fig:loosesphere\]. The result is clearly the loose two-sphere, since it coincides with an $S^1$-spun of a stabilised arc in some neighbourhood as in the proof of Lemma \[lem:loose\] (alternatively, one can apply Lemma \[lem:loose\] directly to the Lefschetz fibration).
*The lift of the Chekanov torus:* In this case we take the surgery disc to live above the lower of the two cone-points in the front projection Figure \[fig:Chekanov\]. The result of the Legendrian ambient surgery is then shown on the left side of Figure \[fig:ChekanovLoose\]. After an $S^1$-spun of a Reidemeister-II move (this preserves the Legendrian isotopy class) we see that the result of the surgery indeed is the loose two-sphere as well; in the Legendrian on the right in Figure \[fig:ChekanovLoose\] one can clearly see the $S^1$-spun of a stabilised arc as described in the proof of Lemma \[lem:loose\] (alternatively, one can apply Lemma \[lem:loose\] directly to the Lefschetz fibration).
$\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Cl}}$ at 12 75 $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{loose}}$ at 250 75 $D_1$ at 118 45 ![Above the blue dot inside the cone-point there lives an embedded Legendrian disc $D_1 \subset (S^5,\xi_{{\operatorname}{st}})$ which intersects the Legendrian cleanly along its boundary. The ambient surgery on $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Ch}}$ by using the Legendrian surgery disc $D_1.$ The resulting manifold is obviously the loose two-sphere $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{loose}}.$[]{data-label="fig:loosesphere"}](surgery_knottedT2_looseS2 "fig:")
$\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{loose}}$ at 260 80 ![On the left: The result of an ambient surgery on $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Ch}}$ shown in Figure \[fig:Chekanov\] by using the Legendrian surgery disc $D_2$ contained over the bottom cone point. On the right: after an $S^1$-spun Reidemeister-II move in the front projection (this is a Legendrian isotopy) we see an $S^1$-spun of a stabilisation. Hence the Legendrian is the loose two-sphere.[]{data-label="fig:ChekanovLoose"}](ChekanovLoose "fig:")
Since it is well-known that the loose sphere does not admit any exact Lagrangian filling, neither does any of the two former Legendrian tori $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Cl}}$ or $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Ch}}.$ In addition, the loose sphere was shown to admit an exact Lagrangian cap in [@EkholmMurphy]. By concatenation of exact Lagrangian cobordisms, it follows that both tori $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Cl}}$ and $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Ch}}$ also admit exact Lagrangian caps.
Regularity of exact Lagrangian cobordisms
-----------------------------------------
The class of regular Lagrangians in a Weinstein manifold was first introduced by Eliashberg–Ganatra–Lazarev in [@FlexibleLagrangians] and was then studied in [@FlexibleLagrangians; @EliashbergSurvey; @LazarevHprincipleRegularLagrangians].
We start with the definition of a regular exact Lagrangian cobordism.
Given a Weinstein cobordism $(W, \omega, X, \phi)$, where $\omega$ denotes a symplectic form, $X$ is an expanding Liouville vector field for $(W, \omega)$, $\phi:W\to {\mathbb{R}}$ is defining for $W$ and Lyapunov for $X$, an exact Lagrangian cobordism $L\subset W$ is called [**regular**]{} if $(W, \omega, X, \phi)$ can be deformed to a Weinstein cobordism $(W, \omega', X', \phi')$ through Weinstein structures for which $L$ is Lagrangian and $X'$ is tangent to $L$.
The following question about regularity of exact Lagrangian cobordisms has been asked by Eliashberg–Ganatra–Lazarev in [@FlexibleLagrangians], and by Eliashberg in [@EliashbergSurvey].
\[questionfromGanatra-Eliashberg-Lazarev\] Given a Weinstein cobordism $(W, \omega, X,
\phi)$ such that $\partial_- W\neq \emptyset$ and an exact Lagrangian cobordism $L\subset (W, \omega, X,
\phi)$ such that $\partial_- L\neq \emptyset$ is not loose, is $L$ regular?
Since an exact Lagrangian cap inside a symplectization never is regular by [@FlexibleLagrangians Lemma 2.4], the following theorem provides a partial negative answer to the above Question \[questionfromGanatra-Eliashberg-Lazarev\].
\[NonRegularCapsofSurfaces\] For any $g>0$ and $k_1,\ldots,k_r \ge 0$ there exists infinitely many different Legendrian isotopy classes of subloose Legendrian embeddings $\Lambda \subset ({\mathbb{R}}^{2k_1+\ldots+2k_r+5},\xi_{{\operatorname}{st}})$ of the manifold $S^{k_1} \times \ldots \times S^{k_r} \times \Sigma_g,$ where $\Sigma_g$ denotes the surface of genus $g,$ which:
- have vanishing Maslov classes;
- have Chekanov–Eliashberg algebras with Novikov coefficients $R={\mathbb{C}}[H_1(\Lambda)]$ that admits (0-graded) augmentations; and
- admit orientable exact Lagrangian caps inside the symplectisation with vanishing Maslov classes.
In particular, none of these Legendrian surfaces are loose.
It can further be shown that there are infinitely many diffeomorphism types of orientable exact Lagrangian caps for the above subloose Legendrians; see [@EkholmMurphy].
In view of the above we would like to make the following reasonable refinement of Question \[questionfromGanatra-Eliashberg-Lazarev\]:
\[refinedquestionfromGanatra-Eliashberg-Lazarev\] Let $L$ be an exact Lagrangian cobordism in a Weinstein cobordism $(W,
\omega, X, \phi)$ such that $\partial_- L \neq \emptyset$ is not subloose. Is $L$ regular?
Proof of Theorem \[NonRegularCapsofSurfaces\] {#ProofOfTheMainTheorem}
---------------------------------------------
### The case of surfaces
We start by considering the subloose surface of genus $g>0$ obtained by taking the cusp-connect sum of $g$ number of copies of $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Cl}}$; for the definition of cusp-connect sum see [@Surgery]. These Legendrian surfaces were also considered in [@KnottedLegendrianSurface]. Denote the resulting Legendrian embedding by $\Sigma_g \subset ({\mathbb{R}}^5,\xi).$ Observe that this Legendrian surface satisfies the statements of the theorem. What then remains is to make modifications to yield an infinite set of Legendrian up to Legendrian isotopy.
For any $N>0$ we then produce a Legendrian $2$-sphere $\Lambda_N$ which admits an exact spin Lagrangian filling $L_N$ of vanishing Maslov class such that $$\dim \bigoplus\limits_i H_i(L_N;{\mathbb{C}}) \ge N$$ is satisfied. For instance, $\Lambda_N$ can be taken to be the cusp connected sum $N$ copies of the Legendrian sphere from [@Cthulhu Example 9.4.2]. By Seidel’s isomorphism (see e.g. [@FloerConc; @Cthulhu]) it follows that the augmentation $\varepsilon_{L_N}$ induced by this filling has a Legendrian contact cohomology $$\bigoplus\limits_i LCH^{i}_{\varepsilon_{L_N}}(\Lambda_N) \cong \bigoplus\limits_i H_{i}(L_N;{\mathbb{C}})$$ with complex coefficients whose total rank is at least $N$ as well.
By the long exact sequence described in [@Cthulhu Theorem 1.1] it follows that there exists an augmentation $\varepsilon$ of the cusp-connect sum $\Lambda \subset ({\mathbb{R}}^5,\xi_{{\operatorname}{st}})$ of $\Lambda_N$ and $\Sigma_g$ for which the linearised Legendrian contact cohomology $LCH^*_{\varepsilon}(\Lambda)$ with coefficients in ${\mathbb{C}}$ has total rank equal to at least $N-1.$
Recall that the set of isomorphism classes of linearised Legendrian contact cohomologies for all different augmentations is a Legendrian isotopy invariant [@DiffGradedAlgebraLegLinks]. Further, the dimension of the linearised contact cohomology for any augmentation has an a priori upper bound given by the number of Reeb chords for any given generic Legendrian representative. It is thus clear that we can construct infinitely many Legendrian embeddings $\Lambda$ in the above manner by choosing $N>0$ larger and larger.
### The existence of caps
Since we saw above that $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Cl}}$ admits an orientable exact Lagrangian cobordism to the loose sphere, the same is true for $\Lambda$ as well. (We simply have to do a $g$ number of suitable exact Lagrangian handle attachments, corresponding to Legendrian ambient surgeries.) The existence of exact Lagrangian caps for the loose sphere was established in [@LagrangianCaps] by Eliashberg–Murphy; also see the work [@EkholmMurphy] by Ekholm–Eliashberg–Murphy–Smith. The sought cap of $\Lambda$ is then given by the concatenation of the exact Lagrangian cobordism to the loose sphere and the exact Lagrangian cap of the loose sphere.
### The higher dimensional case
We apply the spherical front-spinning construction by the second author [@FrontSpinningConstruction] to the above Legendrian surfaces and exact Lagrangian cobordisms to produce the subloose embeddings and their exact Lagrangian caps.
In order to deduce the existence of augmentations with Novikov coefficients we use the partial computation [@EstimatingReebChordsCharacteristicAlgebra Theorem 4.1] of the DGA of the $S^m$-spun of a Legendrian.
In order to deduce that the spuns remain in different Legendrian isotopy classes we use Künneths formula [@FloerConc Theorem 2.5], by which $$LCH^*_{\varepsilon_{\Sigma_{S^m}L_N}}(\Sigma_{S^m}\Lambda_N)\cong LCH^*_{\varepsilon_{L_N}}(\Lambda_N) \otimes H_*(S^m).$$ Then we iterate this procedure and compute $LCH^*_{\varepsilon_{\Sigma_{S^{k_r}}\dots\Sigma_{S^{k_1}}L_N}}(\Sigma_{S^{k_r}}\dots\Sigma_{S^{k_1}}\Lambda_N)$. Note that this isomorphism holds also with coefficients in ${\mathbb{C}}$ given that the filling is spin. In addition, observe that [@FrontSpinningConstruction Proposition 1.1] implies that the spherical front spun of the cusp-connected sum is the cusp-connected sum of the spherical front spuns of the components. Using this and the long exact sequence described in [@Cthulhu Theorem 1.1], similarly to the 2-dimensional case, we observe that there exists infinitely many different Legendrian isotopy classes of subloose Legendrian embeddings $\Lambda \subset ({\mathbb{R}}^{2k_1+\ldots+2k_r+5},\xi_{{\operatorname}{st}})$ of the manifold $S^{k_1} \times \ldots \times S^{k_r} \times \Sigma_g$.
Looseness of the standard Legendrian disc {#sec:disc}
=========================================
$x$ at 402 296 $x$ at 402 87 $x$ at 194 87 $x$ at 194 296 $y$ at 297 403 $y$ at 297 193 $y$ at 89 403 $y$ at 89 193 $\color{blue}\Re{\mathbb{C}}^n$ at 125 305 ![A regular homotopy through Lagrangian discs described in terms of the fibration $f \colon \Sigma \to \dot{D}^2_{1/2}.$[]{data-label="fig:homotopy-disc"}](homotopy-disc "fig:")
The standard Legendrian disc has a Lagrangian projection to ${\mathbb{C}P}^n$ that can be identified with the real part inside an affine chart ${\mathbb{C}}^n.$ This is the vanishing thimble for the standard Lefschetz fibration on ${\mathbb{C}}^n,$ and hence we identify it with the Lagrangian which lives above the positive $x$-axis inside $\dot{D}^2_{1/2}$ under the fibration $f \colon \Sigma \to \dot{D}^2_{1/2}.$
We must produce a Legendrian isotopy which is fixed near the boundary of the aforementioned Legendrian to exhibit a loose chart. To do this we follow the same strategy as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:frontsoflifts\] given in Section \[sec:frontsoflifts\]. The sequence of moves is shown in Figure \[fig:homotopy-disc\], where going from the top right curve to the bottom left curve requires that we pass over the line at infinity. Note that the Legendrian lifts do not intersect the boundary of the disc, which is fixed, even though the Lagrangian projections clearly do intersect. In order to see this it suffices to compute the symplectic action at the points that intersect the boundary, and to check that it is not an integer multiple of $\pi.$
In the bottom left of the figure resulting from the homotopy, we can indeed easily see the loose chart.
Further directions {#furtherdirections}
==================
Here we present some expectations that we hope to show in future work.
Relations between the augmentation variety and the superpotential {#sec:potential}
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recall that there exists precisely three pseudoholomorphic Maslov-two disc families in ${\mathbb{C}P}^2$ with boundary on the Clifford torus. Similarly, the augmentation variety of the Legendrian $\Lambda_{{\operatorname}{Cl}}$ is the zero-locus of the Laurent polynomial $\partial a=1+\lambda(1+\mu),$ which also is given by a count of precisely three pseudoholomorphic discs. In general we expect that we should be able to compute the augmentation variety in the Bott degenerate situation of $(E,\alpha),$ where the embedded Legendrian lives above the embedded Lagrangian torus, and in this manner obtain a relation between the augmentation variety and the count of such pseudoholomorphic Maslov-two discs. Recall that the count of the latter discs define the so-called superpotential of the Lagrangian, which also is a Laurent polynomial.
In the case of the monotone Clifford and the Chekanov torus $L_{{\operatorname}{Cl}},L_{{\operatorname}{Ch}} \subset ({\mathbb{C}P}^2,\omega_{{\operatorname}{FS}})$ such a correspondence can indeed be confirmed by means of a hands-on comparison. Recall that the superpotentials of the two tori are given by $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathfrak{P}_{L_{{\operatorname}{Cl}}}(u,v)=u(1+v)+1/u^2v \in u\cdot{\mathbb{C}}[u^{\pm 3},v^{\pm1}],\\
& \mathfrak{P}_{L_{{\operatorname}{Ch}}}(u,v)=u+(1+v)^2/u^2v \in u\cdot{\mathbb{C}}[u^{\pm 3},v^{\pm1}],\end{aligned}$$ for suitable spin structures, and relative a suitable basis of $\langle u,v\rangle =H_1({\mathbb{T}}^2)$ where $u$ and $v$ correspond to generators of Maslov index equal to two and zero modulo six, respectively; see [@Auroux06].
The precise relation between the augmentation polynomial and the superpotential is given by the following conjecture. Assume that $$H_0(\mathcal{A}(\Lambda),\partial)={\mathbb{C}}[\mu^{\pm1},\lambda^{\pm1}]/\langle \mathcal{A}ug_{\Lambda}(\mu,\lambda) \rangle$$ where $\mathcal{A}ug_{\Lambda}(\mu,\lambda)$ is the so-called [**augmentation polynomial**]{} (which under the assumptions is uniquely determined up to the multiplication by a unit).
\[correspondeceSuperpotentialAugPol\] For an embedded monotone Lagrangian two-torus $L \subset ({\mathbb{C}P}^2,\omega_{{\operatorname}{FS}})$ the superpotential $\mathfrak{P}_L(u,v)$ can be recovered (up to the multiplication by a unit) from the augmentation polynomial $\mathcal{A}ug_{\Lambda}(\mu,\lambda)$ of the Legendrian lift $\Lambda$ of its canonical threefold Bohr–Sommerfeld cover from the equality $$\mathfrak{P}_{L}(u,v)=\mathcal{A}ug_{\Lambda}(u^3,v) \in u\cdot{\mathbb{C}}[u^{\pm 3},v^{\pm1}]$$ of ideals, given that we use suitable choices of bases of $H_1(L)$ and $H_1(\Lambda),$ as well as capping paths, and that $\mathcal{A}ug_{\Lambda}(\mu,\lambda)$ has been normalised appropriately.
The basis of $H_1(L)=\langle u,v\rangle$ should be chosen so that $u$ and $v$ are mapped to primitive classes that are the boundaries of disc of Maslov index two and zero, respectively. The capping paths in $\Lambda$ must then be chosen accordingly.
Since Vianna’s infinite family of monotone Lagrangian tori in [@Vianna16] can be distinguished by computations of their superpotentials, Conjecture \[correspondeceSuperpotentialAugPol\] would imply that also their Legendrian lifts all live in different Legendrian isotopy classes.
Sublooseness of monotone tori in the projective plane
-----------------------------------------------------
As described in Proposition \[prp:monotonefilling\], the Legendrian lift of any canonical twofold Bohr–Sommerfeld cover of a monotone Lagrangian torus inside $({\mathbb{C}P}^1 \times {\mathbb{C}P}^1,\omega_{{\operatorname}{FS}}\oplus\omega_{{\operatorname}{FS}})$ can be seen to admit a monotone filling inside full complex line-bundle. Even if monotone fillability is weaker than exact fillability, in the present setting they should still allow us to conclude the existence of an augmentation with coefficients in ${\mathbb{F}}.$
Contrary to this, similarly as in the case of the Clifford and Chekanov torus, we believe that the canonical threefold Bohr–Sommerfeld cover of any monotone Lagrangian torus inside $({\mathbb{C}P}^2,\omega_{{\operatorname}{FS}})$ always has a subloose Legendrian lift.
[^1]:
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate the heavy quark spin symmetry, i.e. the mass degeneracy of pseudo-scalar and vector quarkonia at heavy quark limit, by using the gauge/gravity correspondence. We allow generic D3-like geometry with a flavor D7-brane, to avoid supersymmetric mass degeneracy. For geometries admitting physical QCD-like properties, we find that the mass degeneracy is generically achieved in a good accuracy, up to a few percent mass splitting. We also compute spectra of excited quarkonia states, and discuss comparisons with experiments and quark-model calculations.'
bibliography:
- 'reference.bib'
---
=1
OU-HET-843, RIKEN-MP-100, RIKEN-QHP-175
[ Holographic Heavy Quark Symmetry ]{}
Koji [Hashimoto]{}$^{\spadesuit\heartsuit,}$[^1], Noriaki [Ogawa]{}$^{\heartsuit\diamondsuit,}$[^2] and Yasuhiro [Yamaguchi]{}$^{\heartsuit,}$[^3]
${}^\spadesuit$ [*Department of Physics, Osaka University,\
Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, Japan* ]{}\
${}^\heartsuit$ [*Mathematical Physics Laboratory, RIKEN Nishina Center,\
Wako, Saitama 351-0198, Japan* ]{}\
${}^\diamondsuit$ [*Quantum Hadron Physics Laboratory, RIKEN Nishina Center,\
Wako, Saitama 351-0198, Japan* ]{}
Introduction
============
Hadrons containing heavy quarks attract a great deal of interest in hadron and nuclear physics. Out of the six flavors of quarks, the charm, bottom and top quarks are classified as a heavy quark because they have a mass which is much larger than the typical scale of the Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD), $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$. There are active researches of hadrons with charm and/or bottom quarks, while hadrons containing top quarks are not found because a top quark is easy to decay via the weak interaction. Accelerator experiments have found conventional hadrons which are described by the simple quark model expressing baryons as $qqq$ states and mesons as $q\bar{q}$ states with constituent (anti-)quarks $q(\bar{q})$ [@Agashe:2014kda; @Eichten:2007qx; @Klempt:2009pi]. In addition, interesting observations of exotic quarkonia, called $X,Y,Z$ states, also motivate us to study the hadron spectrum in the heavy flavor sector. Discovered exotic hadrons are expected to have complex structures such as multiquark states and hadron composite states [@swanson:2006st; @Voloshin:2007dx; @Godfrey:2008nc; @Brambilla:2010cs]. The various structures of heavy hadrons are generated by the natures of internal quark potentials and/or hadron-hadron interactions which result from fundamental phenomena of QCD.
In the rich spectra of heavy hadrons, a new symmetry which does not emerge in the light quark sector is considered to be important. This is called heavy quark symmetry [@Isgur:1989vq; @Isgur:1989ed; @Isgur:1991wq; @Neubert:1993mb; @Manohar:2000dt]. It possesses flavor and spin symmetries for heavy quarks. In particular, the spin symmetry leads to a specific feature which is mass degeneracy of heavy hadrons having a different spin [@Neubert:1993mb; @Manohar:2000dt]. In the case of mesons, experimental results show small mass splittings between pseudo-scalar mesons with spin-0 and vector mesons with spin-1, e.g., the mass splitting of $BB^\ast$ ($\sim$45 MeV) in the bottom quark sector is much smaller than that of $KK^\ast$ ($\sim400$ MeV) in the strange quark sector. The mass degeneracy is also realized in the heavy baryons [@Roberts:2007ni] and is expected in the multi-hadron states such as hadronic molecules and heavy mesonic nuclei [@Yasui:2013vca; @Yamaguchi:2014era]. Furthermore, the heavy quark spin symmetry affects the heavy hadron decays and productions [@Isgur:1991wq; @Manohar:2000dt; @Ohkoda:2012rj; @Guo:2014qra; @Yasui:2014cwa]. This symmetry provides the relations among various decay and production ratios of heavy hadrons with different spins. Hence, in spectroscopy of heavy hadrons, the heavy quark spin symmetry plays a significant role.
On this symmetry, some thoretical approaches have been developed. It is explained by suppression of the spin-dependent forces between heavy quarks. For hadrons including a single heavy quark, there have been discussions about the heavy quark spin symmetry in the heavy quark effective theory (HQET) [@Neubert:1993mb; @Manohar:2000dt; @Grinstein:1990mj; @Georgi:1990um; @Mannel:1991mc]. HQET is given in $1/m_Q$-expansion, where $m_Q$ is the mass of the heavy quark $Q$. In the HQET Lagrangian, the spin-dependent operators are included in the higher order terms, while the leading term is spin-independent. Hence the heavy quark spin symmetry emerges in the heavy quark limit $m_Q\rightarrow \infty$. The suppression of the spin-dependent force is also expected in the phenomenological constituent quark model. The masses of hadrons with different spins are split by the hyperfine interaction depending on quark spins [@Godfrey:1985xj]. This interaction between two quarks is suppressed in the heavy quark limit because it is inversely proportional to the product of the quark masses. The $Q\bar{Q}$ potential is also investigated by the effective field theory that is the potential nonrelativistic QCD (pNRQCD) [@Brambilla:2004jw]. The spin-dependent force included in the relativistic corrections has been studied in pNRQCD by making use of lattice QCD simulations within the quench approximation [@Brambilla:2010cs; @Koma:2006fw; @Koma:2012bc].
The spectra of heavy hadrons have also been studied, in various theoretical ways [@Eichten:2007qx; @Klempt:2009pi]. The constituent quark model has been applied to the hadron spectra from light to heavy quark sectors [@Godfrey:1985xj]. The spectroscopy of heavy quarkonia in perturbative QCD has made progress, too, where the properties of heavy quarkonia are computed in systematic expansions with respect to the strong coupling constant $\alpha_s$ [@Brambilla:2010cs; @Kiyo:2013aea; @Kiyo:2014uca]. To go beyond the perturbation, lattice QCD is an efficient tool for calculations of the hadron properties. Recently several collaborations challenge the lattice QCD simulations of hadron spectra at or closed to the physical point even in the charm and bottom quark regions [@Aoki:2013ldr].
In addition to them, we find that the gauge/gravity correspondence [@Maldacena:1997re] is yet another promising approach, since it provides powerful methods to deal with strongly coupled theories. It has been applied to investigate hadron spectra, by introducing dynamical quarks which are described by excitations on probe D-branes. For example, ${\mathcal{N}}=2$ hypermultiplet flavors (= quark multiplets) added to ${\mathcal{N}}=4$ ${\mathrm{SU}}(N_c)$ super Yang-Mills theory are realized by introducing $N_f$ probe D7-branes on the $\mathrm{AdS}_5\times\mathrm{S}^5$ background (which is generated by $N_c$ D3-branes) on the gravity side [@Karch:2002sh]. In this model, from the stringy point of view, the quarks are expressed as fundamental strings stretched between D3- and D7-branes. The configuration is utilized in the calculations of the meson spectrum. The masses of pseudo-scalar and vector mesons are computed as the fluctuations of the scalar and vector fields on the flavor D-branes [@Kruczenski:2003be]. The study of the meson spectrum has been investigated not only on this D3/D7 model, but also on the D4/D6 model, D4/D8 model, etc.
In the gauge theory holding the supersymmetry, however, both pseudo-scalar and vector mesons are members of the same multiplet, and the masses are completely degenerate regardless of the value of the quark mass. Even when the supersymmetry is broken by finite temperature or Shark-Schwartz compactification, etc, the supersymmetry recovers in the heavy quark limit (i.e., in the UV limit) in most of the top-down models. Hence, the presence of the heavy quark spin symmetry has not been obvious in the gauge/gravity duality. In order to see the heavy quark spin symmetry exists or not, we need to investigate meson mass degeneracies on theories which are non-supersymmetric even in the UV region.
In this paper, we propose a semi-bottom-up, deformed D3-D7 model. The background geometry is deformed from the conventional $\mathrm{AdS}_5\times\mathrm{S}^5$, and holds no supersymmetry or conformal symmetry generally. We introduce $4$ deformation parameters for the background, but they are constrained by several conditions so that the theory would have physically reasonable properties. We investigate the spectra of the pseudo-scalar and vector quarkonia at $m_Q\to\infty$ limit, computed as the fluctuations of the fields on the flavor D7-brane put on this background. Finally, we will find that the heavy quark spin symmetry is [*approximatively*]{} true, but [*not exact*]{} in general. We observe a slight difference, at most $\simeq 1.5\%$.
The remaining part of this paper is organized as follows. Section \[ch:Setup\] provides the setup of our model, including the background geometry and the DBI action in string theory. In Section \[ch:Constraints\_para\], we consider several physical conditions on that gravitational background, and successfully determine the limited region in the parameter space which we can focus on. In Section \[ch:EOM\], the equations of motion on the probe D7 brane are derived. The asymptotic solutions of the equations are also given. In Section \[ch:Numerical\_results\], we solve those equations of motion numerically and obtain the mass spectra of the quarkonia. We discuss the aspects of the results and compare with those of effective models as well as experiments. Finally in Section \[ch:Disscussion\_Conclusion\], we summarize the paper and discuss the implications of our results and possible applications.
Deformed D3-D7 Model {#ch:Setup}
====================
As we explained above, we need to study non-supersymmetric models with a flavor, for investigations on heavy quark symmetry. As a simple but interesting model with such properties, we propose a semi-bottom-up model which we call deformed D3-D7 model. It is based on the type IIB superstring and similar to the standard D3-D7 model, but we assume the existence of some (unknown) additional matter or flux configurations. It leads to a backreaction to deform the D3 background geometry from $\mathrm{AdS}_5\times\mathrm{S}^5$. We then introduce a probe D7-brane on this background, obeying the conventional DBI action. We further assume that the couplings between the D7-brane and the unknown background fluxes are always suppressed. Then we can compute the energy of the excitation modes on this D7-brane, which correspond to meson excitations on the dual field theory.
Background Geometry and Probe D7-Brane
--------------------------------------
On the gravitational background geometry, we impose a symmetry of ${\mathrm{SO}}(1,3)\times{\mathrm{SO}}(6)$, and adopt an ansatz for the UV ($r\gg{}^\exists r_{\mathit{IR}}$) leading form as
\[eq:background\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:metric:str}
ds_{\mathit{str}}^2 &= {r}^{2\alpha}\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}
+ R^2r^{-2\beta}\l({{\frac{dr^2}{r^2}}} + r^{2\delta}d\Omega_5^2\r)\,,\\
\label{eq:dilaton}
e^{\phi} &= g_0\, r^{-4\gamma}\,,\end{aligned}$$
for which the Einstein equation is maintained by some unknown matter and flux configurations which are omitted here. The $d\Omega_5^2$ represents the metric of $S^5$, on which we span coordinates as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:S5coord}
d\Omega_5^2 = d\theta^2 + \cos^2\theta d\psi^2 + \sin^2\theta d\Omega_3^2\,,
\qquad
d\Omega_3^2 = d\sigma_1^2 + \sin^2\sigma_1 d\Omega_2^2\,.\end{aligned}$$ This geometry has four parameters $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta)$, and the standard D3 background corresponds to $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta)=(1,0,0,0)$. The $10$d Einstein-frame metric is written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:metric:Ein}
ds_{\mathit{Ein}}^2 &= e^{-\phi/2}ds_{\mathit{str}}^2
= g_0^{-1/2}\l[r^{2{\tilde{\alpha}}}\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}
+ R^2r^{-2{\tilde{\beta}}}\l({{\frac{dr^2}{r^2}}} + r^{2\delta}d\Omega_5^2\r)\r]\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{\tilde{\alpha}}=\alpha + \gamma\,,
\qquad
{\tilde{\beta}}=\beta - \gamma\,.\end{aligned}$$
We then put a probe D7-brane on this background. It is described by the conventional DBI action $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:DBI}
S_{D7} = -T_7\int\!d^8\xi\, e^{-\phi}{\sqrt{-\det\l(h_{ab} + 2\pi\alpha'F_{ab}\r)}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $T_7$ is the D7 tension, $h_{ab}$ is the induced (string-frame) metric on D7 and $F_{ab}=\partial_aA_b-\partial_bA_a$ is the field strength of the world-volume ${\mathrm{U}}(1)$ gauge field $A_{a}$. We omitted the contributions from background fluxes, as was stated above.
This D7-brane corresponds to the quark sector of the theory. It extends along with the boundary $4$-dimensional directions and wraps on the $S^3$ in the $S^5$, which corresponds to the $\Omega_3$ in . That is, the configuration of the D7-branes are described by the two embedding profile functions $$\begin{aligned}
\theta = \Theta(r, x^\mu, \Omega_3)\,,
\qquad
\psi = \Psi(r, x^\mu, \Omega_3)\,.\end{aligned}$$ In particular, we will consider static and uniform configurations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:setup:D7background}
\theta &= \Theta(r)\,,
\quad
\psi = 0\,,
\quad
A_{a} = 0\,,\end{aligned}$$ and small fluctuations around it, to describe the meson spectrum of the theory. The D7 has a turning point at $r=r_0$ and reaches to the boundary $r\to\infty$. In order for the continuity and smoothness at the turning point, it should satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Theta:smoothness}
\Theta(r_0)=0\,,
\qquad
\Theta'(r_0)=\infty\,.\end{aligned}$$
Rescaling Symmetries {#sec:rescaling}
--------------------
This deformed D3-D7 model has different kinds of rescaling symmetries, depending on $\delta\ne 0$ or $\delta=0$.
### Case 1: $\bm{\delta\ne 0}$ {#case-1bmdeltane-0 .unnumbered}
When $\delta\ne 0$, we can rescale the exponent parameters $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta)$ by a positive rescaling parameter $c$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rescaling:parameters}
(\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta) \to c\,(\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta)\,,\end{aligned}$$ by the transformation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rescaling:coordinates}
r\to c^{\frac{1}{\delta}}r^c\,,
\quad
x\to c^{-\frac{\alpha}{\delta}}x\,,
\quad
R\to c^{\frac{\beta-\delta}{\delta}}R\,.\end{aligned}$$ We can set $\delta=0$ or $\pm 1$ by using this transformation with $c={{1/{{\left|\delta\right|}}}}$, but we will work on general values for $\delta$ for a while. Instead, we define $$\begin{aligned}
(\hat\alpha,\hat\beta,\hat{\gamma})
=
\begin{cases}
({\tilde{\alpha}},{\tilde{\beta}},\gamma)
&\quad(\text{for}\;\; \delta=0)\,,\\
({{{\tilde{\alpha}}/{{\left|\delta\right|}}}},{{{\tilde{\beta}}/{{\left|\delta\right|}}}},{{\gamma/{{\left|\delta\right|}}}})
&\quad(\text{for}\;\; \delta\ne 0)\,,
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ and sometimes use these hereafter.
### Case 2: $\bm{\delta=0}$ {#case-2bmdelta0 .unnumbered}
When $\delta=0$, we can consider another type of scaling transformations of coordinates instead of , as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rescaling:delta=0}
r\to c\, r\,,
\quad
x\to c^{-(\alpha+\beta)}x\,.\end{aligned}$$ This results in a Weyl transformation $$\begin{aligned}
g_{MN}\to c^{-2\beta}g_{MN}\,,
\quad
e^{\phi}\to c^{-4\gamma}e^{\phi}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, if we consider the redefinition of the D7 world-volume $U(1)$ gauge field $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:A:redef}
A_a \to c^{-2\beta}A_a\,\end{aligned}$$ at the same time, we notice that the DBI action is kept to be invariant up to a change of the overall coefficient. Therefore, the set of the transformations and is a symmetry of the equations of motion for the probe D7-brane. Since the meson spectra are determined by nothing but those EoMs, this symmetry will take a very important roll later (§\[sec:mass\_prop\], §\[sec:hiddensym\]).
Constraints for the Parameters {#ch:Constraints_para}
==============================
Although we introduced the deformed D3-D7 model in rather general form, it proves that this model does not always corresponds to a consistent, QCD-like theory. In this section, we find several physical conditions which we need for our purpose, and translate them to various constraints on the parameters $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta)$ of our model.
We will explain the essence and results for those conditions below. The details of the derivations are given in Appendix \[ch:constraints\].
Stability and Locality
----------------------
First we consider general conditions for quantum field theories, which do not refer to the detail of the model. Namely, we need [*stability*]{} and [*locality*]{}. On the gravity side, they can be discussed for the dominating part of the theory (i.e., the gluon sector), and are translated to so-called null energy condition and the area-law of holographic entanglement entropy. This is a powerful method which is applicable to holographies for various systems. For example, non-Fermi liquid system was analyzed in a similar way in [@Ogawa2012bz].
### Stability: null energy condition
On the gravity side, the stability of the vacuum implies the [*null energy condition*]{}, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:NEC:0}
T_{MN}\xi^{M}\xi^{N} \ge 0\,,\end{aligned}$$ imposed for the background geometry. Here, $T_{MN}$ and $\xi^{M}$ are the stress-energy tensor of the matter fields and an arbitrary 10-dimensional null vector on the background metric, respectively. From the Einstein equation $G_{MN}=8\pi T_{MN}$, this condition is rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:NEC:0a}
{\mathcal{R}}^{\mathit{(Ein)}}_{MN}\xi^M\xi^N\ge 0\,,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathcal{R}}^{\mathit{(Ein)}}_{MN}$ is the Ricci tensor computed for the $10$d Einstein-frame metric . This condition finally leads to
\[eq:NEC:1\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:NEC:1a}
({\tilde{\alpha}} +{\tilde{\beta}} -\delta) (4{\tilde{\alpha}} -4{\tilde{\beta}} +5\delta)
+4 r^{-2\delta} &\ge 0\,, \\
\label{eq:NEC:1b}
8{\tilde{\alpha}}{\tilde{\beta}} -5\delta ({\tilde{\alpha}} +{\tilde{\beta}}) +5\delta ^2&\le 0\,,\end{aligned}$$
which must be satisfied everywhere. The net condition of is given at $r\to\infty$ for $\delta>0$ and $r\sim r_{\mathit{IR}}$ for $\delta < 0$.
### Locality: area law of entanglement entropy
For local quantum field theories, the UV divergent part of the entanglement entropy for a spatial region $A$ is proportional to the area of the boundary $\partial A$. This is called the [*area law*]{} of entanglement entropy. We can make use of this property as a probe for the locality of the theory.
On the gravity side of the gauge/gravity correspondence, the leading part of entanglement entropy is computed by Ryu-Takayanagi formula [@Ryu:2006bv; @Ryu:2006ef], as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:HEEformula}
S_A = \min_{\gamma_A}{{\frac{\mathrm{Area}(\gamma_A)}{4G_N}}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma_A$ is a surface on the bulk reaching to the boundary, where $\partial\gamma_A=\partial A$. This area is computed in the Einstein-frame. In this point of view, the area law states that the minimal surface $\gamma_A$ extends into the bulk, rather than sticks to the boundary (which leads to [*volume law*]{}). By considering narrow stripes as $A$, this results in a simple condition, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:const:alpha+beta}
\alpha + \beta > 0\,.\end{aligned}$$
Quark Masses {#sec:QuarkMasses}
------------
Because in this paper we are interested in emergent phenomena appearing in heavy-quark limit, we also need some constraints to realize such theory with heavy quarks.
The constituent quark mass ${\tilde{m}}_Q$ is obtained as the mass of the fundamental string connecting the horizon and the turning point $r=r_0$ of the D7-brane. The mass ${\tilde{m}}_Q$ is expressed as a function of $r_0$ and should increase as $r_0$ becomes large. Since we can show that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:tilmQ}
{\tilde{m}}_Q \sim r_0^{\alpha-\beta}\,\end{aligned}$$ (where $r_0^0$ implies $\log{r_0}$) from , we obtain the condition $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:const:alpha-beta}
\alpha-\beta\ge 0.\end{aligned}$$
We also need to take the current quark mass $m_Q$ into account. Because $m_Q$ can be regarded as the physical quark mass in weak coupling limit, it corresponds to the mass of the D3-D7 string on a flat background geometry. Furthermore, it is in turn equal to the mass of the string connecting the D7-brane and the $\theta=\pi/2$ hypersurface, on the boundary $r\to\infty$. We require that we can take this $m_Q$ to be very large but a finite (non-divergent) quantity, together with a large value of ${\tilde{m}}_Q$ at the same time. This condition finally leads to quite strong constraints, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:const:delta}
\delta&=0\,,\\
\label{eq:const:gamma}
\gamma&=-\frac{3}{4}\left(\alpha-\beta-\frac{1}{\alpha-\beta}\right) \,.\end{aligned}$$
Under , the rescaling symmetry implies that $\Theta(r)$ can be actually written as a function of $s$ . Therefore, the expression for the constituent mass $m_Q$ leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:mQ}
m_Q
= {{\frac{R}{2\pi\alpha'}}}\,r_0^{\alpha-\beta}\l\{\lim_{s\to\infty}s^{\alpha-\beta}\l({{\frac{\pi}{2}}}-\Theta(s)\r)\r\}
\propto r_0^{\alpha-\beta}\,,\end{aligned}$$ which in turn shows $m_Q\sim {\tilde{m}}_Q$.
Yet Additional Constraints
--------------------------
In addition to the constraints above, there are also some conditions which we possibly should take into account. We will not demand the conditions below at the first place, and discuss them together with the results of the computations finally.
### Weakly coupled gravity
Throughout this paper, we will rely on [*classical*]{} calculations on the gravity side. Then we have to ensure that the effective string coupling $e^\phi$ is small everywhere we work. Since we will focus on the UV (large $r$) region where the dilaton behaves as , we need $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:positivegamma}
\gamma \ge 0\,,\end{aligned}$$ otherwise we have to live along with horrible quantum gravity. Together with the expression of $\gamma$ , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:const:alpha-beta:2}
\alpha - \beta \le 1\,.\end{aligned}$$
### Small curvature of bulk spacetime
For the validity of the classical gravity, the spacetime curvature has to be sufficiently small compared to the Planck scale. In particular, we need that scalar components of the curvature do not diverge at $r\to\infty$. By looking at the behaviors of ${\mathcal{R}}$, ${\mathcal{R}}_{MN}{\mathcal{R}}^{MN}$ and ${\mathcal{R}}_{MNPQ}{\mathcal{R}}^{MNPQ}$, we obtain a simple condition $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:const:curv_cond}
\beta \le 0\,,\end{aligned}$$ under . The details are given in Appendix \[app:Curvature\].
### Proportionality of quark and meson masses {#sec:mass_prop}
When the conventional quark model works well on the field theory side, the leading parts of the meson masses are proportional to the quark mass.
As we will show in §\[sec:hiddensym\], the meson masses behave as $$\begin{aligned}
M \propto r_0^{\alpha+\beta}\,,\end{aligned}$$ as a function of $r_0$. Comparing with (or ), we get $$\begin{aligned}
M \propto (m_Q)^{{{\frac{\alpha+\beta}{\alpha-\beta}}}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ when $m_Q$ is large. This implies that the meson mass is not proportional to the quark mass when we take $\beta\ne 0$. This phenomenon suggests the existence of a non-trivial strong-coupling effect, which is absent in standard interpretations of QCD. It does not lead to any immediate inconsistency as a flavored gauge theory. But if we do not like it, we can consider the additional constraint, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:const:beta}
\beta = 0\,.\end{aligned}$$
Possible Parameter Region
-------------------------
Under the conditions , , and , the null energy condition simply becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:NEC:2}
{\tilde{\beta}} \le 0
\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad
\alpha + \beta \le {{\frac{\zeta}{2}}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where we defined $\zeta$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:zeta}
\zeta \equiv 2(\alpha - \beta + 2\gamma) \;
\l(= {{\frac{3}{\alpha-\beta}}} - (\alpha-\beta)\r)\,,\end{aligned}$$ for later convenience. This in turn automatically implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:const:alpha-beta:s3}
\alpha - \beta \le {\sqrt{3}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ even without the condition . Then the allowed possible parameter domain on $(\alpha-\beta,\alpha+\beta)$-plane is shown graphically in [[\[fig:ConstraintsForParameters\]]{}]{}.
![Constraints for the parameters $(\alpha,\beta)$. The bounds for , , , and are displayed by the blue, red, purple, green and black lines respectively. They altogether yield the bluely painted triangle domain. []{data-label="fig:ConstraintsForParameters"}](constraints.pdf){width="40.00000%"}
Equations of Motion {#ch:EOM}
===================
In this section we consider the configuration and fluctuations of the D7-brane obeying the DBI action . They lead to the equations which determine the meson spectra on the boundary theory.
We will focus on the case of $\delta=0$ here. We do not use the constraint for $\gamma$ in this section unless specially noted, because we used some results of this section in advance to derive . Equations of motion for general $\delta$ are given in Appendix \[sec:EoM:general\].
Static Configuration of D7-Brane
--------------------------------
Here we derive the equations of motion for the D7 configuration and its fluctuations. When $\delta=0$, we can combine $r$ and $\Omega_5$ in as $dr^2+r^2d\Omega_5^2$, making a flat ${\mathbb{R}}^6$. We then divide this ${\mathbb{R}}^6$ part into ${\mathbb{R}}^4\times{\mathbb{R}}^2$ as $$\begin{aligned}
dr^2 + r^2d\Omega_5^2 &= d\rho^2 + \rho^2d\Omega_3^2 + d\lambda^2 + \lambda^2d\psi^2\,.\end{aligned}$$ At this time, the embedding profile of the D7-brane can be described by $\lambda(\rho,\Omega_3,x^\mu)$ and $\psi(\rho,\Omega_3,x^\mu)$. Compared to the coordinate , we have the relation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rholambda:transf}
\rho = r\sin\theta\,,
\quad
\lambda = r\cos\theta\,.\end{aligned}$$
Now we can write the static embedding profile of the D7-brane as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:L}
\lambda &= L(\rho)\,,
\quad
\psi = 0\,,\end{aligned}$$ corresponding to . Then the D7 turning point is now $\rho=0$ and the conditions are translated to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:L:initial}
L(0) = r_0\,,
\qquad
L'(0) = 0\,.\end{aligned}$$ Substituting into the DBI action , the action for $L(\rho)$ is given as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:SL}
S_L
&= -{{\frac{2\pi^2T_7R^4 V_4}{g_0}}}
\int_0^\infty\!\!d\rho\,\rho^3 \left(L^2+\rho ^2\right)^{2(\alpha - \beta +\gamma-1)}
\sqrt{\dot{L}^2+1}\,.\end{aligned}$$ A dot ($\dot{}$) represents a derivative by $\rho$ hereafter, unless otherwise noted. $V_4$ is the 4D spacetime volume, $V_4=\int d^4x$. This leads to the equation of motion $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eom:L}
\ddot{L}
+ {{\frac{3\dot{L}(1+\dot{L}^2)}{\rho}}}
+ C\,{{\frac{\rho\dot{L}-L}{\rho^2+L^2}}}(1+\dot{L}^2)
&= 0\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:C}
C &= 4(\alpha - \beta + \gamma - 1)\,.
$$
Fluctuation Modes
-----------------
On the static configuration $L(\rho)$ obeying , we consider linear fluctuation modes $$\begin{aligned}
\delta\lambda \sim e^{-ik_{\mu}x^{\mu}}Y_{\ell mn}(\Omega_3)\Lambda(\rho)
\quad\text{and}\quad
\delta\psi \sim e^{-ik_{\mu}x^{\mu}}Y_{\ell mn}(\Omega_3)\Psi(\rho)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $Y_{\ell mn}(\Omega_3)$ are the 3-dimensional spherical harmonics. Furthermore, the linear fluctuation modes of the D7 world-volume gauge field can be also written as $$\begin{aligned}
\delta A_x \sim e^{-ik_{\mu}x^{\mu}}Y_{\ell mn}(\Omega_3)a(\rho)\,.\end{aligned}$$ In the viewpoint of holography, the eigenmodes of $\Lambda$, $\Psi$ and $a$ respectively correspond to scalar, pseudo-scalar and vector mesons on the boundary gauge theory. Since we are interested in the degeneration of the spectrums of pseudo-scalar and vector mesons, we will focus on $\Psi$ and $a$ below. For each modes labeled by $(k^\mu,\ell,m,n)$, the quadratic-order actions read $$\begin{aligned}
S_{a} &= -{{\frac{4\pi^4\alpha'^2R^2T_7V_4}{g_0}}}\int_0^\infty\!\!d\rho\,
\rho(\rho^2+L^2)^{2(-\beta+\gamma-1)}
\bigg[
{{\frac{\rho^2(\rho^2+L^2)^{\alpha+\beta+1}}{{\sqrt{1+\dot{L}^2}}}}}\dot{a}^2
\nonumber\\&\hspace{4cm}+
{\sqrt{1+\dot{L}^2}}\l\{k_\mu k^{\mu}R^2\rho^2+\ell(\ell+2)(\rho^2+L^2)^{\alpha+\beta+1}\r\}a^2
\bigg]\,,\\
S_{\Psi} &= -{{\frac{\pi^2R^4T_7V_4}{g_0}}}\int_0^\infty\!\!d\rho\,
\rho L^2(\rho^2+L^2)^{\alpha-3\beta+2\gamma-3}
\bigg[
{{\frac{\rho^2(\rho^2+L^2)^{\alpha+\beta+1}}{{\sqrt{1+\dot{L}^2}}}}}\dot{\Psi}^2
\nonumber\\&\hspace{4cm}+
{\sqrt{1+\dot{L}^2}}\l\{k_\mu k^{\mu}R^2\rho^2+\ell(\ell+2)(\rho^2+L^2)^{\alpha+\beta+1}\r\}\Psi^2
\bigg]\,.\end{aligned}$$ These actions are quite similar to each other, and the only difference is the overall functional factor in the integrand (i.e., Lagrangian). They lead to the equations of motion for $a$ and $\Psi$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eom:A}
\ddot{a} + P_1(\rho)\dot{a} + P_0(\rho) a
&= 0\,,\\
\label{eq:eom:psi}
\ddot{\Psi} + \l[P_1(\rho) + Q_1(\rho)\r]\dot{\Psi} + P_0(\rho) \Psi
&= 0\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:a0}
P_0(\rho) &= (1+\dot{L}^2)\l[{{\frac{(-k_\mu k^\mu)R^2}{(\rho^2+L^2)^{\alpha+\beta+1}}}} - {{\frac{\ell(\ell+2)}{\rho^2}}}\r]\,, \\
\label{eq:a1}
P_1(\rho) &=
{{\frac{3}{\rho}}} - {{\frac{\dot{L}\ddot{L}}{1+\dot{L}^2}}}
+ 2(\alpha-\beta+2\gamma-1)\,{{\frac{\rho+L\dot{L}}{\rho^2+L^2}}}
\;\l(= \partial_\rho\log\l[{{\frac{\rho^3(\rho^2+L^2)^{\alpha-\beta+2\gamma-1}}{{\sqrt{1+\dot{L}^2}}}}}\r]\r)\,,
\\
\label{eq:b1}
Q_1(\rho) &=
{{\frac{2\dot{L}}{L}}} + 2(\alpha-\beta-1)\,{{\frac{\rho+L\dot{L}}{\rho^2+L^2}}}
\;\l(= \partial_\rho\log\l[L^2(L^2+\rho^2)^{\alpha-\beta-1}\r]\r)\,.\end{aligned}$$
In terms of holography, the mode functions of the 4D meson (quarkonium) excitations are given by the normalizable solutions to the bulk linear EoM’s or . We will focus on the $s$-wave modes on the $S^3$, that is, $\ell=0$, since we are not so interested in such mesons. The 4D momentum square $(-k_\mu k^\mu)$ appearing in represents the meson mass square, $M^2$. For the mode functions we need to require the smoothness at $\rho=0$, i.e., $\dot{a}(0)=\dot{\Psi}(0)=0$, as well as the normalizability at infinity ($\rho\to\infty$). These two conditions cannot be satisfied at the same time in general, and so we need to choose special values for $M^2$ for it. This leads to discrete spectrums of the mesons, as is expected in flavors-confined phases of QCD-like theories.
As we can see from and , the equations for $\Psi(\rho)$ and $a(\rho)$ are different by the term of $Q_1(\rho)\dot{\Psi}$. Therefore, if $R_1(\rho)\equiv {{Q_1(\rho)/P_1(\rho)}}$ is sufficiently small all over the region of $\rho$, the degeneration of pseudo-scalar and vector mesons is automatically realized. When $Q_1(\rho)$ vanishes all over the range of $\rho$, the whole spectra exactly agree with each other. It occurs when $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:exactdegeneracy}
\alpha-\beta-1=\gamma=0\,,\end{aligned}$$ in which case is solved as $L(\rho)=\text{const}$. In fact, this is consistent with the constraint for $\gamma$ and so can be actually realized. Note that includes the case of supersymmetric $\mathrm{AdS}_5\times S^5$, i.e., $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)=(1,0,0)$, and even more various geometries in addition to it.
In addition, we can rewrite the equations and to the form of the standard eigenvalue problems of Schrödinger equations. It is dealt with in Appendix \[sec:Schroedinger\], although we will not directly use it in our computations later.
Symmetry of the Equations of Motion and Mass Spectra {#sec:hiddensym}
----------------------------------------------------
As we noted in §\[sec:rescaling\], the rescaling transformation - is a symmetry of the equations of motion -. In terms of our current notations, it is translated as $$\begin{aligned}
L \to c\, L\,,
\quad
\rho \to c\,\rho\,,
\quad
k \to c^{\alpha+\beta}k\,,\end{aligned}$$ which in turn imply $$\begin{aligned}
r_0\to c\,r_0\,,
\quad
M \to c^{\alpha+\beta}M\,.\end{aligned}$$ This means that the meson mass $M$ scales as $$\begin{aligned}
M \propto r_0^{\alpha+\beta}\,,\end{aligned}$$ when we change the place of the turning point $r_0$.
Therefore the structure of the spectrum is invariant under the change of the quark mass. It is not surprising, because we took the UV asymptotic form for the background geometry from the beginning. This suggests that the mass spectra we get from our model is those at heavy quark limit.
Asymptotic Properties of the Equations of Motion {#ch:asymptotics}
------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we will see the asymptotic behavior of $L(\rho)$ and other functions in the small and large $\rho$ regions.
### Small $\rho$ behavior
From , we assume the leading behavior of $L(\rho)$ at $\rho\ll 1$ as $$\begin{aligned}
L(\rho) \simeq r_0 + q \rho^{n}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $n>1$ and $q$ are some constant. Substituting it into , the leading terms are $$\begin{aligned}
n(n+2)q\rho^{n-2} - {{\frac{C}{r_0}}} \simeq 0\,.\end{aligned}$$ Unless $C=0$, this equation can be satisfied at the leading order only when the two terms are balanced, that is, $n=2$. At that time this equation yields $q = {{C/(8r_0)}}$, then as a result we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:smallrho:L}
L(\rho) = r_0 + {{\frac{C}{8r_0}}}\rho^2 + o(\rho^2)\,.\end{aligned}$$ When $C=0$, we have an exact solution $L(\rho)\equiv r_0$, which is included in as a special case. From , and , this leads to $$\begin{aligned}
P_0(\rho)\simeq M^2R^2{r_0}^{-2(\alpha+\beta+1)}\,,
\qquad
P_1(\rho)\simeq {{\frac{3}{\rho}}}\,,
\qquad
Q_1(\rho)\simeq {{\frac{C}{2r_0}}}(\alpha-\beta)\rho\,,\end{aligned}$$ when $\ell=0$. Therefore and are always identical equations in this region ($\rho\ll 1$), and the asymptotic solution for them is given by $$\begin{aligned}
A(\rho) \propto \psi(\rho) \propto 1 - {{\frac{M^2R^2r_0^{-2(\alpha+\beta+1)}}{8}}}\rho^2 + o(\rho^2)\,.\end{aligned}$$
### Large $\rho$ behavior
When $C\ne 0$ and $\rho\gg R$, we consider several ansatz for the leading behavior of $L(\rho)$ as, $$\begin{aligned}
1.&~L(\rho) \simeq {\tilde{q}}\rho^{\kappa}~(\kappa>1)\,,
&
2.&~L(\rho) \simeq {\tilde{q}}\rho\,,
\nonumber\\
3.&~L(\rho) \simeq {\tilde{q}}\rho^{\kappa}~(\kappa<1)\,,
&
4.&~L(\rho) \simeq p + {\tilde{q}}\rho^{\kappa}~(\kappa<1)\,,\end{aligned}$$ which respectively give different leading forms for . Out of these, only $3.~L(\rho) \simeq {\tilde{q}}\rho^{\kappa}\; (\kappa<1)$ has a solution, which is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:kappa}
\kappa^2 + (C+2)\kappa - C =0
\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad
\kappa = \kappa_{\pm} &\equiv {{\frac{-(C+2)\pm{\sqrt{(C+4)^2-12}}}{2}}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ This solution again includes $L(\rho)\equiv r_0$ for $C=0$, because $\kappa_+=0$ when $C=0$.
This asymptotic solution of $L(\rho)$ leads to the leading behavior of $P_0(\rho)$, $P_1(\rho)$ and $Q_1(\rho)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:largerho:a0a1b1}
P_0(\rho) &\simeq M^2R^2\rho^{-2(\alpha+\beta+1)}\,,
\qquad
P_1(\rho) \simeq (\zeta + 1)\rho^{-1}\,,
\nonumber\\
Q_1(\rho) &\simeq 2(\alpha - \beta + \kappa - 1)\rho^{-1}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\zeta$ is the same one as . By using this asymptotics, the asymptotic form of the normalizable solutions for and are respectively given as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:largerho:a}
a(\rho)&\sim \rho^{-\zeta}\,,\\
\label{eq:largerho:Psi}
\Psi(\rho)&\sim \rho^{-(C+2\kappa_{+}+2)} = \rho^{-{\sqrt{(C+4)^2-12}}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where we used the condition . In order for , we have to choose $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:L:largerho}
L\sim \rho^{\kappa_+}\,,\end{aligned}$$ out of $\kappa_{\pm}$ , otherwise we would have $\Psi\sim \rho^{{\sqrt{(C+4)^2-12}}}$, which is not normalizable.
After we find , we can see that the asymptotics and are actually identical (i.e., $\zeta={\sqrt{(C+4)^2-12}}$).
Numerical Computations {#ch:Numerical_results}
======================
Method
------
Now let us compute the numerical values of the meson masses from the equations of motion , and . Our basic strategy is the simple shooting methods. First we temporary fix an arbitrary value for $M$, and impose a boundary condition $A'(0)=0$ or $\psi'(0)=0$. Then we solve the equation or from $\rho=0$ toward larger $\rho$, by using the solution of . Then, for generic values of $M$, the solution for $A(\rho)$ or $\psi(\rho)$ goes to a nonzero constant at $\rho\to\infty$. Only for special discrete values of $M$, it will decay at $\rho\to\infty$, satisfying the normalizability. Those values of $M$ are nothing but the meson masses. We call the $i$-th excited states of pseudo-scalar and vector mesons as $\eta_i$ and $\Upsilon_i$ ($i=0,1,2,\dots$), respectively, and their masses are referred to by $M_\eta^{(i)}$ and $M_\Upsilon^{(i)}$.
Since the equations of motion becomes singular at $\rho=0$, we introduce a cutoff $\rho=\rho_\epsilon$ where we impose initial conditions for by using the $\rho\to 0$ asymptotic form . We also introduce a boundary cutoff $\rho_{\infty}$, where we determine the meson masses by $A(\rho_\infty)=0$ or $\psi(\rho_\infty)=0$. The authors implemented this procedure on a [*Mathematica*]{} program and carried out the series of numerical computations. They adopted $\rho_\epsilon=10^{-25}$ and $\rho_\infty=2^{20}$, and used 50-digits floating-point numbers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Contour plots of the mass difference $(M_\Upsilon^{(0)}-M_\eta^{(0)})$ in the unit of $M_\eta^{(0)}=1$, on the $(\alpha-\beta,\alpha+\beta)$-plane for [**(a)**]{} $0\le \alpha-\beta\le 1$ and [**(b)**]{} $1\le\alpha-\beta\le{\sqrt{3}}$. The white line in (a) shows $\beta=0$. []{data-label="fig:M0contour"}](ratio0th_contourplot.pdf "fig:"){height="0.4\textheight"} \[0pt\]\[0pt\][ ![Contour plots of the mass difference $(M_\Upsilon^{(0)}-M_\eta^{(0)})$ in the unit of $M_\eta^{(0)}=1$, on the $(\alpha-\beta,\alpha+\beta)$-plane for [**(a)**]{} $0\le \alpha-\beta\le 1$ and [**(b)**]{} $1\le\alpha-\beta\le{\sqrt{3}}$. The white line in (a) shows $\beta=0$. []{data-label="fig:M0contour"}](ratio0th_contourplot_legends.pdf "fig:"){height="0.25\textheight"} ]{} ![Contour plots of the mass difference $(M_\Upsilon^{(0)}-M_\eta^{(0)})$ in the unit of $M_\eta^{(0)}=1$, on the $(\alpha-\beta,\alpha+\beta)$-plane for [**(a)**]{} $0\le \alpha-\beta\le 1$ and [**(b)**]{} $1\le\alpha-\beta\le{\sqrt{3}}$. The white line in (a) shows $\beta=0$. []{data-label="fig:M0contour"}](ratio0th_contourplot_neggamma.pdf "fig:"){height="0.22\textheight"} \[0pt\]\[0pt\][ ![Contour plots of the mass difference $(M_\Upsilon^{(0)}-M_\eta^{(0)})$ in the unit of $M_\eta^{(0)}=1$, on the $(\alpha-\beta,\alpha+\beta)$-plane for [**(a)**]{} $0\le \alpha-\beta\le 1$ and [**(b)**]{} $1\le\alpha-\beta\le{\sqrt{3}}$. The white line in (a) shows $\beta=0$. []{data-label="fig:M0contour"}](ratio0th_contourplot_neggamma_legends.pdf "fig:"){height="0.25\textheight"} ]{}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Plot of $M_\Upsilon^{(0)}-M_\eta^{(0)}$ on $\beta=0$ (white line on [[\[fig:M0contour\]]{}]{}(a)).[]{data-label="fig:M0beta0"}](ratio0th_beta0plot.pdf){width="60.00000%"}
Results for Ground State Masses
-------------------------------
The numerical plots for the meson mass difference $M_\Upsilon^{(0)}-M_\eta^{(0)}$ is shown in [[\[fig:M0contour\]]{}]{}. In the region (a) $\alpha-\beta\le 1$ (corresponding to $\gamma\ge 0$), $M_\Upsilon^{(0)}$ is slightly larger than $M_\eta^{(0)}$, in agreement with the tendency observed in experiments for charmonia ($\eta_c(2980)$, $J/\psi(3097)$) and bottomonia ($\eta_b(9390)$, $\Upsilon(9460)$). The mass difference is nonzero in general, but rather small everywhere (up to $\simeq 1.5\%$). We can observe that exact degeneration is realized on $\alpha+\beta\to 0$ or $\alpha-\beta\to 0$ limits respectively, as well as on $\alpha-\beta=1$ . In particular, the $\beta=0$ cross section is shown in [[\[fig:M0beta0\]]{}]{}. The exact degeneration at $(\alpha,\beta)=(1,0)$ on this graph is the trivial one caused by the supersymmetry. It is remarkable that degeneration also takes place in the opposite limit $\alpha\to 0$.
On the contrary, in the region (b) $\alpha-\beta>1$, the order of $M_\Upsilon^{(0)}$ and $M_\eta^{(0)}$ is reversed, and the mass splitting becomes relatively large (more than 30% at most). Since this region breaks the weak gravity condition , our classical calculation is not reliable in general, due to quantum-gravitational effects.
In summary, we conclude that the heavy quark spin symmetry is realized for the lowest quarkonia, not exactly but in a high accuracy, in our generic parameter space of the dual geometry at least where we can rely on the classical gravity.
Results for Excited State Masses
--------------------------------
In this section, the excited states of the quarkonia are investigated. We compare the results of $(\alpha,\beta)=(1,0)$ and $(\alpha,\beta)=(1/16,0)$. The result of $(\alpha,\beta)=(1,0)$ holds the supersymmetry. On the other hand, the supersymmetry is broken in the result of $(\alpha,\beta)=(1/16,0)$, but the vector and pseudo-scalar mesons are almost degenerate in the ground states as seen in the previous section. In [[\[fig:M0beta0\]]{}]{}, the mass difference in the ground state decreases as $\alpha$ comes close to zero. However, the value for $(\alpha,\beta)=(0,0)$ has singularity. Instead of this, we will show the results for $(\alpha,\beta)=(1/16,0)$ which gives the smallest mass difference in the small $\alpha$ region in our numerical calculation.
In [[\[fig:massdif\_excited\]]{}]{}, the mass differences between the excited vector and pseudo-scalar mesons with $(\alpha,\beta)=(1/16,0)$ are shown. For $(\alpha,\beta)=(1,0)$ with the supersymmetry, the mass differences are exactly zero even in the excited states. On the other hand, the results for $(\alpha,\beta)=(1/16,0)$ are not zero but much smaller than the experimental results for the bottomonia [@Agashe:2014kda] and also than the quark model predictions [@Godfrey:1985xj] for the bottomonia and topponia ($t\bar{t}$)[^4]. The mass differences $M_{\Upsilon}/M_{\eta}-1$ for $(\alpha,\beta)=(1/16,0)$ are $4.7\times 10^{-3}\%$ for $n=0$ and $4.1\times 10^{-3}\%$ for $n=1$, while ones for the topponia in [[\[fig:massdif\_excited\]]{}]{} are $4.4\times 10^{-2}\%$ for $n=0$ and $1.4\times 10^{-2}\%$ for $n=1$. As seen in the ground state, the small mass differences between pseudo-scalar and vector mesons are also found in the excited states for $\alpha-\beta\leq 1$.
![Plot of mass difference $M_{\Upsilon}/M_{\eta}-1$. Masses are measured from the ground state mass of the pseudo-scalar meson $M^{(1)}_{\eta}$. Asterisk symbol shows the results for $(\alpha,\beta)=(1/16,0)$. Dot is the experimental values for the bottomonium [@Agashe:2014kda]. Triangle and square are the spectra of bottomonium and topponium, respectively, obtained by the quark model calculation in Ref. [@Godfrey:1985xj]. []{data-label="fig:massdif_excited"}](massdifference.pdf){width="60.00000%"}
We estimate the excitation energies of the quarkonium spectra. In [[\[fig:excited\_energy\_n0n1\]]{}]{}, the $\alpha$ dependence of the mass difference between the first-excited and ground states of the vector meson, $M^{(1)}_{\Upsilon}/M^{(0)}_{\Upsilon}-1$, is shown in $\alpha\leq 1$ and $\beta=0$. The mass difference decreases with decrease in $\alpha$. The excitation energies for $(\alpha,\beta)=(1,0)$ are much larger than the ones in small $\alpha$ region, while the mass degeneracies are realized in both cases. Similar behavior is also obtained in the result of the pseudo-scalar mesons.
In [[\[fig:excited\_energy\_EXPvsHQS\]]{}]{}, excitation energies for $(\alpha,\beta)=(1/16,0)$ are shown as $M^{(n+1)}_{\Upsilon}-M^{(n)}_{\Upsilon}$ for $n\geq 0$. The masses are normalized by $M^{(0)}_{\eta}$. In comparison with the experimental values and other theoretical studies, the energies for $(\alpha,\beta)=(1/16,0)$ are comparable with those values as seen in [[\[fig:excited\_energy\_EXPvsHQS\]]{}]{}. On the other hand, the excitation energies for $(\alpha,\beta)=(1,0)$ are very large. In [[\[fig:excited\_energy\_EXPvsHQS\]]{}]{}, the excitation energies go down slightly as $n$ increases. The experimental and theoretical results [@Agashe:2014kda; @Brambilla:2010cs; @Godfrey:1985xj; @Barnes:2005pb; @Liu:2012ze; @Aoki:2013ldr] also show such tendency. In the quark model calculation, this behavior is understood to be caused by the linear component in the confinement potential.
![Plot of the $\alpha$ dependence of the mass difference between the first-excited and ground states in $\alpha< 1$ and $\beta=0$.[]{data-label="fig:excited_energy_n0n1"}](excitation_energy_n1n0vsalpha.pdf){width="60.00000%"}
![excitation energies for vector mesons, $M^{(n+1)}_{\Upsilon}-M^{(n)}_{\Upsilon}$ for $n\geq 0$. The masses are normalized by $M^{(0)}_{\eta}$. Asterisk shows the results for $(\alpha,\beta)=(1/16,0)$. Dot is the bottomonium spectra in the experimental data. Triangle and square are the quark model predictions for bottomonia and topponia, respectively [@Godfrey:1985xj]. []{data-label="fig:excited_energy_EXPvsHQS"}](excitation_energy_HQSvsExp.pdf){width="63.00000%"}
Summary and Discussions {#ch:Disscussion_Conclusion}
=======================
#### Summary
In this paper, we have studied holography on general D3-like gravitational backgrounds, with a flavor D7 brane. We analyzed the conditions for the dual boundary theory being a physical QCD-like theory — stability, locality, current/constituent quark masses, and some supplementary constraints — and determined the proper parameter region. Finally, by solving the equations of motion of the DBI action of the D7 brane on such backgrounds, we calculated the mass degeneracy of pseudo-scalar and vector quarkonia of the boundary theory at heavy quark limit. As a result, we found that the degeneracy is generically realized in a good accuracy, while there are tiny mass splittings.
#### Interpretation of our results
For the most part, our results show good qualitative agreements with those of phenomenological or perturbative QCD effective models, as well as experiments. It suggests a universality of (approximate) heavy quark spin symmetry, even for generic, strongly coupled theories.
Besides it, our new important observation is the existence of the small breaking of the heavy quark symmetry, which was absent in those effective models. This difference is quite interesting, because our holographic calculation includes non-perturbative effects as well as the perturbative contributions of the gauge theory. Compared to the perturbative approaches, that non-perturbativity explains the disagreement. It also suggests that the phenomenological quark model should include small spin-dependent terms in the quark-antiquark potential function, coming from a similar origin. Conversely speaking, our results imply that such non-perturbative effects are not too large, and the conventional assumptions of those effective models are good approximations to some extent. We expect that lattice simulations will finally confirm our predictions, although they are still suffering from too large computational cost, especially for heavy quark theories.
Although our expectation is as above, perhaps a supporter for exact heavy quark symmetry could defend it with some other logical possibilities below, which could not be rejected immediately.
One would be a claim that we must tune the parameters to realize the exact heavy quark symmetry as well as the quark-meson mass proportionality , for the boundary theory being a physical QCD-like one. According to it, the only (asymptotic) physical point in our parameter space would be $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)=(0,0,\infty)$, where the power-law ansatz breaks down and we would have to replace it by different ones including $\exp$, $\log$, etc. Holography on such geometry behaves slightly differently from standard ones [@Ogawa:logpreparation], and such subtlety might be important for heavy quark physics.
Another, maybe relatively more presumable one is as follows. Even when we are taking the heavy quark limit, it is only after the limits of large $N_c$ and strong (’tHooft) coupling for classical gravity approximation. This might suggest that we cannot arrive at the regime where the heavy quark effect could beat those of large $N_c$ and strong coupling. In other words, on the gravity side, quantum or string corrections might work to cancel the mass splittings and to restore the heavy quark symmetry. This discussion could be regarded to be consistent with the relatively large mass splittings for $\gamma<0$ ([[\[fig:M0contour\]]{}]{} (b)), where quantum gravitational corrections are expected to be especially important.
#### Applications to supergravity solutions
It is possible to perform the same analysis as this paper for supergravity background which has a known dual gauge theory, in particular. That would enable us to check the heavy quark symmetry in some non-trivial, concrete theories. The ${\mathcal{N}}=2$ examples suffer from the automatic mass degeneracy due to the supersymmetry, as we mentioned in the introduction. Any vector meson should be accompanied with a complex scalar mesons (a scalar plus a pseudo-scalar), as a consequence of the ${\mathcal{N}}=2$ supermultiplet.[^5]
So we need to consider ${\mathcal{N}}=1$ or non-supersymmetric examples. The ${\mathcal{N}}=1$ examples include Klebanov-Witten geometry [@Klebanov:1998hh] and its generalization such as supergravity on Sasaki-Einstein manifolds (see for example [@Martelli:2004wu]), and non-conformal theories such as gravity dual to ${\mathcal{N}}=1$ super QCD where explicit gravity background solutions are known (see for example [@Casero:2006pt]). A peculiar ${\mathcal{N}}=0$ model is a gravity on $\mathrm{AdS}_5\times S^5/\Gamma$ where $\Gamma$ is a discrete group [@Kachru:1998ys]. Depending on how the group $\Gamma$ acts on the sphere, possible flavor D-brane configurations are classified. When the D7-brane configuration is consistent with $\Gamma$, as is the case for our computations in this paper, the meson spectrum on the D7 is left intact and the (supersymmetric) mass degeneracy remains, at the classical level on the gravity side. At that time, however, new twisted sectors arise, and they would break the supersymmetry and the mass degeneracy through quantum ($1/N_c$-order) corrections. Furthermore, applications to non-asymptotically-AdS supergravity solutions such as [@Klebanov:2000hb] would be even more interesting.
#### Relation to T-duality?
We point out that the heavy quark symmetry may originate in string T-duality. Any D-brane has scalar and vector excitations as its massless part of string fluctuations, and they are related by the T-duality. The T-duality is manifest in a flat background geometry. But in holography, the flavor D-brane is put in a curved spacetime, so in an appropriate limit, the T-duality symmetry may recover. It might be a plausible guess that the recovery of the T-duality may be related to the heavy quark limit at which the flavor D-brane is pushed toward the boundary of the geometry where the background geometric structure simplifies. The role of supersymmetry may be important there, but generically the T-duality works even in the absence of the supersymmetry, as is obvious from D-branes in bosonic string examples. It would be interesting to pursue this direction to find possible intrinsic and geometric origin of the holographic heavy quark symmetry.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors thank Norihiro Iizuka, Carlos Núñez and Koichi Yazaki for fruitful discussions. The work of N.O. is supported by the Special Postdoctoral Researcher (SPDR) Program of RIKEN. This work is partly supported by the interdisciplinary Theoretical Science (iTHES) Project of RIKEN. The authors are also grateful to the anonymous referee of JHEP for valuable suggestions to improve this paper.
Details of Derivation of Constraints for Parameters {#ch:constraints}
===================================================
In this Appendix, we give the details of the derivations of the various constraints we gave in §\[ch:Constraints\_para\] for the parameters $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta)$ in the action .
Null Energy Condition
---------------------
Here let us solve the null energy condition combined with Einstein equation, , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:nec}
{\mathcal{R}}_{MN}^{(\mathit{Ein})}\xi^M\xi^N\ge 0\,.\end{aligned}$$ The Ricci tensor ${\mathcal{R}}_{MN}^{(\mathit{Ein})}$ is calculated from the Einstein-frame metric as $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{R}}_{MN}^{(\mathit{Ein})}dx^{M}dx^{N}
= &-{{\frac{\alpha(4{\tilde{\alpha}}-4{\tilde{\beta}}+5\delta)}{R^2}}}\,r^{2({\tilde{\alpha}}+{\tilde{\beta}})}\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}
+ \l[-4{\tilde{\alpha}}({\tilde{\alpha}}+{\tilde{\beta}})+5\delta({\tilde{\beta}}-{\tilde{\delta}})\r]{{\frac{dr^2}{r^2}}}
\nonumber\\
&+ \l[(4{\tilde{\alpha}}-4{\tilde{\beta}}+5\delta)({\tilde{\beta}}-\delta)r^{2\delta}+4\r]d\Omega_5^2\,.\end{aligned}$$ The null vector can be given as $$\begin{aligned}
\xi_1^M\partial_M &= \partial_t + \partial_x\,,
\quad\text{or}\quad
\xi_2^M\partial_M =
r^{-{\tilde{\alpha}}}\partial_t
+ (\cos\omega) {{\frac{r^{{\tilde{\beta}}+1}}{R}}}\partial_r
+ (\sin\omega) {{\frac{r^{{\tilde{\beta}}-\delta}}{R}}}\partial_{\theta}\,, \end{aligned}$$ without loss of generality, by the ${\mathrm{SO}}(1,4)\times{\mathrm{SO}}(6)$ isometry of . They lead to $R_{MN}\xi_1^M\xi_1^N\equiv 0$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{R}}_{MN}^{(\mathit{Ein})}\xi_2^M\xi_2^N
=
\frac{r^{2{\tilde{\beta}}}}{R^2}
\Big[
&2r^{-2\delta}
+ \l(2{\tilde{\alpha}} ^2- 4{\tilde{\alpha}} {\tilde{\beta}} + 3{\tilde{\alpha}}\delta - 2{\tilde{\beta}}^2 +7{\tilde{\beta}}\delta -5\delta ^2\r)
\nonumber\\
&+2\cos(2\omega) \l\{r^{-2\delta} -\l(-{\tilde{\alpha}} ^2 -2{\tilde{\alpha}}{\tilde{\beta}} +{\tilde{\alpha}}\delta +{\tilde{\beta}}^2 -{\tilde{\beta}}\delta \r)\r\}
\Big]\,,\end{aligned}$$ which gives
\[eq:nec:result\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:nec:result:1}
({\tilde{\alpha}} +{\tilde{\beta}} -\delta) (4{\tilde{\alpha}} -4{\tilde{\beta}} +5\delta) +4 r^{-2\delta} &\ge 0\,,\\
\label{eq:nec:result:2}
8{\tilde{\alpha}}{\tilde{\beta}} -5\delta ({\tilde{\alpha}} +{\tilde{\beta}}) +5\delta ^2 &\le 0\,,\end{aligned}$$
from , at $\omega=0$ and $\omega={{\pi/4}}$ respectively. Depending on the sign of $\delta$, they are furthermore rewritten as follows.
#### Case 1: $\bm{\delta=0}$
When $\delta=0$, becomes
\[eq:nec:result:delta=0\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:nec:result:1:delta=0}
\hat\alpha^2 - \hat\beta^2 + 1&\ge 0\,,\\
\label{eq:nec:result:2:delta=0}
\hat\alpha\hat\beta &\le 0\,.\end{aligned}$$
#### Case 2: $\bm{\delta>0}$
When $\delta>0$, gives the most strict condition at $r\to\infty$, as
\[eq:nec:result:delta>0\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:nec:result:1:delta>0}
(\hat\alpha +\hat\beta -1) \l(\hat\alpha -\hat\beta +{{\frac{5}{4}}}\r) &\ge 0\,,\end{aligned}$$ while becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:nec:result:2:delta>0}
8\hat\alpha\hat\beta -5(\hat\alpha +\hat\beta) +5 &\le 0\,.\end{aligned}$$
#### Case 3: $\bm{\delta<0}$
When $\delta<0$, is more strict when $r$ is smaller, but there is a bound $r\simeq r_{\mathit{IR}}$, where the UV form of the geometry breaks down. Then the condition is
\[eq:nec:result:delta<0\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:nec:result:1:delta<0}
(\hat\alpha +\hat\beta +1) \l(\hat\alpha -\hat\beta -{{\frac{5}{4}}}\r) &\ge
-{{\frac{r_{\mathit{IR}}^{-2\delta}}{\delta^2}}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ while becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:nec:result:2:delta<0}
8\hat\alpha\hat\beta +5(\hat\alpha +\hat\beta) +5 &\le 0\,.\end{aligned}$$
Entanglement Entropy
--------------------
Since we are interested in QCD-like theories, the gluon sector consists of local degrees of freedom and deconfined in UV regime. The behavior of entanglement entropy is restricted by such conditions. The UV divergent term should obey the so-called area-law, from the locality of the theory. We can deal with this condition on the gravity side by using Ryu-Takayanagi formula .
![Candidates for the minimal surface profile. Blue line gives [*area-law*]{}, whereas red line leads to [*volume law*]{} for the UV divergent part of the entanglement entropy.[]{data-label="fig:HEE"}](HEEprofile.pdf){height="0.2\textheight"}
Let us take the subsystem $A$ to be a stripe with its width $\ell$, say $-\ell/2 < x < \ell/2$. Then the corresponding minimal surface $\gamma_A$ should be given by a curved profile $r=r(x)$, s.t., $r(\pm\ell/2)=r_{\infty}(\to\infty)$ and $r(0)=r_*$ which is the turning point of the surface. It is drawn by the blue line in [[\[fig:HEE\]]{}]{}, on the $(x,1/r)$-plane. Then the area is written down as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{Area}(\gamma_A)
&\propto A_2(\partial A)\int_{r_*}^{r_\infty}\!dr\,r^{3{\tilde{\alpha}}-5{\tilde{\beta}}+5\delta}{\sqrt{\l({{\frac{dx}{dr}}}\r)^2+r^{-2({\tilde{\alpha}}+{\tilde{\beta}}+1)}}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $A_2(\partial A)$ is the area of $\partial A$ (which is divergent). This is extremized by the solution of the Euler-Lagrange equation, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:HEE:profile}
{{\frac{dx}{dr}}} = {{\frac{f(r_*)\,r^{-({\tilde{\alpha}}+{\tilde{\beta}}+1)}}{{\sqrt{f(r)^2-f(r_*)^2}}}}}\,,
\qquad
\l(f(r)\equiv r^{3{\tilde{\alpha}}-5{\tilde{\beta}}+5\delta}\r)\,,\end{aligned}$$ giving the UV divergent term of the area as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:HEE:UVarealaw}
\mathrm{Area}(\gamma_A)_{UV} \sim A_2(\partial A)\,r_{\infty}^{\;\;2{\tilde{\alpha}}-6{\tilde{\beta}}+5\delta}\,.\end{aligned}$$ The reality of the solution requires $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:HEE:additional}
3{\tilde{\alpha}} - 5{\tilde{\beta}} + 5\delta > 0\,
\quad&\Leftrightarrow\quad
3\alpha - 5\beta + 5\delta + 8\gamma > 0\,
\nonumber\\
\quad&\Leftrightarrow\quad
3\hat\alpha - 5\hat\beta > -5\,\mathrm{sign}(\delta)\,.\end{aligned}$$ In order that this solution gives the true minimal area, we need that it is smaller than the other candidate, $r(x)\equiv r_{\infty}$, shown by the red line in [[\[fig:HEE\]]{}]{}. This second profile gives a “volume law” UV behavior, which is computed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:HEE:UVvolumelaw}
\mathrm{Area}(\gamma_A)_{UV}^{\mathrm{vol{{\mathchar"712D}}law}} \sim V_3(A)\,r_{\infty}^{\;\;3{\tilde{\alpha}}-5{\tilde{\beta}}+5\delta}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $V_3(A)=A_2(\partial A)\times\ell$. Comparing with , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:HEE:alpha+beta}
{\tilde{\alpha}} + {\tilde{\beta}} > 0
\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad
\alpha + \beta > 0\,.\end{aligned}$$
Note that, under and , will be equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha + \beta < 2\zeta\,,\end{aligned}$$ which will not affect the final conclusion of the physical parameter region.
#### Wilson loop
Under the assumption that the background fluxes do not make any important contributions, we can also calculate the expectation values of the stripe-like Wilson loops which correspond to the quark-antiquark potential. Unlike the entanglement entropy above, we deal with (1+1)-dimensional string world-sheets and work on the string-frame metric . It can be written down as $$\begin{aligned}
-\log\l<{\mathcal{W}}({\mathcal{C}})\r>
&\propto \min_{x(r)}\int_{r_*}^{r_\infty}\!dr\,r^{2\alpha}{\sqrt{\l({{\frac{dx}{dr}}}\r)^2+r^{-2(\alpha+\beta+1)}}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ We expect that it obeys the so-called perimeter-law (which is essentially the same one as the “area-law” for entanglement entropy above), in order that the system is a local gauge field theory in a deconfined phase at short distances. It is straightforward to follow the same prescription above, and we find the conditions $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha > 0\,,
\qquad
\alpha + \beta > 0\,.\end{aligned}$$ They are always ensured by and .
Although the constraints from the entanglement entropy and the Wilson loop may look almost equivalent, that of the entanglement entropy is more rigorous because it depends only on the Einstein-frame metric and does not need any assumption for background fluxes.
Conditions for Quark Masses {#ch:constraints:quarkmass}
---------------------------
### Constituent quark mass {#ch:constraints:constituentmass}
The constituent quark mass is given by the mass of the fundamental string which connects the horizon and the turning point $r=r_0$ of the D7, as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:constraints:constituentmass}
{\tilde{m}}_{Q} &= {{\frac{1}{2\pi\alpha'}}}\int_{0}^{r_0}\!{\sqrt{-g_{tt}g_{rr}}}\,dr
= {\tilde{m}}_{\mathrm{IR}} + {{\frac{R}{2\pi\alpha'}}}\int_{r_{\mathrm{IR}}}^{r_0}\!r^{\alpha-\beta-1}\,dr\,.\end{aligned}$$ In order that this ${\tilde{m}}_Q$ becomes large for large $r_0$, we need $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:constraint:alpha-beta}
\alpha - \beta \ge 0\,.\end{aligned}$$
### Current quark mass {#ch:constraints:currentmass}
We need that the current quark mass $m_Q$ is large but non-divergent. According to the dictionary of holography, it is given by the mass of a string connecting the D7-brane and $\theta\equiv \pi/2$ hypersurface on the boundary. That is, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:constraints:currentmass}
m_{Q}
= \lim_{r\to\infty}{{\frac{1}{2\pi\alpha'}}}{\sqrt{-g_{tt}g_{\theta\theta}}}\,\l({{\frac{\pi}{2}}}-\Theta(r)\r)
= {{\frac{R}{2\pi\alpha'}}}\lim_{r\to\infty}r^{\alpha-\beta+\delta}\l({{\frac{\pi}{2}}}-\Theta(r)\r).\end{aligned}$$ In order that this is a finite quantity, we need $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:constraints:orderofTheta}
{{\frac{\pi}{2}}}-\Theta(r)\sim r^{-\alpha+\beta-\delta}\,,\end{aligned}$$ at $r\to\infty$.
### Heavy quark condition {#ch:constraints:heavyquark}
Let us assume a very large ${\tilde{m}}_Q$ (i.e., a large $r_0$), and introduce a new radial coordinate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:s}
s = {{\frac{r}{r_0}}}.\end{aligned}$$ By using this, the action $S_\Theta$ for $\Theta(r)$ is rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Theta:s}
S_{\Theta} \propto
-\int\!ds\,s^{4\alpha-4\beta+4\gamma+3\delta-1}\sin^3\Theta
{\sqrt{1+r_0^{2\delta}(\Theta')^2}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where a prime ($'$) stands for a derivative by $s$. If $\delta < 0$ or $>0$, the square root becomes $1$ or $\propto \Theta'$ respectively for large $r_0$ limit. In both cases, the equation of motion says that $\Theta$ is a constant, for which implies $\delta = -\alpha + \beta$ which in turn leads to $\delta<0$ from . In this case, however, the solution is $\Theta\equiv\pi/2$ and then the current quark mass $m_Q$ becomes $0$ at $r_0\to\infty$ limit. Therefore the cases of $\delta\ne 0$ are totally excluded.
Now we take $\delta=0$. Then becomes $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\Theta} \propto
-\int\!ds\,s^{4\alpha-4\beta+4\gamma-1}\sin^3\Theta
{\sqrt{1+(\Theta')^2}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ whose equation of motion is equivalent to . From the transformation , the current quark mass condition implies $$\begin{aligned}
L \sim r^{-\alpha+\beta+1}\sim \rho^{-\alpha+\beta+1}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, comparing with , we need $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa_+ = -\alpha+\beta+1\,,\end{aligned}$$ and by using we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gamma_c}
\gamma = -{{\frac{3}{4}}}\l(\alpha-\beta - {{\frac{1}{\alpha-\beta}}}\r)\,.\end{aligned}$$
Bulk Spacetime Curvature {#app:Curvature}
------------------------
From the string-frame metric with $\delta=0$ , we can compute some scalar quantities composed by the curvature, as $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{R}}&= -\frac{4}{R^2} \left(5 \alpha ^2-8 \alpha \beta +5 \beta ^2-5\right) r^{2 \beta }\,,\\
{\mathcal{R}}_{MN}{\mathcal{R}}^{MN} &= \frac{16}{R^4} \left(4 \alpha ^2 (\alpha -\beta )^2+\alpha ^2 (\alpha +\beta )^2+5 \left(\alpha \beta -\beta ^2+1\right)^2\right) r^{4 \beta }\,,\\
{\mathcal{R}}_{MNPQ}{\mathcal{R}}^{MNPQ} &= \frac{8}{R^4} \left(5 \alpha ^4+4 \alpha ^3 \beta +12 \alpha ^2 \beta ^2+5 \left(\beta ^2-1\right)^2\right) r^{4 \beta }\,.\end{aligned}$$ They lead to the condition $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:strcurv_cond}
\beta \le 0\,,\end{aligned}$$ to avoid divergences of these quantities at $r\to\infty$. The Einstein-frame curvatures are obtained simply by replacing $(\alpha,\beta)$ by $({\tilde{\alpha}},{\tilde{\beta}})$ in the above (apart from overall coefficients), then the corresponding no-divergence condition is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Eincurv_cond}
{\tilde{\beta}} \le 0\,, \quad\text{i.e.,}\quad \beta\le \gamma\,.\end{aligned}$$ Under the UV weakly-coupled condition , the condition is always stronger than .
Equations of Motion for General $\bm{\delta}$ {#sec:EoM:general}
=============================================
In this appendix, we deal with the equations of motion for the DBI action with general value of $\delta$.
First we consider the static configuration . Substituting into and , the action becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:STheta}
S_{\Theta}
= -{{\frac{2\pi^2T_7R^4V_4}{g_0}}}\int\!\!dr\,
r^{4\alpha-4\beta+4\gamma+3\delta-1}
\sin^3\Theta{\sqrt{1+r^{2(\delta+1)}\dot{\Theta}^2}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where a dot ($\dot{}$) represents a derivative by $r$ here. This leads to the equation of motion for $\Theta(r)$, $$\begin{aligned}
r^{2\delta}\partial_r\l({{\frac{\dot{\Theta}\sin\Theta}{{\sqrt{1+r^{2(\delta+1)}\dot{\Theta}^2}}}}}\r)
- (4\alpha-4\beta+4\gamma+5\delta)r^{2\delta-1}
{{\frac{\dot{\Theta}\sin\Theta}{{\sqrt{1+r^{2(\delta+1)}\dot{\Theta}^2}}}}}
&\nonumber\\
+ 3\cos\Theta\sin^2\Theta{\sqrt{1+r^{2(\delta+1)}\dot{\Theta}^2}}
&\quad
= 0\,.\end{aligned}$$ Since we want to consider turning-around configurations, we set the IR boundary condition for $\Theta(r)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta(r_0) = 0\,,
\qquad
\dot{\Theta}(r_0) = \infty\,.\end{aligned}$$
On this configuration, we consider small linear fluctuations of $\psi$ and $A_a$ in the form of $$\begin{aligned}
\delta A_{x} &\sim e^{-ik_\mu x^\mu}Y_{\ell mn}(\Omega_3)a(r)\,,
\\
\delta \psi &\sim e^{-ik_\mu x^\mu}Y_{\ell mn}(\Omega_3)\Psi(r)\,,\end{aligned}$$where the regularity at $r=r_0$ requires the IR boundary conditions $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{a}(r_0) = 0\,,
\qquad
\dot{\Psi}(r_0) = 0\,.\end{aligned}$$ For these, the leading (quadratic) fluctuation terms of the DBI action read, respectively, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:EoM:Sa}
S_{a}
&= -{{\frac{4\pi^4\alpha'^2T_7R^2V_4}{g_0}}}\int\!dr\,r^{-4\beta+4\gamma+\delta-1}
{{\frac{\sin\Theta}{{\sqrt{1+r^{2(\delta+1)}\dot{\Theta}^2}}}}}
\nonumber\\
&\qquad\quad\times
\l[\l\{\ell(\ell+2)r^{2(\alpha+\beta)}-M^2R^2r^{2(\delta+1)}\sin^2\Theta\r\}\l(1+r^{2(\delta+1)}\dot{\Theta}^2\r)a^2
+ r^{2(\alpha+\beta+\delta+1)}\sin^2\Theta\,\dot{a}^2
\r]\,,
\\
\pagebreak[3]
\label{eq:EoM:SPsi}
S_{\Psi}
&= -{{\frac{\pi^2T_7R^4V_4}{g_0}}}\int\!dr\,r^{2\alpha-6\beta+4\gamma+3\delta-1}
{{\frac{\cos^2\Theta\sin\Theta}{{\sqrt{1+r^{2(\delta+1)}\dot{\Theta}^2}}}}}
\nonumber\\
&\qquad\quad\times
\l[\l\{\ell(\ell+2)r^{2(\alpha+\beta)}-M^2R^2r^{2(\delta+1)}\sin^2\Theta\r\}\l(1+r^{2(\delta+1)}\dot{\Theta}^2\r)\Psi^2
+ r^{2(\alpha+\beta+\delta+1)}\sin^2\Theta\,\dot{\Psi}^2
\r]\,.\end{aligned}$$ We notice that and are very similar to each other, and the only difference is the factor of $r^{2(\alpha-\beta+\delta)}\cos^2\Theta$ in the integrand.
Schrödinger Form of the Equations of Motion {#sec:Schroedinger}
===========================================
The linear equations and can be rewritten as the conventional forms of Schrödinger equations, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Schroedinger:A}
\l(-\partial_\chi^2+V_a(\chi)\r){\tilde{a}} &= (M_aR)^2\,{\tilde{a}}\,,\\
\label{eq:Schroedinger:psi}
\l(-\partial_\chi^2+V_\Psi(\chi)\r){\tilde{\Psi}} &= (M_\Psi R)^2\,{\tilde{\Psi}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ by proper transformations of functions and coordinates. For $\ell=0$, the transformations are given by $$\begin{aligned}
&\partial_\chi\rho = {{\frac{1}{{\sqrt{{\tilde{P}}_0}}}}}\,,
\qquad
{\tilde{P}}_0 \equiv {{\frac{P_0}{M^2R^2}}}
= {{\frac{1+\dot{L}^2}{(\rho^2+L^2)^{\alpha+\beta+1}}}}\,,\\
&{\tilde{a}} = f_aa\,,
\quad
\rho'' + 2(\rho')^2\partial_\rho\log{f_a} = {{\frac{P_1}{{\tilde{P}}_0}}}\,,\\
&{\tilde{\Psi}} = f_\Psi\Psi\,,
\quad
\rho'' + 2(\rho')^2\partial_\rho\log{f_\Psi} = {{\frac{P_1+Q_1}{{\tilde{P}}_0}}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ which lead to the potentials $$\begin{aligned}
V_i = {{\frac{\rho''\dot{f}_i + 2(\rho'')^2\ddot{f}_i}{f_i}}}
\qquad (i=a,\Psi)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where a prime (${}'$) stands for a derivative by $\chi$. By using these equations, we can draw the shapes of the potentials $V_a(\chi)$ and $V_\Psi(\chi)$ numerically.
Furthermore, under the condition , $Q_1(\rho)/P_1(\rho)$ decays at $\rho\to\infty$ and so the equations for $a$ and $\Psi$ have the same asymptotics. By using , they can be solved as $$\begin{aligned}
\chi &\simeq \chi_\infty - {{\frac{\rho^{-(\alpha+\beta)}}{\alpha+\beta}}}\,,
\qquad
f \simeq f_0\rho^{{{\frac{\zeta-(\alpha+\beta)}{2}}}}\,,\\
V &\simeq {{\frac{\zeta^2-(\alpha+\beta)^2}{4}}}\rho^{2(\alpha+\beta)} \nonumber\\
&\simeq {{\frac{\zeta^2-(\alpha+\beta)^2}{4(\alpha+\beta)^2}}}
{{\frac{1}{(\chi_\infty-\chi)^2}}}
\,.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the null energy condition guarantees that the coefficient is positive. Therefore, there is an infinitely high potential barrier at $\chi=\chi_\infty$, which ensures a stable, discrete spectrum. At that time, the leading behavior of the normalizable/non-normalizable solutions for the Schrödinger equation are $$\begin{aligned}
{\tilde{a}}\,,{\tilde{\Psi}} \sim \l({{\frac{1}{\chi_\infty-\chi}}}\r)^{{{\frac{1}{2}}}\l(-1\pm{{\frac{\zeta}{\alpha+\beta}}}\r)}\,,\end{aligned}$$ or equivalently, $$\begin{aligned}
a\,,\Psi \sim \rho^{-\zeta}
\;\;\text{(normalizable)}\,,
\qquad
a\,,\Psi \sim 1
\;\;\text{(non-normalizable)}\,.\end{aligned}$$ The former is our desirable solution, and we need to choose proper energy eigenvalues to make the coefficient of the latter solution to be zero. This is equivalent to the procedure we carried out in §\[ch:Numerical\_results\].
[^1]: E-mail : [email protected]
[^2]: E-mail : [email protected]
[^3]: E-mail : [email protected]
[^4]: Topponia are hypothetical states because top itself is too unstable due to the electroweak interaction. However, they can be obtained in the theoretical studies and are useful to see the quark mass dependence of meson spectra.
[^5]: Even if the supersymmetry is broken at some scale, typically the supersymmetry may be restored at the heavy quark limit. For example, the famous example of the D4-D6 model with broken supersymmetries by the anti-periodic boundary condition for fermions in the Kaluza-Klein circle [@Kruczenski:2003uq], the spectra of mesons were analyzed in [@Jo:2011xq] which shows the mass degeneracy. However this is due to the supersymmetry restoration at the heavy quark limit.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The measurements of the statistical properties of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) fluctuations enable us to probe the physics of the very early Universe especially at the epoch of inflation. A particular interest lays on the detection of the non-Gaussianity of the CMB as it can constrain the current proposed models of inflation and structure formation, or possibly point out new models. The current approach to measure the degree of non-Gaussianity of the CMB is to estimate a single parameter $f_{\rm NL}^{\rm local}$ which is highly model-dependent. The bispectrum is a natural and widely studied tool for measuring the non-Gaussianity in a model-independent way. This paper sets the grounds for a full CMB bispectrum estimator based on the decomposition of the sphere onto projected patches. The mean bispectrum estimated this way can be calculated quickly and is model-independent. This approach is very flexible, allowing exclusion of some patches in the processing or consideration of just a specific region of the sphere.'
address:
- |
AIM, CEA/DSM-CNRS-Universite Paris Diderot, IRFU/SEDI-SAP, Service d’Astrophysique,\
CEA Saclay, Orme des Merisiers, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France\
- |
Laboratoire de l’Accélérateur Linéaire (LAL),\
CNRS: UMR8607, IN2P3, Université Paris-Sud, Orsay, France
author:
- 'S. Pires'
- 'S. Plaszczynski'
- 'A. Lavabre'
title: 'Towards a fast, model-independent Cosmic Microwave Background bispectrum estimator'
---
Cosmology: CMB, Method: Data Analysis
Introduction {#sect_intro}
============
Inflation is the currently favored theory of early Universe which predicts an early short period of rapid expansion and explains the origin of primordial perturbations. Many models of inflation predict weakly non-Gaussian primordial curvature perturbations and the primordial curvature perturbation $\Phi(x)$ is parametrized using the local model [@bispec:komatsu01] as follows: $$\Phi(x) = \Phi_ {\rm L}(x)+f^{local}_{\rm NL} (\Phi_{\rm L}^2(x)-\langle \Phi_{\rm L}^2(x) \rangle),
\label{local}$$ where $f^{\rm local}_{\rm NL}$ is the non-linear coupling constant in the local model.
Due to its simplicity the local model is highly favored especially because all the higher-order moments are determined in terms of this $f^{\rm local}_{\rm NL}$ parameter. Most of models of inflation only predict a value for $f^{\rm local}_{\rm NL}$ to characterize the non-Gaussianity of the CMB. However, there exists other models of inflation that predict different types of deviations from Gaussianity, detailed calculation of which have been investigated in [@bispec:creminelli06; @bispec:fergusson09].\
The observed CMB temperature fluctuations $\Delta T/T$ are related to the primordial curvature perturbation $\Phi(x)$ through the following non-linear relation [@bispec:komatsu02b]: $$\frac{\Delta T}{T} \approx g_{\rm T}(\Phi(x)),
\label{perturbation}$$ where $g_{\rm T}$ is the radiation transfer function. On small scales, this function is very complex and it is evaluated numerically by solving the Boltzmann transport equation. On very large scales, in the Sachs-Wolfe regime ($l < 10$), this relationship simplifies to $\frac{\Delta T}{T} = \frac{\Phi(x)}{3}$. A number of theories of inflation have been proposed that make different predictions about the CMB fluctuations. Measurements of the statistical properties of the CMB are a direct test of inflation which can help to rule out the many models of inflation that have been proposed.
The observed CMB anisotropies $\Delta T/T$ can be expanded onto spherical harmonics: $$\Delta T/T = \sum_{lm} a_{lm} Y_{lm}.
\label{spherical}$$ If the CMB is Gaussian, it is fully described by its angular power spectrum: $$C_l = \frac{1}{2l+1}\sum_{m=-l}^{+l}|a_{lm}|^2.
\label{powerspec}$$
But, as explained previously, many realistic models predict deviations from Gaussianity. Even if, the level of non-Gaussianity is predicted to be very small in single field slow-roll inflation model, there is a large class of more general models that predict a substantially high level of primordial non-Gaussianity. If these models are true, the power spectrum provides a limited insight to the physics of the very early Universe and higher-order estimators are needed to probe the CMB non-Gaussianity. The bispectrum is a natural model-independent approach to probe the small departure from Gaussianity that could originate during inflation. The CMB angular bispectrum may be calculated from product of three spherical harmonic coefficients of the CMB temperature field. For Gaussian fields, the expectation value is exactly zero. Given statistical isotropy of the universe, the angular bispectrum $B_{l_1 l_2 l_3}$ is given by (Komatsu et al, 2001): $$\begin{aligned}
B_{l_1 l_2 l_3} = \sum_{m_1, m_2, m_3} \left(\begin{array}{ccc} l_1 & l_2 & l_3 \\ m_1 & m_2 & m_3 \end{array} \right) a_{l_1 m_1}a_{l_2 m_2}a_{l_3 m_3},
\label{bispectrum}\end{aligned}$$ where the matrix denotes the Wigner-3j symbol, $B_{l_1 l_2 l_3}$ satisfy the triangle condition: $|l_1 - l_2| \le l_3 \le l_1 + l_2$ and the parity invariance: $l_1+l_2+l_3=$ even. Then, a non-zero bispectrum is a signature of a more complicated inflationary period than a simple inflation slow-roll model predicts.
However, computation of a full bispectrum is very time-consuming and it is usually assumed that the signal is too weak for each of the multipoles to be measured individually. Instead a least squares fit to compare the observed bispectrum with a particular (separable) theoretical bispectrum is used. Thus, most non-Gaussianity studies focus on estimating the $f^{\rm local}_{\rm NL}$ parameter because the bispectrum is fully specified by this parameter in the case of a local model (\[local\]). A fast estimator for $f^{\rm local}_{\rm NL}$ has been developed by [@bispec:komatsu05] and improved by [@bispec:creminelli06]:
$$f^{\rm local}_{\rm NL} \simeq \left[\sum^{l_{\rm max}}_{l_1 \le l_2 \le l_3} \frac{(\mathcal{B}^{\rm prim}_{l_1 l_2 l_3})^2}{C_{l_1}C_{l_2}C_{l_3}}\right]^{-1} S_{\rm prim},
\label{fnl}$$
where $C_l$ is the theoretical power spectrum and $\mathcal{B}^{\rm prim}_{l_1 l_2 l_3}$ is the theoretical bispectrum [@bispec:komatsu01] for $f^{\rm local}_{\rm NL}=1$. The statistics $S_{\rm prim}$ defined in [@bispec:komatsu03] has only a complexity of $\mathcal{O}(N^{3/2})$ whereas the full bispectrum analysis is $\mathcal{O}(N^{5/2})$. A detection of $f^{\rm local}_{\rm NL} > 10$ will rule out most of the existing inflation models.\
However, an expression like equation (\[local\]) is not general and there are many other inflationary models that predict different types of deviations from Gaussianity. Other models have been investigated and detailed calculations of other form of non-Gaussianity have been carried out (see for example [@bispec:creminelli06; @bispec:fergusson09]). However, all these estimators are highly model-dependent and may not be able to constrain, many of the non-Gaussiannity signatures. In this paper, we will investigate a more general and model-independent approach to probe the CMB non-Gaussiannity by measuring the full bispectrum. If the non-Gaussianities are of the local type, the bispectrum will reach a maximum in case of squeezed configurations (i.e. one wave vector is much smaller than the other two).\
Full bispectrum estimation on spherical data using the spherical harmonics definition (\[bispectrum\]) is very time consuming. This paper tries to tackle this problem by introducing a promising approach for accelerating the calculation of the fully general bispectrum. This method is based on the projection of the sphere onto small-field projected maps for which a Fourier decomposition is used to estimate the bispectrum. A mean bispectrum estimator can then be obtained by combining results from all the patches. This paper sets the grounds for this method however for full optimization of the estimator, we need more accurate non-Gaussian simulations which are not yet available and an analytical prediction of a full bispectrum for a given level of non-Gaussianity which is very complex to code up.
The outline of the paper is as follows. In §\[sect\_method\], the main issues of the method are pointed out and the method is optimized to do power spectrum estimation. In §\[sect\_application\] the same method is used to accelerate the full bispectrum estimation. Some adaptations of the method are required to optimize the bispectrum estimation.
Decomposition of the sphere onto rectangular Cartesian maps {#sect_method}
===========================================================
In this section, we will describe a method to speed up the spectral analysis by decomposing the sphere onto patches. Such method is similar to the Welch’s method [@stft:oppenheim75; @stft:welch67] that is commonly used to reduce the variance in spectral analysis of 1D data. For a sphere, the size and the repartition of the patches have to be decided. Then, the pixels of the patches have to be projected onto rectangular Cartesian maps. A spectral estimator is then obtained by averaging the result of the spectral analysis on each rectangular Cartesian map. Such methods suffer from the limited size of the projected patches which introduces a bias. In a future paper, we will consider multi-taper techniques [@multitaper:das09] that consist in averaging over different tapers using the full data. These methods reduce the bias since the data length is not shortened.
In this section, we will follow the basic approach that consists in decomposing the sphere onto patches. A number of issues has to be solved before having an optimal estimator.
Some issues of the method {#sect_method_issue}
-------------------------
The first issue to be tackled is to find an optimal tessellation of the sphere. To facilitate the post-processing, especially the FFT required to do spectral analysis, the patches ought to be rectangular and preferably have the same orientation. However, no regular tessellation of the sphere by rectangles exists. Instead, a pseudo regular tessellation with rectangles can be obtained by allowing the patches to overlap. The overlapping also improves the power spectrum estimation : according to the Welch’s overlapped segment method [@stft:welch67; @stft:oppenheim75], estimating the power spectrum of a signal by splitting this one into overlapping windowed patches reduces the noise in the estimated power spectra by reducing the frequency resolution. There still remains the size and position of the patches to be determined. To reduce the distortions, the size of the patches should depend on the map projection and is a compromise between the distortions introduced by the projection and the window function effects.\
The [**effect of the window function**]{} on the final power spectrum is another issue to take into account. The limited size of the patches forces us to use window functions. Thus, instead of analyzing the signal $s(x,y)$, we will be analyzing the truncated signal: $s_h(x,y) = s(x,y) h(x,y)$. In the frequency domain, we obtain the following convolution product $S_h(u,v) = S(u,v)*H(u,v)$ where $H(u,v)$ is the Fourier transform of the window function. By default the window function is a rectangular window, constant inside the patch and zero elsewhere (see the left panel of the Fig.\[window\]). But, it appears that a window function with better frequency response has to be used. The ideal window function is one whose frequency response is a Dirac delta function. It corresponds to an infinite rectangular window function which is impossible in practice. Instead, the frequency response normally consists of a main lobe and side lobes (see the right panel of the Fig.\[window\]). To be close to a Dirac function, the main lobe ought to be the highest and the narrowest to increase the frequency resolution and the side lobes have to be the lowest to limit the mode-to-mode interaction. The rectangular window function is usually not recommended because of its significant sides lobes.\
An additional issue comes from the [**projection effects**]{}. The method that we have developed is based on the decomposition of the sphere onto a few rectangular Cartesian maps. It assumes to do pixel projections from the HEALPix map to rectangular Cartesian maps. No matter how sophisticated the projection process will be, distortions are inherent in flattening the sphere. Some classes of map projections maintain areas, and others preserve local shapes, distances, and/or directions... No projection, however, can preserve all these characteristics. Choosing a projection thus always requires compromising accuracy in some way, and that is one reason why so many different map projections have been developed.\
Whatever the projection, if we want to keep this projection exact, we will have to deal with rectangular Cartesian maps having a [**non-regular grid**]{}. This will be a problem especially for the power spectrum and bispectrum estimation because we need to estimate the Fourier coefficients from a signal $f(x, y)$ at arbitrary nodes ($x, y$).\
Assuming the signal $f$ is a periodic function, it can be decomposed into Fourier series as follows: $$f(x, y) = \sum_{n_1=-\infty}^{+\infty} \sum_{n_2=-\infty}^{+\infty} C_{n_1,n_2}(f) e^{2 \pi i \frac{n_1}{T}x} e^{2 \pi i \frac{n_2}{T}y}
\label{series}$$ The approximation that has been used in this paper consists in finding the coefficients $C_{n_1,n_2}(f)$ of the Fourier series (\[series\]). The problem can be solved efficiently by noting the system matrix is a Toeplitz matrix i.e. a diagonal-constant matrix [see @toeplitz:Feichtinger95 for more details about the use of Toeplitz matrices in irregular sampling problems]
Optimization of the method for power spectrum estimation {#sect_power}
--------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the previous section, a number of issues has to be solved in order to use the previous method for spectral estimation. In this section, the method is optimized to perform power spectrum estimation. For this purpose, we have generated simulations of the full sky CMB temperature as realizations of a random Gaussian field with a prescribed power spectrum. The cosmology adopted in these simulations is consistent with the WMAP parameters. We use the HEALPix pixelisation as WMAP and Planck missions with a resolution parameter of $n_{\rm side}=1024$.
### The tiling of the sphere {#sect_power_method_tiling}
Following the ideas discussed in §\[sect\_method\], several decompositions have been tested.\
An interesting tiling consists in decomposing the sphere onto rectangular patches distributed into lines of same latitude (see Fig.\[tiling1\]).
![Sphere tiling using an equi-latitude decomposition[]{data-label="tiling1"}](sphere5){width="8.cm" height="4.2cm"}
This decomposition introduces a substantial overlapping at the pole. For power spectrum estimation, this effect can be neglected by assuming the CMB field is isotropic. But this decomposition should not be used to detect non-Gaussianity because some types of non-Gaussianity can produce localized hot spots or other structures.\
Another tiling consists in decomposing the sphere onto rectangular patches located at the HEALPix centers of a lower resolution (see Fig.\[tiling2\]). This decomposition insures a good repartition of the patches in the sky and should be preferred for bispectral estimation.
![Sphere tiling using the HEALPix centers of a lower resolution.[]{data-label="tiling2"}](sphere6){width="8.cm" height="4.2cm"}
Once, we have selected the optimal tiling of the sphere, the pixels of the patches are projected onto rectangular Cartesian maps using a projection that will be described in §\[sect\_power\_method\_proj\]. To perform the decomposition, the size of the patches has to be fixed in such a way that keeps the induced distortions to minimum. To reduce the spectral leakage, the size of the patch has to be increased to narrow the main lobe of the frequency response. But increasing the size of the patch will increase the distortions effects due to projection effects.
In Fig.\[size\], the mean power spectrum has been estimated using three different sizes of field: $10^{\circ}$x$10^{\circ}$, $20^{\circ}$x$20^{\circ}$ and 30$^{\circ}$x30$^{\circ}$. A Hann window has also been used to reduce the spectral leakage. Then, these power spectra (red) have been compared to the theoretical power spectrum used to simulate the full-sky CMB (black).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
![[**The effect of the size of the patches in the power spectrum estimation:**]{} a power spectrum (with error bars) has been estimated using three different size of patches (Note: a Hann window function is used to reduce the spectral leakage): 10$^{\circ}$x10$^{\circ}$ (top left), 20$^{\circ}$x20$^{\circ}$ (middle left) and 30$^{\circ}$x30$^{\circ}$ (bottom left). Then, these three power spectra (red) have been compared to the theoretical power spectrum (black). The right column corresponds to a zoom in on the left power spectrum.[]{data-label="size"}](ps_size10 "fig:"){width="6.2cm" height="4.2cm"} ![[**The effect of the size of the patches in the power spectrum estimation:**]{} a power spectrum (with error bars) has been estimated using three different size of patches (Note: a Hann window function is used to reduce the spectral leakage): 10$^{\circ}$x10$^{\circ}$ (top left), 20$^{\circ}$x20$^{\circ}$ (middle left) and 30$^{\circ}$x30$^{\circ}$ (bottom left). Then, these three power spectra (red) have been compared to the theoretical power spectrum (black). The right column corresponds to a zoom in on the left power spectrum.[]{data-label="size"}](ps_size10_zoom "fig:"){width="5.cm" height="4.2cm"}
![[**The effect of the size of the patches in the power spectrum estimation:**]{} a power spectrum (with error bars) has been estimated using three different size of patches (Note: a Hann window function is used to reduce the spectral leakage): 10$^{\circ}$x10$^{\circ}$ (top left), 20$^{\circ}$x20$^{\circ}$ (middle left) and 30$^{\circ}$x30$^{\circ}$ (bottom left). Then, these three power spectra (red) have been compared to the theoretical power spectrum (black). The right column corresponds to a zoom in on the left power spectrum.[]{data-label="size"}](ps_size20 "fig:"){width="6.2cm" height="4.2cm"} ![[**The effect of the size of the patches in the power spectrum estimation:**]{} a power spectrum (with error bars) has been estimated using three different size of patches (Note: a Hann window function is used to reduce the spectral leakage): 10$^{\circ}$x10$^{\circ}$ (top left), 20$^{\circ}$x20$^{\circ}$ (middle left) and 30$^{\circ}$x30$^{\circ}$ (bottom left). Then, these three power spectra (red) have been compared to the theoretical power spectrum (black). The right column corresponds to a zoom in on the left power spectrum.[]{data-label="size"}](ps_size20_zoom "fig:"){width="5.cm" height="4.2cm"}
![[**The effect of the size of the patches in the power spectrum estimation:**]{} a power spectrum (with error bars) has been estimated using three different size of patches (Note: a Hann window function is used to reduce the spectral leakage): 10$^{\circ}$x10$^{\circ}$ (top left), 20$^{\circ}$x20$^{\circ}$ (middle left) and 30$^{\circ}$x30$^{\circ}$ (bottom left). Then, these three power spectra (red) have been compared to the theoretical power spectrum (black). The right column corresponds to a zoom in on the left power spectrum.[]{data-label="size"}](ps_size30 "fig:"){width="6.2cm" height="4.2cm"} ![[**The effect of the size of the patches in the power spectrum estimation:**]{} a power spectrum (with error bars) has been estimated using three different size of patches (Note: a Hann window function is used to reduce the spectral leakage): 10$^{\circ}$x10$^{\circ}$ (top left), 20$^{\circ}$x20$^{\circ}$ (middle left) and 30$^{\circ}$x30$^{\circ}$ (bottom left). Then, these three power spectra (red) have been compared to the theoretical power spectrum (black). The right column corresponds to a zoom in on the left power spectrum.[]{data-label="size"}](ps_size30_zoom "fig:"){width="5.cm" height="4.2cm"}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
As expected, an important spectral leakage is observed on the mean power spectrum estimated with patches of 10$^{\circ}$x10$^{\circ}$ (see top panel of Fig. \[size\]). With patches of 30$^{\circ}$x30$^{\circ}$ (see bottom panel of Fig. \[size\]), the spectral leakage is severely dampened but some distortions are visible at large scales, most certainly due to projection effects. The best result is obtained with a field of $20^{\circ}$x$20^{\circ}$ (see middle panel of Fig. \[size\]) which is a good compromise to both minimize the spectral leakage and reduce the distortions introduced by the map projection.
### Map projection {#sect_power_method_proj}
The map projection introduces distortions of various classes, as it has been discussed in §\[sect\_method\_issue\]. The choice of the map projection has to be done in such a way that it reduces the error in the estimated power spectrum. Two projections have been compared:
- The gnomonic projection is constructed by projecting every point of the sphere onto patches from the center of the sphere. Assuming the patch is tangent to the point S ($\theta_{\circ}$, $\psi_{\circ}$), the coordinate transformation is the following: $$\left(\begin{array}{c} x\\ y \end{array}\right) =\left( \begin{array}{c} \frac{\cos \theta \sin \theta_{\circ} - \sin \theta \cos \theta_{\circ} \cos(\psi-\psi_{\circ})}{\cos \theta \cos \theta_{\circ} + \sin \theta \sin \theta_{\circ} \cos(\psi - \psi_{\circ})} \\ \frac{\sin \theta \sin(\psi -\psi_{\circ})}{\cos \theta \cos \theta_{\circ} + \sin \theta \sin \theta_{\circ} \cos(\psi - \psi_{\circ})} \end{array}\right),$$ where $\theta$ is the longitude and $\psi$ is the latitude.
- The stereographic projection is constructed by projecting every point of the sphere onto patches from the sphere north pole in a plane tangent to the south pole. Assuming the patch is tangent to the point S ($\theta_{\circ}$, $\psi_{\circ}$), the coordinate transformation is the following: $$\left(\begin{array}{c} x\\ y \end{array}\right) =\left( \begin{array}{c} \frac{2 (\cos \theta \sin \theta_{\circ} - \sin \theta \cos \theta_{\circ} \cos(\psi-\psi_{\circ}))}{1+ \cos \theta \cos \theta_{\circ} + \sin \theta \sin \theta_{\circ} \cos(\psi - \psi_{\circ})} \\ \frac{2 \sin \theta \sin(\psi -\psi_{\circ})}{1+ \cos \theta \cos \theta_{\circ} + \sin \theta \sin \theta_{\circ} \cos(\psi - \psi_{\circ})} \end{array}\right).$$
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
![[**The map projection effect in the power spectrum estimation:**]{} Power spectra estimated with two different projections: the gnomonic projection (left) and the stereographic projection (right). These power spectra (red) are compared to the theoretical power spectrum (black). The right column corresponds to a zoom of the left power spectrum.[]{data-label="ps_projection"}](ps_proj_gnome "fig:"){width="6.2cm" height="4.2cm"} ![[**The map projection effect in the power spectrum estimation:**]{} Power spectra estimated with two different projections: the gnomonic projection (left) and the stereographic projection (right). These power spectra (red) are compared to the theoretical power spectrum (black). The right column corresponds to a zoom of the left power spectrum.[]{data-label="ps_projection"}](ps_proj_gnome_zoom "fig:"){width="5.cm" height="4.2cm"}
![[**The map projection effect in the power spectrum estimation:**]{} Power spectra estimated with two different projections: the gnomonic projection (left) and the stereographic projection (right). These power spectra (red) are compared to the theoretical power spectrum (black). The right column corresponds to a zoom of the left power spectrum.[]{data-label="ps_projection"}](ps_proj_stereo "fig:"){width="6.2cm" height="4.2cm"} ![[**The map projection effect in the power spectrum estimation:**]{} Power spectra estimated with two different projections: the gnomonic projection (left) and the stereographic projection (right). These power spectra (red) are compared to the theoretical power spectrum (black). The right column corresponds to a zoom of the left power spectrum.[]{data-label="ps_projection"}](ps_proj_stereo_zoom "fig:"){width="5.cm" height="4.2cm"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
In Fig.\[ps\_projection\], we show the mean power spectra estimated from patches of 20$^{\circ}$x20$^{\circ}$ with a Hann window using two different projections: the gnomonic projection (left) and the stereographic projection (right). The two mean power spectra (red) are compared to the theoretical power spectrum (black). The better result is obtained with the gnomonic projection that will be used as the default projection for power spectrum estimation. However, we have to note that the map projection errors have already been reduced by fixing the size of the field to 20$^{\circ}$x20$^{\circ}$ (see §\[sect\_power\_method\_tiling\]).
### Windowing {#sect_power_method_window}
After the projection, the full-sky CMB is decomposed onto rectangular Cartesian maps of $20^{\circ}$x$20^{\circ}$, but, as already discussed in §\[sect\_method\_issue\], the analysis of a finite signal affects the frequency analysis. The simplest way to model a patch of a finite size is through the usage of a rectangular window. But, this default window introduces an important spectral leakage. There is a lot of possible other window functions that can be used to reduce the spectral leakage in the power spectrum estimation. A few of the more common window functions have been compared in this study (see Fig.\[window\]):
- The Rectangular window that is the default window: $$h(x, y) = 1.
\label{rectangular}$$
- The Hann window that has been used in §\[sect\_power\_method\_tiling\]: $$h(x, y) = \cos(\pi x)^2 \cos(\pi y)^2.
\label{hanning}$$
- The Bartlett window: $$h(x, y) = 1 - |\frac{x}{2}|-|\frac{y}{2}|.
\label{bartlett}$$
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
![[**The window function effect in the power spectrum estimation:**]{} a mean power spectrum (with error bars) is obtained by decomposing the sphere onto patches of $20^{\circ}$x$20^{\circ}$ using a rectangular window (top left), a Bartlett window (middle left) and a Hann Window (bottom left). These power spectra (red) are compared to the theoretical power spectrum (black). The right column corresponds to a zoom in on the left power spectrum.[]{data-label="ps_window"}](ps_rectangular "fig:"){width="6.2cm" height="4.2cm"} ![[**The window function effect in the power spectrum estimation:**]{} a mean power spectrum (with error bars) is obtained by decomposing the sphere onto patches of $20^{\circ}$x$20^{\circ}$ using a rectangular window (top left), a Bartlett window (middle left) and a Hann Window (bottom left). These power spectra (red) are compared to the theoretical power spectrum (black). The right column corresponds to a zoom in on the left power spectrum.[]{data-label="ps_window"}](ps_rectangular_zoom "fig:"){width="5.cm" height="4.2cm"}
![[**The window function effect in the power spectrum estimation:**]{} a mean power spectrum (with error bars) is obtained by decomposing the sphere onto patches of $20^{\circ}$x$20^{\circ}$ using a rectangular window (top left), a Bartlett window (middle left) and a Hann Window (bottom left). These power spectra (red) are compared to the theoretical power spectrum (black). The right column corresponds to a zoom in on the left power spectrum.[]{data-label="ps_window"}](ps_bartlett "fig:"){width="6.2cm" height="4.2cm"} ![[**The window function effect in the power spectrum estimation:**]{} a mean power spectrum (with error bars) is obtained by decomposing the sphere onto patches of $20^{\circ}$x$20^{\circ}$ using a rectangular window (top left), a Bartlett window (middle left) and a Hann Window (bottom left). These power spectra (red) are compared to the theoretical power spectrum (black). The right column corresponds to a zoom in on the left power spectrum.[]{data-label="ps_window"}](ps_bartlett_zoom "fig:"){width="5.cm" height="4.2cm"}
![[**The window function effect in the power spectrum estimation:**]{} a mean power spectrum (with error bars) is obtained by decomposing the sphere onto patches of $20^{\circ}$x$20^{\circ}$ using a rectangular window (top left), a Bartlett window (middle left) and a Hann Window (bottom left). These power spectra (red) are compared to the theoretical power spectrum (black). The right column corresponds to a zoom in on the left power spectrum.[]{data-label="ps_window"}](ps_hanning "fig:"){width="6.2cm" height="4.2cm"} ![[**The window function effect in the power spectrum estimation:**]{} a mean power spectrum (with error bars) is obtained by decomposing the sphere onto patches of $20^{\circ}$x$20^{\circ}$ using a rectangular window (top left), a Bartlett window (middle left) and a Hann Window (bottom left). These power spectra (red) are compared to the theoretical power spectrum (black). The right column corresponds to a zoom in on the left power spectrum.[]{data-label="ps_window"}](ps_hanning_zoom "fig:"){width="5.cm" height="4.2cm"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
In Fig.\[ps\_window\], the mean power spectrum has been estimated by decomposing the CMB full-sky onto patches of 20$^{\circ}$x20$^{\circ}$ using the three windows described above. These mean power spectra (in red) have been compared to the theoretical power spectrum that has been used to simulate the CMB full-sky (in black). As expected, a spectral leakage is observed with the default rectangular window due to the finite size of the signal (see the top panel of Fig.\[ps\_window\]). The spectral leakage has been reduced by applying the previously described non-rectangular window functions (see the middle and bottom panel of Fig.\[ps\_window\]). However, the Hann window does the best job (see the bottom panel of Fig.\[ps\_window\]). Indeed, the Hann window is known to produce moderate side lobes (see the bottom panel of Fig.\[window\]) and to have high frequency resolution which is close to an ideal window function (see §\[sect\_method\_issue\]). Therefore, the Hann window will be used as the default window function for power spectrum estimation. As said previously, in this paper, we haven’t tested the multitaper approach [@multitaper:das09] that seems to be optimal to reduce the spectral leakage in the power spectrum estimated from small patches of the sky. This will be done in a future work.
Validation of the method with the power spectrum
------------------------------------------------
In the previous section, we have done an optimization of the method for power spectrum estimation. There still room for improvements but is outside the scope of this paper. The best power spectrum estimation has been obtained by decomposing the sphere onto patches of 20$^{\circ}$x20$^{\circ}$, by projecting the pixels of the patch onto rectangular Cartesian maps using a gnomonic projection and by multiplying each projected map by a Hann window. The power spectrum estimated by this method is now compared with the power spectrum estimated from the spherical harmonics formula (equation \[powerspec\]). \[sect\_power\_valid\]
![[**Mean power spectra estimated from 100 full-sky CMB simulated maps using two different methods:**]{} using the full-sky method based on the spherical harmonic coefficients (top left panel in red) and using the method based on the decomposition of the sphere onto patches (top right panel in pink). These two mean power spectra are compared to the theoretical power spectrum used to produce the simulations (in black). The bias in the mean power spectrum estimated with the full-sky method is about 0.5% while it is about 3% with the per patch method. The empirical standard deviation is given for the two methods in the bottom panel.[]{data-label="ps_comp"}](ps_error){width="6.2cm" height="4.2cm"}
In Fig.\[ps\_comp\], we have estimated a mean power spectrum from 100 full-sky CMB simulated maps using the two different methods. On top left, we have the mean power spectrum estimated from spherical harmonics coefficients (in red) and in the top right, the optimized mean power spectrum obtained by the method based on the decomposition of the sphere onto patches (in pink). These two mean power spectra have been compared to the theoretical power spectrum used to do the simulations (in black). The two curves on the left panel lie on top of each other while the two curves in the right panel show a small shift. There still remains a small amount of leakage after windowing. This kind of bias can be corrected [@master:hivon02] or reduced using a multitaper approach [@multitaper:das09]. The standard deviation is significantly smaller in the per patch method than in the full-sky method (see the bottom panel of Fig. \[ps\_comp\]), this is because the frequency resolution has been reduced.
It could be thought, the per patch method is not recommended for power spectrum estimation because the decomposition of the sphere onto patches takes some time and there already exists a fast method for a fully CMB power spectrum estimation. However, in practice, we never have access to a full-sky CMB map because of the contamination by residual foregrounds. For this reason, the per patch method can be preferred for some applications.
Application of the method {#sect_application}
-------------------------
As mentioned previously, we never have access to a full-sky CMB map. The CMB map obtained by a method of component separation is always partially masked to discard contaminated pixels which introduces problems in power spectrum estimation. About 15-20% of the most contaminated data is removed mostly in the galactic plane. Several methods exist to overcome the missing data problem, the most common one to be the MASTER method [@master:hivon02] that uses apodization windows. The method that has been proposed in this paper is an alternative to methods such as MASTER that try to correct the power spectrum from the effect of missing data. The approach is totally different because the problem of missing data is solved by avoiding the patches with important contaminations on the power spectrum estimation.
Following the same idea, we can imagine to use this method as a diagnosis of the component separation quality. An estimator of the power spectrum per latitude can be obtained by averaging the result of the spectral analysis on each patch located at the same latitude (see Fig. \[tiling1\]). The contamination by residual foregrounds introduces distortions on the power spectrum that should increase close to the galactic plane. The level of contamination per latitude is an indicator of the efficiency of the component separation method. Different component separation methods can be evaluated and compared by this way using simulated data.
Fig. \[ps\_latitude\] shows the effect of residual foregrounds in the power spectrum estimation. The left panel shows the power spectra estimated from a simulated CMB map purely Gaussian for different latitudes. The variance is only due to the number of patches per latitude that decreases moving to the poles (see Fig. \[tiling2\]). This explains that the statistical variance becomes important for power spectra estimated for latitudes close to the poles (larger than $|70^{\circ}|$).
The right panel of Fig. \[ps\_latitude\] shows the power spectra per latitude estimated from a simulated CMB map with a significant level of residual foregrounds in the galactic region. This CMB map has been obtained by applying an optimized component separation method to simulations of Planck observations. The quality of the component separation method can be evaluated by comparing this result to the previous result. As previously, we observe distortions in the power spectrum close to the pole due to the statistical variance (latitude larger than $|70^{\circ}|$). But some important distortions are also present close to the galactic plane (latitude equal to $0^{\circ}$ - red line and $9.5^{\circ}$ - pink line) clearly due to residual foregrounds. This method can be used to select the better component separation method and help to define the region to be masked. Obviously, this only could be accomplished on simulated data for which the true power spectrum is known.
Full bispectrum estimation {#sect_bispec}
==========================
The primary goal of this paper is to provide a method for accelerating the calculation of the full bispectrum that cannot be estimated with spherical harmonics in a reasonable time. In the previous section, we have introduced a promising approach that have been tested on the power spectrum estimation. The previous methodology will now be applied to estimate a full bispectrum. Obviously, the method needs now to be optimized for the bispectral estimation.
Limitations of the study {#ngsimu}
------------------------
There will be two limitations to the optimization of this method. The first limitation is the resolution of the non-Gaussian simulations of CMB currently available. The bispectrum of a Gaussian field being null, non-Gaussian CMB simulations have to be used to test the validity of the method. For that purpose, we have used the CMB non-Gaussian simulations of local type provided at the following address: http://planck.mpa-garching.mpg.de/cmb/fnl-simulations. A non-Gaussian CMB temperature map can easily be computed with any desired level of non-Gaussianity ($f^{\rm local}_{\rm NL}$) by linear combination of the $a_{lm}$ provided. More details about the simulations can be found in [@simulation:elsner09]. A major problem in our study is that the HEALPix resolution parameter of these simulations is $n_{\rm side}=512$ which is quite low compared to Planck data ($n_{side}=2048$) which has limited our study. But, there exists no other non-Gaussian simulations of CMB publicly available with a better resolution.
The second limitation is that no publicly available codes exist for a theoretical computation of the full bispectrum for a given level of non-Gaussianity, due to its complexity. The comparison with theory is required to be sure that the processing is not introducing important errors in the mean bispectrum. An analytic prediction of the bispectrum has been given in [@bispec:komatsu02b] for non-Gaussianities of the local-type ($F^{\rm local}_{\rm NL}$) but only for the equilateral configuration.
In this paper, the comparison with the theoretical bispectrum has been barely done on the equilateral configuration. However, even focusing on a particular configuration like the equilateral configuration, our method still remains more powerful than $f^{\rm local}_{\rm NL}$ estimation methods because all modes of the equilateral bispectrum are reconstructed compared to a single parameter.
Optimization of the method for bispectrum estimation
----------------------------------------------------
In this section, the optimization of the method for bispectral estimation will be done by comparing the equilateral bispectrum estimated by our method on the CMB non-Gaussian simulations described previously with the analytic prediction given in [@bispec:komatsu02b]. However, the low resolution of the non-Gaussian simulations will considerably limit this study. Consequently, more work will have to be done as soon as non-Gaussian simulations with a better resolution will be available.\
As for power spectrum estimation, a number of issues has to be solved in order to adapt the previous method to do bispectral estimation. The first issue is the tiling of the sphere. As said previously, for bispectral estimation, the decomposition of the sphere onto rectangular patches located at the HEALPix centers of a lower resolution (see Fig. \[tiling2\]) is preferred because this decomposition ensures a good repartition of the patches in the sky. But the size of the patches has to be reduced significantly compared to previous decomposition because the bispectrum is very sensitive to the non-Gaussianities introduced by the projection effects. As a result, the gnomonic projection will be preferred to do the projection from the pixels of the patches onto the rectangular Cartesian maps because this projection introduces very little distortions for small patches [@projection:goldberg06]. However, the size of the patches has to be fixed in such a way the distortions are reduced. In Fig.\[bisp\_size\], the mean bispectrum has been estimated using three different size of field: $7^{\circ}$x$7^{\circ}$, $10^{\circ}$x$10^{\circ}$, $17^{\circ}$x$17^{\circ}$. The pixel projection introduces non-Gaussianities in the projected maps that appears in the bispectrum. For patches of $7^{\circ}$x$7^{\circ}$, the amplitude and the location of the acoustic oscillations are quite well detected. But, the larger the field is, the more important the projection effects are. For patches of $17^{\circ}$x$17^{\circ}$, the CMB non-Gaussianities of the local type almost disappear. There is still more power at the location of the acoustic oscillations but the distortion effects introduce an important noise in the mean bispectrum. This experiment should be redone with simulations with a better resolution.\
![[**The effect of the size of the patches in the bispectrum estimation:**]{} a mean bispectrum has been estimated using three different size of patches ($7^{\circ}$x$7^{\circ}$, $10^{\circ}$x$10^{\circ}$, $17^{\circ}$x$17^{\circ}$) from 100 full-sky non-Gaussian CMB maps ($F^{\rm local}_{\rm NL}=100$).[]{data-label="bisp_size"}](bisp_size){width="9.2cm" height="6.2cm"}
Another issue is the window function. As for spectral estimation, it doesn’t exist a perfect window function for bispectral estimation. It should be a trade-off between bispectral resolution and leakage effect. In Fig. \[bisp\_window\], we have compared the Hann window to the rectangular window to do bispectral estimation and we obtain a better result with the default rectangular window function (left). Indeed, the amplitude of the acoustic oscillations are better recovered with the default rectangular window. In a future work, a window function dedicated to the CMB data has to be designed to improve the bispectral estimation. Some authors have already tried to address the problem of finding an optimal bispectral window [see @window:oroian08; @window:wembing02].\
Preliminary Results
-------------------
The best equilateral bispectral estimation has been obtained by decomposing the sphere onto patches of $7^{\circ}$ x $7^{\circ}$ and by projecting the pixels of the patch onto rectangular Cartesian maps using a gnomonic projection. The code FASTLens [@bispec:pires09] publicly available has been used to compute the bispectrum in the Cartesian maps. This study has been limited to the equilateral configuration of the bispectrum. As soon as a code to compute analytical prediction for the full CMB bispectrum will be released, the same study could be extended to all the configurations of the bispectrum. Furthermore, the study will be improved as soon as non-Gaussian simulations of CMB with a better resolution will be available.
Anyway, the equilateral bispectrum computed (see the left panel of Fig. \[bisp\_window\]) shows the expected acoustic oscillations and the Silk damping predicted by theory for a CMB with non-Gaussianity of the local-type [@bispec:komatsu02b]. Therefore, this preliminary result shows that we can compute an equilateral bispectrum which is in good agreement with the analytical predictions.
Conclusion
==========
The goal of this paper is to present a fast way to compute a full-sky CMB bispectrum. It should be pointed out that it is currently too hard to directly measure this full CMB bispectrum. This paper introduces a promising approach for accelerating the estimation of the full bispectrum on the sphere. This method involves the decomposition of the HEALPix map onto small projected Cartesian maps. A mean full bispectrum can then be estimated by combining results from all the projected maps.
First, this approach has been used to estimate the power spectrum of a full-sky CMB map. A number of optimizations have been done to obtain the best power spectrum estimator. An interesting application of the method in order to test the quality of the CMB component separation on the galactic region has then been presented.
The approach has then be applied to the full bispectrum estimation to accelerate its computation. The approach presented in this paper enables a fast reconstruction of the whole bispectrum directly from the observational data. A number of optimizations have been performed to improve the quality of the bispectral estimation. However, these optimizations has been only tested on the equilateral configuration of the bispectrum because of the lack of analytical predictions for the full bispectrum. Anyway, this study could be easily extended to other configurations as soon as a code to compute analytical predictions for the full CMB bispectrum will be released. Another limitation of the study comes from the resolution of the non-Gaussian CMB simulations used for the analysis. This is a preliminary result that should be improved as earlier as is feasible.
However, the equilateral bispectrum that is computed from the non-Gaussian CMB simulations using this approach is in very good agreement with the analytical predictions. Indeed, the features expected by the theory are present despite the poor resolution of the estimated bispectrum. Thus, this approach appears very promising to constrain the CMB non-Gaussianity in a model-independent way.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This work has been supported by the European Research Council grant SparseAstro (ERC-228261). Some of the results in this paper have been derived using the HEALPix package (Gorski, Hivon, and Wandelt 1999). We wish to thank F. Sureau, P. Paykari and Y. Moudden for useful discussions and comments.
, P., [Nicolis]{}, A., [Senatore]{}, L., [Tegmark]{}, M., and [Zaldarriaga]{}, M.: 2006, , 4
, S., [Hajian]{}, A., and [Spergel]{}, D. N.: 2009, , 083008
, F. and [Wandelt]{}, B. D.: 2009, , 264
Feichtinger, H. G., Gr[ö]{}chenig, K., and Strohmer, T.: 1995, , 423
Fergusson, J. R. and Shellard, E. P. S.:2009, , 043510
, D. M. and [Gott]{}, III, J. R.: 2006,
, E., [G[ó]{}rski]{}, K. M., [Netterfield]{}, C. B., [Crill]{}, B. P., [Prunet]{}, S., and [Hansen]{}, F.: 2002, , 2
, E., [Kogut]{}, A., [Nolta]{}, M. R., [Bennett]{}, C. L., [Halpern]{}, M., [Hinshaw]{}, G., [Jarosik]{}, N., [Limon]{}, M., [Meyer]{}, S. S., [Page]{}, L., [Spergel]{}, D. N., [Tucker]{}, G. S., [Verde]{}, L., [Wollack]{}, E., and [Wright]{}, E. L.: 2003, , 119
, E. and [Spergel]{}, D. N.: 2001, , 063002
, E. and [Spergel]{}, D. N.: 2002, in [V. G. Gurzadyan, R. T. Jantzen, & R. Ruffini]{} (ed.), [*The Ninth Marcel Grossmann Meeting*]{}, pp 2009–2010
, E., [Spergel]{}, D. N., and [Wandelt]{}, B. D.: 2005, , 14
Opennheim, A. V. and Schafer, R.: 1975, , pp 548–554
, T.-C., [Vizitiu]{}, C.-I., and [Serban]{}, F.: 2008, 4
, S., [Starck]{}, J., [Amara]{}, A., [Teyssier]{}, R., [R[é]{}fr[é]{}gier]{}, A., and [Fadili]{}, J.: 2009, , 1265
, P.: 1967, pp 70–73
, Y., [Tianren]{}, Y., and [Tao]{}, H.: 2002, 19(2)
, M., [Carlstrom]{}, J. E., [Dragovan]{}, M., and [Holzapfel]{}, W. L.: 1999, , 12
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We define a truncated Euler polynomial $E_{m,n}(x)$ as a generalization of the classical Euler polynomial $E_n(x)$. In this paper we give its some properties and relations with the hypergeometric Bernoulli polynomial.'
address:
- School of Mathematics and StatisticsWuhan UniversityWuhan 430072CHINA
- Universidad PanamericanaMexico CityMEXICO
author:
- 'Takao Komatsu\*'
- 'Claudio de J. Pita Ruiz V.\*\*'
title: Truncated Euler polynomials
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
For non-negative integer $m$, define *truncated Euler polynomials* $E_{m,n}(x)$ by $$\frac{\frac{2 t^m}{m!}e^{x t}}{e^t+1-\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\frac{t^j}{j!}}
=\sum_{n=0}^\infty E_{m,n}(x)\frac{t^n}{n!}\,.
\label{def:tep}$$ When $m=0$, $E_{n}(x)=E_{0,n}(x)$ is one of the definitions of Euler polynomials, given by $$\frac{2 e^{x t}}{e^t+1}=\sum_{n=0}^\infty E_{0,n}(x)\frac{t^n}{n!}\,.
\label{def:eulerpoly}$$ When $x=0$ in (\[def:tep\]), $E_{m,n}=E_{m,n}(0)$ are called [truncated Euler numbers]{}, given by $$\frac{\frac{2 t^m}{m!}}{e^t+1-\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\frac{t^j}{j!}}
=\sum_{n=0}^\infty E_{m,n}\frac{t^n}{n!}\,.$$
Incomplete Bernoulli numbers [@KLM] and incomplete Cauchy numbers [@Ko5; @KMS] are similar truncated numbers. Both of them are based upon the restricted and associated Stirling numbers of the second kind, and the restricted and associated Stirling numbers of the first kind. The restricted Bernoulli numbers $\mathfrak{B}_{n,\le m}$ and the associated Bernoulli numbers $\mathfrak{B}_{n,\ge m}$ can be defined by $$\frac{\log\mathfrak{E}_m(-t)}{\mathfrak{E}_m(-t)-1}=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\mathfrak{B}_{n,\le m}\frac{t^n}{n!}$$ and $$\frac{\log\bigl(1+e^{-t}-\mathfrak{E}_{m-1}(-t)\bigr)}{e^{-t}-\mathfrak{E}_{m-1}(-t)}=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\mathfrak{B}_{n,\ge m}\frac{t^n}{n!}\,,$$ respectively, where $$\mathfrak{E}_m(t)=\sum_{n=0}^m\frac{t^n}{n}\,.$$ When $m\to\infty$ in the former case or $m=1$ in the latter case, we have the generating function of the classical Bernoulli numbers $\mathfrak{B}_n$ (with $\mathfrak{B}_1=1/2$), defined by $$\frac{t}{1-e^{-t}}=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\mathfrak{B}_{n}\frac{t^n}{n!}\,.$$ Therefore, we have $\mathfrak{B}_n=\mathfrak{B}_{n,\le\infty}=\mathfrak{B}_{n,\ge 1}$.
The restricted Cauchy numbers $\mathfrak{c}_{n,\le m}$ and the associated Cauchy numbers $\mathfrak{c}_{n,\ge m}$ can be defined by $$\frac{e^{\mathfrak{F}_m(t)}-1}{\mathfrak{F}_m(t)}=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\mathfrak{c}_{n,\le m}\frac{t^n}{n!}$$ and $$\frac{e^{\log(1+t)-\mathfrak{F}_{m-1}(t)}-1}{\log(1+t)-\mathfrak{F}_{m-1}(t)}
=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\mathfrak{c}_{n,\ge m}\frac{t^n}{n!}\,,$$ respectively, where $$\mathfrak{F}_m(t)=\sum_{n=1}^m\frac{(-1)^{n-1}t^n}{n}\,.$$ When $m\to\infty$ in the former case or $m=1$ in the latter case, we have the generating function of the classical Cauchy numbers $\mathfrak{c}_n$, defined by $$\frac{t}{\log(1+t)}=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\mathfrak{c}_{n}\frac{t^n}{n!}\,.$$ Therefore, we have $\mathfrak{c}_n=\mathfrak{c}_{n,\le\infty}=\mathfrak{c}_{n,\ge 1}$.
A different type of generalization is based upon hypergeometric functions. For $N\geq 1$, define hypergeometric Bernoulli numbers $B_{N,n}$ (see [@HN1; @HN2; @Kamano]) by $$\frac{1}{{}_{1}F_{1}(1;N+1;t)}=\frac{t^{N}/N!}{e^{t}-\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}t^{n}/n!}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }B_{N,n}\frac{t^{n}}{n!}\,,$$where $${}_{1}F_{1}(a;b;z)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }\frac{(a)^{(n)}}{(b)^{(n)}}\frac{z^{n}}{n!}$$ is the confluent hypergeometric function with $(x)^{(n)}=x(x+1)\cdots(x+n-1) $ ($n\geq 1$) and $(x)^{(0)}=1$. When $N=1$, $B_{n}=B_{1,n}$ are classical Bernoulli numbers (with $B_{1}=-1/2$) defined by $$\frac{t}{e^{t}-1}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }B_{n}\frac{t^{n}}{n!}\,.$$ In addition, define hypergeometric Cauchy numbers $c_{N,n}$ (see [@Ko3]) by $$\frac{1}{{}_{2}F_{1}(1,N;N+1;-t)}=\frac{(-1)^{N-1}t^{N}/N}{\log(1+t)-\sum_{n=1}^{N-1}(-1)^{n-1}t^{n}/n}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }c_{N,n}\frac{t^{n}}{n!}\,,$$ where $${}_{2}F_{1}(a,b;c;z)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }\frac{(a)^{(n)}(b)^{(n)}}{(c)^{(n)}}\frac{z^{n}}{n!}$$ is the Gauss hypergeometric function. When $N=1$, $\mathfrak{c}_{n}=c_{1,n}$ are classical Cauchy numbers defined by $$\frac{t}{\log (1+t)}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }\mathfrak{c}_{n}\frac{t^{n}}{n!}\,.$$ Furthermore, the hypergeometric Bernoulli polynomials [@HN1; @HN2] are defined by $$\frac{\frac{t^{m}}{m!}e^{xt}}{e^{t}-\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\frac{t^{j}}{j!}}
=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }B_{m,n}(x)\frac{t^{n}}{n!}
\label{def:hbp}$$or $$\frac{e^{xt}}{{}_{1}F_{1}(1;m+1;t)}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }B_{m,n}(x)\frac{t^{n}}{n!}\,,$$ and the hypergeometric Cauchy polynomials $c_{M,N,n}(x)$ [@Ko3] are defined by $$\frac{1}{(1+t)^{x}}\frac{1}{{}_{2}F_{1}(M,N;N+1;-t)}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}c_{M,N,n}(x)\frac{t^{n}}{n!}\,.$$ Observe that in the case $m=0$, formula (\[def:hbp\]) becomes $$e^{(x-1)t}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }B_{0,n}(x)\frac{t^{n}}{n!}\,,$$ from where we see that $B_{0,n}(x)=(x-1)^{n}$.
When $m=1$, then $B_{n}(x)=B_{1,n}(x)$ are the classical Bernoulli polynomials, defined by $$\frac{te^{xt}}{e^{t}-1}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }B_{n}(x)\frac{t^{n}}{n!}\,,$$ and $c_{n}(x)=c_{1,n}(x)$ are the classical Cauchy polynomials, defined by $$\frac{t}{(1+t)^{x}\log (1+t)}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }c_{n}(x)\frac{t^{n}}{n!}\,.$$
In this paper, we give some properties of truncated Euler polynomials.
Some properties of truncated Euler polynomials
==============================================
For $n\ge 1$, we have $$E_{1,n}(x)=2 n(x-1)^{n-1}\,.$$ \[th:m=1\]
When $m=1$, (\[def:tep\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=1}^\infty E_{1,n}(x)\frac{t^{n-1}}{n!}&=2 e^{(x-1)t}\\
&=2 n\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{(x-1)^{n-1}t^{n-1}}{n!}\,. \end{aligned}$$ Comparing the coefficients on both sides, we get the result.
We have $$E_{m,n}(x)=0\quad(n=0,1,\dots,m-1)$$ and $$E_{m,n+m}(x)=2\binom{n+m}{n}x^n-\sum_{j=0}^n\binom{n+m}{j}E_{m,j}(x)\quad(n\ge 0)\,.$$ \[th20\]
From (\[def:tep\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{2 t^m}{m!}\sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{(x t)^n}{n!}&=\left(\sum_{n=0}^\infty E_{m,n}(x)\frac{t^n}{n!}\right)\left(1+\sum_{j=m}^\infty\frac{t^j}{j!}\right)\\
&=\sum_{n=0}^\infty E_{m,n}(x)\frac{t^n}{n!}+\left(\sum_{n=0}^\infty E_{m,n}(x)\frac{t^n}{n!}\right)\left(\sum_{j=0}^\infty\frac{t^{j+m}}{(j+m)!}\right)\,. \end{aligned}$$ Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
&\left(\sum_{n=0}^\infty E_{m,n}(x)\frac{t^n}{n!}\right)\left(\sum_{j=0}^\infty\frac{t^{j+m}}{(j+m)!}\right)\\
&=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{2 x^n t^{n+m}}{n!m!}-\sum_{n=0}^\infty E_{m,n+m}(x)\frac{t^{n+m}}{(n+m)!}-\sum_{n=0}^{m-1}E_{m,n}(x)\frac{t^n}{n!}\\
&=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\left(2\binom{n+m}{m}x^n-E_{m,n+m}\right)\frac{t^{n+m}}{(n+m)!}-\sum_{n=0}^{m-1}E_{m,n}(x)\frac{t^n}{n!}\,. \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\sum_{n=0}^\infty E_{m,n}(x)\frac{t^n}{n!}\right)\left(\sum_{j=0}^\infty\frac{t^{j+m}}{(j+m)!}\right)
&=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\sum_{j=0}^n E_{m,j}(x)\frac{t^j}{j!}\frac{t^{n-j+m}}{(n-j+m)!}\\
&=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\left(\sum_{j=0}^n\binom{n+m}{j}E_{m,j}(x)\right)\frac{t^{n+m}}{(n+m)!}\,. \end{aligned}$$ Comparing the coefficients, we get the results.
**Example.** When $m=2$, we have $E_{2,0}(x)=E_{2,1}(x)=0$. From the recurrence relation $$E_{2,n+2}(x)=2\binom{n+2}{2}x^{n}-\sum_{j=0}^{n}\binom{n+2}{j}E_{2,j}(x)\,,$$by putting $n=0,1,2$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
E_{2,2}(x)& =2, \\
E_{2,3}(x)& =6x, \\
E_{2,4}(x)& =12x^{2}-\sum_{j=0}^{2}\binom{4}{j}E_{2,j}(x) \\
& =12x^{2}-\binom{4}{2}\cdot 2=12(x^{2}-1),\end{aligned}$$
Similarly one gets $E_{2,5}(x)=20(x^{3}-3x-1),$ $E_{2,6}(x)=30(x+1)(x^{3}-5x^{2}-x+9),$ and so on.
$$E_{m,n}(x+y)=\sum_{j=0}^n\binom{n}{j}E_{m,j}(x)y^{n-j}\,.$$ \[th30\]
From (\[def:tep\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=0}^\infty E_{m,n}(x+y)\frac{t^n}{n!}&=\frac{\frac{2 t^m}{m!}e^{(x+y)t}}{e^t+1-\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\frac{t^j}{j!}}\\
&=\frac{\frac{2 t^m}{m!}e^{x t}}{e^t+1-\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\frac{t^j}{j!}}e^{y t}\\
&=\left(\sum_{n=0}^\infty E_{m,n}(x)\frac{t^n}{n!}\right)\left(\sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{y^n t^n}{n!}\right)\\
&=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\sum_{j=0}^n E_{m,j}(x)\frac{t^j}{j!}\frac{y^{n-j}t^{n-j}}{(n-j)!}\\
&=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\left(\sum_{j=0}^n\binom{n}{j}E_{m,j}(x)y^{n-j}\right)\frac{t^n}{n!}\,. \end{aligned}$$ Comparing the coefficients on both sides, we get the desired result.
For $m,n\ge 0$, we have $$E_{m,n}(x)=\sum_{k=0}^n\binom{n}{k}E_{m,n-k}x^k\,.$$ \[th501\]
By the definition (\[def:tep\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=0}^\infty E_{m,n}(x)\frac{t^n}{n!}&=\frac{\frac{2 t^m}{m!}}{e^t+1-\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\frac{t^j}{j!}}e^{x t}\\
&=\left(\sum_{n=0}^\infty E_{m,n}(x)\frac{t^n}{n!}\right)\left(\sum_{n=0}^\infty x^n\frac{t^n}{n!}\right)\\
&=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\sum_{k=0}^n\binom{n}{k}E_{m,n-k}x^k\frac{t^n}{n!}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Comparing the coefficients of both sides, we get the desired result.
The generating funcion of the Stirling numbers of the second kind denoted by $\sts{n}{k}$ is given by $$\frac{(e^t-1)^k)}{k!}=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\sts{n}{k}\frac{t^n}{n!}\,.$$ The falling factorial $(x)_n$ and the rising factorial $(x)^{(n)}$ are defined by $(x)_n=x(x-1)\cdots(x-n+1)$ and $(x)^{(n)}=x(x+1)\cdots(x+n-1)$ ($n\ge 1$) with $(x)_0=(x)^{(0)}=1$, respectively.
For $m,n\ge 0$, we have $$E_{m,n}(x)=\sum_{\mu=0}^n\sum_{l=\mu}^n\sts{l}{\mu}\binom{n}{l}E_{m,n-l}\cdot(x)_\mu\,.$$ \[th:st2-ff\]
Since $$\sum_{\mu=0}^l\sts{l}{\mu}(x)_\mu=x^l\,,$$ By Theorem \[th501\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
E_{m,n}(x)&=\sum_{l=0}^n\binom{n}{l}E_{m,n-l}x^l\\
&=\sum_{l=0}^n\binom{n}{l}E_{m,n-l}\sum_{\mu=0}^l\sts{l}{\mu}(x)_\mu\\
&=\sum_{\mu=0}^n\sum_{l=\mu}^n\sts{l}{\mu}\binom{n}{l}E_{m,n-l}\cdot(x)_\mu
\,. \end{aligned}$$
For $m,n\ge 0$, we have $$E_{m,n}(x)=\sum_{\mu=0}^n\sum_{l=\mu}^n\sts{l}{\mu}\binom{n}{l}E_{m,n-l}(-\mu)\cdot(x)^{(\mu)}\,.$$ \[th:st2-rf\]
We have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=0}^\infty E_{m,n}(x)\frac{t^n}{n!}
&=\frac{\frac{2 t^m}{m!}}{e^t+1-\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\frac{t^j}{j!}}(e^{-t})^{-x}\\
&=\frac{\frac{2 t^m}{m!}}{e^t+1-\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\frac{t^j}{j!}}\sum_{\mu=0}^\infty\binom{x+\mu-1}{\mu}(1-e^{-t})^{-x}\\
&=\frac{\frac{2 t^m}{m!}}{e^t+1-\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\frac{t^j}{j!}}\sum_{\mu=0}^\infty(x)^{(\mu)}\frac{(e^t-1)^\mu}{\mu!}e^{-\mu t}\\
&=\sum_{\mu=0}^\infty(x)^{(\mu)}\left(\sum_{n=0}^\infty\sts{n}{\mu}\frac{t^n}{n!}\right)\left(\sum_{n=0}^\infty E_{m,n}(-\mu)\frac{t^n}{n!}\right)\\
&=\sum_{\mu=0}^\infty(x)^{(\mu)}\sum_{n=0}^\infty\binom{n}{l}\sum_{l=0}^n\sts{l}{\mu}E_{m,n-l}(-\mu)\frac{t^n}{n!}\\
&=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\sum_{\mu=0}^n\sum_{l=\mu}^n\sts{l}{\mu}\binom{n}{l}E_{m,n-l}(-\mu)\cdot(x)^{(\mu)}\frac{t^n}{n!}\,. \end{aligned}$$ Comparing the coefficients, we get the desired result.
We finish this section by mentioning the relation with Frobenius-Euler polynomials. For $\lambda\in\mathbb C$ with $\lambda\ne 1$ and a nonnegative integer $r$, Frobenius-Euler polynomials $H_n^{(r)}(x|\lambda)$ are defined by $$\left(\frac{1-\lambda}{e^t-\lambda}\right)^r e^{x t}=\sum_{n=0}^\infty H_n^{(r)}(x|\lambda)\frac{t^n}{n!}$$ (see e.g. [@KK]).
For $m,n\ge 0$, we have $$E_{m,n}(x)=\sum_{\mu=0}^n\frac{1}{(1-\lambda)^r}\binom{n}{\mu}\sum_{i=0}^r\binom{r}{i}(-1)^{r-i}E_{m,n-\mu}(i)\cdot H_\mu^{(r)}(x|\lambda)\,.$$
We have $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{n=0}^\infty E_{m,n}(x)\frac{t^n}{n!}\\
&=\frac{\frac{2 t^m}{m!}}{e^t+1-\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\frac{t^j}{j!}}\left(\frac{e^t-\lambda}{1-\lambda}\right)^r\left(\frac{1-\lambda}{e^t-\lambda}\right)^r e^{x t}\\
&=\left(\sum_{n=0}^\infty E_{m,n}\frac{t^n}{n!}\right)\sum_{i=0}^r\binom{r}{i}(e^{t i})(-\lambda)^{r-i}\frac{1}{(1-\lambda)^r}\left(\sum_{n=0}^\infty H_n^{(r)}(x|\lambda)\frac{t^n}{n!}\right)\\
&=\sum_{i=0}^r\binom{r}{i}(-\lambda)^{r-i}\frac{1}{(1-\lambda)^r}(e^{t i})\sum_{n=0}^\infty\sum_{\mu=0}^n\binom{n}{\mu}E_{m,n-\mu}H_\mu^{(r)}(x|\lambda)\frac{t^n}{n!}\\
&=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\sum_{\mu=0}^n\frac{1}{(1-\lambda)^r}\binom{n}{\mu}\sum_{i=0}^r\binom{r}{i}(-1)^{r-i}E_{m,n-\mu}(i)\cdot H_\mu^{(r)}(x|\lambda)\frac{t^n}{n!}\,. \end{aligned}$$ Comparing the coefficients on both sides, we get the desired result.
Relations with hypergeometric Bernoulli polynomials
===================================================
In this section, we shall show several relations with hypergeometric Bernoulli polynomials.
For non-negative integers $n$ and $m$, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\binom{n+m}{n}\sum_{j=0}^n\binom{n}{j}\left(B_{m,j}(x)y^{n-j}-\frac{1}{2}E_{m,j}(y)x^{n-j}\right)\\
=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=0}^{n+m}\binom{n+m}{j}E_{m,j}(y)B_{m,n+m-j}(x)\,. \end{gathered}$$ \[th:210\]
From (\[def:tep\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{z^{m}}{m!}e^{y t}&=\left(\sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{1}{2}E_{m,n}(y)\frac{t^{n}}{n!}\right)\left(e^t-\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\frac{t^{j}}{j!}+1\right)\\
&=\left(\sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{1}{2}E_{m,n}(y)\frac{t^{n}}{n!}\right)\left(e^t-\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\frac{t^{j}}{j!}\right)
+\left(\sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{1}{2}E_{m,n}(y)\frac{t^{n}}{n!}\right)\,. \end{aligned}$$ Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{t^{m}}{m!}e^{y t}\sum_{n=0}^\infty B_{m,n}(x)\frac{t^{n}}{n!}\\
&=\left(\sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{1}{2}E_{m,n}(y)\frac{t^n}{n!}\right)\frac{z^m}{m!}e^{x t}
+\left(\sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{1}{2}E_{m,n}(y)\frac{t^{n}}{n!}\right)\left(\sum_{n=0}^\infty B_{m,n}(x)\frac{t^{n}}{n!}\right)\,, \end{aligned}$$ which can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{t^{m}}{m!}\left(e^{y t}\sum_{n=0}^\infty B_{m,n}(x)\frac{t^{n}}{n!}-e^{x t}\sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{1}{2}E_{m,n}(y)\frac{t^{n}}{n!}\right)\\
&=\left(\sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{1}{2}E_{m,n}(y)\frac{t^{n}}{n!}\right)\left(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }B_{m,n}(x)\frac{t^{n}}{n!}\right)\,. \end{aligned}$$ After the products, we get $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{t^{m}}{m!}\sum_{n=0}^\infty\left(
\sum_{j=0}^{n}\binom{n}{j}\left(B_{m,j}(x)y^{n-j}-\frac{1}{2}E_{m,j}(y)x^{n-j}\right)\right)\frac{t^{n}}{n!}\\
&=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\left(\sum_{j=0}^n\frac{1}{2}\binom{n}{j}E_{m,j}(y)B_{m,n-j}(x)\right)\frac{t^{n}}{n!}\\
&=\sum_{n=m}^\infty\left(\sum_{j=0}^n\frac{1}{2}\binom{n}{j}E_{m,j}(y)B_{m,n-j}(x)\right)\frac{t^{n}}{n!}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Here, we avoided the zero-terms on the right-hand side. Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{m!}\sum_{n=0}^\infty\left(\sum_{j=0}^{n}\binom{n}{j}\left(B_{m,j}(x)y^{n-j}-\frac{1}{2}E_{m,j}(y)x^{n-j}\right)\right)\frac{t^{n+m}}{n!}\\
&=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\left(\sum_{j=0}^{n+m}\frac{1}{2}\binom{n+m}{j}E_{m,j}(y)B_{m,n+m-j}(x)\right)\frac{t^{n+m}}{(n+m)!}\,.\end{aligned}$$
Comparing the coefficients on both sides, we get $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{m!n!}\sum_{j=0}^{n}\binom{n}{j}\left(B_{m,j}(x)y^{n-j}-\frac{1}{2}E_{m,j}(y)x^{n-j}\right)\\
&=\frac{1}{(n+m)!}\sum_{j=0}^{n+m}\frac{1}{2}\binom{n+m}{j}E_{m,j}(y)B_{m,n+m-j}(x)\,, \end{aligned}$$ from where the desired conclusion follows.
For a non-negative integer $n$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=0}^{n}\binom{n}{j}E_{j}(y)\left((x-1)^{n-j}+x^{n-j}\right)
&=2(x+y-1)^{n}
\label{eq:1}\,,\\
\sum_{j=0}^{n}\binom{n}{j}E_{j}(y)\left(B_{n-j}(x-1)+B_{n-j}(x)\right)
&=2B_{n}(x+y-1)
\label{eq:2}\,,\\
\sum_{j=0}^{n}\binom{n}{j}E_{j}(y)\left(E_{n-j}(x-1)+E_{n-j}(x)\right)
&=2E_{n}(x+y-1)
\label{eq:3}\,,\\
\sum_{j=0}^n\binom{n}{j}\bigl(B_j(x)y^{n-j}-j(y-1)^{j-1}x^{n-j}\bigr)
&=\sum_{j=0}^n\binom{n}{j}(y-1)^j B_{n-j}(x)
\label{eq:202}\,,\\
\sum_{j=0}^n\binom{n}{j}\bigl(B_j(x)B_{n-j}(y)-j B_{j-1}(y-1)x^{n-j}\bigr)
&=\sum_{j=0}^n\binom{n}{j}B_j(y-1)B_{n-j}(x)\,,
\label{eq:212}\\
\sum_{j=0}^n\binom{n}{j}\bigl(B_j(x)E_{n-j}(y)-j E_{j-1}(y-1)x^{n-j}\bigr)
&=\sum_{j=0}^n\binom{n}{j}E_j(y-1)B_{n-j}(x)
\label{eq:222}\,. \end{aligned}$$ \[cor:205\]
We need the following lemma to prove Corollary \[cor:205\].
If the polynomial identity $$\sum_{k=0}^{n}a_{n,k}\left(x+\alpha\right)^{k}=\sum_{k=0}^{n}b_{n,k}\left( x+\beta \right) ^{k}$$ holds, then the following identities hold:
1. the Bernoulli polynomial identity $$\sum_{k=0}^{n}a_{n,k}B_{k}(x+\alpha)=\sum_{k=0}^{n}b_{n,k}B_{k}(x+\beta)\,,$$
2. the Euler polynomial identity $$\sum_{k=0}^{n}a_{n,k}E_{k}(x+\alpha)=\sum_{k=0}^{n}b_{n,k}E_{k}(x+\beta)\,.$$
\[lem110\]
Affirmation (a) is Theorem 1 in [@Pi]. Affirmation (b) is obtained from (a) together with a formula expressing Euler polynomials in terms of Bernoulli polynomials.
Since $B_{0,n}(x)=(x-1)^{n}$ and $E_{0,n}(x)=E_n(x)$, by setting $m=0$ in Theorem \[th:210\], we have $$\sum_{j=0}^{n}\binom{n}{j}\left((x-1)^{j}y^{n-j}-\frac{1}{2}E_{j}(y)x^{n-j}\right)
=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=0}^{n}\binom{n}{j}E_{j}(y)(x-1)^{n-j}\,,$$ yielding $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=0}^n\binom{n}{j}E_j(y)\left((x-1)^{n-j}+x^{n-j}\right)
&=2\sum_{j=0}^n\binom{n}{j}(x-1)^j y^{n-j}\\
&=2(x+y-1)^j\,, \end{aligned}$$ which is (\[eq:1\]). The identities (\[eq:2\]) and (\[eq:3\]) are obtained from (\[eq:1\]) by applying Lemma \[lem110\]. On the other hand, since $B_{1,n}(x)=B_n(x)$ and $E_{1,n}(x)=2 n(x-1)^{n-1}$ (Theorem \[th:m=1\]), by setting $m=1$ in Theorem \[th:210\], we have $$\begin{gathered}
(n+1)\sum_{j=0}^n\binom{n}{j}\left(B_j(x)y^{n-j}-j(y-1)^{j-1}x^{n-j}\right)\\
=\sum_{j=0}^n\binom{n+1}{n-j}(j+1)(y-1)^j B_{n-j}(x)\,. \end{gathered}$$ Dividing $n+1$ on both sides, we get the identity (\[eq:202\]). The identities (\[eq:212\]) and (\[eq:222\]) are obtained from (\[eq:202\]) by applying Lemma \[lem110\].
For non-negative integers $n$ and $m$, we have $$\begin{gathered}
2\sum_{j=0}^n\binom{n}{j}E_{m+1,n-j}(x)y^j-\frac{2 n}{m+1}\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\binom{n-1}{j}E_{m,n-j-1}(y)x^j\\
=\sum_{j=0}^n\binom{n}{j}E_{m+1,n-j}(x)E_{m,j}(y)\,. \end{gathered}$$
\[th:301\]
From the definition (\[def:tep\]), $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{2 t^{m+1}}{(m+1)!}e^{x t}\\
&=\left(e^t+1-\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\frac{t^j}{j!}-\frac{t^m}{m!}\right)\sum_{n=0}^\infty E_{m+1,n}(x)\frac{t^n}{n!}\\
&=\left(e^t+1-\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\frac{t^j}{j!}\right)\sum_{n=0}^\infty E_{m+1,n}(x)\frac{t^n}{n!}-\frac{t^m}{m!}\sum_{n=0}^\infty E_{m+1,n}(x)\frac{t^n}{n!}\,.\end{aligned}$$ By using the definition (\[def:tep\]) again, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{2 t^{m+1}}{(m+1)!}e^{x t}\sum_{n=0}^\infty E_{m,n}(y)\frac{t^n}{n!}\\
=\frac{2 t^m}{m!}e^{y t}\sum_{n=0}^\infty E_{m+1,n}(x)\frac{t^n}{n!}
-\frac{t^m}{m!}\sum_{n=0}^\infty E_{m+1,n}(x)\frac{t^n}{n!}\sum_{n=0}^\infty E_{m,n}(y)\frac{t^n}{n!}\end{gathered}$$ or $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{2 n}{m+1}\sum_{n=1}^\infty\left(\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\binom{n-1}{j}E_{m,n-j-1}(y)x^j\right)\frac{t^n}{n!}\\
&=2\sum_{n=1}^\infty\left(\sum_{j=0}^n\binom{n}{j}E_{m+1,n-j}(x)y^j\right)\frac{t^n}{n!}\\
&\qquad -\sum_{n=1}^\infty\left(\sum_{j=0}^n\binom{n}{j}E_{m+1,n-j}(x)E_{m,j}(y)\right)\frac{t^n}{n!}\,. \end{aligned}$$ Comparing the coefficients on both sides, we obtain the desired result.
For a non-negative integer $n$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{j=0}^{n}\binom{n}{j}(2(x-1)^{n-j}y^j-E_{n-j}(y)x^j)=\sum_{j=0}^{n}\binom{n}{j}(x-1)^{n-j}E_j(y)
\label{eq:302}\,,\\
&\sum_{j=0}^{n}\binom{n}{j}(2B_{n-j}(x-1)y^j-E_{n-j}(y)B_j(x))=\sum_{j=0}^{n}\binom{n}{j}B_{n-j}(x-1)E_j(y)
\label{eq:312}\,,\\
&\sum_{j=0}^{n}\binom{n}{j}(2E_{n-j}(x-1)y^j-E_{n-j}(y)E_j(x))=\sum_{j=0}^{n}\binom{n}{j}E_{n-j}(x-1)E_j(y)
\label{eq:322}\,. \end{aligned}$$ \[cor:305\]
Since $E_{1,n}(x)=2 n(x-1)^{n-1}$ (Theorem \[th:m=1\]), by setting $m=0$ in Theorem \[th:301\], we get (\[eq:302\]). The identities (\[eq:312\]) and (\[eq:322\]) are obtained from (\[eq:302\]) by applying Lemma \[lem110\].
[9]{}
HASSEN, A.—NGUYEN, H. D.: *Hypergeometric Bernoulli polynomials and Appell sequences*, Int. J. Number Theory **4** (2008), 767–774.
HASSEN, A.—NGUYEN, H. D.: *Hypergeometric zeta functions*, Int. J. Number Theory **6** (2010), 99–126.
KAMANO, K.: *Sums of products of hypergeometric Bernoulli numbers*, J. Number Theory **130** (2010), 2259–2271.
KIM, D. S.—KIM, T.: *Some identities of Frobenius-Euler polynomials arising from umbral calculus*, Adv. Difference Equ. **2012** (2012), \#196.
KOMATSU, T.: *Hypergeometric Cauchy numbers*, Int. J. Number Theory **9** (2013), 545–560.
KOMATSU, T.: *Incomplete poly-Cauchy numbers*, Monatsh. Math. **180** (2016), 271–288.
KOMATSU, T.—LIPTAI, K.—MEZŐ, I.: *Incomplete poly-Bernoulli numbers associated with incomplete Stirling numbers*, Publ. Math. Debrecen **88** (2016), 357–368.
KOMATSU, T.—MEZŐ, I.—SZALAY, L.: *Incomplete Cauchy numbers*, Acta Math. Hungar. **149** (2016), 306–323.
SLOANE, N. J. A.: *The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences*, available online at http://oeis.org.
PITA, C.: *Carlitz-Type and Other Bernoulli Identities*, J. Integer Seq. **19** (2016), Article 16.1.8.
[^1]: The first author was supported in part by the grant of Wuhan University and by the grant of Hubei Provincial Experts Program.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We discuss some formal and fundamental aspects related with the replacement of integral dispersion relations by derivative forms, and their practical uses in high energy elastic hadron scattering, in particular $pp$ and $\bar{p}p$ scattering. Starting with integral relations with one subtraction and considering parametrizations for the total cross sections belonging to the class of entire functions in the logarithm of the energy, a series of results is deduced and our main conclusions are the following: (1) except for the subtraction constant, the derivative forms do not depend on any additional free parameter; (2) the only approximation in going from integral to derivative relations (at high energies) concerns to assume as zero the lower limit in the integral form; (3) the previous approximation and the subtraction constant affect the fit results at both low and high energies and therefore, the subtraction constant can not be disregarded; (4) from a practical point of view, for single-pole Pomeron and secondary reggeons parametrizations and center-of-mass energies above 5 GeV, the derivative relations with the subtraction constant as a free fit parameter are completely equivalent to the integral forms with finite (non-zero) lower limit. A detailed review on the conditions of validity and assumptions related with the replacement of integral by derivative relations is also presented and discussed.'
address:
- |
Instituto de Matemática, Estatística e Computação Científica\
Universidade Estadual de Campinas, UNICAMP\
13083-970 Campinas, SP, Brazil
- |
Instituto de Física Gleb Wataghin\
Universidade Estadual de Campinas, UNICAMP\
13083-970 Campinas, SP, Brazil
author:
- 'R.F. Ávila'
- 'M.J. Menon'
title: Critical analysis of derivative dispersion relations at high energies
---
,
elastic hadron scattering ,dispersion relations ,high energies 13.85.Dz ,13.85.Lg ,13.85.-t
*To appear in Nuclear Physics A*
**Contents**
1\. Introduction
2\. Historical summary and main points
3\. Derivative dispersion relations
3.1 Formal derivation
3.2 Discussion
4\. Tests with Pomeron-Reggeon parametrizations
4.1 Basic comments
4.2 Degenerate meson trajectories
4.2.1 Analytical results
4.2.2 Global fits
4.3 Non-degenerate meson trajectories
4.4 Discussion
5\. Conclusions and final remarks
Introduction
============
Elastic hadron-hadron scattering, the simplest soft diffractive process, constitutes one of the hardest challenges in high-energy physics. Despite all the success of QCD concerning hard and also semi-hard processes, the large distances involved in the elastic sector (and soft processes in general) demand a nonperturbative approach and, presently, we do not know how to calculate an elastic scattering amplitude in a purely nonperturbative QCD context. At this stage, phenomenology is very important, but must be based on the constraints imposed on the scattering amplitudes by some rigorous theorems, deduced from general principles of the underlying local quantum field theory, namely, Lorentz Invariance, Unitarity, Analyticity and Crossing.
Dispersion relations play an important role in several areas of Physics, both as a practical tool and a formal theoretical result. In special, for particle-particle and particle-antiparticle interactions, they are consequences of the principles of Analyticity and Crossing [@drgeneral]. In this context, they correlate real and imaginary parts of crossing even ($+$) and odd ($-$) amplitudes, which in turn are expressed in terms of the scattering amplitudes for a given process and its crossed channel, for example, $ a + b $ and $a + \bar{b} $:
$$F_{ab} = F_{+} + F_{-} \qquad
F_{a\bar{b}} = F_{+} - F_{-}.
\label{eq:1}$$
Among the physical quantities that characterize high-energy elastic hadron-hadron scattering, the total cross section (optical theorem) and the $\rho$ parameter (related with the phase of the amplitude) are just expressed in terms of forward real and imaginary parts of the amplitude [@bc],
$$\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}(s) = \frac{{\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}}F(s,t=0)}{2 k \sqrt s},
\label{eq:2}$$
$$\rho(s) = \frac{{\mathop{\mathrm{Re}}}F(s,t=0)}{{\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}}F(s,t=0)},$$
where $s$ and $k$ are the center-of-mass energy squared and the momentum, respectively, and $t$ is the four-momentum transfer squared. Therefore, a natural and well founded framework for investigating the behaviors of $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and $\rho$, as function of the energy, is by means of dispersion relations. On one hand, from analytical parametrizations for [$\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ ]{}and fits to the corresponding experimental data, the [$\rho$ ]{}parameter may be determined (analytically or numerically) and compared to the experimental data and/or extrapolated to higher energies. On the other hand, [$\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ ]{}and [$\rho$ ]{}may be analytically connected through the dispersion relations and, therefore, both may be determined from global fits to the experimental data (that is, simultaneous fits to [$\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ ]{}and [$\rho$ ]{}data), improving the statistical ensemble in terms of degree of freedom ($F$).
For particles and antiparticles, the $pp$ and $\bar{p}p$ scattering correspond to the highest energy interval with available data, reaching $\sqrt s \sim$ 63 GeV for $pp$ (CERN ISR) and $\sqrt s \sim$ 2 TeV for $\bar{p}p$ (Fermilab Tevatron). From experiments that are being conducted at the Brokhaven RHIC it is expected data on $pp$ scattering at $\sqrt s$: 50 - 500 GeV, and in the near future the CERN LHC will provide data on $pp$ scattering at 16 TeV. It is highly expected that, in short term, these novel experiments will allow crucial tests for several phenomenological models and, among them, the analytical models, based on the use of dispersion relation techniques, certainly play a central role.
The use of dispersion relations in the investigation of scattering amplitudes may be traced back to the end of fifties, when they were introduced in the form of [*integral*]{} relations. Despite the important results that have been obtained since then, one limitation of the integral forms is their non-local character: in order to obtain the real part of the amplitude, the imaginary part must be known for all values of the energy. Moreover, the class of functions that allows analytical integration is limited. By the end of the sixties and beginning of the seventies, there appeared the dispersion relations in a [*differential*]{} form, and they provided new insights in the dispersion relation techniques. However, as we shall discuss, there still remain some questions related with both the formal replacement of integral by the derivative forms and their practical uses in high energies, as, for example, the effects of the approximations considered, the correct expression of derivative form (depending on the class of functions involved) and the role of the subtraction constant. We understand that these aspects must be made clear before any practical use of the derivative relations.
In this work we critically discuss the situation concerning the derivative relations and present some answers for the above mentioned questions. The manuscript is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:historical\] we briefly review some historical facts and results about the integral and derivative relations, stressing the problems we are interested in. In Section \[sec:derivative\] we first demonstrate that, for the class of functions that are entire in the logarithm of the energy, except for the subtraction constant, the derivative relations do not depend on any additional free parameter. We then review the main results in the literature, obtained through different approaches, in connection with the corresponding assumptions and classes of functions involved. In Section \[sec:tests\], making use of a pomeron-reggeon parametrization, we analyze the practical effects of the approximations involved in the replacement of the integral by the derivative forms. In particular, we show that, for this class of functions, the derivative form with the subtraction constant as a free fit parameter is equivalent to the integral form for $\sqrt s$ above 5 GeV. The conclusions and some critical remarks are the contents of Section \[sec:conclusions\].
Historical summary and main points {#sec:historical}
==================================
In this Section we briefly review some results related with the replacement of [*integral dispersion relations*]{} (IDR) by [*derivative dispersion relations*]{} (DDR), stressing the points that we shall discuss in the next sections. We are interested in the high-energy region, specifically $\sqrt s >$ 5 GeV and, as commented in our introduction, the practical tests will be performed with the $pp$ and $\bar{p}p$ experimental data on $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and $\rho$. For these scatterings, the experimental data above $\sqrt s \sim$ 20 GeV indicate a slow increase of $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$, roughly as $ \sim \ln^2 s$ and that $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}^{\bar{p}p} - \sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}^{pp} \sim 0$ as $s \rightarrow \infty$. These conditions allow the use of integral dispersion relations with only one subtraction, and in the standard form they are usually expressed in terms of the energy $E$ and momentum $p$ of the incoming proton in the laboratory system [@bc; @idr]. Since we shall be interested in the region $\sqrt s > $ 5 GeV, we can approximate $s = 2m(E + m) \sim 2mE$ with an error $ < 5 \% $, which decreases as the energy increases. In this case the standard IDR, with poles removed, are given by
$${\mathop{\mathrm{Re}}}F_{+}(s)= K + \frac{2s^{2}}{\pi}P\!\!\!\int_{s_{0}}^{+\infty}
\!\!\!\d s'
\frac{1}{s'(s'^{2}-s^{2})}{\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}}F_{+}(s'),
\label{eq:4}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
{\mathop{\mathrm{Re}}}F_{-}(s)= \frac{2s}{\pi}P\!\!\!\int_{s_{0}}^{+\infty} \!\!\!
\d s'
\frac{1}{(s'^{2}-s^{2})}{\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}}F_{-}(s'),
\label{eq:5}\end{aligned}$$
where $K$ is the subtraction constant, and for $pp$ and $\bar{p}p$ scattering, $s_0=2m^2\sim 1.8$ GeV$^2$. It should be noted that for the even amplitude the relations with one and two subtractions are equal and for the odd case the relations without subtraction and with one subtraction are equal.
Through Eqs. (\[eq:1\]) to (\[eq:5\]) the physical quantities [$\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ ]{}and [$\rho$ ]{}may be simultaneously investigated. By means of IDR, important results have been obtained since the beginning of the seventies, as for example in the works by Bourrely and Fischer [@bourrely73], Amaldi et al. [@amaldi77], Block and Cahn [@bc], Kluit and Timmermans [@kluit], Augier et al. (UA 4/2 Collaboration) [@ua42], Kang, Valin and White [@kvw], Bertini et al. [@bertini] and many others. However, as commented in our introduction, the inconveniences with the IDR concern their non-local character and the limited number of functions that allows analytical integration, and therefore, error propagation from the fit parameters. On the other hand, under some conditions, the above integral forms may be replaced by quasi-local ones, expressed in a derivative form and called derivative dispersion (or analyticity) relations. The first result in that direction appeared indicated in the works by Gribov and Migdal [@gm], and afterwards, the DDR were treated in more detail by Bronzan [@bronzan68], Jackson [@jack73], Bronzan, Kane and Sukhatme [@bks]. In particular, the forms deduced by the last authors are given by
$${\mathop{\mathrm{Re}}}F_{+}(s) =
s^{\alpha}\tan\left[\frac{\pi}{2}\left( \alpha -1\! +
\frac{\d}{\d\ln s}\right) \right]
\frac{{\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}}F_{+}(s)}{s^{\alpha}},$$
$${\mathop{\mathrm{Re}}}F_{-}(s) = s^{\alpha}
\tan\left[\frac{\pi}{2}\left( \alpha +
\frac{\d}{\d\ln s}\right) \right]
\frac{{\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}}F_{-}(s)}{s^{\alpha}},$$
where $\alpha$ is a real parameter. Soon after, based on the Sommerfeld-Watson-Regge representation and other assumptions, Kang and Nicolescu introduced the following expression for the derivative relations [@kn]:
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\mathop{\mathrm{Re}}}F_{+}(s)}{s}&=&
\bigg[ \frac{\pi}{2} \frac{\d}{\d\ln s} +
\frac{1}{3} \left(\frac{\pi}{2}\frac{\d}{\d \ln s}\right)^3
\nonumber \\
&+&
\frac{2}{5} \left(\frac{\pi}{2}\frac{\d}{\d \ln s}\right)^5 +
\cdots \bigg]\frac{{\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}}F_{+}(s)}{s},
\label{eq:8}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\pi}{2}\frac{\d}{\d \ln s}\frac{{\mathop{\mathrm{Re}}}F_{-}(s)}{s} &=&
- \bigg[ 1 - \frac{1}{3}
\left(\frac{\pi}{2}\frac{\d}{\d \ln s}\right)^2
\nonumber \\
& - & \frac{1}{45}
\left(\frac{\pi}{2}\frac{\d}{\d \ln s}\right)^4 - \cdots
\bigg]
\frac{{\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}}F_{-}(s)}{s},
\label{eq:9}\end{aligned}$$
which, according to the authors, reduces to the Bronzan, Kane and Sukhatme result for a decreasing power form of ${\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}}[F_{-}(s)/s]$ [@kn]. In the last years, these equations have been extensively used in the detailed analysis on analytical models by Cudell et al. [@cudelletall] and by the COMPETE Collaboration [@competework].
The DDR, in the form introduced by [*Bronzan, Kane and Sukhatme*]{} (BKS), have been criticized by several authors [@crit1; @crit2; @crit3; @crit4] and analyzed and discussed in detail by Fischer, Kolář [@kf] and Vrkoč [@vrkoc]. Despite all these works, we understand that two aspects related with the replacement of the IDR, Eqs. (4) and (5), by the DDR, Eqs. (6), (7), or (8), (9) and with their practical uses are yet unclear in the literature.
One aspect concerns the origin, role and range of the exponent $\alpha$ in the BKS relations, which does not appear in the formulas by Kang and Nicolescu. For example, in the paper by BKS this parameter is allowed to have any real value [@bks], but in References [@crit2; @mmp] (see also [@kf]) it must lie in the interval $0 < \alpha < 2$. According to some authors, “the choice of $\alpha$ different from 1 has no practical advantage" [@kf] and other authors have used it as a free fit parameter [@bks; @mmpsn], which demands some physical interpretation. The calculation by Eichmann and Dronkers, in 1974, lead to DDR that do not depend on $\alpha$ [@crit1], but this parameter appears in a recent review by Kolář and Fischer [@kfrev]. To our knowledge, with the exception of the above quoted considerations of $\alpha$ as a free fit parameter, all the other practical uses of the BKS relations are made by assuming $\alpha =$ 1. However, $\alpha$ = 1 leads to a singularity in the BKS expansion of the odd amplitude, since it contains the term $\sec^2(\pi\alpha/2)$ [@bks]. As we shall discuss in detail in Section 3.2, some of these results and statements are not contradictories, because they refer either to different energy regimes (finite or asymptotic $s$) or to different classes of functions, for example, entire functions in the logarithm of the energy, or functions satisfying general principles from axiomatic field theory, etc... Moreover, some results have been obtained in different historical contexts in terms of the highest energies reached in experiments, leading to different mathematical assumptions on the asymptotic conditions.
Another aspect concerns the subtraction constant in the singly subtracted IDR, Eq. (\[eq:4\]), which is the starting formula in the work by Bronzan, Kane and Sukhatme. That constant does not appear in all the above derivative forms and, to our knowledge, neither in almost all their practical uses, including the detailed works by the COMPETE collaboration. Yet, to our knowledge, the only exception concerns the recent works [@alm03; @lm03; @am02], where we have performed analysis of the experimental data available, including cosmic-ray estimations for the total cross sections, by using DDR with the subtraction constant as a free fit parameter and have shown that it affects the fit results at both low and high energies; therefore, the subtraction constant can not be disregarded. We have also shown that, for functions that are entire in the logarithm of the energy (Taylor expansion), the derivative forms do not depend on the parameter $\alpha$ [@am02]. More recently, Cudell, Martynov and Selyugin have introduced a new representation for the DDR, intended for low energies as well, and they also refer to the possible role of the subtraction constant in the derivative form [@cms].
Based on the above considerations, in the next sections we investigate some formal and practical aspects related with the replacement of the IDR by the DDR. Specifically we shall demonstrate that, for entire functions in the logarithm of the energy, the derivative forms do not depend on the $\alpha$ parameter and shall discuss both the approximations involved and the important practical and formal role of the subtraction constant. Some of these results have already been presented elsewhere [@am02].
Derivative dispersion relations {#sec:derivative}
===============================
In this section we first show that the subtraction constant is preserved when the IDR are replaced by the DDR and that, for functions entire in the logarithm of the energy, the derivative forms do not depend on any additional free parameter. Next, based on the formulas displayed, we present a detailed discussion on the conditions of validity of the different results mentioned in the previous section, in connection with the assumptions involved.
Formal Derivation
-----------------
Let us consider the even amplitude, Eq. (\[eq:4\]). By defining $s'=\e^{\xi'}$, $s=\e^{\xi}$ and $g(\xi') = {\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}}F_+(\e^{\xi'}) / \e^{\xi'}$, we express
$${\mathop{\mathrm{Re}}}F_+(\e^{\xi}) - K=
\frac{2\e^{2\xi}}{\pi}P\!\!\int_{\ln s_0}^{+\infty}
\!\!\frac{g(\xi')\e^{\xi'}}{\e^{2\xi'}-\e^{2\xi}}\d\xi'
= \frac{\e^{\xi}}{\pi}P\!\!\int_{\ln s_0}^{+\infty}
\!\!\frac{g(\xi')}{\sinh(\xi'-\xi)}\d\xi'.$$
Assuming that $g$ is an [*analytical function of its argument*]{}, we perform the expansion
$$g(\xi')=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left.\frac{\d^{n}}{\d\xi'^{n}}g(\xi')
\right|_{\xi'=\xi}\frac{(\xi'-\xi)^n}{n!}$$
and then, the integration term by term in the above formula. At the high energy limit, we consider the [*essential approximation*]{} $s_0 = 2m^2 \rightarrow 0$, so that $\ln s_0 \rightarrow -\infty$. With these conditions, we obtain
$${\mathop{\mathrm{Re}}}F_+(\e^{\xi}) - K=
\frac{\e^{\xi}}{\pi}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{g^{(n)}(\xi)}{n!}P
\!\!\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!\!\frac{(\xi'-\xi)^{n}}{\sinh(\xi'-\xi)}
\d\xi'.$$
Now, defining $y=\xi'-\xi$, the above formula may be put in the form
$${\mathop{\mathrm{Re}}}F_+(\e^{\xi}) - K= \e^{\xi}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{g^{(n)}(\xi)}{n!}I_n,$$
where,
$$I_n=\frac{1}{\pi}P\!\!\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!\!
\frac{y^{n}}{\sinh y}\d y.$$
For $n$ even, $ I_n=0$ and for $n$ odd, we consider the integral
$$J(a)=\frac{1}{\pi}P\!\!\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!\!
\frac{\e^{ay}}{\sinh y}\d y
= \tan \left(\frac{a\pi}{2} \right),$$
so that,
$$I_n=\left.\frac{\d^n}{\d a^n}J(a)\right|_{a=0}=
\left.\frac{1}{\pi}P\!\!\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!\!
\frac{\e^{ay}y^{n}}{\sinh y}\d y\right|_{a=0}.$$
With this we have
$$\begin{aligned}
{\mathop{\mathrm{Re}}}F_+(\e^{\xi}) - K&=&\e^{\xi}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\left.
\frac{1}{n!}\frac{\d^n}
{\d a^n}\tan\left(\frac{\pi a}{2}\right)
\right|_{a=0}\left.\frac{\d^n}{\d\xi'^{n}}g(\xi')\right|_{\xi'=\xi}
\nonumber\\
&=&\e^{\xi}\tan\left(\frac{\pi}{2}
\frac{\d}{\d\xi}\right)g(\xi)
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
and, therefore,
$$\frac{{\mathop{\mathrm{Re}}}F_+(s)}{s}= \frac{K}{s} +
\tan\left[\frac{\pi}{2}
\frac{\d}{\d\ln s}\right]\frac{{\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}}F_+(s)}{s},
\label{eq:10}$$
where the series expansion is implicit in the tangent operator. With analogous procedure for the odd relation we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
{\mathop{\mathrm{Re}}}F_-(s)=
\tan\left[\frac{\pi}{2}
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\ln s}\right]
{\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}}F_-(s),
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
or
$$\frac{{\mathop{\mathrm{Re}}}F_-(s)}{s}=
\tan\left[\frac{\pi}{2}
\left(1 + \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\ln s}\right)\right]
\frac{{\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}}F_-(s)}{s}.
\label{eq:11}$$
We see that, with the exception of the subtraction constant, these formulas do not depend on any additional free parameter, or, they correspond to a “particular" case of the BKS relations for $\alpha$ = 1. We stress that the same result is obtained if, following BKS, the derivation begins with an integration by parts without free parameter, as can be easily verified. We shall return to this point in Section 3.2.
In practical uses the trigonometric operators are expressed by the corresponding series. With the substitution in the odd case
$$\tan\left[\frac{\pi}{2}
\left(1 + \frac{\d}{\d\ln s}\right)\right]
\quad
\rightarrow
\quad
- \cot\left[\frac{\pi}{2}
\frac{\d}{\d\ln s}\right],$$
and, by expanding the series [*around the origin*]{}, we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\mathop{\mathrm{Re}}}F_+(s)}{s} = \frac{K}{s} & +&
\bigg[ \frac{\pi}{2} \frac{\d}{\d\ln s} +
\frac{1}{3} \left(\frac{\pi}{2}\frac{\d}{\d \ln s}\right)^3
\nonumber \\
& + &
\frac{2}{5} \left(\frac{\pi}{2}\frac{\d}{\d \ln s}\right)^5 +
\cdots \bigg] \frac{{\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}}F_{+}(s)}{s},
\label{eq:12}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\mathop{\mathrm{Re}}}F_-(s)}{s} =
&-& \frac{2}{\pi}\int \bigg\{ \bigg[
1 - \frac{1}{3} \left(\frac{\pi}{2}\frac{\d}{\d \ln s}\right)^2
\nonumber\\
&-& \frac{1}{45} \left(\frac{\pi}{2}
\frac{\d}{\d \ln s}\right)^4
- \cdots \bigg] \frac{{\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}}F_{-}(s)}{s} \bigg\} \d \ln s,
\label{eq:13}\end{aligned}$$
which is formally equivalent to the results introduced by Kang and Nicolescu, Eqs. (\[eq:8\]) and (\[eq:9\]), except for the presence of the subtraction constant. These expansions have been used in the Ref. [@alm03], that includes power and logarithmic dependences in the parametrizations.
We have just demonstrated three formal and important results: (1) the subtraction constant is preserved when the IDR are replaced by DDR and, therefore, in principle, can not be disregarded; (2) except for the subtraction constant, the DDR with entire functions in the logarithm of the energy, do not depend on any additional free parameter; (3) the only approximation involved in the replacement concerns the lower limit in the IDR, namely, $s_0 = 2m^2 \rightarrow 0$, which represents a high-energy approximation. We shall return to these points in Section 4, when treating practical uses of the DDR.
Discussion
----------
With focus on the DDR as expressed by Eqs. (6) to (13), let us discuss here the different results mentioned in Section 2, in connection with the corresponding conditions of validity and assumptions involved. We shall roughly follow a chronological approach (see also [@kfrev]).
The first derivative form appeared in the beginning of 1968 in the context of the Regge Theory. By investigating the cuts associated with the Pomeron in the high energy limit ($s \rightarrow \infty$) and at low momentum transfers, Gribov and Migdal introduced a derivative representation for the Watson-Sommerfeld integral, which, mathematically, corresponds to the first term in the expansion (12) (without the subtraction constant), namely
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\mathop{\mathrm{Re}}}F_+(s,t)}{s} =
\bigg[ \frac{\pi}{2} \frac{\partial}{\partial\ln s}
\bigg] \frac{{\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}}F_{+}(s,t)}{s}.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
In the beginning of the seventies, Bronzan [@bronzan68], followed by Jackson [@jack73], introduced the first form involving the tangent operator, Eqs. (10) and (11), independent of the parameter $\alpha$. The arguments by Jackson were based on the formal representation of the Taylor series by an exponential operator,
$$\begin{aligned}
f(z + \lambda) =
\exp \bigg\{ \lambda\frac{d}{dz} \bigg\} f(z),
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
an on the high energy limit, in order to avoid branch points and cuts (see [@jack73] for details). Therefore, the basic assumptions concern entire functions and the high energies.
The first direct connection between IDR and DDR appeared in 1974 in the work by BKS [@bks]. Starting from the singly subtracted IDR, Eq. (4) (neglecting the subtraction constant), the authors mention an integration by parts, which leads to an expression containing the parameter $\alpha$. That may be obtained by multiplying and dividing Eq. (4) by $s^{\alpha}$ and then integrating by parts. In addition to the high-energy approximation, represented by the lower limit $s_0 \rightarrow 0$, a Taylor expansion of ${\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}}F_+/s^{\alpha}$ is also assumed, so that the series may be integrated term by term (uniform convergence), leading to Eqs. (6) and (7). We should note that the expansion considered by BKS in [@bks] is around the point $\pi(\alpha - 1)/2$ for the even amplitude and $\pi \alpha/2$ in the odd case, which leads to the previously mentioned singularity for $\alpha = 1$. Differently, Eqs. (8), (9) and (12), (13) and all the other cases treated here and discussed in what follows, refer to expansions around the origin.
In the same year, Kang and Nicolescu introduced the series expansion (8) and (9), which, according to the authors, can be derived “from the analyticity relation given by the Sommerfeld-Watson-Regge representation" and are asymptotic relations [@kn]. The point here was to treat the possibility that the amplitude could include not only simple poles in the complex angular momentum plane but, in particular, logarithm dependences in the odd amplitude, representing the Odderon [@odd]. The association of this concept with a complicated singularity at $J$ =1, demanded a specific contour for the Watson-Sommerfeld-Regge transformation, which could be translated by the need of subtraction in the dispersion relation [@kn]. That, in turn, could be represented by the derivative factor, $(\pi/2) d/dln s$, in the odd case, Eq. (9) [@pc]. As we have shown, the DDR by Kang-Nicolescu and that by BKS have the same mathematical structure, once the cotangent operator (Section 3.1) could be well defined for the specific class of functions involved. We shall return to this important point in Section 5.
At that time, the derivative approach was strongly criticized by several authors [@crit1; @crit2; @crit3; @crit4], in the sense that it had no practical interest, for instance, because “the mathematical condition for the convergence of the series excludes all cases of physical interest" [@crit1]. However, it should be noted that some of these criticisms were connected with the physical situation at that time, some directed to attempts to extend the method to low energies (for example, as in [@suketal]) and/or to some possible excessive optimism about the derivative approach [@sidhu]. As effective contributions from all these criticisms we may mention the following results, which refer always to the even amplitude.
Eichmann and Dronkers treated the case corresponding to $\alpha$ = 1, showing that Eq. (10) is valid only for some class of entire functions of $\ln s$ [@crit1]. Specifically, with our notation of Sec. $3.1$, they considered the series expansion of
$$\begin{aligned}
\tan \bigg[ \frac{\pi}{2} \frac{d}{d \xi}
\bigg] g(\xi)
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
and have proved that, if this series converges, then $g(\xi)$ must be an entire function of $\xi$ and must satisfy $|g(\xi)| \leq C\exp\{|\xi|\}$, $C$ a constant. Conversely, if $g(\xi)$ is an entire function of $\xi$ and satisfies $|g(\xi)| \leq C\exp\{(1 - \epsilon)|\xi|\}$, $\epsilon > 0$, than the tangent series converges and may be represented by the integral relation (4), with $s_0 = 0$. Basically, the proof consisted in expanding $g(\xi)$ in Taylor series and compare the result with that obtained by performing the same expansion of $g(\xi)$ in the integral (4). They have also shown that the method does not apply in the resonance region.
Heidrich and Kazes considered the parameter $\alpha$ and showed that the convergence of the series demands that $\alpha$ must lie between 0 and 2 [@crit2]. As before, it is assumed that ${\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}}F_{+}(s) / s^{\alpha}$ may be expanded in Taylor series and that, in turn, integrated term by term. That leads to the evaluation of an integral depending on $y = \xi - \xi'$, in the form
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\pi} \ln\coth\frac{1}{2}|y|\:\: e^{(\alpha -1)y}y^{n}
{\large \mid}_{-\infty}^{+\infty}
+ \frac{1}{\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}dy \frac{e^{(\alpha -1)y}}{\sinh y}y^{n},
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
so that the first term is finite only for 0 $ < \alpha < $ 2. They have also shown that Eq. (6) is violated in the energy intervals between two branch points on the cut. It may be noted that a criterion of convergence based on the convergence radius of the Taylor expansion was later shown to be incorrect by Fischer and Kolář [@kf].
From 1976 to 1987, Fischer and Kolář, in a series of seminal papers [@kf], developed a rigorous study of the derivative approach in connection with general principles and theorems from axiomatic quantum field theory [@ft]. The authors introduced classes of functions satisfying, among other properties, polynomial bound and the Froissart-Martin bound, and corresponding to a wider class of functions than that represented by entire functions in the logarithm of the energy. The analysis was focused on the region of asymptotic energies and the main formal result was that the derivative relations are valid if the tangent series is replaced by its first term. Although that demands the existence of the high-energy limits of certain physical quantities [@kf], the class of functions involved includes the majority of functions of interest in physical applications. For our purposes, we recall some results obtained by the authors about the role and range of the parameter $\alpha$. For $x = \ln s$, let $F(x)$ be a function belonging to the above mentioned class of functions [@kf]. For $\alpha$ = 1, the entire function $\mathcal{F}(z)$ which extends the function $F(x)$ to the complex $z$ plane, obeys the bound
$$\begin{aligned}
|\mathcal{F}(z)| \leq \epsilon e^{|z|} + C(\epsilon),
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
for every $\epsilon >$ 0, where $C(\epsilon)$ is a constant that depends on $\epsilon$. On the other hand, for $\alpha \not=$ 1, if the series
$$\begin{aligned}
\tan \bigg[ \frac{\pi}{2}
(\alpha - 1 + \frac{d}{dx})
\bigg] F(x)
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
converges on some interval, then $F(x)$ can be extended to an entire function for any $\alpha$ and in this case, the entire function obeys
$$\begin{aligned}
|\mathcal{F}(x)| \leq \epsilon e^{|x| - (\alpha - 1) {\mathop{\mathrm{Re}}}x} +
C(\epsilon)\epsilon e^{- (\alpha - 1) {\mathop{\mathrm{Re}}}x}.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, the bound changes, unless $x$ lies on the imaginary axis [@kf]. To our knowledge that is the only result in the literature that “quantify" the role of the parameter $\alpha$. We shall return to this point in what follows. We also recall that differently from all the other works discussed here, Fischer and Kolář make explicit reference to the fact that the tangent series represents the difference between ${\mathop{\mathrm{Re}}}F_{+}/s$ and a constant associated with the subtraction. Moreover, they also discuss the contribution from the integral with zero and $s_0$ as lower and upper limits, respectively (the high-energy approximation). They have also shown that for entire functions associated with fits, this contribution is divergent unless ${\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}}F(0)$ = 0 (a result also presented in [@crit2]).
It should be also mentioned that Block and Cahn obtained a result for the DDR that does not depend on $\alpha$, but under the assumption that the differential operator $ Z = \d/\d\ln s$ follows the condition $|Z| < 1$ [@bc].
We conclude this discussion with the following comments. Concerning the range and validity of the parameter $\alpha$, we have shown that the different statements, briefly quoted in Section 2, are not controversial since they are consequences of the different assumptions or classes of functions considered. As shown by Fischer and Kolář, for functions that are entire in $\ln s$, the DDR are continuation of the IDR for all values of the parameter $\alpha$. However, based on the above bounds, established for $\alpha$ = 1 and $\alpha \not=$ 1, we can not devise any practical advantage in using $\alpha \not=$ 1, as stated before by Fischer and Kolář. In this sense, we understand that the introduction of the parameter $\alpha$ by BKS is only an unnecessary complication.
With the exception of the analysis by Fischer and Kolář, neither of the works discussed in this section make any reference to the subtraction constant nor treat explicitly the contribution from the high-energy approximation represented by the assumption $s_0 \rightarrow$ 0. In the following section we investigate the practical role of the subtraction constant and the influence of the lower limit of the IDR for a class of functions that are entire in $\ln s$.
Tests with Pomeron-Reggeon parametrizations {#sec:tests}
===========================================
In order to quantitatively investigate the practical applicability of the DDR in substitution to IDR, we consider, as a framework, some standard parametrizations for the total cross section and present a detailed study on simultaneous fits to $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}(s)$ and $\rho(s)$. We start this Section with some comments about our choices concerning the parametrizations, ensemble of experimental data, energy cutoffs and an outline on the strategies to be used in this study. We then present the fit results, followed by a discussion on the role of the subtraction constant and of the high-energy approximation associated with the lower integral limit.
Basic comments
--------------
Presently, phenomenological analyses on the forward quantities $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}(s)$ and $\rho(s)$, at high energies, are based on two kinds of dependences on the energy, namely power and power logarithmic functions and, therefore, entire functions in $\ln s$. In the context of the Regge phenomenology they are associated with simple-pole Pomeron and secondary reggeons ($s^{\pm \gamma}$, 0 $< \gamma < $ 1), double-pole ($\ln s$) and triple-pole ($\ln^2 s$) contributions [@competework] . In order to treat in detail the applicability of the DDR and IDR by means of a complete example, we shall consider here, as a framework, only parametrizations based on simple-pole Pomeron and secondary reggeons, leaving the other cases for a forthcoming work.
Although that Pomeron contribution, represented by the $s^{\epsilon}$ dependence, with $\epsilon \approx 0.081$ (Section 4.2), eventually violates the Froissart-Martin bound, we shall focus here only on its mathematical character, as representing a class of functions entire in $\ln s$ and, moreover, that can provide a good description of the experimental data at the energies presently available. It should be also noted that other forms of DDR do not require the above bound, as demonstrated in [@kf].
Since all the Regge phenomenology is intended for the region of high energies [@ddln] and, as mentioned previously, for particle-particle and particle-antiparticle (crossing) the $pp$ and $\bar{p}p$ scattering correspond to the highest energy values with available data, we shall concentrate here only on these two processes. We shall return to this point in Section 4.4. We make use of the data sets on $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and $\rho$ analyzed and compiled by the Particle Data Group [@pdg]. The statistic and systematic errors have been added in quadrature.
Since we are interested in the practical role of the subtraction constant as a free fit parameter, it is necessary to test both the different cutoffs in the energy and the effect of the number of free fit parameters involved. To treat the former case, we shall consider in all the analysis two lower energy cuts: $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 5 GeV and $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 10 GeV. In the later case, in order to get quantitative information on the sensitivity of the subtraction constant as a free fit parameter, we first consider an “economical" parametrization represented by two reggeon exchanges (the Donnachie-Landshoff model) and after, an extended model with three reggeon exchanges. In the Regge context that means to consider [*degenerate*]{} and [*non-degenerate*]{} higher [*meson trajectories*]{}, respectively.
Our aim in this section is to use these parametrizations in order to discuss the applicability of both the IDR, either with $s_0 = 2m^2$ or $s_0 = 0$, and the DDR. Specifically, we want to establish how the results with the DDR deviate from those with the IDR and in which circumstances both approaches lead to the same results. Summarizing, our strategy shall be to consider simultaneous fits to $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and $\rho$ data from $pp$ and $\bar{p}p$ scattering, with the following variants: (i) parametrizations with degenerate and non-degenerate trajectories; (ii) lower energy cuts at $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 5 and $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 10 GeV; (iii) subtraction constant: $K$ = 0 and $K$ as a free fit parameter; (iv) DDR and IDR with both $s_0 = 2m^2$ and with $s_0 =0$.
In what follows, we consider the approximation $s = 4(k^2 + m^2) \sim 4 k^2$, so that the optical theorem, Eq. (\[eq:2\]) reads
$$\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}(s) = \frac{{\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}}F(s,t=0)}{s}.
\label{eq:14}$$
Degenerate meson trajectories
-----------------------------
The forward effective Regge amplitude introduced by [*Donnachie and Landshoff*]{} (DL) has two contributions, one from a single Pomeron and the other from secondary Reggeons exchanges [@dl]. The parametrization assumes degeneracies between the secondary reggeons, imposing a common intercept for the $C=+1$ ($a_2, f_2$) and the $C=-1$ ($\omega,\rho$) and is given by
$$\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}^{pp} (s) = X s^{\epsilon} + Y s^{- \eta},
\label{eq:15}$$
$$\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}^{p\bar{p}} (s) = X s^{\epsilon} + Z s^{- \eta}.
\label{eq:16}$$
Here, $\epsilon=\alpha_{\mathbb{P}}(0)-1$ and $\eta= 1 - \alpha_{\mathbb{R}}(0)$, where $\alpha_{\mathbb{P}}(0)$ and $\alpha_{\mathbb{R}}(0)$ are the Pomeron and Reggeon intercepts, respectively. From analysis of $pp$ and $\bar{p}p$ in the interval $10\:\:{\mathrm{GeV}} \leq \sqrt{s} \leq 546\:\:{\mathrm{GeV}}$, DL obtained the following values for the free parameters: $X = 21.7$ mb, $Y = 56.08$ mb, $Z = 98.39$ mb, $\epsilon = 0.0808$, $\eta = 0.4525$.
In what follows, we first present the analytical connections between $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and $\rho$ with the DL parametrization, using both the IDR (with $s_0 = 2m^2$ or $s_0 = 0$) and the DDR and then, the results of global (simultaneous) fits to $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and $\rho$, with $K=0$ or $K$ as a free fit parameter and energy cutoffs at 5 and 10 GeV.
### Analytical results
The crossing even and odd amplitudes in Eq. (\[eq:1\]) are obtained by using the parametrizations (15) and (16) and the optical theorem as given by Eq. (14). In this case, ${\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}}F_{+/-}(s) \propto s^{\gamma}$, with $-1 < \gamma < 1$ and the integrals in (\[eq:4\]) and (\[eq:5\]) may be analytically evaluated. For $s_0=0$ we obtain,
$$P\!\int_{0}^{+\infty} \d s'
\frac{s'^{\gamma} }{(s'^{2}-s^{2})} = \frac{\pi}{2} s^{ \gamma - 1}
\tan\frac{\pi \gamma}{2}.$$
For $s_0=2m^2$ fixed, the change of variables $s' = y + s_0$ and integration in $y$, lead to the result
$$\begin{aligned}
P\int^{+\infty}_{s_0}\!\!\frac{ s'^{\gamma}}{s'^2-s^2}\d s' =
\frac{\pi}{2} s^{ \gamma - 1}\tan\frac{\pi \gamma}{2} + L(s),
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where, from the above formulas, $L(s)$ represents the contribution below the lower integration limit,
$$L(s) = -P\!\int_{0}^{s_0} \d s'
\frac{s'^{\gamma} }{(s'^{2}-s^{2})} = \frac{\pi}{2} s^{ \gamma - 1}
\tan\frac{\pi \gamma}{2},$$
and can be expressed either interms of hypergeometric functions or the corresponding series expansion in inverse powers of $s$ [@tables]
$$\begin{aligned}
L(s) &=& \frac{s{_0}^{\gamma}}{2\gamma s}\left[
_{2}\mathrm{F}_{1}(1,\gamma;1+\gamma;s_0/s)-\:
_{2}\mathrm{F}_{1}(1,\gamma;1+\gamma;-s_0/s)\right] \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{s{_0}^{\gamma}}{s}
\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}
\frac{1}{2j+1+\gamma}\left(\frac{s_0}{s}\right)^{2j+1}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
With these expressions, and the DL parametrization, the connections between $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}(s)$ and $\rho(s)$ may be analytically determined. For $s_0=0$ we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
\rho(s) \sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}(s) & = & \frac{K}{s}
\pm \frac{(Y-Z)}{2}s^{-\eta}\cot \left(\eta\frac{\pi}{2}\right)
+ Xs^{\epsilon}\tan \left(\epsilon\frac{\pi}{2}\right)
\nonumber\\
&-&
\frac{(Y+Z)}{2}s^{-\eta}\tan \left(\eta\frac{\pi}{2}\right),
\label{eq:17}\end{aligned}$$
and for fixed $s_0=2m^2$,
$$\begin{aligned}
\rho(s) \sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}(s) & = & \frac{K}{s}
\pm \frac{(Y-Z)}{2}s^{-\eta}\cot \left(\eta\frac{\pi}{2}\right)
+ Xs^{\epsilon}\tan \left(\epsilon\frac{\pi}{2}\right)
\nonumber\\
&-&
\frac{(Y+Z)}{2}s^{-\eta}\tan \left(\eta\frac{\pi}{2}\right)
+
\frac{1}{\pi}
\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}
\bigg(
\pm \frac{(Y-Z)s{_0}^{1-\eta}}{s(2j+2-\eta)}
\nonumber\\
&+& \frac{2Xs{_0}^\epsilon}{2j+1+\epsilon}
+\frac{(Y+Z)s{_0}^{-\eta}}{2j+1-\eta}
\bigg)\left(\frac{s_0}{s}\right)^{2j+1},
\label{eq:18}\end{aligned}$$
where the signs $\pm$ apply for $pp$ ($+$) and $\bar{p}p$ ($-$) scattering and, as before, the power series is associated with the contribution below the lower integration limit.
The results with the DDR, as given by Eqs. (\[eq:10\]) and (\[eq:11\]) (or (\[eq:12\]) and (\[eq:13\])), are exactly the same as that obtained by means of the IDR with $s_0 = 0$, namely, Eq. (\[eq:17\]). This is in agreement with our conclusion at the end of the Section $3.1$: the only formal approximation involved in going from IDR to DDR is to take $s_0 = 2m^2 \rightarrow 0$.
Once we have established the analytical equivalence of the real parts obtained with both DDR and IDR for $s_0 = 0$, in what folllows we shall consider only the results provided by DDR, Eq. (17), and by IDR for $s_0 = 2m^2$, Eq. (18).
### Global Fits
We have developed global (simultaneous) fits to $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and $\rho$ with the DL parametrization, using either the IDR with $s_0=2m^2$, or the DDR, considering either $K=0$ or $K$ as a free fit parameter and for energy cuts at 5 and 10 GeV. The fits have been performed with the program CERN Minuit and the errors in the fit parameters correspond to an increase of the $\chi^2$ by one unit. The numerical results and statistical information from all the four cases analyzed with energy cut at 5 GeV are displayed in Table \[tab:1\], and the curves, together with the experimental data, are shown in Figs. \[fig:1\] and \[fig:2\], for $K=0$ and $K$ as a free fit parameter, respectively. The corresponding results for the energy cut at 10 GeV are presented in Table \[tab:2\] and Figs. \[fig:3\] and \[fig:4\]. We shall discuss these results in Section 4.4 together with those obtained by means of an extended parametrization, characterized by the non-degenerate trajectories.
------------ --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
$K$ free $K=0$ $K$ free $K=0$
X (mb) 23.08 $\pm$ 0.28 23.14 $\pm$ 0.28 23.08 $\pm$ 0.28 23.17 $\pm$ 0.28
Y (mb) 54.65 $\pm$ 1.3 54.4 $\pm$ 1.3 54.66 $\pm$ 1.3 48.8 $\pm$ 1.0
Z (mb) 108.8 $\pm$ 3.5 108.5 $\pm$ 3.5 108.8 $\pm$ 3.6 95.0 $\pm$ 2.4
$\epsilon$ 0.0747 $\pm$ 0.0014 0.0743 $\pm$ 0.0014 0.0747 $\pm$ 0.0014 0.0738 $\pm$0.0014
$\eta$ 0.494 $\pm$ 0.010 0.4946 $\pm$ 0.0099 0.494 $\pm$ 0.010 0.4673 $\pm$ 0.0079
$K$ 17 $\pm$ 13 0 179 $\pm$ 15 0
$\chi^2/F$ 1.39 1.39 1.39 2.01
------------ --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
: Simultaneous fits to $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and $\rho$ through the DL parametrization, $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 5 GeV (238 data points), either with $K$ as a free parameter or $K=0$ and using IDR with lower limit $s_0=2m^2$ and DDR.[]{data-label="tab:1"}
------------ --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
$K$ free $K=0$ $K$ free $K=0$
X (mb) 21.62 $\pm$ 0.38 21.78 $\pm$ 0.37 21.62 $\pm$ 0.38 21.83 $\pm$ 0.38
Y (mb) 65.7 $\pm$ 4.5 59.5 $\pm$ 3.2 65.7 $\pm$ 4.5 50.6 $\pm$ 2.2
Z (mb) 113.4 $\pm$ 9.4 102.5 $\pm$ 7.0 113.4 $\pm$ 9.4 85.7 $\pm$ 4.4
$\epsilon$ 0.0816 $\pm$ 0.0018 0.0806 $\pm$ 0.0018 0.0816 $\pm$ 0.0018 0.0800 $\pm$ 0.0018
$\eta$ 0.482 $\pm$ 0.019 0.467 $\pm$ 0.017 0.482 $\pm$ 0.019 0.435 $\pm$ 0.014
$K$ 116 $\pm$ 36 0 287 $\pm$ 44 0
$\chi^2/F$ 1.17 1.24 1.17 1.50
------------ --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
: Simultaneous fits to $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and $\rho$ through the DL parametrization, $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 10 GeV (154 data points), either with $K$ as a free parameter or $K=0$ and using IDR with lower limit $s_0=2m^2$ and DDR.[]{data-label="tab:2"}
![Simultaneous fit to $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and $\rho$ through the DL parametrization, $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 5 GeV, assuming $K=0$ and using either the IDR with $s_0=2m^2$ (solid) or the DDR (dashed).[]{data-label="fig:1"}](am031f1a.eps "fig:"){width="7cm" height="7cm"} ![Simultaneous fit to $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and $\rho$ through the DL parametrization, $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 5 GeV, assuming $K=0$ and using either the IDR with $s_0=2m^2$ (solid) or the DDR (dashed).[]{data-label="fig:1"}](am031f1b.eps "fig:"){width="7cm" height="7cm"}
![Simultaneous fit to $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and $\rho$ through the DL parametrization, $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 5 GeV, with $K$ as free parameter and using either the IDR with $s_0=2m^2$ (solid) or the DDR (dashed): both curves coincide.[]{data-label="fig:2"}](am031f2a.eps "fig:"){width="7cm" height="7cm"} ![Simultaneous fit to $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and $\rho$ through the DL parametrization, $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 5 GeV, with $K$ as free parameter and using either the IDR with $s_0=2m^2$ (solid) or the DDR (dashed): both curves coincide.[]{data-label="fig:2"}](am031f2b.eps "fig:"){width="7cm" height="7cm"}
![Simultaneous fit to $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and $\rho$ through the DL parametrization, $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 10 GeV, assuming $K=0$ and using either the IDR with $s_0=2m^2$ (solid) or the DDR (dashed).[]{data-label="fig:3"}](am031f3a.eps "fig:"){width="7cm" height="7cm"} ![Simultaneous fit to $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and $\rho$ through the DL parametrization, $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 10 GeV, assuming $K=0$ and using either the IDR with $s_0=2m^2$ (solid) or the DDR (dashed).[]{data-label="fig:3"}](am031f3b.eps "fig:"){width="7cm" height="7cm"}
![Simultaneous fit to $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and $\rho$ through the DL parametrization, $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 10 GeV, with $K$ as free parameter and using either the IDR with $s_0=2m^2$ (solid) or the DDR (dashed): both curves coincide.[]{data-label="fig:4"}](am031f4a.eps "fig:"){width="7cm" height="7cm"} ![Simultaneous fit to $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and $\rho$ through the DL parametrization, $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 10 GeV, with $K$ as free parameter and using either the IDR with $s_0=2m^2$ (solid) or the DDR (dashed): both curves coincide.[]{data-label="fig:4"}](am031f4b.eps "fig:"){width="7cm" height="7cm"}
Non-degenerate meson trajectories
---------------------------------
Analyses, treating global fits to $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and $\rho$, have indicated that the best results are obtained with non-degenerate meson trajectories [@nondege]. In this case the forward scattering amplitude is decomposed into three reggeon exchanges, $
F(s) = F_{\tt I\!P}(s) + F_{a_2/f_2}(s) +
\tau F_{\omega/\rho}(s),
$ where the first term represents the exchange of a single Pomeron, the other two the secondary Reggeons and $\tau = + 1$ ($- 1$) for $pp$ ($\bar{p}p$) amplitudes. Using the notation $\alpha_{\tt I\!P}(0)
= 1+\epsilon$, $\alpha_{+}(0) = 1 -\eta_{+}$ and $\alpha_{-}(0) = 1 -\eta_{-}$ for the intercepts of the Pomeron and the $C=+1$ and $C=-1$ trajectories, respectively, the total cross sections, Eq. (14), for $pp$ and $\bar{p}p$ interactions are written as $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}(s) = X s^{\epsilon} + Y_{+}\, s^{-\eta_{+}} + \tau Y_{-}\,
s^{-\eta_{-}}.\end{aligned}$$
Since the formal structure of the parametrization is the same as in the case of degenerate trajectories, with the addition of one more power term, we shall not display the analytical formulas, but only the numerical and fit results, together with the experimental data. The numerical results and statistical information from all the four cases analyzed with $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 5 GeV are displayed in Table \[tab:3\] and the curves, together with the experimental data, are shown in Figs. \[fig:5\] and \[fig:6\], for $K=0$ or $K$ as a free fit parameter, respectively. The corresponding results for $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 10 GeV are presented in Table \[tab:4\] and Figs. \[fig:7\] and \[fig:8\].
------------ --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
$K$ free $K=0$ $K$ free $K=0$
$X$ (mb) 19.61 $\pm$ 0.53 20.12 $\pm$ 0.51 19.61 $\pm$ 0.53 21.44 $\pm$ 0.44
$Y_+$ (mb) 66.4 $\pm$ 2.0 68.9 $\pm$ 2.1 66.4 $\pm$ 2.0 78.0 $\pm$ 2.0
$Y_-$ (mb) -33.8 $\pm$ 1.9 -32.4 $\pm$ 1.8 -33.8 $\pm$ 1.9 -38.8 $\pm$ 2.6
$\epsilon$ 0.0895 $\pm$ 0.0025 0.0874 $\pm$ 0.0024 0.0895 $\pm$ 0.0025 0.0814 $\pm$ 0.0021
$\eta_+$ 0.382 $\pm$ 0.015 0.399 $\pm$ 0.014 0.382 $\pm$ 0.015 0.450 $\pm$ 0.012
$\eta_-$ 0.545 $\pm$ 0.013 0.533 $\pm$ 0.012 0.545 $\pm$ 0.013 0.573 $\pm$ 0.015
$K$ -48 $\pm$ 15 0 69 $\pm$ 18 0
$\chi^2/F$ 1.10 1.14 1.10 1.64
------------ --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
: Simultaneous fits to $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and $\rho$ through the extended parametrization, $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 5 GeV (238 data points), either with $K$ as a free parameter or $K=0$ and using IDR with lower limit $s_0=2m^2$ and DDR.[]{data-label="tab:3"}
------------ --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
$K$ free $K=0$ $K$ free $K=0$
$X$ (mb) 19.57 $\pm$ 0.79 19.70 $\pm$ 0.64 19.58 $\pm$ 0.78 21.088 $\pm$ 0.54
$Y_+$ (mb) 66.0 $\pm$ 6.7 67.4 $\pm$ 4.8 66.0 $\pm$ 6.6 86.850 $\pm$ 4.4
$Y_-$ (mb) -29.2 $\pm$ 4.0 -29.1 $\pm$ 3.9 -29.2 $\pm$ 4.0 -27.477 $\pm$ 6.0
$\epsilon$ 0.0897 $\pm$ 0.0033 0.0892 $\pm$ 0.0028 0.0897 $\pm$ 0.0033 0.0836 $\pm$ 0.0024
$\eta_+$ 0.380 $\pm$ 0.033 0.386 $\pm$ 0.024 0.380 $\pm$ 0.033 0.46256 $\pm$ 0.019
$\eta_-$ 0.520 $\pm$ 0.025 0.519 $\pm$ 0.024 0.520 $\pm$ 0.024 0.50596 $\pm$ 0.040
$K$ -14 $\pm$ 48 0 104 $\pm$ 58 0
$\chi^2/F$ 1.10 1.09 1.10 1.55
------------ --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
: Simultaneous fits to $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and $\rho$ through the extended parametrization, $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 10 GeV (154 data points), either with $K$ as a free parameter or $K=0$ and using IDR with lower limit $s_0=2m^2$ and DDR.[]{data-label="tab:4"}
![Simultaneous fit to $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and $\rho$ through the extended parametrization, $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 5 GeV, assuming $K=0$ and using either the IDR with $s_0=2m^2$ (solid) or the DDR (dashed).[]{data-label="fig:5"}](am031f5a.eps "fig:"){width="7cm" height="7cm"} ![Simultaneous fit to $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and $\rho$ through the extended parametrization, $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 5 GeV, assuming $K=0$ and using either the IDR with $s_0=2m^2$ (solid) or the DDR (dashed).[]{data-label="fig:5"}](am031f5b.eps "fig:"){width="7cm" height="7cm"}
![Simultaneous fit to $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and $\rho$ through the extended parametrization, $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 5 GeV, with $K$ as free parameter and using either the IDR with $s_0=2m^2$ (solid) or the DDR (dashed): both curves coincide.[]{data-label="fig:6"}](am031f6a.eps "fig:"){width="7cm" height="7cm"} ![Simultaneous fit to $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and $\rho$ through the extended parametrization, $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 5 GeV, with $K$ as free parameter and using either the IDR with $s_0=2m^2$ (solid) or the DDR (dashed): both curves coincide.[]{data-label="fig:6"}](am031f6b.eps "fig:"){width="7cm" height="7cm"}
![Simultaneous fit to $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and $\rho$ through the extended parametrization, $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 10 GeV, assuming $K=0$ and using either the IDR with $s_0=2m^2$ (solid) or the DDR (dashed).[]{data-label="fig:7"}](am031f7a.eps "fig:"){width="7cm" height="7cm"} ![Simultaneous fit to $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and $\rho$ through the extended parametrization, $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 10 GeV, assuming $K=0$ and using either the IDR with $s_0=2m^2$ (solid) or the DDR (dashed).[]{data-label="fig:7"}](am031f7b.eps "fig:"){width="7cm" height="7cm"}
![Simultaneous fit to $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and $\rho$ through the extended parametrization, $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 10 GeV, with $K$ as free parameter and using either the IDR with $s_0=2m^2$ (solid) or the DDR (dashed): both curves coincide.[]{data-label="fig:8"}](am031f8a.eps "fig:"){width="7cm" height="7cm"} ![Simultaneous fit to $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and $\rho$ through the extended parametrization, $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 10 GeV, with $K$ as free parameter and using either the IDR with $s_0=2m^2$ (solid) or the DDR (dashed): both curves coincide.[]{data-label="fig:8"}](am031f8b.eps "fig:"){width="7cm" height="7cm"}
Discussion
----------
Making use of power law parametrizations for the total cross section, we have presented the results of several simultaneous fits to $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}(s)$ and $\rho(s)$ from $pp$ and $\bar{p}p$ scattering. Once established that the analytical results through IDR with $s_0$ = 0 and DDR are the same (Section 4.2.1), we have performed 16 fits to the experimental data with the following variants: (1) degenerate and non-degenerate trajectories; (2) $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 5 GeV and $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 10 GeV; (3) IDR with $s_0 = 2m^2$ and DDR; (4) $K = $ 0 and $K$ as a free fit parameter. The results are displayed in Tables 1 to 4 and Figures 1 to 8. In what follows we focus the discussion on the effect of the high-energy approximation ($s_0 \rightarrow $ 0 in the IDR leading to the DDR) and on the role of the subtraction constant.
For $K =$ 0, the only difference between the IDR and the DDR approaches is associated with the high-energy approximation, analytically represented by integrations of Eqs. (4) and (5) from $s' = 0$ to $s' = s_0 = 2m^2 \approx $ 1.8 GeV. In principle, it might be expected that this contribution could affect the fit results only in the low-energy region, roughly below $\sqrt s \approx$ 50 GeV. However, the fit procedure is characterized by strong correlations among the free parameters and, therefore, the contributions from any region may be “communicated"to other regions and that is exactly what our results show. In fact, for $K =$ 0, independently of the parametrization and the lower energy cut used, the leading contribution at high energies (represented by the value of the Pomeron intercept, $\epsilon$) is different when using IDR or DDR. The above approximation (DDR) results in a value for the intercept that is smaller than that obtained with the IDR. Specifically, in the case of the DL parametrization (Tables 1 and 2), the reduction reads 0.67 % for $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 5 GeV and 0.7 % for $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 10 GeV (see $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}(s)$ in Figs 1 and 3). The effect is more significant in the case of the extended parametrization (Tables 3 and 4), with a reduction of 6.9 % for $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 5 GeV and 6.3 % for $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 10 GeV (see $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}(s)$ in Figs. 5 and 7). That is an important and novel result, which shows that, in practice, for the simple-pole Pomeron and secondary reggeons, the high-energy approximation enclosed in the DDR affects the fits results even at the asymptotic energies. As mentioned, that is a consequence of the fit procedure and the correlations among the free parameters.
Now, the practical role of the subtraction constant may be investigated by comparing the results obtained with $K$ = 0 and those with $K$ as a free fit parameter. The striking result here is the fact that, independently of the parametrization and the energy cut used, the numerical results obtained for the fit parameters with the IDR and with the DDR are the same up to 3 significant figures, including the $\chi^2/F$. For example, from Tables 1 and 2, for the case of the DL parametrization, we have obtained in both cases (IDR with $s_0 = 2m^2$ and DDR) the same values: $\epsilon = 0.0747 \pm 0.0014$, $\chi^2/F$ = 1.39 for $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 5 GeV and $\epsilon = 0.0816 \pm 0.0018$, $\chi^2/F$ = 1.17 for $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 10 GeV (see Figs 2 and 4, respectively). For the cases of the extended parametrization, Tables 3 and 4, we have obtained $\epsilon = 0.0895 \pm 0.0025$, $\chi^2/F$ = 1.10 for $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 5 GeV and $\epsilon = 0.0897 \pm 0.0033$, $\chi^2/F$ = 1.10 for $\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} =$ 10 GeV (see Figs 6 and 8, respectively).
All these numerical results can be understood in an analytical context if we investigate the correlation between the subtraction constant and the contribution below the lower integration limit (referred to in Sec. 4.2.1). To this end, let us return to the product of $\rho(s)$ by $\sigma_{tot}(s)$ in the case of IDR with $s_0 = 2m^2$, as given by Eq. (18), or the corresponding formula with non-degenerate trajectories. In both cases the terms with entire inverse powers of $s$ can be expressed by
$$\begin{aligned}
[ K + \Delta ] \frac{1}{s} +
{\mathcal{O}}( 1/s^2), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where $K$ is the subtraction constant and $\Delta$ comes from the series expansion, which is associated with the integration from $s' = 0$ to $s' = 2m^2$ (Sec. 4.2.1). Therefore, at large enough energies, this contribution below the lower integration limit is expected to be absorbed in the subtraction constant. In fact, with degenerate (de) and non-degenerate (non-de) trajectories, these contributions read
$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{\mathrm{de}} =
\frac{1}{\pi}
\left(
\frac{2Xs{_0}^{1+\epsilon}}{1+\epsilon}
+\frac{(Y+Z)s{_0}^{1-\eta}}{1-\eta}
\right), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{\mathrm{non-de}} =
\frac{1}{\pi}
\left(
\frac{2Xs{_0}^{1+\epsilon}}{1+\epsilon}
+\frac{2Y_{+}s{_0}^{1-\eta_{+}}}{1-\eta_{+}}
\right), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
and may be estimated with the central values of the fit parameters from Tables 1-4:
$\Delta_{\mathrm{de}} \approx$ 162 ($\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} = $ 5 GeV), $\qquad$ $\Delta_{\mathrm{de}} \approx$ 170 ($\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} = $ 10 GeV),
$\Delta_{\mathrm{non-de}} \approx$ 118 ($\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} = $ 5 GeV), $\qquad$ $\Delta_{\mathrm{non-de}} \approx$ 117 ($\sqrt s_{\mathrm{min}} = $ 10 GeV),
From those Tables, we see that these values are in complete agreement with the differences between the fitted values of the subtraction constants determined with DDR and IDR for $s_0 = 2m^2$. Therefore, we conclude that in the case of DDR we have an “effective” subtraction constant which can compensate (analytically and numerically) the effect of the high-energy approximation.
That is another important and novel result, showing explictly the practical role of this parameter: for simple-pole pomeron and secondary reggeons once the subtraction constant is considered as a free fit parameter, the DDR are completely equivalent to the IDR with fixed (non-zero) lower limit. We also note that our qualitative and quantitative conclusions about the effects of the high-energy approximation and the subtraction constant are the same with both the degenerate and non-degenerate trajectories and both energy cuts, 5 and 10 GeV.
To conclude this Section, let us call attention to some critical aspects related with the use of the DL and the extended parametrizations. From a statistical point of view, the extended parametrization leads to a better description of the experimental data (Tables 1-4). Also, the $\rho$ data at 546 GeV and 1.8 TeV are well described with the extended parametrization, but not in the DL case. The essential difference between these two parametrizations concerns the additional secondary reggeon, represented by the dependence $s^{-\gamma}$, 0 $< \gamma <$ 1, which goes to zero as the energy increases. We conclude that the splitting of the trajectories allows the free parameters from the secondary reggeons to fit the data at low energies (between 5 GeV and, let us say, 100 GeV), giving more freedom for the parameters associated with the Pomeron to fit the data at the highest energies. That seems to be well known and also well accepted in the literature [@nondege]. However, we can not forget that the Regge phenomenology is intended only for asymptotic energies. Specifically, the basic contribution comes from the asymptotic form of the Legendre Polynomial, namely $P_{l}(x) \rightarrow x^{l} \quad \textrm{as} \quad
x \rightarrow \infty$, where $x$ is translated to the energy $s$ through the crossing symmetry and $l$ to the trajectory of the Pomeron or Reggeon [@ddln]. On the other hand, from the above discussion, the secondary reggeons act in a region where the total cross section reaches its minimum (followed by an increase) and the $\rho$ parameter cross the zero (becoming positive). Even if we, optimistically, concentrate in the above region, $\sqrt s =$ 5 to 100 GeV, that region, certainly, has nothing to do with an asymptotic concept. Based on these facts, we understand that, although the secondary reggeons can be used as suitable parametrizations on statistical or strictly fit grounds, one must be careful in attempting to extract well founded physical results from these asymptotic forms used at so low values of the energy. On the other hand, that is not the case for the subtraction constant as a free fit parameter, since it has well defined mathematical bases, which are related with polynomial bounds.
Conclusions and final remarks {#sec:conclusions}
=============================
In this work we have presented a review on the different results and statements in the literature related with the replacement of IDR by DDR, and a discussion connecting these different aspects with the corresponding assumptions and classes of functions considered in each case.
By means of a formal and analytical approach, we have demonstrated that the subtraction constant is preserved when the IDR are replaced by the DDR and that, for the class of functions entire in $\ln s$, the DDR do not depend on any additional free parameter (except for the subtraction constant). We have stressed that the only approximation involved in this replacement concerns the lower limit $s_0$ in the IDR: the high-energy condition is reached by assuming that $s_0 = 2m^2 \rightarrow 0$.
We have investigated the practical applicability of the DDR and IDR in the context of the Pomeron-reggeon parametrizations, with both degenerate and non-degenerate higher meson trajectories. By means of global fits to $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}(s)$ and $\rho(s)$ data from $pp$ and $\bar{p}p$ scattering, we have tested all the important variants that could affect the fit results, namely the number of secondary reggeons, energy cutoff, effects of the high-energy approximation and the subtraction constant and the derivative approach with DDR and IDR with fixed $s_0$. Our results lead to the conclusion that the high-energy approximation and the subtraction constant affect the fit results at both low and high energies. This effect is a consequence of the fit procedure, associated with the strong correlation among the free parameters.
A striking novel result concerns the practical role of the subtraction constant. We have shown that, with the Pomeron-reggeon parametrization, once the subtraction constant is used as a free fit parameter, the results obtained with the DDR and with the IDR (with finite lower limit, $s_0 = 2m^2$) are the same up to 3 significant figures in the fit parameters and $\chi^2/F$. Analytically this effect is due to the absorption of the high-energy approximation in an “effective” subtraction constant. This conclusion, as we have shown, is independent of the number of secondary reggeons (DL or extended parametrization) or the energy cutoff ($\sqrt s$ = 5 or 10 GeV).
We have called the attention to the fact that the subtraction constant has well founded mathematical bases, since it is a consequence of the polynomial bounds in the scattering amplitude. On the other hand, the use of the asymptotic Regge forms for detailed fits at finite energies (minimum on $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}(s)$) is not formally justified. We understand that our results suggest that, presently, it is very important to look for usefull and well founded theoretical results at finite energies and that one must be careful in attempting to predict asymptotic behaviors based on asymptotic formalisms applied at finite energies.
In order to treat a complete example, with the 16 variants referred to in the text, we have considered here only a simple-pole representation for the Pomeron. Although belonging to the class of functions entire in $\ln s$, this choice is outside the more general class of functions considered by Fischer and P. Kolář, because it violates the Froissart-Martin bound at the asymptotic energies. We are presently investigating other possibilities, as dipole and tripole contributions. Anyway, there is an interesting aspect concerning these forms, which we shall mention here. The possibility that the odd amplitude had a $\ln s$ contribution (Odderon) has been investigated in Refs. [@kn; @alm03], by means of the DDR. However, this contribution in the IDR, Eq. (5), with $s_0 $ = 0 is divergent. On the other hand, that is not the case if we use the DDR as expressed by Eqs. (9) or (13). Since we have shown that the only approximation in going from IDR to DDR is to take $s_0 \rightarrow 0$ in the integral relation, the above results seems inconsistent. We think that this may be associated with the formal substitution of the tangent by the cotangent operator, as referred to in Sec. $3.1$. We are presently investigating this subject.
The DDR introduced by Bronzan, Kane, and Sukhatme [@bks], and later generalized for an arbitrary number of subtractions by Menon, Motter and Pimentel [@mmp] bring enclosed the parameter $\alpha$, which we have shown does not need to take part in the calculation. We understand that this dependence is not necessarily wrong if, in practical uses, one takes $\alpha = 1$. Therefore, the presence of this parameter is only an unnecessary complication. Certainly, considering $\alpha$ as a free parameter at finite energies may improve the fit results [@bks; @mmpsn], but it seems to us difficult to justify its mathematical and, mainly, its physical meaning.
[*Note added in proof*]{}. After the submission of this work, the effect of the absorption of the high-energy approximation ($s_0 \rightarrow$ 0) by the subtraction constant has been confirmed by other authors [@cudell03].
We are thankful to Prof. M. Giffon and A.F. Martini for useful information on the use of hypergeometric functions, and also to A. Maia Jr., E.C. Oliveira, E.G.S. Luna and J. Montanha for fruitfull discussions. We are grateful to two anonymous referees for valuable criticisms and comments. This work has been supported by FAPESP (Contract N. 03/00228-0 and 00/04422-7).
[99]{}
R.J. Eden, High Energy Collisions of Elementary Particles, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1967; H.M. Nussenzveig, Causality and Dispersion Relations, Academic Press, New York, 1972; P.D.B. Collins, An Introduction to Regge Theory and High Energy Physics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1977.
M.M. Block, R.N. Cahn, Rev. Mod. Phys. 57 (1985) 563.
M.L. Goldberger, Y. Nambu, R. Oehme, Ann. Phys. 2 (1957) 226; P. Söding, Phys. Lett. 8 (1964) 285.
C. Bourrely, J. Fischer, Nucl. Phys. B 61 (1973) 513.
U. Amaldi et al., Phys. Lett. B 66 (1977) 390.
P.M. Kluit, J. Timmermans, Phys. Lett. B 202 (1988) 458.
UA4/2 Collaboration, C. Augier et al., Phys. Lett. B 315 (1993) 503.
K. Kang, P. Valin, A.R. White, Il Nuovo Cimento A 107 (1994) 2103.
M. Bertini, M. Giffon, L. Jenkovszky, F. Paccanoni, Il Nuovo Cimento A 109 (1996) 257.
V.N. Gribov, A.A. Migdal, Yad. Fiz. 8 (1968) 1002 \[Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 8 (1969) 583\]; Yad. Fiz. 8 (1968) 1213 \[Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 8 (1969) 703\].
J.B. Bronzan, in: Symposium on the Pomeron, Argonne National Laboratory, ANL/HEP-7327 (1973) 33.
J.D. Jackson, in: R.L. Crawford, R. Jennings (Eds.), Proc. Fourteenth Scottish Universities Summer School in Physics, Phenomenology of Particles at High Energies, Academic Press, London, 1974, pp. 1–103.
J.B. Brozan, G.L. Kane, U.P. Sukhatme, Phys. Lett. B 49 (1974) 272.
K. Kang, B. Nicolescu, Phys. Rev. D 11 (1975) 2461.
J.R. Cudell, K. Kang, S.K. Kim, Phys. Lett. B 395 (1997) 311; J.R. Cudell, V.V. Ezhela, K. Kang, S.B. Lugousky, N.P. Tkachenko, Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 034019; 63 (2001) 059901 (erratum).
COMPETE Collaboration, J.R. Cudell et al., Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 074024; Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 201801.
G. K. Eichmann, J. Dronkers, Phys. Lett. B 52 (1974) 428.
J. Heidrich, E. Kazes, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento 12 (1975) 365.
G. Höhler, H.P. Jakob, F. Kaiser, Phys. Lett. B 58 (1975) 348.
A. Bujak, O. Dumbrajs, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Phys. 12 (1976) L129.
J. Fischer, P. Kolář, Phys. Lett. B 64 (1976) 45; Phys. Rev. D 17 (1978) 2168; P. Kolář, J. Fischer, J. Math. Phys. 25 (1984) 2538; J. Fischer, P. Kolář, Czech. J. Phys. B 37 (1987) 297.
I. Vrkoč, Czech. Math. J. 35 (1985) 59.
M.J. Menon, A.E. Motter, B.M. Pimentel, Phys. Lett. B 451 (1999) 207.
A.F. Martini, M.J. Menon, J.T.S. Paes, M.J. Silva Neto, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 116006; R.F. Ávila, E.G.S. Luna, M.J. Menon, Braz. J. Phys. 31 (2001) 567.
P. Kolář, J. Fischer, in: V. Kundrat and P. Zavada (Eds.), Proc. Blois Workshop on Elastic and Diffractive Scattering, IOP, Prague, 2002, pp. 305–312.
R.F. Ávila, E.G.S. Luna, M.J. Menon, Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 054020; in C.A.Z. Vasconcelos et al. (Eds.), Structure and Interactions of Hadronic Systems, World Scientific, Singapore, 2003, p. 421–424.
E.G.S. Luna, M.J. Menon, Phys. Lett. B 565 (2003) 123.
R.F. Ávila, M.J. Menon, in: Y. Hama and F.S. Navarra (Eds.), Relatório da 14a. Reunião de Trabalho em Interações Hadrônicas, IFUSP, São Paulo, 2002, p. 90 - 95; in: XXIII Brazilian National Meeting on Particles and Fields, 2002, SLAC SPIRES-HEP, Aguas de Lindoia Server, www.sbf1.if.usp.br/eventos/enfpc/xxiii/procs/RES28.
J.R. Cudell, E. Martynov, O. Selyugin, hep-ph/0307254.
L. Lukaszuk. B. Nicolescu, Nuovo Cimento Lett. 8, 405 (1973).
B. Nicolescu (private communication).
U. Sukhatme, G.L. Kane, R. Blankenbecler, M. Davier, Phys. Rev. D 12, 3431 (1975).
D.P. Sidhu, U.P. Sukhatme, Phys. Rev. D 11, 1351 (1975).
A. Martin, Scattering Theory: Unitarity, Analyticity and Crossing, Springer, New York, 1969; R.J. Eden, Rev. Mod. Phys. 43, 15 (1971); J. Fischer, Phys. Rep. 76, 157 (1981).
S. Donnachie, G. Dosch, P. Landshoff, O. Nachtmann, Pomeron Physics in QCD, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002.
Particle Data Group, K. Hagiwara et al. Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 010001, the full data sets are available at http://pdg.lbl.gov.
A. Donnachie, P. V. Landshoff, Z. Phys. C 2 (1979) 55; Phys. Lett. B 387 (1996) 637; Phys. Lett. B 296 (1992) 227.
I.S. Gradshteyn, I. M. Ryzhik, Table of Integrals, Series and Products, Academic Press, San Diego, 1980; M. Abramowitz, I. A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Function, Dover, New York, 1964.
R.J.M. Covolan, J. Montanha , and K. Goulianos, Phys. Lett. B 389 (1996) 176; J.R. Cudell, K. Kang, and S.K. Kim, Ref. [@cudelletall].
J.R. Cudell, E. Martynov, O. Selyugin, A. Lengyel, Phys. Lett. B 587 (2004) 78; E. Martynov, J.R. Cudell, O. Selyugin, hep-ph/0311019.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'SDSS J2232$-$0806 (the ‘Big Dipper’) has been identified as a ‘slow-blue nuclear hypervariable’: a galaxy with no previously known active nucleus, blue colours and large-amplitude brightness evolution occurring on a timescale of years. Subsequent observations have shown that this source does indeed contain an active galactic nucleus (AGN). Our optical photometric and spectroscopic monitoring campaign has recorded one major dimming event (and subsequent rise) over a period of around four years; there is also evidence of previous events consistent with this in archival data recorded over the last twenty years. Here we report an analysis of the eleven optical spectra obtained to date and we assemble a multiwavelength data set including infrared, ultraviolet and X-ray observations. We find that an intrinsic change in the luminosity is the most favoured explanation of the observations, based on a comparison of continuum and line variability and the apparent lagged response of the hot dust. This source, along with several other recently-discovered ‘changing-look’ objects, demonstrate that AGN can exhibit large-amplitude luminosity changes on timescales much shorter than those predicted by standard thin accretion disc models.'
author:
- |
Daniel Kynoch$^{1}$[^1], Martin J. Ward$^{1}$, Andy Lawrence$^{2}$, Alastair G. Bruce$^{2}$, Hermine Landt$^{1}$ and Chelsea L. MacLeod$^{3}$\
$^{1}$Centre for Extragalactic Astronomy, Department of Physics, Durham University, South Road, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK\
$^{2}$Institute for Astronomy, SUPA (Scottish Universities Physics Alliance), University of Edinburgh, Royal Observatory, Blackford Hill,\
Edinburgh EH9 3HJ, UK\
$^{3}$Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
bibliography:
- 'bigdipper-bib.bib'
date: 'Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ'
title: 'The ‘Big Dipper’: The nature of the extreme variability of the AGN SDSSJ2232$-$0806'
---
\[firstpage\]
galaxies: active – black hole physics – accretion, accretion discs – quasars: emission lines – galaxies: individual: SDSSJ223210.52$-$080621.3
Introduction {#sec:int}
============
Active galactic nuclei (AGN) are powered by the gravitational energy reprocessed as matter spirals inward and is finally accreted by the central supermassive black hole (BH). Two of the defining characteristics of AGN are their very high bolometric luminosities, and in the case of those that are not obscured, by their significant multi-frequency variability on many timescales. Numerous variability studies have been conducted, both on large samples of AGN (e.g. Stripe 82, @MacLeod12, @Schmidt12, and @Zuo12) and detailed studies of individual cases (e.g. NGC4593 by @McHardy18 and NGC5548 by @Pei17 and references therein). In addition to these studies some cases of extreme variability have been identified in the form of the so-called ‘changing-look’ quasars (CLQs: e.g. @MacLeod18, @Yang18, @Rumbaugh18 and @LaMassa15) which are AGN with (dis)appearing broad emission lines as well as strong continuum changes. It is very probable that more than one physical mechanism is responsible for the variations seen across all samples. Changes in the dust extinction in some AGN were proposed in early studies (e.g. @Goodrich95), but this explanation is not generally preferred in the case of changing-look AGN. In recent studies, often the most favoured cause is a change in the emission from the accretion disc or its associated Comptonisation regions (e.g. @Katebi18, @Noda18, @Stern18, @Ross18, @Wang18, @Sheng17, @Gezari17, @Parker16, @Ruan16, @MacLeod16, @Runnoe16 and @LaMassa15). Other, rarer events, such as stellar tidal disruption, supernovae in the nuclear regions, and gravitational microlensing, have also been proposed (e.g. @Lawrence16, @Bruce17 and references therein). To make further progress it is important to better characterise the properties of variability to help distinguish between the various mechanisms responsible.
The source SDSSJ2232$-$0806
---------------------------
SDSSJ223210.51$-$080621.3 (hereafter SDSSJ2232$-$0806) is an AGN at redshift $z=0.276$ (@Collinson18). It was identified as a ‘slow-blue nuclear hypervariable’ object by [@Lawrence16] on the basis that it showed large-amplitude optical brightness variability ($|{\Delta g}| \geqslant 1.5$) and the change was slow and blue (occurring over several years, in contrast to the fast and red transients which are likely associated with supernovae).
Our photometric monitoring of this source with the Liverpool Telescope since 2013 has captured one substantial dimming event, and there is sparsely sampled archival photometry that is consistent with similar past events.
The aims of this study
----------------------
We aim to investigate whether the variability behaviour of this source is best explained by either obscuration of the nucleus, or by some intrinsic change in the emission from the central engine. The optical spectroscopic monitoring campaign conducted with the William Herschel Telescope allows us to investigate changes in both the AGN continuum and line emission from the broad line region (BLR).
Throughout this paper, we assume a flat $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with $H_0=70$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_\mathrm{m}=0.3$ and $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$. For the redshift $z=0.276$ this cosmology implies a luminosity distance of 1410.8 Mpc and a flux-to-luminosity conversion factor of $2.38\times10^{56}$ cm$^2$.
{width="2\columnwidth"}
The optical monitoring campaign {#sec:data}
===============================
[@Lawrence16] found that in 2012 the PanSTARRS-1 (PS1) 3$\uppi$ Survey $g$ band photometry of SDSSJ2232$-0806$ was 1.8 magnitudes brighter than it was in a SDSS photometric observation made in 2000. To further investigate this interesting source, a photometric monitoring campaign began in 2012 using the Liverpool Telescope and is ongoing. Optical spectroscopic monitoring commenced in 2013, primarily using the William Herschel Telescope, with an additional two spectra taken in late 2017 with the MMT. The observing campaign has revealed a dip in brightness of around a factor three in flux and shows a recovery in our most recent observations. In this section we present our analysis of the optical data.
Observations and data reduction
-------------------------------
### Liverpool Telescope optical photometric monitoring {#sec:lt}
The Liverpool Telescope (LT) is a fully-robotic, remotely controlled 2 m telescope that observes autonomously from La Palma in the Canary Islands. Photometric observations were taken in the $r$, $g$ and $u$ bands. Forty-four independent photometric observations were obtained using the $g$ filter ($\lambda_\mathrm{eff.}=4696$ Å) between 2012 September and 2018 July are shown in Figure \[fig:lightcurve\]. The $g$ and $r$ bands are much more frequently sampled than the $u$ band, for which we have only twenty-one photometry points. The observed variability amplitude in the $g$ band ($\Delta g \approx1.2$) is greater than that of $r$ band ($\Delta r \approx0.8$) although we note that the $r$ band ($\lambda_\mathrm{eff}=6111$ Å) is subject to increasing contamination from the host galaxy as the AGN contribution diminishes. In addition, the $u$ band ($\lambda_\mathrm{eff}=3499$ Å) covers the strong, broad Mg <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> emission line (observed at 3573 Å) and so it is not a clean measure of the AGN continuum. For these reasons, in this study we use only photometry obtained in the $g$ band.
### William Herschel Telescope optical spectroscopic monitoring {#sec:wht}
The 4.2 m William Herschel Telescope (WHT) is also situated on the island of La Palma. SDSSJ2232$-$0806 has been observed with the WHT on nine occasions between 2013 June and 2018 July. We used the Intermediate dispersion Spectrograph and Imaging System (ISIS) long-slit, double spectrograph with the 5300 Å dichroic which directed the light into the red and blue arms containing the R158B and R300B gratings, respectively. Typically $\times2$ binning in the spatial direction was used to improve the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). This set-up gave a spectral resolution of $R\approx1000$ at 7200 Å in the red and $R\approx1500$ at 5200 Å in the blue, for a slit width of 1 arcsecond. The total wavelength coverage was $\approx3100$–10600 Å, this window includes the principal emission lines Mg<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> $\lambda2800$, H$\upbeta$ $\lambda4861$, \[O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>\] $\lambda\lambda4959,5007$ and H$\upalpha$ $\lambda6563$.
The data reduction was performed with a pipeline using custom <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">pyraf</span> scripts and standard techniques. The pipeline is described in detail in [@Bruce17] (Section 2.3.3 in that paper).
Unfortunately, we do not have a spectrum contemporaneous with the nadir of the LT lightcurve, which occurred around 2014 September 17. The spectra obtained on 2014 July 23 and December 16 were recorded 56 days before and 90 days after the photometric minimum and sample the falling and rising side of the dip in the lightcurve, respectively (see Figure \[fig:lightcurve\]).
### MMT spectroscopic monitoring {#sec:mmt}
The MMT is a single 6.5 m mirror telescope on Mount Hopkins, Arizona. Two optical spectra of SDSSJ2232$-$0806 were obtained in 2017 December. The observations were conducted during grey time; on both occasions the observing conditions were clear with sub-arcsecond seeing. We used the MMT Blue Channel spectrograph with the 300 g mm$^{-1}$ grating and a 1 arcsecond slit. This set-up gives a spectral resolution of $R\approx740$ at 4800 Å, lower than that we obtained with the WHT. The target spectra that we use here are the co-added medians of three 10 minute exposures.
Optical spectral analysis {#sec:spec}
-------------------------
Optical and ultraviolet fluxes are affected by reddening caused by dust in the Milky Way. The Galactic neutral hydrogen column density towards SDSSJ2232$-$0806, $N_\mathrm{H}=4.52\times10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ (@DL90), implies a colour excess $E(B-V)=0.078$ mag based on the relation derived by [@Bohlin78]. Here, and in Section \[sec:mwl\], we correct our data for Galactic reddening using this value of $E(B-V)$ and the Milky Way reddening curve of [@Cardelli89].
### Internal scaling of spectra
Before we perform our spectral analysis, we rescale our spectra to account for variations in the absolute flux calibration caused by effects such as seeing (slit losses) and thin cloud. Since the strong, narrow \[O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>\] $\lambda5007$ forbidden emission line originates in a low-density, large-volume gas, it should not vary during the course of our monitoring period and is therefore a suitable line to use for internal cross-calibration (provided it it not spatially resolved). Rather than simply assuming the flux in the line remains constant (which depends upon an accurate determination of the underlying continuum flux level), we assume instead that the line profile is constant and determine the appropriate flux scaling factors using the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">python</span> package <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mapspec</span> developed by [@Fausnaugh17]. This package is an implementation of, and improvement on, the method of [@vanGroningen92]. As noted by them this method should produce a more accurate internal flux scaling than the standard method of simply scaling each spectrum so that the integrated \[O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>\] $\lambda5007$ line flux is equal to a chosen reference value.
### Absolute flux scaling of spectra {#sec:absflux}
From our internally-scaled optical spectra, we calculated the equivalent LT $g$ magnitude. The LT optical CCD camera was changed from the RATcam to the IO:O at the end of 2014 February, so in our calculations we use the filter specifications appropriate to the LT instruments in use at the time the spectrum was recorded, although the resultant difference in magnitude is very minor. For each spectrum we measured the mean flux $\langle{\nu F_\nu,g}\rangle$ in the LT $g$ band (RATcam 3945–5532 Å, IO:O 3933–5630 Å) then calculated the $g$ magnitude equivalent $$g = -2.5\log\left(\frac{\langle{\nu F_\nu,g}\rangle \times10^{23}}{\nu_\mathrm{eff}~\mathrm{ZP}}\right)~\mathrm{mag},$$ where ZP is the zero point magnitude of the filter (RATcam 3940.5 Jy; IO:O 3936.7 Jy) and $\nu_\mathrm{eff}$ is the frequency equivalent to the filter’s effective wavelength $\lambda_\mathrm{eff}$ (RATcam 4730 Å; IO:O 4696 Å).
By comparison with the LT $g$ magnitudes, we found that the equivalent magnitudes appeared systematically offset by $\approx0.15$ mag. This slight discrepancy is likely due to slit losses, resulting in a lower flux in our narrow-slit spectra compared with the large-aperture photometry. Adjusting the magnitudes by $-0.15$ mag (an increase of $\approx15$ per cent in flux) the equivalent magnitudes replicate both the shape and level of the LT lightcurve, as can be seen in Figure \[fig:lightcurve\]. In the following, all of the measurements that we make from the spectra include the internal and absolute flux scalings described here.
{width="2\columnwidth"}
### Comparison of the optical spectra {#sec:rms}
All eleven optical spectra are shown in the top panel of Figure \[fig:allspec\]. To highlight the spectral variability we have coloured the brightest and faintest spectra in blue and red, respectively, and plotted both their difference and ratio in green and purple, respectively, in the panels below. The ratio between the brightest and faintest spectrum shows the fractional variability at each wavelength. The fractional variability at longer wavelengths is diluted by emission from the host galaxy and we see in the ratio spectrum that the fractional variability is greater in the blue end. Taking the difference removes the constant components including the host galaxy. In the difference spectrum it can be seen that the absolute flux variation in the blue continuum ($\lambda\lesssim4200$ Å) is greater than in the red. The \[O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>\] $\lambda\lambda4959,5007$ lines, which we assumed to be non-variable, are absent in the difference spectrum which gives us confidence that the flux scaling method we have adopted works well. Whereas differences in the H$\upalpha$ and H$\upbeta$ lines between bright and faint spectra are clear, the Mg<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> line appears to be less variable. This is obvious in the ratios of the continuum-subtracted lines (shown in purple in the lower panels of the bottom three plots of Figure \[fig:allspec\]) where the core of Mg<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> changes very little and no substantial change is apparent in the broad wings. The change in the Balmer lines is most apparent on the blue side of the lines, which seem to have a slight ‘red shoulder’ in the fainter spectra. A similar skewness of the H$\upalpha$ profile in the faint state of the CLQ J0159$+$0033 was found by [@LaMassa15].
We computed the mean and root-mean-square (RMS) spectra following the method of [@Peterson04]. Before performing the calculations, the single-epoch spectra are first shifted in wavelength so that the centroids of the \[O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>\] $\lambda5007$ lines (as determined from our model fits) are aligned. The two MMT spectra are noisier than the nine obtained at the WHT and have less wavelength coverage (particularly redward of H$\upalpha$). We confirmed that the shapes and general features of our mean and RMS spectra are (broadly) unchanged if we exclude the MMT spectra. Having done so, we proceeded with the mean and RMS spectra determined from just the WHT observations, so as to extend our results into the red.
The resultant spectra are shown in Figure \[fig:rms\]. As in the difference spectrum, the \[O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>\] lines are removed in the RMS spectrum whereas the Balmer lines, Balmer continuum ($\approx2000$–4000 Å) and He<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> $\lambda4685$ are all visible. We also note that the Mg<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> emission line is absent from the RMS spectrum, which we discuss later. Comparing the shapes of the mean and RMS spectra, we see that the RMS spectrum is bluer since the non-variable host galaxy component has been removed: we discuss this in Section \[sec:hostgal\]. The shape of the RMS spectrum is very similar to that of an accretion disc; in Figure \[fig:rms\] we show a standard disc spectrum for comparison, calculated for a BH mass of $2\times10^{8}$ M$_{\sun}$, $L/L_\mathrm{Edd}=0.03$ and outer radius of 100 gravitational radii (equal to that determined in our SED model in Section \[sec:optxagnf\]).
![The mean spectrum of SDSSJ2232$-$0806 is shown in blue and the root-mean-square (RMS) spectrum is shown in orange. The RMS spectrum has been scaled up by a factor 3.5 to ease the comparison with the mean. The eleven spectra from the monitoring campaign are underplotted in grey. The dashed red line shows the model spectrum of an AGN accretion disc with $L/L_\mathrm{Edd}=3$ per cent and $R_\mathrm{out}=100~R_\mathrm{g}$. []{data-label="fig:rms"}](rms_mean_hostgal_2_plot_02_for_paper.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Measurement of the continuum and the emission lines
---------------------------------------------------
The continuum and emission line fitting was performed using a custom <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">python</span> script employing the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lmfit</span> package[^2] which employs a Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm for non-linear, least-squares minimisation. The fitting routine appeared to underestimate the errors on the returned parameters, so rather than quoting the error on a single fit, an iterative approach was taken. Each spectrum was fitted 100 times: on each iteration Gaussian noise was added to the flux density with the amplitude of the noise determined by the measurement error. The final model parameters and errors are the mean and standard deviation calculated from the 100 iterations. The standard deviation quantifies the spread of parameter values that can reasonably fit the data. The errors on the physical quantities derived from the model parameters (e.g. the line flux, equivalent width etc.) have been propagated using standard methods. The results of our iterative fitting procedure are tabulated in Tables \[tab:WHT1\], \[tab:WHT2\] and \[tab:WHT-MgII\] in the Appendix.
### Red continuum determination
For the WHT spectra, the (rest frame) 3900–7800 Å continuum is estimated from five emission line free windows of width 50 Å; these are centred on the wavelengths 4240, 5100, 6205, 7050 and 7700 Å. Because of the narrower wavelength coverage of the two spectra obtained using the MMT, only the first three of these windows are available. We fit a power-law continuum of the form $F_\lambda = C\left(\nicefrac{\lambda}{5100~\si{\angstrom}}\right)^{-\alpha}$ through these points to determine the global continuum, allowing the slope $\alpha$ and normalisation $C$ to be free parameters in the fit.
### Modelling of the principal emission lines
To model the Balmer lines, the red continuum is subtracted from two wavelength windows containing the emission lines of interest (rest frame 4740–5100 Å for H$\upbeta$ and \[O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>\]; 6380–6800 Å for H$\upalpha$ and \[N<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>\]). The permitted lines were initially fit with a sum of two Gaussians (one broad and one narrow) with the same central wavelength. However, there were clearly substantial residuals in the line profiles, particularly prominent in the red wing of H$\upalpha$. We therefore added a third Gaussian component to the Balmer lines, modelling a very broad base, and allowed this to be offset from the central wavelength of the narrower components. The two \[N<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>\] forbidden lines were each fit with a single, narrow Gaussian. As well as a strong, narrow Gaussian, a weak, broad Gaussian base was added to the \[O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>\] $\lambda4959$ and $\lambda5007$ lines. In all fits we include the permitted Fe <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> emission line template of [@Bruhweiler08], with its normalisation left as a free parameter in the fits. The model was refined to include the following constraints:
i) all narrow, broad and very broad lines have the same velocity width (with the exception of the broad bases of the \[O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>\] forbidden lines: these had equal width but this was not tied to the width of the broad permitted lines);
ii) the very broad lines in the H$\upalpha$ and H$\upbeta$ profiles have the same velocity offset;
iii) it proved impossible to reliably fit both the width and offset of the very broad lines simultaneously so we fixed the velocity width of these components to $\approx11500~$km s$^{-1}$ and placed the limit $\Delta v_\mathrm{vb}$ $\lesssim+2500$ km s$^{-1}$ on the offset[^3];
iv) the \[O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>\] $\lambda4959$ and $\lambda5007$ lines have a fixed flux ratio of 1:3;
v) the \[N<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>\] $\lambda6548$ and $\lambda6583$ lines have a fixed ratio of 1:3;
vi) the stronger \[N<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>\] $\lambda6583$ line has its amplitude fixed to the mean value determined in the WHT spectra;
vii) the narrow lines ought not to vary significantly over the monitoring period, therefore the H$\upalpha$ narrow line was fixed to 0.67 of the \[O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>\] $\lambda5007$ flux, the error-weighted mean value determined from all of the WHT spectra;
viii) the Balmer decrement of the narrow lines was a challenge to determine so was fixed at 6.7, again the error-weighted mean value determined from the WHT spectra.
The narrow-line Balmer decrement adopted here is high, although it is within the range $\approx1$–12 found by [@JinWDG12_II] for a sample of fifty-one type 1 AGN and at the upper end of the range found by [@Lu19] for 554 SDSS DR7 quasars. If the intrinsic narrow line region (NLR) Balmer decrement is 2.9 () the measured value implies an NLR reddening of $A_V\approx2.6$ mag. However, our aim is to investigate relative changes in the broad line decrement so as long as the subtraction of the narrow line components is consistent, its precise value will have little effect on our results.
In calculating the Balmer and \[O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>\] emission line EWs we have subtracted the host galaxy contribution to the flux beneath the line (these are determined in § \[sec:hostgal\]) so that the strength of the line is assessed relative to the AGN continuum emission alone[^4]. The Balmer, \[O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>\] and \[N<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>\] line properties derived from the best fit model parameters are quoted in Tables \[tab:WHT1\] and \[tab:WHT2\]. Examples of our Balmer, \[O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>\] and Mg<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> emission line fits are shown in Figure \[fig:linefits\].
Since there are no emission line free regions in the vicinity of the Mg<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> line, we do not subtract the continuum before fitting the line. Instead we fit the line, Fe <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> template and a power-law continuum simultaneously in the wavelength window 2650–2950 Å. The Mg<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> $\lambda\lambda 2795, 2802$ doublet was not resolved in the composite spectrum produced by stacking the WHT spectra; we therefore fit a single Mg<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> $\lambda 2800$ profile. This emission line was fitted with two Gaussians, one broad and one very broad for the base. As well as measuring the FWHM of the two components separately, we also calculate the FWHM of the total line profile. The quantities derived from the best fit model parameters are quoted in Table \[tab:WHT-MgII\].
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{width="\columnwidth"} {width="\columnwidth"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The black hole mass {#sec:mass}
-------------------
To calculate the mass of the black hole from our emission line and continuum measurements we use the relation $$M_\mathrm{BH} = K\times L^\alpha \times \mathrm{FWHM}^2
\label{eqn:mass}$$ of [@Mejia16] with the appropriate values of $K$ and $\alpha$ taken from their Table 7 (the local calibration corrected for small systematic offsets) for the relevant combinations of the emission line FWHM and continuum or line luminosity $L$. In Table \[tab:mass\] we quote the $K$ and $\alpha$ values used for each relation along with the line and continuum parameters determined as the error-weighted means of values obtained in the four brightest spectra[^5]. We find that the mass is in the range $M_\mathrm{BH}=1.6$–$3.5\times10^{8}$ M$_{\sun}$ (see Table \[tab:mass\]), marginally greater than the $1.2$–$1.6\times10^{8}$ M$_{\sun}$ determined by [@Collinson18]. There are considerable uncertainties on the masses estimated by virial methods, which are due to the scatter on the scaling relations. For relations based on H$\upalpha$ and H$\upbeta$ the 1$\sigma$ scatter is in the range 0.13–0.18 dex; the Mg<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> relation has a greater scatter of 0.25 dex. We adopt a mass of $2\times10^{8}$ M$_{\sun}$ in the following.
Multiwavelength data {#sec:mwl}
====================
X-ray and UV observation with *XMM-Newton*
------------------------------------------
A 30 ks *XMM-Newton* observation of SDSSJ2232$-$0806 was made on 2013 December 14 (OBS ID: 0724441001; PI: Lawrence). At this time, the source was in a relatively high optical flux state (see Figure \[fig:lightcurve\]). The three EPIC X-ray detectors (pn, MOS1, and MOS2) were operating in a Full Frame mode with the Thin filter in place. Ultraviolet photometry was recorded by the onboard Optical Monitor (OM) which cycled through three of the six filters: U, UVW1 and UVM2.
The data were reduced using the *XMM* Science Analysis Software (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">sas</span>, v16.0.0) and the latest calibration files available at the time. The X-ray observation suffered from substantial particle background flaring such that, after filtering, the remaining good time intervals were 8.6, 8.5 and 8.2 ks for the pn, MOS1 and MOS2 detectors, respectively. The source spectra were extracted from 47 arcsec radius circular regions centred on the source. The background spectrum was extracted from larger 94 arcsec radius circular regions offset from the source on a blank area of sky. The spectra were regrouped so as not to oversample the detectors’ intrinsic energy resolution by a factor of more than three and to contain at least 20 counts per energy bin, so that they are suitable for a $\chi^2$ analysis.
The OM photometry in the three filters were extracted using the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">sas</span> tasks <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">omichain</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">omisource</span>, following the standard procedures. The OM filter bandpasses cover several emission lines and so do not accurately represent the continuum flux level. Following the method of [@Elvis12], we can ‘correct’ the photometric fluxes to obtain an improved estimate of the continuum level by multiplying the measured fluxes by the photometric correction factor $$P_\mathrm{c} = \frac{\mathrm{BW}}{\mathrm{EW}_\mathrm{rest}\times(1+z)+\mathrm{BW}}
\label{eqn:photom-correct}$$ where BW is the bandwidth of the photometric filter covering a line of rest-frame equivalent width $\mathrm{EW}_\mathrm{rest}$. The OM U filter ($\mathrm{BW} = 840$ Å) covers the Mg<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> emission line, for which we estimate $\mathrm{EW}_\mathrm{rest}\approx60$ Å $\rightarrow P_\mathrm{c} = 0.92$. Assuming a C<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>\] $\mathrm{EW}_\mathrm{rest}\approx24$ Å (@VandenBerk01), the correction factor in the UVM2 filter is $P_\mathrm{c} = 0.95$. We conclude that the UVW1 filter is very weakly affected by line emission, since the C<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>\] and Mg<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> lines only partially appear at the very ends of its bandpass where the sensitivities are lowest.
### X-ray spectral analysis {#sec:xspec}
Analysis of the X-ray spectra was performed in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">xspec</span> (@Arnaud96) v12.9.1e. The spectra from the three EPIC detectors were fitted simultaneously, allowing for cross-normalization factors to account for differences in calibration between the detectors; these did not vary by more than 5 per cent. All models included a Galactic absorption component (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">phabs</span>) with the column density fixed at $N_\mathrm{H}^\mathrm{Gal}=4.52\times10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$. A single power-law was an unsatisfactory fit to the data, giving a reduced $\chi^2$ of 1.27. A broken power-law was a significant improvement, decreasing the $\chi^2$ value by 48 for the introduction of two additional free parameters and we achieve an acceptable fit with a reduced $\chi^2$ of 1.01. The $F$-test probability of this improved model was $>99.99$ per cent. We then tested for an intrinsic absorber by the inclusion of a <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">zphabs</span> component with the redshift fixed to that of the source. This gave no significant improvement in the fit and we determined an upper limit on the intrinsic column density $N_\mathrm{H}^\mathrm{int}<7\times10^{19}$ cm$^{-2}$.
[llc]{} Model & Parameter & Value\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">powerlaw</span> & $\Gamma$ & $2.19\pm0.02$\
& Norm. & $(2.83\pm0.04)\times10^{-4}$\
& $\chi^2$/d.o.f. & $223/175=1.27$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">bknpower</span> & $\Gamma_1$ & $2.35^{+0.04}_{-0.05}$\
& $E_\mathrm{brk}$ (keV) & $1.7^{+0.5}_{-0.2}$\
& $\Gamma_2$ & $1.79^{+0.07}_{-0.17}$\
& Norm. & $\left(2.71^{+0.07}_{-0.05}\right)\times10^{-4}$\
& $\chi^2$/d.o.f. & $175/173=1.01$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">zphabs</span> $\times$ & $N_\mathrm{H}^\mathrm{int}$ ($10^{19}$ cm$^{-2}$) & $<7$\
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">bknpower</span> & $\Gamma_1$ & $2.35^{+0.04}_{-0.02}$\
& $E_\mathrm{brk}$ (keV) & $1.7^{+0.5}_{-0.2}$\
& $\Gamma_2$ & $1.79^{+0.07}_{-0.20}$\
& Norm. & $\left(2.71^{+0.06}_{-0.05}\right)\times10^{-4}$\
& $\chi^2$/d.o.f. & $175/172=1.01$\
Archival photometric data
-------------------------
### *WISE* {#sec:wise}
The *Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer* (*WISE*, @WISE10) telescope observed SDSSJ2232$-$0806 twice in 2010. Data for this source was found in the AllWISE Source Catalog, hosted by the Infrared Science Archive (IRSA[^6]); in Table \[tab:mwl\] we quote the reported instrumental profile-fit magnitudes. The photometric quality of these detections were A (best) for the W1, W2 and W3 filters and B for the W4 filter. As well as the catalogue magnitudes, we also obtained infrared lightcurves in the W1 and W2 filters from the *WISE* and *Near-Earth Orbit WISE Reactivation* (*NEOWISE*) archives[^7]. In addition to the two visits made during the *WISE* mission, SDSSJ2232$-$0806 has been observed with roughly six-month cadence since the start of *NEOWISE* mission in December 2013. Typically a dozen exposures are made on each visit; to construct the lightcurves shown in Figure \[fig:lightcurve\], we have calculated the mean and standard error on the magnitudes recorded on each visit. We exclude the seven exposures taken on MJD 57345, because there was a large scatter on these magnitudes and a set of eleven exposures was taken three days later. This visit on MJD 57348 (2015 November 19) corresponds to the minima of the infrared lightcurves and occurs 428 days later than the observed minimum in the LT optical lightcurve (see Section \[sec:lt\]). There is a 0.26 mag peak-to-trough change in W1 and a 0.21 mag change in W2.
### Two-Micron All Sky Survey
SDSSJ2232$-$0806 was observed as part of the Two-Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS, @Skrutskie06), which was conducted between 1997 and 2001. In Table \[tab:mwl\] we quote the $J$, $H$ and $K_s$ profile-fit magnitudes reported in the 2MASS All-Sky Point Source Catalog (PSC)[^8]. The observation was made on 1998 October 1 and the photometric quality flag is C for all filters.
### Sloan Digital Sky Survey
Although no Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) spectroscopic data exists for this source, photometry was obtained on 2000 March 9. As can been seen in Figure \[fig:lightcurve\], the source was in a very low state at this time. The object was classified as a (passive) galaxy based on its photometric colours.
### PanSTARRS-1 3$\pi$ Survey
The PanSTARRS-1 (PS1) 3$\uppi$ Survey was conducted between 2009 and 2014, observing the $\nicefrac{3}{4}$ of the sky north of $-30^{\circ}$ declination multiple times per year in each of five filters (see @Magnier13 and @Chambers16). Originally searching for tidal disruption events, [@Lawrence16] identified SDSSJ2232$-$0806[^9] as one of a number of ‘slow blue nuclear hypervariables’: objects with no previously known AGN, blue colours and evolution on timescales of years. This particular source was brighter by $\Delta g = 1.80\pm0.04$ in 2012 compared with the SDSS photometry of 2000.
### UK Schmidt Telescope
We located a record for SDSSJ2232$-$0806 in the SuperCOSMOS Science Archive (SSA[^10]). The $B_j$ band ($\lambda=3950$ Å) observation was made using the UK Schmidt Telescope (@Canon75) on Siding Spring Mountain, NSW, Australia, on 1986 August 1. Its sCorMag (stellar magnitude in the Vega system) is given in the SSA as $B_j=19.02$ mag. Converting this to a $g$ band AB magnitude, we estimate $g\approx18.6\pm0.3$, where the uncertainty is the standard single-passband uncertainty on SuperCOSMOS magnitudes (@Hambly01).
### Hubble Space Telescope {#sec:HST}
Two short-exposure photometric observations were made with the Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) onboard the *Hubble Space Telescope* (*HST*) on 2015 September 18. The exposure times were 330 s in the wide IR F125W filter ($\lambda_\mathrm{eff}=1.25$ $\upmu$m, $J$ band) and 1200 s in the extremely wide UVIS F475X filter ($\lambda_\mathrm{eff}\approx4776$ Å, and including the $g$ band).
### *GALEX*
Two epochs of ultraviolet (UV) photometry were found by searching the *Galaxy Evolution Explorer* (*GALEX*, @Galex05) space telescope archive. In both records, the UV source is coincident with the optical coordinates of SDSSJ2232$-$0806 within 1.3 arcsec. The UV flux increases by a factor $\approx3$ between the two epochs and there is also an apparent colour change, with SDSSJ2232$-$0806 appearing bluer in the later observation.
------------------ ---------------------- -------- ------------------ -------------- ------------------------ ------------------- -------------------------
Date Telescope or Filter Measurement Unit $\log(\nu)^\mathrm{a}$ Flux$^\mathrm{b}$ Luminosity$^\mathrm{c}$
survey
2010/05/27–28 *WISE* W4 $7.536\pm0.157$ Vega mag 13.13 $1.10\pm0.16$ $2.62\pm0.38$
2010/05/27–28 *WISE* W3 $10.258\pm0.073$ Vega mag 13.41 $6.48\pm0.44$ $15.4\pm1.0$
2010/05/27–11/25 *WISE* W2 $12.783\pm0.027$ Vega mag 13.81 $8.62\pm0.21$ $20.5\pm0.5$
2010/05/27–11/25 *WISE* W1 $13.782\pm0.027$ Vega mag 13.95 $8.50\pm0.21$ $20.2\pm0.5$
1998/10/01 2MASS $K_s$ $15.419\pm0.182$ mag 14.14 $6.29\pm1.06$ $15.0\pm2.5$
1998/10/01 2MASS $H$ $16.166\pm0.208$ mag 14.26 $6.31\pm1.21$ $15.0\pm2.9$
1998/10/01 2MASS $J$ $17.124\pm0.201$ mag 14.39 $5.47\pm1.01$ $13.0\pm2.4$
2000/03/09 SDSS $z$ $18.33\pm0.04$ asinh mag 14.53 $5.6\pm0.2$ $14.8\pm0.5$
2000/03/09 SDSS $i$ $18.97\pm0.02$ asinh mag 14.61 $3.78\pm0.07$ $10.4\pm0.2$
2000/03/09 SDSS $r$ $19.20\pm0.02$ asinh mag 14.69 $3.71\pm0.07$ $10.8\pm0.2$
2000/03/09 SDSS $g$ $20.10\pm0.03$ asinh mag 14.81 $2.14\pm0.06$ $6.7\pm0.2$
2012/08/30 PanSTARRS-1 3$\uppi$ $g$ $18.30\pm0.05$ mag 14.80 $11.0\pm0.5$ $34\pm2$
2012/09/11 Liverpool $g$ $18.37\pm0.02$ AB mag 14.81 $10.5\pm0.2$ $33.0\pm0.6$
1988/06/01 Schmidt $g^*$ $18.6\pm0.3$ AB mag 14.81 $9\pm2$ $27\pm6$
1988/06/01 Schmidt $B_j$ $19.0\pm0.3$ Vega mag 14.88 $10\pm3$ $33\pm7$
2000/03/09 SDSS $u$ $19.79\pm0.05$ asinh mag 14.92 $3.8\pm0.2$ $12.7\pm0.7$
2013/12/14 *XMM-Newton* OM U $2.219\pm0.038$ cts s$^{-1}$ 14.94 $14.8\pm0.2$ $50.4\pm0.7$
2013/12/14 *XMM-Newton* OM UVW1 $1.154\pm0.017$ cts s$^{-1}$ 15.01 $16.2\pm0.2$ $58.5\pm0.7$
2013/12/14 *XMM-Newton* OM UVM2 $0.390\pm0.011$ cts s$^{-1}$ 15.11 $19.9\pm0.6$ $89\pm3$
2003/08/22 *GALEX* NUV $20.67\pm0.22$ AB mag 15.12 $2.6\pm0.5$ $12\pm2$
2004/08/24 *GALEX* NUV $19.81\pm0.04$ AB mag 15.12 $6.8\pm0.2$ $31\pm1$
2003/08/22 *GALEX* FUV $21.10\pm0.32$ AB mag 15.29 $2.6\pm0.7$ $11\pm3$
2004/08/24 *GALEX* FUV $19.62\pm0.03$ AB mag 15.29 $8.4\pm0.3$ $36\pm1$
------------------ ---------------------- -------- ------------------ -------------- ------------------------ ------------------- -------------------------
The spectral energy distribution
--------------------------------
### Host galaxy contribution to the SED and spectra {#sec:hostgal}
Infrared and optical emission from the host galaxy bulge may make a non-negligible contribution to our spectra, particularly in the faint state. It can be seen in our SED (Figure \[fig:sed\]) that the bulge component dominates over the AGN continuum redward of H$\upbeta$. However, this is not representative of the host galaxy flux in our spectra, since our narrow 1 arcsec wide slit excludes much of the extended host galaxy emission: a typical bulge diameter of 15 kpc would be $\approx3.6$ arcsecs across on the sky.
We examined the *HST* images of the source, taken in 2015 September (see Section \[sec:HST\]). The high spatial resolution of the instrument in principle allows us to separate the point-like AGN emission from the more extended host galaxy. We made a visual inspection of the 1D brightness profiles of the source in the two filters. Whereas the source emission in the UVIS filter was PSF-like, the $J$ band profile had a slightly more extended base than the PSF, suggesting the presence of some light from the host galaxy. Unfortunately, however, the snapshot *HST* exposures are not sufficiently deep to robustly assess the host galaxy emission.
Instead, we can estimate the host galaxy luminosity at 5100 Å in our spectral extraction aperture using the relation of [@Landt11]. From a sample of low-redshift ($z\lesssim0.3$), bright, broad emission line AGN, the authors determined the host galaxy luminosities enclosed in the apertures from stacked *HST* images (see their Section 3 and Figure 1). When extracting the WHT spectra, we integrated on average 4.75 arcsec in the spatial direction; the 4.75 arcsec$^2$ aperture is therefore equivalent to a spatial size of 20 kpc$^2$ at the source. From the [@Landt11] relation we then estimate $F_{5100\si\angstrom}\approx4.2\times10^{-17}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ Å$^{-1}$.
The RMS spectrum we constructed in Section \[sec:rms\] largely removes the non-variable host galaxy contribution, whereas the mean spectrum does not. Therefore, if we assume that the mean AGN emission has the same spectral shape as the variable component, we can estimate the host galaxy contribution by the ‘red excess’ of the mean spectrum in comparison with the RMS. For the host galaxy component we used the 5 Gyr old elliptical galaxy template of [@Polletta07]. We add the RMS and host galaxy spectra, and rescale the two components until the sum satisfactorily matches the shape of the mean spectrum. From the appropriately-scaled galaxy template we determine the mean flux densities in several 150 Å wide windows. The flux densities at 4861, 5007, 5100 and 6563 Å are 4.9, 4.8, 4.6 and $4.8 \times 10^{-17}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ Å$^{-1}$, respectively; the value at 5100 Å is consistent with the [@Landt11] estimate calculated above, given the uncertainties. The host galaxy contribution to the fluxes at 2800 Å (under Mg<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>) and at 3000 Å is negligible. In the rest of this study we correct the AGN continuum fluxes (and hence the emission line EWs) using these values. The emission line EWs recorded in the Tables in the Appendix reflect this correction.
### Accretion flow model {#sec:optxagnf}
To model the multiwavelength SED, we use the energy-conserving accretion flow model <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">optxagnf</span> of [@Done12]. The model has a standard thin accretion disc from outer radius $R_\mathrm{out}$ to $R_\mathrm{cor}$. Interior to $R_\mathrm{cor}$, the accretion power is divided between soft and hard Comptonisation regions. The hard Comptonisation region receives the fraction $f_\mathrm{pl}$ of the available accretion power and produces power-law emission with photon index $\Gamma$. The soft Comptonisation region upscatters seed photons from the inner edge of the standard thin disc producing soft X-ray emission in excess of the hard coronal power-law (this emission is often called the ‘soft X-ray excess’: SX). The soft Comptonisation region is parameterised by its optical depth $\tau$ and warm electron temperature $kT_\mathrm{e}$.
In addition to the direct accretion flow emission, we include a redshifted blackbody (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">zbbody</span>) modelling the hot dust which is sampled by the *WISE* W1 and W2 bands. In Figure \[fig:sed\] we show the W1 and W2 fluxes corresponding to the earliest *NEOWISE* observation (2014 May 31: the closest in time to the *XMM-Newton* pointing). The downward error bars show the extent of the flux diminution over the observing period. For completeness, the figure also shows the *WISE* W3 and W4 band fluxes, which sample cooler dust. We do not model these data points; the emission may be attributed to AGN- or starlight-heated dust (or some mixture of the two). We show our model SED in Figure \[fig:sed\], along with the modelled multiwavelength data. Archival data are also shown for illustrative purposes, including two epochs of *GALEX* UV photometry, 2MASS infrared photometry and the SDSS optical photometry from 2000 during which the AGN was in a deep flux minimum. In Figure \[fig:sed\] we also show the [@Polletta07] 5 Gyr old elliptical host galaxy template which is normalised to fit the SDSS photometry. Our SED model has a very prominent soft Comptonisation region that emits from the optical/UV into the soft X-ray band. The standard disc component is required only to provide a source of seed photons for the soft Comptonisation region in the model calculations and not to fit the shape of the SED itself. We note that [@Collinson18] presented an alternative SED model which contained no soft Comptonisation region and in which the optical/UV emission was attributed to a standard accretion disc, with the X-ray spectrum modelled by a single power-law component. This model cannot replicate the curvature in the X-ray spectrum which we detected significantly in Section \[sec:xspec\]. Additionally, whilst the single power-law of [@Collinson18] has a photon index of $\Gamma=2.2$, a harder index (such as the $\Gamma=1.85$ we determine here) would be expected for a system of this Eddington ratio (e.g. @Kubota18). However, the Eddington ratio determined in both models, $\nicefrac{L}{L_\mathrm{Edd}}=0.1$, is the same.
Model Parameter Units Description Value
-------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- ------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">zbbody</span> $kT_\mathrm{dust}$ keV (K) Hot dust temperature $9.30\times10^{-5}$ ($1140$)
B.body norm. Hot dust blackbody normalisation $2.43\times10^{-5}$
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">hostpol</span> Gal. norm. Host galaxy template normalisation $2.71\times10^{-7}$
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">optxagnf</span> $\log(\nicefrac{L}{L_\mathrm{Edd}})$ Eddington ratio $-1.00$
$kT_\mathrm{e}$ keV Electron temperature of soft Comptonisation region $0.20$
$\tau$ Optical depth of soft Comptonisation region $17.3$
$\Gamma$ Photon index of power-law coronal emission $1.85$
$f_\mathrm{pl}$ Fraction of power below $R_\mathrm{cor}$ emitted in power-law $0.32$
$R_\mathrm{cor}$ $R_\mathrm{g}$ Inner (standard) accretion disc radius $80.0$
$\log(R_\mathrm{out})$ $R_\mathrm{g}$ Outer accretion disc radius $2.01$
$F_\mathrm{dust}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ Flux of hot dust blackbody $1.25\times10^{-12}$
$F_\mathrm{disc}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ Flux of (standard) accretion disc $6.81\times10^{-13}$
$F_\mathrm{SX}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ Flux of of soft Compton emission $8.03\times10^{-12}$
$F_\mathrm{pl}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ Flux of coronal power-law emission $3.78\times10^{-12}$
$F_\mathrm{UV}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ AGN flux between 100–4000 Å (rest-frame) $7.92\times10^{-12}$
$F_\mathrm{AGN}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ Total AGN flux $1.25\times10^{-11}$
{width="2\columnwidth"}
The nature of the variability
=============================
We now bring together all of these data-sets, and use them to confront two generically distinct scenarios i.e. that the flux changes seen in Figure \[fig:allspec\] are due to reddening by dust, or, that they are a result of an intrinsic variation in the continuum emission from the nuclear region, primarily powered by processes occurring within the accretion disc.
Obscuration interpretation
--------------------------
In Figure \[fig:var\] we show the relative variations of the continuum fluxes and those of the Mg<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> and broad Balmer emission lines. The estimated host galaxy flux at 5100 Å has been subtracted from the red continuum flux (see Section \[sec:hostgal\]). Shorter wavelengths are more sensitive to reddening than longer ones so, under the assumption that the observed changes are due to reddening, we would expect the 5100 Å flux to have a shallower fractional variability curve than at 3000 Å. Based on the [@Cardelli89] Milky Way[^11] reddening curve, we have calculated the extinction ($A_V$) required to cause the observed fractional changes in the blue continuum and then predict the fractional change in the red continuum for the same $A_V$. We see that the observed AGN flux at 5100 Å shows a significantly greater fractional variability than this prediction, and is broadly consistent with the fractional variations at 3000 Å. There is considerable uncertainty in the AGN continuum 5100 Å fractional flux variations due to the uncertainty in the host galaxy flux subtraction. However, even in the very conservative case when we perform no host galaxy flux subtraction, the 5100 Å fractional flux variability is still inconsistent with that predicted from a reddening law (as indicated by the upper error bars in Figure \[fig:var\]).
Additionally, we find that the amplitude of line flux changes are somewhat lower than those in the continuum. The 3000 Å flux exhibits variability of more than a factor two whereas the lines show only $\approx40$ per cent decrease. (Note that our spectroscopic observations did not cover the deep flux minimum seen in the photometric lightcurve.) There is a trend for the emission line EWs to be anticorrellated with the continuum fluxes: increasing when the continuum dims and vice versa. We find that the minimum (maximum) emission line EWs determined over the spectroscopic monitoring period are 570 (1200), 110 (250) and 50 (110) Å for H$\upalpha$, H$\upbeta$ and Mg<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>, respectively. In the case of a simple screen obscuring both the accretion disc (from which the continuum originates) and BLR (from which the broad lines originate), the equivalent widths of the lines ought not to change since both continuum and line flux at any given wavelength will be suppressed equally. However, if the absorber covers more of the very compact accretion disc than the larger BLR then the EW of the broad lines would be seen to increase.
![Fractional variations in the 3000 and 5100 Å continuum fluxes and emission line fluxes and equivalent widths (EWs) over the monitoring period. In the top panel, as well as the observed continuum variations we also show the predicted 5100 Å variations, calculated from the observed 3000 Å variations, on the assumption that these are caused by reddening (see text). The measured 5100 Å fluxes have been corrected for host galaxy contamination using our estimate determined in Section \[sec:hostgal\] in the text; the upper error bars indicate the fractional variations calculated with no host galaxy subtraction. For the Balmer lines, values are calculated from the sum of very broad and broad components; the Mg<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> values are calculated from the whole line profile.[]{data-label="fig:var"}](variations_plotandMg_181128.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
In Figure \[fig:balmerdec\] we show how the continuum colour (the ratio of red to blue fluxes) and Balmer decrement have varied together. In the simple scenario of a reddening screen of variable column density obscuring both the BLR and accretion disc, there would be a linear relationship between the Balmer decrement and red/blue continuum flux. We show a reddening vector describing the predicted relationship, again based on the Galactic reddening curve of [@Cardelli89] and positioned so that the Balmer decrement in the case of zero reddening is 2.72 (@Gaskell17). It can be seen that our data do not follow the trend of this reddening vector so reddening alone cannot explain the observed spectral changes.
![ The Balmer decrement (the ratio of broad H$\upalpha$ to broad H$\upbeta$ fluxes) versus continuum colour (the ratio of $5100\,\si\angstrom$ to $3000\,\si\angstrom$ monochromatic fluxes) as measured in each of the eleven optical spectra taken at the WHT and MMT. The colour of the points indicates the equivalent $g$ band magnitude of the spectra calculated in Section \[sec:absflux\]: fainter spectra are a darker green. The red line shows the predicted relation for a [@Cardelli89] Galactic reddening curve (assuming the intrinsic Balmer decrement in the case of zero reddening is $2.72$). []{data-label="fig:balmerdec"}](Balmer_dec_vs_continuum_colourandcmap_181120.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
### Cloud crossing timescale
If the dimming of the AGN continuum and broad emission line fluxes is due to an obscurer moving across our line of sight, then we can predict the timescale on which such an occultation event would occur. We estimate the BLR size from [@Bentz13] using the equation $$\log\left(\frac{R_\mathrm{BLR}}{1~\mathrm{light~day}}\right) = K + \alpha \log\left(\frac{\lambda L_{5100\si{\angstrom}}}{10^{44}~\mathrm{erg~s}^{-1}}\right),
\label{eqn:rblr}$$ with values $K=1.559$ and $\alpha=0.549$ taken from their ‘Clean2$+$ExtCor’ calibration. For the range of $\lambda L_{5100\si{\angstrom}}$ observed in our monitoring campaign, the BLR size is $\approx40$–60 light days.
Following [@LaMassa15] we calculate the crossing time $t_\mathrm{cross}$ of a cloud occulting the central regions as $$t_\mathrm{cross} = 0.07 \left(\frac{R_\mathrm{orb}}{1~\mathrm{light~day}}\right)^{\nicefrac{3}{2}} \left(\frac{10^8~\mathrm{M}_{\sun}}{M_\mathrm{BH}}\right)^{\nicefrac{1}{2}} \arcsin\left(\frac{R_\mathrm{src}}{R_\mathrm{orb}}\right)~\mathrm{years},
\label{eqn:tcross}$$ where $R_\mathrm{orb}$ is the orbital radius of the cloud and $R_\mathrm{src}$ is the radius of the emission source being obscured (here the BLR). As a conservative estimate (minimising the crossing time), we calculate the crossing time for a cloud at the inner edge of the BLR, i.e. $R_\mathrm{src}=R_\mathrm{orb}=R_\mathrm{BLR}\approx50$ light days. The cloud crossing time at this radius is $\approx27$ years, much longer than the dip-and-rise event we observe in the lightcurve which takes $\approx3$ years in the rest frame.
Intrinsic change interpretation
-------------------------------
### Dust reverberation {#sec:dust}
As noted in Section \[sec:wise\], there is a dip in the infrared lightcurves, delayed with respect to the optical dip by around 400 days. It can be seen in Figure \[fig:sed\] that there is negligible host galaxy emission at the wavelengths of the *WISE* W1 and W2 bands (this is true even in the case of a starburst host galaxy, as the IR emission of starlight-heated dust peaks at longer wavelengths). The infrared lightcurves may therefore be evidence of AGN-heated dust reverberating with the variable intrinsic AGN continuum. However, whilst there is a large (factor $\approx3$) change in the optical flux, the change in the near-infrared is much more modest ($\approx30$ per cent). The dust emission ought to be a good bolometer of the intrinsic AGN luminosity, so we might expect it to show variability of the same amplitude as seen in the optical. If we attribute the infrared variability to an echo response to variations in the central source, we must account for this discrepancy. Here, we assess whether the observed infrared lag and magnitude changes can be plausibly attributed to dust reverberation.
We can calculate the expected dust reverberation radius from our model SED parameters via $$R_\mathrm{dust,rev} = \sqrt{\frac{L_\mathrm{UV}}{16\uppi\sigma T^4}},
$$ where $\sigma$ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and the $T$ is the dust temperature $T=1140$ K (from Table \[tab:sed\]). Since the dust reverberates with the dip in the optical/UV continuum, we take the UV luminosity in the dip to be a factor 2.5 less than we determined at the time of the *XMM-Newton* observation: $L_\mathrm{UV,dip}\approx7.5\times10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$. We therefore calculate $R_\mathrm{dust,rev}\approx150$ light days. The observed delay between the minimum of the infrared lightcurve with respect to the optical is $\approx428$ days, equivalent to $\approx335$ days in the rest frame, around a factor two greater than $R_\mathrm{dust,rev}$.
We employ the model tori of [@Almeyda17] to simulate how the dust may respond to a variable, driving optical source. The authors consider the cases of a compact and extended torus, in which the ratio of outer to inner dust cloud radii are 2 and 10, respectively and the inner dust radius in their model is set by dust sublimation. They consider the effects of differing illumination of the torus dust clouds. In the case of isotropic illumination, dust sublimation surface is spherical. In the anisotropically-illuminated case, more ionising flux is emitted in polar directions than in the equatorial plane; the resultant dust sublimation surface is ‘bowl-shaped’ (see e.g. @Kawaguchi10) and the dust near the equatorial plane can survive much closer to the central source than in the isotropic case. The inner dust radius is dependent on the AGN luminosity and the dust sublimation temperature, for which we adopt a value of 1500 K, close to the mean hot dust temperature found by [@Landt11]. For SDSSJ2232$-$0806, we calculate the AGN luminosity $L_\mathrm{AGN}$ from the bolometric flux of our model SED and assume that was 30 per cent greater in the bright state than observed at the time of the *XMM-Newton* observation. We therefore determine that $L_\mathrm{AGN}\approx4\times10^{45}$ erg s$^{-1}$. For the isotropic case, $R_\mathrm{in}=R_\mathrm{sub}\approx0.7$ pc ($\approx800$ light days) whereas for the anisotropic case $R_\mathrm{in}=R_\mathrm{sub}(\theta=90^\circ)\approx0.25$ pc ($\approx300$ light days).
To construct our driving lightcurve, we interpolate between the LT optical photometry points to create a continuous lightcurve, which we then smooth to remove the short-term, stochastic variability and retain only the shape of the longer-term, systematic, large-amplitude changes. [@Almeyda17] provide their impulse response functions at 3.6 $\upmu$m for a torus viewed at a polar angle of $\theta_\mathrm{obs}=45^\circ$ (see their Figure 8). We convolve our optical lightcurve with four response functions (for compact/extended, isotropically-/anisotropically-illuminated tori) and compare the simulated dust responses with our *WISE* W1 data. We find that the response functions for the isotropically-illuminated tori produce much longer lags than is observed. The lags for the anisotropically-illuminated tori are shorter because the of the closer proximity of the dust to the optical/UV source, and are in much better agreement with our data. The simulated responses for the compact tori are too deep, an extended distribution is required to smear out the response and reduce its amplitude. In Figure \[fig:torus\] we show the simulated dust response in the case of an extended, anisotropically-illuminated torus. In this figure we have slightly decreased $R_\mathrm{in}$ to 250 light days from the 300 light days calculated from $L_\mathrm{AGN}$, to better match the observed lightcurve.
![ The simulated dust response to the variable optical source. *Top:* Our optical data (LT $g$ band photometry) are shown as green circles. We linearly interpolate between these and smooth the result to create an input optical lightcurve (the blue line). *Bottom:* We convolve the input lightcurve with an impulse response function to predict the infrared lightcurve (the orange line). The impulse response function was calculated by [@Almeyda17] for an anisotropically-illuminated, radially extended ($R_\mathrm{out}/R_\mathrm{in}=10$) distribution of dust clouds in a torus of angular width $\sigma=45^\circ$ with $R_\mathrm{dust}=250$ light days and a viewed at a polar angle of $\theta_\mathrm{obs}=45^\circ$. The *WISE* W1 (3.4 $\upmu$m) photometry are shown as red squares and the data is normalised such that the first point falls on the predicted lightcurve.[]{data-label="fig:torus"}](Almeyda_IR_response_R250.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
### Accretion disc variability timescales {#sec:inttime}
We now assess the predicted timescales for the transmission of changes through a standard thin accretion disc. In Section \[sec:optxagnf\] we determined the outer radius of the accretion disc to be $R\sim100~R_\mathrm{g}$. For a disc of this size, the dynamical timescale is $$t_\mathrm{dyn} \approx \left(\frac{R^3}{GM_\mathrm{BH}}\right)^{\nicefrac{1}{2}} \approx 10~\mathrm{days};$$ the thermal timescale is $$t_\mathrm{therm} \approx \frac{t_\mathrm{dyn}}{\alpha} \approx 3~\mathrm{months},$$ where $\alpha\approx0.1$ is the disc viscosity parameter; the viscous timescale is $$t_\mathrm{visc} \approx \frac{t_\mathrm{dyn}}{\alpha}\left(\frac{H}{R}\right)^{-2} \approx 1~\mathrm{Gyr}$$ where $H/R$ is the ratio of the disc’s thickness to its radius. As [@Noda18] found for Mrk1018, we find that for SDSSJ2232$-$0806 the dynamical and thermal timescales are too short compared with the observed variability timescale and the viscous timescale is far too long.
Discussion {#sec:disc}
==========
An extrinsic cause of variability
---------------------------------
The hypothesis of an extrinsic cause of the variability (i.e. variable obscuration) is inconsistent with the observations in several important respects:
- The continuum colour change is inconsistent with reddening since we see approximately equal fractional flux change in the red as in the blue (Figure \[fig:var\]). Even if we perform no subtraction of host galaxy flux at 5100 Å the source still exhibits significantly more variability in the red than would be inferred from the blue, assuming that reddening causes the variability. We note that the choice of reddening curve makes very little difference at the wavelengths we studied.
- The Balmer decrements do not change consistently (Figure \[fig:balmerdec\]), although this test is less compelling given the substantial uncertainties in the measurements. However, since the emission line EWs change, the obscurer cannot be covering both the accretion disc and all of the BLR.
- We are able to place an upper limit of $7\times10^{19}$ cm$^{-2}$ on the intrinsic column density from the *XMM-Newton* X-ray observation, although a column of $\approx4\times10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ would be required to produce the observed 30 per cent drop in the $g$ band flux. Furthermore, [@Maiolino01] reported that the dust reddening of AGN is generally much lower than one would calculate from the gas column density probed by X-rays, assuming a Galactic dust-to-gas ratio and extinction curve, as we do here. If this were the case for SDSSJ2232$-$0806, an even greater $N^\mathrm{int}_\mathrm{H}$ would be predicted, increasing the discrepancy with the X-ray observations.
- The timescale for obscuration is far too long. We calculate that the crossing time of an obscuring cloud at the inner BLR radius is $\approx27$ years, much longer than the 3 years we observe. Furthermore, this scenario does not explain how a dust cloud could survive relatively near to the central ionising source.
- Variable obscuration fails to explain the observed variations in the infrared. Since mid-infrared wavelengths are less sensitive to reddening than the optical, a 0.26 mag change at 3.4 $\upmu$m would imply a simultaneous $5.5$ mag change in the $g$ band which is clearly inconsistent with out data. If the obscurer were exterior to the torus, it would be at an extremely large orbital radius and the crossing time would be even longer than calculated above. If the obscurer were interior to the torus it would need to be implausibly close to the accretion disc (to explain the lag), and implausibly large (to obscure a sufficient fraction of the AGN flux as seen by the dust).
An inrinsic cause of variability
--------------------------------
Having ruled out the possibility of an extrinsic change, we consider that the variability is due to an intrinsic change in the luminosity of the accreting matter. In Section \[sec:dust\] we simulated dust responses to a driving optical continuum. Our intention with this test was not to infer the properties of the torus but to examine the plausibility that the infrared emission reverberates with the optical. Although we have tested only a few points in the dust response parameter space presented by [@Almeyda17], the simulated IR lightcurve shown in Figure \[fig:torus\] captures both the lag and shape of the observed IR variability very well. It is therefore very plausible that the IR emission exhibits a genuine light echo of the optical variability.
[@Sheng17] studied a sample of changing-look quasars that exhibited significant, large-amplitude ($|\Delta \mathrm{W}1|$ or $|\Delta \mathrm{W}2|>0.4$ mag) mid-infrared variability. Since mid-infrared wavelengths are not strongly affected by dust extinction, the mid-infrared variability would imply much greater changes in the optical than observed if both were due to variable obscuration. They also found that the timescales for dust cloud obscuration of the torus were far too long whereas the observed lags between infrared and optical were consistent with those expected for hot dust reverberation. They concluded that in all of the ten objects they investigated that the variability was intrinsic in nature. We argue that SDSSJ2232$-$0806 shows the same behaviour.
The RMS spectrum (Figure \[fig:rms\]) indicates different variability behaviours of the observed emission lines. The broad Balmer emission lines appear as strong features in the RMS spectrum, highlighting their significant variability. The He<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> $\lambda4686$ and He<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> $\lambda5876$ emission lines are known to respond strongly and rapidly to changes in the continuum, and are also prominent. However, Mg<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> almost completely disappears in the RMS spectrum, indicating that it has varied very little over our monitoring campaign. Both [@Zhu17] and [@Sun15] have studied the reverberation of Mg<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> in quasars observed multiple times as part of the SDSS. [@Zhu17] noted that Mg<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> responds relatively weakly to changes in the 3000 Å continuum. [@Sun15] compared the Mg<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> and H$\upbeta$ emission line variability and found that Mg<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> is $\approx1.5$ times less responsive to changes in the continuum than H$\upbeta$. It is not currently known why this is the case. It may be that Mg<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> is emitted over a much larger range of radii than H$\upbeta$ and so its response is more strongly diluted. Alternatively, differences in the excitation/de-excitation mechanisms or in the optical depths of the two lines are also possible explanations.
Whilst we favour an intrinsic cause of the variability over an extrinsic cause, our calculations in Section \[sec:inttime\] show that the predicted timescales for such changes do not match the observations. It has been known for some time that large-amplitude variability of AGN occurs on timescales much shorter than predicted for thin, viscous accretion discs. [@Dexter19] address this so-called ‘quasar viscosity crisis’ (@Lawrence18) and propose that all AGN accretion discs may be ‘magnetically elevated’ and have a much greater scale height than is typically assumed, dramatically reducing the predicted variability timescales. Alternative models have recently been developed to explain the extreme variability seen in individual sources. [@Ross18] presented a scenario for the CLQ SDSSJ110057.70$-$005304.5 in which a dramatic change in magnetic torque at the innermost disc radii resulted in a collapse of the UV continuum and triggered a cooling/heating front propagating through the disc, out to $\sim200~R_\mathrm{g}$. Taking a different approach, [@Noda18] determined that Mrk1018 underwent a spectral state transition , similar to those seen in stellar-mass black hole binaries (BHBs). Whilst scaling up to AGN size-scales by BH mass predicts too long variability timescales in AGN, the authors discuss ways in which scalings between BHBs and AGN may break down.
SDSSJ2232$-$0806 in the context of other hypervaribale AGN
----------------------------------------------------------
Both [@MacLeod18] and [@Rumbaugh18] have recently presented the results of systematic searches of long-term extremely variable quasars (EVQs: sources with $|\Delta g|>1$ mag) from archival optical data. [@Rumbaugh18] found that EVQs account for $\approx30$–50 per cent of all quasars and that the EVQs had systematically lower $\nicefrac{L}{L_\mathrm{Edd}}$ than the parent sample of ‘normal’ quasars. [@MacLeod18] presented follow-up spectroscopic observations of a sample of EVQs and were able to confirm that $\approx20$ per cent of these were CLQs. The authors compared the CLQs with a luminosity- and redshift-matched, lesser-variable control sample and again found that CLQs on average have lower $\nicefrac{L}{L_\mathrm{Edd}}$ than their less-variable counterparts. Both studies suggested that EVQs and CLQs represent the extremes of a tail of ‘normal’ quasar variability. At the far range of this tail, some sources exhibit nearly an order of magnitude change in optical flux over a baseline of $\sim10$ years. Compared to many of these changing-look AGN, the continuum flux change we observed during our monitoring of SDSSJ2232$-$0806 is modest. Its $\log(\nicefrac{L}{L_\mathrm{Edd}})=-1$ is slightly higher than the peaks of the distributions of CLQs and EVQs (which occur at $\log(\nicefrac{L}{L_\mathrm{Edd}})\approx-1.5$, see Figure 6 of @MacLeod18) although it is consistent with the range of values for all of the populations shown (CLQs, EVQs, the less-variable control sample and all 105783 of the SDSS DR7 quasars). Assuming the bolometric flux of the source decreases proportionally to the observed optical, we can estimate that the accretion rate of SDSSJ2232$-$0806 drops to $\sim$a few per cent of Eddington in the faint state.
[@Elitzur09] proposed a disc wind model of the BLR in which AGN with a very low $L/L_\mathrm{Edd}$ are unable to support a BLR. After studying a sample of low-luminosity AGN, they determined that the BLR disappears when the AGN luminosity drops below a critical value, $L_\mathrm{AGN}\lesssim5\times10^{39}(M_\mathrm{BH}/10^{7}\mathrm{M}_{\sun})^{\nicefrac{2}{3}}$ erg s$^{-1}$. [@MacLeod18] found that their CLQs were distributed close to this critical value and likely dropped below it in their faint state, naturally explaining the disappearance of the broad emission lines. Whilst the broad Balmer emission lines in SDSSJ2232$-$0806 do weaken in response to a dimming continuum, the source does not satisfy the criterion of a changing-look AGN because these lines have not been observed to disappear. The source was in a deep minimum in 2000, and it is likely that the host galaxy emission dominates all of the SDSS bands except $u$. Its UV flux in this epoch was $\approx4$ times fainter than when it was observed by *XMM-Newton*. Assuming the bolometric flux was also 4 times fainter, its luminosity in 2000 was $\approx8\times10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$. For the BH mass of SDSSJ2232$-$0806, the critical luminosity for a BLR in the disc-wind model is $\approx4\times10^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}$, so the broad lines ought to have been visible even in this deep minimum. Therefore, we suggest that SDSSJ2232$-$0806 lies on the sequence of quasar variability, being highly variable whilst its mass accretion rate is too high for it to undergo a changing-look transition.
Whereas optically variable AGN are typically ‘bluer-when-brighter’ (e.g. @Rumbaugh18, @Wilhite05) we do not see strong evidence of that behaviour in our optical monitoring of SDSSJ2232$-$0806. Having corrected the longer-wavelength fluxes for host galaxy contamination, we show in Figure \[fig:var\] that the fractional variabilities in the blue and red are similar (i.e. there is no significant colour change). In Figure \[fig:rms\] we show that the shape of the RMS spectrum is very similar to that of the mean spectrum at the shorter wavelengths less affected by host galaxy contamination. We note that [@Wilhite05] used a sample of higher-redshift quasars than SDSSJ2232$-$0806 ($z>0.5$) so they probed further into the rest frame UV than we do. The authors show that there is a spectral break in the variability of their sample around 2500 Å in the rest frame, with wavelengths shorter than this being more strongly variable. We may not see evidence of a spectral shape change in SDSSJ2232$-$0806 because our spectra do not sample below 2500 Å. Furthermore, we see in SDSSJ2232$-$0806 that changes in the red and blue optical continuum (predominantly emitted from larger/smaller radii, respectively) appear to occur in tandem. We do not see a delay in the variations between the red and blue optical emission, indicative of a heating/cooling front propagating through the disc, such as in the model described by [@Ross18].
Prospects for future work
-------------------------
Our observing campaign was fortunate to have recorded a dramatic dimming and brightening event of SDSSJ2232$-$0806. There is some evidence that similar events have occurred in its past. The source appears to have been in a relatively bright state when observed photographically in 1988 but was in a deep minimum in the SDSS observation of 2000. The Catalina lightcurve suggests another dip occurred between 2005–2007 (see Figure \[fig:lightcurve\]). As noted by [@MacLeod18], past hypervariable behaviour is an indicator of future events. Future monitoring of this source is desirable as we may capture other interesting episodes of variability.
New X-ray and UV observations would be highly beneficial in further investigating the nature of the variability. Sampling both sides of the peak of the accretion disc emission peak the would enable us to parameterise the changing energetics during a variability episode and determine whether SDSSJ2232$-$0806 undergoes spectral state changes as seen in e.g. Mrk1018 (@Noda18). The ability of UV and X-rays to probe the innermost regions would enable us to determine whether some ‘collapse’ of the UV emission occurs as seen in e.g. SDSSJ110057.70$-$005304.5 (@Ross18).
Conclusions
===========
Our recent optical photometric and spectroscopic monitoring campaign on the hypervariable AGN SDSSJ2232$-$0806 has recorded one dimming and brightening episode with a factor $\approx3$ flux change over four years. Whilst the observed variability of the source is modest compared to that seen in changing-look AGN, it is extreme compared to the broader AGN population. We have been able to demonstrate that variable obscuration does not explain the observed spectral changes, nor does it fit the observed timescales for variability in the optical or near-infrared. An intrinsic change in the AGN luminosity is therefore a likelier explanation, although the observed changes are much more rapid than the theoretical accretion disc viscous timescale. SDSSJ2232$-$0806 is one of a growing number of objects which challenge our models of viscous accretion discs. Whilst we are unable to determine the cause of the intrinsic luminosity change, X-ray and UV monitoring of future episodes should greatly improve our understanding of the processes at work.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
DK acknowledges the receipt of a UK Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) studentship (ST/N50404X/1). DK and MJW acknowledge support from the STFC grant ST/P000541/1. Thanks to Michael Fausnaugh for his assistance in the use of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mapspec</span>. Thanks also to Ra’ad Mahmoud, Raj Sathyaprakash, Chris Done, David Rosario and Brad Peterson for useful discussions.
In this research we have made use of the following:
- data from the William Herschel Telescope, operated on the island of La Palma by the Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias;
- data from the Liverpool Telescope, operated on the island of La Palma by Liverpool John Moores University in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias with financial support from the STFC;
- observations obtained at the MMT Observatory, a joint facility of the Smithsonian Institution and the University of Arizona;
- data products from the *WISE* mission, which is a joint project of the University of California, Los Angeles, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory/California Institute of Technology, and *NEOWISE*, which is a project of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory/California Institute of Technology. *WISE* and *NEOWISE* are both funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA);
- data from and software developed for *XMM-Newton*, an ESA science mission with instruments and contributions directly funded by ESA Member States and NASA;
- observations made with the NASA *Galaxy Evolution Explorer*. *GALEX* is operated for NASA by the California Institute of Technology under NASA contract NAS5-98034;
- data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS), which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by NASA and the National Science Foundation;
- data from SDSS: funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society, and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The SDSS Web Site is <http://www.sdss.org/>;
- data from Pan-STARRS-1: the Pan-STARRS-1 Surveys (PS1) have been made possible through contributions of the Institute for Astronomy, the University of Hawaii, the Pan-STARRS Project Office, the Max-Planck Society and its participating institutes, the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, Heidelberg and the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics, Garching, The Johns Hopkins University, Durham University, the University of Edinburgh, Queen’s University Belfast, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, the Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope Network Incorporated, the National Central University of Taiwan, the Space Telescope Science Institute, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under Grant No. NNX08AR22G issued through the Planetary Science Division of the NASA Science Mission Directorate, the National Science Foundation under Grant No. AST-1238877, the University of Maryland, and Eotvos Lorand University (ELTE);
- data obtained from the SuperCOSMOS Science Archive, prepared and hosted by the Wide Field Astronomy Unit, Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, which is funded by the UK STFC;
- the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SpectRes</span> spectral resampling tool (@Carnall17);
- Doug Welch’s Excellent Absorption Law Calculator (<http://www.dougwelch.org/Acurve.html>);
- Ned Wright’s Cosmology Calculator (@Wright06).
Optical spectral fitting results
================================
[lccccccccc]{} & & & & &\
& & & & &\
Date & Scale & $\Delta v_\mathrm{vb}$ & W$_\mathrm{b}$ & W$_\mathrm{n}$ & $f_\mathrm{vb}~\times10^{-15}$ & $f_\mathrm{b}~\times10^{-14}$ & $f_\mathrm{n}~\times10^{-15}$ & $f_\mathrm{tot}~\times10^{-14}$ & EW$_\mathrm{vb+b}$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013-06-10 & 1.446 & $+800\pm700$ & $4460\pm50$ & $480\pm10$ & $3\pm2$ & $5.05\pm0.08$ & $1.5\pm0.1$ & $5.5\pm0.2$ & $570\pm20$\
2013-08-07 & 1.584 & $+1900\pm700$ & $4530\pm60$ & $550\pm10$ & $3\pm1$ & $5.20\pm0.08$ & $1.8\pm0.1$ & $5.7\pm0.2$ & $750\pm30$\
2013-09-09 & 1.046 & $+1300\pm800$ & $4280\pm50$ & $510\pm10$ & $9\pm2$ & $5.4\pm0.1$ & $1.81\pm0.08$ & $6.5\pm0.2$ & $850\pm30$\
2014-07-23 & 1.173 & $+800\pm700$ & $4200\pm60$ & $480\pm10$ & $6\pm2$ & $4.97\pm0.09$ & $1.59\pm0.09$ & $5.7\pm0.2$ & $1130\pm50$\
2014-12-16 & 1.076 & $+2000\pm500$ & $4300\pm50$ & $570\pm20$ & $5\pm4$ & $4.2\pm0.1$ & $1.7\pm0.1$ & $4.8\pm0.4$ & $1070\pm90$\
2016-07-09 & 1.344 & $\leqslant700$ & $4600\pm100$ & $490\pm10$ & $3\pm2$ & $4.8\pm0.1$ & $1.47\pm0.06$ & $5.3\pm0.2$ & $600\pm30$\
2016-10-22 & 0.706 & $+1800\pm500$ & $4510\pm40$ & $540\pm10$ & $3\pm1$ & $4.86\pm0.05$ & $1.48\pm0.05$ & $5.3\pm0.1$ & $610\pm10$\
2017-07-27 & 1.022 & $+1800\pm8000$ & $4500\pm100$ & $470\pm10$ & $4\pm3$ & $5.2\pm0.1$ & $1.43\pm0.07$ & $5.7\pm0.3$ & $970\pm60$\
2017-10-11 & 1.152 & $+1900$ & $3670\pm90$ & $700\pm200$ & $1.2\pm0.3$ & $5\pm1$ & $1.7\pm0.4$ & $7\pm1$ & $1200\pm300$\
2017-11-24 & 1.316 & $+1900$ & $4000\pm500$ & $500\pm100$ & $2.1\pm0.7$ & $6\pm1$ & $1.1\pm0.4$ & $8\pm1$ & $1100\pm200$\
2018-07-05 & 1.093 & $+1800\pm800$ & $4560\pm80$ & $490\pm30$ & $4\pm3$ & $4.5\pm0.1$ & $1.5\pm0.1$ & $5.1\pm0.3$ & $660\pm40$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
[lccccccccc]{} & & & &\
& & & &\
Date & $f~\times10^{-16}$ & $f_\mathrm{vb}~\times10^{-15}$ & $f_\mathrm{b}~\times10^{-14}$ & $f_\mathrm{n}~\times10^{-16}$ & $f_\mathrm{tot}~\times10^{-14}$ & EW$_\mathrm{vb+b}$ & BD$_\mathrm{vb+b}$ & $f~\times10^{-15}$ & EW
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013-06-10 & $5.7\pm0.1$ & $3\pm1$ & $1.46\pm0.09$ & $2.3\pm0.1$ & $1.8\pm0.1$ & $112\pm8$ & $3.0\pm0.3$ & $3.2\pm0.5$ & $21\pm3$\
2013-08-07 & $6.5\pm0.2$ & $3\pm1$ & $1.58\pm0.04$ & $2.7\pm0.2$ & $1.9\pm0.1$ & $150\pm10$ & $2.9\pm0.2$ & $3.5\pm0.1$ & $28\pm8$\
2013-09-09 & $6.0\pm0.1$ & $3\pm2$ & $1.32\pm0.05$ & $2.7\pm0.1$ & $1.7\pm0.2$ & $170\pm20$ & $3.8\pm0.5$ & $3.7\pm0.2$ & $40\pm20$\
2014-07-23 & $5.7\pm0.1$ & $3\pm1$ & $1.21\pm0.05$ & $2.4\pm0.1$ & $1.6\pm0.1$ & $250\pm20$ & $3.6\pm0.3$ & $3.4\pm0.6$ & $56\pm9$\
2014-12-16 & $6.6\pm0.2$ & $3\pm1$ & $0.83\pm0.03$ & $2.6\pm0.2$ & $1.2\pm0.1$ & $190\pm20$ & $4.0\pm0.5$ & $3.3\pm0.8$ & $50\pm10$\
2016-07-09 & $5.7\pm0.2$ & $3\pm1$ & $1.32\pm0.09$ & $2.2\pm0.1$ & $1.6\pm0.2$ & $120\pm10$ & $3.2\pm0.3$ & $3.1\pm0.4$ & $24\pm3$\
2016-10-22 & $6.4\pm0.2$ & $3\pm1$ & $1.34\pm0.06$ & $2.20\pm0.08$ & $1.7\pm0.1$ & $110\pm10$ & $3.2\pm0.3$ & $3.3\pm0.2$ & $23\pm2$\
2017-07-27 & $5.4\pm0.1$ & $3\pm1$ & $1.41\pm0.08$ & $2.1\pm0.1$ & $1.7\pm0.2$ & $180\pm20$ & $3.3\pm0.3$ & $3.2\pm0.5$ & $35\pm5$\
2017-10-11 & $8\pm2$ & $5\pm2$ & $1.3\pm0.1$ & $2.5\pm0.6$ & $1.8\pm0.2$ & $150\pm20$ & $3.7\pm0.7$ & $2.5\pm0.6$ & $22\pm6$\
2017-11-24 & $6\pm2$ & $5\pm2$ & $1.3\pm0.2$ & $1.6\pm0.6$ & $1.7\pm0.3$ & $160\pm20$ & $4.4\pm1.0$ & $1.8\pm0.5$ & $16\pm4$\
2018-07-05 & $5.7\pm0.4$ & $3\pm1$ & $1.19\pm0.09$ & $2.2\pm0.2$ & $1.5\pm0.2$ & $120\pm10$ & $3.3\pm0.4$ & $3.4\pm0.8$ & $29\pm6$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
Date W$_\mathrm{vb}$ $f_\mathrm{vb}~\times10^{-14}$ W$_\mathrm{b}$ $f_\mathrm{b}~\times10^{-14}$ W$_\mathrm{tot}$ $f_\mathrm{tot}~\times10^{-14}$ EW$_\mathrm{tot}$
------------ ----------------- -------------------------------- ---------------- ------------------------------- ------------------ --------------------------------- -------------------
2013-06-10 $9000\pm800$ $2.2\pm0.5$ $3300\pm300$ $1.5\pm0.2$ $4200\pm400$ $3.7\pm0.5$ $51\pm8$
2013-08-07 $9000\pm1000$ $2.0\pm0.6$ $3100\pm500$ $1.5\pm0.3$ $3900\pm500$ $3.5\pm0.7$ $60\pm10$
2013-09-09 $10000\pm600$ $2.4\pm0.3$ $3400\pm100$ $1.9\pm0.1$ $4100\pm200$ $4.3\pm0.3$ $80\pm10$
2014-07-23 $9000\pm700$ $1.5\pm0.3$ $3600\pm200$ $2.0\pm0.2$ $4000\pm200$ $3.5\pm0.4$ $100\pm10$
2014-12-16 $8400\pm600$ $2.1\pm0.3$ $3100\pm200$ $1.4\pm0.1$ $4000\pm300$ $3.5\pm0.3$ $110\pm10$
2016-07-09 $9000\pm1000$ $1.9\pm0.5$ $3300\pm400$ $1.3\pm0.2$ $4200\pm500$ $3.2\pm0.6$ $50\pm10$
2016-10-22 $11000\pm500$ $2.4\pm0.3$ $3400\pm200$ $1.7\pm0.1$ $4300\pm200$ $4.0\pm0.3$ $59\pm7$
2017-07-27 $9900\pm700$ $2.0\pm0.3$ $3600\pm200$ $2.0\pm0.1$ $4200\pm200$ $4.0\pm0.3$ $73\pm9$
2017-10-11 $14000\pm1300$ $3.2\pm0.5$ $3500\pm200$ $2.3\pm0.2$ $4200\pm300$ $5.5\pm0.5$ $100\pm10$
2017-11-24 $11000\pm1700$ $2.9\pm0.7$ $3300\pm300$ $1.8\pm0.3$ $4200\pm500$ $4.7\pm0.7$ $110\pm20$
2018-07-05 $9000\pm1000$ $2.0\pm0.6$ $3300\pm400$ $1.5\pm0.3$ $4200\pm500$ $3.5\pm0.7$ $60\pm10$
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: <https://lmfit.github.io/lmfit-py/>
[^3]: The line width is approximately equal to the mean FWHM of the very broad Balmer line components of the broad line AGN modelled by [@JinWDG12_II]. The offset was limited to keep the centre of the very broad component within the core of the line.
[^4]: The host galaxy makes a negligible contribution at the wavelength of Mg<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>.
[^5]: Those recorded on 2013 June 10 and August 7 and 2016 July 9 and October 22.
[^6]: <http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/>
[^7]: Because of the depletion of hydrogen coolant, only the W1 and W2 filters have been operable since the beginning of the *NEOWISE* mission.
[^8]: Also available from IRSA, see earlier note.
[^9]: The common name of the source in this paper is J223210.
[^10]: <http://ssa.roe.ac.uk/>.
[^11]: We note the reddening curves for the Small and Large Magellanic Clouds are very similar to the Milky Way curve for wavelengths $>3000$ Å which we consider here.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We describe the influence of environmental noise on LIGO detectors in the sixth science run (S6), from July 2009 to October 2010. We show results from experimental investigations testing the coupling level and mechanisms for acoustic, electromagnetic/magnetic and seismic noise to the instruments. We argument the sensors’ importance for vetoes of false positive detections, report estimates of the noise sources’ contributions to the detector background, and discuss the ways in which environmental coupling should be reduced in the LIGO upgrade, Advanced LIGO.'
address: |
$^1$Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA,\
$^2$University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403 USA,\
$^3$LIGO Livingston Observatory, Livingston, LA 70754 USA,\
$^4$LIGO Hanford Observatory, Richland, WA 99354 USA,\
$^5$California State University Fullerton, Fullerton, CA 92831 USA.
author:
- 'A Effler $^1$, R M S Schofield $^2$, V V Frolov $^3$, G González$^1$, K Kawabe$^4$, J R Smith$^5$, J Birch$^3$, R McCarthy$^4$'
title: 'Environmental Influences on the LIGO Gravitational Wave Detectors during the 6$^{th}$ Science Run'
---
Introduction
============
The Laser Interferometeric Gravitational-Wave Observatory
---------------------------------------------------------
The Laser Interferometric Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) is a network of ground based interferometric gravitational wave detectors that seeks to observe gravitational wave (GW) signals from astrophysical sources such as binary coalescence of neutron stars or black holes, supernova explosions, isolated spinning neutron stars and stochastic waves [@GenDet]. In 2005-2007 the detectors acquired data in the LIGO fifth science run (S5) with enough sensitivity to detect coalescence of binary neutron star systems at an average distance of 15 MPc [@dist], an occurrence that is expected to happen only once every 50 years [@Rates]. The sixth science run (S6) started in July 2009 and ended in October 2010, with a small number of upgrades to test advanced LIGO technology, reaching a sensitivity of 20 Mpc. Two detectors were operated, one in Hanford, WA (LHO, the LIGO Hanford Observatory) and one in Livingston, LA (LLO, the LIGO Livingston Observatory). A typical GW strain sensitivity of LHO and LLO in S6 is shown in Fig. \[darms\] [@s6sens]. In October 2010, the LIGO detectors involved in S6 were taken down to install Advanced LIGO detectors [@aLIGOgeneral], a major upgrade to LIGO which is expected to detect GW signals from binary neutron star systems many times a year [@Rates].
The Detectors {#introdet}
-------------
Each LIGO detector is a power-recycled Michelson interferometer with Fabry-Perot cavities in the 4km long arms [@GenDet]. With the exception of the laser source and some auxiliary beams for controlling the system, all hardware and laser beam paths are enclosed in ultra-high vacuum with an average pressure 3 10$^{-9}$ torr. The main fused silica optics which serve as the test masses for gravitational wave detection, are suspended by a single steel wire 0.36 mm in diameter attached to a suspension frame on a passive, multi-layered seismic isolation stack. The position of each optic is controlled with coil-magnet sensors/actuators. A GW will cause a signal on the detector manifested as a length difference between the two 4km arm cavities and measured as laser intensity fluctuations of the interference at the detector output, sometimes called the antisymmetric port [@SiggFreqResp]. This signal is digitized into a channel called DARM, short for “differential arm length”. This channel can be calibrated [@S5Calibration] as dimensionless strain $\mathrm{h(t)=2*(L_x-L_y)/(L_x+L_y)}$, where h(t) is GW strain, $\mathrm{L_x}$ is the length of one arm and $\mathrm{L_y}$ is the length of the other arm. Alternatively, it can be expressed as displacement in meters: $\mathrm{\Delta L=L_x-L_y}$. The best sensitivity was achieved at 150 Hz is 3x10$^{-23}$1/$\mathrm{\sqrt{Hz}}$ x4km $\approx$ 10$^{-19}$m/$\mathrm{\sqrt{Hz}}$. A one-sided amplitude spectral density of this channel calibrated in unitless strain from each detector in S6 is shown in Fig.\[darms\].
Advanced LIGO will operate similarly, but with a significant number of upgrades. Also shown in Fig.\[darms\] is the predicted design spectrum for Advanced LIGO at full power(at input $\sim$ 200W) with signal recycling. The estimated sensitivity to binary neutron star and black hole coalescence population is significantly higher for Advanced detectors due to the improved sensitivity below 100 Hz [@Rates]. Further improvements in sensitivity at higher frequencies due to lower thermal noise (due to the replacement of the optics) and lower shot noise (due to increased laser power) will give Advanced LIGO a thousand times the observable rate of initial LIGO.
![*Amplitude spectral density (ASD) of the noise limit to sensitivity for both detectors in S6 and design ASD for Advanced LIGO. The expected improvement in sensitivity for Advanced LIGO come from better optic suspensions and seismic isolation at low frequency, and from increased laser power and signal recycling (SR) methods at high frequency.*[]{data-label="darms"}](Fig1.eps)
Environmental Effects
---------------------
The LIGO detectors have been carefully isolated from external non-astrophysical influences. Nevertheless, environmental disturbances can cause temporary or stationary contamination of the readout signal and reduce the sensitivity of the detector.
For this reason, the LIGO instruments are equipped with dedicated sensors to detect environmental noise such as seismic, acoustic, magnetic or radio frequency electromagnetic disturbances. Typically these sensors are referenced to the DARM signal by creating or simulating environmental excitations large enough to be measured by both the environmental sensors and the DARM. The sensors provide critical information for the search of potential astrophysical events as well as for making the LIGO detectors less prone to environmental noise coupling.
Firstly, environmental sensors are used to validate astrophysical events by vetoing false positive GW signals [@S6DQ]. We must show that any candidate GW signal is extremely unlikely to have been produced by some environmental disturbance randomly coincident at both sites, or by a large scale effects affecting both detectors. During S6 (and before), for unmodeled burst searches,Êrandom coincident event triggers were frequent enough to be of concern.
Furthermore, we assess the level of the background environmental noise with respect to contaminating the DARM signal, typically in narrow frequency bands. Once the source and coupling mechanism is determined, we need to either remove the noise sources (e.g. shut down loud fans), attenuate the signal that propagates from the source to the coupling point on the detector (e.g. enclose the sensitive part of the detector in an isolation enclosure), or reduce the coupling at the detector (e.g. increase the size of the optics to avoid beam clipping). If we find a particularly high coupling location, we then add further monitors or relocate existing ones in order to ensure full validation of candidate astrophysical signals.
In this paper we describe the main environmental influences, their effect on the detector and present a subset of studies representative of the efforts [@RobertPage] to reduce the environmental noise contribution to the detectors’ background. In Section \[Env\] we categorize the environmental influences by their coupling mechanisms into seismic, acoustic, audio frequency magnetic and radio frequency electromagnetic effects. For each class we discuss the possible sources, general mitigation approaches and the influence on the detector. In Section \[Meas\] we show a set of studies performed in S6 characterizing each of these categories. In Section \[End\] we discuss the results of the studies, how these methods will be used in the future and the implications for the more sensitive Advanced LIGO detectors.
Characterizing the Detectors’ Physical Environment {#Env}
==================================================
The main categories of environmental influences on the detectors are seismic, acoustic and magnetic/electromagnetic field disturbances. We use accelerometers and seismometers to measure seismic motion, microphones to measure acoustic noise, magnetometers to measure audio frequency magnetic fields, radio receivers to track RF fields, temperature sensors to track temperature changes and voltage monitors to track the voltage of the electric power supplied to the site. Table 1 shows the details of some of the sensor types used in the LIGO Physical Environmental Monitoring (PEM) sub-system.
![*The Physical Environmental Monitoring system layout at the LIGO Livingston detector during S6. The setup for LIGO Hanford was very similar. Shaded regions indicate the vacuum enclosure. Circles and rectangles indicate vacuum chambers where mirrors were suspended. Optical tables were surrounded by acoustic enclosures but were not in vacuum.*[]{data-label="llopem"}](LLO_PEM4.eps)
Fig. \[llopem\] shows the PEM sensor number and locations in S6 at LLO (with a similar setup at LHO). The reflection (REFL) table, the anti-symmetric (AS) table, the laser table and the transmission (TRANS) tables are not in vacuum and contain important feedback sensors for interferometer control.
Type Sensor Operating Frequency Sampling Frequency
--------------- --------------------- --------------------- -------------------- --
seismometer Guralp 0.1-20 Hz 256 Hz
accelerometer Wilcoxon 731-207 1-900 Hz 2048 Hz
microphone Brüel&Kjaer 4130 10-900 Hz 2048 Hz
magnetometer Bartington 03CES100 0-900 Hz 2048 Hz
radio station AOR AR5000A 24.5 MHz 2048 Hz
: Important PEM sensor types and the frequency ranges in which they are used. The frequency range is a combination of sensor calibration range from the manufacturer and the sampling rate at which they are recorded.
LIGO is designed to not be dominated by environmental noise at frequencies higher than approximately 50 Hz, the frequency band of interest for GW in initial LIGO. Most control systems of the interferometer must operate at low frequencies and can become unstable due to large environmental disturbances. If these disturbances are too large, the interferometer will not be operational because optical cavities cannot be kept on resonance due to limited dynamic range (i.e. the detector is not “locked”). The interferometer is a gravitational wave detector only in its linear operating regime, i.e. when all optical cavities are stably locked near resonance for long periods of time [@GenDet].
There are several ways in which environmental noise can couple into the detector readout. The most significant ways are: changing the length of optical cavities, causing laser beam jitter, modulating the path length of scattered light which then recombines with the main laser beam, and introducing frequency noise. However, environmental effects are often non-linear and cannot be removed offline in data processing.
Seismic Influences
------------------
LIGO seismic isolation systems very efficiently reduce noise above 10 Hz, but amplify noise at the resonances of the mass-spring isolation stages. Feedback control systems keep the Fabry-Perot cavities locked on resonance, and low frequency seismic motion is the main contributor to the length and angular control signals. Moreover, large relative motion between mirrors in-vacuum suspended and out of vacuum sensing photodiodes can generate large control signals, which can cause upconversion [@RyanFF].
The calibrated detector noise shows a steeply descending curve at low frequencies, called the “seismic wall”, due to the residual seismic noise attenuation by suspensions and seismic isolation, following roughly a slope of f$^{-10}$ due to the five layers of isolation of the main optics [@Shyang].
![*The LIGO Livingston Observatory seismic background in different representative conditions, as seen by the horizontal axis of a seismometer located in the corner building. The “microseism” trace shows an instance where the oceanic microseism peak around 0.15 Hz was larger than average. The “noisy day” trace shows the effect of strong, nearby seismic disturbances due to human activity, in this particular case timber logging a few miles away from the detector. The “earthquake” trace shows an increased amplitude of seismic motion at very low frequency typical when large, far-away earthquakes occur. The “quiet” spectrum shows an instance of some of the quietest seismic environment we can expect.*[]{data-label="seismic"}](Fig3.eps)
Transient sources of seismic motion include earthquakes, winds, ground and air traffic. The two detectors in Livingston, LA and Hanford, WA have different seismic backgrounds due to the very different geological structure of their locations [@Daw].
Distant earthquakes produce ground motion with frequencies of 0.03 to 0.1 Hz, and even higher the closer the epicenter is to the detector. The interferometer seismic isolation is largely ineffective at these low frequencies, and many times the detector cannot remain locked. In Fig.\[seismic\] the “earthquake” curve shows the amplitude spectral density of a local seismometer signal during a 5.9 magnitude earthquake near Peru, with a peak around 0.05 Hz. Winds higher than 10-20 miles/hour will cause the buildings to sway enough to affect the detector output, even to the point where the detectors cannot remain locked. The effect of wind shows up mostly in the 0.5-15 Hz frequency range, but also as building tilt at lower frequencies.
Vehicular traffic at highway speeds produce ground motion in the 2-15 Hz band (depending on axel spacing and speed) and distant human activities produce motion in the 1-3Hz range. Because the sources are anthropogenic, there is a large difference between day and night in these bands at both sites, despite their location away from cities. Other sources can show up in this frequency range as well, for example dam operations, forest logging or large scale construction.
Another source of seismic noise for the interferometers is storms in the oceans resulting in low frequency peaks generally highest at twice the wave propagation frequency, which called “microseism peaks” [@micro]. These are seen in the range of 0.07 to 0.7 Hz and couple directly to detector motion. All traces in Fig.\[seismic\] show this peak around 0.15 Hz, but the one labelled “microseism” showcases a particularly high motion instance caused by storms in the Gulf of Mexico and detected in seismometers at LLO. This effect is always present, but may vary by up to two orders of magnitude on the time scale of a few days. Predictably, at LHO the Pacific storms have a larger influence. As with earthquakes, at these low frequencies there is little seismic attenuation, hence the motion couples directly to the detector’s control systems. The seismometer signals were used to create a feedforward servo to reduce the coupling of seismic noise in this frequency band to the GW signal, with best results obtained mid-S6 when the coupling was reduced by a factor of 5 at the microseism with an overall RMS reduction factor of 2 on the DARM signal [@RyanFF].
Because the detectors have 4 km long arms and operate nearly continuously during science runs, earth tides caused by the gravitational pull of the Moon and Sun cause significant changes in the distance between the optics which would exceed the actuator range on the mirrors on a time scale of a few hours. To correct for this, the detectors have a tidal feedforward system which adjusts the position of the chambers or the laser frequency; it is based on tidal predictions calculated from the position of the Sun and Moon with respect to the detectors.
The previously described sources cannot be removed, so we reduce their coupling into the detector, e.g. by seismic feed-forward. A notable exception was the repaving of the main highway near the LHO site, which reduced truck traffic coupling into the detector by about a factor of two. Further, we characterize them well enough to be able to veto transients seen in the GW channel as non-astrophysical signals in our analyses [@Duncan].
There are also sources of vibration local to each observatory building such as motors, the air conditioning system, chillers and pumps, which cause seismic motion and disturb the detector’s output. Many such sources have been localized and mitigated either by seismically isolating them on springs or changing their operation.
Acoustic Influences
-------------------
Acoustic influences refer to sound waves propagating through air and vibrating components of the detector. Some known sources are electronics fans (above 50 Hz), chillers (below 60 Hz), building air control (below 100 Hz), thermally induced building creeks and thumps (broad band), nearby vehicles (50 - 150 Hz), and wind (broad band) [@RobertPage]. Propeller driven aircraft produce acoustic vibration in the range of 50-100 Hz if they fly close to the detector. A software monitor using data from microphones is used to veto such events seen in the GW channel [@PlaneMon]. Fig. \[mics\] shows ambient normal spectra of the microphones in the corner station at each site.
![*Representative microphone spectra in the corner station at both sites, showing the acoustic background for the detector. At low frequency LHO has lower ambient acoustic noise due to extra insulation on the air conditioning system (to lower acoustic correlations between the previously present two colocated Hanford detectors). At high frequency LHO has a higher ambient acoustic noise due to the electronics racks which are in the same room as the detector, while at LLO the electronics racks are in a separate location. For Advanced LIGO the electronics will also be removed from the detector space at LHO.*[]{data-label="mics"}](Fig4.eps)
The in-vacuum systems of the interferometer including the photodiodes which read the GW signal are isolated to various degrees from direct acoustic wave propagation. However, several auxiliary systems are not in vacuum (see optical tables in Fig. \[llopem\]) and have been found to be the major sources of coupling acoustic noise into the readout of the detector. For this reason, all out of vacuum optical tables have been acoustically insulated with enclosures in order to minimize the propagation of acoustic noise.
Furthermore, acoustic noise can vibrate the outer suspension points of the in-vacuum system which then couples to high-frequency resonances of the seismic isolation. This effect has to be taken into account for auxiliary in-vacuum optics, especially those pertaining to the readout port.
Acoustic noise has been found to couple primarily through beam jitter, beam clipping or scattering, all of which transform acoustically driven motion of the optical mounts into modulations on the primary and auxiliary photodiode signals. We have taken careful measures to reduce scatter, such as using beam dumps for stray beams, removing windows from all photodiodes, setting lenses at an angle and using damping material on optical mounts.
Magnetic Influences
-------------------
Magnetic noise sources relevant for LIGO are all of electric origin, such as building heaters, large motors, lights or relatively near-by high-voltage power lines up to 4km away from the site. These peaks are not stationary in frequency or amplitude, so they create noise in a wider frequency range than just a narrow peak at the respective frequency. Furthermore, since the 60 Hz harmonics from AC power lines are large in the GW signal as well as some of the control signals, other narrow-frequency peaks in the region of 0.1 to 10 Hz which are not in the LIGO frequency band of interest can modulate the GW signal producing sidebands around large peaks like the 60 Hz harmonics. Fig. \[mags\] shows the ambient spectra of the magnetic background for the LIGO detectors in S6 in the corner station.
![*Representative magnetometer spectra in the corner station at both sites, showing the magnetic background for the detectors. The Livingston detector has a higher magnetic background, likely due to power lines present much closer to the site than at the Hanford detector site. Except for the 60 Hz harmonics, both background levels are low enough that they are not a significant limit to LIGO sensitivity, as described in Section \[Meas\]. The broadening of the 60 Hz peak in the LLO spectrum is due to glitches in the 60 Hz amplitude, whose source we have not yet located.*[]{data-label="mags"}](Fig5.eps)
The major coupling mechanisms for magnetic and electromagnetic noise involve electronic modules, cables and the magnets located on the interferometer optics (used as actuators for mirror position control). Each optic has four magnets glued on its back and one on the side surface, which are then actuated by coils mounted on the frame surrounding the optic. The magnets alternate in polarity so that uniform magnetic field gradients do not directly have a displacement effect on the optic (up to the level the four magnet strengths were matched). However, any magnetic field gradient comparable to the magnetic field produced by the actuation coil can introduce noise in the length measurement directly related to the detector output.
The Crab pulsar [@Crab] would produce continuous GWs near 59.6 Hz (double its rotation frequency), which happens to be very close to the US electric power system frequency at 60 Hz. The possibility of detection or of a significant bound on the amplitude of its GW emission hinges on being able to take sensitive data for long periods of time, to resolve the coherent signal expected from a pulsar. Transients in current flow (such as motors turning on and off) reduce the sensitivity of the detector to the Crab pulsar by broadening the 60 Hz peak. For example, an unknown source of 60 Hz transients at LLO made the Crab pulsar search less sensitive than the LHO search by a significant factor of a few [@RobertPage].
Radio Frequency Influences
--------------------------
LIGO uses a modulation-demodulation scheme, known as heterodyning, to generate error signals for controlling the length and angular degrees of freedom of the interferometer. In S5 it was found that radio frequency (RF) noise from the environment could couple to the modulation frequencies in the interferometer and produce noise in the output signal in the frequency band of interest for GWs. A major change in the upgrade from the fifth science run to the sixth science run was changing the readout from heterodyne detection to a DC homodyne scheme [@aLIGOpath] [@DCreadout]. The DC readout scheme for the main differential arm length signal used in S6 should have reduced this coupling, but it is important to continue to monitor this coupling since RF modulation is still used in the auxiliary length and alignment control system.
Injection Methods {#Meas}
=================
To quantify the effect that environmental influences have on LIGO sensitivity it is necessary to measure both the noise and its coupling to the detector output. Here we describe a method of environmental injections which quantifies the coupling by injecting an environmental signal with known amplitude and spectral content and measuring its effect on the detector.
For seismic injections we use a weighted cart and shakers, for acoustic injections we use a large 500W speaker, for magnetic injections we use a 1m diameter, 100-turn copper coil and for RF injections we use an RF source far outside the buildings, set to 100 Hz near the main modulation frequency of our controls. We use a different power source than the one used for the detector electronics such that the current draws of our equipment do not couple through. For all measurements except the RF ones we place the noise source in the same room as the detector, trying to get large but equal distances both to the assumed coupling sites and the witness sensor. This presents some technical difficulty, since the coupling sites may not be known in advance. We perform injections in various locations with respect to the detector in order to locate the largest coupling point and understand the measurement errors. This is not always possible and comparisons of coupling factors calculated for different injection positions suggest that the error in coupling factors can be as high as a factor of two.
The coupling function is the ratio of the calibrated environmental signal amplitude to the resulting differential arm length displacement. We choose an amplitude large enough that an effect can be produced and measured in the detector output. Because the LIGO detectors are well isolated, the limit to injection amplitudes is most often set by saturation in the sensor readout rather than excessive excitation in the GW readout. The injected environmental signal is typically a harmonic comb produced by a ramped sawtooth waveform. At each frequency multiple we divide the signal amplitude in GW readout by the amplitude in the sensor signal, in calibrated units, giving us a coupling function.
To estimate the level at which the ambient environmental noise couples into the detector, we multiply the measured coupling function by the normal ambient spectrum of the sensor. If this estimated background is an order of magnitude or more beneath the GW readout spectrum, we can say that for conditions close to those measured, this effect is not a significant or limiting noise source. We also track the coupling of these influences over long periods of time to look for variations and identify unwanted changes.
A different method which has proven useful in the past is that of burst injections, which we briefly describe here. We apply a transient vibration to various locations around the detector, e.g. tapping an optical table, and look for large coupling sites. This method is hard to quantify due to variation in injection strength at the test location and closest relevant sensor, but in terms of relative effects on the GW signal we can narrow down and investigate suspected coupling sites.
Mitigation of either the source or the coupling is not always possible. Hence it is important to characterize and track the effect in question so as to introduce effective vetoes in the data for non-astrophysical events and quantitatively understand the limiting factors to the detector sensitivity [@S6DQ].
Seismic Studies
---------------
Due to the strong attenuation provided by the LIGO seismic isolation, seismic noise limits LIGO’s sensitivity at relatively low frequencies (under 50 Hz), below the band of best sensitivity around 100-200 Hz. However, nonlinear upconversion processes have the unwanted effect of converting low frequency seismic motion into noise in the frequency band of interest. Efforts to understand the mechanisms of upconversion have implicated Barkhausen noise in the magnets glued to the test masses themselves, or in the magnetic parts associated with the actuation on the mirrors [@S6DQ] [@weiss] .
![*LHO GW readout displacement showing upconversion of a 1.2 Hz seismic injection. Both panels show the same data of the displacement in the GW channel, but in different frequency bands. The left panel shows the linear effect of the injected signal in the detector output, while the right panel shows that this injection produces noise at higher frequencies (known as “upconversion”).*[]{data-label="upconv"}](Fig6.eps)
Seismic injection studies were performed differently at the two sites because the higher ambient ground motion at LLO required the implementation of a supplemental active seismic isolation system. At the Hanford site we use a weighted cart moved back and forth at a frequency of 1.2 Hz. We are able to see an effect in the detector output both at the injected frequency and at higher frequencies, demonstrating upconversion.
The 1.2 Hz frequency was chosen because it is at a resonance of one of the passive seismic isolation stacks, and hence even with a relatively small injection we can excite enough motion in the interferometer to see upconversion. Fig. \[upconv\] shows the result of a 1.2 Hz injection an order of magnitude larger in the detector output than the usual level at 1.2 Hz. At LLO a signal injected with the same amplitude cannot be seen due to the extra seismic attenuation.
Acoustic Studies
----------------
To study the effect of acoustic noise coupling into the detector output we use a 500W speaker to produce an injection, and one or more microphones to measure the amplitude of the acoustic noise it produces. We ensure that the sensor is stationary and that the sound level at the studied coupling points and the sensors is about the same. In these studies, the approximate amplitude of the injection is 75mPa/$\mathrm{\sqrt{Hz}}$.
![*Acoustic injection results at LLO for each detector building. The top panel shows the measured acoustic coupling function obtained from injecting acoustic noise in each builing. The calculated points then get multiplied by the ambient background level sensed by the microphones in each building to obtain the background estimate shown in the bottom panel.The coupling is only estimated at the injection frequencies marked in the plot.*[]{data-label="accf"}](Fig78.eps)
In the top panel of Fig.\[accf\] and Fig.\[accf2\] we show the measured coupling of acoustic noise to the detector output by taking the ratio of the signal seen in the detector output to the signal seen in the microphone. Then we multiply this coupling function by the normal ambient spectrum of the microphones to obtain a predicted contribution of ambient acoustic noise to the detector output. In the corner station the coupling is expected to be higher due to more of the detector subsystems and auxiliary control signals being present (see Fig. \[llopem\]).
In the bottom panel of Fig.\[accf\] we show the predicted ambient acoustic noise contribution at LLO and LHO respectively in S6 (measured in June 2010). At low frequencies the acoustic noise has a 20-30% contribution to the noise in the detector output , while above 200 Hz it is more than 1 to 2 orders of magnitude lower than the strain noise and hence does not contribute significantly to the limit of the detector sensitivity. The amplitude variability is mostly due to the creation of nodes and antinodes of the sound waves in different locations around the detector room; we inject from different directions and placements to find the location from where the injection is the same in amplitude at the sensor and at the suspected coupling sites, but some mismatch remains.
![*Acoustic injection results at LHO for each detector building, equivalent to Fig. \[accf\].*[]{data-label="accf2"}](Fig78lho.eps)
Magnetic Studies
----------------
To study magnetic noise coupling into the detector output we use a 1 meter diameter coil to create a magnetic field injection. We position the injection coil relatively far away (10-20 meters in the same room) such that the field produced would be the same at the studied coupling site (usually the magnet actuators on the optics) and the magnetometer. In these studies, the approximate injection amplitude used is 130nT/$\mathrm{\sqrt{Hz}}$.
We use a calibrated magnetometer to read the size of the injections and compare to the signal amplitude in the detector output. This results in a magnetic coupling function, as the one shown for LLO in S6 in the top panel of Fig.\[magcf\] and for LHO in Fig. \[magcf2\] . We expect the coupling to depend on frequency as f$^{-3}$, with two factors of 1/$f^{2}$ from the pendulum response and one factor of 1/f from eddy current damping of the steel vacuum chamber.
![*Magnetic injection results at LLO for each detector building. The top panel shows the measured magnetic coupling function obtained from injecting magnetic noise in each building. The calculated points then get multiplied by the ambient background level sensed by the magnetometers in each building to obtain the background estimate shown in the bottom panel.The coupling is only estimated at the injection frequencies marked in the plot.*[]{data-label="magcf"}](Fig910llo.eps)
![*Magnetic injection results at LHO for each detector building, equivalent to Fig. \[magcf\].*[]{data-label="magcf2"}](Fig910.eps)
The bottom panel of Fig.\[magcf\] shows the predicted contribution of magnetic and electromagnetic ambient noise to the detector output. We conclude that, excluding the 60 Hz and its harmonics, ambient low-frequency electromagnetic noise did not significantly affect LIGO sensitivity in S6.
Radio Frequency Studies {#rfinj}
-----------------------
To study radio frequency electromagnetic noise coupling into the detector output we place an amplified RF signal generator outside the corner building, far enough away (approximately 250m) to produce the same amplitude RF injection on the length scale of the detector corner components (where the RF control signals are read). We tune the injection close to 24.5 MHz, the main modulation frequency for the interferometer controls. We then measure the resulting injection strength with a radio antenna near the detector and compare to the signal we see in the detector readout.
During the fifth science run, when RF readout was used, the RF ambient contribution was determined to be two orders of magnitude or more below the detector background. This was expected to become even lower with the use of DC readout, and was found to be 3 orders of magnitude below the detector output.
Conclusions and Future Studies {#End}
==============================
LIGO was designed to be isolated from environmental noise sources in its gravitational wave measurement band of 50 Hz to 7 kHz. Through injection studies we show that ambient stationary acoustic and magnetic sources do not contribute significantly to the noise limiting the S6 LIGO sensitivity. We have also shown the presence of seismic upconversion noise although the mechanism has not been fully understood. We prove that our PEM sensors are more sensitive to the environment than the detector output, making them essential in ruling out environmental causes for candidate GW signals. Furthermore, the PEM system has proven useful in investigating and eliminating undesired large couplings of acoustic, seismic and magnetic noise in various frequency bands.
The environment at the detector sites will remain the same for Advanced LIGO, but the vastly different design of Advanced LIGO will undoubtedly have very different coupling mechanisms and levels for the same environmental noise sources. The same level of environmental coupling as measured in S6 would however be a limiting noise source for Advanced LIGO and this has been carefully taken into account in the design of the seismic, suspension, optic actuation and other auxiliary systems. Advanced LIGO is not expected to be limited by environmental noise above 20 Hz.
With the experience gained from initial LIGO we will perform similar investigations for the Advanced LIGO detector, measuring the environmental coupling levels, searching for the causes of unwanted features or noise limits we discover in the new detector output, and mitigate any sources or mechanisms we find in the process.
We thank the LIGO Laboratory and their staff without which this research would not be possible. We also thank Z Marka and N Christensen for useful comments. A Effler received support from the National Science Foundation through the grant 1205882.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
bibliography:
- 'CLICdp\_template.bib'
title: 'CP-violating Higgs-gauge boson couplings in $H\nu \bar{\nu}$ production at three energy stages of CLIC'
---
Introduction
============
Although the observation of a scalar particle with mass about 125 GeV compatible with the Standard Model (SM) Higgs boson at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) [@Aad:2012tfa; @Chatrchyan:2012xdj] marked a milestone in particle physics, evidence for new physics beyond the SM has not been observed yet in the analysis of combined ATLAS and CMS data to probe the couplings of the Higgs boson. Therefore, one of the main topics of the High-Luminosity LHC (HL-LHC) program and envisaged future high-energy collider projects will be the precise measurement of the Higgs-boson couplings to the SM particles.
In the SM framework, the experimental data is currently consistent with a CP-even hypothesis and the charge conjugation-parity (CP) violation is described by Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix [@Cabibbo:1963yz; @Kobayashi:1973fv] with a single complex phase in the Yukawa sector. However, the origin of the baryon asymmetry of the universe can not be explained by the CP violation in the SM [@Dine:2003ax]. An extended Higgs sector together with CP-violation beyond the Standard Model (SM) is one of the conceivable options to explain the baryon asymmetry of the Universe. Especially, the couplings of Higgs to SM gauge bosons and/or fermions are interesting possibilities which contain new sources of CP-violation. A well-known approach of searching for new physics in a model-independent way is the SM Effective Field Theory (EFT). The basic principle of this approach is that all new physics contributions to the SM are included with higher-dimensional operators conforming to $SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y$ SM gauge symmetry [@Buchmuller:1985jz; @Grzadkowski:2010es]. The possibility of CP-violating couplings involving higher-dimensional interaction terms containing the Higgs and gauge boson pairs cannot be discarded in the investigation of new physics. Searches for CP-violating Higgs-gauge boson couplings to higher-dimensional operators were previously performed in many rewarding studies at experimental LHC data [@Aaboud:2018xdt; @Aad:2015tna; @Sirunyan:2019nbs; @Sirunyan:2019twz] and phenomenologically at LHC [@Godbole:2007cn; @Christensen:2010pf; @Desai:2011yj; @Godbole:2013lna; @Brod:2013cka; @Gavela:2014vra; @Dolan:2014upa; @Dwivedi:2015nta; @Rong:2016lmo; @Bernlochner:2018opw], at HE-LHC and HL-LHC [@Ferreira:2016jea; @Dwivedi:2016xwm; @Cepeda:2019klc], at future $e^+e^-$ [@Han:2000mi; @Hagiwara:2000tk; @Ginzburg:2000rm; @Biswal:2005fh; @Rao:2006hn; @Dutta:2008bh; @Biswal:2008tg; @Sahin:2008jc; @Biswal:2009ar; @Rindani:2009pb; @Beneke:2014sba; @Amar:2014fpa; @Craig:2015wwr; @Kumar:2015eea; @Sahin:2017mha] and $ep$ colliders [@Biswal:2012mp]. The precision measurements of the Higgs boson couplings with the other SM particles at the LHC and planned future colliders will give us detailed information about its true nature. Among the proposed future collider projects, the Compact Linear Collider (CLIC) is a mature option for a future linear electron-positron collider [@Linssen:2012hp; @Charles:2018vfv], which is currently under development as a possible large-scale installation at CERN. Additionally, CLIC comes to the fore with features such as i) allowing the precise determination of the properties of the Higgs boson well beyond the precision of the HL-LHC [@Abramowicz:2016zbo; @Robson:2018zje], ii) being a unique and innovative two-beam acceleration technique that can reach accelerating gradients of 100 MV/m, iii) providing high-luminosity $e^+e^-$ collisions at a series of center-of-mass energy stages from a few hundred GeV up to 3 TeV, iv) benefiting from the clean experimental environment and good knowledge of the initial state to allow precise measurements of many reactions. To diversify the physics opportunities, CLIC will be operated in several center-of-mass energy stages. A first stage at 380 GeV center of mass energy gives a suitable platform not only to the Higgsstrahlung process in which $e^+e^-$ collisions enables a unique Higgs physics programme, but also to perform a scan over the $t\bar t$ production threshold [@Roloff:2018dqu; @Abramowicz:2018rjq]. The higher-energy stages, currently assumed to be at 1.5 TeV (second stage) and 3 TeV (third stage), provide a unique sensitivity for a large number of new physics scenarios. Updated integrated luminosities for these three energy stages, based on accelerator ramp-up and up-time scenarios, are 1.0 ab$^{-1}$, 2.5 ab$^{-1}$ and 5.0 ab$^{-1}$, respectively [@Robson:2018zje]. Each stage is planned to run seven or eight years with a two-year commissioning between so that the physics program will be completed within approximately 25-30 years.
Since dimension-6 CP-even operators have been studied in CLIC [@Charles:2018vfv; @Denizli:2017pyu], we investigate the effect of CP-violating dimension-6 operators of the $HWW$, $H\gamma\gamma$ and $HZZ$ vertices defined by an SM EFT Lagrangian in the $e^+e^-\to \nu \bar{\nu} H$ production process at the three energy stages of CLIC in this study. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: in the next section we give details of the Effective Field Theory approach and operators of the dimension-6 CP-violating interactions of the Higgs boson and electroweak gauge boson in the Strongly-Interacting Light Higgs (SILH) basis. In section 3, the event selection criteria and cut optimization of the signal and relevant background processes are discussed for each stage of CLIC. In section 4, the sensitivity of CP-violating dimension-6 Higgs-Gauge boson couplings is extracted by applying $\chi^2$ criteria. Finally, we conclude and compare our obtained limits with current experimental results in section 5.
Effective Operators
===================
It is well known that all operators which define quark and lepton fields along with a single Higgs doublet field interacting via an $SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y$ SM gauge symmetry are restricted to have mass dimension of four or less in the SM Lagrangian ( $\mathcal{L}_{\textrm SM}$ ). In the Effective Field Theory (EFT) approach, the SM Lagrangian is extended with higher-dimensional operators having coefficients of inverse powers of mass ($\Lambda$), and hence are suppressed if this mass is large compared to the reachable experimentally energies; $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}_{\textrm SM} + \sum_{i}\frac{c_{i}}{\Lambda^2}\mathcal{O}_{i}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Lambda$ is the new physics scale, $\mathcal{O}_{i}$ are the dimension-six operators, and the coefficients $c_i$ are dimensionless parameters of the new physics coupling to the SM particles. It is also noted that we ignore the dimension-5 operators responsible for generating Majorana neutrinos and are only concerned with the extended Lagrangian with dimension-6 operators. The most general gauge-invariant dimension-6 Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}$ can be expressed in a convenient basis of independent operators $\mathcal{O}_{i}$ using normalized Wilson coefficients as $\bar c_{i}=c_{i}/\Lambda^2$ that are free parameters [@Giudice:2007fh; @Contino:2013kra; @Alloul:2013naa]. In this work, we consider the dimension-6 CP-violating interactions of the Higgs boson and electroweak gauge boson in the SILH basis as [@Alloul:2013naa]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{CPodd}
{\cal L}_{CPV} &= & \frac{i g\ \tilde c_{HW}}{m_W^2} D^\mu \Phi^\dag T_{2k} D^\nu \Phi {\widetilde W}_{\mu \nu}^k
+ \frac{i g'\ \tilde c_{ HB}}{m_W^2} D^\mu \Phi^\dag D^\nu \Phi {\widetilde B}_{\mu \nu}
+ \frac{g'^2\ \tilde c_{\gamma}}{m_W^2} \Phi^\dag \Phi B_{\mu\nu} {\widetilde B}^{\mu\nu} \nonumber\\
&+&\frac{g_s^2\ \tilde c_{ g}}{m_W^2} \Phi^\dag \Phi G_{\mu\nu}^a {\widetilde G}^{\mu\nu}_a
+\frac{g^3\ \tilde c_{ 3W}}{m_W^2} \epsilon_{ijk} W_{\mu\nu}^i W^\nu{}^j_\rho {\widetilde W}^{\rho\mu k}
+\frac{g_s^3\ \tilde c_{ 3G}}{m_W^2} f_{abc} G_{\mu\nu}^a G^\nu{}^b_\rho {\widetilde G}^{\rho\mu c} \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where the dual field strength tensors are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde B_{\mu\nu} = \frac12 \epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} B^{\rho\sigma} \ , \quad
\widetilde W_{\mu\nu}^k = \frac12 \epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} W^{\rho\sigma k} \ , \quad
\widetilde G_{\mu\nu}^a = \frac12 \epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} G^{\rho\sigma a} \ .\end{aligned}$$ and $\Phi$ is the Higgs field containing a single $SU(2)_L$ doublet of fields; $B^{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu B_\nu-\partial_\nu B_\mu$ and $W^{\mu \nu}=\partial_\mu W_\nu^k-\partial_\nu W_\mu^k+g\epsilon_{ijk}W_\mu^iW_\nu^j$ are the electroweak field strength tensor and $G^{\mu\nu}$ is the strong field strength tensors; $g'$, $g$ and $g_s$ denote coupling constant of $U(1)_Y$, $SU(2)_L$ and $SU(3)_C$ gauge fields, respectively; the generators of $SU(2)_L$ in the fundamental representation are given by $T_{2k}=\sigma_k/2$ and $\sigma_k$ are the Pauli matrices. The SM EFT Lagrangian (Eq.(\[CPodd\])) containing the Wilson coefficients in the SILH basis of dimension-6 CP-violating operators can be defined in terms of the mass eigenstates after electroweak symmetry breaking (Higgs boson, W, Z, photon, etc.) as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gbase}
{\cal L}_{CPV}& = &\
- \frac{1}{4} \tilde g_{{\scriptscriptstyle}hgg} G^a_{\mu\nu} \tilde G^{\mu\nu} h
- \frac{1}{4} \tilde g_{{\scriptscriptstyle}h\gamma\gamma} F_{\mu\nu} \tilde F^{\mu\nu} h
- \frac{1}{4} \tilde g_{{\scriptscriptstyle}hzz} Z_{\mu\nu} \tilde Z^{\mu\nu} h \nonumber\\
&-& \frac{1}{2} \tilde g_{{\scriptscriptstyle}haz} Z_{\mu\nu} \tilde F^{\mu\nu} h
- \frac{1}{2} \tilde g_{{\scriptscriptstyle}hww} W^{\mu\nu} \tilde W^\dag_{\mu\nu} h,\end{aligned}$$ where $W_{\mu\nu}$, $Z_{\mu\nu}$ and $F_{\mu\nu}$ are the field strength tensors of $W$-boson, $Z$-boson and photon, respectively. The effective couplings in gauge basis defined as dimension-6 operators are given in Table \[mtable\].
\[mtable\]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\tilde g_{{\scriptscriptstyle}hgg}$= $-\frac{4 \tilde c_{{\scriptscriptstyle}g} g_s^2 v}{{m_{{\scriptscriptstyle}W}}^2}$ $\tilde g_{ h\gamma\gamma}$ $= -\frac{8 g \tilde c_{ \gamma} {s_{{\scriptscriptstyle}W}}^2}{{m_{{\scriptscriptstyle}W}}}$
$\tilde g_{ hzz}$ =$\frac{2 g}{{c_{{\scriptscriptstyle}W}}^2 {m_{{\scriptscriptstyle}W}}} \Big[ \tilde c_{ HB} {s_{{\scriptscriptstyle}W}}^2 - 4 \tilde c_{ \gamma} {s_{{\scriptscriptstyle}W}}^4 + {c_{{\scriptscriptstyle}W}}^2 \tilde c_{ HW}\Big]$ $\tilde g_{ h\gamma z}$ =$\frac{g {s_{{\scriptscriptstyle}W}}}{{c_{{\scriptscriptstyle}W}}{m_{{\scriptscriptstyle}W}}} \Big[ \tilde c_{HW} - \tilde c_{ HB} + 8 \tilde c_{ \gamma} {s_{{\scriptscriptstyle}W}}^2\Big]$
$\tilde g_{{\scriptscriptstyle}hww}$=$\frac{2 g}{{m_{{\scriptscriptstyle}W}}} \tilde c_{{\scriptscriptstyle}HW}$
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: The relations between Lagrangian parameters in the mass basis (Eq.\[CPodd\]) and in the gauge basis (Eq. \[gbase\]). ($c_W\equiv\cos \theta_W$, $s_W\equiv\sin \theta_W$)
The parametrization of Ref.[@Alloul:2013naa] which is based on the formulation given in Ref.[@Contino:2013kra] is considered in our analysis. Since it chooses to remove two fermionic invariants while retaining all the bosonic operators, the parametrization is not complete as explained in Ref. [@Alonso:2013hga; @Brivio:2017bnu]. This choice assumes completely unbroken $U(3)$ flavor symmetry of the UV theory where the coefficient of these operators are unit matrices in flavor space. Therefore, we focus on the flavor diagonal dimension-six effects. The main purpose of this paper is to obtain a sensitivity for $\tilde c_{HW}$, $\tilde c_{HB}$ and $\tilde c_{\gamma}$ couplings without considering higher-order electroweak effects. For this purpose, the effects of the dimension-6 CP-violating operators on $H \nu \bar{\nu} $ production mechanism in $e^+e^-$ collisions are investigated using the Monte Carlo simulations with leading order in `MadGraph5_aMC_v2.6.3.2@NLO` [@Alwall:2014hca]. The described CP-violating operators in the effective Lagrangian of Eq.(\[CPodd\]) are implemented into the `MadGraph5_aMC@NLO` based on FeynRules [@Alloul:2013bka] and the UFO [@Degrande:2011ua] framework. The cross sections of $e^+e^-\to\nu \bar{\nu} H$ process at generator level as a function of $\tilde c_{HW}$, $\tilde c_{HB}$ and $\tilde c_{\gamma}$ couplings for three center of mass energy stages of CLIC; 380 GeV, 1.5 and 3 TeV are given in Fig.\[fig1\]. The quoted cross sections do not include the effects of initial state radiation (ISR) and beamstrahlung. In this figure, we vary dimension-6 CP-violating operators individually and calculate the contributions to the corrections from new physics. Since one coefficient at a time is varied in the calculation of cross section, only quartic contributions are taken into account. It can be easily seen that the contribution of the $\tilde c_{HW}$ coupling to the SM increases with center of mass energy even in a small value region for the $e^+e^-\to\nu \bar{\nu} H$ process.
![ The total cross section as a function of CP-violating $\tilde{c}_{HW}$, $\tilde{c}_{HB}$ and $\tilde{c}_{\gamma}$ couplings for the $e^+e^-\to \nu \bar{\nu} H$ process at the CLIC with $\sqrt s$=380 GeV, $\sqrt s$=1.5 TeV and $\sqrt s$=3 TeV. \[fig1\]](tcs_n "fig:") ![ The total cross section as a function of CP-violating $\tilde{c}_{HW}$, $\tilde{c}_{HB}$ and $\tilde{c}_{\gamma}$ couplings for the $e^+e^-\to \nu \bar{\nu} H$ process at the CLIC with $\sqrt s$=380 GeV, $\sqrt s$=1.5 TeV and $\sqrt s$=3 TeV. \[fig1\]](tcs_15 "fig:") ![ The total cross section as a function of CP-violating $\tilde{c}_{HW}$, $\tilde{c}_{HB}$ and $\tilde{c}_{\gamma}$ couplings for the $e^+e^-\to \nu \bar{\nu} H$ process at the CLIC with $\sqrt s$=380 GeV, $\sqrt s$=1.5 TeV and $\sqrt s$=3 TeV. \[fig1\]](tcs_3 "fig:")
Signal and Background Analysis
==============================
In this section, we investigate the sensitivity of CLIC at three center of mass energy stages for CP-violating $\tilde c_{HW}$, $\tilde c_{HB}$, $\tilde c_{\gamma}$ effective couplings through the $e^+e^- \rightarrow \nu\bar{\nu}H$ process and relevant backgrounds assuming Higgs boson decays to a pair of $b$-quarks. The effective CP-violating dimension-6 couplings and SM contribution ($S+B_H$) in the $e^+e^-\to\nu \bar{\nu} H$ process are taken into account. The following relevant backgrounds are included in the analysis. **i)** The same final state as the considered signal process including only SM contribution is the $e^+e^-\to\nu \bar{\nu} H$ process, which is labelled $B_H$. **ii)** The production of two Z bosons is labeled as $B_{ZZ}$, considering one $Z$ decaying to $b\bar b$ while the other decays to $\nu\bar \nu$. **iii)** The $W$ boson pair production is labeled as $B_{WW}$, considering one $W$ decaying to $b\bar b$ while the other decays to $l\nu$.
![ The pseudo-rapidity versus transverse momentum distribution of leading ($b1$) and sub-leading ($b2$) b-tagged jets for SM $e^+e^-\to \nu \bar{\nu} H$ process with defined WP (90 % b-tagging efficiency) in CLIC Delphes card at $\sqrt s$=380 GeV \[fig2a\]](2D_firstbJet_pTvsEta_SM_90 "fig:") ![ The pseudo-rapidity versus transverse momentum distribution of leading ($b1$) and sub-leading ($b2$) b-tagged jets for SM $e^+e^-\to \nu \bar{\nu} H$ process with defined WP (90 % b-tagging efficiency) in CLIC Delphes card at $\sqrt s$=380 GeV \[fig2a\]](2D_secondbJet_pTvsEta_SM_90 "fig:")
**iv)** $B_{tt}$ is the pair production of the top quark process i.e. , $e^+e^-\to t \bar t$ in which one of the top quark (anti-top quark) decays to $W^+b (W^{-} \bar b)$, where the leptonic decay channel of $W^{\pm}$ is considered. **v)** The hadronic decay channel of the $Z$ boson in the $e^+e^-\to\nu \bar{\nu} Z$ process is taken into account and labelled $B_{Z\nu\nu}$. As shown in Ref [@Abramowicz:2016zbo], one can expect to see significant contribution to the background due to $e\gamma$ and $\gamma\gamma$ collisions. In our analysis framework, we generate events via Madgraph which does not include photons from Beamstrahlung. Therefore, we neglect these backgrounds in our analysis. The cross section of the considered backgrounds in our analysis are given in Table \[tab5\].
$\sqrt s$ $B_H$ $B_{ZZ}$ $B_{WW}$ $B_{tt}$ $B_{Z\nu\nu}$
----------- ------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------------
380 GeV 0.059 0.597 10.229 0.618 0.419
1.5 TeV 0.310 0.079 1.437 0.079 1.339
3 TeV 0.497 0.026 0.47 0.020 2.16
: The cross sections of the relevant backgrounds in pb before applying any cuts \[tab5\]
All signal and background events (500k for each) are generated in `MadGraph5_aMC@NLO` and passed through PYTHIA 8.2 for parton shower and hadronization at parton level [@Sjostrand:2014zea]. We use the Delphes 3.4.1 [@deFavereau:2013fsa] for a fast simulation of detector response with tuned CLIC detector cards [@cliccard; @Tehrani:2017]. There are three cards, designed for each center-of-mass energy stage of CLIC: $\sqrt s=$380 GeV, 1.5 TeV and 3 TeV. Some properties of the cards are as follows. Jets are clustered with the Valencia Linear Collider (VLC) algorithm [@Boronat:2014hva; @Boronat:2016tgd] in exclusive mode with a fixed number of jet ($N=2,3,4,5,6$ where $N$ corresponds to the number of partons expected in the tree level final state) and five different cone size parameters ($R=0.5,0.7,1.0,1.2,1.5$) with $\gamma$=$\beta$=1 using FastJet [@Cacciari:2011ma] . The b-tagging efficiency and misidentification rates implemented in this cards are discussed in Ref. [@Tehrani:2015tla] where the three working points (WP) are defined; the tight WP (50 % b-tagging efficiency), medium WP (70 % b-tagging efficiency), and loose WP (90 % b-tagging efficiency). In our analysis, we picked $N_{jets}$=2 and $R$=1.0 for three energy stages with the three $b$-tagging working points, tight, medium and loose. Then, all events are analyzed by using the ExRootAnalysis utility [@exroot] with ROOT 6.16. [@Brun:1997pa].
![ Normalized distributions of transverse momentum and pseudo-rapidity of tagged b-jets at $\sqrt s=$ 380 GeV; $b1$ (first row) and $b2$ (second row) for signal with $\tilde{c}_{HW} $=0.1 and relevant background processes. \[fig2\]](380_firstbJetPT "fig:") ![ Normalized distributions of transverse momentum and pseudo-rapidity of tagged b-jets at $\sqrt s=$ 380 GeV; $b1$ (first row) and $b2$ (second row) for signal with $\tilde{c}_{HW} $=0.1 and relevant background processes. \[fig2\]](380_firstbJetEta "fig:")\
![ Normalized distributions of transverse momentum and pseudo-rapidity of tagged b-jets at $\sqrt s=$ 380 GeV; $b1$ (first row) and $b2$ (second row) for signal with $\tilde{c}_{HW} $=0.1 and relevant background processes. \[fig2\]](380_secondbJetPT "fig:") ![ Normalized distributions of transverse momentum and pseudo-rapidity of tagged b-jets at $\sqrt s=$ 380 GeV; $b1$ (first row) and $b2$ (second row) for signal with $\tilde{c}_{HW} $=0.1 and relevant background processes. \[fig2\]](380_secondbJetEta "fig:")
$\sqrt{s}$ = 380 GeV {#sqrts-380gev .unnumbered}
--------------------
In addition to initial jet clustering (i.e, $N_{jets}$=2 and $R$=1.0), events having no charged leptons are selected for further analysis (Cut-0). In order to separate signal and background events we use the following kinematical cuts: **i)** In exclusive mode, we have two jets which are obtained from subsequent decay of Higgs, tagged as $b$-tagged jets. The $b$-tagged jet with the highest transverse momentum ($p_T$) is labeled as $b1$ and the one with lower $p_T$ as $b2$ (Cut-1). The phase space of b-tag jets for the SM background process with the same final state as signal at b-tagging efficiency working points (90 %) defined in the CLIC Delphes card are shown in Fig.\[fig2a\]. The transverse momentum and pseudo-rapidity of $b1$ and $b2$ for signal (for $\tilde{c}_{HW} $=0.1 benchmark point) and all relevant background processes taking the loose $b$-tagging working point are shown in Fig.\[fig2\]. **ii)** As is seen from Fig.\[fig2a\] and Fig.\[fig2\], we select a region in phase space where the transverse momentum of $b1$ is $p_T^{b1}>50$ GeV and $b2$ has $p_T^{b2}>30$ GeV, and the pseudo-rapidity of the $b$-tagged jets is $|\eta^{b1,b2}|$ $\leq 2.0$.
![ Normalized distributions of Missing Energy Transverse (${\not}E_T$), scalar sum of the transverse energy ($H_T$) (in the first row), and invariant mass and transverse momentum of reconstructed Higgs boson at $\sqrt s=$ 380 GeV for signal with $\tilde{c}_{HW} $=0.1 and relevant background processes. \[fig3\]](380_missingET "fig:") ![ Normalized distributions of Missing Energy Transverse (${\not}E_T$), scalar sum of the transverse energy ($H_T$) (in the first row), and invariant mass and transverse momentum of reconstructed Higgs boson at $\sqrt s=$ 380 GeV for signal with $\tilde{c}_{HW} $=0.1 and relevant background processes. \[fig3\]](380_scalarHT "fig:")\
![ Normalized distributions of Missing Energy Transverse (${\not}E_T$), scalar sum of the transverse energy ($H_T$) (in the first row), and invariant mass and transverse momentum of reconstructed Higgs boson at $\sqrt s=$ 380 GeV for signal with $\tilde{c}_{HW} $=0.1 and relevant background processes. \[fig3\]](380_Hmass "fig:")![ Normalized distributions of Missing Energy Transverse (${\not}E_T$), scalar sum of the transverse energy ($H_T$) (in the first row), and invariant mass and transverse momentum of reconstructed Higgs boson at $\sqrt s=$ 380 GeV for signal with $\tilde{c}_{HW} $=0.1 and relevant background processes. \[fig3\]](380_higgsPT "fig:")
This cut suppresses $B_{ZZ}$ and $B_{Z\nu\bar{\nu}}$ backgrounds. For signal and background processes, distributions of the missing energy transverse (${\not\mathrel{E}}_T$), scalar sum of the transverse energy ($H_T$), the invariant mass and the transverse momentum of the reconstructed Higgs-boson from two $b$-jets are depicted in Fig.\[fig3\]. Subsequent cuts can be determine from these figures: The missing energy transverse ${\not\mathrel{E}} _T > 30$ GeV provides a way of reducing the $B_{ZZ}$ and $B_{tt}$ backgrounds at the region with low missing energy transverse (Cut-2). **iii)** Requiring scalar sum of the transverse energy $(H_T)$ to be 100 GeV $< H_T <$ 200 GeV drastically reduces $B_{tt}$ background (Cut-3). **iv)** The invariant mass of the reconstructed Higgs-boson from two $b$-jets is required to be 96 GeV $< M_{(b\bar b)} <$ 136 GeV (Cut-4). **v)** Finally, the transverse momentum of reconstructed Higgs-boson from two $b$-jets $p_T^{bb}>75$ GeV is used to obtain limits on the $\tilde{c}_{HW}$,$\tilde{c}_{HB}$ and $\tilde{c}_{\gamma}$ couplings (Cut-5). The selection criteria and cut flows are summarized in Table \[tab2\]. The numbers of events after each cut are shown in Table \[tab3\] for three working points of b-tagging efficiency. As seen from this table, $B_{ZZ}$, $B_{tt}$, $B_{Z\nu\nu}$ backgrounds are reduced more than signal $(S + B_H)$ and background $B_H$.
Cuts $\sqrt s=$380 GeV $\sqrt s=$1.5 TeV $\sqrt s=$3 TeV
------- ------------------------- -- --------------------------------------------------- -- ----------------- --
Jet clustering: VLC with $\beta=\gamma=1.0$ R=1.0
Cut-0 Exclusive clustering with $N_j=2$ Jets
energy scale is assumed to be 1.0
lepton vetos
Cut-1 requiring two b-tagged jets
Cut-2 $p_{T}^{b1} > 50$ GeV, $p_{T}^{b2} > 30$ GeV
$\eta^{b1,\,b2}\leqslant 2.0$, ${\not}E_T>30$ GeV
Cut-3 100 GeV $<H_T<$ 200 GeV $H_T >$ 100 GeV
Cut-4 96 GeV $< M_{(b\bar b)}< 136$ GeV
Cut-5 $p_T^{b\bar b} >$ 75 GeV
: Event selection criteria and applied kinematic cuts used for the analysis at three energy stages of CLIC \[tab2\]
Cuts $b$-tagging eff. $S+B_H$ $B_H$ $B_{ZZ}$ $B_{WW}$ $B_{tt}$ $B_{Z\nu\nu}$
------- ------------------ --------- ------- ---------- ---------- ---------- --------------- --
Cut-0 - 69134 51743 288932 3059160 314891 298485
50% 10206 7664 10565 143 14861 13763
Cut-1 70% 20007 15036 20669 307 29643 27411
90% 33523 25086 39704 28764 62056 49403
50% 5376 3912 3004 82 6286 3963
Cut-2 70% 10570 7637 5950 82 12271 7883
90% 17679 12669 10534 1657 24136 14007
50% 5130 3716 2603 61 2027 3360
Cut-3 70% 10074 7253 5115 82 3797 6613
90% 16858 12025 8891 1350 7351 11736
50% 4322 3162 131 - 776 144
Cut-4 70% 8470 6171 225 - 1464 268
90% 14169 10207 432 123 2963 522
50% 2971 1959 122 - 393 116
Cut-5 70% 5815 3842 195 - 768 207
90% 9691 6352 381 20 1427 417
: Number of signal for $\tilde{c}_{HW}$=0.1 and relevant backgrounds events after applied kinematic cuts used for the analysis at $\sqrt{s}$ = 380 GeV with $L_{int}=1$ ab$^{-1}$ for the three working point of b-tagging efficiency.\[tab3\]
Quantitatively, the final effect of all the cuts at the loose WP (90 %) is approximately 14 % and 12 % for S+$B_{SM}$($\tilde{c}_{HW}$=0.1) and $B_{H}$ while it is 0.1 %, 0.4 % and 0.1 % for the $B_{ZZ}$, $B_{WW}$, $B_{tt}$, $B_{Z\nu\nu}$ backgrounds, respectively.
![The transverse momentum distributions of the reconstructed Higgs boson of the signal for $\tilde{c}_{HW}$ = 0.05, 0.08 and 0.1; $\tilde{c}_{HB} $ = 0.08, 0.1 and 0.3; $\tilde{c}_{\gamma}$ = 0.05, 0.08 and 0.1 couplings and relevant total SM background processes at $\sqrt s=$ 380 GeV. These distributions are normalized to $L_{int}=1.0$ ab$^{-1}$ \[fig4\]](380_ratioPlot_tchw "fig:") ![The transverse momentum distributions of the reconstructed Higgs boson of the signal for $\tilde{c}_{HW}$ = 0.05, 0.08 and 0.1; $\tilde{c}_{HB} $ = 0.08, 0.1 and 0.3; $\tilde{c}_{\gamma}$ = 0.05, 0.08 and 0.1 couplings and relevant total SM background processes at $\sqrt s=$ 380 GeV. These distributions are normalized to $L_{int}=1.0$ ab$^{-1}$ \[fig4\]](380_ratioPlot_tchb "fig:") ![The transverse momentum distributions of the reconstructed Higgs boson of the signal for $\tilde{c}_{HW}$ = 0.05, 0.08 and 0.1; $\tilde{c}_{HB} $ = 0.08, 0.1 and 0.3; $\tilde{c}_{\gamma}$ = 0.05, 0.08 and 0.1 couplings and relevant total SM background processes at $\sqrt s=$ 380 GeV. These distributions are normalized to $L_{int}=1.0$ ab$^{-1}$ \[fig4\]](380_ratioPlot_tca "fig:")
After Cut-4, the transverse momentum distributions of the Higgs boson of the signal for $\tilde{c}_{HW}$ = 0.05, 0.08 and 0.1; $\tilde{c}_{HB} $ = 0.08, 0.1 and 0.3; $\tilde{c}_{\gamma}$ = 0.05, 0.08 and 0.1 couplings and relevant total SM background processes ($B_{tot}$= $B_H$+$B_{ZZ}$+$B_{WW}$+$B_{tt}$+$B_{Z\nu\nu}$) are given in Fig.\[fig4\]. The kinematic distributions shown in Fig.\[fig2\]-\[fig4\] are considered at the loose WP (90 %) of b-tagging efficiency. All figures (Fig.\[fig2a\]-\[fig4\]) and number of events in Table \[tab3\] are normalized to the cross section of each process times the integrated luminosity, $L_{int}$ = 1.0 ab$^{-1}$.
$\sqrt{s}$ = 1.5 TeV and 3 TeV {#sqrts-1.5tev-and-3tev .unnumbered}
------------------------------
![Normalized distributions of transverse momentum and pseudo-rapidity of tagged b-jets at $\sqrt s=$ 1.5 TeV; $b1$ (first row) and $b2$ (second row) for signal with $\tilde{c}_{HW} $=0.1, and relevant background processes. \[fig5\]](15TeV_firstbJetPT "fig:") ![Normalized distributions of transverse momentum and pseudo-rapidity of tagged b-jets at $\sqrt s=$ 1.5 TeV; $b1$ (first row) and $b2$ (second row) for signal with $\tilde{c}_{HW} $=0.1, and relevant background processes. \[fig5\]](15TeV_firstbJetEta "fig:")\
![Normalized distributions of transverse momentum and pseudo-rapidity of tagged b-jets at $\sqrt s=$ 1.5 TeV; $b1$ (first row) and $b2$ (second row) for signal with $\tilde{c}_{HW} $=0.1, and relevant background processes. \[fig5\]](15TeV_secondbJetPT "fig:") ![Normalized distributions of transverse momentum and pseudo-rapidity of tagged b-jets at $\sqrt s=$ 1.5 TeV; $b1$ (first row) and $b2$ (second row) for signal with $\tilde{c}_{HW} $=0.1, and relevant background processes. \[fig5\]](15TeV_secondbJetEta "fig:")
The analysis of $\sqrt{s}=$ 380 GeV is repeated for a 1.5 and 3 TeV center of mass energy of CLIC with $L_{int}=$ 2.5 ab$^{-1}$ and $L_{int}=$ 5.0 ab$^{-1}$, respectively. For the signal ($\tilde{c}_{HW}$= 0.1) and all relevant background processes taking the loose b-tagging working point at $\sqrt{s}=$ 1.5 TeV, the distributions of transverse momentum and pseudo-rapidity of $b1$ and $b2$ are shown in Fig.\[fig5\] while the missing energy transverse (${\not\mathrel{E}}_T$) and scalar sum of the transverse energy ($H_T$) are given in Fig.\[fig6\]. Both of these figures are normalized to the cross section of each process times the integrated luminosity, $L_{int}=$ 2.5 ab$^{-1}$. We only modified Cut-3 to $H_T> 100$ GeV as shown in Table \[tab2\] at $\sqrt{s}=$ 1.5 TeV. Since similar distributions to Fig.\[fig5\] and \[fig6\] have been observed at $\sqrt{s}=$ 3 TeV, we implemented the same cuts used in the $\sqrt{s}=$ 1.5 TeV analysis.
![ Normalized distributions of Missing Energy Transverse (${\not}E_T$), scalar sum of the transverse energy ($H_T$) at $\sqrt s=$ 1.5 TeV for signal with $\tilde{c}_{HW} $=0.1, and relevant background processes. \[fig6\]](15TeV_missingET "fig:") ![ Normalized distributions of Missing Energy Transverse (${\not}E_T$), scalar sum of the transverse energy ($H_T$) at $\sqrt s=$ 1.5 TeV for signal with $\tilde{c}_{HW} $=0.1, and relevant background processes. \[fig6\]](15TeV_scalarHT "fig:")
Finally, the transverse momentum distributions of the Higgs boson of the signal for $\tilde{c}_{HW}$ = 0.05, 0.08 and 0.1; $\tilde{c}_{HB} $ = 0.08, 0.1 and 0.3; $\tilde{c}_{\gamma}$ = 0.05, 0.08 and 0.1 couplings (left to right) and relevant total SM background processes ($B_{tot}$) after Cut-4 are shown in Fig.\[fig7\]-Fig.\[fig8\] corresponding to 1.5 and 3 TeV center of mass energies, respectively. After applying the final cut, which requires the transverse momentum of $b\bar b$ system to be greater than 75 GeV, we obtained the normalized number of events for signals and relevant SM backgrounds. The total normalized number of events in the existence of effective couplings ($\tilde{c}_{HW} $=0.1, $\tilde{c}_{HB}$=0.3 and $\tilde{c}_{\gamma}$=0.3) and all relevant backgrounds are given in Table \[tab4\].
![ The transverse momentum distributions of the reconstructed Higgs boson of the signal for $\tilde{c}_{HW}$ = 0.05, 0.08 and 0.1; $\tilde{c}_{HB} $ = 0.08, 0.1 and 0.3; $\tilde{c}_{\gamma}$ = 0.05, 0.08 and 0.1 couplings and relevant total SM background processes at $\sqrt s=$ 1.5 TeV. These distributions are normalized to $L_{int}=2.5$ ab$^{-1}$ \[fig7\]](15TeV_ratioPlot_tchw "fig:") ![ The transverse momentum distributions of the reconstructed Higgs boson of the signal for $\tilde{c}_{HW}$ = 0.05, 0.08 and 0.1; $\tilde{c}_{HB} $ = 0.08, 0.1 and 0.3; $\tilde{c}_{\gamma}$ = 0.05, 0.08 and 0.1 couplings and relevant total SM background processes at $\sqrt s=$ 1.5 TeV. These distributions are normalized to $L_{int}=2.5$ ab$^{-1}$ \[fig7\]](15TeV_ratioPlot_tchb "fig:") ![ The transverse momentum distributions of the reconstructed Higgs boson of the signal for $\tilde{c}_{HW}$ = 0.05, 0.08 and 0.1; $\tilde{c}_{HB} $ = 0.08, 0.1 and 0.3; $\tilde{c}_{\gamma}$ = 0.05, 0.08 and 0.1 couplings and relevant total SM background processes at $\sqrt s=$ 1.5 TeV. These distributions are normalized to $L_{int}=2.5$ ab$^{-1}$ \[fig7\]](15TeV_ratioPlot_tca "fig:")
![ The transverse momentum distributions of the reconstructed Higgs boson of the signal for $\tilde{c}_{HW}$ = 0.05, 0.08 and 0.1; $\tilde{c}_{HB} $ = 0.08, 0.1 and 0.3; $\tilde{c}_{\gamma}$ = 0.05, 0.08 and 0.1 couplings and relevant total SM background processes at $\sqrt s=$ 3 TeV. These distributions are normalized to $L_{int}=5$ ab$^{-1}$ \[fig8\]](3TeV_ratioPlot_tchw "fig:") ![ The transverse momentum distributions of the reconstructed Higgs boson of the signal for $\tilde{c}_{HW}$ = 0.05, 0.08 and 0.1; $\tilde{c}_{HB} $ = 0.08, 0.1 and 0.3; $\tilde{c}_{\gamma}$ = 0.05, 0.08 and 0.1 couplings and relevant total SM background processes at $\sqrt s=$ 3 TeV. These distributions are normalized to $L_{int}=5$ ab$^{-1}$ \[fig8\]](3TeV_ratioPlot_tchb "fig:") ![ The transverse momentum distributions of the reconstructed Higgs boson of the signal for $\tilde{c}_{HW}$ = 0.05, 0.08 and 0.1; $\tilde{c}_{HB} $ = 0.08, 0.1 and 0.3; $\tilde{c}_{\gamma}$ = 0.05, 0.08 and 0.1 couplings and relevant total SM background processes at $\sqrt s=$ 3 TeV. These distributions are normalized to $L_{int}=5$ ab$^{-1}$ \[fig8\]](3TeV_ratioPlot_tca "fig:")
----------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- ----------------------------- -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------------
$\sqrt s$ (TeV) $S+B_H$ $S+B_H$ $S+B_H$ $B_H$ $B_{ZZ}$ $B_{WW}$ $B_{tt}$ $B_{Z\nu\nu}$
($\tilde{c}_{HW} $=0.1) ($\tilde{c}_{HB} $=0.3) ($\tilde{c}_{\gamma} $=0.3)
1.5 157328 152037 241080 100982 176 - 69 5943
3 535113 429096 623424 309473 115 - 9 20565
----------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- ----------------------------- -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------------
: Number of events for signal ($\tilde{c}_{HW} $=0.1, $\tilde{c}_{HB}$=0.3 and $\tilde{c}_{\gamma}$=0.3 couplings) and relevant backgrounds after Cut-4 for the analysis at $\sqrt{s}$ = 1.5 and 3 TeV with $L_{int}=2.5$ and 5.0 ab$^{-1}$ for the 90 % working point of b-tagging efficiency. \[tab4\]
Sensitivity of Higgs-Gauge Boson Couplings
==========================================
![ Comparison of obtained 95 % C.L. allowed range i) at the three working points of b-tagging efficiency for CLIC-380 with $L_{int}=1.0$ ab$^{-1}$ (on the left) ii) at 90 % working point of b-tagging efficiency for all energy stages of CLIC compared with HL-LHC projection limits at 14 TeV center of mass energy for the integrated luminosity of 3000 fb$^{-1}$ [@Ferreira:2016jea] (on the right). \[fig9\]](b-tagging_comparison380GeV "fig:") ![ Comparison of obtained 95 % C.L. allowed range i) at the three working points of b-tagging efficiency for CLIC-380 with $L_{int}=1.0$ ab$^{-1}$ (on the left) ii) at 90 % working point of b-tagging efficiency for all energy stages of CLIC compared with HL-LHC projection limits at 14 TeV center of mass energy for the integrated luminosity of 3000 fb$^{-1}$ [@Ferreira:2016jea] (on the right). \[fig9\]](CLIC_allStages_upd_Lum "fig:")
The sensitivities to CP-violating dimension-6 Higgs couplings are obtained by a $\chi^2$ criterion method with systematic error, defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq6}
\chi^{2} (\tilde c)=\sum_i^{n_{bins}}\left(\frac{N_{i}^{NP}(\tilde c)-N_{i}^{B_{tot}}}{N_{i}^{B_{tot}}\Delta_i}\right)^{2},\end{aligned}$$ where $N^{NP}$ is the total number of events in the presence of effective couplings $(S)$ and total SM backgrounds $(B_{tot})$, $N^{B_{tot}}$ is the total number of events only coming from SM backgrounds, defined as $B_{tot}=B_H + B_{ZZ}+B_{WW}+B_{tt}+B_{Z\nu\nu}$, and $\Delta_i=\sqrt{\delta_{sys}^2+\frac{1}{N_i^B}}$ is the combined systematic ($\delta_{sys}$) and statistical error in each bin. In this study, we concentrate on obtaining $95~\%$ confidence level (CL) limits of the $\tilde c_{HW}$, $\tilde c_{HB}$, $\tilde c_{\gamma}$ couplings via the $e^+e^- \rightarrow \nu\bar{\nu} H$ signal process at CLIC with the center of mass energies at three stages $\sqrt{s}$= 380 GeV, 1.5 TeV, 3 TeV, and the integrated luminosities $L_{int}$= 1.0 ab$^{-1}$, 2.5 ab$^{-1}$, 5.0 ab$^{-1}$ respectively. Since we study the $H \to bb$ decay channel, b-tagging plays an important role in our analysis. To see the effect, we present the comparison of $b$-tagging efficiencies with three working points of $50~\%$, $70~\%$, $90~\%$ for the first stage center of mass energy of CLIC (CLIC-380) in the left panel of the Fig.\[fig9\]. This figure emphasizes that the sensitivity of CLIC increases with the increase of $b$-tagging efficiencies, resulting in a better limit with the loose working point ($90~\%$ b-tagging efficiency). We measure the $H\nu\nu$ cross section in the channel $H\to b\bar b$ after b-tagging with statistical uncertainty of 1.67 % in the first stage of CLIC for an integrated luminosity of 1 ab$^{-1}$ at $\sqrt s = 380$ GeV, assuming unpolarised beam and loose WP (90%) of b-tagging efficiency. In the higher energy CLIC stages for integrated luminosity 2.5 ab$^{-1}$ at $\sqrt s = 1.5$ TeV and 5 ab$^{-1}$ at $\sqrt s = 3$ TeV, the statistical uncertainties are 0.26 % and 0.15 %, respectively. In the right panel of Fig.\[fig9\], we plot obtained 95 % C.L. limits for all three stages of CLIC and the recent High-Luminosity (HL-LHC) projections on these limits [@Ferreira:2016jea]. The HL-LHC projection limit on $\tilde c_{\gamma}$= $[-0.6\times10^{-3};0.6\times10^{-3}]$ is reported via $pp\to h\to\gamma\gamma$ process which is sensitive to this coupling. However, we obtain better limits on $\tilde c_{HW}$, $\tilde c_{HB}$ than HL-LHC projection limits. At 3 TeV energy stage of CLIC, the sensitivities of $\tilde c_{HW}$ and $\tilde c_{HB}$ couplings are $[-7.0\times10^{-3};7.0\times10^{-3}]$ and $[-3.0\times10^{-2};3.0\times10^{-2}]$ with integrated luminosity of 5.0 ab$^{-1}$, respectively. Our limits on $\tilde c_{HW}$, $\tilde c_{HB}$ at $\sqrt s=3$ TeV with $L_{int}$= 5 ab$^{-1}$ are one order of magnitude better than HL-LHC projected limits and also better than observed current experimental limit on $\tilde c_{HW}$ (assuming $\tilde c_{HW}$=$\tilde c_{HB}$) measured in the two-photon final state using 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt s = 13$ TeV by the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider [@Aaboud:2018xdt]. We also recomputed the bounds including systematic uncertainties at 95 % C.L.. In the case of 0.3 % systematic uncertainty as in Ref.[@Abramowicz:2016zbo], the constraint on $\tilde{c}_{HW}$ and $\tilde{c}_{HB}$ at the highest energy stage of CLIC with $L_{int}$= 5.0 ab$^{-1}$ are $[-9.97\times10^{-3};9.97\times10^{-3}]$ and $[-4.18\times10^{-2};4.18\times10^{-2}]$. These bounds are lower than the experimental current limits and HL-LHC projected limits even at the first stage of CLIC.
The validity of the EFT can be tested with the relation between the new physics scale and the Wilson coefficients of the dimension-six operators as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\bar c\sim\frac{g_*^2v^2}{\Lambda^2}
\end{aligned}$$ where $g_*$ is the coupling constant of the heavy degrees of freedom with the SM particles. An upper bound on the new physics scale using $g_*=4\pi$ and obtained limits on $\tilde{c}_{HW}$ and $\tilde{c}_{HB}$ are 36.94 TeV and 17.84 TeV, respectively. This upper bounds are within the range of EFT.
Conclusions
===========
For a better understanding of the new physics beyond the SM in the Higgs sector, among the proposed future colliders, CLIC is an attractive option that has a clean environment. In this paper, we have emphasized the effects of CP-violating dimension-6 operators defined by an SM EFT Lagrangian approach via the $e^+e^- \rightarrow \nu\bar{\nu} H$ process for three energy stages of CLIC ($\sqrt{s}=$ 380 GeV, 1.5 TeV, 3 TeV) and integrated luminosities ($L_{int}$= 1.0 ab$^{-1}$, 2.5 ab$^{-1}$, 5.0 ab$^{-1}$). We have presented the kinematical distributions of signal and relevant backgrounds; transverse momentum and rapidity of b-tagged quarks, missing energy transverse, scalar sum of the transverse energy and the invariant mass and transverse momentum of the Higgs boson, reconstructed from a pair of b-quarks (with 90 % b-tagging efficiency). In order to obtain limits on the CP-violating dimension-6 couplings at each energy stage of CLIC, we focused on the transverse momentum of the reconstructed Higgs boson at three working points of b-tagging efficiency considering realistic detector effects with tuned CLIC detector cards designed for each center of mass energy stage in a cut-based analysis. The $e^+e^-\to\nu \nu H$ process is more sensitive to $\tilde{c}_{HW}$ and $\tilde{c}_{HB}$ couplings than the other CP-violating dimension-six couplings at three energy stages of CLIC. The obtained sensitivity of couplings at 95 % C.L. of the $\tilde{c}_{HW}$ and $\tilde{c}_{HB}$ in all energy stages of CLIC are better than both HL-LHC projected and observed current experimental limits. As a conclusion, CLIC with three energy stages will offer advantages to probing the couplings of Higgs with SM particles that appear in the new physics beyond the SM scenarios.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey Turkish (TUBITAK), Grand No: 118F333. The authors would like to thank to CLICdp group for the discussions, especially to Philipp G. Roloff for valuable suggestions in the CLICdp Working Group analysis meeting. The authors would also like to thank to L. Linssen for encouraging us to involve in CLICdp collaboration.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the mean field equation on two-dimensional annular domains, and prove that if $\1$ and $\2$ are two blow up points of a blowing-up solution sequence of the equation, then we must have $\1=- \2$.'
address:
- 'Dipartimento di Matematica, Università di Roma “La Sapienza", P.le A. Moro 2 - 00185 Roma'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Osaka City University & OCAMI, Sumiyoshi-ku, Osaka, 558-8585, Japan'
author:
- Massimo Grossi
- Futoshi Takahashi
title: On the location of two blow up points on an annulus for the mean field equation
---
Introduction {#s1}
============
In this paper we consider the problem $$\label{MFE}
\begin{cases}
-\lap u = \la \frac{e^u}{\intO e^u dx} & \quad \mbox{in} \; \Omega, \\
u = 0 & \quad \mbox{on} \; \pd\Omega,
\end{cases}$$ where $\Omega$ is a smooth bounded domain in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ and $\la > 0$ is a parameter. The equation (\[MFE\]) is known as the mean field equation and is considered to have relations with various fields of mathematical physics, such as Onsager’s vortex theories, Chern-Simons-Higgs gauge theory, and so on. The interested readers should refer the books by Tarantello [@Tarantello(book)], Yang [@Yang(book)], and the references therein. The possible blowing-up or non-compactness for a solution sequence of the problem have attracted many authors for more than two decades, and many efforts have been devoted to study such a critical phenomena.
Now, thanks to the works by [@Nagasaki-Suzuki], [@Brezis-Merle] and [@Ma-Wei], we have the following description of the blowing-up solution sequences: Let $u_n$ be a sequence of solutions to (\[MFE\]) for $\la = \la_n$ such that $\| u_n \|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}$ is not bounded from above while $\la_n = O(1)$ as $n \to \infty$. Then there exists a subsequence $\la_n$ and a set $\mathcal{S} = \{ a_1, \cdots, a_l \}$ with $a_i\in\Omega$, such that $\la_n \to 8\pi l, \; l \in {\mathbb{N}}$, and $$\la_n\frac{e^{u_n}}{\intO e^{u_n} dx} \weakto 8\pi \sum_{i=1}^l \delta_{a_i}$$ in the sense of measures. Moreover, each $a_i \in \mathcal{S}$ must satisfy the condition $$\label{Chara}
\frac{1}{2} \nabla R(a_i) - \sum_{j = 1, j \ne i}^l \nabla_x G(a_i, a_j) = \vec{0}, \quad (i=1,2,\cdots,l)$$ where $G = G(x,y)$ is the Green function with pole $y \in \Omega$ subject to the Dirichlet boundary condition: $$-\lap_x G(x,y) = 2 \pi \delta_y \quad \text{in} \; \Omega, \quad G(x,y) \Big|_{x \in \pd\Omega} = 0,$$ and $R$ is the Robin function defined as $$R(y) = \lim_{x \to y} \( \log |x-y|^{-1} - G(x,y) \).$$ Therefore, the relation (\[Chara\]) can be considered as a characterization of the location of blow up points for $(\ref{MFE})$.
On the other hand, several existence results of $l$-points blowing-up solutions to $(\ref{MFE})$ have been found by several authors, see [@Esposito-Grossi-Pistoia], [@delPino-Kowalczyk-Musso]. Their results can be summarized as follows:
Let $l \ge 1$ be an integer and set $$\Delta = \{(x_1, \cdots, x_l) \in \Omega^l \; | \; x_i = x_j \; \text{for some} \; i,j \in \{1,\cdots,l\} \},$$ where $\Omega^l \subset {\mathbb{R}}^{2l}$ denotes an $l$-time products of $\Omega$. Define $\mathcal{F}: \Omega^l \setminus \Delta \to {\mathbb{R}}$ as $$\mathcal{F}(\xi_1,\cdots,\xi_l) = \sum_{i=1}^l R(\xi_i) - \sum_{i \ne j \atop 1 \le i,j \le l} G(\xi_i, \xi_j),$$ here, we agree that $\mathcal{F}(\xi) = R(\xi)$ for $\xi \in \Omega$ when $l = 1$. Note that the condition $\nabla_{(\xi_1,\cdots,\xi_l)} \mathcal{F}(a_1, \cdots, a_l) = 0$ is equivalent to (\[Chara\]) for $(a_1, \cdots, a_l) \in \Omega^l$. By these notations, let $(a_1, \cdots, a_l) \in \Omega^l \setminus \Delta$ be a “stable" critical point [@Esposito-Grossi-Pistoia], or a “nontrivial" critical point [@delPino-Kowalczyk-Musso] of $\mathcal{F}$, that is, $(a_1, \cdots, a_l)$ satisfies (\[Chara\]) and some additional “stability" or “nontriviality" condition is satisfied. Then there exists a sequence of solutions blowing up exactly at $\mathcal{S} = \{ a_1, \cdots,a_l \}$. In particular, if the domain is not simply-connected, there always exists a sequence of blowing-up solution which blows up at $l$ points on the domain for any $l \in {\mathbb{N}}$. Contrary to the above, we do not have any blowing-up solution sequence with multiple $(l \ge 2)$ blow up points, if the domain is convex. This nonexistence of multiple blow up points holds true for several nonlinear problems other than (\[MFE\]), see [@Grossi-Takahashi]. The relationship between the location of blow up points and the geometry of the domain seems to be an interesting subject.
In this note, we turn to the study of the location of blow up points for the mean field equation (\[MFE\]). We concentrate to the case when $\Omega$ is an annulus. In this case, C. C. Chen and C. S. Lin [@Chen-Lin(AIHP)] showed the following:
([@Chen-Lin(AIHP)] Theorem 1.4.) \[Theorem:Chen-Lin\] Let $\{ u_n \}$ be a solution sequence to (\[MFE\]) for $\la = \la_n$ with $\la_n \to 16 \pi$ such that $u_n$ blows up at two points $P_1$ and $P_2$ on the annulus, Let $P_{1,n}$ and $P_{2,n}$ be the two local maximum points near $P_1$ and $P_2$ respectively, then $P_{1,n}$, $P_{2,n}$ and the origin form a straight line $l_n$ and $u_n$ is symmetric with respect to the line $l_n$ for $n$ large. Consequently, $P_1, P_2$ and the origin are located on a same line.
The proof of Theorem \[Theorem:Chen-Lin\] is done by the method of rotating planes, which is applicable to other kinds of nonlinear elliptic equations, see for example [@Lin-Takagi]. An analogous result for problems involving the critical Sobolev exponent was obtained in [@CP].\
Theorem \[Theorem:Chen-Lin\] leaves open the question of whether the blow up points $P_1$ and $P_2$ are anti-symmetric, i.e. $$\label{i2}
\1=-\2.$$ In this note, by using the characterization of blow up points (\[Chara\]) and the explicit form of the Green function on an annulus derived by D. M. Hickey [@Hickey(Ann.Math)], [@Hickey(Bull.AMS)], we show .
\[Theorem:Main\] Let $\{ u_n \}$ be a sequence of solutions to (\[MFE\]) for $\la = \la_n$ with $\la_n \to 16 \pi$ such that $u_n$ blows up at two points $\1$ and $\2$ on the annulus, Then we have $\1=-\2$.
Next we compute the value of $|\1|=|\2|$.
\[1\] Define $r_0 = |\1| = |\2|$ where $\1, \2 \in A = \{ a< |x| <a \}$ are two blow up points. Then $r_0$ is the unique solution of the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{condition1}
2 \frac{\log (r/b)}{\log (a/b)} - \frac{1}{2}
= \sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{b^{2m} - a^{2m}} ( r^{2m} - (ab)^{2m} r^{-2m} ) ((-1)^m + 1)\end{aligned}$$ for $r\in(a,b)$.
The explicit form of the Dirichlet Green function on a two dimensional annulus can be seen in several literatures, see for example, [@Courant-Hilbert], [@Akhiezer], [@Aksoy-Celebi]. Most of them use the Weierstrass doubly periodic functions. We find that the Fourier expansion of the Green function is convenient to our analysis. Since the derivation in [@Hickey(Ann.Math)] is easy and seems less known, we prove the formula in Appendix for the sake of completeness.
Proof of Theorem \[Theorem:Main\]. {#s2}
==================================
Let $A = \{ x \in {\mathbb{R}}^2 \; | \;a< |x| < b \}$ be a two-dimensional annulus. Then the Green function on $A$ is explicitly written as follows.
(Hickey’s formula [@Hickey(Ann.Math)]) \[Prop:Hickey\] Let $G_A = G_A(x,y)$ be the Green function on $A$ with pole $y \in A$: $$-\lap_x G_A(x,y) = 2 \pi \delta_y \quad \text{in} \; A, \quad G_A(x,y) \Big|_{x \in \pd A} = 0.$$ Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Green_A}
G_A(x,y) &= -\log |x-y| + A_0(y) + B_0(y) \log |x| \notag \\
&-\sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{m} ( A_m(y) |x|^m + B_m(y) |x|^{-m} ) \cos m(\theta - \theta_y),\end{aligned}$$ where $x = (x_1, x_2) = (|x| \cos \theta, |x| \sin \theta)$, $y = (|y| \cos \theta_y, |y| \sin \theta_y)$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{AmBm}
A_0(y) &= \log b \frac{\log (a/|y|)}{\log (a/b)}, \quad B_0(y) = \frac{\log (|y|/b)}{\log (a/b)}, \notag \\
A_m(y) &= \frac{|y|^m - \( \frac{a^2}{|y|} \)^m}{b^{2m} - a^{2m}}, \quad
B_m(y) = \frac{a^{2m} \( \( \frac{b^2}{|y|} \)^m - |y|^{m} \)}{b^{2m} - a^{2m}}.\end{aligned}$$
As a corollary, we have
\[Cor:Robin\_A\] The Robin function on the annulus $A = \{a< |x| < b \} \subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Robin_A}
R_A(y) &:= \lim_{x \to y} \( -\log |x-y| - G_A(x,y) \) \notag \\
&= -\frac{(\log |y| - \log b)^2}{\log (a/b)} - \log b \notag \\
&+ \sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{m} \frac{1}{b^{2m} - a^{2m}} ( |y|^{2m} - 2a^{2m} + (ab)^{2m} |y|^{-2m} ).\end{aligned}$$
Note that $R_A$ is a radial function on $A$, as it was stated in [@Chen-Lin(AIHP)] (Lemma 3.3).
Also using the fact $$\nabla_x = \frac{x}{r} \frac{\pd}{\pd r} + \frac{x^{\perp}}{r^2} \frac{\pd}{\pd \theta}$$ where $r = |x|, x^{\perp} = (-x_2, x_1)$ for $x = (x_1, x_2)$, we obtain the formula for the gradients of $G_A$ and $R_A$ as follows:
\[Cor:D\_Green\_AD\_Robin\_A\] We have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{D_Green_A}
\nabla_x G_A(x,y) &= -\frac{(x-y)}{|x-y|^2} + B_0(y) \frac{x}{|x|^2} \notag \\
&-\frac{x}{|x|} \sum_{m=1}^{\infty} ( A_m(y) |x|^{m-1} - B_m(y) |x|^{-m-1} ) \cos m(\theta - \theta_y) \notag \\
&+ \frac{x^{\perp}}{|x|^2} \sum_{m=1}^{\infty} ( A_m(y) |x|^{m} + B_m(y) |x|^{-m} ) \sin m(\theta - \theta_y),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{D_Robin_A}
\frac{1}{2} \nabla R_A(y)
&= - \frac{\log (|y|/b)}{\log (a/b)} \frac{y}{|y|^2} \notag \\
&+ \sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{b^{2m} - a^{2m}} ( |y|^{2m-1} - (ab)^{2m} |y|^{-2m-1} ) \frac{y}{|y|}.\end{aligned}$$
Now, we prove Theorem \[Theorem:Main\] by direct calculations.
[**Proof of Theorem \[Theorem:Main\].**]{} Let $\1, \2 \in A$, $\1\ne\2$ be two blow up points for a blowing-up solution sequence $\{ u_n \}$ to (\[MFE\]). Since Theorem \[Theorem:Chen-Lin\] holds, the only thing we have to prove Theorem \[Theorem:Main\] is that $|\1| = |\2|$. For that purpose, we will exploit the characterization of blow up points (\[Chara\]). In this case, it reads that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{char_blow_up}
\begin{cases}
&\frac{1}{2} \nabla R_A(\1) = \nabla_x G_A(\1,\2), \\
&\frac{1}{2} \nabla R_A(\2) = \nabla_x G_A(\2,\1),
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ which implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{char_blow_up2}
\begin{cases}
&\frac{1}{2} \nabla R_A(\1) \cdot \1 = \nabla_x G_A(\1,\2) \cdot \1, \\
&\frac{1}{2} \nabla R_A(\2) \cdot \2 = \nabla_x G_A(\2,\1) \cdot \2.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ By using the formulae (\[D\_Green\_A\]), (\[D\_Robin\_A\]), we can write the equations (\[char\_blow\_up2\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{char_blow_up3_1}
&-B_0(\1) + \sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{b^{2m} - a^{2m}} ( |\1|^{2m} - (ab)^{2m} |\1|^{-2m} ) \notag \\
&= -\frac{(\1-\2) \cdot \1}{|\1-\2|^2} + B_0(\2) - \sum_{m=1}^{\infty} ( A_m(\2) |\1|^{m} - B_m(\2) |\1|^{-m} ) \cos m(\theta_{\1} - \theta_{\2}),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{char_blow_up3_2}
&-B_0(\2) + \sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{b^{2m} - a^{2m}} ( |\2|^{2m} - (ab)^{2m} |\2|^{-2m} ) \notag \\
&= -\frac{(\2-\1) \cdot P_2}{|\2-\1|^2} + B_0(\1) - \sum_{m=1}^{\infty} ( A_m(\1) |\2|^{m} - B_m(\1) |\2|^{-m} ) \cos m(\theta_{\1} - \theta_{\2}),\end{aligned}$$ where $\1 = (|\1| \cos \theta_{\1}, |\1| \sin \theta_{\1})$, $\2 = (|\2| \cos \theta_{\2}, |\2| \sin \theta_{\2})$ in polar coordinates. Inserting (\[AmBm\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
&A_m(\2) |\1|^m - B_m(\2) |\1|^{-m} = \frac{1}{b^{2m} -a^{2m}} \times \\
& \left\{ |\1|^m |\2|^m - a^{2m} |\1|^m |\2|^{-m} + a^{2m} |\1|^{-m} |\2|^m - (ab)^{2m} |\1|^{-m} |\2|^{-m} \right\}, \\
&A_m(\1) |\2|^m -B_m(\1) |\2|^{-m} = \frac{1}{b^{2m} - a^{2m}} \times \\
& \left\{ |\1|^m |\2|^m - a^{2m} |\1|^{-m} |\2|^m + a^{2m} |\1|^m |\2|^{-m} - (ab)^{2m} |\1|^{-m} |\2|^{-m} \right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, subtracting (\[char\_blow\_up3\_2\]) from (\[char\_blow\_up3\_1\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{b^{2m} - a^{2m}} ( |\1|^{2m} - (ab)^{2m} |\1|^{-2m} - |\2|^{2m} + (ab)^{2m} |\2|^{-2m} ) \notag \\
&= \frac{|\2|^2 - |\1|^2}{|\1 - \2|^2} - \sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \frac{2a^{2m}}{b^{2m} -a^{2m}}
( |\1|^{-m} |\2|^m - |\1|^m |\2|^{-m} ) \cos m (\theta_{\1} - \theta_{\2}).\end{aligned}$$ From this, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{subtract}
&\frac{|\2|^2 - |\1|^2}{|\2 - \1|^2} \notag \\
&=\sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \frac{|\1|^{2m} - |\2|^{2m}}{b^{2m} - a^{2m}}
\left\{ 1 + \frac{(ab)^{2m}}{|\1|^{2m} |\2|^{2m}} - \frac{2a^{2m}}{|\1|^m |\2|^m} \cos m (\theta_{\1} - \theta_{\2}) \right\}. \end{aligned}$$ Concerning the RHS of (\[subtract\]), we see $$\begin{aligned}
&\left\{ 1 + \frac{(ab)^{2m}}{|\1|^{2m} |\2|^{2m}} - \frac{2a^{2m}}{|\1|^m |\2|^m} \cos m (\theta_{\1} - \theta_{\2}) \right\} \\
&\ge 1 + \frac{(ab)^{2m}}{|\1|^{2m} |\2|^{2m}} - \frac{2a^m b^m}{|\1|^m |\2|^m}
= \( 1 - \frac{(ab)^{m}}{|\1|^{m} |\2|^{m}} \)^2 \ge 0,\end{aligned}$$ since $a < b$. Thus, if $|\1| > |\2|$, $\mbox{LHS of (\ref{subtract})} < 0$ while $\mbox{RHS of (\ref{subtract})} \ge 0$, which is a contradiction. The case of $|\1| < |\2|$ leads to the same contradiction. This implies that $|\1| = |\2|$ must hold, which ends the proof of Theorem \[Theorem:Main\].
Now we compute the value of $|\1| = |\2|$.\
[**Proof of Theorem \[1\].**]{} By inserting $\2 = -\1$ into the first equation of (\[char\_blow\_up\]): $$\frac{1}{2} \nabla R_A(\1) = \nabla_x G_A(\1,\2),$$ and using (\[D\_Green\_A\]), (\[D\_Robin\_A\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
&-\frac{\log (|\1|/b)}{\log (a/b)} \frac{\1}{|\1|^2}
+ \frac{\1}{|\1|^2} \sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{b^{2m} - a^{2m}} ( |\1|^{2m} - (ab)^{2m} |\1|^{-2m} ) \notag \\
&= -\frac{1}{2} \frac{\1}{|\1|^2} + \frac{\log (|\1|/b)}{\log (a/b)} \frac{\1}{|\1|^2} \\
&- \frac{\1}{|\1|^2} \sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^m}{b^{2m} - a^{2m}} ( |\1|^{2m} - (ab)^{2m} |\1|^{-2m} ),\end{aligned}$$ which in turn implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{condition1}
2 \frac{\log (|\1|/b)}{\log (a/b)} - \frac{1}{2}
= \sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{b^{2m} - a^{2m}} ( |\1|^{2m} - (ab)^{2m} |\1|^{-2m} ) \{ (-1)^m + 1 \}\end{aligned}$$ since $\1 \ne 0$. Let $f(r) = 2 \frac{\log (r/b)}{\log (a/b)} - \frac{1}{2}$ for $a < r < b$. $f$ is a monotonically decreasing function with $f(a + 0) = \frac{3}{2}, f(b-0) = -\frac{1}{2}$, and having a unique zero at $r = b^{3/4} a^{1/4}$. Also define $$g(r) = \sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{b^{2m} - a^{2m}} ( r^{2m} - (ab)^{2m} r^{-2m} ) \{ (-1)^m + 1 \}.$$ Since $(-1)^m + 1 \ge 0$ for any $m \in {\mathbb{N}}$, we see $g$ is monotonically increasing with respect to $r$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&\lim_{r \downarrow a} g(r) = \sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{b^{2m} - a^{2m}} (a^{2m} - b^{2m} ) \{ (-1)^m + 1 \} = -\infty, \\
&\lim_{r \uparrow b} g(r) = \sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{b^{2m} - a^{2m}} ( b^{2m} - a^{2m} ) \{ (-1)^m + 1 \} = +\infty,\end{aligned}$$ with having unique zero $r = \sqrt{ab}$. Thus we have the unique $r_0, \sqrt{ab} < r_0 < b^{3/4} a^{1/4}$ such that $f(r_0) = g(r_0)$ by the Intermediate Value Theorem for continuous functions.
By the proof of the last theorem it follows that $\sqrt{ab} < r_0 < b^{3/4} a^{1/4}$.
It is interesting to know what will happen when the number of blow up points is three or more: Up to now, we do not obtain the possible conclusion $|\1| = |\2| = |P_3|$ from the identities $$\begin{cases}
&\frac{1}{2} \nabla R_A(\1) = \nabla_x G_A(\1,\2) + \nabla_x G_A(\1,P_3), \\
&\frac{1}{2} \nabla R_A(\2) = \nabla_x G_A(\2,\1) + \nabla_x G_A(\2,P_3), \\
&\frac{1}{2} \nabla R_A(P_3) = \nabla_x G_A(P_3,\1) + \nabla_x G_A(P_3,\2).
\end{cases}$$ We conjecture that if we have $m$-blow up points on the two-dimensional annulus, then they must be located on the vertices of regular $m$-polygon. The verification of this seems difficult.
Appendix. Proof of Proposition \[Prop:Hickey\] {#Appendix}
==============================================
In this Appendix, we prove Proposition \[Prop:Hickey\]. Let $A = \{ x \in {\mathbb{R}}^2 \; | \; a < |x| < b \}$ be an annulus in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ as before and set $$G_A(x, y) = -\log |x-y| + u(x, y),$$ where $u(x,y)$ is harmonic with respect to $x \in A$ and coincides with $\log |x-y|$ when $x \in \pd A$. We use the polar coordinate for $x, y \in \ol{A}$ and write $x = (|x| \cos \theta, |x| \sin \theta)$, $y = (|y| \cos \theta_y, |y| \sin \theta_y)$. Take $u(x,y)$ in the form $$\begin{aligned}
u(x,y) &= a_0(y) + b_0(y) \log |x| \\
&+ \sum_{m=1}^\infty \( a_m(y) |x|^m + b_m(y) |x|^{-m} \) \cos m \theta \\
&+ \sum_{m=1}^\infty \( c_m(y) |x|^m + d_m(y) |x|^{-m} \) \sin m \theta\end{aligned}$$ which is harmonic in $x$. Recalling the expansion $$\begin{aligned}
&\log |x-y| \Big|_{|x| = b} = \log b - \sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{m} \( \frac{|y|}{b} \)^m \cos m (\theta - \theta_y) \\
&= \log b - \sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{m} \( \frac{|y|}{b} \)^m \cos m \theta_y \cos m \theta
- \sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{m} \( \frac{|y|}{b} \)^m \sin m \theta_y \sin m \theta,\end{aligned}$$ for $y \in A$, $x = (b\cos \theta,b\sin \theta)$, and $$\begin{aligned}
&\log |x-y| \Big|_{|x| = a} = \log |y| - \sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{m} \( \frac{a}{|y|} \)^m \cos m (\theta - \theta_y) \\
&= \log |y| - \sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{m} \( \frac{a}{|y|} \)^m \cos m \theta_y \cos m \theta
- \sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{m} \( \frac{a}{|y|} \)^m \sin m \theta_y \sin m \theta\end{aligned}$$ for $y \in A$, $x = (a\cos \theta,a\sin \theta)$. Thus the conditions $$u(x,y) = \log |x-y| \quad \text{for} \; |x| = b \; \text{and} \; |x| = a$$ reduces to that $$\begin{aligned}
&a_0(y) + b_0(y) \log b = \log b, \\
&a_m(y) b^m + b_m(y) b^{-m} = -\frac{1}{m} \(\frac{|y|}{b}\)^m \cos m \theta_y, \\
&c_m(y) b^m + d_m(y) b^{-m} = -\frac{1}{m} \(\frac{|y|}{b}\)^m \sin m \theta_y, \\
&a_0(y) + b_0(y) \log a = \log |y|, \\
&a_m(y) a^m + b_m(y) a^{-m} = -\frac{1}{m} \(\frac{a}{|y|}\)^m \cos m \theta_y, \\
&c_m(y) a^m + d_m(y) a^{-m} = -\frac{1}{m} \(\frac{a}{|y|}\)^m \sin m \theta_y,\end{aligned}$$ which in turn implies $$\begin{aligned}
&a_0(y) = A_0(y) = \log b \frac{\log \frac{a}{|y|}}{\log \frac{a}{b}}, \\
&b_0(y) = B_0(y) = \frac{\log \frac{b}{|y|}}{\log \frac{b}{a}}, \\
&a_m(y) = -\frac{1}{m} A_m(y) \cos m \theta_y = -\frac{1}{m} \frac{|y|^m - \(\frac{a^2}{|y|}\)^m}{b^{2m} - a^{2m}} \cos m \theta_y, \\
&b_m(y) = -\frac{1}{m} B_m(y) \cos m \theta_y = -\frac{1}{m} \frac{a^{2m} \( \(\frac{b^2}{|y|}\)^m - |y|^m \)}{b^{2m} - a^{2m}} \cos m \theta_y, \\
&c_m(y) = -\frac{1}{m} A_m(y) \sin m \theta_y = -\frac{1}{m} \frac{|y|^m - \(\frac{a^2}{|y|}\)^m}{b^{2m} - a^{2m}} \sin m \theta_y, \\
&d_m(y) = -\frac{1}{m} B_m(y) \sin m \theta_y = -\frac{1}{m} \frac{a^{2m} \( \(\frac{b^2}{|y|}\)^m - |y|^m \)}{b^{2m} - a^{2m}} \sin m \theta_y.\end{aligned}$$ Thus the Green function on $A = \{ a < |x| < b \}$ is written in the form (\[Green\_A\]).
[**Acknowledgement.**]{} Part of this work was done when the second author (F.T) was visiting Università di Roma in April, 2010. He thanks Dipartimento di Matematica for its support and hospitality. F.T was also supported by JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B), No. 23340038, and JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Challenging Exploratory Research, No. 24654043.
[99]{}
N. I. Akhiezer, [*Elements of the Theory of Elliptic Equations,*]{} Translations of Mathematical Monographs, 79. AMS Providence, RI (1990) MR1054205 (91k:33016)
Ü. Aksoy, and A. O. Celebi, [*Dirichlet problem for a generalized inhomogeneous polyharmonic equation in an annular domain,*]{} Complex Var. and Elliptic Equations [**57**]{} (2012) 229-241. MR2886739
H. Brezis, and F. Merle, [*Uniform estimates and blow-up behavior for solutions of $-\lap u = V(x)e^u$ in two dimensions,*]{} Comm. Partial Differential Equations [**16**]{} (1991) 1223-1253. MR1132783 (92m:35084)
D. Castorina, F. Pacella, [*Symmetry of positive solutions of an almost-critical problem in an annulus*]{}, Calc. Var. and Partial Differential Equations, [**23**]{} (2005) 125-138. MR2138079 (2006a:35109)
C. C. Chen. and C. S. Lin, [*On the symmetry of blowup solutions to a mean field equation,*]{} Ann. I. H. Poincaré [**18**]{} (2001) 271-296. MR1831657 (2002d:35064)
R. Courant, and D. Hilbert, [*Methods of Mathematical Physics, Vol. I,*]{} Interscience Publishers, Inc., New York, N.Y., (1953) MR0065391 (16,426a)
M. Del Pino, M. Kowalczyk, and M. Musso, [*Singular limits in Liouville-type equations,*]{} Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations [**24**]{} (2005) 47-81. MR2157850 (2006h:35089)
P. Esposito, M. Grossi and A. Pistoia, [*On the existence of blowing-up solutions for a mean field equation,*]{} Ann. I. H. Poincaré [**22**]{} (2005) 227-257. MR2124164 (2005k:35112)
M. Grossi, and F. Takahashi: [*Nonexistence of multi-bubble solutions to some elliptic equations on convex domains,*]{} J. Funct. Anal. [**259**]{} (2010) 904-917. MR2652176 (2011e:35100)
D. M. Hickey: [*The equilibrium point of Green’s function for an annular region,*]{} Ann. Math. (2) [**30**]{} (1928/29) no.1-4, 373–383. MR1502889
D. M. Hickey: [*A note on the equilibrium point of the Green’s function for an annulus,*]{} Bull. Amer. Math. Soc [**41**]{} (1935), no.6, 389–393. MR1563100
C. S. Lin, and I. Takagi: [*Methods of rotating planes applied to a singularly perturbed Neumann problem,*]{} Calc. Var. and Partial Differential equations. [**13**]{} (2001) 519-536. MR1867940 (2002k:35116)
L. Ma, and J. Wei, [*Convergence for a Liouville equation,*]{} Comment. Math. Helv. [**76**]{} (2001) 506-514. MR1854696 (2002h:35097)
K. Nagasaki, and T. Suzuki, [*Asymptotic analysis for two-dimensional elliptic eigenvalue problems with exponentially dominated nonlinearities,*]{} Asymptotic Anal. [**3**]{} (1990) 173-188. MR1061665 (91f:35053)
G. Tarantello: [*Selfdual Gauge Field Vortices: An Analytical Approach,*]{} Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and Their Applications 72, Birkhäuser, Boston (2008) MR2403845 (2009k:58028)
Y. Yang: [*Solitons in Field Theory and Nonlinear Analysis,*]{} Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, New York (2001) MR1838682 (2002m:58001)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Ilija Buri'' c$^1$,'
- Volker Schomerus$^1$
- and Evgeny Sobko$^2$
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
date: May 2020
title: The Superconformal ing Equation
---
Introduction
============
Conformal field theories describe very special points in the space of quantum field theories that seem to provide unique views into non-perturbative dynamics through a variety of rather complementary techniques, such as holography, integrability, localization and the conformal bootstrap. One of the principal analytical tools for conformal field theory are conformal partial wave (or block) expansions that were proposed early on in [@Ferrara:1973vz]. The role they play in the study of models with conformal symmetry is very similar to the role of Fourier analysis in systems with translational symmetry. While conformal blocks are entirely determined by kinematics, they allow to separate very neatly the dynamical meat of a theory from its kinematical bones. For example, an $N$-point function of local operators in a conformal field theory can be a very complicated object. If expanded in conformal blocks, however, the coefficients factorize into a set of three-point couplings, i.e. most of the complicated dependence on the insertion points resides in the kinematical skeleton of a conformal field theory. This is the reason conformal blocks expansions are so important.
Conformal blocks for four-point functions of local operators in bosonic conformal field theories are relatively well studied by now, see e.g. [@Dolan:2000ut; @Dolan:2003hv; @Dolan:2011dv; @Costa:2011dw; @SimmonsDuffin:2012uy; @Penedones:2015aga; @Hogervorst:2013sma; @Echeverri:2016dun; @Schomerus:2016epl; @Karateev:2017jgd; @Isachenkov:2017qgn; @Dyer:2017zef; @Erramilli:2019njx; @Fortin:2019fvx; @Fortin:2019dnq; @Fortin:2020ncr] and references therein. On the other hand, while we know of many examples of such theories in $d=3$ dimensions, most conformal field theories in $d\geq 4$ seem to possess supersymmetry. The enhancement from conformal to superconformal symmetry should lead to simplifications, at least once the kinematical aspects are well under control. This, however, is not yet the case. In fact, while four-point blocks of half-BPS operators or the superprimary components of more general supermultiplets have been constructed and applied, see e.g. [@Dolan:2001tt; @Dolan:2004mu; @Nirschl:2004pa; @Poland:2010wg; @Fortin:2011nq; @Fitzpatrick:2014oza; @Khandker:2014mpa; @Bobev:2015jxa; @Bissi:2015qoa; @Doobary:2015gia; @Lemos:2015awa; @Liendo:2016ymz; @Lemos:2016xke; @Chang:2017xmr; @Bobev:2017jhk; @Liendo:2018ukf; @Berkooz:2014yda; @Li:2016chh; @Li:2017ddj; @Gimenez-Grau:2019hez], relatively little is actually known about blocks and block expansions for more generic external multiplets that span long(er) representations of the superconformal algebra. On the other hand it has been shown in [@Cornagliotto:2017dup] that the bootstrap with long multiplets is significantly more constraining on CFT data than the bootstrap with e.g. external BPS operators, see also [@Kos:2018glc]. This provides strong motivation to investigate blocks and crossing symmetry for long multiplets, which is the main goal of our work.
In order to explain the main results of this paper, let us briefly review a few basic facts about conformal partial wave expansions in bosonic conformal field theories. We start from some four-point correlator $G(x_i)$ with its full dependence on the insertion points $x_i$ of the fields. As is well known, conformal symmetry implies that $G(x_i)$ is fully determined by a some function of the two cross ratios $u,v$ one can form from four points in $\mathbb{R}^d$. More precisely, it is possible to write the correlation function $G$ as $$G(x_i) = \Omega(x_i) g(u,v) \ .$$ We stress that such a behavior is not restricted to scalar correlation functions. If the fields carry spin, then $G$ takes values in the space of polarizations of the four fields. The function $g$, on the other hand takes values in the space of four-point tensor structures whose dimension is smaller than that of the space of polarizations, in general, at least for $d > 3$. Hence, one should think of $\Omega$ as a rectangular matrix. We shall refer to such a matrix valued function $\Omega$ of the insertion points as four-point *tensor factor*. In some sense to become clear below it combines all four-point tensor structures into one single object $\Omega$. Many authors have studied tensor structures for spinning four-point functions in conformal field theories, see e.g. [@Osborn:1993cr; @Costa:2011mg; @Costa:2011dw; @Kravchuk:2016qvl; @Cuomo:2017wme; @Karateev:2018oml; @Karateev:2019pvw].
The tensor factor $\Omega(x_i)$ is restricted but not determined by conformal symmetry. In fact, there is some obvious ‘gauge’ freedom that is associated with matrix-valued functions $\zeta(u,v)$ one can move back and forth between the tensor factor $\Omega$ and the function $g(u,v)$, i.e. the gauge symmetry acts as $(\Omega,g) \rightarrow (\Omega \zeta^{-1}, \zeta g)$. The function $g$ of the cross ratios may be expanded in terms of conformal partial waves which, after the influential work of Dolan and Osborn [@Dolan:2000ut; @Dolan:2003hv], are characterised as eigenfunctions of the so-called Casimir differential equations. The form of these equations, however, depends on the gauge choice that is made when splitting $G$ into $\Omega$ and $g$. For four-point functions of identical scalar fields of weight $\Delta_0$, for example, Dolan and Osborn chose $\Omega_s = x_{12}^{-2\Delta_0} x^{-2\Delta_0}_{34}$. Note that this factor $\Omega =
\Omega_s$ also depends on a split of the four points into two sets of two, a choice usually referred to as a channel. Here we have displayed the factor $\Omega$ for the so-called $s$-channel. The $t$-channel is obtained by exchanging the fields inserted at $x_2$ and $x_4$. With their pick of $\Omega_s$, Dolan and Osborn worked out the associated Casimir differential equation for the function $g_s$ and similarly for $g_t$. Solutions of these Casimir equations provided them with a set of blocks $g_{s/t}^{\Delta, l}(u,v)$ in which one can then expand $g_s$ and $g_t$ $$G(x_i) = \Omega_s(x_i) \sum p_{\Delta,l} g^{\Delta,l}_s (u,v) =
\Omega_t(x_i) \sum p_{\Delta,l} g^{\Delta,l}_t (u,v) \ .$$ The equality between the first and second sum is the famous crossing symmetry equation. An important observation is that writing this equation does actually not require a complete knowledge of the tensor factors. It is sufficient to know the ratio of the $s$- and $t$-channel $\Omega$ $$M(u,v) = \Omega_t^{-1}(x_i) \Omega_s (x_i) = \left(\frac{v}{u}\right)^{\Delta_0}\ ,$$ which is a function of the two cross ratios only. We call this important object $M$ the *crossing factor* $M$. In the case of spinning fields the crossing factor becomes a matrix. This ratio of $s$- and $t$-channel tensor factors is not to be confused with the crossing or fusing matrix of the conformal group. While the crossing factor relates the $s$- and $t$-channel tensor factors, the crossing matrix relates the conformal blocks in the two channels by providing the expansion coefficients of $s$-channel blocks in terms of $t$-channel ones, see [@Liu:2018jhs; @Sleight:2018ryu; @Chen:2019gka] for some recent discussion in the context of higher dimensional conformal field theory.
In [@Isachenkov:2016gim] it was noticed that scalar four-point functions $G$ admit an different gauge choice for the factor $\Omega$ such that the associated Casimir equations take the form of an eigenvalue equation for an integrable 2-particle Hamiltonian of Calogero-Sutherland type. This was later explained in [@Schomerus:2016epl; @Schomerus:2017eny] through harmonic analysis on the conformal group and then extended to fields with spin in which case the quantum mechanical potential becomes matrix valued. For spinning fields, the tensor structures of such a Calogero-Sutherland gauge were constructed recently in [@Buric:2019dfk]. The goal of our work is to extend all this to the case of superconformal symmetry. In [@Buric:2019rms] we have constructed the Casimir equations for superconformal symmetries of type I. The form of these equations allows us to compute superblocks systematically as finite sums of spinning bosonic blocks. What was missing up to now is the construction of the associated tensor structures and in particular the crossing factor $M$. Below we fill this gap and construct both the tensor structures and the crossing factor for all superconformal algebras of type I. Explicit formulas for the crossing factors in 4-dimensional superconformal algebras will be given in our forthcoming paper [@N1D4_paper]. Early work on tensor structures for four-point correlators of superconformal field theories includes [@Park:1997bq; @Park:1999pd; @Osborn:1998qu; @Heslop:2002hp; @Heslop:2004du; @Nirschl:2004pa].
Let us now describe the plan of this work in more detail. The next section contains some basic background material on superconformal algebras, where we introduce the notion of superspace and discuss the infinitesimal and global action of the conformal symmetry thereon. Special attention will be paid to the action of the so-called Weyl inversion, which plays an important role in later sections. Section 3 contains the first new result of this work. There we construct a special family $g(x_i)$ of supergroup elements that depend on the insertion points of the fields along with a matrix realization that uniquely encodes the correlation function $G(x_i)$. This generalizes a similar formula for bosonic conformal field theories in [@Buric:2019dfk] to the supersymmetric setup. In section 4 we begin to specialize the discussion to superconformal algebras of type I, i.e. to cases in which the R-symmetry group contains an abelian factor $U(1)$. After introducing super Cartan coordinates through a particular KAK factorization of the superconformal group we can construct the tensor factors $\Omega$ for any choice of spins and any channel through an elegant group theoretical construction. This then allows us to build the crossing factor $M$ as a quotient of $s$- and $t$-channel tensor factors and prove its conformal invariance explicitly. Our main result, which is stated in eqs. , , expresses the crossing factor $M$ through representation matrices of some particular family of elements of the group $K$ that is generated by dilations, rotations and R-symmetry transformations. All constructions in section 2-4 are illustrated at the example of $\mathfrak{g} =
\mathfrak{sl}(2|1)$ of the $\mathcal{N} = 2$ superconformal algebra in $d=1$ dimensions. Let us also note that our discussion includes the purely bosonic case $\mathcal{N}=0$ for which the crossing factor was not constructed previously beyond a few special spin assignments. As a corollary to our discussion we state the crossing factor for arbitrary spinning four-point functions in 3-dimensional conformal field theories. For all other higher dimensional examples, bosonic as well as supersymmetric, our results for the crossing factor are stated in the form of a precise easy-to-follow algorithm. In order to obtain ready-to-use formulas one needs to input some classical results from the group theory of rotations $SO(d)$. We will discuss this for certain mixed correlators in $\mathcal{N}=1$ superconformal theories in an accompanying work [@N1D4_paper].
Superspace and Superconformal Symmetry
======================================
In order to state and prove our main results we need some background on supergroups, superspaces and the action of superconformal symmetry thereon. Here we want to review these concepts and at the same time introduce a mathematical language that is appropriate for our subsequent discussion. In particular, we recall the notion of superspace in the second subsection and explain how one constructs an infinitesimal action of the superconformal algebra thereon. This action is lifted to global transformations in the third subsection, with some special focus on the so-called Weyl inversion, a close relative of the conformal inversion which is guaranteed to exist in any superconformal field theory. For more mathematical minded readers we have incorporated a more abstract and introductory subsection on the concept of supergroups. While this helps to make equations in subsequent subsections mathematically rigorous, readers who feel familiar with supergroups and superspaces are encouraged to skip the first subsection, at least upon first reading.
Some basics on superalgebras and supergroups
--------------------------------------------
In this subsection we introduce some very basic notions and notations concerning supergroups. Our conventions agree with [@Kostant:1975qe; @Leites:1980rna; @Wess:1992cp]. Let $\mathfrak{h}$ be some Lie superalgebra, i.e. a graded vector space $\mathfrak{h} =
\mathfrak{h}_{\bO} \oplus \mathfrak{h}_{\b1}$ with a graded Lie bracket. We denote the latter by $[. , . ]_\pm$. The associated *universal enveloping algebra* $U(\mathfrak{h})$ is the graded associative algebra generated by elements $X \in
\mathfrak{h}$, with relations such that graded commutators are given by the Lie bracket. In a slight abuse of notations we shall denote the graded commutators in the universal enveloping algebra by $[.,.]_\pm$ as well.
The universal enveloping algebra comes equipped with a co-product $\Delta$, i.e. with a homomorphism $$\Delta: U(\lieh) \rightarrow U(\lieh) \otimes U(\lieh)\ .$$ Here, the tensor product is to be understood in the graded sense, i.e. elements are multiplied as $$(a_1 \otimes b_1) \cdot (a_2 \otimes b_2) = (-1)^{|a_2||b_1|} a_1 a_2 \otimes
b_1 b_2 \ ,$$ where $|a|=0$ if $a$ is even and $|a|=1$ if $a$ is odd, as usual. On the generating elements $X \in \lieh \subset U(\lieh)$, the co-product is given by $$\Delta(X) = X \otimes 1 + 1 \otimes X \ .$$ From here one can extend $\Delta$ uniquely to the entire universal enveloping algebra as a homomorphism of graded algebras. The co-product is the algebraic structure that allows us to build tensor products of any two representations of the Lie superalgbra $\mathfrak{h}$ or its universal envelop $U(\mathfrak{h})$.
Let us now turn to another algebra that we can associate to $\lieh$, namely the so-called *structure algebra* $\mathcal{F}(\mathfrak{h})$. By definition, $\mathcal{F}$ is a graded commutative algebra whose generators $x_A$ are associated to the basis elements $X^A$ of the Lie superalgebra $\lieh$. The elements $x_A$ possess the same degree $|x_A|= |A|$ as the generators $X^A$, i.e. $x_A$ is an ordinary bosonic variable if $X^A$ is even while $x_A$ is a Grassmann variable in case $X^A$ is odd. From the construction we have sketched here it is evident that $\mathcal{F}$ can be thought of as the *algebra of functions* on the supergroup associated with $\lieh$ which is generated here from set of coordinate functions, one for each element of the Lie superalgebra.
The two algebras we have associated to $\lieh$ up to now are actually closely related. In the case of bosonic groups, the generators $X$ of the Lie algebra give rise to (right) invariant vector fields that act on functions as some first order differential operators. These differential operators $\mathcal{R}_X$ can be multiplied and added and thereby provide an action of elements $a$ in the universal enveloping algebra $U(\lieh)$ through differential operators $\mathcal{R}_a$ of higher order. One may combine the application of any such differential operator to a function on the group with the evaluation at the group unit $e$ to obtain a map that assigns as number $$\label{eq:duality}
\mathcal{R}_a(f)(e) = (a,f) = f(a) \in \mathbb{C}$$ to a pair of an element $ a \in U(\lieh)$ and a (complex valued) function $f$ on the group. In other words, elements of $U(\lieh)$ give linear functionals of the algebra of functions or structure algebra $\mathcal{F}(\lieh)$ and vice versa. In this form, the statement remains true for Lie superalgebras and is often expressed by saying that $\mathcal{F}(\lieh)$ and $U(\lieh)$ are dual to each other, see also [@Sternberg:1975] for a nice discussion of this point.
Equipped with these two algebraic structures, namely the universal enveloping algebra $U(\lieh)$ and the structure algebra $\mathcal{F}(\lieh)$, we want to introduce the concept of *supergroup elements* $h$. Let us first give a formal definition according to which $h$ is an even element of the graded tensor product $U(\lieh) \otimes \mathcal{F}(\lieh)$ that satisfies $$\label{eq:Deltah}
(\Delta \otimes \id) h = \ \stackrel{1}{h}\ \stackrel{2}{h} \ .$$ Here, the application of the co-product $\Delta$ to the first tensor factor of $h$ produces an element in $U(\lieh) \otimes U(\lieh) \otimes \mathcal{F}(\lieh)$. The factors on the right hand side are elements in the same threefold tensor product. More concretely, $\stackrel{2}{h}$ is the element $1 \otimes h$ with trivial entry in the first tensor factor. Similarly $\stackrel{1}{h}$ denotes the element $h$ with trivial entry in the second tensor factor.
The element $h$ is not uniquely characterized by these properties, but we do not need to be more specific. It might be helpful to think of $h$ as the object $h = \exp (x_A
X^A)$. The element $x_A X^A$ in the exponent is even and upon expansion of the exponential provides us with an even element in the graded tensor product $U(\lieh)
\otimes \mathcal{F}(\lieh)$. In order to construct this element one moves all the elements $x_A$ of the structure algebra to the right of the superalgebra generators $X^B$ using $$x_A X^B = (-1)^{|A| |B|} X_B x_A \ ,$$ which implements our convention to consider the graded tensor product of $U(\lieh)$ and $\mathcal{F}(\lieh)$ rather than the ordinary one. After the reordering we indeed obtain an infinite sum of products between elements in the universal enveloping algebra $U(\lieh)$ with elements of the structure algebra $\mathcal{F} (\lieh)$. If we apply the co-product in the universal enveloping algebra we formally obtain $$(\Delta \otimes \id) h = e^{x_A (X^A \otimes 1 + 1 \otimes X^A)} = e^{x_A (X^A \otimes 1)}
e^{x_A (1 \otimes X^A)} =\ \stackrel{1}{h}\ \stackrel{2}{h} \ .$$ In writing the single exponential as a product of exponentials we used the fact that the exponent if an even object so that $x_A (X^A \otimes 1)$ commutes with $x_A (1
\otimes X^A)$. In conclusion, we have constructed an object $h$ with the properties we demanded in the previous paragraph, at least formally. In physics, it is customary to evaluate $h$ in some representation $\pi$ of the Lie superalgebra $\lieh$ or, equivalently, its universal enveloping algebra. Thereby one obtains a finite dimensional supermatrix $h^\pi = (\pi \otimes \id) h$ with entries from the structure algebra $\mathcal{F}$. In the following we often use the symbol $h$ for such a matrix $h$ rather than the universal element $h \in U(\lieh) \otimes \mathcal{F}(\lieh)$.
What we have explained so far actually suffices as background for most of our discussion below, except for the construction of an infinitesimal action of the conformal superalgebra on superspace in the next subsection. To obtain explicit formulas for the first order derivative operators $\mathcal{R}_X$ that are associated with the elements $X \in \lieh$ let us first extend the structure algebra $\mathcal{F}(\lieh)$ of “functions on the supergroup” to a differentially graded algebra $d\mathcal{F}(\lieh)$ of “differential forms on the supergroup”. The latter is a bi-graded commutative algebra generated by elements $x_A$ and $dx_A$, with a second grading associated to the form degree. On the algebra $d\mathcal{F}(\lieh)$ we can define a differential $d$ that squares to zero $d^2 = 0$ and satisfies the graded Leibniz rule $$d (f \wedge g) = df \wedge g + (-1)^{\textit{deg}(f)} f \wedge dg \ .$$ Here $\textit{deg}(f)$ denotes the form degree of $f$. Let us stress that there is no additional sign associated with the $\mathbb{Z}_2$ grading that distinguishes between even (bosonic) and odd (fermionic) elements. This means that $d$ is treated as an even object. Hence, for a given $A$, $x_A$ and $dx_A$ possess the same degree, i.e. $dx_A$ is even \[odd\] in case $x_A$ is even \[odd\].
Since the structure algebra $\mathcal{F}(\lieh)$ is contained in the larger differentially graded algebra $d\mathcal{F}(\lieh)$ we can also think of the supergroup element $h \in
U(\lieh) \otimes \mathcal{F}(\lieh)$ as an element of the differential graded algebra $U(\lieh) \otimes d\mathcal{F}(\lieh)$ with the additional rule that $dX^A= X^Ad$, i.e.we consider the generators $X^A$ of the Lie superalgebra as constants and the differential $d$ as even. Now it makes sense to consider the Maurer-Cartan form $$dh h^{-1} \in U(\lieh) \otimes d\mathcal{F}(\lieh) \ .$$ If we apply the differential to the equation that characterizes $h$ we obtain $$\Delta(dh h^{-1}) = \left(\stackrel{\phantom{0}}{d}\stackrel{1}{h} \ \stackrel{2}{h} +
\stackrel{1}{h} \ \stackrel{\phantom{0}}{d}\stackrel{2}{h}\right)\ \stackrel{2}{h}\!^{-1} \
\stackrel{1}{h}\!^{-1}
= \ \stackrel{\phantom{0}}{d}\stackrel{1}{h} \ \stackrel{1}{h}\!^{-1} +
\ \stackrel{\phantom{0}}{d}\stackrel{2}{h} \ \stackrel{2}{h}\! ^{-1}\ .$$ We conclude that the Maurer-Cartan form takes values in the Lie superalgebra $\lieh
\subset U(\lieh)$, as it is the case for usual bosonic Lie groups. Consequently, it may be expanded as $$dh h^{-1} = dx_A C_{AB} X^B\quad \textit{where} \quad C_{AB} \in
\mathcal{F}(\lieh)\ .$$ The matrix elements $C_{AB}$ possess degree $|A|+|B|$, i.e. they are even elements of the structure algebra if $|A|=|B|$ and odd otherwise. We also stress that the elements $C_{AB}$ depend on the choice of the supergroup element $h$. One of the main uses of the matrix elements $C_{AB}$ is to construct the right-invariant vector fields, i.e. an action of the Lie superalgebra $\lieh$ through first order differential operators acting on the structure algebra $\mathcal{F}(\lieh)$. These vector fields are given by $$\label{eq:RHA}
\mathcal{R}_{X^A} = \mathcal{R}_A :=
\mathcal{C}^G_{AB}\partial_B, \nonumber$$ where $\mathcal{C} = C^{-1}$ denotes the inverse of $C$ and $\partial_B$ is the (graded) derivative with respect to the coordinate $x_B$. Its action on an arbitrary function $f
\in \mathcal{F}(\lieh)$ can be read off from $df = dx_B (\partial_B f)$. In particular, when acting on the individual coordinate functions, $x_A$ is obeys $(\partial_B x_A) =
\delta_{A,B}$. The action of partial derivatives on products of functions satisfies the graded Leibniz rule which implies that $$\partial_B x_A = (\partial_B x_A) + (-1)^{|A||B|} x_A \partial_B = \delta_{A,B} +
(-1)^{|A||B|} x_A \partial_B \ .$$ Since we have assumed that the differential $d$ acts trivially on the generators $X^A$ of the universal enveloping algebra, i.e. $(dX^A) = 0$ we conclude that $\partial_\beta X^A = 0$, i.e. the generators $X^A$ are constant objects on the supergroup statisfying $$\partial_B X^A = (-1)^{|A||B|} X^A \partial_B \ \ .$$ With this list of properties of the partial derivatives we conclude our construction of the right invariant vector fields and thereby our short mathematical review of superalgebras and the theory of supergroups. The formulation we have introduced here is well adapted to our needs below and also paves the way for some interesting extensions, see the concluding section.
Superspace and the infinitesimal action of superconformal symmetry
------------------------------------------------------------------
This subsection serves two purposes. On the one hand we need to introduce the notion of superspace that is one of the crucial ingredients throughout the rest of the paper. In addition we shall also construct an action of the superconformal algebra $\lieg$ through “first differential operators” on superspace. This infinitesimal action of the superconformal symmetry on superspace will play only a minor role below since most of our analysis is based on global transformations.
To set up notations let us denote the superconformal algebra by $\mathfrak{g}$. Its bosonic subalgebra $\lieg_{\bO}$ consists of $d$-dimensional conformal transformations in $\mathfrak{so}(1,d+1)$ as well as R-symmetry transformations in some Lie algebra $\mathfrak{u}$. To define superspace we pick some decomposition $$\label{eq:decomposition}
\mathfrak{g} = \mathfrak{m} \oplus \mathfrak{p} \nonumber$$ of $\mathfrak{g}$ into two Lie subalgebras $\mathfrak{p}$ and $\mathfrak{m}$. The standard choice would be to define $\mathfrak{p}$ as the span of all elements in $\mathfrak{g}$ that lower the eigenvalue of the dilation generator $D \in \mathfrak{g}_{\bO}$, i.e. $$\mathfrak{p} := \lieg_{\leq 0} =
\textit{span}\left(\, X \in \mathfrak{g}\, | \, [D,X] = \alpha X
\, , \, \alpha \leq 0 \right)\ .$$ For this choice, $\mathfrak{m}$ then consists of generators $P$ of translations and the supercharges $Q$. We shall briefly comment on other choices below. We also choose a basis $X^A$ of elements in $\lieg$ that is compatible with the decomposition . Elements $X^A$ that lie in the subspace $\liem$ will be labeled by lower case Latin indices while those that lie in the complement $\liep$ carry Greek indices.
The decomposition of the Lie superalgebra $\lieg$ into $\liem$ and $\liep$ determines a decomposition of the corresponding universal enveloping algebra $U(\mathfrak{g})=
U(\mathfrak{m})\otimes U(\mathfrak{p})$ as well as of the structure algebra $\mathcal{F}(\lieg)=\mathcal{F}(\liem)\otimes\mathcal{F}(\liep)$. Recall that the structure algebras $\mathcal{F}(\liem)$ and $\mathcal{F}(\liep)$ are generated by the coordinates $x_a$ and $x_\alpha$, respectively, with $x_a$ and $x_\alpha$ being Grassmann variables if the corresponding elements $X^a$ and $X^\alpha$ are fermionic generators of the Lie superalgebra. The structure algebra $\mathcal{F}(\liem)$ is what is referred to a *superspace* $\mathcal{M} = \mathcal{F}(\liem)$. Loosely speaking one may think of it as the algebra of “functions on the supergroup $M$”, though we have not defined what we mean by a supergroup and do not intend to do so.
Now that we know what superspace is let us construct an infinitesimal action of the superconformal symmetry thereon. Here we shall closely follow the general constructions we outlined in the previous subsection and introduce supergroup elements $m=m(x_a)$ and $p=p(x_\alpha)$. In case of $m$ we work with the following standard choice $$m(x_a) = e^{x_a X^a} .$$ The infinitesimal action of the conformal algebra on the coordinates $x_a$ of our superspace descends from the left-regular action of $\lieg$ and thus can be computed from the Maurer-Cartan form, $$dg g^{-1} = dx_A C^{G}_{AB}X^B\ .$$ In computing the Maurer-Cartan form for $\lieg$ it is usual to relate it to the Maurer-Cartan forms that are associated with $\mathfrak{m}$ and $\mathfrak{p}$ $$dm m^{-1} = dx_a C^M_{ab} X^b \quad , \quad
dp p^{-1} = dx_\alpha C^{P}_{\alpha\beta} X^\beta\ .\nonumber$$ With our choice $g=mp$ of the supergroup element $g$ as a product of the two elements $m$ and $p$ it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
& dg g^{-1} = dx_A\partial_A(m p) (m p)^{-1} = dx_a (\partial_a m) m^{-1} +
dx_\alpha m (\partial_\alpha p) p^{-1} m^{-1} =\nonumber\\[2mm]
& = dx_a C^M_{ab} X^b + dx_\alpha m C_{\alpha\beta}X^\beta m^{-1} =
dx_a C^M_{ab} X^b + dx_\alpha C^P_{\alpha\beta}\Big((M_1)_{\beta a} X^a +
(M_2)_{\beta\gamma}X^\gamma\Big) \ . \label{MC-form}\end{aligned}$$ The last equality defines the two matrices $M_{1,2}$, $$m X^\beta m^{-1} = (M_1)_{\beta a} X^a + (M_2)_{\beta\gamma} X^\gamma\ .$$ From the equation $(\ref{MC-form})$ we can read off the coefficients $C^G_{AB}$ of the Maurer-Cartan form for $\lieg$. The inverse $\mathcal{C}^G$ of this matrix is easily seen to take the form $$\mathcal{C}^G = \begin{pmatrix}
\mathcal{C}^M & 0 \\
-M_2^{-1}M_1\mathcal{C}^M & M_2^{-1} \mathcal{C}^P
\end{pmatrix} \ , \nonumber$$ where the first row/column corresponds to direction in $\liem$ while the second row/column collects all the directions in $\liep$. As stated before, the matrix $\mathcal{C}^G$ provides us with the right-invariant vector fields on the conformal supergroup. To project these operators to the superspace one simply sets $\partial_\alpha=0$, $$\label{eq:resultRM}
\mathcal{R}^{(M)} = \begin{pmatrix}
\mathcal{C}^M & 0\\
-M_2^{-1}M_1\mathcal{C}^M & M_2^{-1} \mathcal{C}^P
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} \partial\\ 0 \end{pmatrix} =
\begin{pmatrix} \mathcal{C}^M_{ab}\partial_b\\
-(M_2^{-1}M_1\mathcal{C}^M)_{\alpha b}\partial_b
\end{pmatrix}\ . \nonumber$$ This is the main result of this subsection. As mentioned above, the differential operators on superspace depend on $C^M$ and hence on the choice of the supergroup element $m$. The choice of the supergroup element $p$, on the other hand, is irrelevant since the coefficients $C^P$ of the Maurer-Cartan form $dp p^{-1}$ dropped out in the last step when we set all derivatives $\partial_\alpha$ to zero.
Our result applies to all decompositions of $\lieg$ into two Lie subalgebras $\liem$ and $\liep$. As we pointed out in the first paragraph, the standard choice is to take $\liep$ to contain generators that do not increase the conformal weight. In that case, the structure algebra $\mathcal{M} = \mathcal{F}(\liem)$ is called the standard superspace. If the superconformal algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ is of type I, however, there exist other natural choices to which the constructions of this subsection apply. In a type I superalgebra the R-symmetry contains a $U(1)$ subalgebra which commutes with all bosonic generators but assigns the fermionic ones a non-trivial R-charge $\pm 1$. As usual, we can decompose the Lie superalgebra $\lieg =
\lieg_{\leq 0} \oplus \lieg_{> 0}$ by splitting off those generators in $\lieg_{>0}$ that strictly increase the conformal weight. These consist of supercharges $Q$ and generators of translations. In a type I superalgebra we can now split the space $\mathfrak{q}$ or supercharges $Q$ according to the sign of their $U(1)$ R-charge as $\mathfrak{q} = \mathfrak{q_+} \oplus
\mathfrak{q}_-$. With this in mind we can introduce two new decompositions $\lieg = \liem_\pm \oplus \liep_\pm$ of the superconformal algebra where $$\mathfrak{p}_\pm = \mathfrak{g}_{\leq 0} \oplus \mathfrak{q}_\pm \ , \quad
\mathfrak{m}_\pm = \mathfrak{g}_1\oplus\mathfrak{q}_\mp = \mathfrak{g}/
\mathfrak{p}_\pm \ . \nonumber$$ From the properties of type I Lie superalgebras, one may easily show that both $\mathfrak{p}_\pm$ and $\mathfrak{m}_\pm$ are subalgebras of $\mathfrak{g}$. The associated superspaces $\mathcal{M}_\pm = \mathcal{F}(\liem_\pm)$ are called the chiral and anti-chiral superspace, respectively.
[**Example:**]{} As an example, let us illustrate the construction of superspace and the differential operators in the case of the 1-dimensional $\mathcal{N}=2$ superconformal algebra $\lieg=\mathfrak{sl}(2|1)$. The smallest faithful representation of $\mathfrak{g}$ is 3-dimensional. We may choose the generators as $$\label{eq:bosrep}
D = \begin{pmatrix}
1/2 & 0 & 0\\
0 & -1/2 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix},\ P = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix},\ K = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0\\
1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix},\ R = \begin{pmatrix}
-1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & -1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & -2
\end{pmatrix},\nonumber$$ for the four bosonic generators and $$\label{eq:fermrep}
Q_- = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix},\ Q_+ = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix},\ S_- = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
1 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix},\ S_+ = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix},\nonumber$$ for the fermionic ones. Here we shall consider the decomposition $\lieg = \liem \oplus \liep$ with the Lie superalgebra $\liem$ spanned by $P, Q_+$ and $Q_-$. The corresponding superspace $\mathcal{M}$ is generated by one bosonic variable $u$ along with two Grassmann variables $\theta$ and $\bar \theta$. In this case the supergroup element $m$ we introduced above takes the following matrix form $$\label{eq:m-1d}
m(x) = e^{u P + \theta Q_+ + \bar \theta Q_-} = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & X & \theta \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & -\bar\theta & 1
\end{pmatrix} \ ,$$ where $X = u-\frac12 \theta \bar \theta$ and $x = (u,\theta,\bar\theta)$ represents the three generators of the structure algebra.
The construction we outlined above provides us with an action of the superconformal algebra $\lieg$ on this superspace with differential operators $\mathcal{R}_X = u$ of the form $$\begin{aligned}
& p = \partial_u\ ,\quad & k = -u^2\partial_u - u\theta\partial_{\theta} -
u\bar\theta\partial_{\bar\theta}\ , \label{eq:sldop1} \\[2mm]
& d = u\partial_u + \frac12\theta\partial_{\theta} + \frac12\bar\theta
\partial_{\bar\theta}\ ,\quad
& r =\theta\partial_{\theta} - \bar\theta\partial_{\bar\theta}\ ,
\label{eq:sldop2}\\[2mm]
& q_+ = \partial_{\theta} - \frac12\bar\theta\partial_u \ ,\quad &
q_- = \partial_{\bar\theta} - \frac12\theta\partial_u\ ,
\label{eq:sldop3} \\[2mm]
& s_+ = -(u+\frac12\theta\bar\theta)q_+\ ,\quad &
s_- = (u-\frac12\theta\bar\theta)q_-\ .
\label{eq:sldop4}\end{aligned}$$ As we pointed out in our discussion above, the choice of $p$ is not relevant for the final result. We encourage the reader to derive these explicit expressions from our general formula .
Global superconformal symmetry and Weyl inversions
--------------------------------------------------
Having constructed superspace along with an action of the superconformal algebra thereon, our next task is to construct the action of global conformal transformations. As we shall see in a moment, most of the global transformations act in an obvious way. The only exception are special conformal transformations. For bosonic conformal symmetry, the easiest way to construct these is through the conformal inversion of translations. We follow essentially the same strategy in the supersymmetric context, except we need to replace the conformal inversion by a closely related Weyl inversion. The latter extends nicely to superconformal algebras while conformal inversions may not actually exist, see below.
Defining the action of global conformal transformations on superspace requires a little bit of preparation. We shall think of a global symmetry transformation as being associated to a supergroup element $h=h(s)$. We may consider $h$ as a matrix whose matrix elements are functions on the supergroup, i.e. elements of the structure algebra generated by the coordinates $s_a$ and $s_\alpha$. The graded commutative algebra that is generated by these coordinates is just another copy of the algebra that is generated by $x_a$ and $x_\alpha$. From now on we shall suppress the dependence on $s$ again. The left action of such an element $h$ on the supergroup element $g(x)= m(x_a)p(x_\alpha)$ is simply given by the left multiplication $g(x)
\mapsto h g(x)$. In order to obtain the action on superspace, we need to factorize $h g(x)$ as $$h g(x) = m(y(x,h)) p(x,h) = e^{y(x,h)_a X^a} p(x,h) \ .$$ This factorization defines the $h$ transform $h(x)_a$ of the superspace coordinates $x_a$. Note that $y(x,h)_a$ are elements in the tensor product of two structure algebras, the one generated by coordinates $x$ and the one that is generated by $s$. It is particularly easy to apply this definition to rotations, dilations and R-symmetries since these form a subgroup $K$ that respects the split of $\lieg$ into $\liem$ and $\liep$. In fact, the Lie algebra $\liek$ is even a subalgebra of $\liep$. In order to factorize $$k g(x) = k m(x) p(x) = m(y(x,k)) p(x,k)$$ for some $k \in K$[^1] all we need to do is move $k$ through $m$. Since the generators $X^a$ transform in some representation $\kappa$ of $K$, the effect can be captured by a linear transformation of the coordinates $x_a$, i.e. $y(x,k)_a =\kappa_{ab}(k) x_b$. Also (super-)translations are easy to discuss. These are associated with elements $h(c) = m(c)$ so that multiplication of $h$ with $g(x)$ only requires to multiply $m(c) m(x) =
m(y(x,c))$. Since bosonic translations commute among each other and with the supercharges $Q$, the only non-trivial terms in the product $m(c) m(x)$ come from the non-vanishing anti-commutators of the supercharges. But these can be evaluated easily in concrete examples and hence the computation of $c(x)$ is straightforward.
It now remains to discuss the action of special (super-)conformal transformations. We will not discuss these directly but instead focus on one particular global superconformal transformation, namely the superconformal extension of the Weyl inversion $w$. As we shall see, this Weyl inversion relates special super conformal transformations to supertranslations, just as in the bosonic case.
Before we enter the discussion of the Weyl inversion, let us briefly recall how the ordinary inversion of conformal field theories is constructed. By definition, the *conformal group* is a Lie group with $\mathfrak{g}=
\mathfrak{so}(d+1,1)$ as its Lie algebra. Let $O(d+1,1)$ be the group of pseudo-orthogonal matrices. Its identity component is denoted by $SO^+(d+1,1)$. This group can be realised as the quotient $$SO^+(d+1,1) = \Spin(d+1,1)/\mathbb{Z}_2 \nonumber$$ of the universal covering group $\Spin(d+1,1)$ by its centre. Both $SO^+(d+1,1)$ and $Spin(d+1,1)$ act on the compactified Euclidean space, but only the first action is faithful. In the case of $\Spin(d+1,1)$, both elements of the centre act trivially. Obviously, both $SO^+(d+1,1)$ and $\Spin(d+1,1)$ possess the same Lie algebra $\lieg
= \mathfrak{so}(d+1,1)$. The conformal inversion $$I x^\mu = \frac{x^\mu}{x^2} \nonumber$$ is an element of $O(d+1,1)$, but it resides in a component that it not connected to the identity component, i.e. the conformal inversion $I$ is not an element of $SO^+(d+1,1)$. We can improve on this issue by multiplying the inversion with some spatial reflection. The so-called Weyl inversion $w=s_{e_d}\circ I$ involves the reflection on $\mathbb{R}^d$ that sends $x_d$ to $- x_d$ and it belongs to $SO^+(d+1,1)$. We can actually construct the Weyl inversion explicitly through the following exponential of conformal generators, $$w = e^{\pi\frac{K_d-P_d}{2}}. \label{Weyl-inversion}$$ There are two elements of $\Spin(d+1,1)$ which project to $w$. We use the expression as our definition of the Weyl inversion for $\Spin(d+1,1)$. One can check that its square is the non-trivial element of the centre, i.e. that $w^2=-1$.
In passing to the superconformal algebra we use the same formula to define the Weyl element and hence the Weyl inversion. The bosonic part $\lieg_{\bO}$ of the superconformal algebra $\lieg$ is generated by the bosonic conformal algebra $\lieg_\textit{bos}$ along with the generators $U \in \mathfrak{u}$ of R-symmetry transformations. The latter commute with all elements of $\lieg_{\bO}$ and hence the associated universal enveloping algebras satisfy $U(\lieg_{\bO}) \cong U(\lieg_\textit{bos})
\otimes U(\mathfrak{u})$. By construction $w$ lies in $w \in U(\lieg_\textit{bos})$ and it is trivial in the $U(\mathfrak{u})$, $$w = w \otimes e \in U(\lieg_\textit{bos}) \otimes U(\mathfrak{u}) \cong
U(\lieg_{\bO})\ .$$ While the action of the element $w$ on generators of the R-symmetry transformations is trivial, its action on the fermionic generators is not. Using that conjugation of the generator $D$ of dilations with the Weyl inversion is given by $\text{Ad}_{w_{bos}}
(D)=-D$ we obtain $$\frac12\text{Ad}_w(Q) = \text{Ad}_w([D,Q]) = [\text{Ad}_w(D),\text{Ad}_w(Q)] =
- [D,\text{Ad}_w(Q)]\ , \nonumber$$ i.e. when a supercharge $Q$ is acted upon by the Weyl inversion it is sent to a generator whose conformal weight is $-1/2$. Consequently, the Weyl inversion interchanges generators of supertranslations and super special conformal transformations. For superconformal algebras of type I, see the final paragraph of the previous subsection for a definition, one can similarly use that $\text{Ad}_w(R) = w R w^{-1} = R$ to deduce $$\text{Ad}_w(\mathfrak{q}_\pm) \subset \mathfrak{s}_\pm \ . \label{odd-generators}$$ In conclusion we have seen that the super Weyl inversion exists for all superconformal algebras and we stated some of its most important properties. This is to be contrasted with the fact that a supersymmetric analogue of the ordinary conformal inversion may actually not exist. Assuming that one could choose the superconformal group such that the inversion $I$ belonged to the bosonic conformal subgroup, then the arguments leading to eq. $(\ref{odd-generators})$ with $w\times e$ replaced by $I\times e$ would remain valid. On the other hand, as the example $\mathfrak{g} = \mathfrak{sl}(4|1)$ shows, the fact that $I$ commutes with rotations is inconsistent with eq. $(\ref{odd-generators})$, bearing in mind that $\mathfrak{q}_+$ and $\mathfrak{s}_+$ are non-isomorphic modules of the rotation group. Fortunately for us, the existence of the super Weyl inversion will suffice.
[**Example:**]{} Let us briefly discuss super-conformal transformations and in particular the super Weyl inversion for the Lie superalgebra $\mathfrak{sl}(2|1)$. As we discussed at the end of the previous subsection, this Lie superalgebra admits a 3-dimensional representation. All generators have been spelled out in this representations above. Within this representation, the supergroup element $m(x)$ takes the form . The subgroup $K$ is generated by dilations and $U(1)_R$ symmetry transformations which are generated by $D$ and $R$, i.e. $k
= \exp(\lambda D + \vartheta R)$. Under global transformations with elements $k \in K$ the superspace coordinates $x=(u,\theta,\bar \theta)$ transform as $$y(x,k) = (e^\lambda u, e^{\frac12 \lambda +\vartheta}\theta, e^{\frac12\lambda - \vartheta} \bar \theta) \ .$$ Here we can either think of $\lambda$ and $\vartheta$ as some real parameters of the transformation or as coordinates on the supergroup, i.e. as two generators of the structure algebra. Supertranslations with an element $m(c) = m(v,\eta,\bar \eta)$ act as $m(c) m(x) = m(c(x))$ with $$y(x,c) = c(x) = (u+v + \frac12 \theta \bar \eta + \frac12 \bar \theta \eta, \theta+\eta,
\bar \theta + \bar \eta)\ .$$ The components of $c = (v,\eta,\bar \eta)$ are generators of the structure algebra. It remains to discuss the Weyl inversion. Within the 3-dimensional representation it is straightforward to compute the Weyl inversion from eq. , $$\label{eq:wmatrix}
w = e^{\pi\frac{K-P}{2}} = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & -1 & 0\\
1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}.\nonumber$$ Note that $w^2 = \textit{diag}(-1,-1,1)$, i.e. it squares to $-1$ within the bosonic conformal group and is trivially extended within the R-symmetry group. It is now straightforward to compute the action of the Weyl inversion on superspace by decomposing the matrix $w m(x) = m(w(x)) p(x,w)$ with $w(x)
= y(x,w)$ given by $$\ w(u) = -\frac{1}{u}\ ,\quad w(\theta) = \frac{\theta}{u}\ ,\quad
w(\bar\theta) = \frac{\bar\theta}{u}\ . \label{w-action-1d}$$ Note that the action of $w$ on the bosonic coordinate $u$ is the same as in bosonic conformal field theory. This had to be the case, since in the chosen coordinate system on the superspace $\mathcal{M}$ the action of the conformal algebra generators on $x$ is the same as in bosonic theory. Furthermore, we have $w(p,q_+,q_-)w^{-1}=(-k,-s_+,s_-)$, in accordance with the relations $w^{-1}(P,Q_+,Q_-)w = (-K,-S_+,S_-)$ satisfied by $3\times3$ matrices. Often such conditions are used to derive the action of the inversion. In the approach here, this is not necessary as the action of $w$ can be computed directly. This concludes our discussion of the 1-dimensional $\mathcal{N} =2$ superspace and the global action of the superconformal symmetry on it.
Lifting Correlators to the Supergroup
=====================================
This section contains the first new result of the present work. We establish an isomorphism between the solutions of superconformal Ward identities that are satisfied by a four-point function of arbitrary spinning fields and certain covariant functions on the superconformal group, to which one may also refer as $K$-spherical functions. The construction finds roots in ideas from [@Dobrev:1977qv], and generalises that of [@Buric:2019dfk] to the superconformal setting. One key ingredient in our formula is a family of supergroup elements $g(x_i)$ that depends on the insertion points of the four fields in superspace. These will play an important role in the following sections as well. In the first subsection we state all this precisely before we illustrate the formulas at the example of $\lieg=
\mathfrak{sl}(2|1)$ in the second. The third subsection contains the proof of our statement.
Statement of the result
-----------------------
Let us now consider a four-point function in some superconformal field theory. To each field we associate a copy of our superspace $\mathcal{M}$. The generators $x_{ia}$ of these spaces carry a label $i=1, \dots, 4$ in addition to the label $a$ we introduced in the previous section. The corresponding supergroup elements $m_i = m(x_i)$ are given by $$m(x_i) = e^{x_{ia} X^a} .$$ Here the summation over $a$ is understood. Given any pair of labels $i,j$ we define the variables $x_{ij} = (x_{ija}) \in \mathcal{M}_i \otimes \mathcal{M}_j$ through $$\label{eq:xij}
m(x_{ij}) = m(x_j)^{-1} m(x_i) \ .$$ Concrete expressions for the components of $x_{ij}$ can be worked out from the anti-commutator relations of the supercharges $Q$. One may think of $m(x_i)$ as a function on superspace with values in the universal enveloping algebra or, more concretely, after evaluation in a fundamental representation of the Lie superalgebra $\lieg$, as a matrix valued function on superspace.
In the last section we also introduced the Weyl element $w$ through equation . Note that $w$ is constructed out of generators of the bosonic conformal group only. In particular it acts trivially within the R-symmetry group $U$. We can think of $w$ as a grouplike element in the universal enveloping algebra or, after application of a fundamental representation, as a concrete matrix such as in eq. . With the help of the Weyl inversion, let us define a new family of supergroup elements $n$ through $$\label{eq:nx}
n(x) = w^{-1} m(x) w\ .$$ Since $m$ involves only generators $X^a \in \lieg_{>0}$ of the superconformal algebra that raise the conformal weight, i.e. generators $P$ of translations and supercharges $Q$, the element $n$ is built using generators $Y^a$ from the algebra $\lieg_{<0}$ that lower the conformal weight, see our previous discussion of the Weyl inversion. This means that $n$ involves special conformal generators $K$ as well as the fermionic generators $S$.
In order to proceed, let us introduce another supergroup element $k=k(t)$ using the remaining generators $X \in \lieg_0$ that commute with the generator of dilations and therefore neither appear in $n$ nor in $m$. It means that $k$ is built from the generators of dilations, rotations and R-symmetry transformations, all of which are even (bosonic). Given the three supergroup elements $m,n,k$ we can now decompose $w m(x)$ as $$\label{eq:factorization}
w m(x) = m(y(x))\, n(z(x)) \, k(t(x)) \ ,$$ where the components of $y(x) = (y(x)_a)$, $z(x) = (z(x)_a)$ and $t(x)
= (t(x)_\varrho)$ are certain functions of the superspace coordinates $x_i$ that can be worked out concretely on a case-by-case basis. We shall state concrete formulas in some examples below. Let us stress that it is through this factorization that we introduce the action of the Weyl inversion $w$ on superspace, i.e. by definition $y(x) = w x$. We consider the functions $y,z$ and $t$ as given for now and use them to introduce $$y_{ij} = y(x_{ij}) = w x_{ij} \ , \quad z_{ij}= z(x_{ij}) \ , \quad
t_{ij} = t(x_{ij}) \ .$$ By definition we have $$\label{eq:factorizationij}
w m(x_{ij}) = m(y_{ij}) \, n(z_{ij}) \, k(t_{ij}) \ .$$ The components of $x_{ij}, y_{ij}, z_{ij}$ and $t_{ij}$ are elements in the four-fold tensor product $\mathcal{M}^4 \cong \mathcal{M}^{\otimes_4}$ of the superspace $\mathcal{M}$, one copy for each insertion point. This is all we need to know about the superconfiguration space of the four insertion points.
So, let us now consider some four-point correlation function $G$ in a quantum field theory with superconformal symmetry given by $\lieg$. The fields $\Phi$ of our theory are organized in supermultiplets. We label these supermultiplets through the quantum numbers of their superprimaries. These consist of a conformal weight $\Delta$, a spin $\lambda$ and the R-charges $q$. The collection of these quantum numbers determine a finite dimensional irreducible representation $\rho = \rho_{\Delta, \lambda,q}$ on the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{k} = \lieg_0$ that is spanned by dilations, rotations and R-symmetries. We denote the carrier space of this representation by $V = V_\rho$ and shall often refer to it as the space of superpolarizations. Let us stress that elements of $V_\rho$ are associated with polarizations of the superprimary in the supermultiplet $\Phi$. In our four-point function we have four supermultiplets whose superprimary components transform in representations $\rho_i,\ i = 1, \dots, 4$. The polarizations of these four superprimary fields span the vector spaces $V_i$.
Given these data, we now consider the space $\mathcal{F}(\mathfrak{g})\otimes
V_{1234}$ of “functions $F$ on the supergroup” that take values in the vector space $V_{1234} = V_1 \otimes \dots \otimes V_4$. Among its elements we restrict to those functions $F$ that possess the following covariance property[^2] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:covariance}
F(k_l g k_r)= \Big(\rho_1(k_l)\otimes\rho_2(w k_l w^{-1})\otimes
\rho_3(k_r^{-1})\otimes\rho_4(w k_r^{-1}w^{-1})\Big) F(g) \ ,\end{aligned}$$ for all $k_l,k_r \in K$. In analogy with ordinary Lie theory, such an $F$ will be called a $K$-spherical function. To digest the mathematical meaning of this formula a bit better, let us pretend for a moment that we are dealing with some ordinary Lie algebra $\lieg$ rather than a superalgebra. In that case, $g$ as well as $k_l, k_r$ are elements of the bosonic group $G$. When we write $F(g)$ we let the group element $g$ act as a global symmetry transformation on the space $\mathcal{F}(\lieg)$ of functions on the group and evaluate the result at the group unit. Stated more directly we simply evaluate the vector valued function $F$ at the point $g$ of the group manifold. Almost the same is true for superalgebras except that $g$ is a matrix whose matrix elements are taken from some Grassmann algebra and $F$ is a prescription that turns such a matrix into a vector $F(g)$ whose components are elements of that Grassmann algebra. To evaluate $F(k_l g k_r)$ we employ the left-right action of $K \times K$ on the space $\mathcal{F}(\lieg)$ of functions on the supergroup to transform $F$ into new element of $F^{(k_l,k_r)}$ of the space $\mathcal{F}(\lieg) \otimes
V_{1234}$. When we apply this transformed $F^{(k_l,k_r)}$ to $g$ we obtain another vector $F^{(k_l,k_r)}(g) = F(k_lgk_r)$ with Grassmann valued components. The covariance condition selects those elements $F$ for which the two vectors $F(g)$ and $F(k_lg k_r)$ are related by a specific matrix rotation that is obtained from representation matrices of $k_l$ and $k_r$ in the representations $\rho_i$. The precise construction of this matrix, which also involves conjugation with the Weyl element $w$ in two of the four tensor factors will become clear in the third subsection.
Let us now come back to our correlation function $G_4$. By construction, $G_4(x_i)$ is a function on the four-fold tensor product $\mathcal{M}^4$ of superspace that takes values in the space $V_{1234}$ of polarizations, i.e. $G_4 \in \mathcal{M}^4 \otimes
V_{1234}$. Being the four-point function in some superconformal field theory, $G_4$ transforms in a very special way under superconformal transformations. This can be expressed in terms of a set of superconformal Ward identities. As a consequence of these covariance properties one may show that, given $G_4$, there exists a unique function $F \in \mathcal{F}(\lieg) \otimes V_{1234}$ on the supergroup with covariance property such that $$\begin{aligned}
G_4(x_i) & = & \Big(1\otimes\rho_2(k(t_{21}))^{-1}\otimes1\otimes
\rho_4(k(t_{43}))^{-1}\Big) F(g(x_i))\, , \label{magic-formula}\\[2mm]
& & \textit{where}\ g(x_i) = n(y_{21})^{-1} m(x_{31}) n(y_{43})\ . \label{eq:gxi}\end{aligned}$$ The argument of $F$ is a product of supergroup elements, i.e. an element of $U(\lieg)
\otimes \mathcal{M}^4$ or some matrix representation thereof. After the application of $F$ we obtain an element of $\mathcal{M}^4 \otimes V_{1234}$. We may think of this as a vector valued function on the four-fold tensor product of superspaces which can be compared to $G_4$. The factor in front of $F$, that relates $F(g(x_i))$ to $G_4(x_i)$ is a certain matrix of functions on $\mathcal{M}$ that acts non-trivially on the two factors $V_2$ and $V_4$. We shall also refer to eq. as the supersymmetric *lifting formula*.
Let us remark that there is a quick sanity check of our formula, namely one may verify that both sides of the lifting formula satisfy the same Ward identities for infinitesimal transformations generated by elements in $X
\in \lieg_{\geq 0}$. The latter is spanned by translations, supercharges $Q$, rotations, dilations and R-symmetry transformations. The key observation is that $$\label{eq:diffrel}
\sum_{j=1}^4 \mathcal{R}_X^{(j)} g(x_i)
= \left[ X \otimes \id, g(x_i) \right]\ .$$ Recall that the argument $g(x_i)$ of $F$ may be considered as a matrix whose entries are functions on the four-fold product of superspace. On these matrix elements we act with the sum of right invariant vector fields $\mathcal{R}_X$ for $X \in \lieg_{\geq 0}$, acting on one set of superspace coordinates each. The differential operators $\mathcal{R}$ were constructed in the previous section. Our claim is that the resulting matrix of functions on superspace is the same as for the matrix commutator of the representation matrix for $X$ with the product of supergroup elements. This property holds essentially by construction of the argument of $F$. This is not a full proof of our formula yet since the argument cannot easily be extended to special (super-)conformal transformations. We give a complete derivation in the third subsection after we have illustrated the notations and constructions we introduced in this section for the $\mathcal{N}=2$ superconformal algebra in $d=1$ dimension.
Illustration for 1-dimensional superconformal algebra
-----------------------------------------------------
Let us continue to illustrate our constructions and statements in the example of the $\mathcal{N}=2$ superconformal algebra in $d=1$. Recall that the fundamental representation of this algebra is 3-dimensional and hence we realize all our supergroup elements as $3\times 3$ matrices with components in the superspace. The elements $m(x)$ were constructed in eq. already. The Weyl inversion $w$ and its action on superspace were worked out in eqs. (\[eq:wmatrix\]) and , respectively. It is easy to determine the $3 \times 3$ matrices $n(x)$ to take the form $$\label{eq:n-1d}
n(x) = w^{-1} m(x) w = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0\\
-X & 1 & -\theta\\
-\bar\theta & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}\ ,$$ where $X = u - \frac12 \theta \bar\theta$ is the same even combination of superspace coordinates $(u,\theta,\bar \theta)$ that appeared in our formula for $m(x)$. The central ingredient in our construction above is the factorization formula for $w m(x)$. In the case of $\lieg = \mathfrak{sl}(2|1)$ this reads $$\begin{pmatrix}
0 & -1 & 0\\
1 & X & \theta\\
0 & -\bar\theta & 1
\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & -\frac1u \left(1+\frac{\theta\bar\theta}{2u}\right) & \theta/u\\
0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & -\bar\theta/u & 1
\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0\\
u+\frac12\theta\bar\theta & 1 & \theta\\
\bar\theta & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
\frac1u\left(1-\frac{\theta\bar\theta}{2u}\right) & 0 & 0\\
0 & u\left(1-\frac{\theta\bar\theta}{2u}\right) & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1-\frac{\theta\bar\theta}{u}
\end{pmatrix} \ . \label{eq:matrixfactorization-1d}$$ Comparing the first of the three factors with the expression for $m(y)$ we deduce $$y(x) = (Y+\frac12\eta\bar\eta,\eta,\bar\eta) = w(u,\theta,\bar\theta) =
\left(\frac{-1}{u},\frac{\theta}{u},\frac{\bar\theta}{u}\right)\ . \label{eq:wact-1d}$$ This agrees of course with the result we found in eq. . Turning to the second matrix factor in the factorization formula and comparing with eq. for $n(z)$ we conclude $$\label{eq:zcoord-1d}
z(x) = (Z+\frac12\zeta\bar\zeta,\zeta,\bar\zeta) = (-u,-\theta,-\bar\theta) \ .$$ Using the representation matrices for $D$ and $R$ that we spelled out in eq. , the third factor, finally, can be written as $$k(t(x)) = e^{-\log u^2 D + \frac{\theta\bar\theta}{2u}R}\ .$$ We lift the matrix equation to the following factorization identity for supergroup elements $$w m(x) = w e^{x\cdot X} =
e^{w(x)\cdot X} e^{-x\cdot X^w} e^{-\log u^2 D + \frac{\theta\bar\theta}{2u}R} \ ,
\label{fund-1d}$$ where $X^w = w^{-1}(P,Q_+,Q_-)w = (-K,-S_+,S_-)$. Given several points $x_i$ in superspace, we can now compute the supercoordinates $x_{ij}$ by evaluating the product $m(x_j)^{-1}
m(x_i)$. The result is given by $x_{ij} = (u_{ij},\theta_{ij}, \bar \theta_{ij})$ with $$u_{ij} = u_i - u_j -\frac12\theta_i\bar\theta_j - \frac12\bar\theta_i\theta_j \ ,\quad
\theta_{ij} = \theta_i - \theta_j \ ,\quad
\bar\theta_{ij} = \bar\theta_i - \bar\theta_j \ .
\label{distance}$$ For completeness let us also state how the Weyl inversion acts on $x_{ij}$ $$w(x_{ij}) = (-u_{ij}^{-1},u_{ij}^{-1}\theta_{ij},
u_{ij}^{-1}\bar\theta_{ij})\ . \label{inverse}$$ Of course this coincides with the formula applied to the superspace coordinates $x_{ij}$. At this point we have explained all the ingredients that are needed to construct the supergroup elements $g(x_i)$ that were introduced in eq. .
Let us now consider a four-point function $G_4$ of primary fields with conformal weights $\Delta_i$ and R-charges $r_i$ for $i=1, \dots, 4$. Given $\Delta$ and $r$, the corresponding representation $\rho_i$ of the group $K = SO(1,1) \times
U(1)$ reads $$\label{eq:rho-1d}
\rho_{\Delta,r}(e^{\lambda D + \kappa R}) = e^{-\Delta\lambda + r\kappa}\ .$$ Since the group $K$ is abelian, the space $V$ of polarizations is 1-dimensional and so is the tensor product $V_{1234} = V_1 \otimes \dots \otimes V_4$. According to our general result , there exists a unique functional $F$ with the covariance properties $$\begin{aligned}
F(e^{\lambda_l D + \kappa_l R} g e^{\lambda_r D + \kappa_r R})=
e^{(\Delta_2-\Delta_1)\lambda_l+(r_1+r_2)\kappa_l} e^{(\Delta_3-\Delta_4)\lambda_r
- (r_3+r_4)\kappa_r} F(g) \ ,\end{aligned}$$ such that the lifting formula reads $$G_4(x_i) = \Omega(x_i) \, F(e^{-w(x_{21})\cdot X^w} e^{x_{31}\cdot X}
e^{w(x_{43})\cdot X^w})
\label{magic-1d}$$ and the prefactor $\Omega$ is given by $$\label{eq:Omegasl2}
\Omega =\Omega(x_i) = \frac{e^{r_2\frac{\theta_{12}\bar\theta_{12}}{2u_{12}}+
r_4\frac{\theta_{34}\bar\theta_{34}}{2u_{34}}}}{u_{12}^{2\Delta_2}
u_{34}^{2\Delta_4}}\ .$$ It is instructive to verify that the commutation relations hold for the argument of $F$ and to evaluate $G_4$ for Weyl-inverted arguments $w(x_i)$, thereby showing that the right hand side of the lifting formula indeed satisfy the same conformal Ward identities as the four-point function.
Proof of the lifting formula
----------------------------
The goal of this subsection is to prove the main result for an arbitrary superconformal group. Before doing that, let us give one more definition, an extension of the factorization formula $$h m(x) = m(y(x,h)) n(z(x,h)) k(t(x,h)) \ , \label{matrix-identity}$$ from the Weyl inversion $h = w$ to arbitrary elements $h$ of the superconformal group. This formula also extends our analysis in section 2.3 where we studied the action of global conformal transformations on superspace. At the time we only cared about the first factor $m(y(x,h))$ in the product on the right hand side. The new formula extends the action of global superconformal transformations to the whole superconformal group. Otherwise all the additional explanations we provided in section 2.3. remain applicable. The extended factorization formula involves three sets of functions $y(x,h) = (y(x,h)_a)$, $z(x,h) = (z(x,h)_a)$ and $t(x,h) =
(t(x,h)_\varrho)$. For $h=w$ we recover the functions we introduced in the previous section.
A four-point correlation function $G_4$ satisfies a set of Ward identities. For global superconformal transformations $h$ these may be written in the form $$\label{eq:G4Wardid}
G_4 (x_i^h) = \Big(\bigotimes_{i=1}^4 \rho_i (k(t(x_i,h)))\Big) G_4(x_i) \ .$$ Note that correlation functions are essentially invariant under these transformations except some factors depending in the weight, spin and the R-charges. This dependence is encoded in the choice of representations $\rho_i$, as we explained above. In a first step we want to lift the correlator $G_4$ to and object $F_4\in\mathcal{F}_1\otimes V_1
\otimes \dots \otimes \mathcal{F}_4\otimes V_4$, where $\mathcal{F}_i$ are supercommuting copies of the structure algebra $\mathcal{F}(\mathfrak{g})$ of functions on the supergroup. This can be done in a unique way if we require $$\label{eq:F4rightcov}
F_4(m(x_i)) = G_4(x_i)\ ,\quad \quad F_4 (g_i n_i k_i) =
\bigotimes_{i=1}^{4} \rho_i (k_i^{-1})
F_4(g_i) \ .$$ Here our notations are the same as in section 3.1, see our extended discussion before equation . The Ward identities satisfied by $G_4$ imply the following invariance conditions satisfied by $F_4$ under simultaneous left multiplication of its four arguments by an element $h$ of the superconformal group, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:F4leftinv}
F_4(h m(x_i)) & = & F_4\Big( m(x_i^h) n(z(x_i,h)) k(t(x_i,h)) \Big) \\[2mm]
& = & \Big( \bigotimes_{i=1}^4 \rho_i (k(t(x_i,h))^{-1}) \Big) G_4(x_i^h) =
G_4(x_i) = F(m(x_i)) \ .\end{aligned}$$ Other than the Ward identity, we have used the definitions $(\ref{matrix-identity})$ and $(\ref{eq:F4rightcov})$. Given this element $F_4$ and the Weyl inversion $w$ we can construct a new object $F\in\mathcal{F}(\mathfrak{g})\otimes V_{1234}$ through the prescription $$\label{eq:FfromF4}
F(g) := F_4 (e,w^{-1},g,gw^{-1}) \ .$$ While this might look a bit bizarre at first, it is easy to verify that it defines a $K$-spherical function $F$, i.e. that $F$ satisfies the covariance law . Indeed, from the definition of $F$, the left invariance condition and the right covariance law in eq. of $F_4$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
F(k_l g k_r) &= F_4(e,w^{-1},k_l g k_r, k_l g k_r w^{-1}) =
F_4(k_l^{-1},w^{-1} w k_l^{-1}w^{-1},g k_r, g w^{-1} w k_r w^{-1} )\\[2mm]
&= \Big(\rho_1(k_l)\otimes\rho_2(w k_l w^{-1})
\otimes\rho_3(k_r^{-1})\otimes\rho_4(wk_r^{-1}w^{-1})\Big) F(g) \ .\end{aligned}$$ In conclusion we have shown that a correlation function $G_4$ provides us with a $K$-spherical function $F$. It is actually not difficult to invert the map and recover $G_4$ from $F$. Suppressing the last two arguments and their corresponding prefactors for simplicity, we have $$\begin{aligned}
F_4(m(x_1),m(x_2)) & = & \left(1 \otimes \rho_2(k(t_{21})^{-1})\right)
F_4\left(m(x_1) n(y_{21}), m(x_2) k(t_{21})^{-1} n(z_{21})^{-1} \right) \\[2mm]
& = & \left(1 \otimes \rho_2(k(t_{21})^{-1})\right)
F_4\left(m(x_1) n(y_{21}), m(x_1) m(x_{21}) k(t_{21})^{-1} n(z_{21})^{-1} \right) \\[2mm]
& = & \left(1 \otimes \rho_2(k(t_{21})^{-1})\right)
F_4\left(m(x_1) n(y_{21}), m(x_1) w^{-1} m(y_{21}) \right) \\[2mm]
& = & \left(1 \otimes \rho_2(k(t_{21})^{-1})\right)
F_4\left(m(x_1) n(y_{21}), m(x_1) n(y_{21}) w^{-1} \right).\end{aligned}$$ In the first step we used the covariance property of $F_4$ in the first two arguments to multiply the first argument with $n(y_{21})$ and the second with $k(t_{21})^{-1} n(z_{21})^{-1}$. Since the latter contains a factor $k$ it needed to be compensated by a rotation in the second factor of the space of superpolarizations. Then we inserted the definition of $m(x_{21})$ and used that $$m(x_{21}) = w^{-1} m(y_{21}) n(z_{21}) k(t_{21})\ .$$ This factorization formula is essentially the definition of $y_{21}, z_{21}$ and $t_{21}$. Finally we moved the Weyl element $w^{-1}$ through $m$ using that $n = w^{-1} m w$. We can now apply the same steps to the third and fourth argument to obtain $$\label{eq:F4ggwggw}
F_4(m(x_i)) = \left(1 \otimes \rho_2(k(t_{21})^{-1}) \otimes 1 \otimes \rho_4(k(t_{43})^{-1})\right)
F_4\left(g_{12}(x_i),g_{12}(x_i) w^{-1}, g_{34}(x_i), g_{34}(x_i) w^{-1} \right),$$ where we introduced the elements $$g_{ij}= m(x_i) n(y_{ji})\ .$$ Finally, we can use the invariance property of $F$ for $h = g_{12}^{-1}$ to obtain $$F_4(m(x_i)) = \left(1 \otimes \rho_2(k(t_{21})^{-1})
\otimes 1 \otimes \rho_4(k(t_{43})^{-1})\right)
F_4\left(e, w^{-1}, g(x_i), g(x_i) w^{-1}\right) \ .$$ Here $g(x_i)$ is the element we introduced in eq. . Using our definition of the functional $F$ in eq. and the relation between $F_4$ and $G_4$ we have thereby established the lifting formula .
From the above derivation, one may deduce the following transformation properties of $g_{ij}$ and $k(t_{ji})$ under superconformal transformations $$\begin{aligned}
g_{ij}(x^h) & = & h \, g_{ij}(x)\, k(t(x_i,h))^{-1} \ , \label{eq:gijtrafoh}\\[2mm]
k(t_{ji}^h) & = & k^{w}(t(x_i,h))\, k(t_{ji})\, k(t(x_j,h))^{-1}\ , \label{eq:ktrafoh}\end{aligned}$$ where $k^{w} = w k w^{-1}$. Indeed these are necessary for the right hand side of eq. to satisfy the same Ward identities as the left hand side. A complete proof of the two transformation laws can be found in appendix $A$. These two formulas will play a significant role in the computation of the crossing factor to which we turn next.
Tensor Structures and Crossing Symmetry Equations
=================================================
Having lifted the spinning four-point fucntion $G_4$ from superspace to the superconformal group through eq. we can now employ (super)group theoretic constructions to study superconformal correlators. In the first subsection we employ a supersymmetric version of the Cartan or KAK decomposition for superconformal groups of type I to factorize four-point functions into the product of a tensor factor $\Theta =
\Theta(x_i)$ and a function $\Psi$ that depends on superconformal cross ratios only.[^3] This part of our analysis extends constructions in [@Buric:2019dfk] to the superconformal setting. We can perform the factorization for different channels. The supercrossing factor, i.e. the ratio of the corresponding tensor factors $\Theta_s$ and $\Theta_t$ for the $s$- and $t$-channel, is studied at the end of the first subsection. There we establish its superconformal invariance and compute it for bosonic conformal symmetries in any dimension $d$.
At this stage, all quantities depend on fermionic variables. In particular, the function $\Psi$ still depends on some number of nilpotent invariants. By expanding all quantities in the Grassmann variables we construct the crossing factor in the second subsection. This is then used to write the crossing symmetry constraints in the independent coefficients of the operator product expansions in terms of functions of two bosonic cross ratios only. As shown in [@Buric:2019rms], the latter may be expanded into wave functions of some Calogero-Sutherland Hamiltonian. By collecting all the material we have put together through our discussion of the example $\lieg = \mathfrak{sl}(2|1)$ we can finally calculate the crossing factor for $\mathcal{N}=2$ superconformal field theories in $d=1$ dimension, see third subsection.
Cartan coordinates, tensor and crossing factors
-----------------------------------------------
We will now construct the tensor structures, starting from the lifting formula . Note that eq. treats each of the four insertion points differently and hence it breaks the permutation symmetry of correlators in a Euclidean theory. Different permutations $\sigma$ of the four points are associated with different channels. We refer to the channel that is associated with the identity permutation $\sigma = \sigma_s = \textit{id}$ as the $s$-channel. Another important case for us is the permutation $\sigma = \sigma_t = (24)$ which we call the $t$-channel. In any case, given the choice of the channel $\sigma$, we can extend the lifting formula to become $$\label{eq:magic-formulasigma}
G_4(x_i) = \rho_{\sigma(2)}(k(t_{\sigma(2)\sigma(1)})^{-1})
\rho_{\sigma(4)}(k(t_{\sigma(4)\sigma(3)})^{-1}) F_\sigma(g(x_{\sigma(i)})) \ .$$ Here, the factor $\rho_{\sigma(i)}$ acts on the $\sigma(i)^\textit{th}$ tensor factor in the space of superpolarizations and it acts trivially on all other tensor factors.
In order to proceed we adopt a new coordinate system that we refer to as Cartan coordinates. So far we have decomposed supergroup elements $g$ into factors $m$, $n$ and $k$. Now we consider a different decomposition in which supergroup elements $g$ are written as $$\label{eq:sCartan}
g = k_l \eta_l a \eta_r k_r \ ,$$ where $k_{l}$ and $k_{r}$ are associated with the subgroup $K$ that is obtained through exponentiation of rotations, dilations and R-symmetry transformations. Similarly, the factors $\eta_l$ and $\eta_r$ are associated with fermionic generators. More specifically, each of these factors contains half of the generators in the odd subspace $\lieg$. In the following we consider Lie superalgebra $\lieg$ of type I for which the internal symmetry group contains a $U(1)$-factor which allows us to decompose the fermionic generators according to the sign of the $U(1)$ R-charge. It turns out that half of the supercharges $Q$ possess positive R-charge while the others possess negative R-charge and similarly for the super special conformal transformations $S$. Let us agree that $\eta_l$ uses generators of negative charge while $\eta_r$ is build from generators with positive charge. The central factor $a = a(u_1,u_2)$, finally, depends on two bosonic coordinates $u_1,u_2$ only and it is assumed to take the form $$\label{adef}
a(u_1,u_2) = e^{\frac{u_1+u_2}{4}(P_1+K_1) -i \frac{u_1-u_2}{4}(P_2 - K_2)}\ .$$ Let us note that a factorization of supergroup elements $g$ in the form is not unique. In fact, given any such factorization we can produce another factorization of the very same form by the transformation $$\label{eq:gaugeB}
\left(k_l,\eta_l;k_r,\eta_r\right) \rightarrow
\left(k_l b, b^{-1} \eta_l b ; b^{-1} k_r, b^{-1} \eta_r b\right),$$ where $b$ are elements associated with the subalgebra $\mathfrak{so}(d-2)\oplus \mathfrak{u}_r
\subset \liek$ and therefore commute with $a = a(u_1,u_2)$. At the same time, the elements $b^{-1} \eta_{l/r} b$ can still be written as exponentials of fermionic generators with negative(l) and positive(r) $U(1)$ R-charge, respectively. Hence our gauge transformation respects the Cartan decomposition. Elements $b$ form the stabilizer group $B = SO(d-2) \times U_r$ of the Cartan decomposition . For later use we introduce a projector $P$ by integrating $b$ over the entire stabilizer group $B$, $$\label{eq:Pdef}
P = \frac{1}{\text{Vol}\ B} \int_B d\mu b \ =
\frac{1}{\text{Vol}\ B} \int_B d\mu(\beta) b(\beta) \ ,$$ where $\mu$ is the Haar measure on $B$. For pedagogical reasons we have introduced some coordinates $\beta$ on $B$ so that the element $b$ could be written explicitly as a function $b = b (\beta)$ on $B$ with values in $U(\mathfrak{b})$. As we indicated, $P$ can be considered as an element in the universal enveloping algebra $U(\mathfrak{g})$. More concretely, after evaluation in some representation we can also think of $P$ is a matrix. By construction, this matrix has two important properties $$\label{eq:Pprop}
P^2 = P \quad , \quad b P = P\ .$$ We can verify the second equation very easily using the integral representation of $P$ and the left invariance of the Haar measure. The first property then follows from $bP = b(\beta)
P$ by performing an additional integration over $B$ since $P$ is a constant on $B$.
In our analysis below we will apply the projector $P$ to an a function $f(u_i,\theta,\bar \theta)$ that takes values in the representation space $V_{1234}$ of $K$. The latter may be considered a carrier space for a representation of $B$ by restriction from $K$ to its subgroup $B$. The representation of $P$ on such an object $f$ is denoted by $\mathcal{P}$, i.e. $$\label{eq:calP}
\mathcal{P} [f(u_i,\theta,\bar \theta)]= \frac{1}{\text{Vol}\ B} \int_B d\mu \chi(b)
f(u_i,\theta^b,\bar\theta^b)\ ,$$ where $\theta^b$ and $\bar \theta^b$ denotes the action of $b$ on the Grassmann coordinates $\theta$ and $\bar \theta$ and $\chi(b)$ is a shorthand for the action of $b$ on the finite dimensional vector space $V_{1234}$ of superpolarizations, $$\label{eq:chi}
\chi(b)=\rho_1(b)\otimes \rho_2(w b w^{-1})\otimes \rho_3(b)\otimes \rho_4(w b w^{-1})\ .$$ In practical computations it is convenient to make some specific choices for the Cartan factors that remove the gauge freedom . Such gauge fixing conditions are arbitrary and at the end of every calculation one has to check that the result does not depend on them.
Let us now apply the Cartan factorization to the argument $g(x_{\sigma(i)})$ of the functional $F_\sigma$ in eq. , $$\label{Cartan-factors}
g(x_{\sigma(i)}) = k_{\sigma,l}(x_i) \eta_{\sigma,l}(x_i)a_\sigma(x_i)
\eta_{\sigma,r}(x_i) k_{\sigma,r}(x_i) \ .$$ The formula and covariance properties of $F_\sigma$ give $$\begin{aligned}
G_4(x_i) & = \rho_{\sigma(2)}(k(t_{\sigma(2)\sigma(1)})^{-1})
\rho_{\sigma(4)}(k(t_{\sigma(4)\sigma(3)})^{-1}) F_\sigma(g(x_{\sigma(i)})) \nonumber \\[2mm]
& \hspace*{-4pt} = \rho_{\sigma(2)}\left(k(t_{\sigma(2)\sigma(1)})\right)^{-1} \rho_{\sigma(4)}
\left(k(t_{\sigma(4)\sigma(3)})\right)^{-1} F_\sigma(k_{\sigma,l}\eta_{\sigma,l}
a_\sigma \eta_{\sigma,r}k_{\sigma,r}) \\[2mm]
& \hspace*{-4pt} = \rho_{\sigma(1)}(k_{\sigma,l})\rho_{\sigma(2)}\left(k(t_{\sigma(2)\sigma(1)})^{-1}
k_{\sigma,l}^{w}\right)\rho_{\sigma(3)}(k_{\sigma,r}^{-1})\rho_{\sigma(4)}
\left(k(t_{\sigma(4)\sigma(3)})^{-1} (k^{-1}_{\sigma,r})^{w}\right)
F_\sigma(\eta_{\sigma,l}a_\sigma \eta_{\sigma,r}) . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ For simplicity, we dropped the dependence of Cartan factors on the insertion points, i.e.for example $k_{\sigma,l} = k_{\sigma,l}(x_i) = k_l(x_{\sigma(i)})$. We will discuss the concrete functional dependence of the insertion points a bit later.
Let us spell out the previous formula for the $s$ and $t$-channel. In the $s$-channel one obtains $$\label{eq:G4schannel}
G_4(x_i) = \rho_{1} (k_{s,l}) \rho_{2}(k(t_{21})^{-1}
k^{w}_{s,l}) \rho_{3}(k_{s,r}^{-1})
\rho_{4}(k(t_{43})^{-1} (k^{w}_{s,r})^{-1})
\mathcal{P}_s F_s(\eta_{s,l}a_s \eta_{s,r})\ ,$$ while the $t$-channel gives $$\label{eq:G4tchannel}
G_4(x_i) = \rho_{1} (k_{t,l}) \rho_{4}(k(t_{41})^{-1} k^{w}_{t,l}) \rho_{3}(k_{t,r}^{-1})
\rho_{2}(k(t_{23})^{-1} (k^{w}_{t,r})^{-1}) \mathcal{P}_t F_t(\eta_{t,l}a_t \eta_{t,r})\ .$$ Here we introduced projector $\mathcal{P}$ that was defined in eq. explicitly to stress that $F(\eta_l a\eta_r)$ takes value in the space of $B$-invariants. Roughly speaking, the two factors in front of $F_{s}$ and $F_t$ are the $s$- and $t$-channel tensor structures.
The ratio of these $s$- and $t$-channel tensor structures is referred to as supercrossing factor and we denote it by $\mathcal{M}$. As we can read off the the previous two formulas the supercrossing factor takes the form $$\label{eq:crossingmatdef}
\mathcal{M}_{st}(x_i) = \mathcal{P}_t \, \bigotimes_{i=1}^4 \rho_i(\kappa_i) \, \mathcal{P}_s
\ ,$$ where the four elements $\kappa_i$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa_1 = k_{t,l}^{-1}k_{s,l} \quad & , & \quad
\kappa_{2} = k^{w}_{t,r} k(t_{23})k(t_{21})^{-1} k^{w}_{s,l} \\[2mm]
\kappa_{3} = k_{t,r}k_{s,r}^{-1} \quad & , & \quad
\kappa_{4} = (k^{w}_{t,l})^{-1} k(t_{41})k(t_{43})^{-1} (k^{w}_{s,r})^{-1} \ .\end{aligned}$$ It is important to stress the two projectors in eq. make the supercrossing factor independent of any gauge fixing conditions for our gauge symmetry . In fact one can easily check using eq. that any gauge transformation with some element $b$ is absorbed by the projectors.
Our main goal is to compute the matrix $\mathcal{M}$ explicitly. Note that it depends on the insertion points $x_i$ in superspace through the dependence of the factors $k(t_{ij}) = k(t(x_{ij}))$, that were defined in eq. , as well as through the factors $k_{l,r}$ in the Cartan decomposition of the supergroup elements $g_{s,t}(x_i)$. In order to compute the matrix $\mathcal{M}_{st}$ we first show that it is invariant under superconformal transformation, i.e. $\mathcal{M}_{st}(x_i^h) = \mathcal{M}_{st}(x_i)$. This then implies that it is a function of cross ratios only and so it can be computed after moving the insertion points into a special positions.
To see that $\mathcal{M}_{st}$ is a conformal invariant we must study the dependence of the four tensor components one after another. We have already stated the transformation behavior of the factors $k(t_{ij})$ at the end of the previous section, see eq. . What we need to study now is the transformation behavior of the factors $k_{l,r}$ in the Cartan decomposition . To this end let us first note that, according to eq. , the supergroup elements $g_\sigma(x_i)$ transform as $$g_\sigma(x_i^h) = k(t(x_{\sigma(1)},h))\, g_\sigma(x_i)\, k(t(x_{\sigma(3)},h))^{-1}\ .$$ Because of the gauge freedom of the Cartan decomposition which we described in eq. , knowing the behavior of $g_\sigma(x_i)$ under conformal transformations does not allow us to uniquely determine the transformation law of the factors, but we can conclude that $$k_{\sigma,l}(x^h_i) = k(t(x_{\sigma(1)},h)) k_{\sigma,l}(x_i) b_\sigma(x_i,h) \quad , \quad
k_{\sigma,r}(x^h_i) = b^{-1}_\sigma(x_i,h) k_{\sigma,r}(x_i) k(t(x_{\sigma(3)},h))^{-1} \$$ for some factor $b$ that may depend on the channel, the superspace insertion points $x_i$ and the superconformal transformation $h$, yet must be the same for the left and right factors $k_l$ and $k_r$. For the case of $s$- and $t$-channels, these become $$k_{s/t,l}(x^h_i) = k(t(x_{1},h)) k_{s/t,l} b_{s/t}(x_i,h)\quad , \quad
k_{s/t,r}(x^h_i) = b_{s/t}^{-1}(x_i,h) k_{s/t,r} k(t(x_{3},h))^{-1} \ .$$ With these transformation laws it is now easy to verify that all four tensor components $\kappa_i$ of the crossing factor $M$ are indeed invariant under superconformal transformations, up to gauge transformation, i.e. $$\kappa_i(x^h_k) = b^{-1}_t(x_k,h)\, \kappa_i(x_k)\, b_s(x_k,h) \quad , \quad
\kappa_j(x^h_k) = w b^{-1}_t(x_kh) w^{-1}\, \kappa_j(x_k)\, w b_s(x_k,h) w^{-1}\ ,$$ where $i=1,3$ and $j=2,4$. To get the last two relations one employs the formula for $k(t^h_{ji})$ given in eq. ). Using the definition of the projectors $\mathcal{P}_s =\mathcal{P}_t$ and the property of $P \in U(\mathfrak{b})$ we see that $\mathcal{M}_{st}(x_i)$ is indeed invariant under conformal transformations.
The analysis we have performed in this section holds for conformal and superconformal symmetries alike. It is actually quite instructive to evaluate the final formula for the crossing factor for spinning correlators in bosonic conformal field theories. In this case it is in fact rather easy to obtain $\mathcal{M}_{st}$ since we can effectively reduce the problem to one on the 2-dimensional conformal group. We will deviate from previous notations and use $G$ to denote the bosonic conformal group $\textit{SO}(d+1,1)$ and assume $d>2$.
Since the crossing factor is conformally invariant, in computing $\mathcal{M}(u,v)$ we may assume that $x_i$ are any points that give the correct cross ratios $u$ and $v$. In particular, all points can be assumed to lie in the 2-dimensional plane $P$ that is spanned by the first two unit vectors $e_1,e_2$ of the $d$-dimensional space $\mathbb{R}^d$. In this case, the element $g_\sigma(x_i)$ is seen to belong to the conformal group of the plane, i.e. $g_\sigma(x_i) \in G_P=SO(3,1)\subset G$. Within this group $g_\sigma(x_i)$ admits a unique Cartan decomposition, which can also serve as its Cartan decomposition in $G$, bearing in mind that the torus $A\subset G_P \subset G$ of the Cartan decomposition of $G$ is actually a subgroup of $G_P$. Put in another way, the Cartan decomposition of $G_P$ defines a particular gauge fixing for Cartan factors of $g(x_i)$. Note that all relevant rotations are generated by the element $M_{12}$, which commutes with the Weyl inversion $w$ when $d>2$. Hence we conclude that the factors $\kappa_i$ that arise in the transition from $s$- to $t$-channel must be of the form $$\label{form-of-kappas}
\kappa_i = e^{\gamma_i D} e^{\varphi_i M_{12}} \ ,$$ for some functions $\gamma_i$ and $\varphi_i$ that depend on the insertion points $x_i$ of the four fields through their two cross ratios. Having determined the general from of $\kappa_i$, we can find the undetermined coefficients by a direct calculation. Since we can perform the calculation in any conformal frame we set for convenience, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{point-configurations-1}
& x_1 = \frac{\cosh^2\frac{u_1}{2}+\cosh^2\frac{u_2}{2}}{2\cosh^2\frac{u_1}{2}\cosh^2\frac{u_2}{2}} e_1 - i
\frac{\cosh^2\frac{u_1}{2}-\cosh^2\frac{u_2}{2}}{2\cosh^2\frac{u_1}{2}
\cosh^2\frac{u_2}{2}} e_2\ ,\ x_2 = 0\ ,\ x_3 = e_1\ ,\ x_4 = \infty e_1\ .\end{aligned}$$ Then it follows $$\kappa_1 = \kappa_3 = e^{\gamma D + \alpha M_{12}}\, , \quad
\kappa_2 = \kappa_4 = e^{\gamma D - \alpha M_{12}}\ ,$$ where $$e^{4\gamma} = \frac{x_{12}^2 x_{34}^2}{x_{14}^2 x_{23}^2}\, ,\quad
e^{2i\alpha} = \frac{\cosh{\frac{u_1}{2}}}{\cosh{\frac{u_2}{2}}}\ .$$ To complete this description let us also quote from [@Buric:2019dfk] that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:uz}
e^{u_i} & = & 1 - \frac{2}{z_i}\left(1+\sqrt{1-z_i}\right)\ , \\[2mm]
\textit{where} \quad u = z_1 z_2 & = & \frac{x_{12}^2x_{34}^2}{x_{13}^2x_{24}^2}
\quad , \quad v = (1-z_1)(1-z_2) = \frac{x_{14}^2x_{23}^2}{x_{13}^2 x_{24}^2}\ .\end{aligned}$$ Let us note that $\mathcal{M}$ was originally defined using representations of $K = SO(1,1)
\times SO(d)$, but is computed using only representation theory of $SO(1,1)\times SO(2)$.
[**Example:**]{} To make the last point manifest, let us give some more details for conformal theories in $d=3$ dimensions. Let us decompose the factors $k_l = d_l r_l$ and $k_r = d_r r_r$ into dilations $d_{l/r}$ and rotations $r_{l/r}$. Following [@Schomerus:2016epl; @Schomerus:2017eny; @Buric:2019dfk] we parametrize the elements $r$ of the 3-dimensional rotation group through Euler angles, $$r(\phi,\theta,\psi) = e^{-\phi M_{12}} e^{-\theta M_{23}} e^{-\psi M_{12}} \ .$$ With this choice of coordinates, the elements $\kappa_i$ have $\phi =\pm\alpha$ and $\theta = \psi = 0$. Next let us recall that matrix elements of the spin-$j$ representation of $SU(2)$ read $$t^j_{m n} (\phi,\theta,\psi) = \langle j,m| g(\phi,\theta,\psi) | j,n\rangle =
e^{-i(m\phi+n\psi)} d^j_{m n}(\theta) \ .$$ Here, the function $d^j_{m n}$ is known as Wigner’s $d$-function. It is expressed in terms of Jacobi polynomials $P^{(\alpha,\beta)}_n$ as $$d^j_{m n}(\theta) = i^{m-n} \sqrt{\frac{(j+m)!(j-m)!}{(j+n)!(j-n)!}}
\Big(\sin\frac{\theta}{2}\Big)^{m-n} \Big(\cos\frac{\theta}{2}\Big)^{m+n}P^{(m-n,m+n)}_{j-m}(\cos\theta) \ .$$ For $\theta=0$, the only non-zero matrix elements are those with $m=n$. Furthermore $$t^j_{n n}(\pm\alpha,0,0) = e^{\mp in\alpha} P^{(0,2n)}_{j-n}(1) =
e^{\mp in\alpha} = \left(\frac{\cosh\frac{u_1}{2}}{\cosh\frac{u_2}{2}}\right)^{\mp\frac{n}{2}} \ .$$ Since the stabilizer group $B = SO(d-2)$ for a bosonic conformal field theory in $d=3$ dimensions is trivial, so it the projector $P$. Putting all this together we conclude that the crossing factor reads $$(\mathcal{M}_{st})^{ijkl}_{pqrs} = \left(\frac{u}{v}\right)^{-\frac14\sum\Delta_i}
\left(\frac{\cosh\frac{u_1}{2}}{\cosh\frac{u_2}{2}}\right)^{\frac12(i+k-j-l)}
\delta^i_p \delta^j_q \delta^k_r \delta^l_s\ ,$$ where $u,v$ are the usual $s$-channel cross ratios and $u_i = u_i(u,v)$ are functions thereof, see eq. . The first factor in this result for the spinning crossing factor is well known from scalar correlators. The correction it receives for spinning correlators are diagonal in the space of polarizations but depend on the eigenvalues of the generator $J_z$ for rotations around one particular direction $e_z$.
Blocks and crossing symmetry equation
-------------------------------------
In case of bosonic conformal theories, the crossing factor we have just computed along with spinning conformal blocks is all it takes to write down crossing symmetry constraints. For superconformal symmetries of type I, some more work is needed in order to spell out these equations. We describe the additional elements in this subsection before we illustrate the entire formalism at the example for $\mathcal{N}=2$ superconformal theories in $d=1$ dimensions in the next. Along the way we also review the construction of conformal blocks from [@Buric:2019rms]. In order not to clutter the presentation too much, the first part of our discussion focuses on the $s$-channel. Other channels can be dealt with similarly.
In Subsection 4.1 we have shown that the four-point function of primary fields in an arbitrary representations of a conformal superalgebra of type I can we written as $$\label{eq:GThetaPsi}
G_4(x_i) = \Theta_{s}(x_i) \Psi_s(u_i;\theta,\bar \theta)\ ,$$ where the supertensor factor $\Theta_{s}(x_i)$ depends on the insertion points of the fields through $$\label{eq:defOmegas}
\Theta_{s} (x_i) = \omega^{-1/2}(u_1,u_2)
\rho_{1} (k_{s,l}) \rho_{2}(k(t_{21})^{-1}k^{w}_{s,l})
\rho_{3}(k_{s,r}^{-1}) \rho_{4}(k(t_{43})^{-1} (k^{w}_{s,r})^{-1}) P_s\ ,$$ and $\Psi_s$ is a function of the cross ratios, including all nilpotent/fermionic superconformal invariants, that is given by $$\label{eq:deffs}
\Psi_s(u_i;\theta,\bar \theta) = \omega^{1/2}(u_1,u_2) F_s(\eta_{s,l}a_s \eta_{s,r})\ .$$ In splitting eq. into a product of a supertensor factor and a function $\Psi_s$ of the cross ratios we have included a scalar factor $$\omega(u_1,u_2) = 4(-1)^{2-d}(\sinh\frac{u_1}{2} \sinh\frac{u_2}{2})^{2d-2}\coth\frac{u_1}{2}
\coth\frac{u_2}{2} |\sinh^{-2}\frac{u_1}{2}-\sinh^{-2}\frac{u_2}{2}|^{d-2}\ ,$$ which depends on the bosonic cross $u_1,u_2$ ratios only and may in fact be interpreted as the volume of $K\times K$ bosonic orbits on the conformal group, see [@Schomerus:2017eny] for details. The factor $\omega$ is conventional, but has some advantages that will be pointed out below.
Let us now further analyse the factor $F_s$ in formula by expanding it in the fermionic variables. The Grassmann variables $\theta$ that multiply the odd generators of negative $U(1)$ R-charge in the exponent of $\eta_l$ generate an algebra $\Lambda_\theta$ while those variables $\bar\theta$ that multiply the positively charged odd generators in the exponent of $\eta_r$ give rise to a Grassmann algebra $\Lambda_{\bar \theta}$. Before the expansion, the wave functions $\Psi_s(u_1,u_2;\theta,\bar\theta)$ are vector valued, with two copies of the bosonic subgroup $K$ acting in the image of $F$. The first copy, which we refer to as $K_l$ acts on $V_{(12)} = V_1 \otimes V'_2$. Except for the conjugation with the Weyl inversion in the second tensor component, one may think of $V_{(12)}$ as the space of superpolarizations for the first two fields. Similarly, the second copy $K_r$ acts on $V_{(34)} = V_3 \otimes V'_4$. When we perform the fermionic expansion, the coefficients sit in the representation spaces $$V_l = V_{(12)} \otimes \Lambda_\theta \ , \quad V_r = V_{(34)} \otimes
\Lambda_{\bar \theta} \$$ of $K_l$ and $K_r$. Note that the bosonic subgroup $K$ acts on the two Grassmann algebras so that indeed both spaces form a representation of $K$. We also refer to the spaces $V_l$ and $V_r$ as spaces of polarizations, as opposed to $V_{(12)}$ and $V_{(34)}$ which we have called the spaces of superpolarizations.
As we explained before, the covariance properties of $F$ imply that $\Psi$ takes values in the subspace of $B$-invariants, i.e. in the space $$\mathcal{T} = \left(V_{l} \otimes V_r \right)^B \ ,$$ which we also refer to as the space of tensor structures. One may think of its elements as $B$-invariant elements in the space of function of the Grassmann variables $\theta$ and $\bar \theta$ that take values the space of superpolarizations. Let us fix some basis of elements $\omega^I$ in $\mathcal{T}$ and denote the dual basis by $\hat{\omega}_I$. We can collect these elements into two objects $$\label{eq:vdef}
v_s(x_i) = (\omega^1(x_i), \dots, \omega^T(x_i)) \, , \quad \ \hat v_s(x_i) = (\hat \omega_1(x_i),
\dots, \hat \omega_T(x_i)) \ ,$$ where $T = \textit{dim} \mathcal{T}$ is the number of tensor structures. One may think of $v_s$ as a rectangular matrix from the space $\mathcal{T}$ of tensor structures to the space $V_{(12)} \otimes V_{(34)}$ with matrix elements in the Grassmann algebra $\Lambda_\theta \otimes
\Lambda_{\bar\theta} = \Lambda \mathfrak{g}_{\bar 1}$. Through the Cartan decomposition of $g(x_i)$, the Grassmann variables $\theta$ and $\bar \theta$ are concrete functions on the superspace $\mathcal{M}^\otimes_4$. We have displayed this dependence on the supercoordinates $x_i$ explicitly.
The coefficients in the fermionic expansion of $\Psi$ are functions $\psi_I$ of the two bosonic cross ratios $u_1,u_2$ that take values in the space of $V_{(12)} \otimes V_{(34)}$ of superpolarizations. We can write this in the form $$\label{Psivpsi}
\Psi(u_1,u_2;\theta,\bar \theta) = v_s(x_i) \cdot \psi(u_1,u_2) = v_s(x_i) P_s
\psi(u_1,u_2) \ .$$ Putting eqs. and together we can now write the four-point function as $$G_4(x_i) = \Theta_s(x_i) v_s(x_i) \cdot \psi(u_1,u_2) \ .$$ We want to expand $G_4$ into superblocks, i.e. eigenfunctions of the super Casimir operator. The latter turns out to take a particularly simple form when evaluated on $\psi(u_1,u_2)$. As we have shown in [@Buric:2019rms], one finds that $$\label{eq:sCasimir}
\textit{Cas}_s G_4(x_i) = \Theta_s(x_i) v_s(x_i)\cdot (H^{V_l,V_r}_0 + A) \psi(u_1,u_2)\ .$$ Here $H_0$ is the spinning Calogero-Sutherland Hamiltonian for bosonic blocks, i.e. $H_0$ takes the form $$H_0 = - \frac{\partial_2}{\partial u_1^2} - \frac{\partial_2} {\partial u_2^2} +
V(u_1,u_2)\ ,$$ where $V(u_1,u_2)$ is a potential that takes values in the space of $T\times T$ matrices. The precise form of the potential depends on the pair $(V_l,V_r)$ of representations of $K$, but it is the same one obtains for the spinning Casimir operator of the bosonic conformal algebra in Calogero-Sutherland gauge. In $d=3,4$ dimensions such matrix potentials were worked out explicitly in [@Schomerus:2016epl; @Schomerus:2017eny]. The second term $A$ is a matrix valued potential that was shown to be nilpotent and the precise form of these terms is remarkably simple, see [@Buric:2019rms].
The eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian $H_0 = H_0^{V_l,V_r}$ we have just described will be denoted by $\psi_0(\lambda_i;u_i) = \psi^{V_l,V_r}_0(\lambda_i,u_i)$. Here $\lambda_i$ denote the eigenvalues of the (second and higher order) Hamiltonians which are directly related to the (spin and weight) quantum numbers of the intermediate fields in the conformal field theory. Functions $\psi_0(u_i)$ are well studied, and explicit expressions exist at least in dimension $d \leq 4$, see in particular [@Echeverri:2016dun]. Eigenfunctions of the full Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}$ will denoted by $\psi(\lambda_i;u_i)$. Nilpotency of $A$ guarantees that quantum mechanical perturbation theory truncates at some order $N-1\leq\text{dim}\mathfrak{g}_+$, so that we can obtain exact results by summing just a few orders of the perturbative expansion. It turns out that, at any order of the expansion, the perturbation may be evaluated explicitly with some input from the representation theory of $SO(d+2)$. It results in expressions superconformal blocks as finite linear combinations of spinning bosonic blocks. In this sense our results provide a complete solution of the Casimir equations for type I superconformal symmetry and in particular for 4-dimensional conformal field theories with any number $\mathcal{N}$ of supersymmetries.
Here we have described the Casimir equation and its solution for the $s$-channel but it is clear that similar discussions apply to all channels. Reinstating the subscripts $s$ and $t$ we end up with blocks $\psi_s(\lambda_i;u^s_i)$ and $\psi_t (\lambda_i;u^t_i)$. The eigenvalues $\lambda_i = \lambda_i(\mathcal{O})$ are related to the quantum numbers (weight, spin, $R$ charges) of the intermediate supermultiplets $\mathcal{O}$. Let us also stress that these blocks $\psi$ are multi-component objects with $T$ components $\psi^I, I=1, \dots, T$ labeled by a basis of four-point tensor structures. For each eigenvalue one can actually find $T$ independent solutions which are usually labeled by pairs $(a,b)=ab$ of three-point tensor structures for the relevant operators products. Consequently, the blocks $\psi = (\psi^{I,ab})$ carry two sets of labels, an index $I$ running over four point tensor structures and an index $ab$ that enumerates pairs of three point structures. The arguments $u_i^{s/t}$ of the blocks are functions on superspace that are invariant under superconformal transformations. They are related by an exchange of the labels $2$ and $4$ and we can express one in terms of the other. Equating the $s$- and $t$-channel expansion of the four-point function $G_4$ one finds that $$\label{eq:crossing}
\sum_I\sum_{\mathcal{O}} \lambda_{12\mathcal{O},a}
\lambda_{34\mathcal{O},b} M^{JI}_{st}(u^s_i)
\psi^{I,ab}_s(\lambda_i(\mathcal{O});u^s_i)
=
\sum_{\mathcal{O}} \lambda_{14\mathcal{O},a} \lambda_{23\mathcal{O},b}
\psi^{J,ab}_t(\lambda_i(\mathcal{O});u^t_i)\ ,$$ where the indexes $a,b$ and $I,J$ numerate three and four-point tensor structures, respectively, and the crossing factor $M_{st}= M_{st}(u_i)$ is given by $$\label{eq:crossingmatrix}
M_{st} = \hat v_t(x_i)^t \sqrt{\frac{\omega(u^t_i)}{\omega(u^s_i)}}
\mathcal{M}_{st}(u_i,\theta_s,\bar \theta_s)
v_s(x_i)\ .$$ Note that the matrix elements of $M_{st}$ depend on the bosonic cross ratios only. The summation in eq. runs over all superprimary fields $\mathcal{O}$ in the theory. Here we have expressed the crossing factor $\mathcal{M}_{st}(x_i)$ which we defined in eq. in terms of the $s$-channel invariants and we think of the $t$-channel invariants on the right hand side as functions of the $s$-channel ones. Practically, it is easier to relate the $t$- and $s$-channel invariants $u^t_i$ and $u^s_i$ to the usual bosonic cross ratios and expand on both sides in the nilpotent invariants.
The additional factors $v_s$ and $v_t$ express the supercrossing factor $\mathcal{M}$ in terms of its action in the space $\mathcal{T}$ of tensor structures. Let us note that all three factors that appear in eq. are well defined and straightforward to compute explicitly, even though the computations can be a bit cumbersome. The only additional information one then needs in order to evaluate the crossing symmetry constraint is the relation between the bosonic cross ratios $u^s_i$ and $u^t_i$ in the two different channels. These are not difficult to determine from the Cartan decomposition. Let us stress, however, that the relations between $u^s_i$ and $u^t_i$ involve fermionic invariants so that there is an additional fermionic Taylor expansion to be performed on the right hand side of eq. when we express $u^t_i$ in terms of $u^s_i$. We will illustrate all this now in the case of $\mathfrak{g} = \mathfrak{sl}(2|1)$.
Illustration for 1-dimensional superconformal algebra
-----------------------------------------------------
We can now put all the above together and compute the crossing factor between the $s-$ and the $t$- channel for the $\mathcal{N} = 2$ superconformal algebra in one dimension. To this end, the first step is to find the group elements $g_s(x_i)$ and $g_t(x_i)$ which appear in the argument of the covariant function $F$. In turn, this requires the supergroup elements $m(x_i)$, see eq. , and the Weyl element . Then one computes the products $m(x_j) m(x_i)$ and $w
m(x)$ to construct the variables $x_{ij}$ and the action of the Weyl inversion on superspace. For the example at hand this was carried out in subsection 3.2.
These calculations provide all the input that is needed to determine $g_s(x_i)$. The supergroup elements $g_t(x_i)$ for the $t$-channel are obtained by exchanging the labels $2$ and $4$. At this point, $g_s$ and $g_t$ depend on four sets of superspace variables, i.e. they are $3\times3$ matrices whose elements are functions in all the $u_i,\theta_i,\bar\theta_i$ for $i=1, \dots, 4$. Since the crossing factor is a superconformal invariant, we can apply superconformal transformations to gauge fix the coordinates of the four insertion points. The following choice turns out to be convenient $$\label{eq:xigauge}
x_1 = (x,\theta_1,\bar\theta_1),\ x_2 = (0,0,0),\ x_3 =
(1,\theta_3,\bar\theta_3),\ x_4 = (\infty,0,0)\ .$$ With this gauge choice, the entries of the matrices $g_s(x_i)$ and $g_t(x_i)$ depend on the bosonic coordinate $x$ and the four Grassmann variables $\theta_{1,3}$ and $\bar \theta_{1,3}$ only.
In the second step we have to find the Cartan decomposition for both families $g_s$ and $g_t$. For our 1-dimensional theory, the Cartan coordinates are introduced as $$\begin{gathered}
g=e^{\kappa R}e^{\lambda_l D}e^{\bar q Q_-+\bar s S_-}e^{\frac{u}{2}(P+K)}e^{qQ_++sS_+}e^{\lambda_r D}\ .\end{gathered}$$ This agrees with the general prescription , except that the torus of elements $a$ is parametrized by a single variable $u$ in this case. Through straightforward manipulations of supermatrices one finds the following expressions for the Cartan coordinates of $g_s$ and $g_t$ in our gauge . For the bosonic Cartan coordinates in $s$-channel one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:kls}
& \cosh^2 \frac{u_s}{2} = \frac1x \Big( 1 - \frac12\theta_3\bar\theta_3 -\frac{\theta_1\bar\theta_1}{2x} +
\frac{\theta_1\bar\theta_3}{x} +\frac{\theta_1\bar\theta_1\theta_3\bar\theta_3}{4x} \Big)\ ,\quad e^{-2\kappa_s} = 1 +
\frac{\theta_1}{x}(\bar\theta_1 - \bar\theta_3)\ ,\\[2mm]
& e^{\lambda_{s,l}-\lambda_{s,r}} = \Big(1-x-\frac12\theta_1\bar\theta_1-\frac12\theta_3\bar\theta_3+
\theta_1\bar\theta_3\Big) \Big(x-\frac12\theta_1\bar\theta_1\Big)\ ,\label{eq:lsm}\\[2mm]
& e^{\lambda_{s,l}+\lambda_{s,r}} = \Big(1+\frac12\theta_3\bar\theta_3\Big)\Big(x-\frac12\theta_1\bar\theta_1\Big)\ ,
\label{eq:lsp}\end{aligned}$$ while in the $t$-channel these coordinates read $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:klt}
& \cosh^2 \frac{u_t}{2} = x\Big( 1 + \frac12\theta_3\bar\theta_3 + \frac{\theta_1\bar\theta_1}{2x}
- \theta_1\bar\theta_3 + \frac{\theta_1\bar\theta_1\theta_3\bar\theta_3}{4x}\Big)\ ,\quad
e^{-2\kappa_t} = 1 + \bar\theta_3 (\theta_3 - \theta_1)\ , \\[2mm]
& e^{\lambda_{t,l}-\lambda_{t,r}} = - \Big(1-x-\frac12\theta_1\bar\theta_1-\frac12\theta_3\bar\theta_3+
\theta_1\bar\theta_3\Big)\Big(1+\frac12\theta_3\bar\theta_3\Big)\ ,\label{eq:ltm} \\[2mm]
& e^{\lambda_{t,l}+\lambda_{t,r}} = \Big(1-\frac12\theta_3\bar\theta_3\Big)
\Big(x+\frac12\theta_1\bar\theta_1\Big)\ .\label{eq:ltp}\end{aligned}$$ In order to extract $\sinh(u_t/2)$ from the first and $\exp \lambda_{t,l}\ ,\ \exp\lambda_{t,r}$ from the last two lines one has to take some square roots. Here we use the following convention $$e^{\lambda_{t,r}}=i (\frac{x}{1-x})^\frac{1}{2}- \dots\ , \quad
e^{\lambda_{t,l}}=-i \sqrt{x(1-x)}- \dots \ , \quad
\sinh(u_t/2)= i\sqrt{1-x}-\dots \ .$$ The fermionic Cartan coordinates, on the other hand, are given by the following expressions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sqs}
& q_s = e^{\frac12\lambda_{s,r}}\Big(\theta_3 -\frac{\theta_1}{x} \Big( 1-\frac12\theta_3\bar\theta_3\Big)\Big)\ ,
\quad s_s = e^{-\frac12\lambda_{s,r}}\frac{\theta_1}{x}\ ,\\[2mm]
& {\bar q_s = e^{-\frac12\lambda_{s,l}}(\bar\theta_3 -\bar\theta_1)\ ,
\quad \bar s_s = -e^{\frac12\lambda_{s,l}}\frac{\bar\theta_3}{x}}\ ,\\[2mm]
& q_t = e^{\frac12\lambda_{t,r}}(\theta_3 - \theta_1)\ ,
\quad s_t = -e^{-\frac12\lambda_{t,r}}\theta_1\Big(1-\frac12\theta_3\bar\theta_3\Big)\ ,\\[2mm]
& {\bar q_t = -e^{-\frac12\lambda_{t,l}}\Big(\bar\theta_1 - \bar\theta_3\Big(x+\frac12\theta_3\bar\theta_1\Big)\Big)}\ ,
\quad \bar s_t = e^{\frac12\lambda_{t,l}}\bar\theta_3\ . \label{eq:sqt}\end{aligned}$$ This concludes the second step of the construction, namely the determination of the Cartan coordinates in the two channels.
As a third step we want to compute the supercrossing factor $\mathcal{M}_{st}$ between the two channels that was defined in eq. . Note that for our superconformal algebra the group $K$ is generated by dilations $D$ and R-symmetry transformations $R$ only. It is abelian and hence all its irreducible representations are 1-dimensional. Therefore, the supercrossing factor $\mathcal{M}_{st}$ consists just of a single function in the variables $x, \theta_{1,3}$ and $\bar \theta_{1,3}$. It depends, of course, on the choice of representations for the external superfields. We shall pick four such representations $(\Delta_i,r_i)$, corresponding to the conformal weight and the R-charges of the superprimaries, as before. The associated representations $\rho$ of $K = \textit{SO}(1,1) \times U(1)$ were introduced in eq. . Note that in our gauge the factors $k(t_{41})$ and $k(t_{43})$ are trivial. Therefore, we have $$\begin{aligned}
& \kappa_1 = e^{(\lambda_{s,l}-\lambda_{t,l})D + (\kappa_s - \kappa_t) R}\ ,\quad
\kappa_4 = e^{(\lambda_{t,l}+\lambda_{s,r})D-\kappa_t R},\\[2mm]
& \kappa_3 = e^{(\lambda_{t,r}-\lambda_{s,r})D}\ ,\quad \kappa_2 =
e^{-(\lambda_{t,r}+\lambda_{s,l}-\log x^2)D + (\kappa_s - \frac12\theta_3\bar\theta_3 +
\frac{\theta_1\bar\theta_1}{2x})R}.\end{aligned}$$ The matrix ${\mathcal{M}}$ can be written in terms of superspace coordinates by inserting our explicit formulas - for the Cartan coordinates in the $s$- and $t$-channel. This gives $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{st} & = e^{\frac{i\pi}{2}(\Delta_2+\Delta_4-\Delta_1-\Delta_3)} x^{-2\Delta_1}
\alpha^{\frac32\Delta_1-\frac12\Delta_2-\frac12\Delta_3-\frac12\Delta_4} \times \nonumber \\[2mm]
& \hspace*{2cm} \times \beta^{\frac12\Delta_1+\frac12\Delta_2-\frac32\Delta_3+\frac12\Delta_4}
e^{r_1(\kappa_s-\kappa_t) +r_2(\kappa_s-\frac12\theta_3\bar\theta_3+
\frac{\theta_1\bar\theta_1}{2x})-r_4\kappa_t},\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ denote the following superspace elements $$\label{alpha-beta}
\alpha = x + \frac12\theta_1\bar\theta_1,\ \beta = 1 - \frac12\theta_3 \bar\theta_3\ .$$ In order to compute the crossing factor $M_{st}$ we are now instructed to find the map in both $s-$ and $t$-channel. The general construction of $v$ is easy to implement since all representations are 1-dimensional. One finds $$\begin{aligned}
v = (1,q\bar q,q\bar s,s\bar q,s\bar s,qs\bar q\bar s)\ .\end{aligned}$$ Once we insert the expressions - for Cartan coordinates in the two channels we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:vs-1d}
& v_s = \Big(1,-\frac{(\bar\theta_1 - \bar\theta_3)(\theta_1-x\theta_3)}{x^{3/2}\sqrt{1-x}},
\frac{(\theta_1 - x\theta_3)\bar\theta_3+\frac14\Omega}{x^{3/2}},\frac{(\bar\theta_1-\bar\theta_3)
\theta_1+\frac14\Omega}{x^{3/2}},\frac{- \theta_1\bar\theta_3\sqrt{1-x}}{x^{3/2}}, \frac{\Omega}{x^2} \Big)\ ,\\[2mm]
& v_t = \Big(1, i\frac{(\theta_1-\theta_3)(\bar\theta_1-x\bar\theta_3)}{\sqrt{1-x}},
\frac{x\bar\theta_3(\theta_1 - \theta_3)+\frac14\Omega}{\sqrt{x}}, \frac{\theta_1 (\bar\theta_1 - x\bar\theta_3)+
\frac14\Omega}{\sqrt{x}}, i\theta_1\bar\theta_3\sqrt{1-x}\ , \Omega\Big),
\label{eq:vt-1d}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Omega = \theta_1\bar\theta_1\theta_3\bar\theta_3$. Now we have all the elements that are needed to compute the crossing factor $M_{st}$ which we defined in eq. as $$\label{eq:crossingmatrix-1d}
M_{st} = \hat v_t^T \sqrt{\frac{\sinh u_t}{\sinh u_s}}
\mathcal{M}_{st} v_s \ ,$$ where $\sinh u$ is a special instance of the function $\omega(u)$ that we introduced in eq. . All factors that enter our expression for $\mathcal{M}_{st}$ belong to the algebra $\mathbb{C}[x,x^{-1}]
\otimes\mathcal{A}$ where $\mathcal{A}$ is the 6-dimensional algebra that is spanned by the elements $$e_1 = 1\ ,\ e_2 = \theta_1 \bar\theta_1\ ,\ e_3 = \theta_1 \bar\theta_3\ ,\ e_4 = \theta_3 \bar\theta_1\ ,\
e_2 = \theta_3 \bar\theta_3\ ,\ e_6=\Omega \ .$$ If we represent the $e_i$ by the canonical (column) vector, the row vectors $v_{s/t}$ become $6\times 6$ matrices whose entries are functions of $x$. Similarly we can also turn the factor $\sqrt{\frac{\sinh u_t}
{\sinh u_s}}\mathcal{M}_{st}$ into a $6\times 6$ matrix if we replace the elements $e_i$ by their matrix representation in the left regular representation of $\mathcal{A}$. Multiplying all these matrices the final result is a $6 \times 6$ matrix of functions in $x$ which is given by $$\label{eq:crossingmatrix-1dvs2}
M_{st} = v_t^{-1} \sqrt{\frac{\sinh u_t}{\sinh u_s}}
\mathcal{M}_{st} v_s \ .$$ Having computed the crossing factor between $s$- and $t$-channel there is only one final step left, namely to relate the $s$- and $t$-channel cross ratios. Since the arguments of the functions $f$ in the two channels are related by a change of variables that involves Grassmann coordinates, we need to perform a fermionic Taylor expansion in order to write the crossing equation in terms of functions of the bosonic cross ratio $x$ only, e.g. in the $t$-channel this expansion of $f_t(\cosh^2\frac{u_t}{2})$ takes the following form $$f_t = \left(1 + x\Big(\frac12\theta_3\bar\theta_3 + \frac{\theta_1\bar\theta_1}{2x} - \theta_1\bar\theta_3
+ \frac{\theta_1\bar\theta_1\theta_3\bar\theta_3}{4x}\Big)\partial + \frac14 x\Omega\partial^2\right) f_t(x)\ .$$ Upon substitution, the crossing factor is a $6\times6$ matrix of second order differential operators in $x$. This concludes our construction of the crossing symmetry equations for long multiplets of $\mathcal{N}=2$ superconformal field theories in $d=1$ dimension.
Conclusions and Outlook
=======================
In this work we have laid out a systematic theory that allows to decompose four-point functions of local operators into superconformal blocks. It applies to all superconformal field theories in which the superconformal symmetry is of type I, i.e. for which the R-symmetry contains a $U(1)$ subgroup. This is the case for all superconformal field theories in $d=4$ dimensions and a few other cases, in particular in $d=1,2$ and also 3-dimensional $\mathcal{N}=2$ theories. In a first step we lifted the four point correlation function of arbitrary (long) operators to a function on the conformal supergroup, see eq. . A crucial ingredient in this auxiliary step was to assign a special family of supergroup elements $g(x_i)$ to the superspace insertion points $x_i$ of the four fields. Let us stress that this first step is still entirely general in that it applies to all superconformal algebras and not just those of type I. The specialization became necessary for the second step in which we introduced a special supersymmetric version of the Cartan or KAK coordinates on the supergroup. As we had shown in our previous work [@Buric:2019rms], these coordinates are chosen to bring the Casimir equations into a remarkably simple form that allows to construct all superblocks as finite linear combinations of spinning bosonic blocks. The main purpose of the present work was to determine the associated tensor factors that map functions of two cross ratios back to the original correlation function $G_4(x_i)$ on superspace. These tensor factors consist of two factors, a map $\Theta(x_i)$ on the space of superpolarizations, see eq., and a map $v(x_i)$ from the space of superpolarizations to the space of tensor structures that was defined in eq. . The full evaluation of these two factors required to perform the Cartan decomposition of $g(x_i)$ explicitly. This is in principle straightforward, but can be a bit cumbersome, in particular for higher dimensions $d>2$. We have illustrated the explicit computation at the example of the $\mathcal{N}=2$ superconformal algebra in $d=1$ dimension in the last subsection. Higher dimensional examples will be treated in forthcoming work.
For some applications and in particular in order to write down crossing symmetry equations, the tensor factors are actually not that important. What is needed, in addition to the conformal blocks, of course, is only the ratio of tensor factors between different channels. This quantity, which we dubbed the *crossing factor* is a superconformal invariant and hence it can be computed in any (super)conformal frame. Here we computed it for the $\mathcal{N}=2$ superconformal algebra in $d=1$. Along with our previous results on conformal blocks for this symmetry algebra, see [@Buric:2019rms], this allows to write down crossing symmetry constraints for long multiplets, recovering results from [@Cornagliotto:2017dup]. In the latter paper it was shown that the numerical (super-)conformal bootstrap involving long multiplets is significantly more constraining than the boostrap with the short or the superprimary components of long multiplets. Our new derivation of these constraints, however, is now entirely algorithmic and it can be extended without any significant additional difficulty to higher dimensional superconformal algebras of type I. Let us also stress once again that the computation of the crossing factor in higher dimensional theories is significantly simpler that the computation of tensor factors. We have illustrated this at the example of bosonic conformal algebras where the computation of the crossing factor was reduced to computations in the subgroup $\textit{SO}(1,3)$ of the $d$-dimensional conformal group $\textit{SO}(1,d+1)$.
Our focus here was on developing the general theory. Concrete applications in particular to 4-dimensional superconformal theories will be addressed in forthcoming work. In particular we will spell out the crossing symmetry constraint between two channels of a four-point function involving two half-BPS and two long operators in a 4-dimensional $\mathcal{N}=1$ superconformal theory. This requires to combine all the elements of our apprroach. On the one hand we apply the constructions and results of [@Buric:2019rms] to spell out the Casimir-equations in Calogero-Sutherland gauge and we use them to construct analytic expressions for the conformal blocks as finite sums of spinning bosonic blocks. When restricted to the superprimary fields at the bottom of the long multiplets, our new blocks coincide with those constructed in [@Li:2017ddj]. On the other hand, we evaluate our formula for the crossing factor in the example of $\mathfrak{sl}(1|4)$. Combining these two types of input we obtain crossing equations that can be exploited with existing numerical techniques. Since the superblocks are finite linear combinations of spinning bosonic blocks with coefficients whose analytical form is known, the evaluation of the superblocks only requires the numerical evaluation of 4-dimensional spinning bosonic blocks which has been developed in the past, see in particular [@Karateev:2019pvw]. Given the experience with the long multiplet bootstrap in $d=2$ dimensions, see [@Cornagliotto:2017dup], we expect that numerical studies of the extended crossing equations can improve on the constraints obtained from the restricted equations in [@Li:2017ddj]. This may provide new clues also on the elusive minimal $\mathcal{N}=1$ minimal superconformal field theory.
Of course it would also be interesting to spell out crossing symmetry constraints for other correlators in superconformal theories such as the multiplets of R-currents or the stress tensor multiplets. In principle our approach applies to such quantities as well, as long as the superconformal algebra is of type I. Of course, applications to various types of shorter multiplets containing conserved operators should provide some simplifications which we did not address in this work. It would be interesting to study these in more detail with a view on possible extensions of recent results in [@Manenti:2019jds]. Similarly, when summing over all operators in the crossing equations, one has to take shorting conditions for the blocks of short intermediate exchange into account. Usually it is done on the case by case basis [@Arutyunov:2002fh; @Doobary:2015gia; @Aprile:2017bgs; @Sen:2018del]. It would be tempting to adopt the Calogero-Sutherland approach for a systematic analysis, at least in $d=4$. Let us also mention that the situation is getting even more complicated in the case of non-unitary theories [@Yamazaki:2019yfd].
Another interesting direction concerns correlation functions involving non-local operators such as boundaries, interfaces and (line, surface, $\dots$) defects Block expansions for a large class of defect two-point functions are known, see e.g. [@Liendo:2012hy; @Billo:2016cpy; @Lauria:2017wav; @Lauria:2018klo]. A Calogero-Sutherland theory of such blocks was developed in [@Isachenkov:2018pef]. It would be interesting to supplement this by a theory of tensor structures and to extend both ingredients, blocks and tensor structures, to the superconformal algebras. We will return to this issue in future work. An example of physically relevant 1-dimensional defects are superconformal light-ray operators which model high-energy scattering in supersymmetric gauge theories. Their two and three-point correlation functions in the BFKL limit was already calculated in [@Balitsky:2013npa; @Balitsky:2015tca; @Balitsky:2015oux]. These results may be considered as a first step in the realisation of the bootstrap programme for super lightray operators. Block expansions and bootstrap equations for supersymmetric defects have also been studied and applied e.g. in [@Liendo:2016ymz; @Liendo:2018ukf; @Bianchi:2018zpb; @Gimenez-Grau:2019hez; @Bianchi:2019sxz].
The restriction to type I superalgebras is certainly a limiting one that we would like to overcome in view of possible applications of the bootstrap e.g. to the 6-dimensional $(2,0)$ theory [@Beem:2015aoa] or to many relevant examples of superconformal field theories in $d=3$, see [@Abl:2019jhh; @Alday:2020tgi; @Rong:2018okz; @Atanasov:2018kqw; @Agmon:2019imm] for some recent work and further references. With the exception of the $\mathcal{N=2}$ superconformal algebra in $d=3$, non of the superalgebras in these examples is of type I. While it is possible to treat some special cases with methods similar to those described here, in particular in low dimensions, it is not clear to us whether our approach does admit a systematic extension. This remains an interesting challenge for future research.
[**Acknowledgements:**]{} We thank James Drummond, Aleix Gimenez-Grau, Paul Heslop, Mikhail Isachenkov, Madalena Lemos, Pedro Liendo, Junchen Rong, Philine van Vliet for comments and fruitful discussion. The work of ES was supported by ERC grant 648630 IQFT. VS and IB acknowledge support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy – EXC 2121 ,,Quantum Universe” – 390833306.
Proof of covariance laws
========================
In this appendix we prove the transformation properties of $g_{ij}$ and $k(t(y_{ji}))$ that were stated in eqs. and at the end of section 3. These are heavily used in section 4 in establishing conformal invariance of the crossing factor.
0.1cm [**Proposition**]{} Under a superconformal transformation $h$, elements $g_{ij}$ and $k(t_{ji})$ transform as $$g_{ij} (x^h) = h g_{ij}(x) k(t(x_i,h))^{-1},\ \ k(t_{ji}^h) = w k(t(x_i,h)) w^{-1} k(t_{ji}) k(t(x_j,h))^{-1}.$$ [*Proof*]{}: Consider the system of equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{system-1}
& m(x_i) n(y_{ji}) = g_{ij}(x),\\
& m(x_j) k(t_{ji})^{-1} n(z_{ji})^{-1} = g_{ij}(x)w^{-1}.\label{system-1-2}\end{aligned}$$ The first equation is the definition of $g_{ij}(x)$ and the second was shown in the course of the derivation of eq. $(\ref{magic-formula})$ in section 3.3. Let us apply a transformation $h$ to all $x_i$-s. Furthermore, we use $$m(x^h) = h m(x) k(t(x,h))^{-1} n(z(x,h))^{-1}$$ which follows at once from definitions of $k(t(x,h))$ and $n(z(x,h))$. Doing these two steps, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{system-2}
& h m(x_i) k(t(x_i,h))^{-1} n(z(x_i,h))^{-1} n(y_{ji}^h) = g_{ij}(x^h),\\
& h m(x_j) k(t(x_j,h))^{-1} n(z(x_j,h))^{-1} k(t^h_{ji})^{-1} n(z^h_{ji})^{-1} = g_{ij}(x^h)w^{-1}.\label{system-2-2}\end{aligned}$$ By comparing the two systems of equations we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{main-step}
h^{-1}g_{ij}(x^h) = g_{ij}(x) k_{ij} n_{ij},\quad h^{-1} g_{ij}(x^h) w^{-1} = g_{ij}(x) w^{-1} k'_{ij} n'_{ij},\end{aligned}$$ for some $k_{ij},k'_{ij},n_{ij}, n'_{ij}$. By substituting the first of these equations into the second it follows $$\begin{aligned}
g_{ij}(x) k_{ij} n_{ij} w^{-1} = g_{ij}(x) w^{-1} k'_{ij} n'_{ij},\end{aligned}$$ and consequently $$\begin{aligned}
k_{ij} n_{ij} = (w^{-1} k'_{ij}w) (w^{-1} n'_{ij} w).\end{aligned}$$ However, now the grading with respect to the dilation weight implies $n_{ij} = n'_{ij}=1$. Further, a comparison of eqs. $(\ref{system-1})$ and $(\ref{system-2})$ yields $k_{ij} = k(t(x_i,h))^{-1}$. Now the proposition follows from equations $(\ref{main-step})$. Namely, the first claim is obtained by substituting the results for $k_{ij}$ and $n_{ij}$ into the first equation. For the second, let us substitute $n'_{ij}=1$ and $k'_{ij} = w k_{ij} w^{-1}$ into the second equation in eq. $(\ref{main-step})$. This gives $$h^{-1} g_{ij}(x^h) = g_{ij}(x)k_{ij} = g_{ij}(x)k(t(x_i,h))^{-1}.$$ Finally, we substitute eq. $(\ref{system-2-2})$ on the left hand side and eq. $(\ref{system-1-2})$ on the right. Cancelling $m(x_j)$ factors, we arrive at $$\label{claim-2}
k(t(x_j,h))^{-1} n(z(x_j,h))^{-1} k(t^h_{ji})^{-1} n(z^h_{ji})^{-1} w = k(t_{ji})^{-1} n(z_{ji})^{-1}
w k(t(x_i,h))^{-1}.$$ The grading on $\mathfrak{g}$ allows to pick the $k$-factors from both sides $$k(t(x_j,h))^{-1} k(t^h_{ji})^{-1} = k(t_{ji})^{-1} w k(t(x_i,h))^{-1} w^{-1}.$$ Rearranging terms now gives the second claim. This completes the proof of the proposition.
Supermanifolds and Lie supergroups
==================================
In this appendix we collect some properties of supermanifolds and Lie supergroups, following [@Kostant:1975qe]. We hope these may be useful to some readers by offering more details on some constructions in sections 2, 3 and 4, which are however self-contained.
Recall that, by definition, a supermanifold $M$ is a topological space $X$ together with a sheaf $A$ of superalgebras, such that around any point $x\in X$ there is an open neighbourhood $U$ with $A(U)\cong C^\infty(U)\otimes\Lambda_n$, where $\Lambda_n$ is the Grassmann algebra on $n$ generators. The number $n$ is called the odd dimension of $M$. For any open set $V\subset X$, $A(V)$ is a commutative superalgebra. It is a non-trivial, but familiar, fact that the supermanifold can be completely recovered from its structure algebra $A(X)$.
Some constructions regarding supermanifolds are more easily formulated in terms of a certain coalgebra $A(X)^\ast$ rather than the structure algebra itself. The $A(X)^\ast$ is defined as the space of all elements in the full dual $A(X)'$ which vanish on some ideal of finite codimension in $A(X)$. Elements of $A(X)^\ast$ are referred to as [*distributions with finite support*]{}. One observes that $A(X)^\ast$ is a supercocommutative coalgebra. Namely, let $i$ and $\Delta$ be the natural injection and the diagonal map $$\begin{aligned}
& i : A(X)'\otimes A(X)'\xrightarrow{} (A(X)\otimes A(X))',\ \ i(v\otimes w)(f\otimes g) = (-1)^{|w| |f|} v(f) w(g),\\
& \Delta : A(X)'\xrightarrow{}(A(X)\otimes A(X))',\ \ (\Delta v)(f\otimes g) = v (f g),\ \ v,w\in A(X)',\ f,g\in A(X).\end{aligned}$$ Then one can show $\Delta(A(X)^\ast)\subset A(X)^\ast\otimes A(X)^\ast$, so the diagonal map makes $A(X)^\ast$ into a coalgebra. One again has that $A(X)^\ast$ determines the sheaf $A$. For example, $X$ as a set can be recovered either as the set of all homomorphisms $A(X)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, or as the set of all group-like elements in $A(X)^\ast$. The coalgebra $A(X)^\ast$ also plays a prominent role in the theory of Lie supergroups and their actions on supermanifolds, as will be outlined presently.
Lie supergroups
---------------
0.1cm Let $\mathfrak{g}$ be a Lie superalgebra, $H$ a group and $\pi : H\xrightarrow{}\text{Aut}(U(\mathfrak{g}))$ a representation of $H$ by algebra automorphisms. Further, write $F(H)$ for the group algebra of $H$. The [*smash product*]{} $E(H,\mathfrak{g},\pi)$ is a supercocommutative Hopf algebra constructed as follows:
0.1cm $1)$ As a vector space $E = F(H)\otimes U(\mathfrak{g})$.
$2)$ The multiplication in $F(H)$ and $U(\mathfrak{g})$ is defined in the usual way and $h x h^{-1} = \pi(h) x$.
$3)$ The comultiplication $\Delta$, counit $\eta$ and the antipode $\sigma$ are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
& \Delta(h) = h\otimes h,\ \Delta(x) = 1\otimes x + x\otimes 1,\ \eta(h)=1,\ \eta(x)=0,\\
& \sigma(h) = h^{-1},\ \sigma(x) = - x,\ \sigma(A B) = (-1)^{|A||B|}\sigma(B)\sigma(A).\end{aligned}$$ In these formulas $h\in H$, $x\in \mathfrak{g}$ and $A,B\in U(\mathfrak{g})$ are arbitrary. The set of group-like elements of $E$ is precisely $H$ and that of primitive elements is $\mathfrak{g}$. Here $\mathfrak{g}$ is identified with a subspace of $U(\mathfrak{g})$ in the obvious way. Conversely, given a supercocommutative Hopf algebra $E$ with the group of group-like elements $H$ and the Lie superalgebra of primitive elements $\mathfrak{g}$ one can show that a representation $\pi$ exists such that $E=E(H,\mathfrak{g},\pi)$. Now assume that $\mathfrak{g} = \mathfrak{g}_{\bO}\oplus\mathfrak{g}_{\b1}$ is a Lie superalgebra and $G_0$ the connected, simply connected Lie group whose Lie algebra is $\mathfrak{g}_{\bO}$. Then there is a unique representation $\pi$ on $\mathfrak{g}$ by Lie superalgebra automorphisms which reduces to the adjoint representation on $\mathfrak{g}_{\bO}$. The smash product $E(G_0,\mathfrak{g},\pi)$ is called the simply-connected Lie-Hopf algebra associated with $\mathfrak{g}$ and denoted by $E(\mathfrak{g})$.
0.1cm A supermanifold $(X,A)$ is said to be a Lie supergroup if the coalgebra $A(X)^\ast$ is a Hopf algebra. By the above remarks, in this case $A(X)^\ast$ is a smash product $E(G_{0},\mathfrak{g},\pi)$ with $X=G_0$. In fact, if $X$ is simply connected, it can be shown that $A(X)^\ast = E(\mathfrak{g})$ for some Lie superalgebra, called the Lie superalgebra of $(X,A)$.
Supergroup actions
------------------
Assume now that $G=(G_0,A)$ is a Lie supergroup and $M=(Y,B)$ another supermanifold. We will say that $G$ acts on $M$ if there is a map $A(G_0)^\ast \otimes B(Y)^\ast \xrightarrow{} B(Y)^\ast,\ u\otimes w\mapsto u\cdot w$, which satisfies $$\Delta u = \sum_i u_i'\otimes u_i'',\ \Delta w = \sum_j w_j'\otimes w_j''\implies \Delta(u\cdot w) = \sum_{i,j} (-1)^{|u_i''||w_j'|} u_i'\cdot w_j'\otimes u_i''\cdot w_j''.$$ In this case, the structure algebra $B(Y)$ is a $A(G_0)^\ast$-module through $$\pi : A(G_0)^\ast\xrightarrow{}\text{End}(B(Y)),\ \langle w, \pi(u) f\rangle = (-1)^{|u| |w|}\langle \sigma(u)\cdot w, f\rangle.$$ The later is called the coaction representation of $G$. The action of $G$ is fully determined by the corresponding coaction representation. Bearing in mind that $A(G_0)^\ast = E(\mathfrak{g})$, we see that a Lie supergroup action can be though of as a pair of representations of the underlying group $G_0$ and of Lie superalgebra $\mathfrak{g}$ on the vector space $B(Y)$, which satisfy a compatibility condition.
Dually, there is a map $\varphi : B(Y)\xrightarrow{}B(Y)\otimes A(G_0)$ that makes $B(Y)$ into a comodule-algebra of $A(G_0)$. This means that $\varphi$ is a morphism of algebras which is compatible with the Hopf algebra structure of $A(G_0)$. For example, $\varphi$ satisfies $$(1\otimes\Delta)\circ\varphi = (\varphi\otimes1)\circ\varphi : B(Y)\xrightarrow{}B(Y)\otimes A(G_0)\otimes A(G_0),$$ along with a number of other compatibility conditions, see e.g. [@madore_1999]. Let $p$ be a point in $G_0$, considered as a morphism $p:A(G_0)\xrightarrow{}\mathbb{R}$. Then one can form the map $(1\otimes p)\circ\varphi : B(Y)\xrightarrow{}B(Y)$. For obvious reasons, we refer to such compositions with $p$ as [*evaluations*]{}. Running over all points $p$, we get a representation of the $G_0$ on $B(Y)$. This agrees with the coaction representation $\pi$ from above.
In section 2.3 it was shown how the action of a superconformal group on a superspace may be computed explicitly. As was pointed out, the action requires the introduction of the tensor factor $A(G_0)=\mathcal{F}(\mathfrak{g})$ in the image of $\varphi$ - generators of $A(G_0)$ were denoted collectively by the letter $s$. In the case of bosonic transformations, $s$ could be evaluated in the sense just explained. For a fixed group element like the Weyl inversion, only the evaluated action makes sense. The evaluated action of the bosonic group $G_0$ and the infinitesimal action of the conformal Lie superalgebra described in section 2.2 fit together to form a representation of the Lie-Hopf algebra $A(G_0)^\ast$ on $B(Y) = \mathcal{M}$.
[^1]: Here we assume that all the matrix elements are constant functions on the supergroup, i.e. they are proportional to the identity element of the structure algebra.
[^2]: Mathematically minded readers should think of $g$ as a supergroup element $g \in
U(\lieg) \otimes \mathcal{F}$ where $\mathcal{F}$ can be any graded commutative algebra, see section 2.1. The object $F(g) \in \mathcal{F} \otimes V_{1234}$ is then obtained using the duality between $\mathcal{F}(\lieg)$ and $U(\lieg)$, see eq. .
[^3]: As explained in the introduction, our group theoretic factorization $G_4 = \Theta \Psi$ is reminiscent of the factorization $G_4 = \Omega g$ used in most of the CFT literature. The difference between the two factorizations can be quantified through the ratio $\Theta \Omega^{-1}$ which has a non-trivial dependence on cross ratios. As we shall see below, $\Theta$ and $\Psi$ are more universal than the factors $\Omega$ and $g$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We construct a set of exact, highly excited eigenstates for a nonintegrable spin-1/2 model in one dimension. These states provide a new solvable example of quantum many-body scars: their sub-volume-law entanglement and equal energy spacing allow for infinitely long-lived coherent oscillations of local observables following a suitable quantum quench. While previous works on scars have interpreted such oscillations in terms of the precession of an emergent macroscopic SU(2) spin, the present model evades this description due to a set of emergent kinetic constraints in the scarred eigenstates that are absent in the underlying Hamiltonian. We also analyze the set of initial states that give rise to periodic revivals. Remarkably, a subset of these initial states coincides with the family of area-law entangled Rokhsar-Kivelson states shown by Lesanovsky to be exact ground states for a class of models relevant to experiments on Rydberg-blockaded atomic lattices.'
author:
- Thomas Iadecola
- Michael Schecter
bibliography:
- 'refs\_zero.bib'
title: 'Quantum Many-Body Scar States with Emergent Kinetic Constraints and Finite-Entanglement Revivals'
---
Introduction
============
The ergodic hypothesis holds that a generic quantum many-body system prepared in a simple initial state relaxes under unitary evolution to a steady state that depends only on the initial values of conserved quantities, such as energy or particle number. For the present purposes, a “generic" quantum system is one that is strongly interacting and far from any integrable regions of parameter space, and a “simple" initial state is one that can be prepared by minimizing the energy of a local Hamiltonian. While this point of view is reasonable, and essentially unavoidable in systems where the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis (ETH) holds [@Deutsch91; @Srednicki94; @Rigol08; @D'Alessio16; @Deutsch18], a growing body of recent work has begun to grapple with systems where it does not apply [@Nandkishore15; @Abanin19].
One striking development along these lines has been the emergence of quantum many-body scars, which stems from a surprising experimental observation [@Bernien17] in a Rydberg-blockaded atomic chain of length $L=51$: when the system was prepared in a Néel state and allowed to evolve unitarily, it was found that measurements of local observables exhibited long-lived coherent oscillations. Such behavior is unexpected given the finite energy density of the initial state and the nonintegrable nature of the relevant model Hamiltonian [@Rigol08]. These oscillations were later attributed to the existence of a set of rare eigenstates (of order $L$ in number) having large overlap with the Néel state [@Turner17]. Furthermore, these “scarred" eigenstates are (nearly) equally spaced in energy and, according to finite-size numerics, appear to violate the entanglement “volume law" by exhibiting entanglement entropy scaling as $\ln L$ [@Turner18]. These three anomalous features, namely $$\begin{aligned}
\noindent
&\text{$i)$ concentration of weight on a ``simple" initial state,}\\
&\text{$ii)$ (nearly) equal energy spacing, and}\\
&\text{$iii)$ sub-volume-law entanglement}\end{aligned}$$ enable long-lived coherent oscillations of local observables in an otherwise thermalizing system and can be taken as an operational definition of scarred eigenstates. QMBS thus provide an intriguing example of *weak* ergodicity breaking, where the preparation of a *particular* initial state can lead to nonthermalizing quantum dynamics [@Biroli10; @Deutsch18].
The initial discovery of QMBS brought into focus a number of pressing questions, foremost among them being the microscopic origin of the scarred many-body states in the experimentally relevant model, known colloquially as the “PXP model." A number of possibilities have been put forward, including various quasiparticle pictures [@Lin18; @Iadecola19], proximity to a putative integrable point [@Khemani18], connections to lattice gauge theories [@Surace19], and the potential existence of an emergent macroscopic SU(2) “spin" embedded in the many-body spectrum [@Choi18]. Reconciling these diverse (though not necessarily contradictory) viewpoints is challenging given the relatively poor analytical understanding of the PXP model, which necessitates a reliance on finite-size numerics.
An alternative approach is to find analytically tractable nonintegrable models with scarred eigenstates and explore their properties in hopes of developing a useful framework for comparison with experiments. Exact finite-energy-density eigenstates with equal energy spacing and sub-volume-law entanglement \[i.e., satisfying conditions $ii)$ and $iii)$\] were found in the Affleck-Kennedy-Lieb-Tasaki (AKLT) spin chain in Refs. [@Moudgalya18a; @Moudgalya18b]. However, it is not yet known what quench is necessary to observe revivals of the many-body wavefunction—i.e., it is not known whether condition $i)$ is satisfied in this model. In Ref. [@Schecter19], we demonstrated that another model, the spin-1 $XY$ model, also possesses a set of atypical eigenstates satisfying $ii)$ and $iii)$, and furthermore that condition $i)$ holds for these eigenstates. The necessary low-entanglement initial state (in this case a product state) was identified owing to the existence of an emergent SU(2) algebra similar to the one suggested on phenomenological grounds in Ref. [@Choi18]: in this model, the revivals of the many-body wavefunction following a quench from this initial state are interpreted in terms of a macroscopic SU(2) spin precessing in a magnetic field.
Here we show that this simple SU(2) picture is not the whole story by constructing a new exact instance of QMBS in a class of spin-1/2 models. Like the states constructed in Refs. [@Moudgalya18a; @Moudgalya18b; @Schecter19], the scars in these models form towers of states containing “condensates" of stable quasiparticles at momentum $\pi$. However, unlike the ones studied in Ref. [@Schecter19], these quasiparticles cannot be annihilated by a local operator when a finite density of them are present. This is due to the emergence of a kinetic constraint that forbids them from occupying neighboring sites (a similar constraint was found in Refs. [@Moudgalya18a; @Moudgalya18b]). This kinetic constraint is precisely the “Fibonacci" constraint that arises in the experimentally relevant Rydberg-blockaded model [@Lukin01; @Lesanovsky12b], but in this case is emergent in that it is not present in the underlying Hamiltonian and its other eigenstates. Thus, the “raising" and “lowering" operators for the towers of states we construct cannot be adjoints of one another. This explicitly precludes the grouping of scarred eigenstates into representations of an SU(2) algebra.
Despite this, we find a set of initial states giving rise to exact revivals. This set includes a family of initial states that, unlike ones found in previous exact examples of QMBS, are not product states but finitely-entangled area-law states. Remarkably, this family of initial states is related to a set of Rokhsar-Kivelson states shown by Lesanovsky [@Lesanovsky11] to be the exact ground states of a class of models relevant to experiments in Rydberg-blockaded atomic lattices. While the possibility of periodic revivals to a state with finite entanglement was raised in Ref. [@Michailidis19] in the context of a time-dependent variational principle (TDVP) study, the present work demonstrates that such behavior can arise in an analytically exact setting.
We also demonstrate a prescription based on an auxiliary SU(2) algebra for choosing initial states that exhibit revivals. Despite the fact that the scarred eigenstates do not form a representation of this algebra, it is possible to project other states that *do* form an appropriate representation into the kinetically constrained subspace to obtain the desired initial states. The resulting dynamics still does not have an SU(2) structure as the kinetic constraint selects a preferred quantization axis.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec: Model and Scarred Eigenstates\] we define the model and show that it possesses two towers of scarred eigenstates, related by a $\mathbb Z_2$ symmetry. We exemplify their nonthermal nature both by an exact calculation of their entanglement spectrum and by finding a local Hamiltonian whose ground state manifold is spanned by these states. In Sec. \[sec: Structure of the Scarred Eigenstate Towers\] we examine the structure of the scarred eigenstate towers and show how the emergent kinetic constraint precludes the scarred eigenstates from forming a representation of an SU(2) algebra. In Sec. \[sec: Initial States and Finite-Entanglement Revivals\], we identify the relevant initial states. Finally, we offer conclusions in Sec. \[sec: Conclusions\].
Model and Scarred Eigenstates {#sec: Model and Scarred Eigenstates}
=============================
We consider spin-1/2 degrees of freedom on a chain with $L$ sites described by the Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: H}
\begin{split}
H\!&=\!\sum^{i_L}_{i=i_1}\!\left[\lambda\, (\sigma^x_i-\sigma^z_{i-1}\sigma^x_{i}\sigma^z_{i+1})+\Delta\,\sigma^z_i+J\, \sigma^z_{i}\sigma^z_{i+1}\right]\\
&\equiv H_{\lambda}+H_{z}+H_{zz}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma^{x,y,z}_i$ are Pauli matrices defined on site $i$. We hereafter set $\lambda=1$ and, without loss of generality, choose $L$ to be even. The limits on the sum above depend on whether open or periodic boundary conditions (OBC or PBC) are chosen. For OBC, we take $i_1=2$ and $i_L=L-1$, so that $[H,\sigma^z_{1,L}]=0$. In this case, the edge spins are constants of motion and can be fixed from the outset. For PBC, $i_1=1$ and $i_L=L$, with sites $0\equiv L$ and $L+1 \equiv 1$. Regardless of boundary conditions, the model has a spatial inversion symmetry $I$ with eigenvalues $\pm 1$ and a $U(1)$ symmetry associated with conservation of the number of Ising domain walls, $n_{\rm DW}$.
It is useful to consider how the Hamiltonian acts on $z$-basis product states, which we represent in terms of the local basis $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma^z_i|1\rangle=|1\rangle,\indent\sigma^z_i|0\rangle=-|0\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ In this case, the only off-diagonal part of $H$ is $H_\lambda$, which flips a spin if and only if its nearest neighbors are in different spin states; for example, up to a prefactor $H_\lambda$ maps $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: scattering}
|\dots00100\dots\rangle\to|\dots01100\dots\rangle+|\dots00110\dots\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the Ising domain-wall number is manifestly conserved.
![Statistics of energy level spacings in the middle half of the spectrum for the model with OBC. The Hamiltonian parameters and symmetry sectors used are indicated in the figure. The Poisson (red) and Wigner-Dyson (blue) distributions, the former characteristic of integrable systems and the latter of chaotic systems described by random matrix theory, are shown for comparison. Excellent agreement with the Wigner-Dyson distribution is shown as, quantified by the $r$-value of the distribution [@Pal10], which is very close to the Wigner-Dyson value $r_{\rm WD}\approx 0.5295$.[]{data-label="fig: lvl"}](lvl-statistics.pdf){width=".9\columnwidth"}
For generic values of $\Delta$ and $J$, the model is nonintegrable. This can be verified, e.g., by examining the probability distribution of the spacings $s$ between energy levels, $P(s)$, which appears to be well described by random matrix theory for levels in a given symmetry sector (see Fig. \[fig: lvl\]). When $\Delta=0$, the model is integrable and can be solved by mapping to free fermions via a Jordan-Wigner transformation. Adding a finite $\Delta$ introduces a highly nonlocal interaction term in the fermionic language, breaking integrability.
Definition of Scarred States {#sec: Definition of Scarred States}
----------------------------
We are now in a position to define the scarred eigenstates of the model . We first define the tower of states
\[eq: Sn\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: Sn a}
|\mathcal S_n\rangle=\frac{1}{n!\sqrt{\mathcal N(L,n)}}\,(Q^\dagger)^n\, |\Omega\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ where $|\Omega\rangle=|0\dots0\rangle$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal N(L,n)
=
\begin{cases}
\binom{L-n-1}{n} & \text{OBC}\\
\frac{L}{n}\binom{L-n-1}{n-1} & \text{PBC}\\
\end{cases}.\end{aligned}$$ The operator $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: Sn b}
Q^\dagger=\sum^{i_L}_{i=i_1}(-1)^i\, P^0_{i-1}\sigma^{+}_{i}P^0_{i+1},\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma^\pm_j=(\sigma^x_j \pm i\,\sigma^y_j)/2$ and $P^0_i = (1-\sigma^z_i)/2$ is the local projector onto spin down. When PBC are imposed, the total momentum of the state $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$ is equal to $K_n=\pi n\ (\text{mod }2\pi)$; for OBC and PBC, its inversion quantum number is $(-1)^n$ and its $U(1)$ quantum number is $n_{\rm DW}=2n$.
The state $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$ has energy $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: En}
E_n=(2\Delta-4J)\,n+J(L-1)-\Delta L.\end{aligned}$$ Note that for generic $n$ of order $L$, the states $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$ have finite energy density, corresponding to infinite temperature for generic parameters in Eq. . The proof that the states are eigenstates of Eq. relies on showing that $H_{\lambda}|\mathcal S_n\rangle=0$ and proceeds along the lines of the analogous calculation in Ref. [@Moudgalya18a]; we present it in Appendix \[sec: eigenstate proof\].
Physically, the state $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$ contains $n$ magnons (i.e., spin flips, or 1s in a background of 0s), each carrying momentum $k=\pi$. In fact, when $n/L$ is finite it can be viewed as a condensate of such magnons, as it possesses off-diagonal long-range order (ODLRO) [@Yang62] with respect to the “order parameter" $Q^\dagger$, similar to Refs. [@Yang89; @Schecter19]. Physically, this ODLRO manifests itself in long-range *connected* magnetic correlations. This fact itself is evidence that these states generically do not obey the ETH; an infinite-temperature state has a trivial density matrix and therefore cannot support long-range connected correlations. The magnons in these states are subject to a kinetic constraint: two magnons cannot occupy neighboring sites owing to the projectors $P^0_i$ in $Q^\dagger$. We call this the “Fibonacci constraint" as the number of states in the spin-1/2 Hilbert space satisfying this constraint grows as a power of the golden ratio [@Lesanovsky12b]. While this kinetic constraint arises naturally in Rydberg-blockaded atomic lattices and is built into the PXP model, in the present context it is *emergent* in the sense that this constraint is not present, even approximately, in the underlying Hamiltonian . The kinetic constraint implies that the number of states $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$ depends on boundary conditions. For PBC, there are $L/2+1$ such states ($n=0,\dots,L/2$), since $(Q^\dagger)^{L/2+1}=0$ owing to the kinetic constraint. For OBC, there are only $L/2$ ($n=0,\dots,L/2-1$), since the edge spins are frozen \[see discussion below Eq. \], effectively reducing $L$ by $2$.
In addition to the tower of states defined in Eqs. , there is another tower of exact eigenstates related to the states $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$, namely
\[eq: Snp\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: Snp a}
|\mathcal S^{\prime}_n\rangle = G\, |\mathcal S_n\rangle=\frac{1}{n!\sqrt{\mathcal N(L,n)}}\,(Q^{\prime\,\dagger})^n\, |\Omega^\prime\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ where $G=\prod^L_{i=1}\sigma^x_i$ is a $\mathbb Z_2$ transformation that flips all spins, $|\Omega^\prime\rangle=|1\dots1\rangle$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: Snp b}
Q^{\prime\, \dagger}=G\, Q^\dagger\,G=\sum^{i_L}_{i=i_1}(-1)^i\, P^1_{i-1}\sigma^{-}_{i}P^1_{i+1},\end{aligned}$$
with $P^1_i = (1+\sigma^z_i)/2$ the local projector onto spin up. The energy of the state $|\mathcal S^{\prime}_n\rangle$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
E^\prime_n=-(2\Delta+4J)\,n+J(L-1)+\Delta L,\end{aligned}$$ and the remaining symmetry quantum numbers are identical to the states $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$.
The states $|\mathcal S^{\prime}_n\rangle$ have the same interpretation as their counterparts $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$, except that the roles of the 0 and 1 states are interchanged. The dependence of the number of states $|\mathcal S_n^\prime\rangle$ is identical to that of $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$. Taking both towers of states into account, there are $L$ scarred eigenstates with OBC, while there are $L+1$ scarred eigenstates with PBC. In the latter case, the extra state comes from the Néel cat state $(|1010\dots\rangle\pm|0101\dots\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$, which contains the maximum possible number of magnons given the kinetic constraint (the $\pm$ depends on $L$ and must be chosen such that the state has the appropriate momentum quantum number). Since this state is $\mathbb Z_2$-symmetric, it belongs to both towers: $|\mathcal S_{L/2}\rangle = |\mathcal S^\prime_{L/2}\rangle$ for PBC [^1]. As these two towers of states are related by applying a simple unitary operator, we will hereafter consider only the tower of states $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$ with the understanding that similar results hold for the states $|\mathcal S^\prime_n\rangle$. We will also restrict to OBC, with the understanding that all results for OBC have analogs for PBC.
Sub-Volume-Law Entanglement {#sec: Sub-Volume-Law Entanglement}
---------------------------
![ Bipartite entanglement entropy $S_A$ \[Eq. \] in the model ; Hamiltonian parameters are the same as in Fig. \[fig: lvl\]. Top: $S_A$ vs. many-body energy $E$. Eigenstates in the symmetry sector with $n_{\rm DW}=8$, where the scared state $|\mathcal S_{n=4}\rangle$ (circled) resides, are represented by small points. The points are color coded according to their density, such that warmer colors indicate more densely packed points. Larger red points indicate $S_A$ for the scarred states $|\mathcal S_{n\neq 4}\rangle$, which reside in symmetry sectors with different values of $n_{\rm DW}$ and $I$. The dashed black line indicates the expected value for a random state, Eq. . Bottom: Exact $S_A(L,L/2,n)$ \[Eq. \] for the scarred state $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$ at $n=L/4-1/2$ for a family of system sizes $L=2\ \text{mod}\ 4$, which includes $L=18$. Data are plotted on a log-linear scale, with a line of best fit drawn in red. []{data-label="fig: ee"}](ee.pdf "fig:"){width=".9\columnwidth"}\
We now demonstrate that the states defined in Eqs. generically have sub-volume-law entanglement, thereby demonstrating explicitly their ETH-violating nature. We quantify the entanglement of a state $|\psi\rangle$ using the von Neumann entanglement entropy, defined with respect to a bipartition of the system into subsystems $A$ and $B$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: S_A}
S_A=-\text{tr}(\rho_A\ln\rho_A)\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_A = \text{tr}_{B}|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|$ is the reduced density matrix on region $A$, which we take to be the left half of the system. Numerical results from exact diagonalization at $L=18$ are shown in the top panel of Fig. \[fig: ee\]. These data clearly show that typical eigenstates in the middle of the many-body spectrum have entanglement entropy close to the expected value for a random state [@Page93], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: S_A ran}
S^\mathrm{ran}_A=\frac{L-2}{2}\ln 2-\frac{1}{2},\end{aligned}$$ indicated by the dashed black line in the top panel of Fig. \[fig: ee\]. (Here $L-2$ appears rather than $L$ due to the freezing of the edge spins under OBC.) This value scales with $L$, exemplifying the entanglement volume law expected in high-energy-density eigenstates of generic local Hamiltonians. The scarred eigenstates (larger red points in Fig. \[fig: ee\]), on the other hand, have much lower entanglement than typical eigenstates nearby in energy. While these numerical results are for fixed $L$, an exact calculation of the entanglement spectrum (i.e., the eigenvalues of $\rho_A$) allows for the evaluation of $S_A$ in the states $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$ for arbitrary system sizes, where one finds $S_A\sim\ln L$ for generic $n$ (see bottom panel of Fig. \[fig: ee\]).
We compute the entanglement spectrum for a state $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$ by writing $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: Sn cut}
\begin{split}
|\mathcal S_n\rangle
&= \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathcal N(L,n)}}
\sum_{\substack{i_1<\dots<i_n\\ |i_p-i_{p+1}|>1\\ i_p\neq 1,L}}
\!\!\!
\sigma(\{i_p\})\,
|\{i_p\}\rangle\\
&\equiv
\sum_{\substack{i_1<\dots<i_n\\ |i_p-i_{p+1}|>1\\ i_p\neq 1,L}}
M_{\{i_p\}_A,\{i_p\}_B}\,
|\{i_p\}_A\rangle\otimes|\{i_p\}_B\rangle.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Here, we denote by $|\{i_p\}\rangle$ a state with $n$ magnons at positions $i_p$, $p=1,\dots, n$, and $\sigma(\{i_p\})=(-1)^{\sum^n_{p=1}i_p}$. The set $\{i_p\}_{A(B)}$ denotes the restriction of the set $\{i_p\}$ to region $A$ ($B$), which we take to have length $L_{A}$ ($L_{B}$). The entanglement spectrum is then given by the eigenvalues of the matrix $\mathcal M \equiv MM^\dagger$. In Appendix \[sec: es\], we show that $\mathcal M = \bigoplus^{K}_{k=0}\mathcal M_{k}$ \[$K=\text{min}(n,\lfloor L_A/2 \rfloor)$ for OBC\], where the subblocks $\mathcal M_{k}$ each contribute a pair of eigenvalues
\[eq: es\]
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: lambda}
\lambda_{k,\pm}(L,L_A,n)=\frac{D_{1,k}m_{1,k}+D_{2,k}m_{2,k}\pm\sqrt{(D_{1,k} m_{1,k} - D_{2,k} m_{2,k})^2 + 4 D_{1,k} D_{2,k} m_{2,k}^2}}{2\mathcal N},\end{aligned}$$
where $\mathcal N\equiv \mathcal N(L,n)$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{d1k}
D_{1,k}\equiv D_{1,k}(L_A) &= \mathcal N(L_A,k) \\
\label{d2k}
D_{2,k}\equiv D_{2,k}(L_A) &= \mathcal N(L_A-1,k-1) \\
\label{m1k}
m_{1,k}\equiv m_{1,k}(L_B,n) &= \mathcal N(L_B,n-k) \\
&\qquad+\mathcal N(L_B-1,n-k-1) \nonumber
\\
\label{m2k}
m_{2,k}\equiv m_{2,k}(L_B,n) &= \mathcal N(L_B,n-k). \end{aligned}$$
The exact entanglement entropy for the scar state $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$ is then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: S_A exact}
S_A(L,L_A,n)=-\sum^n_{k=0} \sum_{s=\pm}\lambda_{k,s}\ln\lambda_{k,s}.\end{aligned}$$ A plot of Eq. as a function of $L$ with $L=2\ \text{mod}\ 4$, $L_A=L/2$, and $n=L/4-1/2$ is shown in the bottom panel of Fig. \[fig: ee\]. A clear logarithmic scaling with $L$ is observed. This scaling is consistent with results found for the exact eigenstates in Refs. [@Moudgalya18b; @Schecter19], which also have an interpretation in terms of free or kinetically constrained quasiparticles.
Scarred Eigenstates as Ground States {#sec: Characteristic Projectors}
------------------------------------
Another remarkable feature of the states $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$ is that there exists a local Hamiltonian whose ground state manifold is spanned by these states. This is yet another feature of the states $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$ that contradicts expectations for ETH-obeying states. For example, while ground states of generic local Hamiltonians in 1D are believed to violate the area law at most logarithmically [@Eisert10] (see though [@Movassagh16] and references therein), ETH-obeying states are always volume-law entangled. The discussion below further highlights the local structure of the states $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$.
The aforementioned local Hamiltonian is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: Hu}
H_{\rm u} = \sum^{i_L}_{i=i_1}\mathcal P_i,\end{aligned}$$
with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: Pi def}
\mathcal P_i = P^1_{i}\, P^1_{i+1} + P^0_{i-1}\left(\frac{1}{4}+\bm S_{i} \cdot \bm S_{i+1}\right)P^0_{i+2},\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined $$\begin{aligned}
\bm S_{i} = \frac{1}{2}\, \left(\sigma^x_i,\sigma^y_i,(-1)^i\sigma^z_{i}\right)^\mathsf{T}.\end{aligned}$$
In Appendix \[sec: uncle\], we show using matrix product state (MPS) techniques that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal P_i\, |\mathcal S_n\rangle = 0 \qquad \forall\ i,n,\end{aligned}$$ i.e., that the states $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$ are frustration-free ground states of the Hamiltonian $H_{\rm u}$. As might be anticipated from the $\ln L$ scaling of entanglement in the states $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$, finite-size numerics suggest that the Hamiltonian is gapless in the thermodynamic limit. For this reason, the Hamiltonian $H_{\rm u}$ can be viewed as an “uncle Hamiltonian" [@Fernandez15] for the states $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$, the term “parent Hamiltonian" being reserved for gapped Hamiltonians having a particular MPS as their ground state.
Having identified the projectors $\mathcal P_i$, it is now possible to write down another class of local Hamiltonians where the states $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$ appear as “scarred" many-body eigenstates at finite energy density. This is a class of “embedded" Hamiltonians [@Shiraishi17; @Mondaini18; @Shiraishi18; @Ok19] of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: He}
H_{\rm e} = H_0+H'\equiv \sum_{i}\mathcal P_i\, h_i\, \mathcal P_i + H',\end{aligned}$$ where $h_i$ is any local interaction acting within a few sites of site $i$, and where $H'$ is chosen such that $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$ are among its eigenstates (for example, any local Hamiltonian that is a function solely of $\sigma^z_i$ is a possible $H'$). $H_{\rm e}$ is designed such that the first term annihilates any of the states $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$, so that their energy is set by $H'$. While a similar scenario arises for the Hamiltonian owing to the fact that $H_\lambda|\mathcal S_n\rangle=0$, we stress that this model is *not* of the form . In particular, as we show in Appendix \[sec: eigenstate proof\], $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$ are not frustration-free zero-energy states of $H_\lambda$, while they are for $H_{0}$ by design. However, one can view Eq. as defining a class of perturbations to the Hamiltonian under which the scarred eigenstates $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$ remain stable.
Finally, it is interesting to note that, while projectors $\mathcal P^\prime_i$ analogous to Eq. can also be defined for the states $|\mathcal S^\prime_n\rangle$ \[Eq. \] by applying the transformation $G$, the projectors $\mathcal P_i$ *do not* annihilate the states $|\mathcal S^\prime_n\rangle$. Thus, while Hamiltonians of the form and can be constructed for each tower of states individually, it is apparently not possible to embed *both* towers of states in the ground state manifold of a local Hamiltonian, or among the excited states of another Hamiltonian using the embedding technique of Ref. [@Shiraishi17]. Despite this, both towers of states appear as eigenstates of the local Hamiltonian .
Structure of the Scarred Eigenstate Towers {#sec: Structure of the Scarred Eigenstate Towers}
==========================================
Having defined two sets of scarred eigenstates of Eq. and elucidated some of their atypical properties, we now consider their structure in more detail. We focus as before on the states $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$. These states form a “tower of states" in the sense that they are obtained by repeated application of an operator $Q^\dagger$ \[Eq. \] on a “lowest-weight" state $|\mathcal S_0\rangle = |\Omega\rangle$. The “tower" truncates when the “highest-weight" state $|\mathcal S_{L/2-1}\rangle$ is reached, i.e. $Q^\dagger |\mathcal S_{L/2-1}\rangle=0$. Given that $Q^\dagger$ creates a quasiparticle (i.e. a magnon), one might expect that the operator $Q$ destroys one. If this were the case, then we could repeatedly apply $Q$ to the “highest-weight" state $|\mathcal S_{L/2-1}\rangle$ until we reach the lowest-weight state $|\mathcal S_0\rangle$. This is the case in the spin-1 $XY$ model studied in Ref. [@Schecter19]; in that model, the equivalents of $Q,Q^\dagger$ are generators of an emergent SU(2) algebra, and the scarred states form a particular representation of this algebra. We now show that this *is not* true in the case of the present model, Eq. . Instead, we will show that a different, *nonlocal* operator $\tilde Q$ can be applied repeatedly to the highest-weight state until the lowest-weight state is reached. Since the raising and lowering operators for the tower of states are not adjoints of one another, this tower of states does not form a representation of an SU(2) algebra.
Before writing down the nonlocal operator $\tilde Q$, let us consider why a local operator does not allow one to “descend" the tower. First, note that the operator $Q$ *does* annihilate a single magnon, i.e. $Q\, |\mathcal S_1\rangle\propto |\mathcal S_0\rangle$. This is due to the fact that the lone $1$ present in any configuration entering $|\mathcal S_1\rangle$ is surrounded by $0$s. However, for OBC one can show that $Q\, |\mathcal S_2\rangle$ is not proportional to $|\mathcal S_1\rangle$. Instead, one finds $$\begin{aligned}
Q\, |\mathcal S_2\rangle
\propto
\cdots
\!+\!
\frac{L-4}{L-5}\, |010\dots0\rangle
\!-\!
|0010\dots 0\rangle
\!+\!
\cdots,\end{aligned}$$ wherein not all states are weighted with equal amplitudes (up to signs): configurations with a magnon near the boundary obtain an enhanced weight due to the freezing of the edge spins under OBC. This unwanted enhancement arises because there are $L-4$ possible locations for the second magnon when the first magnon is at site $2$ or $L-1$, as opposed to $L-5$ when the first magnon is in the bulk of the chain. A more severe problem arises regardless of boundary conditions for the states $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$ with $n\geq 3$. For example, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: QS3}
\begin{split}
Q\, |\mathcal S_3\rangle
&\propto
\cdots
+
\frac{L-7}{L-8}\,
|\dots 01010 \dots\rangle\\
&
\qquad\qquad\qquad
-
|\dots 010010 \dots\rangle
+\cdots.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Here an undesired weight enhancement occurs for configurations with two closely packed magnons in the bulk of the chain, where the third magnon can be distributed over $L-7$ (for OBC) rather than $L-8$ sites for nonoverlapping magnons.
The preceding considerations demonstrate that a local operator cannot connect the state $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$ to the state $|\mathcal S_{n-1}\rangle$. For example, to connect $|\mathcal S_3\rangle$ to $|\mathcal S_2\rangle$, it is not enough to simply annihilate a magnon—one has to keep track of where the other two magnons are, regardless of how far away they are from the third, in order to weight the resulting configurations correctly. However, there is a nonlocal operator that does the job. This operator is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: qt}
\tilde Q \!=\!
\sum^{i_L}_{i=i_1}\sum^{\frac{L}{2}-1}_{j=0}
(-1)^{i+j}P^0_{i-1}
\!\left[\prod^{i+2j}_{k=i}\sigma^{(-1)^{k-i+1}}_{k}\!\right]\!P^0_{i+2j+1},\end{aligned}$$ where we use the shorthand $\sigma^{(-1)^j}_{k} =\left[\sigma^x_{k}+i(-1)^j\sigma^y_k\right]/2$, which assigns a spin raising or lowering operator to site $k$ depending on the parity of $j$. Rather than annihilating a single magnon, $\tilde Q$ finds Néel domains of odd length with 1s at their left and right ends and, if the domain is flanked by 0s, flips all spins in the domain. This decreases by one the number of 1s in the domain, indicating that $\tilde Q$ decreases the number of magnons by one and the number of domain walls by two, as it should. This is precisely what is needed to fix the weighting problem. Consider, e.g., Eq. : while $|\dots 01010 \dots\rangle$ has $L-7$ possible locations for an additional isolated magnon and $|\dots 010010 \dots\rangle$ has $L-8$, one can also add a magnon to the former configuration by flipping the $01010$ domain to $10101$. However, there are *two* ways to add a magnon to the $010010$ domain in the latter configuration, since any of the two $010$ domains can be flipped to $101$. Thus, flipping Néel domains instead of individual spins enhances the weight of previously underweighted configurations in order to maintain the equal weighting of all configurations in the states $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$. Consequently, one finds that $\tilde Q\, |\mathcal S_n\rangle \propto |\mathcal S_{n-1}\rangle$ for *any* $n$. We note in passing that an operator $\tilde{Q}^\prime$ analogous to $\tilde{Q}$ for the states $|\mathcal S^\prime_{n}\rangle$ \[Eq. \] can be obtained from Eq. by applying the transformation $G$.
It is intriguing to note that a similar structure might be at work in the tower of scarred eigenstates of the AKLT model derived in Ref. [@Moudgalya18a], which also feature emergent kinetic constraints like the ones arising in this work. Ref. [@Moudgalya18a] identified a local “raising" operator for the tower of states, but the adjoint of this “raising" operator does not act as a lowering operator. Based on the similarities with the states studied in this paper, one might suspect the existence of a nonlocal operator like Eq. in the AKLT model; this question is an interesting subject for future work.
Initial States and Finite-Entanglement Revivals {#sec: Initial States and Finite-Entanglement Revivals}
===============================================
We now turn to the identification of a class of initial states suitable to observe revivals. A generic initial state that projects the quantum dynamics onto the set of scarred states $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: generic initial}
|\Psi\rangle=\sum_{n}c_n\, |\mathcal S_n\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ This state has the following three properties, which also turn out to be sufficient for a state to be of the form : 1) it satisfies the Fibonacci constraint, 2) since each $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$ has magnetization $2n-L$ in the $z$-basis, every configuration in $|\Psi\rangle$ with magnetization $2n-L$ appears with equal weight $|c_n|^2$, and 3) each 1 (i.e., up spin) carries a phase $\pm 1$ depending on whether it sits on an even or odd site. As with all the results in this paper, an analogous statement holds for the states $|\mathcal S^\prime_n\rangle$, which can be obtained by transforming all states and operators by the transformation $G$. We now discuss one interesting subset of this class of states that is generically entangled, unlike the initial states in Ref. [@Schecter19] and in the original Rydberg experiment [@Bernien17]. We then discuss an algebraic prescription for constructing such states and explain how it applies to the aforementioned entangled initial states.
Rokhsar-Kivelson Initial States
-------------------------------
One class of initial states satisfying all three of the above conditions is
\[eq: RK\] $$\begin{aligned}
|\xi\rangle
=
\frac{1}{\sqrt{Z\left(|\xi|^2\right)}}
\prod^{i_L}_{i=i_1}\left[1+(-1)^i\, \xi\,P^0_{i-1}\, \sigma^+_i\, P^0_{i+1}\right]|\Omega\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ which consists of a superposition of all possible spin flips starting from the “vacuum" state $|\Omega\rangle$. Each flipped spin in the superposition carries the necessary staggered phase factor as well as an arbitrary prefactor $\xi\in\mathbb C$, such that any configuration with $n$ flipped spins has weight $|\xi|^{2n}/Z\left(|\xi|^2\right)$. (We will see later that the phase of $\xi$ is physically unimportant, so that we can take $\xi$ to be real and positive.) The normalization factor $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: Z}
Z\left(|\xi|^2\right)&=\sum^{L/2-1}_{n=0}|\xi|^{2n}\mathcal N(n)\\
&=\frac{\left(1+\sqrt{1+4 \left| \xi \right| ^2}\right)^{L}\!\!-\!\left(1-\sqrt{1+4 \left| \xi \right| ^2}\right)^{L}}{2^L\sqrt{1+4 \left| \xi \right| ^2}},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where we have assumed OBC. By construction, the state $|\xi\rangle$ is of the form , with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: cn}
c_n = \xi^n\sqrt{\frac{\mathcal N(n)}{Z\left(|\xi|^2\right)}}.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, $|\xi\rangle$ is area-law entangled because it can be written as a finite-bond-dimension MPS (see Appendix \[sec: xi MPS\]). We also emphasize that for generic $\xi$, the state $|\xi\rangle$ has finite energy density with respect to $H$—for example, at $L=12$, $\langle \xi=1|H|\xi=1\rangle=-1.28333$, whereas the extremal eigenstates have energies $\sim \pm 15$.
Remarkably, Eq. is equivalent (up to a product of single-site unitary transformations) to the family of Rokhsar-Kivelson (RK) wavefunctions [@Rokhsar88] shown by Lesanovsky [@Lesanovsky11] to be ground states of a family of Hamiltonians relevant to experiments on Rydberg-blockaded atomic ensembles. The Hamiltonian whose ground state is the state $|\xi\rangle$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\xi} = \sum^{i_L}_{i=i_1} P^0_{i-1}\left[\xi^{-1}\, P^1_{i}+\xi\, P^0_{i}-(-1)^i\, \sigma^x_i\right]P^0_{i+1},\end{aligned}$$ which can be obtained from Eq. (4) of Ref. [@Lesanovsky11] by applying the unitary transformation $\prod_{i\text{ even}}\sigma^z_i$. Thus, to prepare the state $|\xi\rangle$ it suffices to prepare the ground state of $H_{\xi}$, e.g., by quasi-adiabatic ramps, similar to how the Néel state was prepared in Ref. [@Bernien17].
The state $|\xi\rangle$ can be viewed as containing a distribution of $\pi$-momentum magnons parameterized by $|\xi|$. In particular, the normalization factor $Z\left(|\xi|^2\right)$, Eq. , can be interpreted as a grand canonical partition function for a gas of $\pi$-magnons at infinite temperature and finite fugacity $|\xi|^2$. It immediately follows that the expansion coefficients $|c_n|^2$, Eq. , can be interpreted as the classical grand-canonical probability of the system occupying a state with $n$ $\pi$-magnons. Thus, by tuning $|\xi|$, one can effectively tune the initial distribution of $\pi$-magnons and subsequently follow the quantum evolution of this distribution.
![ Dynamics of the many-body fidelity $\mathcal F(t)=|\langle\Psi(t)|\Psi(0)\rangle|^2$ (top) and the half-chain entanglement entropy $S_A$ (bottom) for various initial states at $L=12$. (Other parameters are the same as Figs. \[fig: lvl\] and \[fig: ee\].) For the RK states $|\xi\rangle$, the fidelity dynamics exhibits exact periodic revivals with period $2\pi/\Omega$, while the entanglement remains constant in time. The finite value of the fidelity between revivals for some values of $\xi$ is a finite-size effect. For an arbitrary product state in the $z$-basis with a comparable energy density, the fidelity rapidly decays to zero while the entanglement grows close to the random-state value, Eq. (black dashed line). []{data-label="fig: dynamics"}](dynamics.pdf "fig:"){width=".85\columnwidth"}\
Since $|\xi\rangle$ is of the form , its evolution is simply $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: evol}
|\xi(t)\rangle
&=
\sum_{n}c_n\, e^{-i E_n t}|\mathcal S_n\rangle \nonumber \\
&\propto
\frac{1}{\sqrt{Z\left(|\xi|^2\right)}}\sum_n \sqrt{\mathcal N(n)}\, (e^{-i \Omega t}\xi)^n|\mathcal S_n\rangle\\
&=|e^{-i\Omega t} \xi\rangle, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ up to an overall phase, with $c_n$ and $E_n$ defined in Eqs. and , respectively, and where $\Omega \equiv 2\Delta-4J$. From this expression, we immediately see that the state $|\xi\rangle$ returns to itself with period $2\pi/\Omega$ under time evolution with $H$. This periodic behavior is reflected in the many-body fidelity under evolution with $H$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal F_\xi(t) = |\langle \xi(t)|\xi\rangle|^2 = \left|\frac{Z\left(e^{i\Omega t}|\xi|^2\right)}{Z\left(|\xi|^2\right)}\right|^2.\end{aligned}$$ In the thermodynamic limit and for any finite $\xi$, the above expression approaches a function that equals $1$ at integer multiples of $2\pi/\Omega$ and $0$ everywhere else. These exact periodic revivals constitute the final definitive hallmark of QMBS.
We plot the fidelity and entanglement dynamics for various initial states in Fig. \[fig: dynamics\]. As expected, the states $|\xi\rangle$ display exact revivals with period $2\pi/\Omega$, while a generic product state in the $z$-basis does not. Moreover, while the half-chain entanglement entropy for an initial product state grows rapidly with time and approaches the value $S^\mathrm{ran}_A$, Eq. , it remains constant for the initial states $|\xi\rangle$. This unusual feature highlights the fact that the evolution of the states $|\xi\rangle$ under $H$ is exceptionally simple despite their finite entanglement; as evident in Eq. , time evolution merely rotates the phase of $\xi$ at a frequency $\Omega$.
Initial States from Projected SU(2) Rotations
---------------------------------------------
We now discuss a related strategy for obtaining initial states satisfying (1)–(3). This strategy hinges on the use of rotations generated by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: su(2)}
\mathcal J^{x/y}=\frac{1}{2}\sum^{i_L}_{i=i_1}(-1)^i\, \sigma^{x/y}_i,\indent \mathcal J^z=\frac{1}{2}\sum^{i_L}_{i=i_1}\sigma^z_i,\end{aligned}$$ which can readily be shown to satisfy the SU(2) algebra $[\mathcal J^\alpha,\mathcal J^\beta]=i\, \epsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma}\,\mathcal J^\gamma$. Using these generators, we can define an auxiliary tower of states $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: aux}
|S_n\rangle\propto(\mathcal J^+)^n\, |\Omega\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ satisfying $|\mathcal S_n\rangle = \mathcal P_{\rm fib}|S_n\rangle$ for any $n\leq L/2$, where $\mathcal J^\pm=\mathcal J^x\pm i\,\mathcal J^y$ and $\mathcal P_{\rm fib}$ is the projector onto states obeying the Fibonacci constraint. While they are not eigenstates of the Hamiltonian , the auxiliary states *do* form a representation of SU(2), as can be verified by computing the action of $\bm{\mathcal J}\cdot\bm{\mathcal J}=\frac{1}{2}(\mathcal J^+\mathcal J^-+\text{H.c.})+(\mathcal J^z)^2$ on any normalized $|S_n\rangle$. We find $$\begin{aligned}
\bm{\mathcal J}\cdot\bm{\mathcal J}\, |S_n\rangle = l(l+1)\, |S_n\rangle,\ l=\begin{cases}\frac{L}{2}-1 & \text{OBC}\\ \frac{L}{2} & \text{PBC}\end{cases},\end{aligned}$$ where $2l+1$ is the number of states in the auxiliary tower , which depends on boundary conditions due to the definitions .
We emphasized above that the states are not eigenstates of Eq. , and in Sec. \[sec: Structure of the Scarred Eigenstate Towers\] that the scarred eigenstates $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$ cannot form a representation of any SU(2) algebra; nevertheless, the SU(2) algebra provides a prescription for generating initial states of the form , as we now explain. Any state in the representation of the algebra spanned by the auxiliary states $|S_n\rangle$ satisfies conditions (2) and (3) by construction: configurations with fixed magnetization have equal weight, and each up spin carries a staggered sign. The remaining condition, (1), is satisfied once the projector $\mathcal P_{\rm fib}$ is applied. We conclude that any state of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: generic initial P}
|\Psi\rangle \propto \mathcal P_{\rm fib}\sum_{n}\tilde c_n |S_n\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ once normalized, is automatically of the form . Such states can generically be obtained by acting with an SU(2) rotation on any state belonging to the appropriate SU(2) representation and subsequently applying $\mathcal P_{\rm fib}$.
As an application of this concept, we demonstrate that the RK states are of the form . First, we rewrite the RK state as $$\begin{aligned}
|\xi\rangle
=
\frac{1}{\sqrt{Z\left(|\xi|^2\right)}}\, \mathcal P_{\rm fib}
\prod^{i_L}_{i=i_1}\left[1+(-1)^i\, \xi\, \sigma^+_i\, \right]|\Omega\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ We can then show that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: RK-R}
\prod^{i_L}_{i=i_1}\left[1+(-1)^i\, \xi\, \sigma^+_i\, \right]|\Omega\rangle \propto \mathcal R(\phi,\theta,\psi)\, |\Omega\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal R(\phi,\theta,\psi)$ is an SU(2) rotation parameterized by Euler angles $\phi,\theta,\psi$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal R(\phi,\theta,\psi)=e^{i\, \phi\, \mathcal J^z}e^{i\, \theta\, \mathcal J^x}e^{i\, \psi\, \mathcal J^z}.\end{aligned}$$ A straightforward calculation finds that $$\begin{aligned}
\xi = \tan(\theta/2)\, e^{i(\phi+\pi/2)}\end{aligned}$$ in Eq. . Note that the Euler angle $\psi$ does not enter as it merely results in an overall phase factor. Since $|\Omega\rangle=|S_0\rangle$ and the states $|S_n\rangle$ form a basis for a representation of the SU(2) algebra , Eq. immediately implies the desired result.
As a final comment, we stress that the projected SU(2) structure of the states *does not* imply an interpretation of the periodic dynamics in terms of the precession of an SU(2) spin, even at the level of the auxiliary tower of states . If such a picture did hold, it would be possible to rotate the precession axis \[which for us is the $z$-axis due to the structure of the Hamiltonian \] by adding to $H$ some linear combination of the generators . This procedure is discussed in Ref. [@Schecter19], where it is made possible by the fact that the scarred *eigenstates* constructed there form a representation of SU(2). Such a rotation of the precession axis is precluded in the present case by the fact that the scarred eigenstates constructed here do not form an SU(2) representation, as discussed in Sec. \[sec: Structure of the Scarred Eigenstate Towers\]. Instead, a special quantization axis is selected by the Fibonacci constraint: $[\mathcal J_z,\mathcal P_{\rm fib}]=0$, which singles out the $z$-axis as the preferred axis of rotation.
Conclusions {#sec: Conclusions}
===========
In this paper we have demonstrated the existence of exact quantum many-body scars in the nonintegrable model $H$ defined in . The scarred many-body eigenstates in this model differ in several important respects from previous examples of QMBS. First, the model possesses two towers of scarred eigenstates, related by a $\mathbb Z_2$ transformation that does not commute with $H$. Second, the scarred towers of states possess an unusual structure where there is an asymmetry between creating and destroying a magnon—the former is accomplished with a local operator, whereas the latter is accomplished with a nonlocal operator. Third, we find that the scarred eigenstates give rise to periodic revivals when the system is prepared in a family of *entangled* initial states. This scenario differs from most studies of QMBS to date, as typically the initial state is taken to be a product state. However, we believe that a state of the form will generically allow for the observation of revivals in systems with QMBS for which a quasiparticle picture holds either exactly or approximately. For example, for the spin-1 $XY$ model studied in Ref. [@Schecter19], one can replace the $P^0\sigma^+P^0$ term in Eq. with $(S^+_i)^2$ and set $\xi=1$ to obtain the product state used to elicit revivals in that model.
The scarred eigenstates in this model share several features with the scarred eigenstates of the AKLT chain that were found in Ref. [@Moudgalya18a]. For example, the scarred eigenstates of the AKLT chain also have emergent kinetic constraints that prevent quasiparticles from being created on neighboring sites. This also gives rise to an asymmetry in the AKLT tower of states similar to the one studied here. One interesting problem for future work is therefore to use the insights gained in the present work to better understand QMBS in the AKLT model.
It will also be interesting to consider whether other states of the form can be prepared by local means, i.e. to understand how much control can be exerted over the amplitudes $c_n$. Tailoring these amplitudes is equivalent to designing a grand-canonical distribution function for the $\pi$-magnons, which in turn strongly influences the ensuing periodic dynamics. Mapping out the space of possible $c_n$ is equivalent to mapping out the full set of locally preparable initial states that give rise to scarred many-body dynamics.
*Note added*—In the final stages of preparing this manuscript there appeared Ref. [@Chattopadhyay19], which discusses finite-entanglement revivals in a variant of the model studied in Ref. [@Schecter19] and obtains similar results to the ones reported here.
Proof that the states are eigenstates {#sec: eigenstate proof}
=====================================
The proof that the states $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$ are eigenstates of $H$ follows closely the analogous one presented in Ref. [@Moudgalya18a]. Since the states $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$ are automatically eigenstates of $H_z$ and $H_{zz}$ \[see Eqs. and \], it suffices to show that $H_\lambda |\mathcal S_n\rangle=0$. We begin by considering the action of $H_\lambda$ on $|\mathcal S_1\rangle$ and $|\mathcal S_2\rangle$, before considering states with more magnons. For simplicity we focus on the case of PBC, although at the end we comment on how the proof is modified for OBC.
Adopting notation analogous to that of Ref. [@Moudgalya18a], we write
$$\begin{aligned}
|\mathcal S_1\rangle &\propto \sum^{L}_{j=1}(-1)^{j}\, |M_{j}\rangle, \label{eq: S1} \\
|\mathcal S_2\rangle &\propto \sum^{L}_{\substack{j_1,j_2=1\\ |j_1-j_2|>1}}(-1)^{j_1+j_2}\, |M_{j_1} M_{j_2}\rangle =\sum^{L}_{j=1}\sum^{L-2}_{m=2}(-1)^m\, |M_j M_{j+m}\rangle, \label{eq: S2}\end{aligned}$$
where $|M_j\rangle$ is a state containing one magnon on site $j$, so that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: Mj}
\begin{split}
|M_{j}\rangle &\equiv |0\dots0\underset{j}{1}0\dots0\rangle\\
|M_{j_1}M_{j_2}\rangle &\equiv |0\dots0\underset{j_1}{1}0\dots0\underset{j_2}{1}0\dots0\rangle
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
and so on for states containing more magnons. Next we compute $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: HM}
H_\lambda |M_j\rangle = 2\left(|0\dots1\underset{j}{1}0\dots0\rangle +|0\dots\underset{j}{1}10\dots0\rangle\right)\equiv 2\left(|N_{j-1}\rangle+|N_j\rangle\right).\end{aligned}$$ We will call $|N_{j-1}\rangle$ and $|N_{j}\rangle$ the “backward" and “forward" scattering states, respectively. Applying $\sum^{L}_{j=1}(-1)^j$ to both sides of the above delivers $H_\lambda|\mathcal S_1\rangle=0$ due to a cancellation of scattering states $|N_{j}\rangle$ between $|M_j\rangle$ and $|M_{j+1}\rangle$. We can now apply the scattering rule to $|\mathcal S_2\rangle$. We compute $$\begin{aligned}
H_\lambda |M_j M_{j+m}\rangle
=
2\times
\begin{cases}
|N_{j-1}M_{j+m}\rangle+|N_{j}M_{j+m}\rangle+|M_jN_{j+m-1}\rangle+|M_jN_{j+m}\rangle & 3 \leq m \leq L-3\\
|N_{j-1}M_{j+2}\rangle+|M_jN_{j+2}\rangle & m=2 \\
|N_{j}M_{j-2}\rangle+|M_jN_{j-3}\rangle & m=L-2
\end{cases}
,\end{aligned}$$ where configurations with $m=2,L-2$ are distinguished from the others because they contain the motif $\dots 01010 \dots$, where scattering into the central “0" site is forbidden by the form of $H_\lambda$ \[see discussion around Eq. \]. For the $m=L-2$ case above we used the fact that $j+L-2\equiv j-2$ mod L. We then obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\label{eq: HS2a}
H_{\lambda}|\mathcal S_2\rangle
&\propto \sum^{L}_{j=1}\sum^{L-3}_{m=3}(-1)^m\Big( |N_{j}M_{j+m}\rangle+|M_jN_{j+m-1}\rangle+|N_{j-1}M_{j+m}\rangle+|M_jN_{j+m}\rangle \Big)\\
&\qquad +\sum^{L}_{j=1} \Big(|N_{j-1}M_{j+2}\rangle+|M_jN_{j+2}\rangle+|N_{j}M_{j-2}\rangle+|M_jN_{j-3}\rangle\Big)
\end{split}
\\
\label{eq: HS2b}
&=\sum^L_{j=1}\left[\sum^{L-4}_{m=3} (-1)^m \Big(|N_{j-1}M_{j+m}\rangle +|M_{j}N_{j+m}\rangle\Big)+\sum^{L-3}_{m=4}(-1)^m\Big( |N_jM_{j+m}\rangle+|M_{j}N_{j+m-1}\rangle \Big)\right],\end{aligned}$$
where in going from to we have used the terms on the second line of to cancel some of the terms in the first line. We next show that the remaining terms in Eq. cancel. First, we note that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum^L_{j=1}\sum^{L-4}_{m=3} (-1)^m |N_{j-1}M_{j+m}\rangle=\sum^L_{j=1}\sum^{L-4}_{m=3} (-1)^m |N_{j}M_{j+m+1}\rangle=-\sum^L_{j=1}\sum^{L-3}_{m=4} (-1)^m |N_{j}M_{j+m}\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ where in the first equality we redefined $j-1\to j$ and in the second equality we redefined $m+1\to m$. Second, we note that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum^{L-3}_{m=4}(-1)^m |M_{j}N_{j+m-1}\rangle=-\sum^{L-4}_{m=3}(-1)^m |M_{j}N_{j+m}\rangle\end{aligned}$$ upon redefining $m-1\to m$. We conclude that Eq. is identically zero, so that $H_\lambda|\mathcal S_2\rangle=0$ as desired. Note that in order to prove this we needed to shift the summation indices—in other words, the cancellation of scattering terms does not occur locally, but rather only occurs once all sites have been summed over. This indicates that $|\mathcal S_2\rangle$ is *not* a frustration-free eigenstate of $H_\lambda$. The same holds true for the remaining states $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$.
Next we consider the action of $H_\lambda$ on $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: SnM}
|\mathcal S_n\rangle \propto \sum_{\substack{\{j_p\}^n_{p=1}\\ |j_p-j_{p+1}|>1}}\!\!\!\!(-1)^{\sum^n_{p=1}j_p}\, |M_{j_1}\dots M_{j_n}\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Applying the scattering rule , we see that $$\begin{aligned}
H_\lambda |M_{j_1}\dots M_{j_k}\dots M_{j_n}\rangle \propto \sum_{\ell_k}|M_{j_1}\dots N_{\ell_k}\dots M_{j_n}\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ where $\ell_k=j_k$ and/or $j_k-1$ depending on the coordinates of the surrounding magnons. The scattering states for $M_{j_k}$ are then canceled by other terms in the sum in Eq. where $M_{j_k}$ is replaced by $M_{j_k\pm 1}$, which necessarily come with a relative minus sign. It is important to note that $L$ must be even in order for these cancellations to occur when $j_k=1$ or $L$. This is consistent with the fact that $|\mathcal S_n
\rangle$ is an eigenstate of the translation operator with eigenvalue $(-1)^n$, whereas momenta are quantized in half-integer units when $L$ is odd: thus $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$ cannot be an eigenstate of $H$ when $L$ is odd.
Finally, we comment on the case of OBC. The above argumentation is essentially unchanged, except for the fact that the states $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$ must be defined such that magnons cannot occupy sites $1,L$. Furthermore, the sum $\sum^{L-2}_{m=2}$ in should be replaced with $\sum^{-2}_{m=-j+2}+\sum^{L-j-1}_{m=2}$. The analysis of the $n$-magnon case still holds, except that now the restriction that $L$ must be even is lifted since the scattering of $M_2$ and $M_{L-2}$ does not interfere.
Derivation of the entanglement spectrum {#sec: es}
=======================================
To derive the entanglement spectrum in Eq. from Eq. , we first apply a unitary transformation to the state $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$ that removes the staggered phase factor $\sigma(i_1,\dots,i_n)$. The transformation that does the job is $$\begin{aligned}
U\equiv \prod_{i\ \text{odd}} \sigma^z_i,\end{aligned}$$ which obeys $$\begin{aligned}
U\, \sigma^\pm_i\, U = (-1)^i\, \sigma^\pm_i.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $U$ is a product of single-site rotations and hence will not alter the entanglement spectrum. From there, we write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: USN 1}
U|\mathcal S_n\rangle
&= \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathcal N(L,n)}}
\sum_{\substack{i_1<\dots<i_n\\ |i_p-i_{p+1}|>1\\ i_p\neq 1,L}}
\!\!\!
|\{i_p\}\rangle
\equiv
\!\!\!\!\!
\sum_{\substack{i_1<\dots<i_n\\ |i_p-i_{p+1}|>1\\ i_p\neq 1,L}}
\tilde M_{\{i_p\}_A,\{i_p\}_B}\,
|\{i_p\}_A\rangle\otimes|\{i_p\}_B\rangle, \end{aligned}$$ where the matrix $\tilde M$ obtained from the matrix $M$ in Eq. by taking the absolute value of each matrix entry. The matrix $\tilde M$ has dimension $\mathcal D_A\times\mathcal D_B$, where $\mathcal D_{A(B)}$ is the Hilbert space dimension of region $A$ ($B$). Next, we break the expression up into pieces as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: USN 2}
U|\mathcal S_n\rangle
&=
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\sum_{\substack{i_1<\dots<i_n\\ |i_p-i_{p+1}|>1\\ i_p\neq 1,L}}
\!\!
\sum^K_{k=0}
\tilde M^k_{\{i_p\}^k_A,\{i_p\}^{n-k}_B}\,
|\{i_p\}^k_A\rangle
\!\otimes\!
|\{i_p\}^{n-k}_B\rangle, \end{aligned}$$ where $\{i_p\}^k_A$ denotes a configuration in subregion $A$ containing $k$ magnons and $\{i_p\}^{n-k}_B$ denotes a configuration in subregion $B$ containing $n-k$ magnons. The upper limit on the second summation is $K=\text{min}(n,\lfloor L_A/2 \rfloor)$, as it is not possible to fit more than $\lfloor L_A/2 \rfloor$ magnons into the region $A$ without violating the kinetic constraint.
We wish to compute the eigenvalues of the $\mathcal D_A\times\mathcal D_A$ matrix $\tilde{\mathcal M}=\tilde M \tilde M^\dagger$ (note that this matrix has the same spectrum as that of $\mathcal M$). Since every configuration in $U|\mathcal S_n\rangle$ appears with the same amplitude, the matrix elements of $\tilde{\mathcal M}$ for two configurations $a,b$ in region $A$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: cal M def}
\tilde{\mathcal M}_{ab}=\frac{N^B_{ab}}{\mathcal N(L,n)},\end{aligned}$$ where $N^B_{ab}$ is the number of configurations in region $B$ that appear with both $a$ and $b$ in Eq. . To compute the matrix $\tilde{\mathcal M}$, we observe that $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}=\bigoplus^K_{k=0}\tilde{\mathcal{M}}_k$, where $\tilde{\mathcal{M}}_k=\tilde M^k (\tilde M^k)^\dagger$ (note that $k$ here is an upper index, not a power). This block-diagonal structure arises from the fact that a configuration in $A$ containing $k$ magnons *must* be paired with a configuration in $B$ containing $n-k$ magnons. Using Eq. , we find that $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\mathcal M}_{k}
=
\frac{1}{\mathcal N}
\begin{pmatrix}
m_{1,k}\, \bm{1}_{D_{1,k}\times D_{1,k}} & m_{2,k}\, \bm{1}_{D_{1,k}\times D_{2,k}} \\
m_{2,k}\, \bm{1}_{D_{2,k}\times D_{1,k}} & m_{2,k}\, \bm{1}_{D_{2,k}\times D_{2,k}}
\end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ where $\bm{1}_{A,B}$ is the $A\times B$ matrix with all entries equal to $1$, and where $m_{1,k}$, $m_{2,k}$, $D_{1,k}$, and $D_{2,k}$ are defined in Eqs. –. Here, $D_{1,k}$ and $D_{2,k}$ are defined such that $D_{1,k}+D_{2,k}$ is equal to the number of configurations in region $A$ containing exactly $k$ magnons. (Note that $\tilde{\mathcal M}_k$ is a square matrix of dimension $D_{1,k}+D_{2,k}$.) $D_{1,k}$ is the number of configurations with a $0$ next to the entanglement cut, and $D_{2,k}$ is the number of configurations with a $1$ next to the entanglement cut. The numbers $m_{1,k}$ and $m_{2,k}$ denote the number of configurations in region $B$ that are allowed depending on whether the last site in $A$ is a $0$ or a $1$, respectively. That two different numbers are required for the two cases is a consequence of the kinetic constraint prohibiting two magnons from occupying nearest neighbor sites.
The eigenvectors of the matrix $\tilde{\mathcal M}_{k}$ can be taken to be of the form $(c_1\dots c_1\ |\ c_2\dots c_2)^\mathsf{T}$, where $c_1$ is repeated $D_{1,k}$ times and $c_2$ is repeated $D_{2,k}$ times. Thus, the characteristic polynomial of the matrix $\tilde{\mathcal M}_{k}$ is the same as that of $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\mathcal N}
\begin{pmatrix}
m_{1,k}\, D_{1,k} & m_{2,k}\, D_{2,k}\\
m_{2,k}\, D_{1,k} & m_{2,k}\, D_{2,k}
\end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ The eigenvalues of the above matrix are precisely $\lambda_{k,\pm}$, Eq. .
Derivation of the “uncle Hamiltonian" {#sec: uncle}
======================================
In this Appendix we outline the derivation of the “uncle Hamiltonian" for the states $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$, which is based on matrix product state techniques. We refer the reader to, e.g., Ref. [@Schollwock11] for relevant background material. Our strategy in the derivation is to express the states $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$ as MPSs, and then to examine their few-site reduced density matrices to find projectors whose common null space is spanned by $\{|\mathcal S_n\rangle\}$. For concreteness we work with OBCs, although boundary conditions are unimportant for the following analysis. To find the MPS expressions for $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$, we rewrite Eq. as
$$\begin{aligned}
|\mathcal S_n\rangle=\mathcal P_{\rm fib}\bigg(\underbrace{\sum^{L-1}_{i=2}(-1)^i\, \sigma^+_i}_{\equiv\sigma^+_\pi}\bigg)^n|\Omega\rangle,\end{aligned}$$
where $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal P_{\rm fib} =\left(\frac{1-\sigma^z_1}{2}\right)\prod^{L-1}_{i=2}\left[1-\left(\frac{1+\sigma^z_i}{2}\right)\left(\frac{1+\sigma^z_{i+1}}{2}\right)\right]\left(\frac{1-\sigma^z_L}{2}\right)\end{aligned}$$
is the projector onto the sector of the full Hilbert space in which both edge spins are down and the bulk of the chain obeys the Fibonacci constraint. We then write the state $|\Omega\rangle$ as a bond-dimension-$1$ MPS,
$$\begin{aligned}
|\Omega\rangle = \sum_{\{\sigma_i\}^{L}_{i=1}}a_1[\sigma_1]A_2[\sigma_2]\dots A_{L-1}[\sigma_{L-1}]a_L[\sigma_{L}]\ |\{\sigma_i\}^{L}_{i=1}\rangle\end{aligned}$$
where $\sigma_i=0,1$ denotes the physical spin state on site $i$ and $$\begin{aligned}
a_{1,L}[\sigma]=A_i[\sigma]=\delta_{\sigma,0}.\end{aligned}$$
Next, we represent the operator $\left(\sigma^+_\pi\right)^n$ as a matrix product operator (MPO) of bond dimension $\chi_n=n+1$, i.e.
$$\begin{aligned}
(\sigma^+_\pi)^n = (m_{(\sigma^+_\pi)^n})_1(M_{(\sigma^+_\pi)^n})_2\cdots(M_{(\sigma^+_\pi)^n})_{L-1}(m_{(\sigma^+_\pi)^n})_L,\end{aligned}$$
where the $\chi_n$-dimensional operator-valued boundary vectors $$\begin{aligned}
(m_{(\sigma^+_\pi)^n})_1[\sigma_1,\sigma^\prime_1]_\alpha&=
\delta_{\alpha,1}
[\mathbbm 1]_{\sigma_1,\sigma^\prime_1}
\\
(m_{(\sigma^+_\pi)^n})_L[\sigma_L,\sigma^\prime_L]_\alpha&=
\delta_{\alpha,\chi_n}
[\mathbbm 1]_{\sigma_L,\sigma^\prime_L}\end{aligned}$$ and the operator-valued $\chi_n\times\chi_n$ matrices $$\begin{aligned}
(M_{(\sigma^+_\pi)^n})_i[\sigma_i,\sigma^\prime_i]_{\alpha,\beta}
=
\delta_{\alpha,\beta}\, (-1)^\alpha\, [\mathbbm 1]_{\sigma_i,\sigma^\prime_i}+\delta_{\beta,\alpha+1}\, (-1)^\alpha\, [\sigma^+]_{\sigma_i,\sigma^\prime_i},\end{aligned}$$
where $\alpha,\beta=1,\dots,\chi_n$ and $[\mathcal O]_{\sigma_i,\sigma^\prime_i}$ denotes the matrix element $\langle\sigma^\prime_i|\mathcal O|\sigma_i\rangle$ for any single-site operator $\mathcal O$. We next write the Fibonacci projector as a bond-dimension-2 MPO,
\[eq: Pfib MPO\] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal P_{\rm fib} = (m_{\mathcal P_{\rm fib}})_1(M_{\mathcal P_{\rm fib}})_2\cdots(M_{\mathcal P_{\rm fib}})_{L-1}(m_{\mathcal P_{\rm fib}})_L,\end{aligned}$$ where the 2-dimensional operator-valued vectors $$\begin{aligned}
(m_{\mathcal P_{\rm fib}})_1[\sigma_1,\sigma^\prime_1]
&=
\delta_{\sigma_1,0}
\begin{pmatrix}
[\sigma^z]_{\sigma_1,\sigma^\prime_1} & [\mathbbm 1]_{\sigma_1,\sigma^\prime_1}
\end{pmatrix}
\\
(m_{\mathcal P_{\rm fib}})_L[\sigma_L,\sigma^\prime_L]
&=
-\frac{1}{4}\, \delta_{\sigma_L,0}
\begin{pmatrix}
[\mathbbm 1 +\sigma^z]_{\sigma_L,\sigma^\prime_L} & [\sigma^z-3\mathbbm 1]_{\sigma_L,\sigma^\prime_L}
\end{pmatrix}^\mathsf T\end{aligned}$$ and the $2\times 2$ operator-valued matrices $$\begin{aligned}
(M_{\mathcal P_{\rm fib}})_i[\sigma_i,\sigma^\prime_i]
&=
-\frac{1}{4}
\begin{pmatrix}
[\sigma^z+\mathbbm 1]_{\sigma_i,\sigma^\prime_i} & [\sigma^z+\mathbbm 1]_{\sigma_i,\sigma^\prime_i} \\
[\mathbbm 1-3\sigma^z]_{\sigma_i,\sigma^\prime_i} & [\sigma^z-3\mathbbm 1]_{\sigma_i,\sigma^\prime_i}
\end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$
Given these expressions we can write
\[eq: Sn MPS\] $$\begin{aligned}
|\mathcal S_n\rangle \propto \sum_{\{\sigma_i\}^{L}_{i=1}}b_1[\sigma_1]B_2[\sigma_2]\dots B_{L-1}[\sigma_{L-1}]b_L[\sigma_{L}]\ |\{\sigma_i\}^{L}_{i=1}\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
b_{1}[\sigma_1]&=\sum_{\tau_1,\sigma^\prime_1}(m_{\mathcal P_{\rm fib}})_1[\sigma_1,\tau_1]\otimes(m_{(\sigma^+_\pi)^n})_1[\tau_1,\sigma^\prime_1]\otimes a_1[\sigma^\prime_1]\\
b_{L}[\sigma_L]&=\sum_{\tau_L,\sigma^\prime_L}(m_{\mathcal P_{\rm fib}})_L[\sigma_L,\tau_L]\otimes(m_{(\sigma^+_\pi)^n})_ L[\tau_L,\sigma^\prime_L]\otimes a_L[\sigma^\prime_L]\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
B_{i}[\sigma_i]&=\sum_{\tau_i,\sigma^\prime_i}(M_{\mathcal P_{\rm fib}})_i[\sigma_i,\tau_i]\otimes(M_{(\sigma^+_\pi)^n})_ i[\tau_i,\sigma^\prime_i]\otimes A_i[\sigma^\prime_i],\end{aligned}$$
which is an MPS with bond dimension $2\chi_n$.
Armed with the MPS expression for $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$ in Eq. , we can now compute the reduced density matrix $\rho_p$ for a $p$-site block, whose matrix elements are $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\sigma_{i}\dots\sigma_{i+p-1}|\rho_p|\sigma^\prime_{i}\dots\sigma^\prime_{i+p-1}\rangle = \text{tr}\left[B_{i}[\sigma_i]\dots B_{i+p-1}[\sigma_{i+p-1}]\left(B_{i}[\sigma^\prime_i]\dots B_{i+p-1}[\sigma^\prime_{i+p-1}]\right)^\dagger\right],\end{aligned}$$ for any $i$ in the bulk of the chain (note that the choice of $i$ is immaterial due to translation invariance in the bulk). Our goal is to find a set of local projectors $\mathcal P_i$ such that 1) $\mathcal P_i|\mathcal S_n\rangle=0$ for any $n$ and $i$, and 2) the states $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$ are the *only* states annihilated by all $\mathcal P_i$. This can be accomplished by computing the *null space* $\text{ker}(\rho_p)$ of the $2^p\times 2^p$ Hermitian matrices $\rho_p$: if $|\psi\rangle$ is in the null space of $\rho_p$, then $\mathcal P_\psi\rho_p=|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|\rho_p=0$. This implies the existence of a $p$-site operator that annihilates the state $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$.
Carrying this procedure out for $\rho_2$, we find for any $n$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\text{ker}(\rho_2)=\text{span}\left\{|11\rangle\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ This implies that, for any $i$ and $n$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: PPSn}
P^1_{i}P^1_{i+1}\, |\mathcal S_n\rangle=0,\end{aligned}$$ which is a simple consequence of the fact that the states $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$ obey the Fibonacci constraint. Thus we have found a set of projectors satisfying criterion 1). However, there are exponentially many states satisfying the Fibonacci constraint, so we have not yet satisfied criterion 2); we need additional terms to isolate the states $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$. The next nontrivial projection operator comes from considering $\rho_4$, where we find $$\begin{aligned}
\text{ker}(\rho_4)=\text{span}\left\{\frac{|0100\rangle+|0010\rangle}{\sqrt 2}\right\}\cup\text{span}\{\substack{\text{all $4$-site configurations violating}\\ \text{the Fibonacci constraint}}\}.\end{aligned}$$ This implies that in addition to Eq. we have, for any $i$ and $n$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: PHeisPSn}
P^0_{i-1}\left[\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{2}(\sigma^+_i\sigma^-_{i+1}+\text{H.c.})-\frac{1}{4}\sigma^z_i\sigma^z_{i+1}\right]P^0_{i+2}\, |\mathcal S_n\rangle = 0.\end{aligned}$$ The projection operators $\mathcal P_i$ defined in Eq. are obtained by summing the operators appearing on the left hand sides of Eqs. and . We have verified by exact numerical diagonalization of Eq. at system sizes up to $L=22$ that the states $|\mathcal S_n\rangle$ are the only ground states of the Hamiltonian .
MPS form of the states {#sec: xi MPS}
=======================
We demonstrate here that the initial states defined in Eq. can be written as a family of MPSs with bond dimension 2. To write these states in MPS form, we first express them as $$\begin{aligned}
|\xi\rangle
\propto
\mathcal P_{\rm fib}
\prod^{i_L}_{i=i_1}\left[1+(-1)^i\, \xi\,\sigma^+_i\right]|\Omega\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ We then write
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: xi MPS 1}
\prod^{i_L}_{i=i_1}\left[1+(-1)^i\, \xi\,\sigma^+_i\right]|\Omega\rangle=\sum_{\{\sigma_i\}^{L}_{i=1}}c_1[\sigma_1]C_2[\sigma_2]\dots C_{L-1}[\sigma_{L-1}]c_L[\sigma_{L}]\ |\{\sigma_i\}^{L}_{i=1}\rangle,\end{aligned}$$
with $$\begin{aligned}
c_{1,L}[\sigma_{1,L}]=\delta_{\sigma_{1,L},0}\end{aligned}$$ for OBC and $$\begin{aligned}
C_{i}[\sigma_i]=(-1)^i\, \xi\, \delta_{\sigma_{i},1}+\delta_{\sigma_i,0}.\end{aligned}$$
Next we apply $\mathcal P_{\rm fib}$ to Eq. using the MPO expression , thereby obtaining the MPS
$$\begin{aligned}
|\xi\rangle\propto \sum_{\{\sigma_i\}^{L}_{i=1}}d_1[\sigma_1]D_2[\sigma_2]\dots D_{L-1}[\sigma_{L-1}]d_L[\sigma_{L}]\ |\{\sigma_i\}^{L}_{i=1}\rangle,\end{aligned}$$
where $$\begin{aligned}
d_{1}[\sigma_{1}]&=\sum_{\sigma^\prime_1}(m_{\mathcal P_{\rm fib}})_1[\sigma_1,\sigma^\prime_1]\otimes c_{1}[\sigma^\prime_{1}] = \delta_{\sigma_1,0}\,\begin{pmatrix}-1 & 1\end{pmatrix}\\
d_{L}[\sigma_{L}]&=\sum_{\sigma^\prime_L}(m_{\mathcal P_{\rm fib}})_L[\sigma_L,\sigma^\prime_L]\otimes c_{L}[\sigma^\prime_{L}] = \delta_{\sigma_L,0}\,\begin{pmatrix}0 & 1\end{pmatrix}^\mathsf{T}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
D_{i}[\sigma_i]&=\sum_{\sigma^\prime_i}(M_{\mathcal P_{\rm fib}})_i[\sigma_i,\sigma^\prime_i]\otimes C_{i}[\sigma^\prime_{i}] =
\delta_{\sigma_i,0}\,
\begin{pmatrix}
0&0\\
-1&1
\end{pmatrix}
+\delta_{\sigma_i,1}\,
(-1)^i\, \xi\,
\frac{1}{2}
\begin{pmatrix}
-1 & -1\\
1 & 1
\end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$
Importantly, note that $D_{i}[1]D_{i+1}[1]=0$, ensuring that the Fibonacci constraint holds as it should.
[^1]: Note that, strictly speaking, both Néel cat states are eigenstates of Eq. regardless of boundary conditions. What depends on $L$ and the choice of boundary conditions is whether these states can be reached by successive application of the operators and .
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that Noetherian splinters ascend under essentially étale homomorphisms. Along the way, we also prove that the henselization of a Noetherian local splinter is always a splinter and that the completion of a local splinter with geometrically regular formal fibers is a splinter. Finally, we give an example of a (non-excellent) Gorenstein local splinter with mild singularities whose completion is not a splinter. Our results provide evidence for a strengthening of the direct summand theorem, namely that regular maps preserve the splinter property.'
address: |
Department of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science\
University of Illinois at Chicago\
Chicago, IL 60607-7045, USA
author:
- Rankeya Datta
- Kevin Tucker
title: 'On some permanence properties of (derived) splinters'
---
Introduction
============
Recall that a [Noetherian]{} ring $R$ is a *splinter* if any finite ring map $R \rightarrow S$ that induces a surjection on $\operatorname{Spec}$ has a left-inverse in the category of $R$-modules [@Ma88]. Perhaps owing to their simple definition, basic questions about splinters are often devilishly difficult to answer. For example, Hochster’s direct summand conjecture (now a theorem) is the modest assertion that a regular ring of any characteristic is a splinter. However, it took the advent of perfectoid geometry for this conjecture to be settled by André in mixed characteristic [@And18] (see also [@Bha18; @Hei02]), decades after Hochster’s verification of the equal characteristic case using Frobenius techniques [@Hoc73(a)].
The direct summand theorem justifies thinking of a splinter as a characteristic independent notion of singularity. The goal of this paper is to show that splinters satisfy some basic permanence properties enjoyed by other classes of singularities. Our first main result follows below, which to the best of our knowledge has not appeared previously.
[A]{} \[Theorem-A\] Let $\varphi\colon R \rightarrow S$ be an essentially étale homomorphism of Noetherian rings of arbitrary characteristic. If $R$ is a splinter, then $S$ is a splinter.
Most notions of singularities such as reduced, normal, Gorenstein, complete intersection, Cohen–Macaulay in fact ascend under *regular maps*, that is, flat maps of Noetherian rings with geometrically regular fibers. Theorem \[Theorem-A\] provides characteristic independent evidence suggesting the same is true for splinters. However, a proof of this stronger result is likely difficult as ascent of splinters under regular maps would imply the direct summand theorem (see Remark \[rem:question-1-implies-dsc\](2)). On the other hand, Theorem \[Theorem-A\] and an application of Néron–Popescu desingularization show that the principal remaining difficulty lies in verifying that a polynomial ring over a splinter remains a splinter (Remark \[rem:question-1-implies-dsc\](1)).
Splinters behave very differently depending on the characteristic of the ring. In equal characteristic $0$, for instance, splinters starkly contrast with a more restrictive derived variant. Following [@Bha12], we say a Noetherian ring $R$ of arbitrary characteristic is a *derived splinter* if for any proper surjective morphism $f: X \rightarrow \operatorname{Spec}(R)$, the induced map $R \rightarrow \textbf{R}\Gamma(X, \mathcal{O}_X)$ splits in the derived category $D(\operatorname{Mod}_R)$. In equal characteristic $0$, splinters have long been known to coincide with normal rings via an argument involving the trace map [@Bha12 Example 1.1]. On the other hand, a ring essentially of finite type over a field of characteristic $0$ is a derived splinter precisely when it has rational singularities [@Kov00] (c.f. [@Bha12 Theorem 2.12]). Hence such rings are not only normal but even Cohen–Macaulay.
The situation is remarkably different in prime characteristic, where Bhatt showed that splinters coincide with derived splinters [@Bha12 Theorem 1.4]. Furthermore, in this setting splinters are conjecturally equivalent to $F$-regular singularities. $F$-regularity was introduced by Hochster and Huneke in the celebrated theory of tight closure [@HH90], and correspond via standard reduction techniques to the Kawamata log terminal singularities fundamental in complex birational geometry [@Smi97; @MS97; @Har98]. While an $F$-regular singularity is always a splinter (Remark \[rem:charp-splinters\](2)), the converse is known only in the $\mathbb{Q}$-Gorenstein setting [@Sin99]. The conjectural equivalence of splinters and $F$-regularity would also resolve some important and long–standing localization questions in tight closure theory.
It is perhaps not surprising that (derived) splinters remain quite mysterious in mixed characteristic, where sophisticated techniques were required to prove the direct summand theorem. Bhatt improved upon André’s result in [@Bha18], showing that regular rings in mixed characteristic are even derived splinters. Astonishingly, Bhatt’s forthcoming work further indicates that splinters and derived splinters also coincide in mixed characteristic [@Bha].
Given the close relationship between splinters and their derived variant, it is natural to wonder about the the derived analogue of Theorem \[Theorem-A\]. In equal characteristic zero, this follows from [@Kov00] because rational singularities are preserved by essentially étale maps (see Corollary \[cor:derived-Theorem-A\]). In prime and mixed characteristic, Theorem \[Theorem-A\] also implies the derived analogue by Bhatt’s work.
Structure of the proof of Theorem \[Theorem-A\]
-----------------------------------------------
We prove Theorem \[Theorem-A\] by reducing to the case where $\varphi: R \rightarrow S$ is *finite étale*, which first necessitates an understanding of how splinters behave under henselization. To that end, we establish the following result:
[B]{} \[Theorem-B\] Let $(R, {\mathfrak{m}})$ be a Noetherian local ring. Then $R$ is a splinter if and only if its henselization $R^h$ is a splinter.
Strict henselizations of splinters are also splinters (see Corollary \[cor:splinter-strict-henselization\]), which in turn implies that Theorems \[Theorem-A\] and \[Theorem-B\] are equivalent (Remark \[rem:main-theorem-A-B-equivalent\]).
Preservation of the splinter property under henselization raises the natural question of whether the completion of a local splinter is a splinter. In equal characteristic zero this fails by Nagata’s example of a normal local ring whose completion is not reduced [@Nag55] because splinters are always reduced (Lemma \[lem:local-splinters-domain\]). The same example does not work in prime characteristic where local splinters are always analytically unramified (Remark \[rem:charp-splinters\](1)). Nevertheless, we show that there exist positive characteristic local splinters with even Gorenstein $F$-regular singularities whose completions are not splinters (Example \[ex:completion-not-splinter\]). At the same time, any such example cannot be excellent because we also prove that splinters behave well under completions for local rings that usually arise in arithmetic and geometry.
[C]{} \[Theorem-C\] Let $(R, {\mathfrak{m}})$ be a Noetherian local ring such that $R \rightarrow \widehat{R}$ is regular (for example, if $R$ is excellent). Then $R$ is a splinter if and only if $\widehat{R}$ is a splinter.
Theorem \[Theorem-C\] further corroborates our belief that regular maps should preserve the splinter property.
The proof of Theorem \[Theorem-C\] uses an ideal-theoretic result of Smith for excellent normal local rings [@Smi94 Proposition 5.10]. In our setting, we are able to establish an analogue of Smith’s result for henselizations of *arbitrary* normal local rings, not just excellent ones. This key result, highlighted below, allows us to prove Theorem \[Theorem-B\] without any restrictions on formal fibers.
[\[prop:ideal-identity-hensel\]]{} Let $(R,{\mathfrak{m}})$ be a normal local domain (not necessarily Noetherian), and let $R^h$ and $R^{sh}$ denote its henselization and strict henselization respectively. Then $R^h$ and $R^{sh}$ are normal domains, and if $I$ is an ideal of $R$, we have $$I(R^h)^+ \cap R = IR^+ \cap R = I(R^{sh})^+ \cap R.$$
Here $R^+$ denotes the *absolute integral closure* of a domain $R$, that is, $R^+$ is the integral closure of $R$ in an algebraic closure of its fraction field. Armed with Proposition \[prop:ideal-identity-hensel\] and [@Smi94 Proposition 5.10], Theorems \[Theorem-B\] and \[Theorem-C\] then have almost similar proofs.
Outline of the paper
--------------------
We begin Section 2 by discussing some elementary properties of splinters (Subsection \[subsec:Basic properties\]). We next investigate descent of splinters under pure and, the closely related notion of, cyclically pure maps. Crucial to our comparison of purity versus cyclic purity for splinters is Hochster’s notion of approximately Gorenstein rings (Definition \[def:approx-Gorenstein\]). These are Noetherian rings for which purity and cyclic purity coincide. Splinters are also related to absolute integral closures, a connection hinted at by the aforementioned Proposition \[prop:ideal-identity-hensel\]. Indeed, it is well-known that in order for a Noetherian domain $R$ to be a splinter, it is necessary and sufficient for $R \rightarrow R^+$ to be a pure map (a.k.a. universally injective map). Thus, we briefly discuss how the absolute integral closure interacts with the notion of a splinter. We end Section \[sec:Properties of splinters\] by highlighting connections between the splinter condition and notions of singularities defined in prime characteristic via the Frobenius map. In Section \[sec:Proof of the main theorems\] we prove our main theorems. We end our paper by collecting some basic questions, which, as far as we know, are still open for splinters (Section \[sec:open-questions\]).
Conventions
-----------
All rings in this paper are commutative with identity. Although our results are primarily about Noetherian rings, we often use the absolute integral closure of a domain which is highly non-Noetherian. Diverging from usual practice in commutative algebra, by a ‘local ring’ we mean a ring with a unique maximal ideal which is not necessarily Noetherian. When we want the local ring to be Noetherian, we will explicitly say so. We will sometimes talk about normal rings in a non-Noetherian setting. Recall that an arbitrary commutative ring $R$ is *normal* if for all prime ideals ${\mathfrak{p}}$ of $R$, $R_{\mathfrak{p}}$ is a domain which is integrally closed in its fraction field [@stacks-project [Tag 00GV](https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00GV)]. A reduced ring $R$ (not necessarily Noetherian) with finitely many minimal primes is normal precisely when it is integrally closed in its total quotient ring, and in this case $R$ decomposes as a finite product of normal domains [@stacks-project [Tag 030C](https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/030C)].
Properties of splinters {#sec:Properties of splinters}
=======================
Throughout this section, $R$ will denote a Noetherian ring of arbitrary characteristic unless otherwise specified. We begin by highlighting some well-known properties of splinters.
Basic properties {#subsec:Basic properties}
----------------
If $R$ is a splinter, then $R$ is reduced because the canonical map $R \twoheadrightarrow R_{\operatorname{red}}$ splits. Note that a reduced ring $R$ is a splinter if and only if every finite extension $R \hookrightarrow S$ splits in the category of $R$-modules. This is because if $R$ is reduced, a finite map $R \rightarrow S$ induces a surjection on $\operatorname{Spec}$ if and only if it is injective.
A local splinter is not just reduced, but even a domain. In the literature this is usually deduced as a consequence of splinters being normal, but we provide a direct elementary proof here.
\[lem:local-splinters-domain\] A Noetherian local splinter $(R,{\mathfrak{m}})$ is a domain. In fact, $R$ is normal.
Assume $R$ is not a domain. Since $R$ is reduced, it has more than one minimal prime, say ${\mathfrak{p}}_1, \dots, {\mathfrak{p}}_n$, where $n \geq 2$. Consider the projection $$\varphi\colon R \rightarrow R/{\mathfrak{p}}_1 \times \dots \times R/{\mathfrak{p}}_n.$$ This is finite and surjective on $\operatorname{Spec}$, and so, it splits as a map of $R$-modules. Let $\phi$ be a left inverse of $\varphi$, and $e_i$ be the standard idempotent of $R/{\mathfrak{p}}_1 \times \dots \times R/{\mathfrak{p}}_n$ with a $1$ in the $i$-th spot. Since $e_i$ is annihilated by ${\mathfrak{p}}_i$ when $R/{\mathfrak{p}}_1 \times \dots \times R/{\mathfrak{p}}_n$ is viewed as an $R$-module, it follows that $\phi(e_i) \in {\mathfrak{m}}$, for all $i$. But then, $$1 = \phi(1) = \sum_{i=1}^n \phi(e_i) \in {\mathfrak{m}},$$ which is a contradiction. So $n = 1$, and $R$ is a domain because it is reduced.
We now show $R$ is normal. Let $K = \operatorname{Frac}(R)$, and $a/b \in K$ be integral over $R$. As the module-finite extension $$R \hookrightarrow R[a/b]$$ splits, it must be an isomorphism since $R$ and $R[a/b]$ are torsion-free $R$-modules of the same rank. Thus, $a/b \in R$, proving normality.
\[reduction-to-domain\] Lemma \[lem:local-splinters-domain\] implies that a (non-local) splinter decomposes into a finite product of normal domains [@stacks-project [Tag 030C](https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/030C)], each of which is easily checked to also be a splinter. Conversely, a finite direct product of splinters is a splinter. Hence most questions about splinters reduce to the domain case.
The following result shows that the property of being a splinter is local:
\[lem:splinters-local\] Let $R$ be a Noetherian ring. Then the following are equivalent:
1. $R$ is a splinter.
2. For all prime ideals ${\mathfrak{p}}\in \operatorname{Spec}(R)$, $R_{\mathfrak{p}}$ is a splinter.
3. For all maximal ideals ${\mathfrak{m}}\in \operatorname{Spec}(R)$, $R_{\mathfrak{m}}$ is a splinter.
Hence, if $R$ is a splinter, then for any multiplicative set $S \subset R$, $S^{-1}R$ is a splinter.
For (1) $\Rightarrow$ (2) it suffices to assume $R$ is a domain, and then the result follows by a simple spreading out argument, while (2) $\Rightarrow$ (3) is obvious. Assuming (3), note that it suffices to show that any finite extension $R \hookrightarrow S$ splits. But such a splitting can be checked locally at the maximal ideals where it always holds by the hypothesis of (3).
The final assertion follows from the equivalence of (1)-(3) because localizations of $S^{-1}R$ at its prime ideals coincide with localizations of $R$ at primes that do not intersect $S$.
Purity and descent of splinters {#subsec:Purity and descent of splinters}
-------------------------------
This subsection is the technical heart of this paper, as it provides a more tractable criterion for verifying the splinter condition (Lemma \[lem:normal-approx-Gor\]). Among applications, we show that splinters descend under a notion that is substantially weaker than faithful flatness (Proposition \[prop:splinters-descend-cyc-pur\]), which we now introduce. For any commutative ring $A$, we say that a map of $A$-modules $M \rightarrow N$ is *pure* if for all $A$-modules $P$, the induced map $M \otimes_A P \rightarrow N \otimes_A P$ is injective. Pure maps are sometimes also called *universally injective maps* [@stacks-project [Tag 058I](https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/058I)]. Closely related to the notion of purity is that of cyclic purity, which may be less familiar to the reader.
\[def:cyclic-purity\] Given a ring $A$, we say that a map of $A$-modules $M \rightarrow N$ is *cyclically pure* if for all cyclic $A$-modules $A/I$, the induced map $M/IM \rightarrow N/IN$ is injective.
Taking the cyclic module to be $A$ itself, it follows that cyclically pure maps are injective. Pure maps are obviously cyclically pure, and it is easy to check that faithfully flat ring maps are pure, hence cyclically pure [@Bou89 Chapter I, $\mathsection 3.5$, Proposition 9]. Purity and cyclic purity are significantly weaker than faithful flatness. For example, Kunz showed that the Frobenius map of a Noetherian ring of prime characteristic is faithfully flat precisely when the ring is regular [@Kun69]. However, non-regular rings for which the Frobenius map is pure (equivalently, cyclically pure) are abundant and are at the heart of Frobenius splitting techniques in positive characteristic algebra and geometry.
A split map of modules is pure, and the converse is true under a mild restriction.
[@HR76 Corollary 5.2] \[lem:pure-implies-split\] If $\varphi: M \rightarrow N$ is a pure map of $A$-modules whose cokernel is finitely presented, then $\varphi$ splits, that is, it admits a left inverse in $\operatorname{Mod}_A$.
It is natural to ask when the notions of cyclic purity and purity coincide for ring maps. Hochster discovered a surprising algebraic property that characterizes those Noetherian rings $A$ for which any cyclically pure ring map $A \rightarrow B$ is pure. We now introduce this property.
[@Hoc77 Definitions (1.1) and (1.3)] \[def:approx-Gorenstein\] A Noetherian local ring $(R,{\mathfrak{m}})$ is *approximately Gorenstein* if it satisfies the following equivalent conditions:
1. For every integer $N > 0$, there is an ideal $I \subseteq {\mathfrak{m}}^N$ such that $R/I$ is Gorenstein.
2. For every integer $N > 0$, there is an ${\mathfrak{m}}$-primary irreducible ideal $I \subseteq {\mathfrak{m}}^N$.
We say a Noetherian ring $R$ (not necessarily local) is *approximately Gorenstein* if $R_{\mathfrak{m}}$ is an approximately Gorenstein local ring for all maximal ideals ${\mathfrak{m}}$.
\[rem:comment-def-approx-Gor\]
1. The key point is that if $R$ is approximately Gorenstein, then a ring homomorphism $R \rightarrow S$ is pure if and only if it is cyclically pure [@Hoc77 Theorem 2.6].
2. If $(R,{\mathfrak{m}})$ is Noetherian local, then for every ideal $I \subseteq {\mathfrak{m}}^N$ such that $R/I$ is Gorenstein, there exists an ${\mathfrak{m}}$-primary ideal $J$ such that $I \subseteq J \subseteq {\mathfrak{m}}^N$ and $R/J$ is Gorenstein. Namely, if $x_1,\dots,x_k \in R$ such that their images in $R/I$ form a system of parameters of $R/I$, then one can take $J = I + (x^N_1,\dots,x^N_k)$. Note that $J$ is irreducible because the zero ideal of a zero-dimensional Gorenstein ring is irreducible.
The next lemma is a crucial in our proofs of Theorems \[Theorem-A\], \[Theorem-B\] and \[Theorem-C\], and establishes a connection between approximately Gorenstein rings and splinters. Although the result is essentially contained in [@Hoc77], we include a proof for the reader’s convenience.
[@Hoc77] \[lem:normal-approx-Gor\] Let $(R,{\mathfrak{m}})$ be a Noetherian normal local ring. Then for any ring map $R \rightarrow S$, the following are equivalent:
1. $R \rightarrow S$ is pure.
2. $R \rightarrow S$ is cyclically pure.
3. For all ${\mathfrak{m}}$-primary ideals $I$ of $R$, the induced map $R/I \rightarrow S/IS$ is injective.
4. There exists a decreasing sequence $\{I_t\}_{t \in \mathbb N}$ of ${\mathfrak{m}}$-primary ideals of $R$ cofinal with powers of ${\mathfrak{m}}$ such that for all $t$, $R/I_t$ is a Gorenstein ring, and the induced map $R/I_t \rightarrow S/I_tS$ is injective.
In particular, if $R$ is a splinter, then it satisfies the equivalent conditions $(1)-(4)$.
The implications $(1) \Rightarrow (2) \Rightarrow (3)$ follow by the definitions of purity and cyclic purity. For $(3) \Rightarrow (4)$ we need to construct a decreasing sequence $\{I_t\}$ of ${\mathfrak{m}}$-primary ideals cofinal with powers of ${\mathfrak{m}}$ such that each $R/I_t$ is Gorenstein. For this, it suffices to show by Remark \[rem:comment-def-approx-Gor\] that a Noetherian normal local ring is approximately Gorenstein. We may assume that $\dim(R) \geq 2$. Otherwise $R$ is a regular local ring, and regular local rings are clearly approximately Gorenstein. If $\dim(R) \geq 2$ and $R$ is normal, then $R$ has depth $\geq 2$. Hence the depth of the completion $\widehat{R}$ is also $\geq 2$, and so, $R$ is approximately Gorenstein by [@Hoc77 Theorem (5.2)] because $\widehat{R}$ has no associated primes of coheight $\leq 1$. It remains to show $(4) \Rightarrow (1)$. Let $E = E_R(R/{\mathfrak{m}})$ be the injective hull of the residue field of $R$. Recall that by Matlis duality, $R \rightarrow S$ is pure if and only if the induced map $E \rightarrow E \otimes_R S$ is injective [@HH95 Lemma 2.1(e)]. Since every element of $E$ is annihilated by a power of ${\mathfrak{m}}$, it follows by the hypotheses on the collection $\{I_t\}$ that $$E = \bigcup_t (0:_E I_t).$$ Now $(0:_E I_t) \cong \operatorname{Hom}_R(R/I_t, E)$ is an injective $R/I_t$-module by $\operatorname{Hom}$–$\otimes$ adjunction. One then checks that $(0:_E I_t)$ is in fact the injective hull of the residue field of $R/I_t$, and hence coincides with the latter zero-dimensional Gorenstein local ring [@twentyfour Theorem A.29]. Thus $E$ is the union of $R$-modules isomorphic to $R/I_t$, and injectivity of $E \rightarrow E \otimes_R S$ then follows because for every $t$, $R/I_t \rightarrow S/I_tS$ is injective by the hypothesis of (4).
Lemma \[lem:normal-approx-Gor\] is only stated for a Noetherian normal ring, although its proof holds for any approximately Gorenstein ring. Apart from Noetherian normal rings, the class of approximately Gorenstein rings includes Noetherian local rings that are analytically unramified, excellent reduced rings, and Noetherian rings of depth at least $2$.
Lemma \[lem:normal-approx-Gor\] can be used to show that splinters descend under cyclically pure maps.
\[prop:splinters-descend-cyc-pur\] Let $\varphi\colon R \rightarrow S$ be a map of Noetherian rings such that $S$ is splinter.
1. If $\varphi$ is pure, then $R$ is a splinter. In particular, splinters descend under faithfully flat maps.
2. If $\varphi$ is cyclically pure and maps nonzerodivisors of $R$ to nonzerdivisors of $S$ (for example, if $S$ is a domain or $\varphi$ is flat), then $R$ is a splinter.
Note that in both cases $R$ is reduced since $S$ is reduced and $\varphi$ is injective. Assertion (2) follows from (1). Indeed, we claim that the hypotheses of (2) imply that $\varphi$ is pure. This follows by Lemma \[lem:normal-approx-Gor\] if we can show that $R$ is normal. Since $R$ is Noetherian, it suffices for us to show that it is integrally closed in its total quotient ring [@stacks-project [Tag 030C](https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/030C)]. Note that $S$ is normal since $S$ is a splinter (Lemma \[lem:local-splinters-domain\]). Let $a/b$ be an element in the total quotient ring of $R$ (hence $b$ is a nonzerodivisor) that is integral over $R$. Then $\varphi(a)/\varphi(b)$ is an element in the total quotient ring of $S$ that is integral over $S$ ($\varphi(b)$ remains a nonzerodivisor in $S$). Therefore $aS \subseteq bS$ since $S$ is normal, and so, $aR = aS \cap R \subseteq bS \cap R = bR$ by cyclic purity of $\varphi$. This shows $a/b \in R$, and so, $R$ is normal.
For the proof of (1), let $R \rightarrow T$ be a finite map such that the induced map $\operatorname{Spec}(T) \rightarrow \operatorname{Spec}(R)$ is surjective. By base change, $S \rightarrow T \otimes_R S$ has the same properties (a surjective morphism of schemes is ‘universally surjective’ by [@EGAI Chapter 1, Proposition (3.5.2)(ii)]). Therefore, the map $$S \rightarrow T \otimes_R S$$ splits in the category of $S$-modules. In particular, $S \rightarrow T \otimes_R S$ is a pure map of $S$-modules (hence also $R$-modules). Consider the commutative diagram $$\begin{tikzcd}
R \arrow[r, "\varphi"] \arrow[d]
& S \arrow[d] \\
T \arrow[r]
&T \otimes_R S
\end{tikzcd}$$ Since the composition $R \xrightarrow{\varphi} S \rightarrow S \otimes_R T$ is pure as a map of $R$-modules, it follows that $R \rightarrow T$ is also pure. But $\operatorname{coker}(R \rightarrow T)$ is a finitely presented $R$-module since $R$ is Noetherian and $R \rightarrow T$ is finite, and so, $R \rightarrow T$ splits by Lemma \[lem:pure-implies-split\].
Absolute integral closure and splinters
---------------------------------------
Recall that if $R$ is a domain, then its *absolute integral closure*, denoted $R^+$, is the integral closure of $R$ in a fixed algebraic closure of its fraction field. Absolute integral closures allow one to verify the splinter condition by checking cyclic purity of a *single* map, as highlighted in the following result.
\[lem:absolute-int-cl-splinter\] Let $R$ be a Noetherian domain. Then $R$ is a splinter if and only if the map $R \rightarrow R^+$ is cyclically pure.
Suppose $R$ is a splinter. The map $R \rightarrow R^+$ is a filtered colimit of extensions of form $R \hookrightarrow T$, where $T$ is a finitely generated $R$-subalgebra of $R^+$. But $T$ is then a finite $R$-module (since it is integral over $R$), and so, $R \hookrightarrow T$ splits. Since a filtered colimit of split maps is pure [@HH95 Lemma 2.1(i)], we see that $R \rightarrow R^+$ is cyclically pure.
Conversely, suppose $R \rightarrow R^+$ is cyclically pure. Because $R^+$ is integrally closed in its fraction field, the same reasoning as in the proof of Proposition \[prop:splinters-descend-cyc-pur\](2) implies that $R$ is normal. Thus, $R \rightarrow R^+$ is pure by Lemma \[lem:normal-approx-Gor\]. Let $R \rightarrow S$ be a module finite ring map that is surjective on $\operatorname{Spec}$, and ${\mathfrak{p}}\in \operatorname{Spec}(S)$ be a prime ideal that contracts to $(0) \in \operatorname{Spec}(R)$. Then $R \hookrightarrow S/{\mathfrak{p}}$ is module finite extension of domains, and hence, $S/{\mathfrak{p}}$ embeds in $R^+$. As the composition $R \hookrightarrow S/{\mathfrak{p}}\hookrightarrow R^+$ is pure, so is $R \hookrightarrow S/{\mathfrak{p}}$. But then $R \hookrightarrow S/{\mathfrak{p}}$ splits by Lemma \[lem:pure-implies-split\], which shows that $R \rightarrow S$ also splits.
Connection with $F$-singularities {#subsec:splinters-F-singularities}
---------------------------------
Splinters have long been known to be related to singularities in prime characteristic defined via the Frobenius map. This connection will be important in our analysis of how splinters behave under completions (see Example \[ex:completion-not-splinter\]). Hence we briefly recall some relevant definitions.
If $I$ is an ideal of a Noetherian domain $R$ of prime characteristic $p > 0$, then the *tight closure of $I$*, denoted $I^*$, is the collection of elements $r \in R$ for which there exists a nonzero $c \in R$ such that $cr^{p^e} \in I^{[p^e]}$, for all $e \gg 0$. Here $I^{[p^e]}$ denotes the ideal generated by $p^e$-th powers of elements of $I$. We say that $R$ is *weakly $F$-regular* if all ideals of $R$ are tightly closed, that is, $I^* = I$, for any ideal $I$ of $R$. We say an ideal $I$ of $R$ is a *parameter ideal* if $I$ is generated by elements $r_1,\dots,r_n \in I$ such that for any prime ideal ${\mathfrak{p}}$ of $R$ that contains $I$, the images of $r_i$ in $R_{\mathfrak{p}}$ form part of a system of parameters of $R_{{\mathfrak{p}}}$. We say $R$ is *$F$-rational* if every parameter ideal of $R$ is tightly closed. Thus, weakly $F$-regular rings are $F$-rational, and the converse holds when $R$ is Gorenstein [@HH94(a) Corollary 4.7].
The connections between splinters and $F$-singularities are summarized below.
\[rem:charp-splinters\]
1. If $R$ is a splinter of prime characteristic, then the Frobenius map is pure, that is, $R$ is *$F$-pure*. More generally, any integral map $R \rightarrow S$ which is surjective on $\operatorname{Spec}$ is pure. If $R$ is in addition local, then purity of Frobenius implies that the completion $\widehat{R}$ is reduced, that is, $R$ is formally reduced. Note that local splinters in equal characteristic $0$ need not be formally reduced because there exist Noetherian normal local rings which are not formally reduced [@Nag55].
2. If $R$ is a weakly $F$-regular domain, then $R$ is a splinter. Indeed, for any ideal $I$ of $R$, $IR^+ \cap R = I$ because $$\label{eq:tight-forcing}
IR^+ \cap R \subseteq I^* = I,$$ where the containment in (\[eq:tight-forcing\]) follows by [@HH94(b) Corollary 5.23]. This shows that $R \rightarrow R^+$ is cyclically pure, and so, $R$ is a splinter by Lemma \[lem:absolute-int-cl-splinter\].
3. Lemma \[lem:absolute-int-cl-splinter\] combined with Hochster and Huneke’s famous characterization of $R^+$ being a big Cohen-Macaulay algebra [@HH92 Theorem 5.15] can be used to deduce that a locally excellent[^1] Noetherian splinter of prime characteristic is always Cohen-Macaulay. Since splinters in equal characteristic $0$ are equivalent to normal rings, it follows that splinters are not always Cohen-Macaulay in general.
4. Smith showed that if $R$ is a locally excellent Noetherian domain of prime characteristic, then for any parameter ideal $I$ of $R$, $I^* = IR^+ \cap R$ [@Smi94 Theorem 5.1]. Thus, all parameter ideals of a locally excellent splinter domain $R$ of prime characteristic are tightly closed ($IR^+ \cap R = I$ by cyclic purity of $R \rightarrow R^+$), that is, $R$ is $F$-rational. $F$-rationality is the prime characteristic analogue of the characteristic $0$ notion of rational singularities, and the latter are derived splinters [@Kov00]. However, $F$-rational singularities need not be (derived) splinters because there exist $F$-rational section rings of $\mathbb{P}^1$ for which the Frobenius map is not pure [@Wat91 Example 4.4].
Proofs of the main theorems {#sec:Proof of the main theorems}
===========================
The goal of this section is to prove Theorems \[Theorem-A\], \[Theorem-B\] and \[Theorem-C\]. Since the proof of Theorem \[Theorem-A\] uses Theorem \[Theorem-B\], we prove the latter result first.
Henselization of a splinter {#subsec:henselization of splinters}
---------------------------
The henselization of a local ring is constructed as a filtered colimit of certain essentially étale $R$-algebras, so we briefly review the notion of essentially étale maps first.
A local homomorphism of local rings (not necessarily Noetherian) $$\varphi\colon (R,{\mathfrak{m}}) \rightarrow (S,{\mathfrak{n}})$$ is an *étale homomorphism of local rings* if $\varphi$ is flat, $S$ is the localization of a finitely presented $R$-algebra, ${\mathfrak{m}}S = {\mathfrak{n}}$ and the induced map $\kappa({\mathfrak{m}}) \hookrightarrow \kappa({\mathfrak{n}})$ is finite separable. A homorphism $\varphi\colon R \rightarrow S$ of rings (not necessarily local) is *étale at ${\mathfrak{q}}\in \operatorname{Spec}(S)$* if the induced map $
R_{\varphi^{-1}({\mathfrak{q}})} \rightarrow S_{\mathfrak{q}}$ is an étale homomorphism of local rings. We say $\varphi$ is *essentially étale* (resp. *étale*) if $S$ is the localization of a finitely presented (resp. is a finitely presented) $R$-algebra and $\varphi$ is étale at all ${\mathfrak{q}}\in \operatorname{Spec}(S)$. In particular, essentially étale maps are flat.
\[rem:local-etale-is-essentially-etale\] If $\varphi: (R,{\mathfrak{m}}) \rightarrow (S,{\mathfrak{n}})$ is an étale homomorphism of local rings, choose a finitely presented $R$-algebra $S'$ such that $S$ is the localization of $S'$ at a prime ideal ${\mathfrak{q}}$ of $S'$. Since the locus of primes of $\operatorname{Spec}(S')$ at which $\operatorname{Spec}(S') \rightarrow \operatorname{Spec}(R)$ is étale is open, we may assume that $S'$ an étale $R$-algebra. The upshot is that any étale homomorphism of local rings is the localization of an honest étale map which can even be chosen to be standard étale [@stacks-project [Tag 00UE](https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00UE)]. In other words, an étale homomorphism of local rings is essentially étale. We will frequently use this observation in the sequel.
Let $(R,{\mathfrak{m}})$ be a local ring (not necessarily Noetherian), and let $R^h$ denote its *henselization*. Recall that $R^h$ is realized as a filtered colimit of étale homomorphisms of local rings $(R, {\mathfrak{m}}) \hookrightarrow (S, {\mathfrak{n}})$ such that $\kappa({\mathfrak{m}}) \xrightarrow{\sim} \kappa({\mathfrak{n}})$ [@Ray70 Chapter VIII, Théorème 1]. For a choice of a separable algebraic closure $\kappa({\mathfrak{m}})^{sep}$ of the residue field $\kappa({\mathfrak{m}})$ of $R$, one also has the *strict henselization* $R^{sh}$ of $R$ which is a filtered colimit of étale homomorphisms of local rings $(R, {\mathfrak{m}}) \hookrightarrow (S, {\mathfrak{n}})$ such that $\kappa({\mathfrak{m}}) \subseteq\kappa({\mathfrak{n}}) \subseteq \kappa({\mathfrak{m}})^{sep}$ [@Ray70 Chapter VIII, Théorème 2]. It follows that if $R$ is reduced, regular, normal, Cohen-Macaulay or Gorenstein, then so are $R^h$ and $R^{sh}$ (see [@stacks-project [Tag 07QL](https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/07QL)]). Additionally, the associated local maps $$R \rightarrow R^h \rightarrow R^{sh}$$ are always faithfully flat [@stacks-project [Tag 07QM](https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/07QM)].
When $(R,{\mathfrak{m}})$ is Noetherian local, the completion of $R^h$ at its maximal ideal ${\mathfrak{m}}R^h$ coincides with $\widehat{R}$, that is, the induced map $\widehat{R} \rightarrow \widehat{R^h}$ on completions is an isomorphism [@stacks-project [Tag 06LJ](https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/06LJ)]. This implies the following relation between ${\mathfrak{m}}$-primary ideals of $R$ and ${\mathfrak{m}}R^h$-primary (resp. ${\mathfrak{m}}\widehat{R}$-primary) ideals of $R^h$ (resp. $\widehat{R}$).
\[lem:m-primary-ideals-henselization\] Let $\varphi: (R, {\mathfrak{m}}) \rightarrow (S, {\mathfrak{n}})$ be a local homomorphism of Noetherian local rings such that the induced map on completions $\widehat{R} \rightarrow \widehat{S}$ is an isomorphism (for example, if $S = R^h, \widehat{R}$). Then expansion and contraction of ideals via $\varphi$ induces a bijection between ${\mathfrak{m}}$-primary ideals of $R$ and ${\mathfrak{n}}$-primary ideals of $S$.
Our hypothesis implies that the composition $R \xrightarrow{\varphi} S \rightarrow \widehat{S}$ coincides, up to isomorphism, with the completion $R \rightarrow \widehat{R}$ which is faithfully flat. In particular, $\varphi$ is a pure map, which implies that expansion of ideals gives an injective map from the collection of ideals of $R$ to the collection of ideals of $S$. Thus, to prove the lemma, it remains to show that any ${\mathfrak{n}}$-primary ideal of $S$ is the expansion of an ${\mathfrak{m}}$-primary ideal of $R$.
Now because $({\mathfrak{m}}S)\widehat{S} = ({\mathfrak{m}}\widehat{R})\widehat{S} = {\mathfrak{n}}\widehat{S}$, faithful flatness of $S \rightarrow \widehat{S}$ shows that ${\mathfrak{m}}S = {\mathfrak{n}}$. Tensoring the isomorphism $\widehat{R} \xrightarrow{\sim} \widehat{S}$ by $R/{\mathfrak{m}}^n$ then implies that for all $n \geq 1$, we have $$R/{\mathfrak{m}}^n \xrightarrow{\sim} \widehat{R}/{\mathfrak{m}}^n\widehat{R} \xrightarrow{\sim} \widehat{S}/{\mathfrak{m}}^n\widehat{S} \xrightarrow{\sim} S/{\mathfrak{n}}^n.$$ Let $I$ be an ${\mathfrak{n}}$-primary ideal of $S$, and choose $n \geq 1$ such that ${\mathfrak{n}}^n \subseteq I$. If $\overline{I}$ is the image of $I$ in $S/{\mathfrak{n}}^n$, then by the isomorphism $R/{\mathfrak{m}}^n \xrightarrow{\sim} S/{\mathfrak{n}}^n$, there exist $r_1, \dots, r_m \in R$ whose images in $S/{\mathfrak{n}}^n$ generate the ideal $\overline{I}$. Then $I$ is the expansion of the ${\mathfrak{m}}$-primary ideal ${\mathfrak{m}}^n + (r_1,\dots,r_m)$.
\[rem:etale-local-localization-honest-etale\]
1. Lemma \[lem:m-primary-ideals-henselization\] does not hold if $S = R^{sh}$ is the strict henselization of $R$, since in this case the maps $R/{\mathfrak{m}}^n \rightarrow R^{sh}/{\mathfrak{m}}^n R^{sh}$ are no longer isomorphisms.
2. In the statement of Lemma \[lem:m-primary-ideals-henselization\], if the induced map $\widehat{R} \rightarrow \widehat{S}$ is surjective, then every ${\mathfrak{n}}$-primary ideal of $S$ is the expansion of an ${\mathfrak{m}}$-primary ideal of $R$. However, uniqueness is lost.
The goal in the rest of this subsection is to show that the splinter condition is preserved under henselization (Theorem \[Theorem-B\]). But first, we establish an ideal theoretic result inspired by [@Smi94 Proposition 5.10]. Smith’s result is proved under excellence hypothesis and deals with the completion of Noetherian local rings. Surprisingly, it turns out that an analogue of her result holds for henzelizations of arbitrary non-Noetherian normal local domains. Thus we carefully prove the result we need, which should be of independent interest.
\[prop:ideal-identity-hensel\] Let $(R,{\mathfrak{m}})$ be a normal local domain (not necessarily Noetherian), and let $R^h$ and $R^{sh}$ denote its henselization and strict henselization respectively. Then we have the following:
1. $R^h$ (resp. $R^{sh}$) is a normal domain.
2. If $I$ is an ideal of $R$, then $I(R^h)^+ \cap R = IR^+ \cap R = I(R^{sh})^+ \cap R$.
$(1)$ The fact that $R^h$ and $R^{sh}$ are normal local domains is a consequence of the ascent of normality under étale maps [@stacks-project [Tag 06DI](https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/06DI)].
$(2)$ Since $(R^h)^+$ and $(R^{sh})^+$ are $R^+$-algebras, $IR^+ \cap R$ is contained in $I(R^h)^+ \cap R$ and $IR^{sh} \cap R$. Let $z \in I(R^h)^+ \cap R$ (resp. $z \in I(R^{sh})^+ \cap R$). Then there exists a module finite extension domain $T$ of $R^h$ (resp. of $R^{sh}$) contained in $(R^h)^+$ (resp. $(R^{sh})^+$) such that $z \in IT$. Let $i_1,\dots,i_n \in I$ and $t_1,\dots, t_n \in T$ such that $$z = i_1t_1 + \dots + i_nt_n.$$ Note that the $t_i$ are integral over $R^h$ (resp. $R^{sh}$). Since $R^h$ (resp. $R^{sh}$) is a filtered colimit of étale local $R$-algebras, there exists an étale homomorphism of local rings $(R,{\mathfrak{m}}) \hookrightarrow (S,{\mathfrak{n}})$ such that $S \subseteq R^h$ (resp. $S \subseteq R^{sh}$) and $t_1,\dots,t_n$ are integral over $S$.
By Remark \[rem:local-etale-is-essentially-etale\], choose an étale $R$-algebra $S'$ such that $S$ is the localization of $S'$ at a prime ideal ${\mathfrak{q}}$ of $S'$. Since $R$ is a normal domain and $R \rightarrow S'$ is étale, $S'$ is a normal ring by [@stacks-project [Tag 033C](https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/033C)]. Moreover, $S'$ has only finitely many minimal primes because all minimal primes of $S'$ must contract to $(0)$ in $R$ by *going down* [@stacks-project [Tag 00HS](https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00HS)], and the generic fiber of $R \rightarrow S'$ is a finite product of finite separable field extensions of $\operatorname{Frac}(R)$. In particular, $S'$ decomposes as a finite product of normal domains by [@stacks-project [Tag 030C](https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/030C)], and since $S$ is the localization of one these factors, we may assume $S'$ is a domain. Thus, $S' \subseteq S \subseteq T$. Furthermore, after localizing $S'$ at a suitable element not in ${\mathfrak{q}}$, we may also assume $t_1, \dots, t_n$ are integral over $S'$. Let $T'$ be the $S'$-subalgebra $S'[t_1,\dots,t_n]$ of $T$. Then $T'$ is a module-finite extension domain of $S'$ by construction, and $$z \in IT' \cap R.$$ Note that $T'$ is not necessarily an integral extension of $R$ (otherwise we would be done). However, the composition $R \rightarrow S' \rightarrow T'$ is quasi-finite since étale and finite maps are quasi-finite [@stacks-project [Tag 00U5](https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00U5) and [Tag 00PM](https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00PM)] and the composition of quasi-finite maps is quasi-finite [@stacks-project [Tag 00PO](https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00PO)]. Moreover, the induced map $\operatorname{Spec}(T') \rightarrow \operatorname{Spec}(R)$ is surjective because $R \rightarrow S'$ is faithfully flat (it is étale, $(R,{\mathfrak{m}})$ is local and ${\mathfrak{q}}$ lies over ${\mathfrak{m}}$) and $S' \rightarrow T'$ is a finite extension. Then $z \in IR^+ \cap R$ using the following Lemma which makes no further use of the henselian property.
\[lem:quasifin-plus-closure\] Let $R \hookrightarrow S$ be a quasi-finite extension of domains (not necessarily Noetherian) such that the induced map on $\operatorname{Spec}$ is surjective. Suppose also that $R$ is integrally closed in its fraction field, that is, $R$ is normal. Then we have the following:
1. $S$ can be identified as a subring of $\operatorname{Frac}(R^+)$.
2. With the identification from $(1)$, if $I$ is an ideal of $R$ and $z \in S$ such that $z \in IS \cap R$, then $z \in IR^+ \cap R$.
3. With the identification from $(1)$, if $I$ is an ideal of $R$, then $IS^+ \cap R = IR^+ \cap R$.
Recall that a finite type map $\varphi: R \rightarrow S$ is *quasi-finite at ${\mathfrak{q}}\in \operatorname{Spec}(S)$*, if ${\mathfrak{q}}$ is isolated in its fibre. We say $\varphi$ is *quasi-finite* if it is quasi-finite at all ${\mathfrak{q}}\in \operatorname{Spec}(S)$ [@stacks-project [Tag 00PL](https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00PL)], or equivalently, if $\varphi$ has finite fibers [@stacks-project [Tag 00PM](https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00PM)]. Finite, unramified and étale maps are quasi-finite. Quasi-finite maps are ‘close’ to being finite by Zariski’s Main Theorem – if $R \rightarrow S$ is quasi-finite at ${\mathfrak{q}}\in \operatorname{Spec}(S)$ and $\overline{S}$ is the integral closure of $R$ in $S$, then there exists $g \in \overline{S}$ such that $g \notin {\mathfrak{q}}$ and $\overline{S}_g \xrightarrow{\sim} S_g$ [@stacks-project [Tag 00Q9](https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00Q9)]. Since ${S}_g$ is of finite type over $R$, it is then easy to see that $S_g = T_g$, for an $R$-subalgebra $T \subseteq \overline{S}$ such that $R \rightarrow T$ is finite.
*Proof of Lemma \[lem:quasifin-plus-closure\].* We first prove $(1)$ and $(2)$. Note that once $S$ is identified as a subring of $\operatorname{Frac}(R^+)$, $(2)$ will follow if we can show that for each prime ideal ${\mathfrak{P}}$ of $R^+$, $$z \in (IR^+)R^+_{\mathfrak{P}}= IR^+_{\mathfrak{P}}.$$ Choose any ${\mathfrak{P}}\in \operatorname{Spec}(R^+)$, and let ${\mathfrak{p}}\coloneqq {\mathfrak{P}}\cap R$. Let $\overline{S}$ denote the integral closure of $R$ in $S$, and ${\mathfrak{q}}$ be a prime ideal of $S$ such that $${\mathfrak{q}}\cap R = {\mathfrak{p}}.$$ Such a prime exists because $R \hookrightarrow S$ is surjective on $\operatorname{Spec}$. Then by Zariski’s Main Theorem [@stacks-project [Tag 00Q9](https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00Q9)], there exists $g \in \overline{S}$, $g \notin {\mathfrak{q}}$ and an isomorphism $$\overline{S}_g \xrightarrow{\sim} {S}_g.$$ This implies $\operatorname{Frac}(S) = \operatorname{Frac}(\overline{S})$, and so, $\operatorname{Frac}(S)$ is an algebraic extension of $\operatorname{Frac}(R)$. In particular, we may identify $\operatorname{Frac}(S)$, hence also $S$ and $\overline{S}$, as subrings of $\operatorname{Frac}(R^+)$, which proves $(1)$.
With the identification from $(1)$, we have $R \subseteq \overline{S} \subseteq R^+$. Thus, $\overline{S} \subseteq R^+$ is also an integral extension, and consequently, $$\overline{S}_g = {S}_g \subseteq R^+_g$$ is an integral extension as well. Let ${\mathfrak{Q}}$ be a prime ideal of $R^+$ not containing $g$ such that ${\mathfrak{Q}}R^+_g$ lies over ${\mathfrak{q}}S_g$. Since ${\mathfrak{q}}$ contracts to ${\mathfrak{p}}$ in $R$ by our choice of ${\mathfrak{q}}$, it follows that ${\mathfrak{Q}}$ also lies over ${\mathfrak{p}}$ in $R$. Moreover, $z \in IS \cap R$ implies $$z \in I{S}_g \subseteq IR^+_g \subseteq IR^+_{\mathfrak{Q}}.$$ As $R$ is integrally closed in $\operatorname{Frac}(R)$ and $\operatorname{Frac}(R^+)/\operatorname{Frac}(R)$ is a normal algebraic field extension, the elements of $\operatorname{Aut}(\operatorname{Frac}(R^+)/\operatorname{Frac}(R))$ (which induce automorphisms of $R^+$ over $R$) act transitively on the prime ideals of $R^+$ that lie over ${\mathfrak{p}}$ [@Bou89 Chapter V, $\mathsection 2.3$, Proposition 6(i)][^2]. Since ${\mathfrak{Q}}$ and ${\mathfrak{P}}$ are prime ideals of $R^+$ that both lie over ${\mathfrak{p}}$ and $z \in R$ by the hypothesis of (2), we then get $$z \in IR^+_{\mathfrak{Q}}\Rightarrow z \in IR^+_{\mathfrak{P}}.$$ However, ${\mathfrak{P}}$ is an arbitrary prime ideal of $R^+$, and so, $z \in IR^+$, hence also $z \in IR^+ \cap R$, proving $(2)$.
\(3) The non-trivial inclusion is $IS^+ \cap R \subseteq IR^+ \cap R$. Suppose $z \in IS^+ \cap R$. Since $S^+$ is a union of module-finite $S$-subalgebras, there exists a module-finite extension $T$ of $S$ contained in $S^+$, such that $z \in IT \cap R$. However, the composition $R \hookrightarrow S \hookrightarrow T$ is quasi-finite since $R \hookrightarrow S$ and $S \hookrightarrow T$ are quasi-finite. Moreover, the induced map $\operatorname{Spec}(T) \rightarrow \operatorname{Spec}(R)$ remains surjective. Then $z \in IT \cap R$ implies $z \in IR^+ \cap R$ by $(2)$.
Armed with Proposition \[prop:ideal-identity-hensel\], the proof of Theorem \[Theorem-B\] is now a formal exercise.
If $R^h$ is a splinter, then by descent of splinters along the faithfully flat map $R \rightarrow R^h$ (Lemma \[prop:splinters-descend-cyc-pur\]), it follows that $R$ is a splinter. We now show the converse, that is, we show that if a Noetherian local ring $(R,{\mathfrak{m}})$ is a splinter, then $R^h$ is a splinter. Since $R$ is normal (see Lemma \[lem:local-splinters-domain\]), $R^h$ is normal. To show that $R^h$ is a splinter, it then suffices to show by Lemma \[lem:absolute-int-cl-splinter\] that the map $$R^h \rightarrow (R^h)^+$$ is cyclically pure. By normality of $R^h$, purity of the map $R^h \rightarrow (R^h)^+$ will follow by Lemma \[lem:normal-approx-Gor\] if we can show that for every ${\mathfrak{m}}R^h$-primary ideal $I$ of $R^h$, the induced map $$R^h/I \rightarrow (R^h)^+/I(R^h)^+$$ is injective.
Therefore, let $I$ be an ${\mathfrak{m}}R^h$-primary ideal. By Lemma \[lem:m-primary-ideals-henselization\], there exists a unique ${\mathfrak{m}}$-primary ideal $J$ of $R$ such that $$I = JR^h.$$ We then have $$\label{eq:ideal-identity-henselization}
(I(R^h)^+ \cap R^h) \cap R = J(R^h)^+ \cap R = JR^+ \cap R = J.$$ where the first equality is obvious, the second equality follows from Proposition \[prop:ideal-identity-hensel\], and the third equality follows from cyclic purity of $R \rightarrow R^+$ because $R$ is a splinter (Lemma \[lem:absolute-int-cl-splinter\]). Observe that the ideal $$I(R^h)^+ \cap R^h$$ is ${\mathfrak{m}}R^h$-primary. Indeed, $I(R^h)^+ \cap R^h$ contains the ${\mathfrak{m}}R^h$-primary ideal $I$, and it is also contained in ${\mathfrak{m}}R^h$ because $J \neq R$. The upshot of this observation is that $I(R^h)^+ \cap R^h$ must also be expanded from a unique ${\mathfrak{m}}$-primary ideal $J'$ of $R$. Then uniqueness and (\[eq:ideal-identity-henselization\]) forces $J' = J$. Thus, $I(R^h)^+ \cap R^h = JR^h = I$, which is equivalent to the injectivity of $R^h/I \rightarrow (R^h)^+/I(R^h)^+$. This completes the proof.
Theorem \[Theorem-B\] immediately implies a special case of Theorem \[Theorem-A\], namely that if $(R,{\mathfrak{m}}) \hookrightarrow (S,{\mathfrak{n}})$ is an étale homomorphism of Noetherian local rings such that the induced map on residue fields is an isomorphism, then $R$ is a splinter if and only if $S$ is a splinter. In this case the henselization of $(S,{\mathfrak{n}})$ is also $R^h$ and hence there is a faithfully flat local map $S \rightarrow R^h = S^h$. Since $R^h$ is a splinter if $R$ is by Theorem \[Theorem-B\], $S$ is a splinter by descent of splinters along faithfully flat maps (Proposition \[prop:splinters-descend-cyc-pur\]).
As far as we are aware, it is not known whether the henselization of an *arbitrary* weakly $F$-regular Noetherian local ring of prime characteristic $p > 0$ is weakly $F$-regular. The best known result, due to Hochster and Huneke, is that weak $F$-regularity is preserved under henselization for local $G$-rings [@HH94(a) Theorem (7.24)]. Recall that we a say a Noetherian ring $R$, not necessarily local, is a *$G$-ring* if for all maximal ideals ${\mathfrak{m}}$ of $R$, the formal fibers of $R_{\mathfrak{m}}$ are geometrically regular (c.f. Remark \[rem:G-ring-henselization\]). At first glance, [@HH94(a) Theorem (7.24)] implies the seemingly more general statement that weak $F$-regularity of a Noetherian local ring $(R,{\mathfrak{m}})$ is preserved under henselization if $R^h$ is a $G$-ring and the singular locus of $R^h$ is closed. However, $R^h$ is a $G$-ring if and only if $R$ is a $G$-ring [@Gre76 Theorem 5.3], and the singular locus of a local $G$-ring is always closed [@ILO14 Exposé I, Proposition 5.5.1]. Thus, the requirement for the singular locus of the target to be closed is unnecessary in the statement of [@HH94(a) Theorem (7.24)], and the best known result is indeed the one stated above.
Nevertheless, Theorem \[Theorem-B\] has the following consequence for arbitrary weakly $F$-regular local rings.
\[henselization-F-regular\] Let $(R, {\mathfrak{m}})$ be a Noetherian local ring of prime characteristic $p > 0$. If $R$ is weakly $F$-regular (i.e. all ideals are tightly closed), then $R^h$ is a splinter.
Weakly $F$-regular local rings are splinters (Remark \[rem:charp-splinters\](2)). Now apply Theorem \[Theorem-B\].
Completion of a splinter {#subsec:Completion of splinters}
------------------------
We want to show that if $(R,{\mathfrak{m}})$ is a $G$-ring, then $\widehat{R}$ is also a splinter. Before we prove this result, we give an example that illustrates that the completion of a local splinter may not be always be a splinter, even for rings with very mild singularities. Our example comes from the theory of $F$-singularities summarized in Subsection \[subsec:splinters-F-singularities\].
\[ex:completion-not-splinter\] Let $(R,{\mathfrak{m}})$ be a Noetherian local ring of prime characteristic $p > 0$. It is well-known that if $R$ is Gorenstein, then $R$ is weakly $F$-regular if and only if $R$ is $F$-rational [@HH94(a) Corollary 4.7]. Loepp and Rotthaus construct an example of a non-excellent Gorenstein local domain $(R,{\mathfrak{m}})$ which is weakly $F$-regular (equivalently $F$-rational), but whose completion is not weakly $F$-regular (equivalently $F$-rational) [@LR01 Section 5]. However, any weakly $F$-regular domain of prime characteristic is a splinter (Remark \[rem:charp-splinters\](2)). Thus, Loepp and Rotthaus’s construction gives a Gorenstein local splinter domain, whose completion is not $F$-rational. Since $\widehat{R}$ is excellent, if it is a splinter, then it will also be $F$-rational by Remark \[rem:charp-splinters\](4), which shows that $\widehat{R}$ cannot be a splinter.
The main technical result used in the proof of Theorem \[Theorem-C\] is [@Smi94 Proposition 5.10], which is the analogue for completion of Proposition \[prop:ideal-identity-hensel\]. We need the following minor generalization of Smith’s result.
\[prop:plus-closure-completion\] Suppose $(R,{\mathfrak{m}})$ is a Noetherian normal local ring, and let $\widehat{R}$ denote the completion of $R$. If $R$ is a $G$-ring, then for any ideal $I$ of $R$, $$I(\widehat{R})^+ \cap R = IR^+ \cap R = I(R^h)^+ \cap R.$$
Recall that we have a chain of faithfully flat maps $R \rightarrow R^h \rightarrow \widehat{R}$, and $\widehat{R}$ is the ${\mathfrak{m}}R^h$-adic completion of $R^h$. Since $R$ is a $G$-ring, so is its henselization $R^h$ [@Gre76 Theorem 5.3]. Moreover, a Henselian $G$-ring is excellent [@ILO14 Exposé 1, Corollaire 6.3(ii)], and so, $R^h$ is an excellent, normal local domain. Therefore, $\widehat{R} = \widehat{R^h}$ is also normal.
Let $I$ be an ideal of $R$. The equality $$IR^+ \cap R = I(R^h)^+ \cap R$$ follows from Proposition \[prop:ideal-identity-hensel\]. By the discussion in the previous paragraph, applying [@Smi94 Proposition 5.10] to the map of normal excellent local rings $R^h \rightarrow \widehat{R^h} = \widehat{R}$, we get $$\label{eq:henselized-plus-closure}
I(R^h)^+ \cap R^h = I(\widehat{R})^+ \cap R^h.$$ Intersecting (\[eq:henselized-plus-closure\]) with $R$ then gives us $$IR^+ \cap R = I(R^h)^+ \cap R = (I(R^h)^+ \cap R^h) \cap R \stackrel{(\ref{eq:henselized-plus-closure})}{=} (I(\widehat{R})^+ \cap R^h) \cap R = I(\widehat{R})^+ \cap R,$$ which completes the proof of the proposition.
\[rem:G-ring-henselization\] The proof of Proposition \[prop:plus-closure-completion\] uses that if $(R,{\mathfrak{m}})$ is a Noetherian local $G$ ring, then $R^h$ is excellent. The converse is also true. Namely, if $R^h$ is excellent, then $R \rightarrow \widehat{R}$ is regular. To see this, note that $R \rightarrow \widehat{R}$ factors as $R \rightarrow R^h \rightarrow \widehat{R}$, and $\widehat{R}$ is also the completion of $R^h$. Thus $R \rightarrow \widehat{R}$ is regular because $R \rightarrow R^h$ is regular [@stacks-project [Tag 07QQ](https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/07QQ)], $R^h \rightarrow \widehat{R}$ is regular by excellence of $R^h$, and the composition of regular maps of Noetherian rings is regular [@stacks-project [Tag 07QI](https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/07QI)].
We can now prove Theorem \[Theorem-C\].
Again, by faithfully flat descent of the splinter property, the non-trivial implication is to show that if $(R,{\mathfrak{m}})$ is a $G$-ring which is a splinter, then $\widehat{R}$ is also a splinter.
So suppose $R$ is a splinter. By Lemma \[lem:local-splinters-domain\], $R$ is a normal domain. The proof that $\widehat{R}$ is a splinter is now a formal consequence of Proposition \[prop:plus-closure-completion\] and Lemma \[lem:m-primary-ideals-henselization\], with the argument proceeding in the same manner as in the proof of Theorem \[Theorem-B\], upon replacing $R^h$ by $\widehat{R}$ and $(R^h)^+$ by $(\widehat{R})^+$. Thus, the details are omitted.
Theorem \[Theorem-C\] allows us to generalize results on excellent local splinters in prime characteristic to splinters that are $G$-rings.
\[cor:G-splinters-CM-F-rational\] Let $(R,{\mathfrak{m}})$ be a Noetherian local $G$-ring of prime characteristic. If $R$ is a splinter, then we have the following:
1. $R$ is Cohen–Macaulay.
2. If $R$ is also Gorenstein, then $R$ is weakly $F$-regular, and hence $F$-rational.
\(1) Since $\widehat{R}$ is an excellent local splinter, it is Cohen–Macaulay by Remark \[rem:charp-splinters\](3). Thus, $R$ is also Cohen–Macaulay.
\(2) Since $\widehat{R}$ is an excellent splinter, it is $F$-rational by Remark \[rem:charp-splinters\](4). However, a Gorenstein $F$-rational local ring is weakly $F$-regular [@HH94(a) Corollary 4.7]. Thus $\widehat{R}$ is weakly $F$-regular, and since weak $F$-regularity descends under faithfully flat maps [@HH90 Proposition 4.12], it follows that $R$ is weakly $F$-regular. Consequently, $R$ is also $F$-rational.
Since the completion of a regular local ring is always regular, the direct summand theorem shows that the completion of a regular local ring is always a splinter, even though it is not difficult to construct regular local rings whose formal fibers are not geometrically regular. Thus, while $G$-rings are sufficient for the splinter property to ascend under completions, they are by no means necessary.
Étale ascent {#subsec:\'Etale ascent}
------------
To prove the ascent of the splinter property under essentially étale maps (Theorem \[Theorem-A\]), we will reduce to the finite étale case. For the reduction, we need the following result which is well-known to experts. However, a proof is included for the sake of completeness.
\[lem:henselization-unramified-maps\] Let $\varphi\colon (R, {\mathfrak{m}}) \rightarrow (S, {\mathfrak{n}})$ be a local homomorphism of local rings (not necessarily Noetherian). Suppose $S$ is the localization of a finite type $R$-algebra $S'$ at a prime ideal ${\mathfrak{q}}$ such that $R \rightarrow S'$ is quasi-finite at ${\mathfrak{q}}$. Then the induced map $\varphi^h: R^h \rightarrow S^h$ is finite.
In particular, if $\varphi\colon (R, {\mathfrak{m}}) \rightarrow (S, {\mathfrak{n}})$ is an étale homomorphism of local rings, then $\varphi^h\colon R^h \rightarrow S^h$ is a finite étale map.
Note that ${\mathfrak{q}}$ lies over ${\mathfrak{m}}$ because ${\mathfrak{n}}$ lies over ${\mathfrak{m}}$. Since the locus of primes of $\operatorname{Spec}(S')$ at which $\operatorname{Spec}(S') \rightarrow \operatorname{Spec}(R)$ is quasi-finite is open [@stacks-project [Tag 00QA](https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00QA)], we may assume $R \rightarrow S'$ is quasi-finite. Then by base change, $R^h \rightarrow R^h \otimes_R S'$ is also quasi-finite [@stacks-project [Tag 00PP, part (3)](https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00PP)]. Note that $$(R^h \otimes_R S') \otimes_{S'} \kappa({\mathfrak{q}}) = (R^h \otimes_R \kappa({\mathfrak{m}})) \otimes_{\kappa({\mathfrak{m}})} \kappa({\mathfrak{q}}) = \kappa({\mathfrak{q}}).$$ Hence the expansion of ${\mathfrak{q}}$ in $R^h \otimes_R S = (R^h \otimes_R S') \otimes_{S'} S'_{\mathfrak{q}}$ is a prime ideal of $R^h \otimes_R S$, which implies by [@stacks-project [Tag 05WP](https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/05WP)] that $$S^h = (R^h \otimes_R S)_ {{\mathfrak{q}}(R^h \otimes_R S)}.$$
Let ${\mathfrak{Q}}$ be the contraction of the maximal ideal of $S^h$ to $R^h \otimes_R S'$. It is clear that ${\mathfrak{Q}}$ lies over the maximal ideal ${\mathfrak{m}}R^h$ of $R^h$. Since $R^h$ is Henselian and $R^h \rightarrow R^h \otimes_R S'$ is quasi-finite, [@BLR90 $\mathsection 2.3$, Proposition 4(e)] (see also [@stacks-project [Tag 04GG](https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/04GG), part (13)]) shows that we can choose $f \notin {\mathfrak{Q}}$ such that $$(R^h \otimes_R S')_f$$ is a finite $R^h$-algebra, which consequently decomposes as a finite product of $R^h$-module finite Henselian local rings [@stacks-project [Tag 04GG](https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/04GG), part (10) and [Tag 04GH](https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/04GH)]. Since ${\mathfrak{Q}}$ lies over the maximal ideal ${\mathfrak{m}}R^h$ of $R^h$, the prime xideal ${\mathfrak{Q}}(R^h \otimes_R S')_f$ is maximal in $(R^h \otimes_R S')_f$ by module finiteness of $R^h \rightarrow (R^h \otimes_R S')_f$. Thus, $S^h = (R^h \otimes_R S)_ {{\mathfrak{q}}(R^h \otimes_R S)} = (R^h \otimes_R S')_{{\mathfrak{Q}}}$ coincides with one of the $R^h$-module-finite factors of $(R^h \otimes_R S')_f$, proving the first assertion.
If $\varphi$ is an étale homomorphism of local rings, we may assume that $S'$ is an étale $R$-algebra. Then $S^h$ is a localization of the étale $R^h$-algebra $R^h \otimes_R S'$, and so $\varphi^h$ is an étale homomorphism of local rings which is finite by what we proved above because étale maps are quasi-finite [@stacks-project [Tag 00U5](https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00U5)].
The analogue of Lemma \[lem:henselization-unramified-maps\] also holds when we replace ‘henselizations’ by ‘completions’ in the Noetherian setting, i.e., if $(R,{\mathfrak{m}}) \rightarrow (S,{\mathfrak{n}})$ is an étale (even unramified) homomorphism of Noetherian local rings, then the induced map on completions $\widehat{R}^{\mathfrak{m}}\rightarrow \widehat{S}^{\mathfrak{n}}$ is module-finite. This fact is easier to prove [@stacks-project [Tag 039H, part (1)](https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/039H)].
We finally have all the tools in our arsenal to prove Theorem \[Theorem-A\].
Let $\varphi\colon R \rightarrow S$ be an essentially étale homomorphism of Noetherian rings such that $R$ is a splinter. We want to show that $S$ is a splinter. Let ${\mathfrak{q}}$ be a prime ideal of $S$. By Lemma \[lem:splinters-local\], it suffices to show $S_{\mathfrak{q}}$ is a splinter. Replacing $\varphi\colon R \rightarrow S$ by the induced map $R_{\varphi^{-1}({\mathfrak{q}})} \rightarrow S_{\mathfrak{q}}$, we may assume $R = (R, {\mathfrak{m}})$ and $S = (S, {\mathfrak{n}})$ are local, and $\varphi$ is an étale local homomorphism of Noetherian local rings. Consider the commutative diagram $$\begin{tikzcd}
R \arrow[r, "\varphi"] \arrow[d]
& S \arrow[d] \\
R^h \arrow[r, "\varphi^h"]
& S^h
\end{tikzcd},$$ where the vertical maps are faithfully flat (hence pure) and $\varphi^h$ is finite étale by Lemma \[lem:henselization-unramified-maps\]. Note that $R^h$ is a splinter by Theorem \[Theorem-B\], and so, to show that $S$ is a splinter, it is enough to show $S^h$ is a splinter by faithfully flat descent (see Lemma \[lem:absolute-int-cl-splinter\]).
Thus, we reduce the proof of Theorem \[Theorem-A\] to the case where $\varphi \colon (R, {\mathfrak{m}}) \rightarrow (S, {\mathfrak{n}})$ is a finite étale local homomorphism of Noetherian local rings. In particular, $\varphi$ induces a surjective map on $\operatorname{Spec}$ since it is faithfully flat. Let $\phi \colon S \rightarrow T$ be a finite map such that the induced map on $\operatorname{Spec}$ is surjective. In order to show that $\phi$ splits, it suffices to exhibit an $S$-linear map $T \rightarrow S$ that maps $1 \in T$ to a unit in $S$.
The composition $R \xrightarrow{\varphi} S \xrightarrow{\phi} T$ is a finite map and $\operatorname{Spec}(\phi \circ \varphi)$ is surjective. Thus, since $R$ is a splinter, there exists an $R$-linear map $$g \colon T \rightarrow R$$ such that $g(1) = 1$. The retraction $g$ induces an $S$-linear map $$\Psi_g \colon T \rightarrow \operatorname{Hom}_R(S,R)$$ defined as follows: for all $t \in T$ and $s \in S$, $$\Psi_g(t)(s) \coloneqq g(\phi(s)t).$$ We then have a commutative diagram $$\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=large]
T \arrow[r, "\Psi_g"] \arrow[dr, "g"]
& \operatorname{Hom}_R(S,R) \arrow[d, "\operatorname{ev}_1"]\\
&R
\end{tikzcd}$$ where the vertical map is evaluation at $1$. Now by Grothendieck duality for a proper smooth map [@Har66 Chapter VII, Theorem 4.1] applied to the finite étale map $\varphi$, we have isomorphisms of $S$-modules $$\operatorname{Hom}_R(S,R) = \operatorname{Hom}_R(\varphi_*S,R) \cong \varphi_*(\operatorname{Hom}_S(S,\varphi^!R)) = \operatorname{Hom}_S(S,\varphi^!R).$$ Moreover, since $\varphi$ is étale, we know that the functor $\varphi^!$ coincides with the pullback functor $\varphi^*$ because the relative canonical bundle of an étale map is trivial (see the definition of $f^!$ for a smooth map given on [@Har66 Chapter VII, $\mathsection 4$, Pg 388]). Thus, we have isomorphisms of $S$-modules $$\operatorname{Hom}_R(S,R) \cong \operatorname{Hom}_S(S,\varphi^!R) \cong \operatorname{Hom}_S(S,\varphi^*R) = \operatorname{Hom}_S(S,S) \cong S.$$ In particular, we then get a commutative diagram $$\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=large]
T \arrow[r, "\widetilde{\Psi_g}"] \arrow[dr, "g"]
& S \arrow[d, "\widetilde{\operatorname{ev}_1}"]\\
&R
\end{tikzcd}$$ where $\widetilde{\Psi_g}$ is $S$-linear and $\widetilde{\operatorname{ev}_1}$ is $R$-linear. We claim that $$\widetilde{\Psi_g}(1) \notin {\mathfrak{n}}.$$ Indeed, if $\widetilde{\Psi_g}(1) \in {\mathfrak{n}}= {\mathfrak{m}}S$, then by $R$-linearity of $\widetilde{\operatorname{ev}_1}$, we get $$1 = g(1) = \widetilde{\operatorname{ev}_1}(\widetilde{\Psi_g}(1)) \in \widetilde{\operatorname{ev}_1}({\mathfrak{m}}S) \subseteq {\mathfrak{m}},$$ which is a contradiction. Thus, $\widetilde{\Psi_g}(1) \notin {\mathfrak{n}}$, which shows that $\widetilde{\Psi_g}$ is an $S$-linear map that sends $1 \in T$ to a unit in $S$. But this is precisely what we wanted to show.
\[cor:splinter-strict-henselization\] Let $(R,{\mathfrak{m}})$ be a Noetherian local ring. Then $R$ is a splinter if and only if its strict henselization $R^{sh}$ is a splinter.
If $R^{sh}$ is a splinter, so too is $R$ by faithfully flat descent. Recall that $R^{sh}$ is a filtered colimit of pairs $(S,{\mathfrak{n}})$, where $(R,{\mathfrak{m}}) \rightarrow (S,{\mathfrak{n}})$ is an étale homomorphism of Noetherian local rings and $\kappa({\mathfrak{n}})$ is contained in a fixed choice of a separable algebraic closure of $\kappa({\mathfrak{m}})$. Let $R^{sh} \rightarrow T$ be a finite map such that the induced map $\operatorname{Spec}(T) \rightarrow \operatorname{Spec}(R^{sh})$ is surjective. Since $T$ is a finitely presented $R^{sh}$-algebra, there exists a model $T_S$ of $T$ over one of the pairs $(S,{\mathfrak{n}})$ and a fibered square $$\begin{tikzcd}
\operatorname{Spec}(T) \arrow[r] \arrow[d, twoheadrightarrow]
& \operatorname{Spec}(T_S) \arrow[d] \\
\operatorname{Spec}(R^{sh}) \arrow[r, twoheadrightarrow]
& \operatorname{Spec}(S) \end{tikzcd}$$ Note that the map $(S,{\mathfrak{n}}) \rightarrow (R^{sh},{\mathfrak{m}})$ is faithfully flat since $R^{sh}$ is also the strict henselization of $S$. Thus, by faithfully flat descent of finite generation [@Bou89 Chapter 1, $\mathsection 3.6$, Proposition 11], we have that $T_S$ is a finitely generated $S$-module. Moreover, by commutativity of the above diagram, $\operatorname{Spec}(T_S) \rightarrow \operatorname{Spec}(S)$ is surjective. Since $R$ is a splinter and $S$ is an essentially étale extension of $R$, Theorem \[Theorem-A\] implies $S$ is also a splinter. Therefore $S \rightarrow T_S$ splits, and so by base change, $R^{sh} \rightarrow T$ splits.
\[rem:main-theorem-A-B-equivalent\] Theorem \[Theorem-A\] $\Rightarrow$ Corollary \[cor:splinter-strict-henselization\], while faithfully flat descent of the splinter property shows that Corollary \[cor:splinter-strict-henselization\] $\Rightarrow$ Theorem \[Theorem-B\] using the faithfully flat map $R^h \rightarrow R^{sh}$. Thus, Theorem \[Theorem-A\] implies Theorem \[Theorem-B\]. Since Theorem \[Theorem-A\] is deduced as a consequence of Theorem \[Theorem-B\], this shows that Theorems \[Theorem-A\] and \[Theorem-B\] are equivalent.
The derived version of Theorem \[Theorem-A\] also holds with some caveats.
\[cor:derived-Theorem-A\] Let $\varphi: (R,{\mathfrak{m}}) \rightarrow (S,{\mathfrak{n}})$ be an étale homomorphism of Noetherian local rings such that $R$ is a derived splinter.
1. If $R$ has prime characteristic $p > 0$ or has mixed characteristic, then $S$ is a derived splinter.
2. If $R$ is essentially of finite type over a field $k$ of characteristic $0$, then $S$ is a derived splinter.
Since $\varphi$ is an étale homomorphism of local rings, $R$ and $S$ both have the same characteristic.
$(1)$ follows in prime characteristic $p > 0$ by [@Bha12 Theorem 1.4] and Theorem \[Theorem-A\] since splinters and derived splinters coincide in prime characteristic. The same is true in mixed characteristic by forthcoming work of Bhatt [@Bha].
$(2)$ Since $R$ being a derived a splinter is equivalent to it having rational singularities ([@Kov00] and [@Bha12 Theorem 2.12]), it suffices for us to show that rational singularities ascend under an étale homomorphism of local rings. By definition of rational singularities, there exists a proper birational map $f: X \rightarrow \operatorname{Spec}(R)$ with $X$ regular over $k$ such that $\mathcal{O}_{\operatorname{Spec}(R)} \simeq f_*(\mathcal{O}_X)$ and $\textbf{R}^if_*(\mathcal{O}_X) = 0$ for all $i > 0$. Then the base change map $f_S: X_S \rightarrow \operatorname{Spec}(S)$ is also proper birational. Moreover, $X_S$ is regular over $k$ since $X_S \rightarrow X$ is an essentially étale morphism (it is a base change of the essentially étale map $\operatorname{Spec}(S) \rightarrow \operatorname{Spec}(R)$) and since regularity ascends under essentially étale morphisms [@stacks-project [Tag 025N](https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/025N)]. Finally, by flat base change of higher direct images [@Har77 Chapter 3, Proposition 9.3], we have $$\textbf{R}^i(f_S)_*(\mathcal{O}_{X_S}) = \operatorname{Spec}(\varphi)^*\textbf{R}^if_*(\mathcal{O}_X),$$ for all $i \geq 0$. In particular, this implies $$(f_S)_*(\mathcal{O}_{X_s}) = \operatorname{Spec}(\varphi)^*f_*(\mathcal{O}_X) \simeq \operatorname{Spec}(\varphi)^*\mathcal{O}_{\operatorname{Spec}(R)} = \mathcal{O}_{\operatorname{Spec}(S)},$$ and $\textbf{R}^i(f_S)_*(\mathcal{O}_{X_s}) = 0$, for $i > 0$. Thus, $S$ has rational singularities, and consequently, it is a derived splinter.
Recently Kovács has generalized the notion of a rational singularity to arbitrary characteristic for excellent normal Cohen–Macaulay schemes that admit a dualizing complex [@Kov18 Definition 1.3]. He shows that if $X$ is such a scheme that is also a derived splinter, then $X$ has rational singularities in this more general sense [@Kov18 Theorem 8.7]. In fact, $X$ is also pseudorational in the sense of Lipman and Teissier [@LT81] by [@Kov18 Corollary 9.14]. However, the converse is false, that is, a rational singularity is not always a derived splinter. For example, in prime characteristic there exist finite type graded rings over fields with rational singularities that are not $F$-rational [@HW96 Example (2.11)]. Any such ring cannot be a splinter by Remark \[rem:charp-splinters\](4), hence also not a derived splinter by [@Bha12 Theorem 1.4].
Some open questions {#sec:open-questions}
===================
We conclude this paper with some questions that we believe are open for splinters. The first, is the generalization of Theorem \[Theorem-A\] mentioned in the introduction:
**Question 1:** Suppose $\varphi: R \rightarrow S$ is a flat homomorphism of Noetherian rings with geometrically regular fibers. If $R$ is a splinter, is $S$ a splinter?
\[rem:question-1-implies-dsc\]
1. Question 1 reduces to the following special case –
**Question 1$^{\prime}$:** If $R$ is a splinter, is $R[x]$ a splinter?
Indeed, if $R \rightarrow S$ is a regular map, then Néron-Popescu desingularization implies that $S$ can be written as a filtered colimit of smooth $R$-algebras [@Pop90; @Swa98]. Note, however, that the smooth $R$-algebras in the colimit are not necessarily $R$-subalgebras of $S$. If $S \rightarrow T$ is a finite ring map that is surjective on $\operatorname{Spec}$, then by descent of properties of morphisms over projective limits of schemes [@stacks-project [Tag 01ZM](https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/01ZM), [Tag 01ZO](https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/01ZO) and [Tag 07RR](https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/07RR)], there exists a model $T_{S'}$ of $T$ over a smooth $R$-algebra $S'$ such that $S' \rightarrow T_{S'}$ is finite and induces a surjection on $\operatorname{Spec}$. To get a splitting of $S \rightarrow T$ it suffices to show that $S' \rightarrow T_{S'}$ splits. Therefore to answer Question 1, we may assume $R \rightarrow S$ is a smooth ring map. However, given ${\mathfrak{q}}\in \operatorname{Spec}(S)$, in a suitable affine open neighborhood $U$ of ${\mathfrak{q}}$, the map $U \rightarrow \operatorname{Spec}(R)$ factors as an étale map $U \rightarrow \mathbb{A}^n_R$ followed by the canonical projection $\mathbb{A}^n_R \rightarrow \operatorname{Spec}(R)$ [@BLR90 Chapter 2, Remark 12]. Hence by Theorem \[Theorem-A\] and induction on $n$, it further suffices to show that a polynomial ring over a splinter remains a splinter.
2. Question $1^{\prime}$ implies the direct summand theorem. In fact, a proof of the direct summand theorem follows if we can answer Question $1^{\prime}$ when $R$ is an excellent and Gorenstein. Indeed, by a reduction due to Hochster [@Hoc83 Theorem (6.1)], it suffices to prove that complete, unramified regular local rings are splinters. Any such regular local ring is of the form $V[[x_1,\dots,x_n]]$, where $V$ is a $p$-adically complete (hence also excellent) DVR of mixed characteristic $(0,p)$.
Consider the factorization $$V \rightarrow V[x_1,\dots,x_n]_{(p,x_1,\dots,x_n)} \xrightarrow{(p,x_1,\dots,x_n)-\textrm{adic completion}} V[[x_1,\dots,x_n]].$$ If we can show that $V[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ is a splinter (which follows if Question $1^{\prime}$ is true), then the localization $V[x_1,\dots,x_n]_{(p,x_1,\dots,x_n)}$ is also a splinter (Lemma \[lem:splinters-local\]). But $V[x_1,\dots,x_n]_{(p,x_1,\dots,x_n)}$ is excellent because $V$ is complete, and so, Theorem \[Theorem-C\] will then imply that its $(p,x_1,\dots,x_n)$-adic completion $V[[x_1,\dots,x_n]]$ is also a splinter.
3. Suppose $R$ is a Gorenstein ring of prime characteristic $p > 0$ that is also a $G$-ring. If $R$ is a splinter, then so is $R[x]$. First note that $R[x]$ is also a $G$-ring since the property of being a $G$-ring is preserved under essentially finite type maps [@EGAIV_II Théorème (7.4.4)]. Let ${\mathfrak{M}}$ be a maximal ideal of $R[x]$ and ${\mathfrak{p}}$ denote its contraction to $R$. Since the splinter condition can be checked locally at the closed points (Lemma \[lem:local-splinters-domain\]), it suffices to show $R[x]_{\mathfrak{M}}$ is a splinter. Note $R_{\mathfrak{p}}$ is weakly $F$-regular by Corollary \[cor:G-splinters-CM-F-rational\] since $R_{\mathfrak{p}}$ is a splinter and a $G$-ring. Moreover, the local homomorphism $$R_{\mathfrak{p}}\rightarrow R[x]_{\mathfrak{M}}$$ is regular, $R[x]_{\mathfrak{M}}$ is a $G$-ring, and the singular locus of $R[x]_{\mathfrak{M}}$ is closed by [@ILO14 Exposé 1, Proposition 5.5.1(i)]. Thus, $R[x]_{\mathfrak{M}}$ is also weakly $F$-regular by [@HH94(a) Theorem (7.24)]. But a weakly $F$-regular ring is always a splinter by Remark \[rem:charp-splinters\](2), hence $R[x]_{\mathfrak{M}}$ is a splinter as desired. If $R$ is a locally excellent $\mathbb{Q}$-Gorenstein splinter of prime characteristic $p > 0$, then $R[x]$ is also a splinter. Indeed, $R$ is then *$F$-regular* by [@Sin99 Theorem 1.1] (i.e. all localizations of $R$ are weakly $F$-regular) and a $G$-ring since it is locally excellent. Therefore, by the same reasoning as in the previous paragraph, $R[x]$ is a splinter.
**Question 2:** Let $R$ be an excellent ring. Is the locus of primes ${\mathfrak{p}}\in \operatorname{Spec}(R)$ such that $R_{{\mathfrak{p}}}$ is a splinter open?
If $R$ is [locally excellent]{}, but not excellent, then Question 2 has a negative answer by the following general result of Hochster:
[@Hoc73(b) Proposition 2] \[thm:non-openness-loci\] Let ${\mathcal{P}}$ be a property of Noetherian local rings. Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field, and let $(R,{\mathfrak{m}})$ be essentially of finite type over $k$ such that
1. $R$ is a domain,
2. $R/{\mathfrak{m}}= k$, and
3. for every field extension $L/k$, the ring $(R \otimes_k L)_{\mathfrak{m}}$ fails to satisfy ${\mathcal{P}}$.
Additionally, suppose any field satisfies ${\mathcal{P}}$. For all $n \in \mathbb{N}$, let $R_n$ be a copy of $R$ with maximal ideal ${\mathfrak{m}}_n = {\mathfrak{m}}$. Let $R' \coloneqq \bigotimes_{n \in \mathbb{N}} R_n$, where the infinite tensor product is taken over $k$. Then each ${\mathfrak{m}}_nR'$ is a prime ideal of $R'$. Moreover, if $S = R' \setminus (\bigcup_m {\mathfrak{m}}_nR')$, then $$T \coloneqq S^{-1}R'$$ is a Noetherian domain whose locus of primes that satisfy ${\mathcal{P}}$ is not open in $\operatorname{Spec}(T)$. Furthermore, each local ring of $T$ is essentially of finite type over $k$, hence $T$ is locally excellent.
\[ex:splinter-locus-not-open\] Let ${\mathcal{P}}$ be the property of being a splinter. Note that all fields are splinters. Let $(R,{\mathfrak{m}})$ be the local ring of a closed point of an algebraic variety over $k = \overline{k}$ such that such that $R$ is not a splinter (for example, choose a non-normal $R$). Then for any field extension $L/k$, $(R \otimes_k L)_{\mathfrak{m}}$ cannot be a splinter because $(R \otimes_k L)_{\mathfrak{m}}$ is a faithfully flat extension of $R$, and splinters descend under faithfully flat maps (Proposition \[prop:splinters-descend-cyc-pur\]). Thus, $R$ satisfies requirements $(1)-(3)$ of Theorem \[thm:non-openness-loci\], and so, the theorem gives us a locally-excellent ring whose splinter locus is not open.
**Question 3:** Are derived splinters of mixed characteristic Cohen–Macaulay?
Question 3 is false in characteristic $0$ if derived splinters are replaced by splinters, because normal rings are not necessarily Cohen–Macaulay. As observed in Corollary \[cor:G-splinters-CM-F-rational\], if $R$ is a Noetherian splinter of prime characteristic that is also a $G$-ring, then $R$ is Cohen–Macaulay. On the other hand, Question 3 seems to be completely open in mixed characteristic. One cannot use Kovács’s characteristic independent definition of rational singularities to show that derived splinters are Cohen–Macaulay because the Cohen–Macaulay property is built into his definition [@Kov18 Definition 1.3]. At least for rings possessing dualizing complexes, one obstruction seems to be that we do not know whether Grauert-Riemenschneider type vanishing theorems hold in mixed characteristic. Translated into a question about local commutative algebra, Cohen–Macaulayness of local derived splinters $(R,{\mathfrak{m}})$ in mixed characteristic will follow if one can show that $H^i_{{\mathfrak{m}}}(R^+) = 0$ for $i < \dim(R)$. This is because when $R \rightarrow R^+$ is a pure map (which it is when $R$ is a splinter), $H^i_{\mathfrak{m}}(R)$ injects into $H^i_{\mathfrak{m}}(R^+)$ by [@HR74 Corollary 6.6].
Acknowledgments
===============
We thank Takumi Murayama, Thomas Polstra, Karl Schwede and Anurag Singh for helpful conversations and their interest. We especially thank Bhargav Bhatt, Mel Hochster, Linquan Ma and Karen Smith for patiently answering our many questions and for comments on a draft. We first became aware of some of the questions addressed in this paper during a lecture series taught by Linquan at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Part of this research was carried out at the birthday conference in honor of Bernd Ulrich at the University of Notre Dame, and we thank the conference organizers for providing a stimulating environment.
[widest-label]{} Y. André, *La conjecture du facteur direct*, [Pub. Math. de l’IHÉS]{} **127**(1) (2018), pp. 71–93.
B. Bhatt, *Derived splinters in positive characteristic*, [Compositio Math.]{} **148** (2012), pp. 1757–1786.
, *On the direct summand conjecture and its derived variant*, [Inventiones Math.]{} **212**(2) (2018), pp. 297–317.
, *Derived splinters in mixed characteristic*. [To appear.]{}
S. Bosch, W. Lütkebohmert and M. Raynaud, [Néron Models]{}, [Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete 3. Folge$\cdot$Band 21]{}. [Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg]{} (1990), x+325 pp.
N. Bourbaki, *Elements of Mathematics. Commutative algebra, [C]{}hapters 1-7*, [Translated from French. Reprint of the 1989 English Translation]{}. [Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg]{} (1989), xxiv+625 pp.
N. Bourbaki, *Elements of Mathematics. [Algebra II]{}, [C]{}hapters 4-7*, [Translated from French by P.M. Cohn and J. Howie]{}. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg (2003), vii+461 pp.
A. Grothendieck, *Éléments de géométrie algébrique I: Le langage des schémas*, [with collaboration of [J. Dieudonné]{}]{}, [Publications math. de l’[IHÉS]{}]{} [n$^{\circ} 4$]{} (1960), 1–227 pp.
, *[Éléments]{} de géométrie algebrique: [IV]{}. [é]{}tude locale des schémas et des morphismes de schémas, [Seconde]{} partie*, vol. 24, Publications mathématiques de l’I.H.É.S, 1965.
S. Greco, *Two theorems on excellent rings*, [Nagoya Math. J.]{} **60** (1976), pp. 139–149.
N. Hara, *A characterization of rational singularities in terms of injectivity of Frobenius maps*, [Amer. J. Math.]{} **120**(5) (1998), pp. 981–996.
R. Hartshorne, *Residues and Duality*, Springer-Verlag (1966), vii+423 pp.
, *Algebraic Geometry*, [Graduate texts in mathematics]{} **52** Springer-Verlag (1977), xvi+496 pp.
R. Heitmann, *The direct summand conjecture in dimension three*, [Annals of Math.]{} **156**(2) (2002), pp. 695–712.
M. Hochster and C. Huneke, *Tight closure, invariant theory and the Briançon–Skoda theorem*, [Journal of AMS]{} **3**(1) (1990), pp. 31–116.
, *Infinite integral extensions and big Cohen-Macaulay algebras*, [Annals of Math.]{} **135**(1) (1992), pp.53–89.
, *$F$-regularity, test elements and smooth base change*, [Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.]{} **346**(1) (1994), pp.1–62.
, *Tight closure of parameter ideals and splitting in module finite ring extensions*, [J. of Alg. Geom.]{} **3** (1994), pp.599–670.
, *Applications of the existence of big Cohen–Macaulay algebras*, [Adv. in Math.]{} **21**(1) (1995), pp. 45–117.
M. Hochster and J.L. Roberts, *Rings of invariants of reductive groups acting on regular rings are Cohen–Macaulay*, [Adv. in Math.]{} **13**(2) (1974), pp. 115–175.
, *The purity of Frobenius and local cohomology*, [Adv. in Math.]{} **21**(2) (1976), pp. 117–172.
M. Hochster, *Contracted ideals from integral extensions of regular rings*, [Nagoya Math. Jour.]{} **51** (1973), pp. 25-43.
, *Non-openness of loci in Noetherian rings*, [Duke Math. J.]{} **40**(1) (1973), pp. 215–219.
, *Cyclic purity versus purity in excellent Noetherian rings*, [Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.]{} **231**(2) (1977), pp. 463-488.
, *Canonical elements in local cohomology and the direct summand conjecture*, [J. of Alg.]{} **84**(2) (1983), pp. 503–553.
N. Hara and K.i. Watanabe, *The injectivity of Frobenius acting on cohomology and local cohomology modules*, [Manuscripta Math.]{} **90** (1996), pp. 301–315.
S. B. Iyengar, G. J. Leuschke, A. Leykin, C. Miller, E. Miller, A. K. Singh, and U. Walther. *Twenty-four hours of local cohomology.* Grad. Stud. Math., Vol. 87. Providence, RI: Amer. Math. Soc., 2007, xviii+282 pp.
L. Illusie, Y. Laszlo and F. Orgogozo, eds, *Travaux de Gabber sur l’uniformisation locale et la cohomologie étale des schémas quasi-excellents (Séminaire à l’École polytechnique 2006–2008).* With the collaboration of F. Déglise, A. Moreau, V. Pilloni, M. Raynaud, J. Riou, B. Stroh, M. Temkin, and W. Zheng.*Astérisque* 363-364 (2014), xxiv+619 pp.
S.J. Kovács, *A characterization of rational singularities*, [Duke Math. J.]{} **102** (2000), pp. 187–191.
S.J. Kovács, *Rational singularities*, [[arXiv.1703.02269](https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.02269)]{} (2018).
E. Kunz, *Characterizations of regular local rings of characteristic $p$*, Amer. J. of Math. **91** (1969), no. 3, 772–784.
S. Loepp and C. Rotthaus, *Some results on tight closure and completion*, [Jour. of Alg.]{} **246** (2001), pp. 859–880.
J. Lipman and B. Teissier, *Pseudorational local rings and a theorem of Briançon-Skoda about integral closures of ideals*, [Mich. Math. J.]{} **28**(1) (1981), pp. 97–116.
F. Ma, *Splitting in integral extensions, Cohen–Macaulay modules and algebras*, [J. of Alg.]{} **116**(1) (1988), pp. 176–195.
V.B. Mehta and V. Srinivas, *A characterization of rational singularities*, [Asian J. Math.]{} **1**(2) (1997), pp. 249–271.
M. Nagata, *An example of a normal local ring which is analytically ramified*, [Nagoya Math. J.]{} **9** (1955), pp. 111–113.
D. Popescu, *Letter to the editor: “General Néron desingularization and approximation” \[Nagoya Math. J. 104 (1986), 85–115\]*, Nagoya Math. J. **118** (1990), 45–53.
R.G. Swan, *Néron-Popescu desingularization*, Algebra and Geometry (Taipei 1995), Lect. Alg. Geom., vol. 2, Int. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998, pp. 135–192.
M. Raynaud, *Anneaux locaux Hensélians*, [Lecture notes in mathematics]{} **169**, Springer-Verlag (1970), [v+129 pp.]{}
A. Singh, *$\mathbb{Q}$-Gorenstein splinter rings of characteristic $p$ are $F$-regular*, [Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.]{} **127** (1999), pp. 201–205.
K. Smith, *Tight closure of parameter ideals*, [Inventiones Math.]{} **115** (1994), pp. 41–60.
, *$F$-rational rings have rational singularities*, [Amer. J. of Math.]{} **119**(1) (1997), pp. 159–180.
The [Stacks Project Authors]{}, *Stacks [P]{}roject*, <http://stacks.math.columbia.edu>, 2019.
K.i. Watanabe, *$F$-regular and $F$-pure normal graded rings*, [J. of Pure and Applied Alg.]{} **71** (1991), pp. 341–350.
[^1]: A Noetherian ring $R$ is *locally excellent* if for all maximal ideals ${\mathfrak{m}}$ of $R$, $R_{\mathfrak{m}}$ is excellent.
[^2]: Bourbaki uses the term quasi-Galois extension in [@Bou89 Chapter V, $\mathsection 2.3$, Proposition 6] as a synonym for a normal algebraic field extension. See the footnote on [@Bou89 Pg. 331] as well as [@Bou03 Chapter V, $\mathsection 9$, no. 3, Definition 2].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We explore the nonperturbative renormalization group flow of Quantum Einstein Gravity (QEG) on an infinite dimensional theory space. We consider “conformally reduced” gravity where only fluctuations of the conformal factor are quantized and employ the Local Potential Approximation for its effective average action. The requirement of “background independence” in quantum gravity entails a partial differential equation governing the scale dependence of the potential for the conformal factor which differs significantly from that of a scalar matter field. In the infinite dimensional space of potential functions we find a Gaussian as well as a non-Gaussian fixed point which provides further evidence for the viability of the asymptotic safety scenario. The analog of the invariant cubic in the curvature which spoils perturbative renormalizability is seen to be unproblematic for the asymptotic safety of the conformally reduced theory. The scaling fields and dimensions of both fixed points are obtained explicitly and possible implications for the predictivity of the theory are discussed. Spacetime manifolds with $R^d$ as well as $S^d$ topology are considered. Solving the flow equation for the potential numerically we obtain examples of renormalization group trajectories inside the ultraviolet critical surface of the non-Gaussian fixed point. The quantum theories based upon some of them show a phase transition from the familiar (low energy) phase of gravity with spontaneously broken diffeomorphism invariance to a new phase of unbroken diffeomorphism invariance; the latter phase is characterized by a vanishing expectation value of the metric.'
---
MZ-TH/08-12
[**Conformal sector of Quantum Einstein Gravity\
in the local potential approximation:\
non-Gaussian fixed point and a phase of\
unbroken diffeomorphism invariance**]{}
\
*Institute of Physics, University of Mainz\
Staudingerweg 7, D–55099 Mainz, Germany*\
Introduction {#s1}
============
The formulation of a mathematically consistent quantum theory of gravity whose predictive power extends down to arbitrarily small distances continues to be one of the major challenges of modern theoretical physics [@kiefer]. Even though the first attempts at quantizing the gravitational field date back to the 1930s [@bron] the various approaches available today are still plagued by considerable technical and conceptual problems. On the conceptual side, the “background independence” [@A; @R; @T] of classical General Relativity and of the yet to be constructed theory of quantum gravity is at the heart of many difficulties. In the asymptotic safety approach to quantum gravity [@wein; @mr; @percadou; @oliver1; @frank1; @oliver2; @oliver3; @oliver4; @souma; @frank2; @prop; @oliverbook; @perper1; @codello; @litimgrav; @frankmach; @creh1; @oliverfrac; @jan1; @jan2; @je1; @neuge; @max; @livrev] the gravitational degrees of freedom are described by a metric $g_{\mu \nu}$, as in General Relativity, and the standard rules of quantum mechanics are applied to it. Nevertheless, because of the requirement of “background independence”, the resulting quantum field theory of gravity has many features which are rather different from the familiar matter field theories on a fixed, non-dynamical spacetime. These unusual features emerge because the theory is supposed to dynamically explain the origin of the spacetime it “lives” on as a kind of ground state property, and as a result, in its construction no metric should be distinguished from any other a priori. Most investigations of the asymptotic safety scenario are based upon the effective average action for gravity [@mr]. In this approach the requirement of “background independence” in the above sense of the word is met, somewhat paradoxically, by means of the background field technique [@back]. Even though, formally, the gravitational average action obtains by a similar Wilsonian mode cutoff and coarse graining operation as its counterpart for ordinary matter field theories [@avact; @ym; @avactrev; @ymrev] there is a conceptually crucial difference: The metric determines all physical (proper) length and mass scales; in particular it fixes the physical coarse graining scale which is to be attributed to the cutoff parameter $k$ built into the average action $\Gamma_k$. Hence in quantum gravity the problem is that the field that is “averaged” or “coarse grained” by itself has to define the physical meaning of this coarse graining operation. If one was to use a rigid metric for this purpose the parameter $k$ would have no physical interpretation; hence $\Gamma_k$ hardly could be used for “renormalization group improving” classical solutions or field equations [@bh; @erick1; @cosmo1; @cosmofrank; @cosmo2; @entropy; @esposito; @h1; @h2; @h3; @girelli; @litim; @mof], for instance.
In a recent paper [@creh1], henceforth referred to as \[I\], we explained in detail how the use of the background field technique, besides making $\Gamma_k$ a diffeomorphism invariant functional, can make the average action and its renormalization group (RG) flow “background independent”[^1] in the sense that nowhere in the construction any preferred (rigid) metric occurs. In order to disentangle this problem from the gauge fixing issues which are the usual motivation for the background method we considered the “conformal reduction” of Quantum Einstein Gravity (QEG) in which only the conformal factor of the metric is quantized and all other degrees of freedom are discarded. Performing the conformal reduction on top of the usual Einstein–Hilbert truncation one is led to quantize an action of the familiar $\phi^4$-type. As we saw in \[I\] the RG flow in this conformally reduced Einstein–Hilbert (or “CREH”) truncation is different from that in a standard scalar matter field theory, the reason being that in the gravitational case the mode suppression term $\exp (- \Delta_k S)$ in the functional integral defining $\Gamma_k$ must have a specific background field dependence in order to comply with the requirement of “background independence”. This extra field dependence of $\Delta_k S$ is absent in the matter field theory. As a consequence, gravity in the CREH approximation has an RG flow which is very different from that of a standard $\phi^4$-theory. Including the extra field dependence turns the merely logarithmic running of the cosmological constant (earlier discussed by Polyakov [@polyakov] and by Jackiw et al. [@jackiw]) into the expected $k^4$-running, for instance. (Similar observations had been made by Floreanini and Percacci [@floper] in a different theory.)
Remarkably, the RG flow of the CREH approximation turned out to be qualitatively identical to the full Einstein–Hilbert flow where all degrees of freedom are quantized. In particular it has a non-Gaussian fixed point (NGFP) suitable for the asymptotic safety construction. The counterpart of the CREH approximation on the side of the standard matter theories is Symanzik’s asymptotically free $\phi^4$-theory with a negative quartic coupling [@syman; @hist]. This theory has a potential which is unbounded below, and it is notorious for the resulting infrared instability. In the context of QEG this instability is not an issue, however. In the full theory it is presumably cured by higher derivative terms. In fact, it is known [@oliver2] that a $\int \! \sqrt{g\,} \, R^2$-term, added to the Einstein–Hilbert action, stabilizes the kinetic term of the conformal factor at high scales; cf. also ref. [@kincond].
The upshot of the analysis in \[I\] was that the quantum fluctuations of the conformal factor alone seem to be typical of the full set of degrees of freedom in $g_{\mu \nu}$ as far as their impact on the RG flow is concerned. This suggests that also in more general truncations the conformal factor should play a representative role[^2]. Since the scalar–like reduced theory is technically much simpler than full-fledged QEG it suggests itself as a tool which should allow us to probe regions of theory space which are too difficult computationally in the full theory.
In the present paper we start this program with the local potential approximation, or “LPA”, which includes arbitrary non-derivative terms in the truncation ansatz. In fact, the CREH truncation (in $4$ Euclidean dimensions) obtains by inserting metrics of the form $g_{\mu \nu} = \phi^2 (x) \,\, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}$ into the Einstein–Hilbert action. Here ${\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}$ is a fixed reference metric. The result is a kinetic term for $\phi$ which, apart from its sign, is of the standard form $\propto {\widehat}g^{\,\mu \nu} \, {\partial}_\mu \phi \, {\partial}_\nu \phi$, as well as a potential with two terms, proportional to $\phi^2$ and $\phi^4$, respectively: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1.1}
U_k{^{\text{\tiny CREH}}}(\phi)
& =
- \frac{3}{4 \pi \, G_k} \,
\left( \tfrac{1}{12} \, {\widehat}R \, \phi^2
- \tfrac{1}{6} \, \Lambda_k \, \phi^4 \right).\end{aligned}$$ (Here ${\widehat}R$ is the curvature scalar of ${\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}$.) The idea of the LPA [@avactrev] is to retain the standard kinetic term from the CREH approximation but to allow for arbitrary non-derivative terms: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1.2}
\Gamma_k [\phi=const]
& =
+ \int \!\!{\mathrm{d}}^4 x \, \sqrt{{\widehat}g\,}~U_k (\phi).\end{aligned}$$ The running potential $U_k (\phi)$ may develop any $\phi$-dependence; it is no longer restricted to be a quartic polynomial. The LPA has played an important role in the RG analysis of standard scalar theories, in particular in the context of spontaneous symmetry breaking and the approach to convexity [@avactrev]. It is therefore the obvious next step in the analysis of conformally reduced QEG. The relevant theory space is infinite dimensional now; the corresponding flow equations will include a partial differential equation for $U_k (\,\cdot\,)$.
Clearly the LPA cannot be a numerically precise approximation to the full theory, even if the fluctuations of $\phi$ have always a “typical” impact on the RG flow. Nevertheless it should provide us with some qualitative understanding and conceptual insights into the general properties of QEG.
The (relative!) technical simplicity of the reduced theory comes at a certain price, however. In general it will not be possible to relate terms in $U_k (\phi)$ to invariants $I [g_{\mu \nu}]$ depending on the full metric in a unique way. Typically there will be many invariants contributing to a given term in the potential when we insert $g_{\mu \nu} = \phi^2 \,\, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}$. Nevertheless, the LPA is sensitive to a certain projection (or “shadow”) of the invariants $I [g_{\mu \nu}]$ which make up the general $\Gamma_k [g_{\mu \nu}]$. If ${\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}$ is the metric on a curved space, $U_k (\phi)$ encodes information about higher derivative terms, for instance. If we consider a series expansion in the curvature scalar, for instance, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1.3}
\Gamma_k [g_{\mu \nu}]
& =
\sum_n c_n (k) \, \int \!\! {\mathrm{d}}^4 x \, \sqrt{g\,}~R(g)^n\end{aligned}$$ and choose ${\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}$ to be the metric on a unit $4$-sphere, then the corresponding potential $\Gamma_k [\phi=const] \, / \!\int {\mathrm{d}}^4 x \, \sqrt{{\widehat}g\,}$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1.4}
U_k (\phi)
& =
\sum_n (12)^n \, c_n (k) \, \phi^{4-2n}.\end{aligned}$$ The constant term in , $n=2$, descends from the invariant $\int {\mathrm{d}}^4 x \sqrt{g\,} ~R^2$, but also $\int {\mathrm{d}}^4 x \sqrt{g\,} ~(R_{\mu \nu})^2$ or $\int {\mathrm{d}}^4 x \sqrt{g\,} ~(R_{\mu \nu \sigma \rho})^2$ would contribute to the constant piece in $U_k (\phi)$, as would many non-local terms. Similarly, the monomial $\phi^{-2}$ receives contributions from $R^3$ and the Goroff–Sagnotti term $\int {\mathrm{d}}^4 x \, \sqrt{g\,}~R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta} \, R^{\alpha \beta}_{\phantom{\alpha \beta}\rho \sigma} \, R^{\rho \sigma \mu \nu}$ [@sagnotti], among others.
Despite these limitations the experience with conventional field theories suggests that the LPA is a powerful tool for a first exploration of regions in theory space which are computationally inaccessible otherwise. In the present paper we shall employ it in order to analyze and illustrate several conceptual issues related to the renormalization group flow of $\Gamma_k$ which are as to yet too computationally demanding to be studied in the full theory. In particular we focus on the following three topics.
#### (a) {#a .unnumbered}
In the LPA we have the possibility to obtain information about the non-Gaussian fixed point of the gravitational average action on an *infinite dimensional theory space*. We shall find that the RG flow on the space of (dimensionless) potential functions and Newton’s constant admits both a Gaussian and non-Gaussian fixed point. We compute the fixed point potentials and perform a linear stability analysis in each case. The scaling dimensions of the Gaussian fixed point (GFP) will be seen to characterize the difference between a standard scalar and the conformal factor in a particularly clearcut way. The scaling fields and dimensions (critical exponents $\theta$) of the NGFP are of interest for the asymptotic safety construction.
The relevant scaling fields, those with $\operatorname{Re}\theta >0$, decay for $k \to \infty$, while the irrelevant ones, with $\operatorname{Re}\theta <0$, blow up in this limit. An asymptotically safe quantum theory is specified by any RG trajectory that hits the NGFP for $k \to \infty$. We define the *ultraviolet (UV) critical manifold* $\mathscr{S}_{\text{UV}}$ to be the set of all points in theory space which are pulled into the NGFP under the inverse RG flow (i.e., for increasing $k$). In the simplest case $\mathscr{S}_{\text{UV}}$ is a smooth submanifold of theory space. Every complete RG trajectory which lies inside $\mathscr{S}_{\text{UV}}$ defines a possible quantum theory. Hence, with $\Delta_{\text{UV}} \equiv \operatorname{dim}\mathscr{S}_{\text{UV}}$ the dimensionality of the critical manifold, there exists a $\Delta_{\text{UV}}$-parameter family of asymptotically safe quantum field theories; which one is actually realized in Nature must be decided by an experimental determination of exactly those $\Delta_{\text{UV}}$-parameters whose values are not predicted by theory. If $\mathscr{S}_{\text{UV}}$ is indeed a smooth manifold, and the NGFP has no marginal scaling fields ($\operatorname{Re}\theta =0$), then $\Delta_{\text{UV}}$ equals the dimensionality of a subspace of the tangent space to $\mathscr{S}_{\text{UV}}$ at the NGFP, namely the one spanned by the relevant scaling fields, i.e. those whose critical exponents $\theta$ have a positive real part. Therefore the number of relevant scaling fields is related to the degree of predictivity that can be achieved. (See [@livrev] for a more general discussion.)
Within the LPA we will be able to study $\mathscr{S}_{\text{UV}}$ near the NGFP in great detail. We shall find that the value of $\Delta_{\text{UV}}$ depends sensitively on the space of functions in which allowed scaling fields are supposed to “live”. It turns out that in principle there could be infinitely many relevant ones, but as we shall see this question cannot be decided on the basis of the LPA alone.
#### (b) {#b .unnumbered}
Using numerical methods we shall analyze the RG evolution of $U_k (\phi)$ also in the nonlinear regime. We are particularly interested in phase transitions, triggered by a variation of $k$, in which the global minimum of $U_k (\phi)$ either jumps, or continuously evolves from a value $\phi \neq 0$ to $\phi =0$. We interpret this as a transition from the familiar phase of gravity with broken diffeomorphism invariance to a *phase with unbroken diffeomorphism invariance*.
We are considering metrics of the form $g_{\mu \nu} = \phi^2 \,\, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}$ where $\phi$ is the expectation value of the quantum conformal factor and ${\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}$ is a non-degenerate classical reference metric. If the expectation value $\phi$, interpreted here as the minimum of $U_k$, is nonzero the expectation value of the metric, $g_{\mu \nu} \equiv \langle \gamma_{\mu \nu} \rangle$, is non-degenerate as well. But if $\phi =0$ then the metric has a vanishing expectation value. (More precisely, in view of $g_{\mu \nu} = e^a_\mu \, e^b_\nu \, \delta_{ab}$ and since $g_{\mu \nu} = \phi^2 \,\, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}$ depends on $\phi$ quadratically, it is the vielbein $e^a_\mu$ that has a vanishing expectation value.)
The situation where $\phi =0$ can be thought of as the restoration of a spontaneously broken symmetry [@witten; @floper]. The relevant local symmetries are the spacetime diffeomorphisms. If the quantum state is such that $\langle \gamma_{\mu \nu} \rangle \neq 0$ the group of diffeomorphisms is spontaneously broken down to the stability group of $\langle \gamma_{\mu \nu} \rangle$. If $\langle \gamma_{\mu \nu} \rangle = \eta_{\mu \nu}$, say, this stability group is the Poincaré group. The broken phase of gravity is the one we are familiar with. It is conceivable though that the symmetry breaking effectively disappears at very small distances. This is exactly what happens in spontaneously broken Yang–Mills theories, in the standard model, say. If we study phenomena involving momentum scales far above the W-mass, the full $SU(2) \times U(1)$ symmetry appears unbroken. Technically this symmetry restoration can be inferred from the running Higgs potential $U_k^{\text{Higgs}}$ at $k \gg M_{\text{W}}$.
We are going to analyze the running potential of the conformal factor in the same spirit. We shall find that typical trajectories in $\mathscr{S}_{\text{UV}}$, for $k$ sufficiently large, describe a phase of unbroken diffeomorphism invariance in the sense that the metric has a vanishing expectation value there.
#### (c) {#c .unnumbered}
While the beta functions implied by the functional RG equations do not refer to any special metric they do depend on the *topology* of the manifold which carries the metrics $\gamma_{\mu \nu}$, $g_{\mu \nu}$, ${\overline}{g}_{\mu\nu}$, and ${\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}$. We illustrate this phenomenon by discussing in parallel the two cases where the topology of the (Euclidean) spacetime manifold is that of a sphere $S^4$ and of flat space $R^4$, respectively. The beta functions (or rather, functionals) of $U_k (\,\cdot\,)$ are different in the two cases since they depend on the spectrum of the Laplace–Beltrami operator built from the corresponding ${\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}$.
The remaining sections of this paper are organized as follows. In Section \[s2\] we review and expand on conformally reduced QEG; in particular we show how the background field method achieves “background independence”, and we introduce two types of background–quantum field split symmetries. The LPA is introduced in Section \[s3\] then and the corresponding flow equations are derived for the $S^4$ and the $R^4$ topologies. In Section \[s3s\] we analyze various general properties of the LPA flow, and Section \[s4\] is devoted to its fixed points; for both the Gaussian and the non-Gaussian fixed point we determine the fixed point potential and perform a linear stability analysis in order to determine the local tangent space to the UV critical manifold. In Section \[s5\] we solve the partial differential equation for the running potential numerically and describe various scenarios for the phase transition to a phase of (conformally reduced) QEG with unbroken diffeomorphism invariance. The Conclusions are given in Section \[s6\].
“Background Independence” via Background Fields {#s2}
===============================================
In the construction of the full-fledged gravitational average action [@mr] there are three different metrics that play a role: the microscopic metric, i.e. the integration variable in the path integral, $\gamma_{\mu \nu}$, its expectation value $g_{\mu \nu} \equiv \langle \gamma_{ \mu \nu} \rangle$, and the background metric ${\overline}{g}_{\mu \nu}$. In conformally reduced gravity \[I\] all three of them are assumed conformal to the same, fixed reference metric ${\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}$. We write the conformal factor of $\gamma_{\mu \nu}$ and ${\overline}{g}_{\mu \nu}$ as $\chi^{2 \nu} (x)$ and ${\chi_{\text{B}}}^{2\nu} (x)$ where, in $d$ dimensions, $\nu \equiv 2 / (d-2)$. The motivation for the exponent $2 \nu$ is that in this way the Einstein–Hilbert action provides a standard kinetic term for $\chi$.
In the approach of \[I\] the original path integral over $\gamma_{\mu \nu}$ is reduced to an integral over $\chi (x)$ only, and the resulting scalar–like theory is then reformulated using the background field method. The “microscopic” conformal factor $\chi$ is decomposed as $\chi \equiv {\chi_{\text{B}}}+ f$ and the $\chi$-integral is replaced by an integral over $f$. We denote the expectation values of $f$ and $\chi$ by ${\overline}{f} \equiv \langle f \rangle$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.20}
\phi & \equiv \langle \chi \rangle = {\chi_{\text{B}}}+ {\overline}{f},\end{aligned}$$ respectively. Thus the following metrics are to be distinguished: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.21}
\gamma_{\mu \nu}
& =
\chi^{2 \nu} \,\, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}
= ({\chi_{\text{B}}}+ f)^{2 \nu} \,\, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}
\\
\label{2.22}
{\overline}{g}_{\mu\nu}
& =
{\chi_{\text{B}}}^{2 \nu} \,\, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}
\\
\label{2.23}
g_{\mu \nu}
& =
\left\langle ({\chi_{\text{B}}}+ f)^{2\nu} \right\rangle \,\, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}
\\
\label{2.24}
\breve g_{\mu \nu}
& =
\phi^{2\nu} \,\, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}
= \bigl( {\chi_{\text{B}}}+ \langle f \rangle \bigr)^{2\nu} \,\, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $2\nu \neq 1$ in general, we are performing a *nonlinear* background split here which causes the fields $g_{\mu \nu}$ and $\breve g_{\mu \nu}$ to be different. In this respect the correspondence between the full and the conformally reduced theory is not perfect. In the full theory one performs the *linear* background split $\gamma_{\mu \nu} = {\overline}{g}_{\mu \nu} + h_{\mu \nu}$, integrates over $h_{\mu \nu}$, and defines ${\overline}{h}_{\mu \nu} \equiv \langle h_{\mu \nu} \rangle$. In the latter case there is no distinction between $g_{\mu \nu}$ and $\breve g_{\mu\nu}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.25}
g_{\mu \nu} \equiv \langle \gamma_{\mu \nu} \rangle
= {\overline}{g}_{\mu \nu} + \langle h_{\mu \nu} \rangle
\equiv \breve g_{\mu \nu}.\end{aligned}$$
In \[I\] we explained in detail why, both in the full and the reduced theory, the background field is indispensable if one wants to implement “background independence” in the sense of [@A; @R; @T] and give a physical interpretation to the RG parameter $k$. One expands the path integral in eigenmodes of the covariant Laplacian ${\overline}{\Box}$ which is constructed from ${\overline}{g}_{\mu \nu}$ and then introduces $k$ as a cutoff in the spectrum of ${\overline}{\Box}$. In this manner the typical length scale displayed by the ${\overline}{\Box}$-eigenmode with eigenvalue $-k^2$, the “last” mode integrated out, is an approximate measure for the proper (w.r.t. ${\overline}{g}_{\mu \nu}$) coarse graining scale. The infrared (IR) cutoff is built into the path integral by adding an appropriate cutoff action $\Delta_k S [f;{\chi_{\text{B}}}]$ to the bare action. It is a quadratic form in $f$ which involves a ${\chi_{\text{B}}}$-dependent integral kernel $\mathcal{R}_k [{\chi_{\text{B}}}]$. (See \[I\] for further details.)
In the full theory, for vanishing ghost fields, the gravitational average action is a functional of the expectation value and the background field, respectively: $\Gamma_k [\,{\overline}{h}_{\mu \nu}; {\overline}{g}_{\mu \nu}] \equiv \Gamma_k [g_{\mu \nu}, {\overline}{g}_{\mu \nu}]$. In the reduced setting, $\Gamma_k$ depends likewise on ${\overline}{f}$ and ${\chi_{\text{B}}}$ or alternatively on $\phi \equiv {\chi_{\text{B}}}+ {\overline}{f}$ and ${\chi_{\text{B}}}$: $\Gamma_k [\,{\overline}{f}; {\chi_{\text{B}}}] \equiv \Gamma_k [\phi, {\chi_{\text{B}}}]$. Even though it is kept fixed usually, it is sometimes important to keep in mind that $\Gamma_k$ also depends on the reference metric ${\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}$. So occasionally it will be helpful to include it in the list of arguments, writing $\Gamma_k [\,{\overline}{f}; {\chi_{\text{B}}}, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}]$ or $\Gamma_k [\phi, {\chi_{\text{B}}}, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}]$, respectively.
In \[I\] we derived the following FRGE for the reduced average action: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.frge}
k {\partial}_k \, \Gamma_k [\,{\overline}{f}; {\chi_{\text{B}}}, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}]
& =
\frac{1}{2} \operatorname{Tr}\left[
\left( \Gamma_k^{(2)} [\,{\overline}{f}; {\chi_{\text{B}}}, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}]
+ \mathcal{R}_k [{\chi_{\text{B}}}, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}] \right)^{-1} \,
k {\partial}_k\, \mathcal{R}_k [{\chi_{\text{B}}}, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}]
\right].\end{aligned}$$ This equation has the same structure as in a scalar theory, except that the properties of the cutoff operator $\mathcal{R}_k$ are different here. In \[I\] we explained in detail how it has to be constructed in order to be “background independent” and to take account of the fact that the metric itself determines the proper coarse graining scale.
The reference metric ${\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}$ is unphysical and, in fact, has no counterpart in the full theory. A Weyl rescaling of ${\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}$ can always be absorbed by a suitable redefinition of the conformal factor. This is formalized by saying that the “physical” metrics $\gamma_{\mu \nu}$, ${\overline}{g}_{\mu \nu}$, $g_{\mu \nu}$, and $\breve g_{\mu \nu}$ are invariant under the following background–quantum field split symmetries:
\[2.100\] $$\begin{gathered}
\label{2.100a}
{\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}^{\,\prime}
=
\operatorname{e}^{-2 \sigma (x)} \,\, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.100b}
& &
f' & = \operatorname{e}^{\sigma (x) / \nu} \, f,
& {\chi_{\text{B}}}' & = \operatorname{e}^{\sigma (x) / \nu} \, {\chi_{\text{B}}}& &
\\
\label{2.100c}
& &
{\overline}{f}^{\,\prime} & = \operatorname{e}^{\sigma (x) / \nu} \, {\overline}{f},
& \phi' & = \operatorname{e}^{\sigma (x) / \nu} \, \phi.
& & \end{aligned}$$
Since the decomposition of $\gamma_{\mu \nu}$ as a conformal factor times ${\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}$ is completely arbitrary, the quantum theory of the conformal factor must respect the split symmetry . In particular we require the cutoff action $\Delta_k S [f; {\chi_{\text{B}}}, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}]$ to be invariant under the “$\sigma$-transformations” , as we shall call them. This invariance has an important consequence for the solutions $\Gamma_k [\,{\overline}{f}; {\chi_{\text{B}}}, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}]$ of the FRGE : If $\Gamma_k$ is invariant at one value of $k$, it is so also at any other $k$. The flow does not generate non-invariant terms and, as a consequence, it is enough to include $\sigma$-invariant terms in the truncation ansatz.
Later on we shall fix ${\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}$ to be the metric of a round $4$-sphere with radius ${\widehat}r$, $S^4 ({\widehat}r\,)$, so that the corresponding line element reads, using standard coordinates, $$\begin{aligned}
{\widehat}g_{\mu \nu} \, {\mathrm{d}}x^\mu \, {\mathrm{d}}x^\nu
& =
{\widehat}r^{\,2} \, \left[ {\mathrm{d}}\zeta^2 + \sin^2 \zeta \,
\Bigl( {\mathrm{d}}\eta^2 + \sin^2 \eta \,
\left( {\mathrm{d}}\theta^2 + \sin^2 \theta \, {\mathrm{d}}\phi^2
\right) \Bigr) \right].\end{aligned}$$ If we insist on this form of the reference metric, the invariance under local $\sigma$-transformations is broken to a symmetry under global ones only. Global split transformations with, by definition, $\sigma (x) = \sigma = const$, preserve the form of this metric, but rescale the radius of the sphere according to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.radius}
{\widehat}r^{\,\prime} & = \operatorname{e}^{-\sigma} \, {\widehat}r.\end{aligned}$$
Once the conformal reduction is performed, we are left with a theory of the field $\chi (x)$. To quantize it, we perform a second, this time linear background–quantum field split by decomposing $\chi = {\chi_{\text{B}}}+ f$. This decomposition is supposed to mimic the $\gamma_{\mu \nu} = {\overline}{g}_{\mu \nu} + h_{\mu \nu}$ decomposition in the full theory. Obviously $\chi$ and $\phi \equiv {\chi_{\text{B}}}+ {\overline}{f}$ are trivially invariant under a second set of split transformations: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.101}
& &
\begin{split}
f' & = f + \tau (x),
\\
{\chi_{\text{B}}}' & = {\chi_{\text{B}}}- \tau (x),
\end{split}
&
\begin{split}
{\overline}{f}^{\,\prime} & = {\overline}{f} + \tau (x)
\\
{\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}^{\,\prime} & = {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}.
\end{split}
& & \end{aligned}$$ While the “$\sigma$-transformations” have no analog in the full theory, the above “$\tau$-transformations” do have a counterpart: $h_{\mu \nu}' = h_{\mu\nu} + \tau_{\mu \nu}$, ${\overline}{h}_{\mu \nu}^{\,\prime} = {\overline}{h}_{\mu \nu} + \tau_{\mu \nu}$, ${\overline}{g}_{\mu \nu}^{\,\prime} = {\overline}{g}_{\mu \nu} - \tau_{\mu \nu}$.
It is to be emphasized that both in the full and the reduced theory $\Delta_k S$ and as a consequence the FRGE and its exact solutions $\Gamma_k$ are *not* invariant under the respective $\tau$-transformations if $k \neq 0$. This implies that the background field cannot be “shifted away” by redefining the quantum field (integration variable). In a certain sense, the background field must have acquired a “quasi physical” meaning therefore. From our discussion in \[I\] of the special status of the metric, it defines all proper length and mass scales, including that of $k$, it is clear what this meaning is[^3]: The background encodes the information about the physical interpretation of the mode cutoff, the proper length scale of the “coarse grained” domains in spacetime, in particular. Being a cutoff in the spectrum of ${\overline}{\Box}$, the parameter $k^{-1}$ is a “proper” (as opposed to coordinate) length with respect to the background metric. The $\tau$-symmetry is broken by the cutoff action $\Delta_k S$ which implements the mode suppression. For $k \to 0$ the functional $\Gamma_k$ approaches the standard effective action $\Gamma$. In this limit $\Gamma_k$ becomes invariant under the “$\tau$-transformations”.
In \[I\] we solved the FRGE on the $2$-dimensional truncated theory space spanned by the ansatz $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.crehtrunc}
\begin{split}
\Gamma_k [\,{\overline}{f}; {\chi_{\text{B}}}, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}]
& =
- \frac{3}{4 \pi \, G_k} \, \int \!\!{\mathrm{d}}^4 x \, \sqrt{{\widehat}g\,}~
\bigg\{ \tfrac{1}{2} ( {\chi_{\text{B}}}+ {\overline}{f} \,) \,
\left( -{\widehat}\Box + \tfrac{1}{6} \, {\widehat}R \right) \,
( {\chi_{\text{B}}}+ {\overline}{f} \,)
\\
& \phantom{{==}- \frac{3}{4 \pi \, G_k} \, \int \!\!{\mathrm{d}}^4 x \, \sqrt{{\widehat}g\,}~
\bigg\{ }
- \tfrac{1}{6} \, \Lambda_k \, ( {\chi_{\text{B}}}+ {\overline}{f} \,)^4
\bigg\}.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ This functional is invariant under $x$-dependent $\sigma$- as well as $\tau$-transformations. The pertinent cutoff action $\Delta_k S [f; {\chi_{\text{B}}}, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}]$ is only $\sigma$-invariant, however. A generalization of will be encountered in the next section.
The Local Potential Approximation {#s3}
=================================
Next we introduce the local potential approximation (LPA) to the conformally reduced theory of gravity discussed in the previous section and we derive the corresponding beta functions. We restrict the discussion to the case of a maximally symmetric reference metric ${\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}$. To start with we shall assume that it refers to a sphere $S^4({\widehat}r\,)$; later on we shall also consider the flat space $R^4$. For clarity’s sake we focus on $d=4$ spacetime dimensions here; the $d$-dimensional generalizations of various key formulas are collected in the Appendix.
The Truncation Ansatz {#s3.1}
---------------------
The LPA truncation ansatz has the same kinetic term as the CREH truncation but instead of the single quartic term proportional to $\Lambda_k$ we now allow for an arbitrary running potential $H_k$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.1}
\begin{split}
\Gamma_k \bigl[ \,{\overline}{f}; {\chi_{\text{B}}}, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}
\bigr( S^4 ({\widehat}r\,) \bigr) \bigr]
& =
- \frac{3}{4 \pi \, G_k} \, \int \!\!{\mathrm{d}}^4 x \, \sqrt{{\widehat}g\,}~
\bigg\{ \tfrac{1}{2} ( {\chi_{\text{B}}}+ {\overline}{f}\,) \,
\left( -{\widehat}\Box + \tfrac{1}{6} \, {\widehat}R \right) \,
( {\chi_{\text{B}}}+ {\overline}{f} \,)
\\
& \phantom{{==}- \frac{3}{4 \pi \, G_k} \, \int \!\!{\mathrm{d}}^4 x \, \sqrt{{\widehat}g\,}~
\bigg\{ }
+ {\widehat}r^{\,-4} \, H_k \bigl( {\widehat}r \, ( {\chi_{\text{B}}}+ {\overline}{f} \, )
\bigr) \bigg\}.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ After the restriction to spherical reference metrics we must make sure that $\Gamma_k$ is invariant under $x$-independent $\sigma$-transformations which change the radius ${\widehat}r$ according to . This explains the explicit factors of ${\widehat}r$ in . They guarantee that $\Gamma_k$ is indeed invariant under global $\sigma$-transformations: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.1s}
\Gamma_k \bigl[ \operatorname{e}^{\sigma} {\overline}{f}; \operatorname{e}^{\sigma} {\chi_{\text{B}}}, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}
\bigr( S^4 (\operatorname{e}^{-\sigma} \,{\widehat}r\,) \bigr) \bigr]
& =
\Gamma_k \bigl[ \,{\overline}{f}; {\chi_{\text{B}}}, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}
\bigr( S^4 ({\widehat}r\,) \bigr) \bigr].\end{aligned}$$
The ansatz happens to be invariant under the $\tau$-transformations . This accidental $\tau$-invariance is due to the still comparatively simple form of the truncation ansatz; recall that the FRGE and the exact solutions do not have this symmetry. In fact, in a more general truncation we would assume that the potential depends on the two fields ${\widetilde}\chi_{\text{B}} \equiv {\widehat}r \, {\chi_{\text{B}}}$ and ${\widetilde}{{\overline}{f}} \equiv {\widehat}r \, {\overline}{f}$ separately, and not only via their sum ${\widetilde}\phi \equiv {\widehat}r \, \phi$. Then $\Gamma_k$ would not be $\tau$-invariant in general. The simplifying assumption of a single–field LPA potential parallels analogous truncation steps in the full theory [@mr]: Starting from a general potential $H_k ({\widetilde}\phi, {\widetilde}\chi_{\text{B}} )$, without loss of generality, we may decompose it as $H_k ({\widetilde}\phi, {\widetilde}\chi_{\text{B}} ) = {\overline}{H}_k ({\widetilde}\phi) + {\widehat}H_k ({\widetilde}\phi, {\widetilde}\chi_{\text{B}} )$ where ${\overline}{H}_k ({\widetilde}\phi) \equiv H_k ({\widetilde}\phi, {\widetilde}\phi )$, and ${\widehat}H_k$ vanishes for ${\widetilde}\phi = {\widetilde}\chi_{\text{B}}$. Adopting the ansatz amounts to neglecting ${\widehat}H_k$, i.e. to the approximation $H_k \approx {\overline}{H}_k$. With the potentials ${\overline}{H}_k$ and ${\widehat}H_k$ corresponding to the functionals ${\overline}{\Gamma}_k [g_{\mu \nu}]$ and ${\widehat}\Gamma_k [g_{\mu\nu}, {\overline}{g}_{\mu \nu}]$, respectively, this is the same kind of “single–field approximation” one often makes in full QEG, see Section 3 of ref. [@mr]. However, even though we take $H_k$ to depend on one field only, special solutions of the type are in fact general enough to demonstrate the qualitative consequences of the $\tau$-invariance breaking ${\chi_{\text{B}}}$-dependences which enter the flow equation via $\mathcal{R}_k$ and are dictated by “background independence”, see \[I\] for a first example.
It will be convenient to combine the ${\widehat}R$-term which stems from $\int\!\sqrt{g\,} \, R$ with the potential $H_k$. On the $4$-sphere ${\widehat}R = 12 / {\widehat}r^{\,2}$ is a constant. Therefore, if we introduce the total potential as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.2}
F_k ({\widetilde}\phi)
& \equiv
{\widetilde}\phi \,^2 + H_k ({\widetilde}\phi)\end{aligned}$$ the average action assumes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.3}
\begin{split}
\Gamma_k \bigl[ \,{\overline}{f}; {\chi_{\text{B}}}, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}
\bigr( S^4 ({\widehat}r\,) \bigr) \bigr]
& =
- \frac{3}{4 \pi \, G_k} \, \int \!\!{\mathrm{d}}^4 x \, \sqrt{{\widehat}g\,}~
\bigg\{ - \tfrac{1}{2} ( {\chi_{\text{B}}}+ {\overline}{f}\,) \,
{\widehat}\Box \, ( {\chi_{\text{B}}}+ {\overline}{f} \,)
\\
& \phantom{{==}- \frac{3}{4 \pi \, G_k} \, \int \!\!{\mathrm{d}}^4 x \, \sqrt{{\widehat}g\,}~
\bigg\{ }
+ {\widehat}r^{\,-4} \, F_k \bigl( {\widehat}r \, ( {\chi_{\text{B}}}+ {\overline}{f} \, )
\bigr) \bigg\}.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ We are going to insert this ansatz into the FRGE . Under the trace on its RHS we need the Hessian $\Gamma_k^{(2)}$. It reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.4}
\begin{split}
& \Gamma_k^{(2)} \bigl[ \,{\overline}{f}; {\chi_{\text{B}}}, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}
\bigr( S^4 ({\widehat}r\,) \bigr) \bigr]_{xy}
\\
& \phantom{{==}} =
- \frac{3}{4 \pi \, G_k} \,
\Bigl[ - {\widehat}\Box_x
+ {\widehat}r^{\,-2} \, F_k'' \bigl( {\widehat}r \, \bigl( {\chi_{\text{B}}}(x)+ {\overline}{f} \,(x) \bigr)
\bigr) \Bigr] \, \frac{\delta (x-y)}{\sqrt{{\widehat}g (x) \,}\,}.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Here and in the following a prime denotes a derivative with respect to the argument. Comparing to we see that $U_k (\phi) \equiv - \tfrac{3}{4 \pi \, G_k} \, {\widehat}r\,^{-4} \, F_k ({\widehat}r \, \phi)$.
The ansatz contains two scale dependent parameters, a single constant, namely $G_k$, and a function of the field, $F_k (\,\cdot\,)$. We determine their respective beta functions by evaluating both sides of the FRGE with the ansatz inserted for special field configurations which project out the relevant monomials in the action. In order to find $k {\partial}_k \, F_k (\,\cdot\,)$ we set ${\overline}{f} =0$ and ${\chi_{\text{B}}}= const$, compute the trace on the RHS of the FRGE as a function of the $x$-independent variable ${\chi_{\text{B}}}$, and equate the result to $k {\partial}_k \, F_k ({\chi_{\text{B}}})$. The beta function for Newton’s constant obtains from the kinetic term. We set ${\chi_{\text{B}}}=const$ and leave ${\overline}{f}$ nonzero and $x$-dependent. We expand the trace to second order in ${\overline}{f}$ and second order in the derivatives; the $({\partial}{\overline}{f}\,)^2$-piece is proportional to $k {\partial}_k\, (1/G_k)$ then.
As for both of these calculations a constant background field is sufficient we assume ${\chi_{\text{B}}}(x) = const \equiv {\chi_{\text{B}}}$ from now on.
Before continuing a remark about dimensions might be in order here. In the above equations we use units such that the coordinates $x^\mu$ are dimensionless. Hence we have the canonical mass dimensions $$\begin{gathered}
[\gamma_{\mu \nu}] = [g_{\mu \nu}] = [{\overline}{g}_{\mu \nu}]
= [{\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}] = -2
\nonumber \\
\label{3.6}
[f] = [\,{\overline}{f}\,] = [{\chi_{\text{B}}}] = [\phi] = 0
\\
\nonumber
[H_k] = [F_k] = -2, \qquad [{\widehat}r\,]=-1.\end{gathered}$$
The Cutoff Operator {#s3.2}
-------------------
In \[I\] we explained in detail why it is crucial to define $k$ as a cutoff in the spectrum of ${\overline}{\Box}$ rather than ${\widehat}\Box$, say. (Here ${\overline}{\Box}$ and ${\widehat}\Box$ are the Laplace–Beltrami operators related to ${\overline}{g}_{\mu \nu} \equiv {\chi_{\text{B}}}^2 \,\, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}$ and ${\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}$, respectively.) At least for truncations of the type considered here this can be achieved by designing the cutoff operator $\mathcal{R}_k$ in such a way that upon adding it to $\Gamma_k^{(2)}$ is leads to the replacement $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.7}
(- {\overline}{\Box} \,)
& \to
(- {\overline}{\Box} \,) + k^2 \, R^{(0)} \bigl( - \tfrac{{\overline}{\Box}}{k^2\,} \bigr).\end{aligned}$$ Since, for ${\chi_{\text{B}}}=const$, ${\overline}{\Box} = {\chi_{\text{B}}}^{-2} \, {\widehat}\Box$, this substitution rule amounts to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.8}
(-{\widehat}\Box)
& \to
(-{\widehat}\Box) + {\chi_{\text{B}}}^2 \, k^2 \,R^{(0)} \bigl( - \tfrac{{\widehat}\Box}{{\chi_{\text{B}}}^2 \, k^2\,} \bigr).\end{aligned}$$ In our case $\Gamma_k^{(2)}$ is given by . Therefore we define $\mathcal{R}_k$ such that, in operator notation, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.9}
\Gamma_k^{(2)} + \mathcal{R}_k
& =
- \frac{3}{4 \pi \, G_k} \,
\Bigl[ - {\widehat}\Box + {\chi_{\text{B}}}^2 \, k^2 \,R^{(0)} \bigl( - \tfrac{{\widehat}\Box}{{\chi_{\text{B}}}^2 \, k^2\,} \bigr)
+ {\widehat}r^{\,-2} \, F_k'' \bigl( {\widehat}r \, \bigl( {\chi_{\text{B}}}+ {\overline}{f} \, (x) \bigr)
\bigr) \Bigr].\end{aligned}$$ As a result, we must set $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.10}
\mathcal{R}_k [{\chi_{\text{B}}}; {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}]
& =
- \frac{3}{4 \pi \, G_k} \, {\chi_{\text{B}}}^2 \, k^2 \,
R^{(0)} \bigl( - \tfrac{{\widehat}\Box}{{\chi_{\text{B}}}^2 \, k^2\,} \bigr).\end{aligned}$$ Note the factors of ${\chi_{\text{B}}}^2$ on the RHS of eq. . They are typical of conformally reduced gravity and would not appear in the standard quantization of a scalar field. Besides the different transformation behavior under diffeomorphisms, they are the most important feature which distinguishes the conformal factor from scalar matter fields. They lead to very significant modifications of the RG flow \[I\]. The cutoff action corresponding to reads: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.11}
\Delta_k S [f; {\chi_{\text{B}}}, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}]
& =
- \frac{3\, {\chi_{\text{B}}}^2 \, k^2}{8 \pi \, G_k}\,
\int \!\! d^4 x \, \sqrt{{\widehat}g\,}~
f (x) \, R^{(0)} \bigl( - \tfrac{{\widehat}\Box}{{\chi_{\text{B}}}^2 \, k^2\,} \bigr)
\, f(x).\end{aligned}$$ This functional is indeed invariant under global $\sigma$-transformations, as it should be: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.12}
\Delta_k S [\operatorname{e}^\sigma f; \operatorname{e}^\sigma {\chi_{\text{B}}}, \operatorname{e}^{-2\sigma} {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}]
& =
\Delta_k S [f; {\chi_{\text{B}}}, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}].\end{aligned}$$ Note, however, that $\Delta_k S$ is *not* invariant under $\tau$-transformations: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.13}
\Delta_k S [f+\tau; {\chi_{\text{B}}}-\tau, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}]
& \neq
\Delta_k S [f; {\chi_{\text{B}}}, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}].\end{aligned}$$
At this point the flow equation assumes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.14}
\begin{split}
& k {\partial}_k \,\Gamma_k \bigl[ \,{\overline}{f}; {\chi_{\text{B}}}=const, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}
\bigr( S^4 ({\widehat}r\,) \bigr) \bigr]
\\
& \phantom{{==}} =
\frac{1}{2} \operatorname{Tr}\left[
\left( - {\widehat}\Box + {\chi_{\text{B}}}^2\, k^2 \,
R^{(0)} \bigl( - \tfrac{{\widehat}\Box}{{\chi_{\text{B}}}^2 \, k^2\,} \bigr)
+ {\widehat}r^{\,-2} \, F_k'' \bigl( {\widehat}r \, ( {\chi_{\text{B}}}+ {\overline}{f} \, )
\bigr) \right)^{-1}
\right.
\\
& \phantom{{====}\frac{1}{2} \operatorname{Tr}\Biggl[}
\times G_k \, k {\partial}_k \left\{
G_k^{-1} \, {\chi_{\text{B}}}^2 \, k^2 \,
R^{(0)} \bigl( - \tfrac{{\widehat}\Box}{{\chi_{\text{B}}}^2 \, k^2\,} \bigr) \right\}
\biggr]
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ It is possible to completely eliminate the ${\widehat}r$-dependence from this equation. (This is exactly as it should be since in the exact formulation, with all degrees of freedom retained, ${\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}$ and ${\widehat}r$ have no counterparts.) To see this, we introduce the metric on the unit $4$-sphere, ${\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}^{\,(1)} \equiv {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu} \bigl( S^4 (1) \bigr)$, so that we may write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.15}
{\widehat}g_{\mu \nu} \bigl( S^4 ({\widehat}r\,) \bigr)
& =
{\widehat}r^{\,2} \,\, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}^{\,(1)}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that ${\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}^{\,(1)}$ is dimensionless, while ${\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}$ has the mass dimension $-2$. Writing ${\widehat}\Box^{(1)}$ and ${\widehat}g^{\,(1)}$ for the Laplacian and the determinant corresponding to ${\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}^{\,(1)}$ we have, respectively, ${\widehat}\Box = {\widehat}r^{\,-2} \, {\widehat}\Box^{(1)}$, and $\sqrt{{\widehat}g\,} = {\widehat}r^{\,4} \, \sqrt{{\widehat}g^{\,(1)}\,}.$ When we refer all quantities to the unit metric the average action reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.16}
\begin{split}
\Gamma_k \bigl[ \,{\overline}{f}; {\chi_{\text{B}}}, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}
\bigr( S^4 ({\widehat}r\,) \bigr) \bigr]
& =
- \frac{3}{4 \pi \, G_k} \, \int \!\!{\mathrm{d}}^4 x \, \sqrt{{\widehat}g^{\,(1)}\,}~
\bigg\{ - \tfrac{1}{2} ( {\widehat}r \, {\overline}{f}\,) \,
{\widehat}\Box^{(1)} \, ( {\widehat}r \, {\overline}{f} \,)
\\
& \phantom{{==}- \frac{3}{4 \pi \, G_k} \, \int \!\!{\mathrm{d}}^4 x \, \sqrt{{\widehat}g{\,(1)}\,}~
\bigg\{ }
+ F_k ( {\widehat}r \, {\chi_{\text{B}}}+ {\widehat}r \, {\overline}{f} \, ) \bigg\}.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ We may use this form of the functional on the LHS of eq. . In the same notation, its RHS assumes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.17}
\begin{split}
& \frac{1}{2} \operatorname{Tr}\left[
\left( - {\widehat}\Box^{(1)} + ({\widehat}r \, {\chi_{\text{B}}})^2\, k^2 \,
R^{(0)} \bigl( - \tfrac{{\widehat}\Box^{(1)}}{({\widehat}r \, {\chi_{\text{B}}})^2 \, k^2\,} \bigr)
+ F_k'' ( {\widehat}r \, {\chi_{\text{B}}}+ {\widehat}r \, {\overline}{f} \, ) \right)^{-1}
\right.
\\
& \phantom{{=}\frac{1}{2} \operatorname{Tr}\Biggl[}
\times G_k \, k {\partial}_k \left\{
G_k^{-1} \, ({\widehat}r \, {\chi_{\text{B}}})^2 \, k^2 \,
R^{(0)} \bigl( - \tfrac{{\widehat}\Box^{(1)}}{({\widehat}r \, {\chi_{\text{B}}})^2 \, k^2\,} \bigr) \right\}
\biggr].
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Notice that ${\chi_{\text{B}}}$, ${\overline}{f}$, and ${\widehat}r$, both in and , appear only in the $\sigma$-invariant combinations ${\widehat}r \, {\chi_{\text{B}}}$ and ${\widehat}r \, {\overline}{f}$. It is therefore natural to introduce new fields, in terms of which ${\widehat}r$ disappears completely: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.18}
{\widetilde}\chi_{\text{B}} \equiv {\widehat}r \, {\chi_{\text{B}}}, \qquad
{\widetilde}{{\overline}{f}} \equiv {\widehat}r \, {\overline}{f}, \qquad
{\widetilde}\phi \equiv {\widehat}r \, \phi.\end{aligned}$$ In analogy with $\phi = {\chi_{\text{B}}}+ {\overline}{f}$ we defined ${\widetilde}\phi = {\widetilde}\chi_{\text{B}} + {\widetilde}{{\overline}{f}}$. The new variables have the dimension of a length, while the old ones were dimensionless. The interpretation of ${\widetilde}\chi_{\text{B}}$, say, is clear: From ${\overline}{g}_{\mu \nu} = {\chi_{\text{B}}}^2 \,\, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}$ it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.19}
{\overline}{g}_{\mu \nu} =
({\widehat}r \,{\chi_{\text{B}}})^2 \,\, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}^{\,(1)}
= {\widetilde}\chi_{\text{B}} \,\, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}^{\,(1)}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence ${\widetilde}\chi_{\text{B}}$ is nothing but the radius of the sphere with the metric ${\overline}{g}_{\mu \nu}$. Likewise ${\widetilde}\phi$ is the radius of a $4$-sphere with metric $\breve g_{\mu \nu}$.
To summarize: We have seen that we can eliminate the reference metric from the flow equation determining the RG flow of $G_k$ and $F_k$. Therefore the corresponding beta functions cannot depend on it. Since the new variables are singlets under $\sigma$-transformations, the flow equation is invariant under the split transformations which express the arbitrariness of the reference metric.
Having convinced ourselves that the flow equations have the correct invariance properties we shall now simplify our notation and omit the tilde from the new fields or, what is the same, we shall stick to the old fields but set ${\widehat}r =1$ in all formulas. Then ${\widehat}g_{\mu \nu} \equiv {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}^{\,(1)}$ and ${\widehat}\Box \equiv {\widehat}\Box^{(1)}$ so that we can omit the superscript “$(1)$” henceforth. The table of canonical dimensions changes accordingly; we have, along with $[x^\mu]=0$, $$\begin{gathered}
[\gamma_{\mu \nu}] = [g_{\mu\nu}] = [\,{\overline}{g}_{\mu \nu}] = -2,
\qquad [{\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}] =0
\nonumber \\
\label{3.20}
[f] = [\,{\overline}{f}\,] = [{\chi_{\text{B}}}] = [\phi] = -1
\\
\nonumber
[H_k] = [F_k] = -2.\end{gathered}$$
With these simplifications the flow equation which we have to evaluate further reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.21}
\begin{split}
& - \frac{3}{4 \pi} \, \int \!\!{\mathrm{d}}^4 x \, \sqrt{{\widehat}g\,}~
\biggl( - \tfrac{1}{2} \, k {\partial}_k \, G_k^{-1} \, {\overline}{f} \,
{\widehat}\Box {\overline}{f}
+ k {\partial}_k \, \left \{ G_k^{-1} F_k ( {\chi_{\text{B}}}+ {\overline}{f} \, ) \right\} \biggr)
\\
& \phantom{{==}} =
{\chi_{\text{B}}}^2\, k^2 \, \operatorname{Tr}\Biggl[
\left( - {\widehat}\Box + {\chi_{\text{B}}}^2\, k^2 \,
R^{(0)} \bigl( - \tfrac{{\widehat}\Box}{{\chi_{\text{B}}}^2 \, k^2\,} \bigr)
+ F_k'' \bigl( {\chi_{\text{B}}}+ {\overline}{f}\, (x) \bigr) \right)^{-1}
\\
& \phantom{{====} {\chi_{\text{B}}}^2\, k^2 \, \operatorname{Tr}\Biggl[}
\times \bigg\{\left( 1 - \tfrac{1}{2} {\eta_{\text{N}}}\right) \,
R^{(0)} \bigl( - \tfrac{{\widehat}\Box}{{\chi_{\text{B}}}^2 \, k^2\,} \bigr)
- \Bigl( - \frac{{\widehat}\Box}{{\chi_{\text{B}}}^2 \, k^2\,} \Bigr) \,
{R^{(0)}}' \bigl( - \tfrac{{\widehat}\Box}{{\chi_{\text{B}}}^2 \, k^2\,} \bigr)
\bigg\}
\Biggr].
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Here we used the anomalous dimension related to Newton’s constant, defined as in [@mr], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.22}
{\eta_{\text{N}}}& \equiv k {\partial}_k \, \ln G_k.\end{aligned}$$
We shall see that the beta functions depend on the *topology* of the background manifold. We shall analyze the cases $S^4$ and $R^4$ in turn. For $S^4$, we derived eq. where ${\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}$ refers to the unit sphere now. For $R^4$ it is easy to see that the corresponding flow equations also can be obtained from but with ${\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}$ interpreted as the flat metric ${\widehat}g_{\mu \nu} = \delta_{\mu \nu}$.
The RG Equation for $\boldsymbol{F_k}$ {#s3.3}
--------------------------------------
### The $\boldsymbol{S^4}$ Topology {#s.3.3.1}
We begin by deriving the flow equation for the potential $F_k (\phi)$. As explained above, we evaluate for ${\overline}{f}=0$ to this end, retain the full dependence on the (constant) field ${\chi_{\text{B}}}= \phi$, however. (Recall that $\phi \equiv {\chi_{\text{B}}}+ {\overline}{f}$ so that $\phi = {\chi_{\text{B}}}$ now.) We perform the trace on the RHS of in the eigenbasis of ${\widehat}\Box$, the Laplace–Beltrami operator on the unit $S^4$. Its eigenvalues $-\mathcal{E}_n$ and their degeneracies $D_n$, $n=0,1,2,\cdots$, are given by [@rubin] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.23}
& & \mathcal{E}_n & = n (n+3),
& D_n & = \tfrac{1}{6} \, (n+1) (n+2) (2n+3).
& &\end{aligned}$$ With $\sigma_4 \equiv \int {\mathrm{d}}^4 x \sqrt{{\widehat}g\,} = 8 \pi^2/3$ the volume of $S^4(1)$, this leads us to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.24}
- \frac{3 \, \sigma_4}{4 \pi \, G_k} \, \Bigl( k {\partial}_k F_k (\phi)
- {\eta_{\text{N}}}\, F_k (\phi) \Bigr)
& =
T_1 (\phi) + T_2 (\phi)\end{aligned}$$ with the two spectral sums $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.25}
\begin{split}
T_1 & \equiv
\varphi^2 \, \sum_{n=0}^\infty D_n \,
\frac{R^{(0)} (\mathcal{E}_n / \varphi^2)
- \bigl( \mathcal{E}_n / \varphi^2 \bigr) \,
{R^{(0)}}' (\mathcal{E}_n / \varphi^2)}
{\mathcal{E}_n + \varphi^2 \, R^{(0)} (\mathcal{E}_n / \varphi^2)
+ F_k'' (\phi)}
\\
T_2 & \equiv
- \frac{1}{2} \, {\eta_{\text{N}}}\,
\varphi^2 \, \sum_{n=0}^\infty D_n \,
\frac{R^{(0)} (\mathcal{E}_n / \varphi^2)}
{\mathcal{E}_n + \varphi^2 \, R^{(0)} (\mathcal{E}_n / \varphi^2)
+ F_k'' (\phi)}.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Here we employed the abbreviation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.26}
\varphi & \equiv k \phi.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\varphi$ is dimensionless as $\phi$ has the dimension of a length.
In principle gives the beta function of $F_k$ for an arbitrary shape function $R^{(0)}$. In order to simplify the eigenvalue sums it is convenient to use the optimized shape function [@opt], however, the same that was also used in \[I\]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.27}
R^{(0)} (z) & = \left( 1-z \right) \, \theta (1-z).\end{aligned}$$ With this choice, the final result for the flow equation of the potential reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.28}
k {\partial}_k \, F_k (\phi)
& =
{\eta_{\text{N}}}\, F_k (\phi)
- \frac{G_k}{2 \pi} \,
\frac{\left( 1 - {\eta_{\text{N}}}/2 \right) \, k^2 \, \phi^2 \, \rho (k \, \phi)
+ \tfrac{1}{2} \, {\eta_{\text{N}}}\, {{\widetilde}\rho}(k \, \phi)}
{k^2 \, \phi^2 + F_k'' (\phi)}.\end{aligned}$$ Here $\rho$ and ${{\widetilde}\rho}$ are two new, simpler spectral functions, for an arbitrary ${\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.29}
& &
\rho (\varphi)
& \equiv
\operatorname{Tr}\Bigl[ \theta (\varphi^2 + {\widehat}\Box) \Bigr],
& {{\widetilde}\rho}(\varphi)
& \equiv
\operatorname{Tr}\Bigl[ (-{\widehat}\Box)
\, \theta (\varphi^2 + {\widehat}\Box) \Bigr].
& & \end{aligned}$$ In the case at hand, for the sphere, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.30}
& &
\rho (\varphi)
& =
\sum_{n=0}^\infty D_n \, \theta (\varphi^2 - \mathcal{E}_n),
& {{\widetilde}\rho}(\varphi)
& =
\sum_{n=0}^\infty \mathcal{E}_n \, D_n \, \theta (\varphi^2 - \mathcal{E}_n).
& & \end{aligned}$$ These functions are of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.31}
& &
\rho (\varphi) & = J_4 \bigl( n_{\text{max}} (\varphi) \bigr),
& {{\widetilde}\rho}(\varphi) & =
{\widetilde}J_4 \bigl( n_{\text{max}} (\varphi) \bigr).
& & \end{aligned}$$ By definition, $n_{\text{max}} (\varphi)$ is the largest integer $n=0,1,2,\cdots$ such that $\mathcal{E}_n = n (n+3) < \varphi^2$. Here we introduced the finite sums $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.jsums}
& &
J_4 (N) & \equiv \sum_{n=0}^N D_n,
& {\widetilde}J_4 (N) & \equiv \sum_{n=0}^N \mathcal{E}_n \, D_n.
& & \end{aligned}$$ They can be worked out explicitly:
\[3.32\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.32a}
J_4 (N)
& = \tfrac{1}{12} \, N^4 + \tfrac{2}{3} \, N^3 + \tfrac{23}{12} \, N^2
+ \tfrac{7}{3} \, N + 1
\\
\label{3.32b}
{\widetilde}J_4 (N)
& =
\tfrac{1}{18} \, N^6 + \tfrac{2}{3} \, N^5 \, + \tfrac{55}{18} \, N^4
+ \tfrac{20}{3} \, N^3 + \tfrac{62}{9} \, N^2 + \tfrac{8}{3} \, N.\end{aligned}$$
Since the largest contributing eigenvalue has the quantum number $$\begin{aligned}
n_{\text{max}} (\varphi) & \approx
\begin{cases}
\varphi & \text{for } \varphi \gg 1
\\
0 & \text{for } \varphi \ll 1
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ the results imply the limits
\[3.34\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.34ab}
\rho (\varphi) & \approx
\begin{cases}
\tfrac{1}{12} \, \varphi^4 & \text{for } \varphi \gg 1
\\
1 & \text{for } \varphi \ll 1
\end{cases}
\\
\label{3.34cd}
{{\widetilde}\rho}(\varphi) & \approx
\begin{cases}
\tfrac{1}{18} \, \varphi^6 & \text{for } \varphi \gg 1
\\
0 & \text{for } \varphi \ll 1
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
In particular we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.35}
& &
\rho(0) & = 1,
& {{\widetilde}\rho}(0) & = 0.
& &\end{aligned}$$
On $S^4$ the spectrum of ${\widehat}\Box$ is completely discrete. As a consequence, $\rho (\varphi)$ and ${{\widetilde}\rho}(\varphi)$ have discontinuities at the $\varphi$-values at which $n_{\text{max}} (\varphi)$ jumps. When one analyzes the differential equation smooth functions $\rho (\varphi)$ and ${{\widetilde}\rho}(\varphi)$ clearly would be easier to deal with. For this reason we henceforth adopt a certain *smoothing procedure* which replaces the original functions $\rho$ and ${{\widetilde}\rho}$ by smooth interpolating functions. We shall again denote them by $\rho$ and ${{\widetilde}\rho}$. The way how this interpolation or smoothing is done is in no way unique. Choosing a specific smoothing procedure has the same conceptual status as choosing a particular cutoff function $R^{(0)}$: It amounts to specifying how precisely the transition from the high to the low momentum regime takes place, i.e. how the modes start getting suppressed when their eigenvalue passes the threshold value given by $k$. Observable quantities derived from the RG flow must be independent of both $R^{(0)}$ and the smoothing procedure.
It is convenient to assume the smooth $\rho$ and ${{\widetilde}\rho}$ of polynomial form. We get a function with the correct behavior for $\varphi \ll 1$ and $\varphi \gg 1$ if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.36}
\rho (\varphi)
& =
\sum_{k=0}^4 a_k \, \varphi^k,
\qquad \text{with} \quad a_0=1, \quad a_4 = 1/12\end{aligned}$$ and similarly for ${{\widetilde}\rho}$. A good fit to the $\rho (\varphi)$ of is obtained with $a_1 \approx -0.0118142$, $a_2 \approx -0.0832909$, $a_3 \approx -0.000333389$. For many purposes the following approximation is perfectly sufficient: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.366}
& &
\rho (\varphi) & = 1 + \tfrac{1}{12} \, \varphi^4,
&
{{\widetilde}\rho}(\varphi) & = \tfrac{1}{18} \, \varphi^6.
& & \end{aligned}$$
In particular when one searches for fixed points the flow equation is needed in dimensionless form. For this reason we represent $F_k$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.37}
F_k (\phi) & \equiv k^{-2} \, \, Y_k (k\,\phi).\end{aligned}$$ Here $Y_k$ is a dimensionless function of a dimensionless argument $k \, \phi \equiv \varphi$, i.e.$$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.38}
Y_k (\varphi) & = k^2 \, F_k (\varphi / k).\end{aligned}$$ The RG equation for $Y_k$ follows from : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.39}
k {\partial}_k \, Y_k (\varphi)
& =
(2+{\eta_{\text{N}}}) \, Y_k (\varphi) - \varphi \, Y_k' (\varphi)
- \frac{g_k}{2 \pi} \,
\frac{\left( 1 - {\eta_{\text{N}}}/2 \right) \, \varphi^2 \, \rho (\varphi)
+ \tfrac{1}{2} \, {\eta_{\text{N}}}\, {{\widetilde}\rho}(\varphi)}
{\varphi^2 + Y_k'' (\varphi)}.\end{aligned}$$ Here $g_k \equiv k^2 \, G_k$ is the dimensionless Newton constant. In terms of $Y_k$, the original potential is given by $U_k (\phi) = - \tfrac{3}{4 \pi \, g_k} \, Y_k (k\,\phi)$.
### The $\boldsymbol{R^4}$ Topology {#s.3.3.2}
If the manifold on which the metrics ${\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}$ and ${\overline}{g}_{\mu \nu}$ are defined has the topology of a plane we may use eq. as well, but with ${\widehat}g_{\mu \nu} = \delta_{\mu \nu}$. The operator ${\widehat}\Box$ is easily diagonalized in a plane wave basis then, and the spectral functions are found to be
\[3.40\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.40a}
\rho (\varphi) & = \left( \frac{\varphi^4}{12} \right)
\, \Bigl( \text{$\int {\mathrm{d}}^4 x$} \Bigr)/\sigma_4
\\
\label{3.40b}
{{\widetilde}\rho}(\varphi) & = \left( \frac{\varphi^6}{18} \right)
\, \Bigl( \text{$\int {\mathrm{d}}^4 x$} \Bigr)/\sigma_4.\end{aligned}$$
The resulting flow equation for the dimensionful potential reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.41}
k {\partial}_k \, F_k (\phi)
& =
{\eta_{\text{N}}}\, F_k (\phi)
- \frac{G_k}{24 \pi} \, \left( 1 - \tfrac{1}{6} \, {\eta_{\text{N}}}\right) \,
\frac{\phi^6 \, k^6}{\phi^2 \, k^2 + F_k'' (\phi)}.\end{aligned}$$ For the dimensionless $Y_k$ one finds the completely explicit partial differential equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.42}
k {\partial}_k \, Y_k (\varphi)
& =
(2+{\eta_{\text{N}}}) \, Y_k (\varphi) - \varphi \, Y_k' (\varphi)
- \frac{g_k}{24 \pi} \, \left( 1 - \tfrac{1}{6} \, {\eta_{\text{N}}}\right) \,
\frac{\varphi^6}{\varphi^2 + Y_k'' (\varphi)}.\end{aligned}$$
The $R^4$ equations and coincide exactly with the corresponding ones for $S^4$, eqs. and , if in the latter the $\varphi \gg 1$-approximations from and are used[^4] for *all* values of $\varphi$. This was to be expected, of course, because for $\varphi \gg 1$ the spectral sums of $S^4$ are dominated by very many densely spaced eigenvalues which form a quasi-continuum. The difference between $R^4$ and $S^4$ is most pronounced for small values of $\varphi$. Here the finite volume of $S^4$ and the resulting discreteness of the spectrum strongly modifies the spectral density $\rho$. In the continuum it is proportional to $\varphi^4$, while on the sphere it approaches $\rho (0) =1$ for $\varphi \ll 1$. Note that $\varphi \equiv k \, \phi$ can be interpreted as the radius of the sphere with metric ${\overline}{g}_{\mu\nu}$, measured in cutoff units. For $\varphi \ll 1$ the trace on the RHS of the FRGE is dominated by a single eigenvalue, namely the zero mode of ${\widehat}\Box$ which has $n=0$. For the $R^4$ topology, on the other hand, the $\rho \sim \varphi^4$-behavior extends down to $\varphi=0$.
In \[I\] we explained in detail how the special status of the metric affects the RG equations and why those for conformally reduced gravity are different from the corresponding flow equations in scalar matter field theories. It is therefore instructive to compare the partial differential equations and to their scalar counterparts. In a standard scalar theory, the analog of eq. for $F_k$, say, would have the last factor on its RHS replaced by $k^6 / \bigl( k^2 + F_k'' (\phi) \bigr)$. It does not contain the crucial extra factors of $\phi$ which originate from the ${\chi_{\text{B}}}$-dependence of $\mathcal{R}_k$. It is clear that these extra factors of $\phi$ modify the RG evolution of the function $F_k (\phi)$ quite significantly.
Within the present framework, the CREH approximation of \[I\] amounts to the following more restrictive ansatz for $Y_k$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.43}
Y_k{^{\text{\tiny CREH}}}(\varphi)
& =
c_0 \, \varphi^2 - \tfrac{1}{6} \, \lambda_k \, \varphi^4.\end{aligned}$$ Here $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.44}
c_0 & =
\begin{cases}
0 & \text{for } R^4
\\
1 & \text{for }S^4
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ and $\lambda_k \equiv \Lambda_k / k^2$ is the dimensionless cosmological constant. We can derive its RG equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.444}
k {\partial}_k \, \lambda_k = \beta_\lambda^{\text{\,CREH}} (g_k, \lambda_k)\end{aligned}$$ by inserting into or and comparing the coefficients of $\varphi^4$. From either equation one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.45}
\beta_\lambda^{\text{\,CREH}} (g_k, \lambda_k)
& =
- (2-{\eta_{\text{N}}}) \, \lambda_k
+ \frac{g_k}{4 \pi} \, \left( 1 - \tfrac{1}{6} \, {\eta_{\text{N}}}\right) \,
\frac{1}{1 - 2 \, \lambda_k}.\end{aligned}$$ This is exactly the beta function found in \[I\].
The RG Equation for $\boldsymbol{G_k}$ {#s3.4}
--------------------------------------
In order to close the system of equations we need an equation for ${\partial}_k \, g_k$ or, equivalently, the anomalous dimension: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.46}
k {\partial}_k \, g_k
& =
\Bigl[ 2 + {\eta_{\text{N}}}\bigl( g_k, [Y_k] \bigr) \Bigr] \, g_k.\end{aligned}$$ In the case at hand, ${\eta_{\text{N}}}$ is a *function* of $g_k$ and a *functional* of $Y_k$. The desired expression for ${\eta_{\text{N}}}$ is obtained from eq. by fixing a constant value of ${\chi_{\text{B}}}$ and performing a derivative expansion of the functional trace up to order $({\partial}{\overline}{f}\,)^2$.
### The $\boldsymbol{R^4}$ Topology {#s.3.4.1}
For ${\widehat}g_{\mu \nu} = \delta_{\mu \nu}$ the result for ${\eta_{\text{N}}}$ can be inferred from the calculation in Appendix A of \[I\]. Expressed in dimensionful quantities, it reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.47}
{\eta_{\text{N}}}& =
- \frac{G_k}{6 \pi} \,
\left[ \frac{F_k''' (\phi_1)}{k \, \phi_1} \right]^2 \,
{\widehat}\Sigma_4 \! \biggl( \frac{F_k'' (\phi_1)}{k^2 \, \phi_1^2} \biggr)
\, \left[ 1 + \frac{G_k}{12 \pi} \,
\left[ \frac{F_k''' (\phi_1)}{k \, \phi_1} \right]^2 \,
{\widetilde}\Sigma_4 \!\biggl( \frac{F_k'' (\phi_1)}{k^2 \, \phi_1^2} \biggr)
\right]^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Here ${\widehat}\Sigma_4$ and ${\widetilde}\Sigma_4$ are threshold functions defined in \[I\]. They depend on $R^{(0)}$. For the optimized shape function one has, for instance, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.48}
& &
{\widehat}\Sigma_4 (w) & = \frac{1}{4} \, \frac{1}{(1+w)^4\,},
& {\widetilde}\Sigma_4 (w) & = 0.
& & \end{aligned}$$ In the derivatives of $F_k$ are evaluated at a *fixed* field value, $\phi_1$. It is the value of ${\chi_{\text{B}}}$ about which we perform the expansion of . There is a certain arbitrariness as to the choice of ${\chi_{\text{B}}}\equiv \phi_1$ in ${\eta_{\text{N}}}$. It is due to the fact that the truncation used allows for a field independent wave function renormalization $Z_{Nk} \propto 1 / G_k$ only, see Appendix A of \[I\]. In standard scalar calculations $\phi_1$ is usually identified with the minimum of the potential [@avactrev]. Notice that since $\phi_1$ is fixed, ${\eta_{\text{N}}}$ is indeed a functional of $F_k$ and not a function of the field.
With the optimized shape function ${\eta_{\text{N}}}$ assumes the simple form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.49}
{\eta_{\text{N}}}& =
- \frac{G_k}{24 \pi} \,
\left[ \frac{F_k''' (\phi_1)}{k \, \phi_1} \right]^2 \,
\left[ 1 + \frac{F_k'' (\phi_1)}{k^2 \, \phi_1^2} \right]^{-4}.\end{aligned}$$ We see that ${\eta_{\text{N}}}$ is negative if $G_k >0$, for any choice of $\phi_1$ and for any potential function $F_k (\,\cdot\,)$. This means that the gravitational interaction is *anti*screening: As we increase $k$, Newton’s constant decreases according to $k {\partial}_k \, G_k = {\eta_{\text{N}}}\, G_k$.
In terms of the dimensionless quantities $g_k$ and $Y_k$ the anomalous dimension reads, with $\varphi_1 \equiv k \, \phi_1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.50}
{\eta_{\text{N}}}\bigl( g_k, [Y_k] \bigr)
& =
- \frac{g_k}{24 \pi} \,
\frac{\Bigl[ \varphi_1^3 \, Y_k''' (\varphi_1) \Bigr]^2}
{\Bigl[ \varphi_1^2 + Y_k'' (\varphi_1) \Bigr]^4\,}.\end{aligned}$$ If we insert the CREH form of the running potential, $Y_k{^{\text{\tiny CREH}}}(\varphi) = - \tfrac{1}{6} \, \lambda_k \, \varphi^4$, we obtain from : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.51}
{\eta_{\text{N}}}{^{\text{\tiny CREH}}}(g_k, \lambda_k)
& =
- \frac{2}{3 \pi} \, \frac{g_k \, \lambda_k^2}{\left( 1-2 \, \lambda_k
\right)^4\,}.\end{aligned}$$ This is precisely the anomalous dimension of the CREH approximation which was derived in \[I\]. (In \[I\] the above ${\eta_{\text{N}}}{^{\text{\tiny CREH}}}$ was denoted ${\eta_{\text{N}}}^{\text{(kin)}}$.) Note that is independent of the expansion point $\varphi_1$: exactly when $Y_k \propto \varphi^4$ it drops out from the formula for ${\eta_{\text{N}}}$.
When we solve the coupled flow equations later on we set $\varphi_1 \to \infty$ for the expansion point. The motivation is that the relevant solutions $Y_k (\varphi)$ turn out to behave as $Y_k \propto \varphi^4$ for $\varphi \to \infty$. Hence with this choice ${\eta_{\text{N}}}$ is given by the CREH formula which is independent of the precise value of $\varphi_1$ as long as it is sufficiently large. Other choices of $\varphi_1$ are conceivable, for instance minima of the potential. It turns out, however, that at least in the particular interesting UV fixed point regime $Y_k$ has no stationary points at all.
### The $\boldsymbol{S^4}$ Topology {#s.3.4.2}
Also in the $S^4$ case we shall send $\varphi_1$ to infinity. The corresponding sphere has a very large radius then and we can expect that ${\eta_{\text{N}}}$ is well approximated by the $R^4$ result. For this reason we are going to employ also in the spherical case. We defer a more precise treatment, including an evaluation of ${\eta_{\text{N}}}$ on a sphere of finite radius, to a future publication.
General Properties of the LPA Flow {#s3s}
==================================
The RG flow on the infinite dimensional theory space with coordinates $\bigl( g, Y(\,\cdot\,) \bigr)$ is described by the coupled equations
\[3s.1\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3s.1a}
k {\partial}_k \, Y_k (\varphi)
& =
\beta_Y \bigl( g_k, Y_k (\varphi) \bigr)
\\
\label{3s.1b}
k {\partial}_k \, g_k
& =
\beta_g \bigl( g_k, [Y_k] \bigr)
= \Bigl[ 2 + {\eta_{\text{N}}}\bigl( g_k, [Y_k] \bigr) \Bigr] \, g_k.\end{aligned}$$
The beta function for the potential, $\beta_Y$, is given by the RHS of for $S^4$ and for $R^4$. The anomalous dimension will be used in the form . Its functional dependence on the potential is in terms of derivatives of $Y_k$ evaluated at the fixed expansion point $\varphi_1$ which we shall leave unspecified for the time being.
Alternatively we may use the flow equations in dimensionful form. The partial differential equation for $F_k (\phi) \equiv k^{-2} \, Y_k (k \, \phi)$ is given in for $S^4$, and in for $R^4$; in either case $G_k$ evolves according to $k {\partial}_k \, G_k = {\eta_{\text{N}}}G_k$ with the ${\eta_{\text{N}}}$ of .
In this section we are going to discuss various general properties of the coupled RG equations.
The $\boldsymbol{\varphi \to \infty}$ Asymptotics {#s3s.1}
-------------------------------------------------
Let us separate off the CREH form of the potential, $Y_k{^{\text{\tiny CREH}}}(\varphi) = c_0 \, \varphi^2 - \tfrac{1}{6} \, \lambda_k \, \varphi^4$, from the function $Y_k$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3s.2}
Y_k (\varphi) & \equiv \Delta Y_k (\varphi) + Y_k{^{\text{\tiny CREH}}}(\varphi).\end{aligned}$$ Exploiting we can derive a flow equation for the “correction term” $\Delta Y_k$. For $S^4$ we obtain
\[3s.3\] $$\begin{gathered}
\label{3s.3a}
k{\partial}_k \, \Delta Y_k (\varphi)
- (2+{\eta_{\text{N}}}) \, \Delta Y_k (\varphi)
+ \varphi \, \Delta Y_k' (\varphi)
=
{\eta_{\text{N}}}\, \varphi^2
- \frac{g_k}{2 \pi} \, \mathbf{B}_k (\varphi).\end{gathered}$$ Here we abbreviated $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3s.3b}
\begin{split}
\mathbf{B}_k (\varphi)
& \equiv
\left[\rho (\varphi) - \frac{{\eta_{\text{N}}}}{2} \, \left( \rho (\varphi)
- \frac{{{\widetilde}\rho}(\varphi)}{\varphi^2\,} \right)
\right] \,
\left( 1 - 2 \, \lambda_k
+ \frac{2 + \Delta Y_k'' (\varphi)}{\varphi^2\,} \right)^{-1}
\\
& \phantom{{==}}
- \left[ \frac{\varphi^4}{12}
- \frac{{\eta_{\text{N}}}}{2} \, \frac{\varphi^4}{36} \right] \,
\left( 1 - 2 \, \lambda_k \right)^{-1}.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
What prevents us from setting $\Delta Y_k =0$ is the inhomogeneity on the RHS of eq. . It controls the type of terms which are generated during the RG running. It is important to notice that, in the limit $\varphi \to \infty$, this inhomogeneity simplifies under certain conditions. In fact, from we know that $\rho \to \varphi^4/12$ and $(\rho - {{\widetilde}\rho}/ \varphi^2) \to \varphi^4/36$ when $\varphi \to \infty$. Therefore we learn from that *$\mathit{\mathbf{B}_k (\varphi)}$ vanishes for $\mathit{\varphi \to \infty}$ if $\mathit{\Delta Y_k'' (\varphi) / \varphi^2 \to 0}$ for $\mathit{\varphi \to \infty}$*. The latter condition means that the asymptotic growth of $\Delta Y_k (\varphi)$ is weaker than $\propto \varphi^4$. Let us assume that at some initial value of $k$ the potential $\Delta Y_k (\varphi)$ does indeed grow more slowly than $\varphi^4$. Then the RHS of , for large values of $\varphi$, is proportional to $\varphi^2$ and therefore does not generate any components (monomials) in $\Delta Y_k$ that would grow $\propto \varphi^4$ or faster. This implies that *if initially $\mathit{\Delta Y_k (\varphi)}$ contains no terms growing like $\mathit{\varphi^4}$ or faster then no such terms will be generated by the flow*.
While eqs. were written down for $S^4$ it is obvious that this statement holds for both $S^4$ and $R^4$.
If $\Delta Y_k$ grows more slowly than $\varphi^4$ then, at any $k$, the large-$\varphi$ asymptotics of the full potential is always given by the CREH potential or, more specifically, by its cosmological constant term since the $\varphi^2$-piece is subdominant: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3s.4}
Y_k (\varphi) & \to - \tfrac{1}{6} \, \lambda_k \, \varphi^4
\qquad \text{for } \varphi \to \infty.\end{aligned}$$
Structure of the Initial Value Problem {#s3s.2}
--------------------------------------
In the case at hand the specification of the truncated theory space involves choosing an appropriate space of functions on which $Y_k$ evolves, in particular boundary conditions must be defined for $Y_k$. The above discussion shows that it is consistent with the differential equation to partially define the theory space by the requirement that $Y_k (\varphi)$ does not grow faster than $\varphi^4$ for $\varphi \to \infty$. In the following we shall adopt this choice. It is further motivated by the RG fixed points we shall find in the next section. In particular a NGFP suitable for the asymptotic safety construction and all corresponding “physical” trajectories (those hitting it for $k \to \infty$) are inside the space of functions growing not stronger than $\varphi^4$.
As we mentioned already, the asymptotics motivates the choice $\varphi_1 \to \infty$ for the expansion point in the calculation of ${\eta_{\text{N}}}$. We shall adopt this choice in the following. It has the technical advantage that now ${\eta_{\text{N}}}$ is no longer the complicated functional of $Y_k$ given in , but rather assumes the simple CREH form . It depends on $g_k$ and only one particular characteristic of $Y_k$, namely the coefficient $\lambda_k$ appearing in its large-$\varphi$ asymptotics .
With the above two choices made, solving the initial value problem for the system (\[3s.1\]a,b) proceeds as follows:
1. Fix, at the initial scale ${k_{\text{intl}}}$, a Newton constant $g_{{k_{\text{intl}}}}$ and a potential $Y_{{k_{\text{intl}}}} (\varphi)$.
2. Extract the number $\lambda_{{k_{\text{intl}}}} \equiv
- 6 \, \lim_{\varphi \to \infty} Y_{{k_{\text{intl}}}} (\varphi) / \varphi^4$ from the asymptotic behavior of the initial potential.
3. Solve the two coupled ordinary differential equations of the CREH truncation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3s.5}
\begin{split}
k {\partial}_k \, g_k{^{\text{\tiny CREH}}}& =\Bigl[ 2 + {\eta_{\text{N}}}{^{\text{\tiny CREH}}}\bigl( g_k{^{\text{\tiny CREH}}}, \lambda_k{^{\text{\tiny CREH}}}\bigr) \Bigr] \, g_k{^{\text{\tiny CREH}}}\\
k {\partial}_k \, \lambda_k{^{\text{\tiny CREH}}}& =\beta_\lambda{^{\text{\,{\tiny CREH}}}}\bigl( g_k{^{\text{\tiny CREH}}}, \lambda_k{^{\text{\tiny CREH}}}\bigr)
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ subject to the initial conditions $g_{{k_{\text{intl}}}}{^{\text{\tiny CREH}}}= g_{{k_{\text{intl}}}}$, $\lambda_{{k_{\text{intl}}}}{^{\text{\tiny CREH}}}= \lambda_{{k_{\text{intl}}}}$. In , ${\eta_{\text{N}}}{^{\text{\tiny CREH}}}$ and $\beta_\lambda{^{\text{\,{\tiny CREH}}}}$ are given by eqs. and , respectively.
4. Use the solution of to express the anomalous dimension as the following explicit function of $k$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3s.6}
{\eta_{\text{N}}}(k) & \equiv {\eta_{\text{N}}}{^{\text{\tiny CREH}}}\bigl( g_k{^{\text{\tiny CREH}}}, \lambda_k{^{\text{\tiny CREH}}}\bigr).\end{aligned}$$
5. Insert the solution $g_k = g_k{^{\text{\tiny CREH}}}$ of and the anomalous dimension ${\eta_{\text{N}}}\equiv {\eta_{\text{N}}}(k)$ of into the partial differential equation for $Y_k$, eq. , and solve it with the initial condition specified.
Note that by this procedure the equations for $g_k$ and $Y_k$ get decoupled; at step (v) we are dealing with an equation for $Y_k$ alone, albeit one which contains complicated $k$-dependent coefficient functions.
A Robustness Property of the CREH Approximation {#s3s.3}
-----------------------------------------------
The structure of the initial value problem for the LPA of conformally reduced gravity sheds an interesting light on the simpler CREH truncation. Both of them retain only the simplest derivative term, $({\partial}\varphi)^2$. The former allows for an arbitrary potential $Y_k (\varphi)$, the latter only for the $\varphi^4$-monomial. In this sense the LPA represents a refinement of the CREH approximation.
Usually when one refines a truncation ansatz by adding further field monomials to it the projection of some RG trajectory “living” in the new, higher dimensional space onto the smaller space of the old truncation equals only approximately (or in the case of badly chosen spaces, not at all) an old trajectory in the smaller space, as computed with the simpler beta functions of the lower dimensional flow. Stated the other way around, if we compute the flow of a small set of couplings in a simple truncation, then refine the truncation, and finally project the higher dimensional trajectories thus obtained onto the old, smaller space, we find that the projections of the higher dimensional trajectories will in general not coincide with the lower dimensional ones. (But they will approximately if the truncations are reliable.)
The above discussion of the initial value problem shows that the LPA of the conformal factor, seen as a refinement of the CREH approximation, is a notable exception to this rule: The projection of the RG trajectories in the infinite dimensional $\bigl( g, Y (\,\cdot\,) \bigr)$-space onto the $2$-dimensional $(g, \lambda)$-space coincides exactly with the trajectories computed from the two beta functions $\beta_g$ and $\beta_\lambda$ appropriate for the smaller space. Generalizing the space of potential functions from the $1$-dimensional line $\{ \lambda \, \varphi^4 \}$ to the infinite dimensional $\{Y (\,\cdot\,) \}$ has no impact on the RG evolution of $g_k$ and $\lambda_k$. This indicates once more that the Einstein–Hilbert truncation is particularly robust under the inclusion of further invariants.
This robustness property has, among others, the following implication. We know [@frank1] that some trajectories of the Einstein–Hilbert truncation, those of Type IIIa, terminate at a finite scale, and the same was found to be true for the corresponding CREH trajectories \[I\]. Because the LPA trajectories $\bigl( g_k, Y_k (\,\cdot\,) \bigr)$ are generalizations of CREH trajectories $(g_k, \lambda_k)$ in the sense explained above, the breakdown of a CREH trajectory at some ${k_{\text{term}}}$ implies that the corresponding LPA trajectory terminates at the same scale $k = {k_{\text{term}}}$. Generalizing the $\varphi^4$-term to an arbitrary function $Y_k (\varphi)$ seems not to help in extending the validity of the truncation towards the IR. This result is somewhat surprising since in the case of scalar matter field theories trajectories which break down at a finite scale within a polynomial truncation (those in the broken phase) typically can reach $k=0$ when the LPA is employed.
The $\boldsymbol{\varphi \to 0}$ Behavior {#s3s.4}
-----------------------------------------
Next we analyze the partial differential equation for $Y_k (\varphi)$ in the limit $\varphi \to 0$. We first focus on the inhomogeneous term of the flow equation, the last term on the RHS of . We may assume that for $\varphi \to 0$ the function ${{\widetilde}\rho}(\varphi)$ vanishes at least proportional to $\varphi^2$. Hence, in the numerator of the inhomogeneous term, $(1 - {\eta_{\text{N}}}/2) \, \varphi^2 \, \rho (\varphi) + \tfrac{1}{2} \, {\eta_{\text{N}}}\, {{\widetilde}\rho}(\varphi) = {\mathcal{O} (\varphi^2)}$. In order to estimate the denominator $\varphi^2 + Y_k'' (\varphi)$ we decompose $Y_k$ according to $Y_k (\varphi) = Y_k{^{\text{reg}}}(\varphi) + Y_k{^{\text{sing}}}(\varphi)$ where the “regular” part $Y_k{^{\text{reg}}}$ is defined by the condition $( Y_k{^{\text{reg}}})'' (\varphi) < \infty$ for $\varphi \to 0$, while for the “singular” part $Y_k{^{\text{sing}}}$ the second derivative blows up for vanishing field: $(Y_k{^{\text{sing}}})'' (\varphi) \to \infty$ for $\varphi \to 0$. Let us assume a behavior of the form $(Y_k{^{\text{sing}}})'' (\varphi) = a / \varphi^\mu$ with constants $a \neq 0$ and $\mu >0$. Since, by definition, $(Y_k{^{\text{reg}}})''$ is ${\mathcal{O} (1)}$ or vanishes even this implies the following structure of the inhomogeneous term: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\mathcal{O} (\varphi^2)}}{\varphi^2 + {\mathcal{O} (1)} + a \, \varphi^{-\mu}\,}
& =
\frac{{\mathcal{O} (\varphi^{2+\mu})}}
{\varphi^\mu \left[ \varphi^2 + {\mathcal{O} (1)} \right] + a}
= {\mathcal{O} (\varphi^{2+\mu})}.\end{aligned}$$ We conclude that the inhomogeneity in the flow equation vanishes $\propto \varphi^{2+\mu}$, i.e. with a power larger than $2$, when $\varphi \to 0$. Therefore, in a small-$\varphi$ expansion it contains only terms whose second $\varphi$-derivative vanishes for $\varphi \to 0$ at least like $\varphi^\mu$. Hence, upon inserting $Y_k = Y_k{^{\text{reg}}}+ Y_k{^{\text{sing}}}$ into , we see that there are no terms in the inhomogeneity that would match those in $Y_k{^{\text{sing}}}$. As a result, the “sing” part of the potential has no source term; its RG equation is homogeneous, implying that *no “sing” terms are generated if they are absent originally*: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3s.10}
& & & &
Y_k{^{\text{sing}}}& = 0
& & \Longrightarrow
& k {\partial}_k \, Y_k{^{\text{sing}}}& = 0.
& & & & \end{aligned}$$
Note that the attributes “regular” and “singular” refer to the second $\varphi$-derivative of $Y_k$, not the potential itself. As an example consider $Y (\varphi) = \varphi^m$ with an exponent $m \in \mathds{R}$. Then $Y'' (\varphi) = m \, (m-1) \, \varphi^{m-2}$ so that $Y$ is “regular” if $m=0$, or, $m=1$, or $m \geq 2$; otherwise it is “singular”.
An argument similar to the above one has also been used in [@frankmach], in a different physical regime though ($R \to 0$, corresponding to $\varphi \to \infty$ here).
The Fixed Points {#s4}
================
In this section we continue the analysis of the RG equations by searching for fixed points $\bigl( g_\ast, Y_\ast (\,\cdot\,) \bigr)$, i.e. solutions of $\beta_Y \bigl( g_\ast, Y_\ast (\varphi) \bigr) =0= \beta_g \bigl( g_\ast, [Y_\ast] \bigr)$. Depending on whether $\beta_g=0$ is achieved by $g_\ast=0$ or ${\eta_{\text{N}}}\bigl( g_\ast, [Y_\ast] \bigr) =-2$ we call them, in a slight abuse of language, a Gaussian fixed point or a non-Gaussian fixed point, respectively. (For a more precise discussion of the distinction see [@livrev].)
The Gaussian Fixed Point ($\boldsymbol{R^4}$ and $\boldsymbol{S^4}$) {#s4.1}
--------------------------------------------------------------------
We look for fixed points with $g_\ast =0$. As a consequence, the second condition $\beta_Y=0$ boils down to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.2}
\left( 2 + \eta_\ast \right) \, Y_\ast (\varphi)
- \varphi \, Y_\ast' (\varphi) & = 0.\end{aligned}$$ This equation obtains from as well as from , so it holds for both $S^4$ and $R^4$. Here $\eta_\ast \equiv {\eta_{\text{N}}}\bigl( g_\ast, [Y_\ast] \bigr)$ is the anomalous dimension at the fixed point. By eq. it vanishes: $\eta_\ast =0$. The differential equation is trivial to solve then, with the result $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.3}
& &
Y_\ast{^{\text{\tiny GFP}}}(\varphi) & = c\, \varphi^2,
& g_\ast{^{\text{\tiny GFP}}}& = 0.
& & \end{aligned}$$ Here $c$ is an arbitrary constant of integration.
As $c$ in not fixed by the equations it might seem that we found a $1$-parameter family of fixed points. However, let us recall the CREH form of the potential: $Y_k{^{\text{\tiny CREH}}}(\varphi) = c_0 \, \varphi^2 - (\lambda_k /6) \, \varphi^4$. Its quadratic term $c_0 \, \varphi^2$ is linked to the kinetic term by a local Weyl rescaling, a “$\sigma$-transformation”. (The $c_0 \, \varphi^2$-term follows from the $\tfrac{1}{6} \, {\widehat}R$-term in upon inserting ${\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}$; both the $\tfrac{1}{6} \, {\widehat}R$- and the ${\widehat}\Box$-term emerge from $\int \!\sqrt{g\,} \, R$ when the conformal factor is separated off.) If we impose the condition of *local* $\sigma$-invariance we must pick the value $c = c_0$ therefore; then $Y_\ast$ can be identified with (a part of) the conformal reduction of $\int \!\sqrt{g\,} \, R$. Thus $c=0$ for $R^4$ and $c=1$ for $S^4$. It should be noted here that local $\sigma$-invariance really amounts to an additional assumption. After insisting on a ${\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}$-metric of the $S^4$-type the split symmetry was broken down to *global* $\sigma$-transformations, and they are not strong enough to forbid the generation of $\varphi^2$-terms unrelated to the kinetic term and $\int \!\sqrt{g\,} \, R$. For conceptual clarity we shall leave $c$ arbitrary in the following, but clearly $c = c_0$ is the most sensible choice.
Linear Stability Analysis {#s4.2}
-------------------------
Given an arbitrary fixed point $\bigl( g_\ast, Y_\ast (\,\cdot\,) \bigr)$, not necessarily a Gaussian one, we can explore its stability properties by linearizing the flow in its vicinity according to
\[4.4\] $$\begin{gathered}
\label{4.4a}
g_k = g_\ast + \delta g_k
\\
\label{4.4b}
Y_k (\varphi) = Y_\ast (\varphi) + \delta Y_k (\varphi).\end{gathered}$$
For the “tangent vector” $\bigl( \delta g_k, \delta Y_k (\,\cdot\,) \bigr)$ we make the ansatz
\[4.5\] $$\begin{gathered}
\label{4.5a}
\delta g_k =
{\varepsilon}\, y_g \, \left( \frac{k_0}{k} \right)^\theta
\equiv {\varepsilon}\, y_g \, \operatorname{e}^{-\theta t}
\\
\label{4.5b}
\delta Y_k (\varphi) =
{\varepsilon}\, {\Upsilon}(\varphi) \, \left( \frac{k_0}{k} \right)^\theta
\equiv {\varepsilon}\, {\Upsilon}(\varphi) \, \operatorname{e}^{-\theta t}\end{gathered}$$
Here $k_0$ is an arbitrary fixed scale, $t \equiv \ln (k / k_0)$ denotes the “RG time”, and ${\varepsilon}$ is an infinitesimal parameter. We shall determine $\bigl( \delta g_k, \delta Y_k (\,\cdot\,) \bigr)$ by expanding the flow equation to first order in ${\varepsilon}$. Then $\bigl( y_g, {\Upsilon}(\,\cdot\,) \bigr)$ is an eigenvector (“scaling field”) of the corresponding infinite dimensional stability matrix with the negative eigenvalue (“critical exponent”) $\theta$. Scaling fields with $\operatorname{Re}\theta >0$ ($\operatorname{Re}\theta <0$) are said to be relevant (irrelevant). They grow (are damped) along the RG flow, i.e. when $k$ is lowered.
By definition, the fixed point’s UV critical manifold $\mathscr{S}_{\text{UV}}$, or synonymously, its unstable manifold, consists of all points $\bigl( g, Y (\,\cdot\,) \bigr)$ which are pulled into the fixed point by the inverse flow. The tangent space to $\mathscr{S}_{\text{UV}}$ at the fixed point is spanned by the relevant scaling fields. Hence $\Delta_{\text{UV}} \equiv \operatorname{dim}\mathscr{S}_{\text{UV}}$ equals the number of relevant scaling fields, i.e. the number of positive $\operatorname{Re}\theta$’s. (See [@livrev] for a more precise discussion.)
The scaling fields and dimensions are to be determined from the following two equations which are obtained by varying and , respectively. The first one is
\[4.6\] $$\begin{gathered}
\label{4.6a}
\left[ 2 + \theta + \eta_\ast \right] \, \delta g_k
+ g_\ast \, \delta {\eta_{\text{N}}}=0\end{gathered}$$ and the second equation reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.6b}
\begin{split}
&
\left[ 2 + \theta + \eta_\ast \right] \, \delta Y_k (\varphi)
- \varphi \, \delta Y_k' (\varphi)
+ \delta {\eta_{\text{N}}}\, Y_\ast (\varphi)
\\
& \phantom{{=}} =
\frac{\delta g_k}{2 \pi} \,
\frac{\left( 1 - \eta_\ast/2 \right) \, \varphi^2 \, \rho (\varphi)
+ \tfrac{1}{2} \, \eta_\ast \, {{\widetilde}\rho}(\varphi)}
{\varphi^2 + Y_\ast'' (\varphi)}
\\
& \phantom{{===}}
- \frac{g_\ast}{4 \pi} \,\, \delta {\eta_{\text{N}}}\,\,
\frac{\varphi^2 \, \rho (\varphi) - {{\widetilde}\rho}(\varphi)}
{\varphi^2 + Y_\ast'' (\varphi)}
\\
& \phantom{{====}}
+ \frac{g_\ast}{2 \pi} \,
\frac{\left( 1 - \eta_\ast/2 \right) \, \varphi^2 \, \rho (\varphi)
+ \tfrac{1}{2} \, \eta_\ast \, {{\widetilde}\rho}(\varphi)}
{\left[ \varphi^2 + Y_\ast'' (\varphi) \right]^2\,}
\,\, \delta Y_k'' (\varphi).
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
Here $\eta_\ast \equiv {\eta_{\text{N}}}\bigl( g_\ast, [Y_\ast] \bigr)$ and $\delta {\eta_{\text{N}}}\equiv {\eta_{\text{N}}}\bigl( g_\ast + \delta g_k, [Y_\ast + \delta Y_k] \bigr) - \eta_\ast$. As is stands, the last formula holds for $S^4$. The one for $R^4$ follows by the replacement $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.7}
& &
\rho (\varphi) & \longrightarrow \tfrac{1}{12} \, \varphi^4,
&
{{\widetilde}\rho}(\varphi) & \longrightarrow \tfrac{1}{18} \, \varphi^6.
& & \end{aligned}$$ Next we apply this analysis to the GFP.
Stability Analysis of the GFP ($\boldsymbol{R^4}$ and $\boldsymbol{S^4}$) {#s4.3}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the anomalous dimension given in we obtain at the GFP : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.8}
& &
{\eta_{\text{N}}}\bigl( g_\ast{^{\text{\tiny GFP}}}, [Y_\ast{^{\text{\tiny GFP}}}] \bigr) & = 0,
& (\delta {\eta_{\text{N}}}) \bigl( g_\ast{^{\text{\tiny GFP}}}, [Y_\ast{^{\text{\tiny GFP}}}] \bigr) & =0.
& & \end{aligned}$$ This turns and into the following two conditions for $\bigl( y_g, {\Upsilon}(\,\cdot\,) \bigr)$ and $\theta$:
\[4.9\] $$\begin{gathered}
\label{4.9a}
\left[ 2 + \theta \right] \, y_g =0
\\
\label{4.9b}
\left[ 2 + \theta \right] \, {\Upsilon}(\varphi) - \varphi \, {\Upsilon}' (\varphi)
= \frac{y_g}{2 \pi} \, \frac{\varphi^2 \, \rho (\varphi)}{\varphi^2 + 2\,c}.\end{gathered}$$
The solutions to this linear system are easily found. As can be satisfied by either $y_g=0$ or $2 + \theta =0$ we have two types of scaling fields at the GFP. They can be summarized as follows:
1. For every $\theta \in \mathds{R}$ there exists a scaling field $(y_g=0,
{\Upsilon}= {\Upsilon}_\theta)$ with scaling dimension $\theta$ and[^5] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.10}
{\Upsilon}_\theta (\varphi) & = {\widetilde}c_\theta \, \varphi^{2+\theta}\end{aligned}$$ with constants ${\widetilde}c_\theta$. For $\theta >0$, $\theta =0$, and $\theta <0$ these scaling fields are relevant, marginal, and irrelevant, respectively.
2. There exists a single additional scaling field $(y_g \neq 0,
{\Upsilon}= {\widehat}{\Upsilon}_{-2})$ with scaling dimension $\theta =-2$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.11}
{\widehat}{\Upsilon}_{-2} (\varphi) & =
- \frac{y_g}{2 \pi} \, \int \limits^\varphi \!\! {\mathrm{d}}{\overline}{\varphi} ~
\frac{{\overline}{\varphi} \, \rho (\,{\overline}{\varphi}\,)}{\,{\overline}{\varphi}^{\,2} + 2 \, c}.\end{aligned}$$ This scaling field is irrelevant.
The scaling fields of type (i) are remarkable in that a monomial $\varphi^n$, $n \in \mathds{R}$, has the dimension $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.12}
\theta & = n-2.\end{aligned}$$ Relative to a standard scalar field theory, the scaling dimension at the GFP is shifted by $2$ units. This shift can be traced back to the additional factors of $\phi$ in the FRGE which, in turn, originate from the ${\chi_{\text{B}}}$-dependence of $\mathcal{R}_k$ which was needed in order to give the desired physical interpretation to the cutoff and to implement “background independence”. Again we see that the RG behavior of conformally reduced gravity, despite its appearance, is very different from that of a scalar matter field theory.
In Table \[tab1\] we list the scaling fields with integer exponents $n$ as an example, along with their dimensions. The two entries printed bold-faced are the scaling fields accessible to the conformally reduced Einstein–Hilbert truncation. The scaling field $(y_g=0, \varphi^4)$ with $\theta = +2$ corresponds to the $2$-component eigenvector of the stability matrix for the $(g, \lambda)$-plane which is parallel to the $\lambda$-axis; the other one, $(y_g \neq 0, {\widehat}{\Upsilon}_{-2})$ with $\theta =-2$, represents the eigenvector with both a non-vanishing $g$- and $\lambda$-component. This pattern is exactly the same as in the full [@frank1; @oliver1] and the conformally reduced \[I\] Einstein–Hilbert truncation. In fact, ${\widehat}{\Upsilon}_{-2}$ is essentially $\propto \varphi^4$, plus corrections which are subleading at large $\varphi$. If we perform the integral with the spectral function $\rho$ of , appropriate for the $R^4$ case, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.13}
{\widehat}{\Upsilon}_{-2} (\varphi)
& =
- \frac{y_g}{96 \pi} \, \Bigl[ \varphi^4 - 4 \, c \, \varphi^2
+ 8 \, c^2 \, \ln (\varphi^2 + 2 \,c) \Bigr].\end{aligned}$$ If we invoke local $\sigma$-invariance and set $c = c_0 [R^4] =0$ we find that ${\widehat}{\Upsilon}_{-2} \propto \varphi^4$ on $R^4$. On $S^4$ the smooth $\rho (\varphi)$ given by the polynomial yields the analogous scaling field (if $c \geq 0$): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.14}
\begin{split}
{\widehat}{\Upsilon}_{-2} (\varphi)
& =
- \frac{y_g}{2 \pi} \, \left[
\frac{1}{48} \, \varphi^4 + \frac{a_3}{3} \, \varphi^3
+ \frac{1}{2} \, \left( a_2 - \frac{c}{6} \right) \, \varphi^2
+ \left( a_1 - 2\, c\, a_3 \right) \, \varphi
\right.
\\
& \phantom{{==}- \frac{y_g}{2 \pi} \, \biggl[}\left.
+ \sqrt{2 \,c \,} \, \left( 2 \, c \, a_3 - a_1 \right) \,
\arctan \bigl( \varphi / \sqrt{2\,c\,}\, \bigr)
\right.
\\
& \phantom{{===}- \frac{y_g}{2 \pi} \, \biggl[}\left.
+ \frac{1}{2} \, \left( 1 - 2\,c\,a_2 + \frac{c^2}{3} \right) \,
\ln (\varphi^2 + 2\,c) + const \right].
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ We see that ${\widehat}{\Upsilon}_{-2}$ becomes a pure $\varphi^4$-term for $\varphi \gg 1$. For $\varphi \to 0$ there would seem to be a singularity in the special case $c=0$. But fortunately the distinguished value is $c = c_0 [S^4] =1$, and for this value ${\widehat}{\Upsilon}_{-2}$ is regular for all $\varphi \geq 0$. For $\varphi \to 0$ it approaches a constant.
$\cdots$ $-3$ $-2$ $-1$ $0$ $+1$ $+2$ $+3$ $\cdots$
--------------- ------------- ---------- ---------------------------------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------------------- --------------- ----------
marg.
$y_g=0$, $\Upsilon=$ $\cdots$ $\varphi^{-1}$ $\varphi^{0}$ $\varphi^{1}$ $\varphi^{2}$ $\varphi^{3}$ $\boldsymbol{\varphi^{4}}$ $\varphi^{5}$ $\cdots$
$y_g \neq 0$, $\Upsilon=$ $\boldsymbol{{\widehat}\Upsilon_{-2}}$
: Scaling fields at the Gaussian fixed point[]{data-label="tab1"}
The non-Gaussian Fixed Point {#s4.4}
----------------------------
Let us now try to find fixed points $(g_\ast, Y_\ast)$ with $\eta_\ast =-2$. We begin with the flat case.
### The $\boldsymbol{R^4}$ Topology {#s.4.4.1}
According to and the coupled system to be solved is, with $\varphi_1$ fixed but unspecified for the time being,
\[4.15\] $$\begin{gathered}
\label{4.15a}
\varphi \, Y_\ast' (\varphi)
=
- \frac{g_\ast}{18 \pi} \,
\frac{\varphi^6}
{\varphi^2 + Y_\ast'' (\varphi)}
\\
\label{4.15b}
\frac{g_\ast}{48 \pi} \,
\frac{\Bigl[ \varphi_1^3 \, Y_\ast''' (\varphi_1) \Bigr]^2}
{\Bigl[ \varphi_1^2 + Y_\ast'' (\varphi_1) \Bigr]^4\,}
= 1.\end{gathered}$$
In order to analyze it is convenient to introduce $h (\varphi) \equiv Y_\ast' (\varphi)$ which satisfies the first order equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.16}
- \left( \frac{g_\ast}{18 \pi} \right) \,
\frac{\varphi^5}
{\varphi^2 + h' (\varphi)}
& = h (\varphi).\end{aligned}$$ An asymptotic analysis of this equation reveals that, to leading order, its solution has essentially the same behavior for $\varphi \ll 1$ and $\varphi \gg 1$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.17}
h (\varphi) & \approx
\begin{cases}
- \tfrac{2}{3} \, L \, \varphi^3 & \text{if } \varphi \ll 1
\\
- \tfrac{2}{3} \, {\widetilde}L \, \varphi^3 & \text{if } \varphi \gg 1
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Here $L$ and ${\widetilde}L$ are constants which must satisfy the same quadratic equation, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.18}
12 \pi \, L \, \left( 1 - 2 \, L \right) & = g_\ast,\end{aligned}$$ and likewise for ${\widetilde}L$. This equation can have two different real solutions, so $L$ and ${\widetilde}L$ can be different in principle. The behavior motivates introducing a function $W (\varphi)$ for $0 \leq \varphi < \infty$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.19}
h (\varphi) & \equiv - \frac{2}{3} \, L \, \varphi^3 \, W (\varphi).\end{aligned}$$ The new function satisfies the boundary conditions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.20}
& &
W (0) & = 1,
& W (\infty) & = {\widetilde}L / L.
& & \end{aligned}$$ Inserting into we find that the relevant differential equation has the structure $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.21}
\varphi \, \frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}\varphi} \, W (\varphi)
& =
\mathcal{B} \bigl( W (\varphi) \bigr)\end{aligned}$$ with the “beta function” $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.22}
\mathcal{B} (W) & =
\frac{3}{2 \, L} \, \Bigl[ 1 - 2\,L\,W - \left(1 - 2\,L \right) / W \Bigr].\end{aligned}$$ Being first order in $\varphi$, the equation with both boundary conditions imposed is overdetermined and the existence of a solution is questionable a priori. If we start the integration of at $\varphi =0$ with the initial condition $W(0)=1$ then the resulting solution $W (\varphi)$ has no reason to approach ${\widetilde}L/L$ for $\varphi \to \infty$, at least for a generic $\mathcal{B} (W)$. However, the function has a special property which implies the existence of a solution. It has zeros at $W=1$ and $W = {\widetilde}L/L$: $$\begin{aligned}
& &
\mathcal{B} (1) & = 0,
& \mathcal{B} ({\widetilde}L/L) & = 0.
& & \end{aligned}$$ (To verify the second zero one must exploit that $L$ and ${\widetilde}L$ satisfy .) Obviously $W=1$ is a “fixed point” of the “flow equation” : If we impose the initial condition $W(0)=1$ and integrate towards larger $\varphi$’s we obviously get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.23}
W (\varphi) =1 \qquad \text{for} \quad 0 \leq \varphi < \infty.\end{aligned}$$ This solution also satisfies the second boundary condition $W (\infty) = {\widetilde}L/L$ if ${\widetilde}L$ and $L$ are the same solution of the above quadratic equation. (Starting from the other “fixed point” $W = {\widetilde}L/L$ and integrating backward from $\varphi = \infty$ leads to the same conclusion.)
Thus, integrating with , we have shown that the fixed point potential is of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.24}
Y_\ast (\varphi) & = y_\ast - \tfrac{1}{6} \, L \, \varphi^4\end{aligned}$$ where $L$ is a solution of , and $y_\ast$ is a constant.
The second condition $(g_\ast, Y_\ast)$ must satisfy is . Inserting the result for $Y_\ast(\varphi)$ it boils down to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.25}
g_\ast \, \frac{L^2}{\left( 1 - 2\,L \right)^4\,} & = 3 \pi.\end{aligned}$$ Note that, thanks to the specific form of $Y_\ast$, the expansion point $\varphi_1$ dropped out of this equation.
What remains to be done is to solve the two coupled algebraic equations and for the constants $g_\ast$ and $L$. Actually, with the identification $L \equiv \lambda_\ast$, these two equations are exactly the same as those we encountered in Subsection 5.2 of \[I\] where we determined the NGFP $(g_\ast, \lambda_\ast)$ within the CREH approximation (using the “kinetic” version of the anomalous dimension, ${\eta_{\text{N}}}^{\text{(kin)}}$). As a result, the much more general LPA yields the same fixed point values for $g$ and $\lambda$ as the conformally reduced Einstein–Hilbert truncation: $g_\ast = g_\ast{^{\text{\tiny CREH}}}$, $L \equiv \lambda_\ast = \lambda_\ast{^{\text{\tiny CREH}}}$. Recalling the values found in \[I\] we can summarize our result for the NGFP as follows:
\[4.26\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.26a}
Y_\ast (\varphi) & = y_\ast - \frac{1}{6} \, \lambda_\ast \, \varphi^4
\\
\label{4.26b}
\lambda_\ast & = \frac{1}{2} \, \frac{2^{1/3}}{\left( 1+2^{1/3} \right)}
\approx 0.279
\\
\label{4.26c}
g_\ast & = 6 \pi \, \frac{2^{1/3}}{\left( 1+2^{1/3} \right)^2\,}
\approx 4.650\end{aligned}$$
The constant $y_\ast$ is not determined by the flow equation. Except for this constant, the equations have not taken advantage of the possibility to generalize the fixed point potential beyond the functional form of the CREH approximation. This result is quite remarkable. It might be related to the impressive robustness and stability properties the full Einstein–Hilbert truncation is known to possess [@oliver1; @oliver2].
### The $\boldsymbol{S^4}$ Topology {#s.4.4.2}
In the case of $S^4$ the condition ${\eta_{\text{N}}}=-2$, again, translates to eq. , while the other fixed point condition $\beta_Y=0$, by , becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.27}
Y_\ast' (\varphi) & = - \frac{g_\ast}{\pi} \,
\frac{\varphi \, {\rho_{\text{eff}}}(\varphi)}{\varphi^2 + Y_\ast'' (\varphi)}\end{aligned}$$ with the effective $\rho$-function $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.28}
{\rho_{\text{eff}}}(\varphi) & \equiv
\rho (\varphi) - \frac{{{\widetilde}\rho}(\varphi)}{2 \, \varphi^2\,}.\end{aligned}$$ For $\varphi \to \infty$, ${\rho_{\text{eff}}}$ approaches $\varphi^4/18$ so that coincides with its $R^4$ counterpart, eq. , in this limit. This implies that the asymptotic form of the solution to agrees with that of the $R^4$ solution: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.29}
Y_\ast (\varphi)
& \xrightarrow[~\varphi \to \infty~]{}
- \tfrac{1}{6} \, \lambda_\ast \, \varphi^4
\equiv Y_{\text{asym}} (\varphi).\end{aligned}$$ Inserting $Y_\ast = Y_{\text{asym}}$ into and letting $\varphi \to \infty$ we obtain a first relation among the constants $g_\ast$ and $\lambda_\ast$; it is given by eq. with $L \equiv \lambda_\ast$.
Furthermore, the fixed point condition ${\eta_{\text{N}}}=-2$ has the explicit form . We adopt the choice $\varphi_1 \to \infty$ here. As a result, we may replace $Y_\ast$ by $Y_{\text{asym}}$ in . For $\varphi_1 \to \infty$ the point $\varphi_1$ actually drops out as before, and what remains is a second relation among $g_\ast$ and $\lambda_\ast$; it is given by eq. with $L \equiv \lambda_\ast$. The conditions and determine $g_\ast$ and $\lambda_\ast$ uniquely. Therefore we can conclude that, exactly as for $R^4$, the constants $\lambda_\ast$ and $g_\ast$ assume precisely their CREH values and , respectively.
So, what is left to be done is to solve the ordinary differential equation for the by now known value of $g_\ast$ subject to initial conditions which involve $\lambda_\ast$. We require that for large $\varphi$ the function $Y_\ast$ agrees with $Y_{\text{asym}}$, and likewise their derivatives. We start the integration at some ${\widehat}\varphi$ where we impose the initial conditions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.30}
& &
Y_\ast ({\widehat}\varphi\,) & = Y_{\text{asym}} ({\widehat}\varphi\,)
& Y_\ast' ({\widehat}\varphi\,) & = Y_{\text{asym}}' ({\widehat}\varphi\,).
& & \end{aligned}$$ From ${\widehat}\varphi$ we integrate backward towards smaller $\varphi$. Ultimately we are interested in the limit ${\widehat}\varphi \to \infty$.
The existence of a fixed point potential is by no means guaranteed. It could happen that the function one obtains by integrating , towards smaller $\varphi$ develops an unacceptable singularity at some point. Then we would have to conclude that there is no fixed point for $Y_k$. The potentially dangerous feature of the differential equation is the denominator $\varphi^2 + Y_\ast'' (\varphi)$ which could possible vanish at some $\varphi$.
Let us assume this does not happen and there exists a solution $Y_\ast$ which is well defined for $0 \leq \varphi \leq {\widehat}\varphi \to \infty$. Then this function is necessarily monotonically decreasing, i.e. $Y_\ast' (\varphi) <0$ everywhere. The reason is as follows. A non-singular solution has $\varphi^2 + Y_\ast'' (\varphi)>0$ everywhere, and also the function ${\rho_{\text{eff}}}(\varphi)$ is found to be positive for any $\varphi$. Since $g_\ast >0$, this entails that the RHS of the fixed point equation is negative.
Unfortunately it is not possible to solve the differential equation for $Y_\ast$ analytically in closed form. We shall have to resort to numerical techniques therefore. It is easy, however, to find the leading behavior for $\varphi \ll 1$. Making a power series ansatz and working out the coefficients one gets $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.31}
Y_\ast (\varphi) = y_0 - y_1 \, \varphi
- \frac{g_\ast}{6 \pi \, y_1} \, \varphi^3
+ {\mathcal{O} (\varphi^4)}.\end{aligned}$$ The constants of integration $y_0$ and $y_1$ are undetermined at this stage; ultimately they must get fixed by matching with the large-$\varphi$ solution. The monotonicity $Y_\ast' (\varphi) <0$ requires $y_1 >0$. Eq. implies that $Y_\ast'' (\varphi) = {\mathcal{O} (\varphi)}$ which vanishes for $\varphi \to 0$.
The numerical analysis of shows that there does indeed exist a solution which is regular for all $\varphi \geq 0$. It is displayed in Fig. \[fixpot-s\] where it is compared to the CREH potential $Y_\ast{^{\text{\,{\tiny CREH}}}}(\varphi) = \varphi^2 - (\lambda_\ast /6) \, \varphi^4$ with the same value of $\lambda_\ast$ (which is the same as $Y_{\text{asym}}$, of course). In the Figure we actually plot the *negative* fixed point potential $-Y_\ast$ since, up to a positive factor, it agrees with the true potential $U_\ast$, the non-derivative term in die Euclidean $\Gamma_k$. As expected, $Y_\ast (\varphi)$ is indeed a monotonic function, contrary to the CREH potential. We also observe that $Y_\ast$ is approximately linear for small $\varphi$, in accord with .
It is important to observe that $Y_\ast (\varphi)$ and $Y_\ast'' (\varphi)$ are finite for $\varphi \searrow 0$. The latter result means that the $S^4$ fixed point potential has a vanishing “sing” part in the sense of Subsection \[s3s.4\]. The same is also true for $R^4$ as the explicit formula shows.
Stability Analysis of the NGFP {#s4.5}
------------------------------
In this subsection we perform a linear stability analysis of the non-Gaussian fixed point. According to the asymptotic safety idea, the infinite cutoff limit of QEG is to be taken at this fixed point. As a consequence, the structure of the NGFP’s ultraviolet critical manifold $\mathscr{S}_{\text{UV}}$ determines the physical properties of the theory in an essential way. In particular its dimensionality $\Delta_{\text{UV}} \equiv \operatorname{dim}\mathscr{S}_{\text{UV}}$ equals the number of parameters it can depend on and which are not fixed by the requirement of a “safe” UV behavior.
### Scaling Fields and the Condition $\boldsymbol{n'<4}$ {#s4.5.1}
We restrict ourselves to the $R^4$ topology here. Then the relevant fixed point solution is with the CREH values of $g_\ast$ and $\lambda_\ast$. The first condition for the scaling fields and dimensions is , and the second one is with the spectral functions inserted.
Thanks to $\eta_\ast =-2$ the **first condition** assumes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.50}
(\delta {\eta_{\text{N}}}) \bigl( g_\ast, [Y_\ast] \bigr) & =
- \theta \, \delta g_k / g_\ast.\end{aligned}$$ The anomalous dimension is given in eq. . Varying it with respect to $g$ and $Y(\,\cdot\,)$ while keeping $\varphi_1$ fixed we obtain after inserting the fixed point values: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.51}
(\delta {\eta_{\text{N}}}) \bigl( g_\ast, [Y_\ast] \bigr)
& =
- 2 \, \frac{\delta g_k}{g_\ast}
+ \frac{g_\ast}{3 \pi} \, \frac{\lambda_\ast}{\left( 1-2\,\lambda_\ast \right)^4\,} \,
\left[ \frac{\delta Y_k'''(\varphi_1)}{\varphi_1}
+ \frac{8 \, \lambda_\ast}{1-2\,\lambda_\ast} \,
\frac{\delta Y_k''(\varphi_1)}{\varphi_1^2\,} \right].\end{aligned}$$ Using together with in we arrive at a condition relating the “components” of the scaling field, $\bigl( y_g, {\Upsilon}(\,\cdot\,) \bigr)$, and its dimension, $\theta$. It is convenient to distinguish the cases $y_g=0$ and $y_g \neq 0$. For $y_g=0$ the condition boils down to the $\theta$-independent relation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.52}
\frac{{\Upsilon}''' (\varphi_1)}{\varphi_1}
+ \frac{8 \, \lambda_\ast}{1-2\,\lambda_\ast} \,
\frac{{\Upsilon}'' (\varphi_1)}{\varphi_1^2\,}
& = 0.\end{aligned}$$ For $y_g \neq 0$ the analogous condition reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.53}
\theta & =
2 - \frac{g_\ast^2}{3 \pi \, y_g} \,
\frac{\lambda_\ast}{\left( 1-2\,\lambda_\ast \right)^4\,}
\, \left[ \frac{{\Upsilon}''' (\varphi_1)}{\varphi_1}
+ \frac{8 \, \lambda_\ast}{1-2\,\lambda_\ast} \,
\frac{{\Upsilon}'' (\varphi_1)}{\varphi_1^2\,} \right]\end{aligned}$$
In the case at hand the **second condition** is found to be $$\begin{gathered}
\label{4.54}
(-\theta) \, \bigl[ {\Upsilon}(\varphi) - y_\ast \, y_g / g_\ast \bigr]
+ \varphi \, {\Upsilon}'(\varphi)
- \alpha \, \varphi^2 \, {\Upsilon}'' (\varphi)
= y_g \, \left( \gamma_1 \, \theta - \gamma_2 \right) \, \varphi^4\end{gathered}$$ with the useful abbreviations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.55}
\alpha & \equiv
\frac{g_\ast}{18 \pi \, \left( 1-2\,\lambda_\ast \right)^2\,}
= \frac{2^{1/3}}{3} \approx 0.41997\cdots
\\
\label{4.56}
\gamma_1 & \equiv
\frac{1}{6} \, \left[ \frac{\lambda_\ast}{g_\ast}
- \frac{1}{24 \pi \, \left( 1-2\,\lambda_\ast \right)} \right]
\\
\label{4.57}
\gamma_2 & \equiv
\frac{1}{18 \pi \, \left( 1-2\, \lambda_\ast \right)}.\end{aligned}$$ In the special case $y_g=0$ we get the homogeneous Eulerian differential equation $$\begin{gathered}
\label{4.58}
\alpha \, \varphi^2 \, {\Upsilon}'' (\varphi)
- \varphi \, {\Upsilon}'(\varphi)
+ \theta \, {\Upsilon}(\varphi) =0.\end{gathered}$$
We shall now analyze the cases $y_g=0$ and $y_g \neq 0$ in turn.
#### (a) Scaling fields with $\boldsymbol{y_g=0}$. {#a-scaling-fields-with-boldsymboly_g0. .unnumbered}
In order to solve the differential equation we make a power law ansatz ${\Upsilon}(\varphi) \propto \varphi^n$, admitting arbitrary complex exponents $n \in \mathds{C}$ a priori. The ansatz is a solution if $\theta = \theta (n)$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.59}
\theta (n) & =
\left( 1 + \alpha \right) \, n - \alpha \, n^2.\end{aligned}$$ Solving for $n$ we get the two possible values $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.60}
n_\pm (\theta) & =
\omega \pm \sqrt{\omega^2 - \theta / \alpha\,}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.61}
\omega \equiv \frac{1+\alpha}{2 \alpha}
\approx 1.690\end{aligned}$$ So, if $\theta \neq \alpha \, \omega^2$, i.e. $n_+ \neq n_-$, the general solution of for a given $\theta$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.62}
{\Upsilon}(\varphi) & =
h_+ \, \varphi^{n_+ (\theta)} + h_- \, \varphi^{n_- (\theta)}\end{aligned}$$ where $h_+$ and $h_-$ are arbitrary complex constants. In the exceptional case $\theta = \alpha \, \omega^2$ the general solution is instead ($h_{1,2} \in \mathds{C}$) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.63}
{\Upsilon}(\varphi) & =
\varphi^\omega \, \left[ h_1 + h_2 \, \ln \varphi \right].\end{aligned}$$
Generically both $\theta$ and $n$ will be complex. We set $\theta \equiv \theta'+ i \theta''$ and $n \equiv n' + i n''$ with real and imaginary parts $\theta'$, $n'$ and $\theta''$, $n''$, respectively. Then decomposes as
\[4.64\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.64a}
\theta' & =
\left( 1+\alpha \right) \, n'- \alpha \, {n'}^2
+ \alpha \, {n''}^2
\\
\label{4.64b}
\theta'' & =
n'' \, \left[ 1 +\alpha - 2 \, \alpha \, n' \right].\end{aligned}$$
We shall also need the inverse of these relations. After some algebra one obtains the following results for $n_\pm'$ and $n_\pm''$ as functions of $\theta'$ and $\theta''$. Three cases are to be distinguished:
**(i) The case $\boldsymbol{\theta'' \neq 0}$:**
\[4.65\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.65a}
\begin{split}
n_\pm' (\theta', \theta'') & =
\omega \left( 1 \pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\,}\,} \,
\left[ \sqrt{\left( 1 - \frac{\theta'}{\alpha\,\omega^2\,} \right)^2
+ \left( \frac{\theta''}{\alpha\,\omega^2\,} \right)^2\,}
+ \left( 1 - \frac{\theta'}{\alpha\,\omega^2\,} \right)
\right]^{1/2} \right)
\\
n_\pm'' (\theta', \theta'') & =
\mp \frac{\omega}{\sqrt{2\,}\,} \, \operatorname{sign}(\theta'') \,
\left[ \sqrt{\left( 1 - \frac{\theta'}{\alpha\,\omega^2\,} \right)^2
+ \left( \frac{\theta''}{\alpha\,\omega^2\,} \right)^2\,}
- \left( 1 - \frac{\theta'}{\alpha\,\omega^2\,} \right)
\right]^{1/2}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
**(iia) The case $\boldsymbol{\theta'' =0}$ and $\boldsymbol{\theta'\leq \alpha \, \omega^2}$:** $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.65b}
\begin{split}
n_\pm' (\theta', \theta'') & =
\omega \, \left[ 1 \pm \sqrt{1 - \theta'/ \alpha \, \omega^2\,} \right]
\\
n_\pm'' (\theta', \theta'') & =
0
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
**(iib) The case $\boldsymbol{\theta'' =0}$ and $\boldsymbol{\theta' > \alpha \, \omega^2}$:** $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.65c}
\begin{split}
n_\pm' (\theta', \theta'') & = \omega
\\
n_\pm'' (\theta', \theta'') & =
\pm \omega \, \sqrt{\theta'/\alpha \, \omega^2 -1 \,}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
By now we imposed only one of the two conditions scaling fields must meet. The other one, for $y_g=0$, is eq. . If ${\Upsilon}(\varphi) \propto \varphi^n$ it reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.66}
n \, (n-1) \, \left[ n-2+12\,\alpha \right] \, \varphi_1^{n-4} =0\end{aligned}$$ where we used that $8 \, \lambda_\ast / (1-2\,\lambda_\ast) = 12 \, \alpha \approx 5.0395$. Eq. is satisfied if at least one of the following conditions holds: $n=0$, $n=1$, $n=2-12\,\alpha$, $\varphi_1^{n-4}=0$. The first three of them provide us with finitely many scaling fields only, while we expect infinitely many, of course. Therefore we should demand that $\varphi_1^{n-4}=0$ in an appropriate sense. This condition implies that either $\varphi_1=0$ with $\operatorname{Re}n >4$, or that $\varphi_1 \to \infty$ with $\operatorname{Re}n <4$. The first case is clearly excluded; as the metric with $\varphi=0$ is singular one should not use $\varphi_1=0$ as the expansion point in the computation of ${\eta_{\text{N}}}$. It remains the option $\varphi_1 \to \infty$ which we had actually advocated for a different reason already: If $\varphi$ is large enough, ${\eta_{\text{N}}}$ becomes actually independent of it.
Thus we conclude on the basis of the stability analysis that our present approximation can lead to a consistent picture only with the choice $\varphi_1 \to \infty$. For the scaling fields with $y_g=0$, ${\Upsilon}(\varphi) \propto \varphi^n$ this entails that the exponent is constrained by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.67}
\operatorname{Re}n (\theta) & \equiv n'(\theta', \theta'') <4.\end{aligned}$$
In order to find the spectrum of scaling dimensions we now combine the two conditions scaling fields must meet. The allowed values of $(\theta', \theta'')$ are such that the real parts $n_\pm'$ given by the expressions are strictly smaller than $4$. After some tedious algebra one finds that there exist the following two families of scaling fields $(y_g, {\Upsilon}) = (0, \varphi^n)$:
**The “$\boldsymbol{n_+}$-family”:** There exists a scaling field $(y_g, {\Upsilon}) = (0, \varphi^{n_+'+in_+''})$ of complex scaling dimension $\theta \equiv \theta'+i \theta''$ for every point $(\theta',\theta'')$ in the complex $\theta$-plane such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.68}
\theta' & > - a_1 + a_2 \, {\theta''}^2\end{aligned}$$ where $a_1 \equiv 4 \, (2^{1/3} -1) \approx 1.0397$ and $a_2 \equiv 3 \cdot 2^{1/3} \, (7 \cdot 2^{1/3}-3)^{-2} \approx 0.1116$. The associated exponents $n'+in''$ are given by the eqs. with the upper sign. The domain of allowed scaling dimensions in the $\theta$-plane is bounded by the parabola depicted in Fig. \[para\].
**The “$\boldsymbol{n_-}$-family”:** There exists a scaling field $(y_g, {\Upsilon}) = (0, \varphi^{n_-'+in_-''})$ of complex scaling dimensions $\theta \equiv \theta'+i \theta''$ for *every* point $(\theta',\theta'')$ in the $\theta$-plane. The associated exponents $n'+in''$ are given by the eqs. with the lower sign.
In either family scaling fields with $\theta'>0$, $\theta'=0$, $\theta'<0$ are relevant, marginal, and irrelevant, respectively.
We also found the exceptional solution with $\theta'=\alpha\,\omega^2 \approx 1.2$, $\theta''=0$. Since $\omega \approx 1.69$ it grows more slowly than $\varphi^4$ asymptotically and defines a relevant scaling field therefore.
All scaling dimensions come in complex conjugate pairs. If $(y_g, {\Upsilon})$ is a complex solution of the linearized flow equation for $(\theta',\theta'')$, so is $(y_g^\ast, {\Upsilon}^\ast)$ with $(\theta',-\theta'')$. Forming linear combinations we obtain the following two real solutions: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.69}
\begin{split}
\operatorname{Re}\begin{pmatrix}
\delta g_k \\ \delta Y_k (\varphi)
\end{pmatrix}
& =
{\varepsilon}\, \lvert h \rvert \,
\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\ 1
\end{pmatrix}\,
\varphi^{n'} \, \operatorname{e}^{-\theta' t} \,
\cos \bigl( n'' \ln \varphi - \theta'' t + \delta \bigr)
\\
\operatorname{Im}\begin{pmatrix}
\delta g_k \\ \delta Y_k (\varphi)
\end{pmatrix}
& =
{\varepsilon}\, \lvert h \rvert \,
\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\ 1
\end{pmatrix}\,
\varphi^{n'} \, \operatorname{e}^{-\theta' t} \,
\sin \bigl( n'' \ln \varphi - \theta'' t + \delta \bigr).
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Here we wrote ${\Upsilon}(\varphi) = h \, \varphi^n$ and allowed for a complex amplitude $h = \lvert h \rvert \, \operatorname{e}^{i \delta}$. In the complex exponent $(n', n'')$ stands for either $(n_+', n_+'')$ or $(n_-', n_-'')$ and is given in terms of $(\theta', \theta'')$ by the expressions . Obviously all linear solutions with $n'' \neq 0$ are non-polynomial in $\varphi$, and their dependence on both $\varphi$ and the scale is oscillatory. When $\varphi$ approaches the singular point of vanishing metric, $\varphi=0$, the solutions oscillate infinitely rapidly. Solutions with $n''=0$ do not oscillate, but are still non-polynomial unless $n'\in \mathds{N}$.
#### (b) Scaling fields with $\boldsymbol{y_g \neq 0}$. {#b-scaling-fields-with-boldsymboly_g-neq-0. .unnumbered}
Now we switch on the inhomogeneity in eq. , the terms proportional to $y_g$. The general solution of the inhomogeneous equation is of the form ${\Upsilon}= {\Upsilon}_{\text{in}} + {\Upsilon}_{\text{hom}}$ where ${\Upsilon}_{\text{in}}$ is a special solution of the inhomogeneous, and ${\Upsilon}_{\text{hom}}$ the general solution of the homogeneous equation (with the same parameter $\theta$). Making a $\varphi^4$-ansatz one easily finds the following special inhomogeneous solution: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.70}
{\Upsilon}_{\text{in}} (\varphi) &=
\frac{y_\ast \, y_g}{g_\ast} \,
+ y_g \, \frac{\gamma_1 \, \theta -\gamma_2}{4 - \theta - 12 \, \alpha} \,
\varphi^4.\end{aligned}$$ The second condition to be satisfied is . Inserting ${\Upsilon}= {\Upsilon}_{\text{in}} + {\Upsilon}_{\text{hom}}$ with we are led to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.71}
\theta & = 2 - \kappa \,
\frac{\left( \gamma_1 \, \theta -\gamma_2 \right)}
{\left( 4 - \theta - 12 \, \alpha \right)}
+ \vartheta_{\text{hom}}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.72}
\vartheta_{\text{hom}} & \equiv
- \frac{g_\ast^2}{3 \pi \, y_g} \,
\frac{\lambda_\ast}{\left( 1-2\,\lambda_\ast \right)^4\,} \,
\left[ \frac{{\Upsilon}_{\text{hom}}'''(\varphi_1)}{\varphi_1}
+ \frac{8 \, \lambda_\ast}{1-2\,\lambda_\ast} \,
\frac{{\Upsilon}_{\text{hom}}''(\varphi_1)}{\varphi_1^2\,} \right]\end{aligned}$$ and the $\theta$-independent constant $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.73}
\kappa & \equiv
\frac{8 \, g_\ast^2}{\pi} \,
\frac{\lambda_\ast \, \left( 1+2\,\lambda_\ast \right)}{\left( 1-2\,\lambda_\ast \right)^5\,}
= 288 \pi \, \left( 1+2\,\lambda_\ast \right).\end{aligned}$$ In it is implied that $\varphi_1 \to \infty$, as before. The equation determines the values of $\theta$ for which scaling fields with $y_g \neq 0$ exist. It can be solved in the following way:
1. We assume that its solutions $\theta_{1,2}$ are such that $\vartheta_{\text{hom}} =0$ for the function ${\Upsilon}_{\text{hom}}$ solving the homogeneous equation with $\theta = \theta_{1,2}$.
2. We determine $\theta_{1,2}$ by solving the simplified equation in which $\vartheta_{\text{hom}} =0$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.74}
\theta & = 2 - \kappa \,
\frac{\left( \gamma_1 \, \theta -\gamma_2 \right)}
{\left( 4 - \theta - 12 \, \alpha \right)}.\end{aligned}$$
3. We prove selfconsistency by showing that the values $\theta_{1,2}$ obtained do indeed belong to a homogeneous solution with $\vartheta_{\text{hom}} =0$.
Eq. is a quadratic equation for $\theta$. Recalling the definitions of the various constants one finds that the solutions are a complex conjugate pair $\theta_{1,2} = \theta' \pm i \theta''$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.75}
\begin{split}
\theta' & = 4
\\
\theta'' & = 2 \sqrt{2\,}\, \sqrt{1 + 3 \cdot 2^{1/3}\,}
\approx 6.1837
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
As for step (iii), the general homogeneous solution is given by ($h_\pm \in \mathds{C}$) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.76}
{\Upsilon}_{\text{hom}} &=
h_+ \, \varphi^{n_+ (\theta', \theta'')} +
h_- \, \varphi^{n_- (\theta', \theta'')}.\end{aligned}$$ Using we find that for the critical exponents the real parts of the exponents $n_+$ and $n_-$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.77}
& &
n_+' (\theta', \theta'') & \approx 3.87,
& n_-' (\theta', \theta'') & \approx -0.488
& & \end{aligned}$$ Since both of them are smaller than $4$, we indeed obtain $\vartheta_{\text{hom}} =0$ when we insert ${\Upsilon}_{\text{hom}}$ into and let $\varphi_1 \to \infty$. This proves the consistency of the procedure.
We observe that the scaling field $(y_g \neq 0, {\Upsilon}_{\text{in}})$ is the only one which grows $\propto \varphi^4$ asymptotically; all the others have a weaker growth and are subdominant for $\varphi \to \infty$. This complex scaling field, or the two real ones equivalent to it, is exactly the one which is accessible to the Einstein–Hilbert truncation. In fact, the numbers are exactly the critical exponents we found in the CREH approximation \[I\]. They describe the spiraling of the trajectories near the NGFP on the $(g, \lambda)$-theory space. In the present context this $2$-dimensional space is to be regarded as a subspace of the infinite dimensional $\bigl( g, Y (\,\cdot\,) \bigr)$-theory space.
To summarize, we can describe the linear flow near the NGFP on $\bigl( g, Y (\,\cdot\,) \bigr)$-space as follows. There are two scaling fields with a non-vanishing $g$-component. Their only other non-vanishing component is in the $\varphi^4$-direction of the function space $\{ Y(\,\cdot\,)\}$ which we identify with the $\lambda$-direction of the CREH truncation. Those two scaling fields are relevant, have the critical exponents $\theta'=4$, $\theta'' \approx 6.18$, and coincide *exactly* with those of the CREH approximation (cf. the discussion in Subsection \[s3s.3\]). All other scaling fields have vanishing $g$-component and correspond to perturbations of the potential alone. There are both relevant and irrelevant fields of this type; generically they correspond to non-polynomial oscillatory functions of $\varphi$.
### UV Critical Manifold and Subsidiary Conditions {#s.4.5.2}
In the simplest case, when the eigenvectors of the stability matrix at the NGFP form a complete set, the subset of eigenvectors belonging to eigenvalues $- \theta$ with $\operatorname{Re}\theta >0$ spans the tangent space to the UV critical manifold $\mathscr{S}_{\text{UV}}$. Its dimensionality $\Delta_{\text{UV}}$ equals the number of scaling fields with $\operatorname{Re}\theta >0$ then. They are relevant in the sense that they grow when $k$ is lowered. Since every complete trajectory inside $\mathscr{S}_{\text{UV}}$ defines a possible asymptotically safe quantum theory, there exists a $\Delta_{\text{UV}}$-parameter family of such theories if the solutions of the linearized flow equations generalize to solutions of the full nonlinear equations which extend down to $k=0$. If this latter condition is not satisfied for all scaling solutions the number of free parameters is smaller than $\Delta_{\text{UV}}$.
What the above stability analysis shows is that, to be precise, *for a specific definition of the function space $\mathit{\{ Y(\,\cdot\,)\}}$* there are infinitely many directions in the truncated theory space along which the NGFP is UV attractrive *at the linearized level*. Whether this result is directly relevant for the dimensionality of $\mathscr{S}_{\text{UV}}$ in full quantum gravity and its degree of predictivity is not clear yet. The actual number $\Delta$ of free parameters the quantum theory has is decided at the nonlinear level only. This number can well be different from $\Delta_{\text{UV}}$ which refers to (the tangent space to) $\mathscr{S}_{\text{UV}}$ at the NGFP. Even in the full (untruncated) theory it can happen, for instance, that not all trajectories starting there can be continued to $k=0$, whence $\Delta < \Delta_{\text{UV}}$. Moreover, even if they reach $k=0$, most trajectories will in general be unacceptable according to additional physical criteria (existence of a classical regime, etc.) which also can decrease $\Delta$. This issue could be analyzed only by a comprehensive numerical analysis of the partial differential equation for $Y_k$. We shall not embark on this analysis here, in particular as it is not clear how the number $\Delta$ of the conformally reduced theory relates the corresponding number in the space of functionals depending on the full metric.
Let us now discuss the other issue mentioned above, the precise definition of theory space. Already at the linear level there exists an ambiguity which has an enormous impact on the number of relevant directions one finds, namely the choice of the function space $\{ Y(\,\cdot\,)\}$ in which all admissible potential terms and hence scaling fields are supposed to “live”. In the above analysis the only condition which we imposed (besides differentiability) was an asymptotic growth not faster than $\varphi^4$. To show that the precise specification of the space $\{ Y(\,\cdot\,)\}$ is crucial we shall now consider various plausible choices. For the time being we do not know which one will be ultimately correct (in the sense of closest to full QEG).
### (a) Subsidiary condition $\boldsymbol{Y{^{\text{sing}}}\equiv 0}$: $\boldsymbol{n' \geq 2}$ {#a-subsidiary-condition-boldsymbolytextsingequiv-0-boldsymboln-geq-2 .unnumbered}
In Subsection \[s3s.4\] we saw that the RG flow does not generate contributions to $Y_k{^{\text{sing}}}$ if $Y_k{^{\text{sing}}}=0$ initially: $Y_k{^{\text{sing}}}=0 \Longrightarrow {\partial}_k \, Y_k{^{\text{sing}}}=0$. Furthermore, in Subsection \[s4.4\] we pointed out that, for both topologies considered, the fixed point potential has no singular part: $Y_\ast{^{\text{sing}}}=0$. This means that the space of functions $\{ Y \, \vert \, Y{^{\text{sing}}}=0 \} \equiv \mathcal{Y}$ contains the fixed point and is invariant under the RG flow: No trajectory starting on it will ever leave it.
As a consequence, we may consistently impose the subsidiary condition $Y{^{\text{sing}}}=0$ and define the theory on the smaller function space $\mathcal{Y}$. Imposing the condition $Y{^{\text{sing}}}=0$ implies a corresponding condition on allowed basis vectors in the tangent spaces of $\mathcal{Y}$, in particular at the NGFP: Allowed scaling fields have vanishing components in the “sing” directions. For the scaling fields of the type $(y_g =0, {\Upsilon}= \varphi^n)$ this condition is met when ${\Upsilon}'' = n \, (n-1) \, \varphi^{n-2}$ does not blow up in the limit $\varphi \to 0$, i.e. when $n' \equiv \operatorname{Re}n \geq 2$ and in the special cases $n=0$ and $n=1$.
Imposing $n_\pm' \geq 2$ on the $(0, \varphi^n)$-scaling fields has the following consequences: (i) The $n_-$-family is eliminated completely; no $\theta \in \mathds{C}$ satisfies $n_-' (\theta', \theta'') \geq 2$. (ii) As for the $n_+$-family, $n_+' (\theta', \theta'') \geq 2$ is satisfied if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.100}
\theta' & \leq b_1 + b_2 \, {\theta''}^2\end{aligned}$$ with $b_1 = 2 \, (1 - 2^{1/3}/3) \approx 1.160$ and $b_2 = \tfrac{1}{3} \, 2^{1/3} / (2^{1/3}-1)^2 \approx 6.217$. The scaling dimensions $(\theta', \theta'')$ of allowed scaling fields correspond to points in the $\theta$-plane which lie below the parabola $\theta' = b_1 + b_2 \, {\theta''}^2$ and, because of the $n_+' <4$ constraint, above the parabola . The corresponding region is shown in the right diagram of Fig. \[para\].
### (b) Integer exponents: $\boldsymbol{n \in \mathds{Z}}$ {#b-integer-exponents-boldsymboln-in-mathdsz .unnumbered}
As another example, we assume that $\{ \varphi^n,~n \in \mathds{Z} \}$ is a “basis” on $\{ Y(\,\cdot\,)\}$ so that every function can be expanded in a Laurent series: $Y (\varphi) = \sum_{n \in \mathds{Z}} a_n \, \varphi^n$. The $y_g =0$-scaling fields are still the monomials $\varphi^n$, but $n$ is restricted to be real and integer now. As a consequence, the associated scaling dimension $\theta (n)$ is also real. It is given by eq. . The function $\theta = \theta (n)$ for $n$ real is plotted in Fig. \[theta\].
### (c) Real exponents: $\boldsymbol{n \in \mathds{R}}$ {#c-real-exponents-boldsymboln-in-mathdsr .unnumbered}
As a last example, let us assume that for some reason the oscillatory scaling fields are to be excluded so that we must impose $n'' =0$. Using we can show that *the scaling fields $\mathit{\varUpsilon \propto \varphi^n}$ with $\mathit{n_\pm'' =0}$ have dimensions $\mathit{\{ (\theta', \theta''=0) \,\vert\, -\infty < \theta' \leq \alpha \, \omega^2 \}}$ and real exponents $\mathit{n \equiv n_\pm' = \omega \, [ 1 \pm \sqrt{1-\theta'/\alpha\,\omega^2\,}\, ]}$.* In the complex $\theta$-plane the allowed dimensions lie on a part of the $\theta'$-axis. If, on top of $n''=0$, the constraint $n' <4$ is imposed we find:
- In the $n_-$-family, all scaling fields with $n_-''=0$ also satisfy $n_-'<4$.
- In the $n_+$-family, the scaling fields which satisfy both $n_+''=0$ and $n_+'<4$ have scaling dimensions $$\begin{aligned}
\{ (\theta', \theta''=0) \,\vert\, -a_1 < \theta' \leq \alpha \, \omega^2 \}\end{aligned}$$ and real exponents $n \equiv n_+' = \omega \, [ 1 \pm \sqrt{1-\theta'/\alpha\,\omega^2\,}\, ]$. In Fig. \[para\] these scaling fields correspond to the bold-faced interval on the vertical axis.
For the time being it is not clear how to choose the function space $\{ Y(\,\cdot\,) \}$ optimally, but it is obvious that the count of relevant directions crucially depends on it. The optimal choice would be the one for which the LPA mimics full quantum gravity as well as possible. In order to find it one would have to gain a better understanding of the invariants of the full metric $g_{\mu \nu}$, their importance for the flow, and their relation to the terms that could possibly appear in the conformally reduced action.
We close this subsetion with several remarks.
**(i)** Also the NGFP found by the method of symmetry reduction [@max] where only metrics with two Killing vectors are quantized has infinitely many relevant directions. In fact, *all* scaling fields accessible to this approximation are relevant. Their relation to the invariants of the full $4$-dimensional metric is likewise unclear.
**(ii)** For the unconstrained $\{ Y(\,\cdot\,) \}$-space the real form of the $y_g =0$-scaling field is given in . These solutions are non-polynomial in $\varphi$ (if $n \notin \mathds{N}$). In a sense, they are analogous to the so-called *Halpern–Huang scaling fields* [@hh1; @hh2] in standard scalar matter field theories. Halpern and Huang analyzed their Gaussian fixed point by means of the LPA and found, quite unexpectedly, infinitely many relevant directions. They had been overlooked by perturbation theory because the eigenpotentials depend on the field in a non-polynomial way. As to yet, their status is still somewhat unclear. In the literature [@morris-hh] arguments have been put forward suggesting that one should eliminate them by an appropriate choice of the function space. Likewise discarding them in gravity we are back to only three relevant directions, $\varphi$, $\varphi^2$, and $\varphi^3$.
**(iii)** The above analysis applies to the $R^4$ topology. For $S^4$ it is not possible to obtain comparably transparent results in analytic form since the fixed point potential is known only numerically. However, we do not expect qualitatively new features to arise for $S^4$.
Transition to a Phase with Unbroken\
Diffeomorphism Invariance {#s5}
====================================
An exploration of the RG flow and in particular the structure of $\mathscr{S}_{\text{UV}}$ at the nonlinear level has to rely upon numerical methods mostly. There are essentially two strategies for finding trajectories in $\mathscr{S}_{\text{UV}}$. The first one consists in a downward evolution (i.e. towards smaller values of $k$) starting at $Y_\ast$ plus a relevant scaling field. We tried this method for $R^4$ where all scaling fields at the NGFP are known explicitly; it turned out however that it is very difficult to implement it in a numerically reliable way because of the densely winding spirals near the fixed point.
The second strategy consists in guessing an initial point in theory space and evolving upward (towards larger $k$) from this point. If the point happens to lie on $\mathscr{S}_{\text{UV}}$ the trajectory will hit the fixed point for $k \to \infty$. In practice one will vary the initial point until the trajectory stays close to the NGFP for a very long RG time. Small errors in the guessed initial point will always cause the trajectory to run away from the NGFP ultimately. However, by finetuning the initial point one can construct a numerical approximation to a trajectory in $\mathscr{S}_{\text{UV}}$ at any desired level of accuracy. By systematically changing the initial point it is possible to trace out the nonlinear structure of $\mathscr{S}_{\text{UV}}$ in this way, at least in principle. A complete numerical analysis of this kind is beyond the scope of the present paper. We shall rather present some typical trajectories found by this trial and error method and describe their general properties.
Before turning to the numerical solutions we discuss a rather special, but instructive class of trajectories which can be found analytically.
An Analytic Solution ($\boldsymbol{R^4}$ case) {#s5.1}
----------------------------------------------
In the case of the $R^4$ topology there exists for every given trajectory of the Einstein–Hilbert truncation (here always taken of type IIIa) a $1$-parameter family of trajectories in $\mathscr{S}_{\text{UV}}$ which can be found in closed form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{5.20}
Y_k (\varphi)
& =
C_1 \, \frac{g_k}{k} \, \varphi
- \frac{1}{6} \, \lambda_k \, \varphi^4.\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to see that solves eq. . Here $C_1$ is a free parameter with the dimension of a mass. It is obvious that these trajectories lie inside $\mathscr{S}_{\text{UV}}$: for $k \to \infty$ the potentials approach the fixed point $- \lambda_\ast \, \varphi^4 /6$. Consistent with the linear analysis the $\varphi$-term is relevant, it grows when $k$ is lowered. (Eq. is valid beyond the linearization though.) In dimensionful units the corresponding potential has a $k$-independent $\phi$-term: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{5.21}
U_k (\phi)
&=
- \frac{3}{4 \pi} \, \left( C_1 \, \phi
- \frac{1}{6} \, \frac{\Lambda_k}{G_k} \, \phi^4 \right).\end{aligned}$$ If $C_1 >0$ the functions $- Y_k (\varphi)$ and $U_k (\phi)$ have a critical point, a global minimum, at nonzero values of the field: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{5.22}
\varphi_0 (k)
& =
\left[ \frac{3}{2} \, C_1 \, \frac{g_k}{\lambda_k} \, \frac{1}{k} \right]^{1/3}
\\
\label{5.23}
\phi_0 (k)
& =
\left[ \frac{3}{2} \, C_1 \, \frac{G_k}{\Lambda_k} \right]^{1/3}
= \varphi_0 (k) / k.\end{aligned}$$ If $C_1<0$ both $- Y_k (\varphi)$ and $U_k (\phi)$, for any $k$, assume their global minimum at vanishing $\varphi$ and $\phi$, respectively.
In the case $C_1>0$, $\varphi_0 (k)$ vanishes only in the limit $k \to \infty$ where $\varphi_0 (k) \propto k^{-1/3}$. While we lower $k$ from infinity down to the turning point scale ${k_{\text{T}}}$, the minimum $\varphi_0 (k)$ moves towards *larger* $\varphi$-values. Slightly below ${k_{\text{T}}}$ the type IIIa trajectory enters the classical regime in which $G_k$, $\Lambda_k$, and $\phi_0 (k)$ are approximately $k$-independent. In this regime $\varphi_0 (k)$ is heading for *smaller* values of $\varphi$ when $k$ is lowered further: $\varphi_0 (k) = k \, \phi_0 (k) \propto k$.
Fig. \[ssb1\] displays the exact trajectory for $C_1=+1$; the underlying trajectory $(g_k, \lambda_k)$ of the Einstein–Hilbert truncation was taken to be the type IIIa trajectory with $g_{\text{T}} = 10^{-14}$ at the turning point.
\
(a) (b)\
\
(c) (d)\
\
(e) (f)
We picked this tiny value because it leads to a long classical regime, see [@h3] and [@cosmofrank]. The first four plots in Fig. \[ssb1\] show the potential $- Y_k (\varphi)$ for different values of $k$. The plots (a) and (b) correspond to scales above the turning point, ${k_{\text{T}}}< k < \infty$, while the diagrams (c) and (d) refer to scales between the turning point and the termination scale, ${k_{\text{T}}}> k > {k_{\text{term}}}$, cf. Fig. \[ssb1\](e). Here and in the following dimensionful quantities are always plotted in units of ${k_{\text{T}}}$, and the dotted (dashed) line represents the fixed point (turning point) potential. The gray level of the potential curves changes from black to gray for decreasing values of $k$. We always plot *minus* $Y_k (\varphi)$ because it is this function that corresponds to the actual potential $U_k (\phi)$ by a rescaling with positive factors. The plots \[ssb1\](b) and (d) are “zooms” into the small-$\varphi$ region of the diagrams (a) and (c), respectively. We observe the following pattern which is generic for $C_1 >0$: When $k$ is lowered from “$k=\infty$” the potential $- Y_k (\varphi)$ immediately assumes its minimum at a *nonzero* $\varphi$-value. Between $k = \infty$ and $k = {k_{\text{T}}}$ this minimum moves towards larger $\varphi$-values, while it returns to smaller $\varphi$-values once $k$ has passed ${k_{\text{T}}}$. It is instructive to look at the latter regime in dimensionful units. Fig. \[ssb1\](f) displays the position of the minimum $\phi_0 (k) = \varphi_0 (k) / k$ below the turning point. We see that $\phi_0$ is perfectly constant all the way down to the termination scale. (It is at about ${k_{\text{term}}}\approx 10^{-7}$ for the trajectory chosen.)
It is tempting to interpret this RG trajectory as describing a kind of continuous (“second order”) phase transition with respect to the scale, taking place for $k \to \infty$: At $k$“$=$”$\infty$ the potential $- Y_k (\varphi)$ has its global minimum at $\varphi =0$; for all $k < \infty$ it is located at a nonzero $\varphi = \varphi_0 (k) \neq 0$. Likewise the minimum $\phi_0 (k)$ of $U_k (\phi)$ continuously approaches zero for $k \to \infty$ and is nonzero for all $k < \infty$. The significance of those minima becomes clear when we search for (running) solutions of the (running) effective field equations, i.e. look for stationary points of $\Gamma_k$.
In fact, the vacuum expectation value of the metric can be found by solving the effective field equation $\delta \Gamma_k / \delta \phi =0$. Therefore, within the LPA, the $k$-dependent metric expectation value is $\langle g_{\mu \nu} \rangle_k = \phi_0 (k)^2 \,\, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}$. If $\varphi_0=0$ this expectation value vanishes according to the LPA. Hence the phase the system is in at $k$“$=$”$\infty$ is a phase of unbroken diffeomorphism invariance [@witten; @floper]. In this phase the metric has a vanishing expectation value, with non-trivial fluctuations about $\langle g_{\mu \nu} \rangle_k =0$, but no “metric condensate” spontaneously breaks diffeomorphism invariance. For $k<\infty$ a nonzero (and within the present approximation therefore necessarily non-degenerate) metric $\langle g_{\mu \nu} \rangle_k$ spontaneously breaks the diffeomorphism group down to the stability group of the ground state metric. For $\langle g_{\mu \nu} \rangle_k = \phi_0 (k)^2 \,\, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}$ with ${\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}$ the flat metric on $R^4$ this is the (Euclidean) Poincaré group.
If $\phi_0$ is approximately $k$-independent over a wide range of $k$-values the “frozen out” metric $\langle g_{\mu \nu} \rangle_k = \phi_0^2 \,\, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}$ defines an approximately classical spacetime. In the above example we saw that this is indeed the case for $k$ between ${k_{\text{T}}}$ and ${k_{\text{term}}}$. We also know [@h3; @cosmofrank] that the classical regime predicted by the Einstein–Hilbert truncation is the longer the closer the turning point is to the GFP. If $\phi_0$ does not depend on $k$ we may introduce units such that $\phi_0=1$ so that, with the $R^4$ reference metric ${\widehat}g_{\mu \nu} = \delta_{\mu \nu}$, the expectation value equals $\langle g_{\mu \nu} \rangle_k = \delta_{\mu \nu}$ within the classical range of $k$-values. In this way the emergence of an approximately classical, flat spacetime can be understood as a condensation and symmetry breaking phenomenon similar to those in standard scalar field theories.
While we are familiar with gravity in the classical regime of the broken phase, it seems to be much more the exception than the rule. In the present setting it requires a very small[^6] value of $g_{\text{T}}$ and a positive constant $C_1$ in . For $C_1<0$ the global minimum of $- Y_k (\varphi)$ stays always at $\varphi_0 =0$. So gravity is always in its “symmetric phase” and the metric develops no expectation value, let alone a scale independent one.
First order-type Transitions ($\boldsymbol{R^4}$ case) {#s5.2}
------------------------------------------------------
In Fig. \[ssb2\] we show a trajectory in $\mathscr{S}_{\text{UV}}$, for $R^4$, which was obtained numerically by the trial and error method.
\
(a) (b)\
\
(c) (d)
The pertinent Einstein–Hilbert trajectory has $g_{\text{T}} = 10^{-1}$. The initial scale for the upward integration of the partial differential equation was chosen as ${k_{\text{intl}}}= {k_{\text{T}}}/2$ where ${k_{\text{T}}}\equiv 1$ in computer units. Assuming that the initial potential $Y_{{k_{\text{intl}}}}$ is a polynomial of the form $\varphi + \varphi^2 + \varphi^4$ we finetuned the coefficients of the $\varphi$- and the $\varphi^2$-term in such a way that $Y_k (\varphi)$ gets close to $Y_\ast (\varphi)$ and stays there for a long RG time. The successful initial potential reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{5.30}
Y_{{k_{\text{intl}}}} (\varphi)
& =
-0.10 \, \varphi + 0.20 \, \varphi^2
- \tfrac{1}{6} \, \lambda_{{k_{\text{intl}}}} \, \varphi^4.\end{aligned}$$ To obtain the complete trajectory we also evolved downward, from ${k_{\text{intl}}}$ to ${k_{\text{term}}}$. The Figs. \[ssb2\](a), (b), and (c) show the running potential for various values of $k$ above ${k_{\text{T}}}$, while Fig. \[ssb2\](d) shows representative potentials with $k$ below ${k_{\text{T}}}$. In Fig. \[ssb2\](a) we see that $Y_k (\varphi)$ approaches the (dotted) fixed point potential for large values of $k$. We verified that the approach to $Y_\ast (\varphi)$ is oscillatory, as a consequence of the spirals in the $g$-$\lambda$–plane. The Figs. \[ssb2\](b) and (c) show that at a certain value of $k$ the potential first develops an inflection point and then a new local minimum and maximum. At an even lower, “critical” scale $k_{\text{c}}$ the new minimum becomes the global one. Above ${k_{\text{T}}}$ the new global minimum moves towards larger $\varphi$-values, then towards smaller ones, see Fig. \[ssb2\](d). The latter regime is the classical one again, with an approximately constant $\phi_0 = \varphi_0 / k$. Making $g_{\text{T}}$ smaller one can obtain an arbitrarily long (in $k$) regime with an essentially classical, flat spacetime.
As compared to the analytic trajectory of the previous subsection two features of the phase transition are new here: it happens at a *finite transition scale* $k_{\text{c}} < \infty$, and it is *discontinuous*. For $k > k_{\text{c}}$ the global minimum is at $\phi_0 =0$, at $k = k_{\text{c}}$ it jumps to a value $\phi_0 >0$. In analogy with the phase transitions in standard scalar theories we call this a first order transition.
According to this trajectory the expectation value $\langle g_{\mu\nu} \rangle_k$ vanishes for all $k > k_{\text{c}}$. One might wonder therefore whether the field modes with momenta above $k_{\text{c}}$ are correctly integrated out. The answer is in the affirmative. To see why we recall that a RG trajectory is a running functional $\Gamma_k [\,\cdot\,]$ defined over a certain space of functions $\{ \phi (\,\cdot\,) \}$. The global minimum of $\Gamma_k$ is merely a single point in this space, $\phi_0 (\,\cdot\,)$. The flow equation has the structure “$k{\partial}_k \, \Gamma_k [\phi (\,\cdot\,)] = \text{RHS} \bigl( \phi (\,\cdot\,) \bigr)$ *for all* $\phi (\,\cdot\,)$” so the point $\phi_0 (\,\cdot\,)$ plays no special role. Only after having constructed and solved the flow equation which involves arbitrary “off-shell” arguments $\phi (\,\cdot\,)$ we can go “on-shell”, i.e. look for solutions to the effective field equation $(\delta \Gamma_k / \delta \phi) [\phi_0 (\,\cdot\,)] =0$. Only here it is decided whether the metric has a nonzero expectation value or not.
In the general case of the full functional $\Gamma_k [g_{\mu \nu}, {\overline}{g}_{\mu\nu}, \cdots]$ there exists a subtlety, however, which is absent in the present setting for conformally reduced QEG. In the original construction of the full gravitational average action [@mr] it is assumed that $g_{\mu \nu}$ and ${\overline}{g}_{\mu \nu}$ are *non-degenerate* because the inverses $g^{\mu \nu}$ and ${\overline}{g}\,^{\mu \nu}$ are needed there. Hence, at best, $g_{\mu \nu}=0$ and/or ${\overline}{g}_{\mu \nu}=0$ are singular boundary points of the space $\{ g_{\mu \nu} (\,\cdot\,), {\overline}{g}_{\mu \nu} (\,\cdot\,), \cdots\}$ over which $\Gamma_k$ is defined. As a result, the original average action approach can describe the symmetric phase of gravity only as a singular limit. (In the full Einstein–Hilbert truncation, for instance, $\langle g_{\mu\nu} \rangle_k \to 0$ for $k \to \infty$.) The problem of generalizing the original construction to a theory space $\big\{ \Gamma [g_{\mu \nu}, {\overline}{g}_{\mu\nu}, \cdots] \big\}$ where $\Gamma$ is defined for non-invertible $g_{\mu \nu}$ and ${\overline}{g}_{\mu \nu}$, too, will be addressed elsewhere. Here we only mention that in the present reduced setting this problem does not arise since we may use the reference metric ${\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}$ which is always non-degenerate in order to formulate the flow equation.
A similar analysis of spontaneous symmetry breaking but in a perturbatively renormalizable model of quantum gravity has been performed in ref. [@floper]. The scaling properties of the potential and the average metric are quite different there as the theory is not asymptotically safe. In particular $\langle g_{\mu\nu} \rangle_k$ increases rather than decreases for $k \to \infty$.
Phase Transitions in the $\boldsymbol{S^4}$ case {#s5.3}
------------------------------------------------
In the previous subsection we observed that in the $R^4$ topology a phase transition *can* occur at finite $k$. It is easy to see that, in the case of $S^4$, a phase transition, if it occurs at all, *must* take place at a finite value of $k$. For $S^4$ the fixed point potential $- Y_\ast (\varphi)$ has the shape plotted in Fig. \[fixpot-s\]. Contrary to the simple $-Y_\ast \propto \varphi^4$ on $R^4$ this function is *structurally stable* in the sense that a smooth infinitesimal deformation of $-Y_\ast$ cannot give rise to a new local or global minimum. This was different for $- Y_\ast \propto \varphi^4$ where an infinitesimal term $\propto \varphi$ can shift the global minimum from $\varphi_0 =0$ to $\varphi_0 \neq 0$.
As for phase transitions on $S^4$, both a first order and a second order scenario are possible. Assume, for instance, we start the downward evolution from the $-Y_\ast (\varphi)$ pictured in Fig. \[fixpot-s\] with an infinitesimal relevant perturbation added. Then it might happen that for a certain period of RG time, for $k_0 < k < \infty$, say, no critical points form at $\varphi>0$, but that the slope of $-Y_k (\varphi)$ at the origin decreases from the originally positive value $-Y_\ast' (0) >0$ to zero at $k=k_0$: $-Y_{k_0}' (0) =0$. If the slope continues to decrease for $k$ below $k_0$ then a new global minimum forms at $\varphi_0 (k) >0$, and $\varphi_0 (k)$ moves away from the origin in a continuous way. This, then, is a “second order” phase transition taking place at $k=k_0$. The scale $k_0$ is necessarily finite ($k_0 < \infty$) since the initial slope $-Y_\ast'(0)$ is strictly positive; hence a nonzero running time is needed in order to reduce it to zero. One can find trajectories which indeed realize this scenario.
A possible first order scenario proceeds as follows. During the downward evolution from $-Y_\ast (\varphi)$ at $k$“$=$”$\infty$ first an inflection point forms at some $\varphi_{\text{infl}}>0$ and then a new local minimum and a maximum arise from it. Upon further downward evolution the new minimum becomes the global minimum at a critical scale $k_{\text{c}}$. This behavior corresponds to a discontinuous phase transition; the global minimum suddenly jumps from $\varphi_0=0$ to $\varphi_0 \neq 0$. Also in this scenario the phase transition happens at a finite scale $k_{\text{c}} < \infty$. The reason is that the slope of $-Y_\ast$ is strictly positive everywhere. Hence, again, we need a nonzero running time until $Y_k' (\varphi)$ vanishes at $\varphi_{\text{infl}} \neq 0$.
In Fig. \[ssb3\] we display a trajectory, found numerically by the trial and error method, which realizes this kind of first order scenario. The respective Einstein–Hilbert trajectory has $g_{\text{T}} = 10^{-3}$. At the initial scale for the upward integration of the partial differential equation, ${k_{\text{intl}}}= 10 \, {k_{\text{T}}}$, we chose an initial potential $Y_{k_{\text{intl}}}$ of the type $\varphi^0 + \varphi^2 + \varphi^3 + \varphi^4$. After finetuning the $\varphi^0$, $\varphi^2$-, and $\varphi^3$-coefficients so that $Y_k (\varphi)$ gets close to $Y_\ast (\varphi)$ and stays there for a very long RG time we obtained approximately $$\begin{aligned}
Y_{k_{\text{intl}}} (\varphi)
& =
0.3845 + 0.9 \, \varphi^2 - 0.001 \, \varphi^3
- \tfrac{1}{6} \, \lambda_{k_{\text{intl}}} \, \varphi^4.\end{aligned}$$ As for the smoothing scheme, the spectral functions used in the numerical integration were $\rho (\varphi) = 1 + \tfrac{1}{12} \, \varphi^4$ and ${\widetilde}\rho (\varphi) = \tfrac{1}{18} \, \varphi^6$.
\
(a) (b)
Summary and Conclusions {#s6}
=======================
In this paper we explored the “background independent” renormalization group flow of the effective average action for QEG on an infinite dimensional theory space. Considering conformally reduced gravity we quantized only the fluctuations of the conformal factor, employing the Local Potential Approximation for its effective average action. The relative simplicity of the resulting system of flow equations, a partial differential equation coupled to an ordinary one, allowed us detailed investigations which at present are prohibitively complicated in the full theory. While at first sight reminiscent of the RG equations for standard scalar theories, the requirement of a “background independent” quantization results in crucial differences. In the infinite dimensional space of potential functions we found both a Gaussian and a non-Gaussian fixed point; they generalize the fixed points known from the (conformally reduced) Einstein–Hilbert truncation. The scaling dimensions at the GFP were found to be very different from those in a scalar theory, as a consequence of the built-in “background independence”. The results on the structure of the RG flow provide further non-trivial evidence for the viability of the asymptotic safety scenario.
We studied in detail the linearized RG flow near the NGFP and we found that for some choices of the space of scaling fields infinitely many relevant directions can arise. The corresponding scaling fields are non-polynomial functions similar to the Halpern–Huang directions at the GFP of conventional scalar field theory. As to yet, their status and implications for the actual predictivity of the theory is not understood, not even in the case of standard scalars. At least in gravity the LPA is not sufficient in order to meaningfully address this question; in particular it is unclear whether the Halpern–Huang-like scaling fields can descend from invariants built from the full metric which occur in the fixed point action.
In QEG the beta functions, by construction, are independent of any specific metric. They do depend on the topology of spacetime, however. We illustrated this point by considering the cases $S^4$ and $R^4$ in parallel.
Analyzing the general properties of the RG flow and in particular of the UV critical manifold associated with the NGFP we saw that on $\mathscr{S}_{\text{UV}}$ the potential $Y_k (\varphi)$ behaves as $\varphi^4$ for $\varphi \to \infty$. Recalling that for $S^4$ every term in $\Gamma_k [g_{\mu \nu}]$ which has the structure $\int {\mathrm{d}}^4 x \sqrt{g\,} \, (\text{curvature})^n$ contributes to the $\varphi^{4-2n}$-monomial we can conclude that, in the conformally reduced theory, we see no “shadows” of invariants with negative powers of the curvature. Leaving aside the possibility of cancellations among invariants of the same dimension, this result suggests that terms of the form $\int {\mathrm{d}}^4 x \sqrt{g\,} \, R^{-n}$, $n=1,2,3,\cdots$, should not occur in RG trajectories on $\mathscr{S}_{\text{UV}}$. In fact, recently Machado and Saueressig [@frankmach] have analyzed $3$-parameter truncations where a single term of this type was added to the Einstein–Hilbert truncation. And indeed for moderate $n$ it turned out that on this $3$-dimensional theory space no satisfactory UV fixed point could be found. In the light of the present results the natural explanation which suggests itself is that the trajectories of [@frankmach] are not on $\mathscr{S}_{\text{UV}}$ when the non-local invariant is included. The same remark applies to $\int {\mathrm{d}}^4 x \sqrt{g\,} \, \ln R$ which produces a term $\varphi^4 \, \ln \varphi$ which likewise grows faster than $\varphi^4$ and, exactly as expected, spoils the NGFP. (The actual motivation in [@frankmach] for including these invariants was the hope that they would improve the IR behavior, and this indeed turned out to be the case.)
In the opposite limit $\varphi \to 0$, the NGFP potential $Y_\ast (\varphi)$ was found to be regular. We also saw that after appropriately constraining the scaling fields even the running potential $Y_k (\varphi)$ is regular along all trajectories in $\mathscr{S}_{\text{UV}}$. We can interpret this regularity by saying that $Y_\ast$ contains no “shadows” of the invariants $I_n \equiv \int {\mathrm{d}}^4 x \sqrt{g\,} \, (\text{curvature})^n \propto \varphi^{4-2n}$ for $n=3,4,\cdots$. The monomials $I_0 \propto \varphi^4$, $I_1 \propto \varphi^2$ and $I_2 = const$ are regular; they represent the cosmological constant, the Einstein–Hilbert term, and the $(\text{curvature})^2$-terms, and they have a nonzero fixed point coupling[^7]. For the higher ones $I_3 \propto \varphi^{-2}$, $I_4 \propto \varphi^{-4}$, $\cdots$ the fixed point coupling is zero.
Here we see that in the conformally reduced framework the Goroff–Sagnotti term $\int {\mathrm{d}}^4 x \sqrt{g\,}\, R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta} \, R^{\alpha \beta}_{\phantom{\alpha\beta} \rho \sigma} \, R^{\rho \sigma \mu \nu}$ which contributes to $\varphi^{-2}$ does not play any special role for the UV behavior of the theory. Imposing the subsidiary condition $Y{^{\text{sing}}}=0$ it is even absent all along the trajectories in $\mathscr{S}_{\text{UV}}$. This term is known to spoil the perturbative renormalizability of full quantum gravity at the two-loop level [@sagnotti]. According to the general theory [@livrev] and well known examples [@gakup] perturbative nonrenormalizability can well coexist with asymptotic safety. The present results are fully consistent with this picture.
Solving the flow equation for the potential numerically we obtained examples of RG trajectories in the NGFP’s ultraviolet critical hypersurface $\mathscr{S}_{\text{UV}}$. The quantum theories based upon some of them show phase transitions from a phase in which the global minimum of $U_k (\phi)$ is at some $\phi \neq 0$ to a phase where it is at $\phi =0$. In the former situation the conformal factor has a nonzero expectation value, while it vanishes in the latter. We interpret this as an indication that at some large (but in some cases finite) value of $k$ there occurs a transition from the familiar low energy phase of gravity with a nonzero expectation value of the metric to a new phase in which $g_{\mu \nu} \equiv \langle \gamma_{\mu \nu} \rangle =0 $. In the “low energy” phase diffeomorphism invariance is spontaneously broken down to the stability group of the metric condensate $\langle \gamma_{\mu \nu} \rangle \neq 0$, while it is unbroken in the “high energy” phase. There also exist trajectories along which the symmetry is always unbroken, i.e. the metric never develops an expectation value. The corresponding quantum theories have no classical regime. [**APPENDIX**]{}
Generalizations for $\boldsymbol{d}$ Spacetime Dimensions {#AppA}
=========================================================
In this appendix we tabulate the key formulas of the main text generalized for an arbitrary spacetime dimensionality $d$.
The LPA truncation ansatz generalizing the average action is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a.1}
\begin{split}
& \Gamma_k \bigl[ \,{\overline}{f}; {\chi_{\text{B}}}, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}
\bigr( S^d ({\widehat}r\,) \bigr) \bigr]
\\
& \phantom{{==}} =
- \frac{d-1}{2 \pi \, (d-2)} \, \frac{1}{G_k} \, \int \!\!{\mathrm{d}}^d x \, \sqrt{{\widehat}g\,}~
\bigg\{ - \tfrac{1}{2} ( {\chi_{\text{B}}}+ {\overline}{f}\,) \,
{\widehat}\Box \, ( {\chi_{\text{B}}}+ {\overline}{f} \,)
\\
& \phantom{{====}- \frac{d-1}{2 \pi \, (d-2)} \, \frac{1}{G_k} \, \int \!\!{\mathrm{d}}^d x \, \sqrt{{\widehat}g\,}~
\bigg\{ }
+ {\widehat}r^{\,-d} \, F_k \bigl( {\widehat}r^{1/\nu} \, ( {\chi_{\text{B}}}+ {\overline}{f} \, )
\bigr) \bigg\}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $\nu \equiv 2 / (d-2)$. (Cf. ref. [@creh1].) The running potential of the CREH truncation reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a.2}
F_k{^{\text{\,{\tiny CREH}}}}(x) &=
c_0 \, \frac{d (d-2)}{8} \, x^{(d-2) \nu}
- \frac{d-2}{4 (d-1)} \, \Lambda_k \, x^{d \nu}.\end{aligned}$$ The cutoff operator $\mathcal{R}_k$ must be chosen as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a.3}
\mathcal{R}_k [{\chi_{\text{B}}}; {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}]
& =
- \frac{d-1}{2 \pi \, (d-2)} \, \frac{1}{G_k} \, {\chi_{\text{B}}}^{2 \nu} \, k^2 \,
R^{(0)} \bigl( - \tfrac{{\widehat}\Box}{{\chi_{\text{B}}}^{2\nu} \, k^2\,} \bigr)\end{aligned}$$ so that the cutoff action becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a.4}
\Delta_k S [f; {\chi_{\text{B}}}, {\widehat}g_{\mu \nu}]
& =
- \frac{d-1}{4 \pi \, (d-2)} \, \frac{1}{G_k} \, {\chi_{\text{B}}}^{2 \nu} \, k^2 \,
\int \!\! d^d x \, \sqrt{{\widehat}g\,}~
f (x) \, R^{(0)} \bigl( - \tfrac{{\widehat}\Box}{{\chi_{\text{B}}}^{2 \nu} \, k^2\,} \bigr)
\, f(x).\end{aligned}$$ In terms of the new field variables $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a.5}
{\widetilde}\chi_{\text{B}} \equiv {\widehat}r\,^{1/\nu} \, {\chi_{\text{B}}}, \qquad
{\widetilde}{{\overline}{f}} \equiv {\widehat}r\,^{1/\nu} \, {\overline}{f}, \qquad
{\widetilde}\phi \equiv {\widehat}r\,^{1/\nu} \, \phi\end{aligned}$$ the generating equation for the RG flow on $S^d$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a.6}
\begin{split}
&
- \frac{d-1}{4 \pi \, (d-2)} \,
\int \!\! \text{d}^d x \, \sqrt{{\widehat}g\,} ~
\left \{
k {\partial}_k \left( \frac{1}{G_k} \right) \,
\frac{1}{2} \, {\overline}{f} (x)\, (- {\widehat}\Box) \, {\overline}{f} (x)
+ k {\partial}_k \frac{F_k \bigl( {\chi_{\text{B}}}+ {\overline}{f} (x) \bigr)}{G_k}
\right \}
\\
& \phantom{{==}} =
{\chi_{\text{B}}}^{2\nu} \, k^2 \, \operatorname{Tr}\, \left[ \frac{
\left \{ 1 - \frac{{\eta_{\text{N}}}}{2} \right \} \,
R^{(0)} \left( - \frac{{\widehat}\Box}{{\chi_{\text{B}}}^{2\nu} \, k^2\,} \right)
- \left( - \frac{{\widehat}\Box}{{\chi_{\text{B}}}^{2\nu} \, k^2\,} \right) \,
R^{(0) \prime} \left( - \frac{{\widehat}\Box}{{\chi_{\text{B}}}^{2\nu} \, k^2\,} \right)}
{- {\widehat}\Box
+ {\chi_{\text{B}}}^{2\nu} \, k^2 \, R^{(0)}
\left( - \frac{{\widehat}\Box}{{\chi_{\text{B}}}^{2\nu} \, k^2\,} \right)
+ F_k'' \bigl( {\chi_{\text{B}}}+ {\overline}{f} (x) \bigr)}
\right].
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Eq. reduces to in $4$ dimensions.
The negative eigenvalues and degeneracies of the Laplace–Beltrami operator on a unit $d$-sphere [@rubin] are, respectively, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{a.7}
\mathcal{E}_{n;d} = n \, (n+d-1)
\quad \text{and} \quad
D_{n;d} = \frac{(2n+d-1) \, (n+d-2)!}{n! \, (d-1)!}.\end{gathered}$$ The spectral functions of generalize to $\rho_d (\varphi) \equiv \sum_{n=0}^\infty D_{n;d} \, \theta (\varphi^{2\nu} - \mathcal{E}_{n;d}) = J_d \bigl( n_{\text{max}} (\varphi;d) \bigr)$ and ${\widetilde}\rho_d (\varphi) \equiv \sum_{n=0}^\infty \mathcal{E}_{n;d} \, D_{n;d} \, \theta (\varphi^{2\nu} - \mathcal{E}_{n;d}) = {\widetilde}J_d \bigl( n_{\text{max}} (\varphi;d) \bigr)$ with the sums $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a.8}
\begin{split}
J_d (N)
& =
\frac{1}{(d-1)!} \, \sum_{n=0}^N
\frac{(2n+d-1) \, (n+d-2)!}{n!}
\\
{\widetilde}J_d (N)
& =
\frac{1}{(d-1)!} \, \sum_{n=0}^N
\frac{(n+d-1) \, (2n+d-1) \, (n+d-2)!}{(n-1)!}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $N \equiv n_{\text{max}} (\varphi;d)$ is the largest positive integer satisfying $\mathcal{E}_{N;d} = N (N+d-1) < \varphi^{2 \nu}$. For $\varphi \gg 1$ we may approximate $\rho_d (\varphi) \approx \frac{2}{d!} \, \varphi^{d \nu}$ and ${\widetilde}\rho_d (\varphi) \approx \tfrac{2d(d + 1)}{(d+2)!} \, \varphi^{(d+2) \nu}$ which boils down to for $4$ dimensions.
The partial differential equations for the potential $F_k (\phi)$ and its dimensionless analog $Y_k (\varphi) \equiv k^{d-2} \, F_k (\varphi / k^{1/\nu})$ read in arbitrary dimensions, respectively,
\[a.9\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a.9a}
\begin{split}
k{\partial}_k \, F_k (\phi)- {\eta_{\text{N}}}\, F_k (\phi)
& =
- \frac{2 \pi (d-2)}{(d-1) \, \sigma_d} \, \, G_k
\frac{
\left \{ 1 - \frac{{\eta_{\text{N}}}}{2} \right \} \, k^2 \phi^{2 \nu} \,
\rho_d (k^{1/\nu} \phi)
+ \frac{{\eta_{\text{N}}}}{2} \, {\widetilde}\rho_d (k^{1/\nu} \phi)}
{k^2 \phi^{2 \nu} + F_k'' (\phi)}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ and, with $\varphi \equiv k^{1/\nu} \, \phi$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a.9b}
\begin{split}
& k{\partial}_k \, Y_k (\varphi)
+ \left( 2-d-{\eta_{\text{N}}}\right) \, Y_k (\varphi)
+ \tfrac{1}{\nu} \, \varphi \, Y_k' (\varphi)
\\
& \phantom{{==}} =
- \frac{2 \pi (d-2)}{(d-1) \, \sigma_d} \, \, g_k \,
\frac{
\left \{ 1 - \frac{{\eta_{\text{N}}}}{2} \right \} \, \varphi^{2 \nu} \,
\rho_d (\varphi)
+ \frac{{\eta_{\text{N}}}}{2} \, {\widetilde}\rho_d (\varphi)}
{\varphi^{2 \nu} + Y_k'' (\varphi)}.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
Their counterparts in $4$ dimensions are given by eqs. and , respectively. Here, $\sigma_d \equiv 2 \pi^{(d+1)/2} / \Gamma \bigl( (d+1)/2 \bigr)$.
With the optimized shape function the anomalous dimension ${\eta_{\text{N}}}$ for the $R^d$ topology assumes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a.10}
{\eta_{\text{N}}}& =
- \frac{8 \pi \, v_d \, (d-2)}{d (d-1)} \, \, G_k \,
F_k''' (\phi_1)^2 \, \frac{k^{d+2} \, \phi_1^{(d+2) \nu}}{\left[ k^2 \phi_1^{2 \nu}
+ F_k'' (\phi_1) \right]^4\,}\end{aligned}$$ which reduces to in $4$ dimensions. In terms of the dimensionless quantities $g_k$ and $Y_k$ the equation reads, with $\varphi_1 = k^{1/\nu} \, \phi_1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a.11}
{\eta_{\text{N}}}\bigl( g_k, [Y_k] \bigr)
& =
- \frac{8 \pi \, v_d \, (d-2)}{d (d-1)} \, \, g_k \, Y_k''' (\varphi_1)^2 \, \frac{\varphi_1^{(d+2) \nu}}{\left[ \varphi_1^{2 \nu}
+ Y_k'' (\varphi_1) \right]^4\,}\end{aligned}$$ with the usual abbreviation $v_d \equiv \bigl[ 2^{d+1} \, \pi^{d/2} \, \Gamma (d/2) \bigr]^{-1}$.
[99]{} For a general introduction see C. Kiefer, *Quantum Gravity*, Second Edition,\
Oxford Science Publications, Oxford (2007). L. Rosenfeld, Ann. der Physik 5 (1930) 113; Z. für Physik 65 (1930) 589;\
M. Bronstein, Phys. Zeitschrift der Sowjetunion 9 (1936) 140. A. Ashtekar, *Lectures on non-perturbative canonical gravity*,\
World Scientific, Singapore (1991);\
A. Ashtekar and J. Lewandowski, Class. Quant. Grav. 21 (2004) R53. C. Rovelli, *Quantum Gravity*, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004). Th. Thiemann, *Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity*,\
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007). S. Weinberg in *General Relativity, an Einstein Centenary Survey*,\
S.W. Hawking and W. Israel (Eds.), Cambridge University Press (1979);\
S. Weinberg, hep-th/9702027. M. Reuter, Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 971 and hep-th/9605030. D. Dou and R. Percacci, Class. Quant. Grav. 15 (1998) 3449. O. Lauscher and M. Reuter, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 025013 and hep-th/0108040. M. Reuter and F. Saueressig, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 065016 and hep-th/0110054. O. Lauscher and M. Reuter, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 025026 and hep-th/0205062. O. Lauscher and M. Reuter, Class. Quant. Grav. 19 (2002) 483 and hep-th/0110021. O. Lauscher and M. Reuter, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 17 (2002) 993 and hep-th/0112089. W. Souma, Prog. Theor. Phys. 102 (1999) 181. M. Reuter and F. Saueressig, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 125001 and hep-th/0206145; Fortschr. Phys. 52 (2004) 650 and hep-th/0311056. A. Bonanno and M. Reuter, JHEP 02 (2005) 035 and hep-th/0410191. For reviews on QEG see: M. Reuter and F. Saueressig, arXiv:0708.1317 \[hep-th\];\
O. Lauscher and M. Reuter in *Quantum Gravity*, B. Fauser,\
J. Tolksdorf and E. Zeidler (Eds.), Birkhäuser, Basel (2007) and hep-th/0511260;\
O. Lauscher and M. Reuter in *Approaches to Fundamental Physics*,\
I.-O. Stamatescu and E. Seiler (Eds.), Springer, Berlin (2007). R. Percacci and D. Perini, Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 081503;\
Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 044018; Class. Quant. Grav. 21 (2004) 5035. A. Codello and R. Percacci, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 221301;\
A. Codello, R. Percacci and C. Rahmede, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A23 (2008) 143. D. Litim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 201301; AIP Conf. Proc. 841 (2006) 322;\
P. Fischer and D. Litim, Phys. Lett. B 638 (2006) 497;\
AIP Conf. Proc. 861 (2006) 336. P. Machado and F. Saueressig, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 124045. M. Reuter and H. Weyer, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 105005 and arXiv:0801.3287 \[hep-th\]. O. Lauscher and M. Reuter, JHEP 10 (2005) 050 and hep-th/0508202. M. Reuter and J.-M. Schwindt, JHEP 01 (2006) 070 and hep-th/0511021. M. Reuter and J.-M. Schwindt, JHEP 01 (2007) 049 and hep-th/0611294. J.-E. Daum and M. Reuter, preprint arXiv:0806.3907 \[hep-th\]. F. Neugebohrn, arXiv:0704.3205 \[hep-th\] P. Forgács and M. Niedermaier, hep-th/0207028;\
M. Niedermaier, JHEP 12 (2002) 066; Nucl. Phys. B 673 (2003) 131;\
Class. Quant. Grav. 24 (2007) R171. For detailed reviews of asymptotic safety in gravity see:\
M. Niedermaier and M. Reuter, Living Reviews in Relativity 9 (2006) 5;\
R. Percacci, arXiv:0709.3851 \[hep-th\]. L.F. Abbott, Nucl. Phys. B 185 (1981) 189;\
B.S. DeWitt, Phys. Rev. 162 (1967) 1195;\
M.T. Grisaru, P. van Nieuwenhuizen and C.C. Wu, Phys. Rev. D 12 (1975) 3203;\
D.M. Capper, J.J. Dulwich and M. Ramon Medrano, Nucl. Phys. B 254 (1985) 737;\
S.L. Adler, Rev. Mod. Phys. 54 (1982) 729. C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B 301 (1993) 90. M. Reuter and C. Wetterich,\
Nucl. Phys. B 417 (1994) 181, Nucl. Phys. B 427 (1994) 291,\
Nucl. Phys. B 391 (1993) 147, Nucl. Phys. B 408 (1993) 91;\
M. Reuter, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 4430, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 12 (1997) 2777. J. Berges, N. Tetradis and C. Wetterich, Phys. Rep. 363 (2002) 223;\
C. Wetterich, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 16 (2001) 1951. For reviews of the effective average action in Yang–Mills theory see:\
M. Reuter, hep-th/9602012; J. Pawlowski, Ann. Phys. 322 (2007) 2831;\
H. Gies, hep-ph/0611146. A. Bonanno and M. Reuter, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 043008 and hep-th/0002196; Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 083005 and hep-th/0602159;\
Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 084011 and gr-qc/9811026. M. Reuter and E. Tuiran, hep-th/0612037. A. Bonanno and M. Reuter, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 043508 and hep-th/0106133. M. Reuter and F. Saueressig, JCAP 09 (2005) 012 and hep-th/0507167. A. Bonanno and M. Reuter, Phys. Lett. B 527 (2002) 9 and astro-ph/0106468;\
Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 13 (2004) 107 and astro-ph/0210472;\
E. Bentivegna, A. Bonanno and M. Reuter,\
JCAP 01 (2004) 001 and astro-ph/0303150. A. Bonanno and M. Reuter, JCAP 08 (2007) 024 and arXiv:0706.0174 \[hep-th\]. A. Bonanno, G. Esposito and C. Rubano, Gen. Rel. Grav. 35 (2003) 1899;\
Class. Quant. Grav. 21 (2004) 5005;\
A. Bonanno, G. Esposito, C. Rubano and P. Scudellaro,\
Class. Quant. Grav. 23 (2006) 3103 and 24 (2007) 1443. M. Reuter and H. Weyer, Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 104022 and hep-th/0311196. M. Reuter and H. Weyer, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 124028 and hep-th/0410117. M. Reuter and H. Weyer, JCAP 12 (2004) 001 and hep-th/0410119. F. Girelli, S. Liberati, R. Percacci and C. Rahmede,\
Class. Quant. Grav. 24 (2007) 3995. D. Litim and T. Plehn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 131301. J. Moffat, JCAP 05 (2005) 2003;\
J.R. Brownstein and J. Moffat, Astrophys. J. 636 (2006) 721;\
Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 367 (2006) 527. J. Ambjørn, J. Jurkiewicz and R. Loll, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 131301. J. Ambjørn, J. Jurkiewicz and R. Loll, Phys. Lett. B 607 (2005) 205. J. Ambjørn, J. Jurkiewicz and R. Loll, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (2005) 171301;\
Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 064014; Contemp. Phys. 47 (2006) 103. A.M. Polyakov, Yad. Fiz. 64 (2001) 594\
$[$English Translation: Phys. Atom. Nucl. 64 (2001) 540$]$. R. Jackiw, C. Núñez and S.-Y. Pi, Phys. Lett. A 347 (2005) 47. R. Floreanini and R. Percacci, Nucl. Phys. B 436 (1995) 141;\
Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 1566. K. Symanzik, Nuovo Cim. Lett. 6 (1973) 77. For a historic account see: G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B 254 (1985) 11. O. Lauscher, M. Reuter and C. Wetterich,\
Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 125021 and hep-th/0006099. J.V. Narlikar and T. Padmanabhan,\
*Gravity, Gauge Theories and Quantum Cosmology*, D. Reidel, Dordrecht (1986), Chapter 12 and references therein. M.H. Goroff and A. Sagnotti, Phys. Lett. B 160 (1985) 81;\
A.E.M. van de Ven, Nucl. Phys. B 378 (1992) 309. E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 311 (1988) 46. M.A. Rubin and C.R. Ordóñez, J. Math. Phys. 25 (1984) 2888; 26 (1985) 65. D. Litim, Phys. Lett. B 486 (2000) 92; Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 105007;\
Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 16 (2001) 2081. K. Halpern and K. Huang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (1995) 3526;\
Phys. Rev D 53 (1996) 3252. A. Bonanno, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 027701;\
H. Gies, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 065011. T.R. Morris, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 1658; Phys. Lett. B 334 (1994) 355. G. Parisi, Nucl. Phys, B 100 (1975) 368; Nucl. Phys, B 254 (1985) 58;\
K. Gawedzki and A. Kupiainen, Nucl. Phys. B 262 (1985) 33;\
Phys. Rev. Lett. 54 (1985) 2191; Phys. Rev. Lett. 55 (1985) 363;\
B. Rosenstein, B.J. Warr and S.H. Park, Phys. Rept. 205 (1991) 59;\
C. de Calan, P.A. Faria da Veiga, L. Magnen and R. Sénéor,\
Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 (1991) 3233.
[^1]: Here and in the following the term “background independent”, put in quotation marks, means the absence of a preferred metric; in this sense the term is frequently used in loop quantum gravity [@A; @R; @T] or in the dynamical triangulation approach [@ajl1; @ajl2; @ajl34], for instance. Referring to the background field formalism, no quotation marks will be put.
[^2]: For earlier work in a similar spirit see ref. [@narpad].
[^3]: The gauge fixing issues we leave aside here. They are not important for the present discussion.
[^4]: Note that the first factor on the RHS of and , respectively, coincides exactly with the $S^4$ results and valid for $\varphi \gg 1$. The second factor $\int {\mathrm{d}}^4 x / \sigma_4$ takes the different volume normalizations in the two cases into account.
[^5]: Here we assume that the exponent $n$ of ${\Upsilon}_\theta \propto \varphi^n$ is real. At this point it is not clear though whether one should impose $n \in \mathds{R}$ or $\mathds{Z}$ or $\mathds{N}$, or one should allow all $n \in \mathds{C}$ even. We are going to discuss this issue of the proper choice for the $\{ Y (\,\cdot\,) \}$-function space in detail in Subsection \[s4.5\].
[^6]: If one tentatively applies the discussion to the real Universe one has $g_{\text{T}} \approx 10^{-60}$ [@h3; @entropy].
[^7]: The $I_2$-coupling , the constant piece in $Y_\ast$, is nonzero at least for $S^4$, see Fig. \[fixpot-s\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We show that in a tracial and finitely generated $W^\ast$-probability space existence of conjugate variables excludes algebraic relations for the generators. Moreover, under the assumption of maximal non-microstates free entropy dimension, we prove that there are no zero divisors in the sense that the product of any non-commutative polynomial in the generators with any element from the von Neumann algebra is zero if and only if at least one of those factors is zero. In particular, this shows that in this case the distribution of any non-constant self-adjoint non-commutative polynomial in the generators does not have atoms.
Questions on the absence of atoms for polynomials innon-commuting random variables (or for polynomials in random matrices) have been an open problem for quite a while. We solve this general problem by showing that maximality of free entropy dimension excludes atoms.
address:
- 'Universität des Saarlandes, FR $6.1-$Mathematik, 66123 Saarbrücken, Germany'
- 'Universität des Saarlandes, FR $6.1-$Mathematik, 66123 Saarbrücken, Germany'
- 'Universität des Saarlandes, FR $6.1-$Mathematik, 66123 Saarbrücken, Germany'
author:
- Tobias Mai
- Roland Speicher
- Moritz Weber
bibliography:
- 'zero\_divisors.bib'
title: 'Absence of algebraic relations and of zero divisors under the assumption of full non-microstates free entropy dimension'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
In a groundbreaking series of papers [@Voi-Entropy-I; @Voi-Entropy-II; @Voi-Entropy-III; @Voi-Entropy-IV; @Voi-Entropy-V; @Voi-Entropy-VI] (see also the survey [@Voi-Entropy-Surv]), Voiculescu transferred the notion of entropy and Fisher information to the world ofnon-commutative probability theory. Free entropy and free Fisher information are some of the core quantities in free probability theory, with fundamental importance both for operator algebraic and random matrix questions. One of the most striking results which came out of this program is arguably the proof of the fact [@Voi-Entropy-III] that the free group factors do not possess Cartan subalgebras. This gave in particular the solution of the by then longstanding open question, whether every separable $\text{II}_1$-factor contains Cartan subalgebras. But despite such deep results and applications, still many of the basic analytic properties of free entropy and Fisher information are poorly understood.
Voiculescu gave actually two different approaches to entropy and Fisher information in the non-commutative setting. The first one is based on the notion of matricial microstates and defines free entropy $\chi$ first and then, based on this, the free Fisher information $\Phi$; the second approach is based on the notion of conjugate variables with respect to certain non-commutative derivatives and defines free Fisher information $\Phi^\ast$ first and then, based on this, free entropy $\chi^\ast$. We want to note that both constructions lead independently to objects $\chi$ and $\chi^*$ (as well as $\Phi$ and $\Phi^*$) which are, in analogy with the classical theory, justifiably called entropy (and Fisher information), but it is still not known whether they coincide. For many questions the actual value of these quantities is not important, essential is whether they are finite or infinite. There exist also more refined quantities, so-called free entropy dimensions (again in various variations), which allow a further distinction of the case of infinite entropy. In particular, finiteness of free entropy or of free Fisher information implies that the microstates free entropy dimension $\delta^*$ takes on its maximal value.
In the classical case, finiteness of entropy or of Fisher information imply some regularity of the corresponding distribution of the variables; in particular, they have a density (with respect to Lebesgue measure). In the non-commutative situation, the notion of a density does not make any direct sense, but still it is believed that the existence of finite free entropy or finite free Fisher information (in any of the two approaches) should correspond to some regularity properties of the considered non-commutative distributions. Thus one expects many ”smooth" properties for random variables $X_1,\dots,X_n$ for which either one of the quantities $\chi(X_1,\dots,X_n)$, $\chi^*(X_1,\dots,X_n)$, $\Phi(X_1,\dots,X_n)$, or $\Phi^*(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ is finite. In particular, it is commonly expected that such a finiteness implies that
- there cannot exist non-trivial algebraic relations between the considered random variables;
- and that such algebraic relations can also not hold locally on non-trivial Hilbert subspaces; more formally this means that there are no zero divisors in the affiliated von Neumann algebra.
Up to now there has been no proof of such general statements. We will show here such results. In the first preprint version of this paper this was done under the assumption of finite non-microstates free Fisher information $\Phi^*(X_1\dots,X_n)$. Inspired by this, Shlyakhtenko could prove in [@Shly2014], by combining our ideas with his earlier work in [@Connes-Shlyakhtenko], our results under the weaker assumption of maximal non-microstates free entropy dimension $\delta^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n)=n$. In the light of this, we reexamined our original arguments and noticed that they can also be extended without much extra effort to this most general case.
Our work was originally inspired by the realization that in the usual approaches to conjugate variables one usually assumes that there exist no algebraic relations between the considered variables. Though this is not necessary for the definition of conjugate variables themselves, more advanced arguments (which rely on the existence of non-commutative derivative operators) only work in the absence of such algebraic relations. As alluded to above one actually expected that the existence of conjugate variables (and thus the finiteness of $\Phi^*$) implies the absence of such relations. But since this has not been shown up to now, there was a kind of an annoying gap in the theory. This gap will be closed in Section \[algebraic\_relations\].
It turned out that our ideas for this could also be extended to the much deeper question whether relations could hold locally; instead of asking whether for a non-trivial polynomial $P$ we can have algebraically $P(X_1,\dots,X_n)=0$, we weaken this to the question whether $P(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ could be zero on an affiliated Hilbert subspace; if $u$ denotes the projection onto this subspace, then this is the question whether we can have a zero divisor $u$ for $P(X_1,\dots,X_n)$, i.e., an element $u$ in the von Neumann algebra generated by $X_1,\dots,X_n$ such that $P(X_1,\dots,X_n)u=0$. We will show that already the condition $\delta^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n)=n$ for the non-microstates free entropy dimension excludes such zero divisors.
In particular, this result allows to conclude that the distribution of any non-trivial self-adjoint non-commutative polynomial in the generators does not have atoms, if the generators have full non-microstates free entropy dimension. Note that in a random matrix language this allows to conclude that the asymptotic eigenvalue distribution of polynomials in random matrices has, under the above assumption, no atomic parts. Questions on the absence of atoms for polynomials in non-commuting random variables (or for polynomials in random matrices) have been an open problem for quite a while. Only recently there was some progress on this in such generality; in [@Shlyakthenko-Skoufranis], Shlyakhtenko and Skoufranis showed that polynomials in free variables exhibit (under the assumption of no atoms for each of the variables) no atoms; here we give a vast generalization of this, by showing that not freeness is the crucial issue but maximality of free entropy dimension.
Existence of conjugate variables and absence of algebraic relations {#algebraic_relations}
===================================================================
Let ${\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle$ be the $\ast$-algebra of non-commutative polynomials in $n$ self-adjoint (formal) variables $Z_1,\dots,Z_n$. For $j=1,\dots,n$, we denote by $\partial_j$ the non-commutative derivative with respect to $Z_j$, i.e. $\partial_j$ is the unique derivation $$\partial_j:\ {\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle \to {\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle \otimes {\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle$$ that satisfies $\partial_j Z_i = \delta_{i,j} 1 \otimes 1$ for $i=1,\dots,n$.
Recall that a linear map $\delta: {\mathcal{A}}\rightarrow {\mathcal{M}}$, which is defined on a complex unital algebra ${\mathcal{A}}$ and takes its values in a ${\mathcal{A}}$-bimodule ${\mathcal{M}}$, is called a derivation if it satisfies the Leibniz rule $$\delta(a_1 a_2) = \delta(a_1) \cdot a_2 + a_1 \cdot \delta(a_2) \qquad\text{for all $a_1,a_2\in{\mathcal{A}}$}.$$
In particular, being a derivation means for $\partial_j$ that $$\label{derivation-def}
\partial_j (P_1 P_2) = (\partial_j P_1) (1 \otimes P_2) + (P_1 \otimes 1) (\partial_j P_2)$$ holds for all $P_1,P_2\in {\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle$. According to the ${\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle$-bimodule structure of ${\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle \otimes {\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle$, we will often abbreviate to $$\partial_j (P_1 P_2) = (\partial_j P_1) P_2 + P_1 (\partial_j P_2).$$
More explicitly, $\partial_j$ acts on monomials $P$ as $$\partial_j P = \sum_{P = P_1 Z_j P_2} P_1 \otimes P_2,$$ where the sum runs over all decompositions $P=P_1Z_jP_2$ of $P$ with monomials $P_1,P_2$.
We record here the easy but useful observation that each derivation $\delta: {\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle \rightarrow {\mathcal{M}}$ taking values in any ${\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle$-bimodule ${\mathcal{M}}$ is determined by its values $\delta(Z_1),\dots,\delta(Z_n)$, which can be expressed explicitly by $$\label{derivation-uniqueness}
\delta(P) = \sum^n_{j=1} \partial_j(P) \sharp \delta(Z_j) \qquad\text{for all $P\in{\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle$}.$$ Here, we stipulate that, whenever ${\mathcal{M}}$ is an ${\mathcal{A}}$-bimodule, the symbol $\sharp$ denotes the mapping $\sharp: {\mathcal{A}}\otimes{\mathcal{A}}\times {\mathcal{M}}\to {\mathcal{M}}$, which is determined by bilinear extension of $(a_1 \otimes a_2)\sharp m := a_1 \cdot m \cdot a_2$.
Throughout the following, let $(M,\tau)$ be a tracial $W^\ast$-probability space, which means that $M$ is a von Neumann algebra and $\tau$ is a faithful normal tracial state on $M$. For selfadjoint $X_1,\dots,X_n\in M$ we denote by ${\operatorname{vN}}(X_1,\dots,X_n)\subset M$ the von Neumann subalgebra of $M$ which is generated by $X_1,\dots,X_n$ and by $L^2(X_1,\dots,X_n,\tau)\subset L^2(M,\tau)$ the $L^2$-space which is generated by $X_1,\dots,X_n$ with respect to the inner product given by $\langle P,Q\rangle:=\tau(PQ^*)$.
In the following, we will denote by ${\operatorname{ev}}_X$, for a given $n$-tuple $X=(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ of self-adjoint elements of $M$, the homomorphism $${\operatorname{ev}}_X:\ {\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle \rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle \subset M$$ given by evaluation at $X=(X_1,\dots,X_n)$, i.e. the homomorphism ${\operatorname{ev}}_X$ is determined by $Z_i \mapsto X_i$.
For reasons of clarity, we put $P(X) := {\operatorname{ev}}_X(P)$ for any $P\in {\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle$ and $Q(X) := ({\operatorname{ev}}_X \otimes {\operatorname{ev}}_X)(Q)$ for any $Q\in{\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle^{\otimes 2}$.
\[conjugate\_system\] Let $X_1,\dots,X_n\in M$ be self-adjoint elements. If there are elements $\xi_1,\dots,\xi_n\in L^2(M,\tau)$, such that $$\label{conjugate_relations}
(\tau\otimes\tau)((\partial_jP)(X_1,\dots,X_n)) = \tau(\xi_j P(X_1,\dots,X_n))$$ is satisfied for each non-commutative polynomial $P\in{\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle$ and for $j=1,\dots,n$, then we say that $(\xi_1,\dots,\xi_n)$ *satisfies the conjugate relations for $(X_1,\dots,X_n)$*.
If, in addition, $\xi_1,\dots,\xi_n$ belong to $L^2(X_1,\dots,X_n,\tau)$, we say that $(\xi_1,\dots,\xi_n)$ is the *conjugate system for $(X_1,\dots,X_n)$*.
Like in the usual setting, we have the following.
Let $\pi$ be the orthogonal projection from $L^2(M,\tau)$ to $L^2(X_1,\dots,X_n,\tau)$. It is easy to see that if $(\xi_1,\dots,\xi_n)$ satisfies the conjugate relations for $(X_1,\dots,X_n)$, then $(\pi(\xi_1),\dots,\pi(\xi_n))$ satisfies the conjugate relations for $(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ as well, and is therefore a conjugate system for $(X_1,\dots,X_n)$.
It is an easy consequence of its defining property that a conjugate system $(\xi_1,\dots,\xi_n)$ for $(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ is unique if it exists.
Note that our notion of conjugate relations and conjugate variables differs from the usual definition which was given by Voiculescu in [@Voi-Entropy-V], roughly speaking, just by the placement of brackets. To be more precise, in , we first apply the derivative $\partial_j$ to the given non-commutative polynomial $P$ before we apply the evaluation at $X=(X_1,\dots,X_n)$, instead of applying the evaluation first, which consequently makes it necessary to have in the second step a well-defined derivation on ${\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle$ corresponding to $\partial_j$.
From a more abstract point of view, this idea is in the same spirit as [@Shly2000 Lemma 3.2] but only on a purely algebraic level. In fact, we used the surjective homomorphism ${\operatorname{ev}}_X: {\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle \rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle$ in order to pass from $({\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle,\tau)$ to the non-commutative probability space $({\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle,\tau_X)$, where $\tau_X := \tau\circ{\operatorname{ev}}_X$. Due to this lifting, the algebraic relations between the generators disappear whereas the relevant information about their joint distribution remains unchanged.
In this section, our aim is to show that the existence of a conjugate system guarantees that $X_1,\dots,X_n$ do not satisfy any algebraic relations. This will be the content of Theorem \[main1\] below. Its proof proceeds in two steps, which are performed in the following two propositions.
\[key-prop-1\] Let $(M,\tau)$ be a tracial $W^\ast$-probability space and let self-adjoint $X_1,\dots,X_n\in M$ be given. Assume that there are elements $\xi_1,\dots,\xi_n\in L^2(M,\tau)$, such that $(\xi_1,\dots,\xi_n)$ satisfies the conjugate relations for $X=(X_1,\dots,X_n)$.
Then the following implication holds true for any non-commutative polynomial $P\in {\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle$: $$\label{reduction}
P(X) = 0 \quad\Longrightarrow\quad \forall j=1,\dots,n:\ (\partial_j P)(X) = 0$$
Before beginning with the proof, let us introduce a binary operation $\sharp$ on the algebraic tensor product $M \otimes M$ by bilinear extension of $$(a_1 \otimes a_2) \sharp (b_1 \otimes b_2) := (a_1 b_1) \otimes (b_2 a_2).$$ Note that, since $M \otimes M$ is naturally a $M$-bimodule, this corresponds exactly to our earlier definition of $\sharp$ and will therefore not lead to any confusion.
Assume that $P\in {\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle$ satisfies $P(X)=0$ for $X=(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ and choose any $j=1,\dots,n$. If we take arbitrary $P_1,P_2\in {\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle$, we have by iterating the product rule twice that $$\partial_j (P_1 P P_2) = (\partial_j P_1) P P_2 + P_1 P (\partial_j P_2) + P_1 (\partial_j P) P_2$$ and therefore, by evaluating this identity at $X$ and applying $\tau\otimes\tau$ subsequently, $$(\tau \otimes \tau)\big((\partial_j (P_1 P P_2))(X)\big) = (\tau \otimes \tau)(P_1(X) (\partial_j P)(X) P_2(X)).$$ Furthermore, according to , we may deduce that $$(\tau \otimes \tau)\big((\partial_j (P_1 P P_2))(X)\big) = \tau(\xi_j (P_1 P P_2)(X)) = 0.$$ Thus, we observe that $$(\tau \otimes \tau)((P_1 \otimes P_2)(X) \sharp (\partial_j P)(X)) = (\tau \otimes \tau)(P_1(X) (\partial_j P)(X) P_2(X)) = 0$$ for all $P_1,P_2 \in {\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle$ and hence by linearity $$(\tau \otimes \tau)(Q(X) \sharp (\partial_j P)(X)) = 0$$ for all $Q\in {\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle^{\otimes 2}$. If we apply this observation to $Q = (\partial_j P)^\ast$, the faithfulness of $\tau\otimes\tau$ (recall that $\tau$ was assumed to be faithful) implies $(\partial_j P)(X) = 0$, as claimed.
The second proposition shows now that the validity of is already sufficient to exclude algebraic relations.
\[key-prop-2\] Let $(M,\tau)$ be a tracial $W^\ast$-probability space and let self-adjoint $X_1,\dots,X_n\in M$ be given, such that holds.
Then the non-commutative random variables $X_1,\dots,X_n$ do not satisfy any non-trivial algebraic relation, i.e., if $P(X_1,\dots,X_n) = 0$ holds for any non-commutative polynomial $P \in {\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle$, then we must have $P=0$.
For $j=1,\dots,n$, we may define $\Delta_j := ((\tau\circ{\operatorname{ev}}_X)\otimes{\operatorname{id}}) \circ \partial_j$, which gives a linear mapping $$\Delta_j:\ {\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle \rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle.$$ The assumption yields then that for any $P\in{\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle$ the implication $$\label{reduction-reduced}
P(X) = 0 \quad\Longrightarrow\quad \forall j=1,\dots,n:\ (\Delta_j P)(X) = 0.$$ holds true with $X=(X_1,\dots,X_n)$.
Assume now that there is any non-zero polynomial $P\in{\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle$ such that $P(X_1,\dots,X_n)=0$ holds, for instance $$P(Z_1,\dots,Z_n) = a_0 + \sum_{k=1}^d \sum_{i_1,\dots,i_k = 1}^n a_{i_1,\dots,i_k} Z_{i_1} \dots Z_{i_k},$$ where $d\geq1$ denotes the total degree of $P$. We choose any summand of highest degree $$a_{i_1,\dots,i_d} Z_{i_1} \dots Z_{i_d}$$ of $P$. Since $\Delta_{i_d} \dots \Delta_{i_1}$ is clearly zero on constants, any monomial of degree strictly less than $d$, and furthermore on any monomial of degree $d$, where the variables do not appear in the prescribed order, we see that $\Delta_{i_d} \dots \Delta_{i_1} P = a_{i_1,\dots,i_d}$. Hence, we deduce by iterating $$a_{i_1,\dots,i_n} = (\Delta_{i_d} \dots \Delta_{i_1} P)(X) = 0,$$ which finally leads to a contradiction. Therefore, we must have $P=0$, which concludes the proof.
Combining the above Proposition \[key-prop-1\] with Proposition \[key-prop-2\] leads us now directly to the following theorem.
\[main1\] As before, let $(M,\tau)$ be a tracial $W^\ast$-probability space. Let $X_1,\dots,X_n\in M$ be self-adjoint and assume that there are elements $\xi_1,\dots,\xi_n\in L^2(M,\tau)$, such that $(\xi_1,\dots,\xi_n)$ satisfies the conjugate relations for $(X_1,\dots,X_n)$, i.e. holds for $j=1,\dots,n$. Then we have the following statements:
- $X_1,\dots,X_n$ do not satisfy any non-trivial algebraic relation, i.e. there exists no non-zero polynomial $P\in{\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle$ such that $P(X_1,\dots,X_n)=0$.
- For $j=1,\dots,n$, there is a unique derivation $$\hat{\partial}_j:\ {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle \rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle \otimes {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle$$ which satisfies $\hat{\partial}_j(X_i) = \delta_{j,i} 1 \otimes 1$ for $i=1,\dots,n$.
Note that part (b) is an immediate consequence of part (a): Since (a) tells us that the evaluation homomorphism ${\operatorname{ev}}_X$ is in fact an isomorphism, we can immediately define a non-commutative derivation $$\hat{\partial}_j:\ {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle \rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle \otimes {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle,$$ where the terminology derivation has to be understood with respect to the ${\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle$-bimodule structure of ${\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle^{\otimes 2}$. The uniqueness can be deduced from ; see also Proposition \[derivatives\_relations\] in the appendix.
Following [@Voi-Entropy-V], we may proceed now by defining (non-microstates) free Fisher information.
Let $(M,\tau)$ be a tracial $W^\ast$-probability space and let self-adjoint elements $X_1,\dots,X_n \in M$ be given. We define their *(non-microstates) free Fisher information $\Phi^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n)$* by $$\Phi^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n) := \sum^n_{j=1} \|\xi_j\|_2^2$$ if a conjugate system $(\xi_1,\dots,\xi_n)$ for $(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ in the sense of Definition \[conjugate\_system\] exists, and we put $\Phi^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n) := \infty$ if no such conjugate system for $(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ exists.
This $\Phi^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ is just the usual non-microstates free Fisher information as defined in [@Voi-Entropy-V]. However, we have now the advantage that it can be defined even without assuming the algebraic freeness of $X_1,\dots,X_n$ right from the beginning. Actually, our result can now be stated as follows: $\Phi^*(X_1,\dots,X_n)<\infty$ implies the absence of algebraic relations between $X_1,\dots,X_n$.
Let $(M,\tau)$ be a $W^\ast$-probability space and let self-adjoint elements $X_1,\dots,X_n\in M$ be given such that the condition $\Phi^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n) < \infty$ is fulfilled. Part (a) of Theorem \[main1\] tells us then that $X_1,\dots,X_n$ do not satisfy any algebraic relation, which in other words means that the evaluation homomorphism ${\operatorname{ev}}_X$ induces an isomorphism between the abstract polynomial algebra ${\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots, Z_n\rangle$ and the subalgebra ${\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle$ of $M$. Thus, each of the non-commutative derivatives $$\hat{\partial}_j:\ {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle \rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle \otimes {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle,$$ whose existence is claimed in part (b) of Theorem \[main1\], is naturally induced under this identification by the corresponding non-commutative derivative $\partial_j$ on ${\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle$. Due to this strong relationship, we do not have to distinguish anymore between $\partial_j$ and $\hat{\partial}_j$.
We finish this section by noting that $\Phi^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n)<\infty$ moreover excludes analytic relations. More precisely, this means that there is no non-zero non-commutative power series $P$, which is convergent on a polydisc $$D_R:=\{(Y_1,\dots,Y_n)\in M^n|\ \forall j=1,\dots,n:\ \|Y_j\| < R\}$$ for some $R>0$, such that $(X_1,\dots,X_n)\in D_R$ and $P(X_1,\dots,X_n)=0$. Based on Voiculescu’s original definition of the non-microstates free Fisher information and hence under the additional assumption that $X_1,\dots,X_n$ are algebraically free, this was shown by Dabrowski in [@Dab-free_stochastic_PDE Lemma 37].
Non-microstates free entropy dimension and zero divisors
========================================================
Inspired by the methods used in the proof of Theorem \[main1\], we address now the more general question of existence of zero divisors under the assumption of full non-microstates free entropy dimension.
First of all, we shall make more precise what we mean by this. We postpone the definition of the non-microstates free entropy dimension $\delta^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ and related quantities to Subsection \[subsec:definitions\], but we state here the result that we aim to prove.
\[main2\] Let $(M,\tau)$ be a tracial $W^\ast$-probability space. Furthermore, let $X_1,\dots,X_n \in M$ be self-adjoint elements and assume that $\delta^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n) = n$ holds.
Then, for any non-zero non-commutative polynomial $P$, there exists no non-zero element $w\in{\operatorname{vN}}(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ such that $$P(X_1,\dots,X_n) w = 0.$$
Recall that to each element $X=X^\ast\in M$ corresponds a unique probability measure $\mu_X$ on the real line ${\mathbb{R}}$, which has the same moments as $X$, i.e. it satisfies $$\tau(X^k) = \int_{\mathbb{R}}t^k\, d\mu_X(t) \qquad\text{for $k=0,1,2,\dots$}.$$ It is an immediate consequence of Theorem \[main2\] that the distribution $\mu_{P(X_1,\dots,X_n)}$ of $P(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ for any non-constant self-adjoint polynomial $P$ cannot have atoms, if $\delta^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n)=n$. The precise statement reads as follows.
\[cor-main2\] Let $(M,\tau)$ be a tracial $W^\ast$-probability space and let $X_1,\dots,X_n \in M$ be self-adjoint with $\delta^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n)=n$.
Then, for any non-constant self-adjoint non-commutative polynomial $P$, the distribution $\mu_{P(X_1,\dots,X_n)}$ of $P(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ does not have atoms.
Indeed, any atom $\alpha$ of the distribution $\mu_{P(X_1,\dots,X_n)}$, i.e. any $\alpha\in{\mathbb{R}}$ satisfying $\mu_{P(X_1,\dots,X_n)}(\{\alpha\})\neq 0$, leads by the spectral theorem for bounded self-adjoint operators on Hilbert spaces to a non-zero projection $u$ satisfying $(P(X_1,\dots,X_n) - \alpha 1)u = 0$. Thus, applying Theorem \[main2\] yields immediately the statement of Corollary \[cor-main2\].
We point out that the conclusions of both Theorem \[main2\] and Corollary \[cor-main2\] were shown under the stronger assumption of finite non-microstates free Fisher information in an earlier version of this paper. In the above stated generality they appeared first in [@Shly2014], where the proof is based on results from [@Connes-Shlyakhtenko]. We are going to prove those statements in a more direct way by refining our initial methods.
More precisely, in Subsection \[subsec:finite\_Fisher\], we will give a quantitative version of our key idea that under the assumption of finite non-microstates Fisher information there is a strong relation between kernels of polynomials and the kernels of their derivatives.
Since the semicircular perturbation is inherent in the definition of the non-microstates free entropy as well as the corresponding entropy dimension, we find ourselves in the setting of finite free Fisher information. Therefore, we will study in Subsection \[subsec:entropy\_dimension\] the behavior of the results found in Subsection \[subsec:finite\_Fisher\] under semicircular perturbations – roughly speaking, we will be interested in the case where the perturbation tends to zero.
Finally, in Subsection \[subsec:proof\_thm\], which is dedicated to the proof of Theorem \[main2\], we will deduce from this observation a certain reduction argument that allows us to reduce successively the degree of the polynomial $P$ satisfying the conditions of Theorem \[main2\].
Non-microstates free entropy and free entropy dimension {#subsec:definitions}
-------------------------------------------------------
We want to catch up now on the definition of the non-microstates free entropy dimension.
Let $(M,\tau)$ be a tracial $W^\ast$-probability space and let self-adjoint elements $X_1,\dots,X_n\in M$ be given.
By possibly enlarging $(M,\tau)$, we may always assume that $(M,\tau)$ contains additionally semicircular elements $S_1,\dots,S_n$ such that $$\{X_1,\dots,X_n\}, \{S_1\}, \dots, \{S_n\}$$ are freely independent. Indeed, this can be done by replacing $(M,\tau)$ by the free product $(M,\tau) \ast_{\mathbb{C}}(L({\mathbb{F}}_n),\tau_n)$ of $(M,\tau)$ with the free group factor $(L({\mathbb{F}}_n),\tau_n)$.
Following Voiculescu [@Voi-Entropy-V], we define the *non-microstates free entropy* $\chi^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ of $X_1,\dots,X_n$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\chi^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n)}\\
&\quad := \frac{1}{2} \int^\infty_0\Big(\frac{n}{1+t}-\Phi^\ast(X_1+\sqrt{t}S_1,\dots,X_n+\sqrt{t}S_n)\Big)\, dt + \frac{n}{2}\log(2\pi e).\end{aligned}$$ We need to note that the function $$t\mapsto \Phi^\ast(X_1+\sqrt{t}S_1,\dots,X_n+\sqrt{t}S_n)$$ is well-defined, since [@Voi-Entropy-V Corollary 3.9] tells us that there exists a conjugate system of $(X_1+\sqrt{t}S_n,\dots,X_n+\sqrt{t}S_n)$ for all $t>0$. Moreover, we have the inequalities (cf. [@Voi-Entropy-V Corollary 6.14]) $$\label{eq:Fisher_perturbation}
\frac{n^2}{C^2 + nt} \leq \Phi^\ast(X_1+\sqrt{t}S_1,\dots,X_n+\sqrt{t}S_n) \leq \frac{n}{t} \quad\text{for all $t>0$},$$ where $C^2 := \tau(X_1^2 + \dots + X_n^2)$. The left inequality in particularly implies that (cf. [@Voi-Entropy-V Proposition 7.2]) $$\chi^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n) \leq \frac{n}{2}\log(2\pi e n^{-1} C^2).$$
This allows to define the *non-microstates free entropy dimension* $\delta^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ by $$\delta^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n) := n - \liminf_{{\varepsilon}\searrow 0} \frac{\chi^\ast(X_1+\sqrt{{\varepsilon}}S_1,\dots,X_n+\sqrt{{\varepsilon}}S_n)}{\log(\sqrt{{\varepsilon}})}.$$
We note that there is actually a variant of $\delta^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n)$, given by $$\hat\delta^\star(X_1,\dots,X_n) := n - \liminf_{t\searrow0} t \Phi^\ast(X_1+\sqrt{t}S_1,\dots,X_n+\sqrt{t}S_n),$$ which is formally obtained by applying L’Hospital’s rule to the $\liminf$ appearing in the definition of $\delta^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n)$. In [@Connes-Shlyakhtenko], where $\hat\delta^\star$ was introduced, it was denoted by $\delta^\star$; we have slightly changed the notation for better legibility. Due to , we have that $0 \leq \hat\delta^\star(X_1,\dots,X_n) \leq n$.
It was already mentioned in [@Shly2014] that $\delta^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n)=n$ or even $\hat\delta^\star(X_1,\dots,X_n)=n$ are the weakest possible assumptions where we can expect a version of Theorem \[main2\] to hold true. Accordingly, it sits at the end of a longer chain of general implications, namely $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n) < \infty & \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \chi^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n) > - \infty\\
& \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \delta^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n)=n\\
& \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \hat\delta^\star(X_1,\dots,X_n)=n.\end{aligned}$$ The first implication follows by definition of $\chi^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n)$, the second implication is a direct consequence of the definition of $\delta^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n)$, and the last implication is justified by $\hat\delta^\star(X_1,\dots,X_n) \geq \delta^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n),$ which was shown in [@Connes-Shlyakhtenko Lemma 4.1] by a straightforward computation.
The case of finite non-microstates free Fisher information revisited {#subsec:finite_Fisher}
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $(M,\tau)$ be a tracial $W^\ast$-probability space and let $X_1,\dots,X_n \in M$ be self-adjoint with $\Phi^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n) < \infty$.
As we have seen in Section \[algebraic\_relations\], those conditions guarantee that, for $j=1,\dots,n$, there exists a unique derivation $$\partial_j:\ {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle \rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle \otimes {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle,$$ which is determined by the condition $\partial_j X_i = \delta_{i,j} 1 \otimes 1$ for $i=1,\dots,n$. For each $j=1,\dots,n$, we may consider $\partial_j$ as a densely defined unbounded linear operator $$\partial_j:\ L^2(X_1,\dots,X_n,\tau) \supseteq D(\partial_j) \rightarrow L^2(X_1,\dots,X_n, \tau \otimes \tau)$$ with domain $D(\partial_j) := {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle$. Note that as $L^2(X_1,\dots,X_n,\tau)$ stands for the closure of ${\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle$ in $L^2(M,\tau)$, the closure of ${\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle^{\otimes 2}$ in the $L^2$-space $L^2(M \overline{\otimes} M,\tau \otimes \tau)$, constructed over the von Neumann algebra tensor product $M \overline{\otimes} M$ of $M$ with itself, is denoted here by $L^2(X_1,\dots,X_n,\tau \otimes \tau)$.
Since due to $\Phi^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n) < \infty$ a conjugate system $(\xi_1,\dots,\xi_n)$ for $(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ exists, we see by that $1 \otimes 1$ belongs to the domain of definition of the adjoints $\partial_1^\ast,\dots,\partial_n^\ast$ and that $\xi_j = \partial_j^\ast(1 \otimes 1)$ holds for $j=1,\dots,n$.
The subsequent considerations will be based on several well-known facts about those operators $\partial_j$, which we collect here for reader’s convenience.
\[Voi-formula\] Let $(M,\tau)$ be a tracial $W^\ast$-probability space. If $X_1,\dots,X_n \in M$ are self-adjoint with $\Phi^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n) < \infty$, then we have for $j=1,\dots,n$ that $${\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle \otimes {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle \subseteq D(\partial_j^\ast),$$ i.e. $\partial_j^\ast$ is densely defined as well and thus $\partial_j$ is closable. More explicitly, we have for each $Y\in {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle^{\otimes 2}$ the formula $$\partial_j^\ast(Y) = m_{\xi_j}(Y) - m_1({\operatorname{id}}\otimes\tau\otimes{\operatorname{id}})(\partial_j\otimes{\operatorname{id}}+{\operatorname{id}}\otimes\partial_j)(Y).$$
Here, for any $\eta\in L^2(M,\tau)$, we denote by $m_\eta$ the linear operator $m_\eta: M\otimes M \rightarrow L^2(M,\tau)$ defined on the algebraic tensor product $M\otimes M$, which is given by $m_\eta(a_1 \otimes a_2) := a_1\eta a_2$. And thus of course, $m_1(a_1\otimes a_2)=a_1a_2$.
The lemma above allows us to conclude that in particular $$\label{conjugate_formulas}
\begin{aligned}
\partial_j^\ast(P\otimes 1) &= P \xi_j - ({\operatorname{id}}\otimes\tau)(\partial_j P),\\
\partial_j^\ast(1\otimes P) &= \xi_j P - (\tau\otimes{\operatorname{id}})(\partial_j P)
\end{aligned}$$ holds for $j=1,\dots,n$ and any $P\in{\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle$.
\[Dab-estimates\] Let $(M,\tau)$ be a tracial $W^\ast$-probability space. If $X_1,\dots,X_n \in M$ are self-adjoint such that the condition $\Phi^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n) < \infty$ is satisfied, then we have for each $P\in{\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle$ that $$\label{Dab-estimates-1}
\begin{aligned}
\|P \xi_j - ({\operatorname{id}}\otimes\tau)(\partial_j P)\|_2 &\leq \|\xi_j\|_2 \|P\|,\\
\|\xi_j P - (\tau\otimes{\operatorname{id}})(\partial_j P)\|_2 &\leq \|\xi_j\|_2 \|P\|
\end{aligned}$$ and therefore $$\label{Dab-estimates-2}
\begin{aligned}
\|({\operatorname{id}}\otimes\tau)(\partial_j P)\|_2 &\leq 2\|\xi_j\|_2 \|P\|,\\
\|(\tau\otimes{\operatorname{id}})(\partial_j P)\|_2 &\leq 2\|\xi_j\|_2 \|P\|.
\end{aligned}$$
Note that Lemma \[Dab-estimates\] is actually a slight extension of Lemma 12 in [@Dab-Gamma], since we added in and each time the second estimates. In fact, they can be easily deduced from the first estimates by using the more general identity $$\label{duality}
(\tau\otimes{\operatorname{id}})(P_1 (\partial_i P_2))^\ast = ({\operatorname{id}}\otimes\tau)((\partial_i P_2^\ast) P_1^\ast)$$ for all $P_1,P_2\in{\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle$, which itself can easily be checked on monomials.
Moreover, we note that thanks to , the inequalities in can be rewritten in the following way: $$\label{conjugate_norms}
\begin{aligned}
\|\partial_j^\ast(P \otimes 1)\|_2 &\leq \|\xi_j\|_2 \|P\|\\
\|\partial_j^\ast(1 \otimes P)\|_2 &\leq \|\xi_j\|_2 \|P\|
\end{aligned}$$
We will need the following extension of and of .
\[key-estimates\] In the situation described above, the following holds true:
- For all $Y_1,Y_2\in {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle$, we have for $i=1,\dots,n$ that $$\|\partial_i^\ast(Y_1 \otimes Y_2)\|_2 \leq 3 \|\xi_i\|_2 \|Y_1\| \|Y_2\|.$$
- For all $Y_1,Y_2\in {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle$, we have for $i=1,\dots,n$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\|({\operatorname{id}}\otimes\tau)((\partial_i Y_1) 1 \otimes Y_2)\|_2 & \leq 4 \|\xi_i\|_2 \|Y_1\| \|Y_2\|,\\
\|(\tau\otimes{\operatorname{id}})(Y_1 \otimes 1 (\partial_i Y_2))\|_2 & \leq 4 \|\xi_i\|_2 \|Y_1\| \|Y_2\|.\end{aligned}$$
According to Voiculescu’s formula, which we recalled in Lemma \[Voi-formula\], we have for all $Y_1,Y_2 \in {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_i^\ast (Y_1 \otimes Y_2)
&= Y_1 \xi_i Y_2 - m_1({\operatorname{id}}\otimes\tau\otimes{\operatorname{id}})(\partial_i \otimes {\operatorname{id}}+ {\operatorname{id}}\otimes \partial_i) (Y_1 \otimes Y_2)\\
&= Y_1 \xi_i Y_2 - ({\operatorname{id}}\otimes\tau)(\partial_i Y_1) Y_2 - Y_1 (\tau\otimes{\operatorname{id}})(\partial_i Y_2)\\
&= \partial_i^\ast(Y_1 \otimes 1) Y_2 - Y_1 (\tau\otimes{\operatorname{id}})(\partial_i Y_2)\\
&= \partial_i^\ast(Y_1 \otimes 1) Y_2 - Y_1 ({\operatorname{id}}\otimes\tau)(\partial_i Y_2^\ast)^\ast\end{aligned}$$ and thus, by applying the estimates and , that $$\begin{aligned}
\|\partial_i^\ast(Y_1 \otimes Y_2)\|_2
&\leq \|\partial_i^\ast(Y_1 \otimes 1)\|_2 \|Y_2\| + \|Y_1\| \|({\operatorname{id}}\otimes\tau)(\partial_i Y_2^\ast)\|_2\\
&\leq 3 \|\xi_i\|_2 \|Y_1\| \|Y_2\|.\end{aligned}$$ This shows the validity of (a). For proving (b), we first follow the idea of “integration by parts” in order to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
({\operatorname{id}}\otimes\tau)((\partial_i Y_1) 1 \otimes Y_2)
&= ({\operatorname{id}}\otimes\tau)(\partial_i(Y_1 Y_2)) - ({\operatorname{id}}\otimes\tau)(Y_1 \otimes 1 (\partial_i Y_2))\\
&= ({\operatorname{id}}\otimes\tau)(\partial_i(Y_1 Y_2)) - Y_1 ({\operatorname{id}}\otimes\tau)(\partial_i Y_2)\end{aligned}$$ for arbitrary $Y_1,Y_2\in{\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle$. From this, we can easily deduce by using that $$\begin{aligned}
\|({\operatorname{id}}\otimes\tau)(&(\partial_i Y_1) 1 \otimes Y_2)\|_2\\
&\leq \|({\operatorname{id}}\otimes\tau)(\partial_i(Y_1 Y_2))\|_2 + \|Y_1\| \|({\operatorname{id}}\otimes\tau)(\partial_i Y_2)\|_2\\
&\leq 4 \|\xi_i\|_2 \|Y_1\| \|Y_2\|\end{aligned}$$ which is the first inequality. The second inequality can be proven similarly.
We will also need the following easy application of Kaplansky’s density theorem.
\[approximation\] For any $w=w^\ast\in{\operatorname{vN}}(X_1,\dots,X_n)$, there exists a sequence $(w_k)_{k\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ of elements in ${\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle$ such that:
- $w_k = w_k^\ast$
- $\displaystyle{\sup_{k\in{\mathbb{N}}} \|w_k\| \leq \|w\|}$
- $\|w_k-w\|_2 \rightarrow 0$ for $k\rightarrow\infty$
First of all, we note that in order to prove the statement, it suffices to prove existence of a sequence $(w_k)_{k\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ of elements in ${\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle$, which satisfy only conditions (ii) and (iii). Indeed, if we replace in this case $w_k$ by its real part $\Re(w_k)=\frac{1}{2}(w_k+w_k^\ast)$, conditions (ii) and (iii) are still valid, but we have achieved condition (i) in addition.
For proving existence under these weaker conditions, we may apply Kaplansky’s density theorem. This guarantees the existence of a sequence $(w_k)_{k\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ of elements in ${\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle$, such that $\|w_k\| \leq \|w\|$ for all $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$, which particularly implies (ii), and which converges to $w$ in the strong operator topology. It remains to note that, with respect to the weak operator topology, $w_k^\ast w \rightarrow w^\ast w$, $w^\ast w_k \rightarrow w^\ast w$, and $w_k^\ast w_k \rightarrow w^\ast w$ as $k\rightarrow\infty$, such that according to the continuity of $\tau$ $$\begin{aligned}
\|w_k-w\|_2^2 &= \tau((w_k-w)^\ast(w_k-w))\\
&= \tau(w_k^\ast w_k) - \tau(w_k^\ast w) - \tau(w^\ast w_k) + \tau(w^\ast w)\end{aligned}$$ tends to $0$ as $k\rightarrow 0$, which shows (iii) and thus concludes the proof.
The main result of this subsection is the following proposition. There, we will use the projective norm $\|\cdot\|_\pi$ on ${\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle^{\otimes 2}$, which is given by $$\|Q\|_\pi := \inf\bigg\{\sum^N_{k=1} \|Q_{k,1}\| \|Q_{k,2}\|\bigg|\ Q = \sum^N_{k=1} Q_{k,1} \otimes Q_{k,2}\bigg\}$$ for any $Q\in {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle^{\otimes 2}$, where the infimum is taken over all possible decompositions of $Q$ with $Q_{k,1},Q_{k,2}\in{\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle$ for $k=1,\dots,N$ and some $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$.
Whenever it becomes necessary to mention explicitly the dependence of $\|\cdot\|_\pi$ on the underlying set of generators $X=(X_1,\dots,X_n)$, we will also write $\|\cdot\|_{\pi,X}$ instead of $\|\cdot\|_\pi$.
\[Fisher-bound\] Let $(M,\tau)$ be a tracial $W^\ast$-probability space and let self-adjoint elements $X_1,\dots,X_n\in M$ be given such that the condition $\Phi^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n) < \infty$ is satisfied. Let $(\xi_1,\dots,\xi_n)$ be the conjugate system for $(X_1,\dots,X_n)$. Then, for all $P\in{\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n \rangle$ and all $u,v\in{\operatorname{vN}}(X_1,\dots,X_n)$, we have $$\label{eq:Fisher-bound}
|\langle v^\ast (\partial_i P) u, Q\rangle| \leq 4 \|\xi_i\|_2 \bigl(\|Pu\|_2 \|v\| + \|u\| \|P^\ast v\|_2\bigr) \|Q\|_\pi$$ for all $Q\in {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle^{\otimes 2}$ and $i=1,\dots,n$. In particular, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\sum^n_{i=1} |\langle v^\ast (\partial_i P) u, Q\rangle|^2}\\
& \qquad \leq 16 \bigl(\|Pu\|_2 \|v\| + \|u\| \|P^\ast v\|_2\bigr)^2 \Phi^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n) \|Q\|_\pi^2
\end{aligned}$$ for all $Q\in {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle^{\otimes 2}$.
Firstly, let us consider $u,v\in {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle$. In this particular case, we observe that for all $Q_1,Q_2\in{\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle$ $$\begin{aligned}
\langle Pu, & \partial_i^\ast(vQ_1 \otimes Q_2)\rangle\\
&= \langle \partial_i (Pu), vQ_1 \otimes Q_2\rangle\\
&= \langle (\partial_i P) u, vQ_1 \otimes Q_2\rangle + \langle P (\partial_i u), vQ_1 \otimes Q_2\rangle\\
&= \langle v^\ast (\partial_i P) u, Q_1 \otimes Q_2\rangle + \langle (\partial_i u) Q_2^\ast , P^*vQ_1 \otimes 1\rangle\\
&= \langle v^\ast (\partial_i P) u, Q_1 \otimes Q_2\rangle + \langle ({\operatorname{id}}\otimes\tau)((\partial_i u) Q_2^\ast) , P^*vQ_1\rangle\end{aligned}$$ holds. Rearranging the above equation yields, by using Corollary \[key-estimates\], $$\begin{aligned}
|\langle v^\ast &(\partial_i P) u, Q_1 \otimes Q_2\rangle|\\
&\leq |\langle Pu, \partial_i^\ast(vQ_1 \otimes Q_2)\rangle| + |\langle ({\operatorname{id}}\otimes\tau)((\partial_i u) Q_2^\ast) , P^\ast vQ_1\rangle|\\
&\leq \|Pu\|_2 \|\partial_i^\ast(vQ_1 \otimes Q_2)\|_2 + \|({\operatorname{id}}\otimes\tau)((\partial_i u) Q^*_2)\|_2 \|P^\ast vQ_1\|_2\\
&\leq 3 \|\xi_i\|_2 \|Pu\|_2 \|v\| \|Q_1\| \|Q_2\| + 4 \|\xi_i\|_2 \|u\| \|P^\ast v\|_2 \|Q_1\|\|Q^*_2\|\\
&\leq 4 \|\xi_i\|_2 \bigl(\|Pu\|_2 \|v\| + \|u\| \|P^\ast v\|_2\bigr) \|Q_1\| \|Q_2\|.\end{aligned}$$ Due to Lemma \[approximation\], the obtained inequality $$|\langle v^\ast (\partial_i P) u, Q_1 \otimes Q_2\rangle|\leq 4 \|\xi_i\|_2
\bigl(\|Pu\|_2 \|v\| + \|u\| \|P^\ast v\|_2\bigr) \|Q_1\| \|Q_2\|$$ also holds for all $u,v\in{\operatorname{vN}}(X_1,\dots,X_n)$. Moreover, it follows then for all $Q\in {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle^{\otimes 2}$ that $$|\langle v^\ast (\partial_i P) u, Q \rangle|\leq 4 \|\xi_i\|_2 \bigl(\|Pu\|_2 \|v\| + \|u\| \|P^\ast v\|_2\bigr) \|Q\|_\pi.$$ This shows the first part of the statement. The second inequality follows by taking squares on both sides and summing over $i=1,\dots,n$. Since $\Phi^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n) = \sum^n_{i=1}\|\xi_i\|^2_2$, this concludes the proof.
We want to stress that Proposition \[Fisher-bound\] is in fact a quantitative version of a previous result of ours that allowed us to give in an earlier version of the present paper a proof of Theorem \[main2\] under the weaker assumption of finite non-microstates Fisher information. This was based on the following corollary.
Let $(M,\tau)$ be a tracial $W^\ast$-probability space and let self-adjoint elements $X_1,\dots,X_n \in M$ be given, such that $$\Phi^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n) <\infty$$ holds. We consider $P\in{\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle$. Then, for arbitrary $u,v\in{\operatorname{vN}}(X_1,\dots,X_n)$, the following implication holds true: $$P(X) u = 0 \quad\text{and}\quad P(X)^\ast v = 0 \implies \forall i=1,\dots,n:\ v^\ast (\partial_i P)(X) u = 0,$$ where we abbreviate $X=(X_1,\dots,X_n)$.
The inequality , which was stated in Proposition \[Fisher-bound\], immediately implies that $\langle v^\ast (\partial_i P) u, Q\rangle = 0$ for all $Q\in {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle^{\otimes 2}$. Hence, since ${\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle^{\otimes 2}$ is dense in $L^2(M,\tau)$ with respect to $\|\cdot\|_2$, this yields $v^\ast (\partial_i P)(X) u = 0$ as claimed.
Thus, readers interested in the proof of Theorem \[main2\] only under the stronger assumption $\Phi^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n)<\infty$ may skip Subsection \[subsec:entropy\_dimension\] and proceed directly to Subsection \[subsec:proof\_thm\], since the final step in the proof of Theorem \[main2\] will only need the above reduction argument.
Treating the case of full entropy dimension via semicircular perturbations {#subsec:entropy_dimension}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the non-microstates free entropy dimension $\delta^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ and its variant $\hat\delta^\star(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ are both determined in a more or less explicit way by the behavior of the function $$t \mapsto \Phi^\ast(X_1+\sqrt{t} S_1,\dots, X_n+\sqrt{t} S_n)$$ as $t\searrow0$, one is tempted to apply the results obtained in Proposition \[Fisher-bound\] to the semicircular perturbation $(X_1+\sqrt{t} S_1,\dots, X_n+\sqrt{t} S_n)$. In fact, in this way the quantity $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha(X_1,\dots,X_n) & := n - \hat{\delta}^\star(X_1,\dots,X_n)\\
& = \liminf_{t\searrow0} t \Phi^\ast(X_1+\sqrt{t}S_1,\dots,X_n+\sqrt{t}S_n),\end{aligned}$$ which also appeared in [@Connes-Shlyakhtenko Section 4], emerges naturally from the inequality given in Proposition \[Fisher-bound\] and allows us to study its influence.
It is therefore not surprising that some of the technical arguments that we will use below for dealing with semicircular perturbations are similar to [@Connes-Shlyakhtenko Section 4]. However, the proof itself is conceptually independent and follows a different strategy, since it is a straightforward continuation of Proposition \[Fisher-bound\] and hence relies on the inequalities due to Dabrowski [@Dab-Gamma], which we recalled in Lemma \[Dab-estimates\].
More precisely, we will show the following.
\[Fisher-growth\] Let $(M,\tau)$ be a tracial $W^\ast$-probability space and let self-adjoint elements $X_1,\dots,X_n \in M$ be given. Moreover, let $P\in{\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle$ be a non-commutative polynomial for which there are elements $u,v\in{\operatorname{vN}}(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ such that $$P(X_1,\dots,X_n)u=0 \qquad\text{and}\qquad P(X_1,\dots,X_n)^\ast v=0.$$ Then, for all $Q\in{\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle^{\otimes 2}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\sum^n_{i=1} |\langle v^\ast (\partial_i P)(X) u, Q\rangle|^2}\\
& \qquad \leq 16 \big(\|(\partial P)(X)u\|_2 \|v\| + \|u\| \|(\partial P)(X)^\ast v\|_2\big)^2 \alpha(X) \|Q\|_\pi^2,\end{aligned}$$ where we abbreviate $X=(X_1,\dots,X_n)$.
Here, we use the notation $\partial P$ for the gradient $(\partial_1 P, \dots, \partial_n P)$ of a polynomial $P\in{\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle$. Evaluation $(\partial P)(X)$, taking adjoints $(\partial P)(X)^\ast$, and multiplication by elements from $M$ like in $(\partial P)(X)u$ and $(\partial P)(X)^\ast v$ are then defined component-wise.
Furthermore, we point out that the space $L^2(M,\tau)^n$ becomes a Hilbert space in the obvious way. We denote its induced norm also by $\|\cdot\|_2$.
\(i) Without any restriction, we may assume that our underlying $W^\ast$-probability space $(M,\tau)$ contains $n$ normalized semicircular elements $S_1,\dots,S_n$ such that $$\{X_1,\dots,X_n\},\{S_1\},\dots,\{S_n\}$$ are freely independent. We define variables $$X_j^t := X_j + \sqrt{t} S_j \qquad\text{for $t\geq0$ and $j=1,\dots,n$}$$ and denote by $N_t := {\operatorname{vN}}(X_1^t,\dots,X_n^t)$ the von Neumann algebras they generate. In particular, $N_0$ is the von Neumann algebra generated by $X_1,\dots,X_n$. We abbreviate $X^t=(X_1^t,\dots,X_n^t)$ for $t\geq 0$, so that in particular $X^0=X=(X_1,\dots,X_n)$.
Since $N_t$, for each $t\geq0$, is a von Neumann subalgebra of $M$, we may consider the trace-preserving conditional expectation ${\mathbb{E}}_t$ from $M$ onto $N_t$. Finally, we introduce $u_t := {\mathbb{E}}_t[u] \in N_t$ and $v_t := {\mathbb{E}}_t[v]\in N_t$.
It follows then that $P(X^t) u_t = P(X^t) {\mathbb{E}}_t[u] = {\mathbb{E}}_t[P(X^t)u]$ and hence $$\|P(X^t) u_t\|_2 = \|{\mathbb{E}}_t[P(X^t)u]\|_2 \leq \|P(X^t)u\|_2.$$ Now, since $t\mapsto P(X^t)u$ is a polynomial in $\sqrt{t}$, which vanishes at $t=0$, we may observe that $$\lim_{t\searrow 0} \frac{1}{\sqrt{t}} P(X^t)u = \sum^n_{i=1} (\partial_i P)(X)u \sharp S_i.$$ Since the linear subspaces $$\operatorname{span}\{a_1 S_j a_2|\ a_1,a_2 \in N_0\},\qquad j=1,\dots,n,$$ of $L^2(M,\tau)$ are pairwise orthogonal and since the mapping $$L^2(N_0,\tau) \otimes L^2(N_0,\tau) \to L^2(M,\tau),\ U \mapsto U \sharp S_j$$ is in fact an isometry, which are both consequences of the assumed freeness of $\{X_1,\dots,X_n\},\{S_1\},\dots,\{S_n\}$, it follows that $$\lim_{t\searrow 0} \frac{1}{\sqrt{t}} \|P(X^t)u\|_2 = \bigg(\sum^n_{i=1} \|(\partial_i P)(X)u\|_2^2\bigg)^{1/2} = \|(\partial P)(X)u\|_2$$ Similarly, we may deduce that $$\lim_{t\searrow 0} \frac{1}{\sqrt{t}} \|P(X^t)^\ast v\|_2 = \bigg(\sum^n_{i=1} \|(\partial_i P)(X)^\ast v\|_2^2\bigg)^{1/2} = \|(\partial P)(X)^\ast v\|_2.$$
\(ii) We note that for each $Q\in{\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle^{\otimes 2}$ $$\limsup_{t\searrow 0} \|Q(X^t)\|_{\pi,X^t} \leq \|Q(X)\|_{\pi,X}.$$ Indeed, for any given $Q\in{\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle^{\otimes 2}$, we may consider an arbitrary decomposition $$Q = \sum^N_{k=1} Q_{k,1} \otimes Q_{k,2}.$$ For $k=1,\dots,N$, we may write $$Q_{k,1}(X^t) \otimes Q_{k,2}(X^t) = Q_{k,1}(X) \otimes Q_{k,2}(X) + \sum^{d_k}_{l=1} t^{l/2} R_{k,l}$$ for some $d_k\geq1$ with certain elements $$R_{k,1},\dots,R_{k,{d_k}}\in {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n,S_1,\dots,S_n\rangle,$$ which are independent of $t$. Since the norm $\|\cdot\|$ on $M\overline{\otimes} M$ is a cross norm, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\|Q_{k,1}(X^t)\| \|Q_{k,2}(X^t)\| &= \|Q_{k,1}(X^t) \otimes Q_{k,2}(X^t)\|\\
&\leq \|Q_{k,1}(X) \otimes Q_{k,2}(X)\| + \sum^{d_k}_{l=1} t^{l/2} \|R_{k,l}\|\\
&= \|Q_{k,1}(X)\| \|Q_{k,2}(X)\| + \sum^{d_k}_{l=1} t^{l/2} \|R_{k,l}\|\end{aligned}$$ for all $k=1,\dots,N$ and thus $$\begin{aligned}
\|Q(X^t)\|_{\pi,X^t} &\leq \sum^N_{k=1} \|Q_{k,1}(X^t)\| \|Q_{k,2}(X^t)\|\\
&\leq \sum^N_{k=1} \|Q_{k,1}(X)\| \|Q_{k,2}(X)\| + \sum^N_{k=1} \sum^{d_k}_{l=1} t^{l/2} \|R_{k,l}\|,\end{aligned}$$ so that $$\limsup_{t\searrow 0} \|Q(X^t)\|_{\pi,X^t} \leq \sum^N_{k=1} \|Q_{k,1}(X)\| \|Q_{k,2}(X)\|.$$ Since the decomposition of $Q$ was arbitrarily chosen, we get as desired $$\limsup_{t\searrow 0} \|Q(X^t)\|_{\pi,X^t} \leq \|Q(X)\|_{\pi,X}.$$
\(iii) Let $Q\in{\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle^{\otimes 2}$ be given. Since $\Phi^\ast(X^t)<\infty$, we obtain by Proposition \[Fisher-bound\] that $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\sum^n_{i=1} |\langle v_t^\ast (\partial_i P)(X^t) u_t, Q(X^t)\rangle|^2}\\
& \quad \leq 16 \big(\|P(X^t) u_t\|_2 \|v_t\| + \|u_t\| \|P(X^t)^\ast v_t\|_2\big)^2 \Phi^\ast(X^t) \|Q(X^t)\|_{\pi,X^t}^2\\
& \quad \leq 16 \big(\|P(X^t) u\|_2 \|v\| + \|u\| \|P(X^t)^\ast v\|_2\big)^2 \Phi^\ast(X^t) \|Q(X^t)\|_{\pi,X^t}^2\\
& \quad = 16 \bigg(\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}} \|P(X^t) u\|_2 \|v\| + \|u\| \frac{1}{\sqrt{t}} \|P(X^t)^\ast v\|_2 \bigg)^2 t \Phi^\ast(X^t) \|Q(X^t)\|_{\pi,X^t}^2,\end{aligned}$$ so that, since $\displaystyle{\limsup_{t\searrow 0} \|Q(X^t)\|_{\pi,X^t} \leq \|Q(X)\|_{\pi,X}}$ according to (ii), $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\liminf_{t\searrow 0}\ \sum^n_{i=1} |\langle v_t^\ast (\partial_i P)(X^t) u_t, Q(X^t)\rangle|^2}\\
& \qquad \leq 16 \big(\|(\partial P)(X)u\|_2 \|v\| + \|u\| \|(\partial P)(X)^\ast v\|_2\big)^2 \alpha(X) \|Q(X)\|_\pi^2.\end{aligned}$$
\(iv) It remains to show that in fact $$\liminf_{t\searrow 0}\ \sum^n_{i=1} |\langle v_t^\ast (\partial_i P)(X^t) u_t, Q(X^t)\rangle|^2 = \sum^n_{i=1} |\langle v^\ast (\partial_i P)(X) u, Q(X)\rangle|^2.$$ We first check that $$\begin{aligned}
\langle v_t^\ast (\partial_i P)(X^t) u_t, Q(X^t)\rangle
&= \langle {\mathbb{E}}_t[v^\ast] (\partial_i P)(X^t) {\mathbb{E}}_t[u], Q(X^t)\rangle\\
&= \langle ({\mathbb{E}}_t \otimes {\mathbb{E}}_t)[v^\ast (\partial_i P)(X^t) u], Q(X^t)\rangle\\
&= \langle v^\ast (\partial_i P)(X^t) u, Q(X^t)\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ which means in particular that this expression is actually a complex polynomial in $\sqrt{t}$. This guarantees that $$\lim_{t\searrow0}\ \langle v_t^\ast (\partial_i P)(X^t) u_t, Q(X^t)\rangle =\langle v^\ast (\partial_i P)(X) u, Q(X)\rangle$$ and finally completes the proof.
Proof of Theorem \[main2\] {#subsec:proof_thm}
--------------------------
Now, we are prepared to give a proof of Theorem \[main2\]. Even more, we will do this under the (possibly) weaker assumption that $\hat\delta^\star(X_1,\dots,X_n)=n$.
The main tool is the following corollary of Proposition \[Fisher-growth\].
\[reduction-strong\] Let $(M,\tau)$ be a tracial $W^\ast$-probability space and let self-adjoint elements $X_1,\dots,X_n \in M$ be given, such that $$\hat\delta^\star(X_1,\dots,X_n) = n$$ holds. We consider $P\in{\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle$. Then, for arbitrary $u,v\in{\operatorname{vN}}(X_1,\dots,X_n)$, the following implication holds true: $$P(X) u = 0 \quad\text{and}\quad P(X)^\ast v = 0 \implies \forall i=1,\dots,n:\ v^\ast (\partial_i P)(X) u = 0.$$
Note that our assumption $\hat\delta^\star(X_1,\dots,X_n) = n$ is equivalent to the fact that $\alpha(X_1,\dots,X_n)=0$. If $P(X) u = 0$ and $P(X)^\ast v = 0$, then Proposition \[Fisher-growth\] yields $$\sum^n_{i=1} |\langle v^\ast (\partial_i P)(X) u, Q\rangle|^2 = 0$$ for all $Q\in{\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle^{\otimes 2}$. Since ${\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle^{\otimes 2}$ is by definition dense in $L^2(M,\tau)$ with respect to $\|\cdot\|_2$, we conclude that $v^\ast (\partial_i P)(X) u = 0$ for $i=1,\dots,n$.
Let $P\in{\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle$ be given and assume that there are $u=u^\ast,v=v^\ast \in{\operatorname{vN}}(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ such that $Pu=P^\ast v=0$ holds. Then, according to Corollary \[reduction-strong\], we know that $v\otimes 1 (\partial_j P) 1 \otimes u = 0$ for any $j=1,\dots,n$. If we replace now $P$ by $P^\ast$, the statement of Corollary \[reduction-strong\] also gives $u\otimes 1(\partial_jP^\ast)1\otimes v=0$ for $j=1,\dots,n$. But we want to point out that this does not lead to any new information. Indeed, if we take adjoints in the initial statement $$v\otimes 1(\partial_j P)1\otimes u = 0,$$ we get $$1\otimes u(\partial_j P)^\ast v \otimes 1 = 0.$$ Then, if we apply the flip $\sigma: M \otimes M \to M \otimes M$, i.e. the $\ast$-homomorphism induced by $\sigma(a_1 \otimes a_2) := a_2 \otimes a_1$, it follows that $$u\otimes 1\sigma((\partial_j P)^\ast)1\otimes v = 0.$$ An easy calculation on monomials shows $\sigma((\partial_j P)^\ast) = \partial_j P^\ast$, such that the above result reduces exactly to the statement obtained by replacing $P$ with $P^\ast$.
Before doing the final step, we first want to test in two examples how strong the result in Corollary \[reduction-strong\] is.
For the self-adjoint polynomial $P=X_1X_2X_1$, we calculate $\partial_2 P = X_1 \otimes X_1$, such that $Pw=0$ implies according to Corollary \[reduction-strong\] that $wX_1 \otimes X_1w = 0$ and therefore $X_1w=0$ holds.
Applying now Corollary \[reduction-strong\] once again with respect to $\partial_1$, we end up with $w\otimes w=0$, such that $w=0$ follows.
Take $P=X_1X_2+X_2X_1$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_1 P &= 1 \otimes X_2 + X_2 \otimes 1,\\
\partial_2 P &= X_1 \otimes 1 + 1 \otimes X_1\end{aligned}$$ and thus according to Corollary \[reduction-strong\] $$\begin{aligned}
(X_2 w)^\ast (X_2 w) &= m_{X_2}( w \otimes 1 (\partial_1 P) 1 \otimes w) = 0,\\
(X_1 w)^\ast (X_1 w) &= m_{X_1}( w \otimes 1 (\partial_2 P) 1 \otimes w) = 0.\end{aligned}$$ We conclude $X_1w=X_2w=0$, from which we may deduce like above by a second application of Corollary \[reduction-strong\] that $w=0$.
Although the above examples might give the feeling that Corollary \[reduction-strong\] is strong enough to allow directly a successive reduction of any polynomial, the needed algebraic manipulations turn out to be obscure in general; a skeptical reader might convince himself by having a try at the polynomial $P=X_1X_2X_3+X_3X_2X_1$, for instance.
Moreover, in contrast to Theorem \[main2\], any such reduction argument that is based only on Corollary \[reduction-strong\] would need a symmetric starting condition. Fortunately, in our situation, we can go around these complications, since we can use the following well-known general lemma, which is an easy consequence of the polar decomposition and encodes the additional information that our statement is formulated in a tracial setting.
\[key-lemma\] Let $x$ be an element of any tracial $W^\ast$-probability space $(M,\tau)$ over some complex Hilbert space $H$. Let $p_{\ker(x)}$ and $p_{\ker(x^\ast)}$ denote the orthogonal projections onto $\ker(x)$ and $\ker(x^\ast)$, respectively.
The projections $p_{\ker(x)}$ and $p_{\ker(x^\ast)}$ belong both to $M$ and satisfy $$\tau(p_{\ker(x)}) = \tau(p_{\ker(x^\ast)}).$$ Thus, in particular, if $\ker(x)$ is non-zero, then also $\ker(x^\ast)$ is a non-zero subspace of $H$.
We consider the polar decomposition $x = v(x^\ast x)^{1/2} = (x x^\ast)^{1/2} v$ of $x$, where $v\in M$ is a partial isometry mapping $\overline{{\operatorname{ran}}(x^\ast)}$ to $\overline{{\operatorname{ran}}(x)}$, such that $$v^\ast v = p_{\overline{{\operatorname{ran}}(x^\ast)}} \qquad\text{and}\qquad v v^\ast = p_{\overline{{\operatorname{ran}}(x)}}.$$ Hence, it follows that $$1-v^\ast v = p_{{\operatorname{ran}}(x^\ast)^\bot} = p_{\ker(x)} \qquad\text{and}\qquad 1 - v v^\ast = p_{{\operatorname{ran}}(x)^\bot} = p_{\ker(x^\ast)},$$ from which we may deduce by traciality of $\tau$ that indeed $$\tau(p_{\ker(x)}) = \tau(1-v^\ast v) = \tau(1 - v v^\ast) = \tau(p_{\ker(x^\ast)}).$$ This concludes the proof.
Combining Lemma \[key-lemma\] with Corollary \[reduction-strong\] will provide us with the desired reduction argument. Before giving the precise statement, let us introduce some notation. If $p\in M$ is any projection, we define a linear mapping $$\Delta_{p,j}:\ {\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle \rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle$$ for $j=1,\dots,n$ by $$\Delta_{p,j} P := (\tau \otimes {\operatorname{id}})((p\otimes 1) ({\operatorname{ev}}_X \otimes {\operatorname{id}})(\partial_j P))$$ for any $P\in {\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle$.
\[reduction-final\] Let $P\in {\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle$ and $w=w^\ast\in{\operatorname{vN}}(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ be given, such that $P(X)w=0$ holds true. If $w\neq0$, then there exists a projection $0\neq p\in{\operatorname{vN}}(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ such that $(\Delta_{p,j} P)(X) w = 0$.
Since $P(X)w=0$ and $w\neq0$, we see that $\{0\} \neq {\operatorname{ran}}(w) \subseteq \ker(P(X))$, such that we also must have $\ker(P(X)^\ast) \neq \{0\}$ according to Lemma \[key-lemma\]. The projection $p := p_{\ker(P(X)^\ast)} \in{\operatorname{vN}}(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ thus satisfies $p\neq0$ and $P(X)^\ast p = 0$. Corollary \[reduction-strong\] tells us that $(p\otimes 1) (\partial_j P)(X) (1 \otimes w) = 0$ for $j=1,\dots,n$ holds true. Hence, we get that $$\begin{aligned}
(\Delta_{p,j} P)(X) w &= (\tau\otimes{\operatorname{id}})((p\otimes 1) (\partial_j P)(X)) w\\
&= (\tau\otimes{\operatorname{id}})((p\otimes 1) (\partial_j P)(X) (1 \otimes w))\\
&= 0,\end{aligned}$$ which concludes the proof.
Now, we are prepared to finish the proof of Theorem \[main2\].
Obviously, it suffices to show that, if any non-commutative polynomial $P\in{\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle$ and $w\in{\operatorname{vN}}(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ with $w\neq0$ are given such that $P(X)w=0$, then $P=0$ follows. By possibly replacing $w$ by $ww^\ast$, we may assume in addition that $w=w^\ast$.
For proving $P=0$, we proceed as follows. First, we write $$P = a_0 + \sum_{k=1}^d \sum_{i_1,\dots,i_k = 1}^n a_{i_1,\dots,i_k} Z_{i_1} \dots Z_{i_k}$$ and we assume that the total degree $d$ of $P$ satisfies $d\geq1$. We choose any summand of highest degree $$a_{i_1,\dots,i_d} Z_{i_1} \dots Z_{i_d}$$ of $P$ which is non-zero. Iterating Corollary \[reduction-final\], we see that there are non-zero projections $p_1,\dots,p_d \in{\operatorname{vN}}(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ such that $$(\Delta_{p_d,i_d} \dots \Delta_{p_1,i_1} P)(X) w = 0.$$ But since we can easily check that $$(\Delta_{p_d,i_d} \dots \Delta_{p_1,i_1} P)(X) = \tau(p_d) \dots \tau(p_1) a_{i_1,\dots,i_d},$$ this leads us to $a_{i_1,\dots,i_d} = 0$, which contradicts our assumption. Thus, $P$ must be constant, and since $w\neq0$, we end up with $P=0$. This concludes the proof of Theorem \[main2\].
We finish by noting that Theorem \[main2\] yields now the following generalization of Theorem \[main1\].
Let $(M,\tau)$ be a tracial $W^\ast$-probability space. Furthermore, let $X_1,\dots,X_n \in M$ be self-adjoint elements and assume that $\delta^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n) = n$ holds. Then the following statements hold true:
- $X_1,\dots,X_n$ do not satisfy any non-trivial algebraic relation, i.e. there exists no non-zero polynomial $P\in{\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle$ such that $P(X_1,\dots,X_n)=0$.
- For $j=1,\dots,n$, there is a unique derivation $$\hat{\partial}_j:\ {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle \rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle \otimes {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle$$ which satisfies $\hat{\partial}_j(X_i) = \delta_{j,i} 1 \otimes 1$ for $i=1,\dots,n$.
Non-commutative derivatives and algebraic relations
===================================================
In order to exclude non-trivial algebraic relations among a collection of self-adjoint variables $X=(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ in some $W^\ast$-probability space $(M,\tau)$, satisfying the condition $\Phi^\ast(X_1,\dots,X_n) < \infty$, we used in Section \[algebraic\_relations\] (to be more precise, in the proof of Proposition \[key-prop-1\]) a certain reduction argument. This was based on , namely the implication $$P(X_1,\dots,X_n) = 0 \quad\Longrightarrow\quad \forall j=1,\dots,n:\ (\partial_j P)(X_1,\dots,X_n) = 0.$$ But in fact, this property is furthermore equivalent to the existence of certain non-commutative derivatives on ${\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle$. These relations are clarified by the following Proposition.
\[derivatives\_relations\] Let $(M,\tau)$ be a tracial $W^\ast$-probability space and let self-adjoint $X_1,\dots,X_n\in M$ be given. Then the following statements are equivalent:
- The variables $X_1,\dots,X_n$ do not satisfy any algebraic relation.
- The following implication holds true for any non-commutative polynomial $P\in {\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle$: $$P(X_1,\dots,X_n) = 0 \quad\Longrightarrow\quad \forall j=1,\dots,n:\ (\partial_j P)(X_1,\dots,X_n) = 0$$
- For each $j=1,\dots,n$, there is a derivation $$\hat{\partial}_j:\ {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle \rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle \otimes {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle$$ such that the following diagram commutes. $$\label{derivation_diagram}
\begin{xy}
\xymatrix{{\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots, Z_n\rangle \ar[rr]^{\partial_j} \ar@{->>}[dd]_{{\operatorname{ev}}_X} & & {\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle^{\otimes 2}\ar@{->>}[dd]^{{\operatorname{ev}}_X \otimes {\operatorname{ev}}_X}\\
& & \\
{\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle \ar[rr]^{\partial_j} \ar[rr]^{\hat{\partial}_j} & & {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle^{\otimes 2}}
\end{xy}$$
- For each $j=1,\dots,n$, there is a derivation $$\hat{\partial}_j:\ {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle \rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle \otimes {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle$$ such that $\hat{\partial}_j(X_i) = \delta_{j,i} 1 \otimes 1$ for $i=1,\dots,n$.
In particular, if the equivalent conditions (i) – (iv) are satisfied, then each derivation $\hat{\partial}_j$ in (iii) as well as in (iv) is uniquely determined, and they both coincide.
The implication “(i) $\Longrightarrow$ (ii)” was already shown in Proposition \[key-prop-2\] and the converse implication “(ii) $\Longrightarrow$ (i)” is trivial.
For any element $Y\in {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle$, we choose any $P\in{\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle$ with $Y=P(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ and we put $$\hat{\partial}_j Y := (\partial_j P)(X_1,\dots,X_n) \qquad\text{for $j=1,\dots,n$}.$$ By assumption (i), this gives a well-defined mapping $$\hat{\partial}_j:\ {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle \rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle \otimes {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle,$$ which is in fact a derivation, as a straightforward calculation shows. Moreover, by definition of $\hat{\partial}_j$, it is clear that the diagram in \[derivation\_diagram\] commutes.
Let $P\in{\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle$ with $P(X_1,\dots,X_n)=0$ be given. By assumption, we get $$\begin{aligned}
(\partial_j P)(X_1,\dots,X_n) &= (({\operatorname{ev}}_X \otimes {\operatorname{ev}}_X) \circ \partial_j)(P)\\
&= (\hat{\partial}_j \circ {\operatorname{ev}}_X)(P)\\
&= \hat{\partial}_j(P(X_1,\dots,X_n))\\
&= \hat{\partial}_j(0)\\
&= 0,\end{aligned}$$ which shows (ii).
Let any $j=1,\dots,n$ be given. If there is a derivation $\hat{\partial}_j$, for which the diagram in commutes, then we can check that $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\partial}_j(X_i) &= \hat{\partial}_j({\operatorname{ev}}_X(Z_i))\\
&= ({\operatorname{ev}}_X \otimes {\operatorname{ev}}_X)(\partial_j Z_i)\\
&= ({\operatorname{ev}}_X \otimes {\operatorname{ev}}_X)(\delta_{j,i} 1 \otimes 1)\\
&= \delta_{j,i} 1 \otimes 1.\end{aligned}$$ holds for $i=1,\dots,n$, i.e. $\hat{\partial}_j$ satisfies the condition of (iii).
If there exits, for any $j=1,\dots,n$, a derivation $$\hat{\partial}_j:\ {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle \rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle \otimes {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle$$ such that $\hat{\partial}_j(X_i) = \delta_{j,i} 1 \otimes 1$ holds for $i=1,\dots,n$, then $$d_j := \hat{\partial}_j \circ {\operatorname{ev}}_X:\ {\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots, Z_n\rangle \rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle^{\otimes 2}.$$ obviously defines a derivation, where we consider ${\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle^{\otimes 2}$ as ${\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle$-bimodule via evaluation ${\operatorname{ev}}_X$. Thus, we have for each $P\in{\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle$ according to that $$d_j(P) = \sum_{i=1}^n ({\operatorname{ev}}_X\otimes{\operatorname{ev}}_X)(\partial_i P) \sharp d_j(Z_i).$$ Since $d_j(Z_i) = \hat{\partial}_j(X_i) = \delta_{j,i} 1 \otimes 1$ holds for $i=1,\dots,n$ by assumption, we see that $d_j(P) = ({\operatorname{ev}}_X\otimes{\operatorname{ev}}_X)(\partial_j P)$. By definition of $d_j$, this gives $$(\hat{\partial}_j\circ{\operatorname{ev}}_X)(P) = d_j(P) = (({\operatorname{ev}}_X\otimes{\operatorname{ev}}_X) \circ \partial_j) (P),$$ which precisely means that the diagram in commutes.
If the equivalent statements (i) – (iv) are all valid, then the derivations in (iii) and (iv) are uniquely determined. Indeed, if $\hat{\partial}_j$ satisfies (iii) or (iv), then its value on each element in ${\mathbb{C}}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle$, represented according to (i) as $P(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ for some unique $P\in{\mathbb{C}}\langle Z_1,\dots,Z_n\rangle$, must be given by $$\hat{\partial}_j (P(X_1,\dots,X_n)) = (\hat{\partial}_j \circ {\operatorname{ev}}_X)(P) = ({\operatorname{ev}}_X \circ \partial_j)(P) = (\partial_j P)(X_1,\dots,X_n)$$ (according to the commutativity of the diagram in ) or $$\hat{\partial}_j (P(X_1,\dots,X_n)) = (\hat{\partial}_j\circ{\operatorname{ev}}_X)(P) = d_j(P) = (\partial_j P)(X_1,\dots,X_n)$$ (according to the proof of “(iv) $\Longrightarrow$ (iii)”), respectively. Furthermore, we see that both derivations must coincide.
[^1]: This work was supported by the ERC Advanced Grant “Non-commutative distributions in free probability” and by a grant from the DFG (SP-419-8/1).\
We thank H. Bercovici, Y. Dabrowski and D. Shlyakhtenko for discussions and comments on an earlier version of this paper.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we consider a broad class of nonsmooth and nonconvex fractional program where the numerator can be written as the sum of a continuously differentiable convex function whose gradient is Lipschitz continuous and a proper lower semicontinuous (possibly) nonconvex function, and the denominator is weakly convex over the constraint set. This model problem includes the composite optimization problems studied extensively lately, and encompasses many important modern fractional optimization problems arising from diverse areas such as the recent proposed scale invariant sparse signal reconstruction problem in signal processing and the robust Sharpe ratio optimization problems in finance. We propose a proximal subgradient algorithm with extrapolations for solving this optimization model and show that the iterated sequence generated by the algorithm is bounded and any of its limit points is a stationary point of the model problem. The choice of our extrapolation parameter is flexible and includes the popular extrapolation parameter adopted in the restarted Fast Iterative Shrinking-Threshold Algorithm (FISTA). By providing a unified analysis framework of descent methods, we establish the convergence of the full sequence under the assumption that a suitable merit function satisfies the Kurdyka–[Ł]{}ojasiewicz (KL) property. In the case where the denominator is the maximum of finitely many continuously differentiable weakly convex functions, we also propose an enhanced proximal subgradient algorithm with extrapolations, and show that this enhanced algorithm converges to a stronger notion of stationary points of the model problem. Finally, we illustrate the proposed methods by both analytical and simulated numerical examples.'
author:
- 'Radu Ioan Boţ[^1], Minh N. Dao[^2], and Guoyin Li[^3]'
date: 'March 9, 2020'
title: 'Extrapolated Proximal Subgradient Algorithms for Nonconvex and Nonsmooth Fractional Programs [^4]'
---
Introduction
============
In this paper, we consider the following class of nonsmooth and nonconvex fractional program which takes the form $$\label{e:prob}
\min_{x\in S} F(x) :=\frac{f(x)}{g(x)}, \tag{P}$$ where $\mathcal{H}$ is a finite dimensional real Hilbert space, $S$ is a nonempty closed convex subset of $\mathcal{H}$, and $f, g\colon \mathcal{H}\to \left(-\infty,+\infty\right]$ are proper lower semicontinuous functions which are not necessarily convex. Throughout this paper, we assume that the numerator $f$ can be written as the sum of $f^\mathfrak{s}$ and $f^\mathfrak{n}$, where $f^\mathfrak{s}$ is a continuously differentiable convex function whose gradient is Lipschitz continuous and $f^\mathfrak{n}$ is a nonconvex function, and the denominator $g$ is weakly convex over the constraint set $S$. We note that weakly convex functions form a broad class of nonconvex functions which covers convex function, nonconvex quadratic functions and continuously differentiable functions whose gradient are Lipschitz continuous.
This class of nonsmooth and nonconvex fractional program is a broad optimization model which encompasses many important modern optimization problems arising from diverse areas. This includes, for example, the recent proposed scale invariant sparse signal reconstruction problem in signal processing [@RWDL19], robust Sharpe ratio optimization problems in finance [@CHZ11], and conic trust region model in numerical analysis [@SY01]. Moreover, in the special case where the denominator $g(x) \equiv 1$ and $S=\mathcal{H}$, problem reduces to the well-studied nonsmooth composite optimization with the form $$\min_{x\in \mathcal{H}} f(x)=f^\mathfrak{s}(x)+f^\mathfrak{n}(x),$$ which covers a lot of modern optimization problems in machine learning (for example, the Lasso problem in computer science). Below we provide a few motivating examples illustrating the model problem .
1. \[r:ex\_ssr\] [**Scale invariant sparse signal recovery problem:**]{} In signal processing, to reconstruct a sparse signal from its observation, one consider the following scale invariant minimization problem [@RWDL19] $$\begin{aligned}
& \min & \dfrac{\|x\|_1}{\|x\|_2} \\
& \text{subject to}& x \in \mathbb{R}^N,\ Ax \leq b,\ Cx=d,\end{aligned}$$ where $\|\cdot\|_1$ and $\|\cdot\|_2$ are the $\ell_1$-norm and Euclidean norm respectively, $A \in \mathbb{R}^{M\times N}$, $b \in \mathbb{R}^M$, $C \in \mathbb{R}^{P\times N}$, $d \in \mathbb{R}^P$, and $S=\{x: Ax \leq b, Cx=d\}$ is bounded and does not contain the origin. Here, the objective function relates to the restrict isometry constant and serves as a surrogate of the cardinality of $x$. It was shown in [@RWDL19] that this model can outperform the celebrated Lasso model in recovering a sparse solution. This model problem is indeed a special case of problem with $f(x)=\|x\|_1$, $g(x)=\|x\|_2$ and $S$ is a polytope with the form that $S=\{x: Ax \leq b, Cx=d\}$.
2. \[r:ex\_Sharpe\] [**Robust Sharpe ratio minimization problem:**]{} The standard Sharpe ratio optimization problem (see for example [@CHZ11]) can be formulated as $$\begin{aligned}
& \max & \frac{a^Tx-r}{\sqrt{x^TAx}} \\
& \text{subject to} & x \in \mathbb{R}^N,\ e^Tx=1,\ x\geq 0,\end{aligned}$$ where the numerator is the expected return and the denominator measures the risk. In practice, the data associated with the model is often uncertain due to prediction or estimation errors. Following robust optimization approach, we assume the data $(A,a,r)$ are uncertain and belong to the polyhedral uncertainty set $\mathcal{U}= \mathcal{U}_1 \times \mathcal{U}_2$, where $$\mathcal{U}_1={\rm conv}\{(a_1,r_1),\ldots,(a_{m_1},r_{m_1})\} \quad\text{and}\quad \mathcal{U}_2={\rm conv}\{A_1,\ldots, A_{m_2}\}.$$ Here, $(a_i,r_i) \in \mathbb{R}^N \times \mathbb{R}$, $i=1,\ldots,m_1$, are such that $a_i^Tx-r_i \leq 0$ for all $x \in S$, and $A_j$ are symmetric positive definite matrix, $j=1,\ldots,m_2$. The robust Sharpe ratio optimization problem can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
& \max & \frac{\min_{(a,r) \in \mathcal{U}_2} \{a^Tx-r\}}{\max_{A \in \mathcal{U}_2}\sqrt{x^TAx}} \\
& \text{subject to} & x \in \mathbb{R}^N,\ e^Tx=1,\ x\geq 0,\end{aligned}$$ which can be further simplified as $$\begin{aligned}
& \min & - \frac{\min_{1 \leq i\leq m_1} \{a_i^Tx-r_i\}}{\max_{1 \leq i \leq m_2}{\sqrt{x^TA_ix}}} \\
& \text{subject to} & x \in \mathbb{R}^N,\ e^Tx=1, x\geq 0.\end{aligned}$$ This is a special case of problem with $f(x)=-\min_{1 \leq i\leq m_1} \{a_i^Tx-r_i\}=\max_{1 \leq i\leq m_1} \{r_i-a_i^Tx\}$, $g(x)=\max_{1 \leq i \leq m_2}\sqrt{x^TA_ix}$ and $S=\{x: e^Tx=1, x\geq 0\}$.
3. [**Rayleigh quotient optimization with spherical constraint:**]{} \[r:rayleigh\] The Rayleigh quotient optimization problem with spherical constraint can be formulated as $$\begin{aligned}
& \min & \frac{x^TAx}{x^TBx} \\
& \text{subject to} & x \in \mathbb{R}^N, \, \|x\|_2=1,\end{aligned}$$ where $A$ and $B$ are symmetric positive definite matrices. This is a special case of problem with $S=\mathbb{R}^N$, $f(x)=x^TAx+ \iota_C(x)$ where $C$ is the unit sphere $\{x: \|x\|_2=1\}$ and $\iota_C$ is the indicator function of the set $C$ (see later for the definition of indicator function), and $g(x)=x^TBx$.
4. [**Conic trust region problems:**]{} \[r:conic\] Consider the conic trust region model in solving unconstrained optimization problem [@SY01]: $$\begin{aligned}
& \min & \frac{g^Tx(1-h^Tx)+x^TAx}{(1-h^Tx)^2} \\
& \text{subject to} & x \in \mathbb{R}^N,\ \|x\|^2 \leq \rho,\end{aligned}$$ where $g,h \in \mathbb{R}^N$, $A$ is a symmetric $(N\times N)$ matrix and $1-h^Tx \neq 0$ for all $x$ with $\|x\|^2 \leq \rho$. This is a special case of problem with $f(x)=g^Tx(1-h^Tx)+x^TAx$, $g(x)=(1-h^Tx)^2$ and $S=\{x:\|x\|^2 \leq \rho\}$.
The fractional programming problem has a long history, and a classical and popular approach for solving the fractional programming problem is the Dinkelbach’s method (see for example [@CFS85; @Din67]) which relates it to the following optimization problem $$\label{eq:P2}
\min_{x \in S} f(x) -\overline{\theta} g(x).$$ In [the case when $g$ is positive on $S$, problem]{} has an optimal solution $\overline{x} \in S$ if and only if $\overline{x}$ is an optimal solution to and the optimal objective value of is equal to zero with $\overline{\theta}=\frac{f(\overline{x})}{g(\overline{x})}$. However, one drawback of this procedure is that this can be done in the very restrictive case when the optimal objective value of is known. To overcome this drawback, in the literature (see [@CFS85; @Din67; @I81; @I83; @S75]) an iterative scheme was proposed which requires solving in each iteration $n$ of the optimization problem $$\label{eq:P3}
\min_{x \in S} \{f(x) -{\theta}_n g(x)\}$$ while $\theta_n$ is updated by $\theta_{n+1} :=
\frac{f(x_n)}{g(x_n)}$, where $x_{n+1}$ is an optimal solution of . However, solving in each iteration an optimization problem of type can be as expensive and difficult as solving the fractional programming problem in general.
Recently, in view of the success of the proximal algorithms in solving composite optimization problems (that is, when the denominator $g(x) \equiv 1$), [@BotCse17] proposed proximal gradient type algorithms for fractional programming problems, where the numerator $f$ is a proper, convex and lower semicontinuous function and the denominator $g$ is a smooth function, either concave or convex. The approach of [@BotCse17] is appealing because the proposed iterative methods there perform a gradient step with respect to $g$ and a proximal step with respect to $f$. In this way, the functions $f$ and $g$ are processed separately in each iteration.
Although the approach in [@BotCse17] is very inspiring, still many research questions need to be answered. For example,
- firstly, how to extend the approach in [@BotCse17] to the case where the numerator and denominator are both nonconvex and nonsmooth? Such an extension would allow us to cover, for example, robust Sharpe ratio optimization problems where both the numerator $f$ and the denominator $g$ are nonsmooth, the Rayleigh quotient optimization problem with spherical constraints and the conic trust region model where the numerator $f$ is a nonconvex function.
- secondly, it is known that the performance of proximal gradient method can be largely improved (see [@Nes04]) if one can incorporate extrapolation steps in solving composite optimization problems (that is, when the denominator $g(x) \equiv 1$ in (P)), as for example for the restarted Fast Iterative Shrinking-Threshold Algorithm (FISTA) [@B17 Chapter 10]. Therefore, it is of great interest to develop proximal algorithms with extrapolations for solving fractional programs.
- thirdly, in the case where $f$ and $g$ are convex, and $g$ is continuously differentiable, it was shown in [@BotCse17] that the proximal gradient method generates a sequence of iterates which converges to a stationary point of problem . Recently, algorithms were proposed for computing a stronger version of stationary points called D(irectional)-stationary points for a class of difference-of-convex optimization problems (for example see [@PRA16]). Taking this into account, developing algorithms which converge to sharper notions of stationary points of problem is also highly desirable.
The purpose of this paper is to provide answers to the above questions. Specifically, the contributions of this paper are as follows.
1. In Section 3, we propose a proximal subgradient method with extrapolations for solving the model problem . We then establish that the iterated sequence generated by the algorithm is bounded and any of its limit points is a stationary point of the model problem . Interestingly, the convergence of our method does not require the numerator and denominator to be convex or smooth. Moreover, our extrapolation parameter is broad enough to accommodate the popular extrapolation parameter used for restarted FISTA.
2. In Section 4, we establish a general framework for analyzing descent methods which is amenable for optimization methods with multi-steps and inexact subproblems. Our conditions are weaker than those in the literature and complements the existing results. With the help of this framework, we establish the convergence of the full sequence under the assumption that a suitable merit function satisfies the KL property.
3. In the case where the denominator is the maximum of finitely many continuously differentiable weakly convex functions, in Section 5, we also propose an enhanced proximal subgradient method with extrapolations, and show that this enhanced method converges to a stronger notion of stationary points of the model problem.
4. Finally, we illustrate the proposed methods via both analytical and simulated numerical examples in Section 6.
Preliminaries
=============
Throughout this work, we assume that $\mathcal{H}$ is a finite dimensional real Hilbert space with inner product ${\left\langle {\cdot},{\cdot} \right\rangle}$ and the induced norm $\|\cdot\|$. The set of nonnegative integers is denoted by ${\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}$, the set of real numbers by ${\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}$, the set of nonnegative real numbers by ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}_+}}:= {\{{x \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}}~\big |~{x \geq 0}\}}$, and the set of the positive real numbers by ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}_{++}}}:= {\{{x \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}}~\big |~{x >0}\}}$.
An extended-real-valued function $h$ is *proper* if it is finite somewhere and never equals $-\infty$. Given a proper function $h:\mathcal{H} \to (-\infty,\infty]$, we use the symbol $z{\ensuremath{\stackrel}}{h}{\to}x$ to indicate $z\to x$ and $h(z)\to h(x)$. The domain of $h$ is denoted by ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}h$ and is defined as ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}h=\{x \in \mathcal{H}: h(x)<+\infty\}$. The basic [*subdifferential*]{} (also known as the limiting subdifferential) of $h$ at $x\in {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}h$ is defined by (see, for example, [@RW98 Definition 8.3]) $$\label{ls}
\partial_L h(x):=\left\{v\in \mathcal{H} :\; \exists x_n{\ensuremath{\stackrel}}{h}{\to}x,\;v_n\to v\; \text{~with~} \liminf_{z\to x_n}\frac{h(z)-h(x_n)-\langle v_n,z-x_n\rangle}{\|z-x_n\|}\geq 0 \text{~for each~} n\right\}.$$ It follows from the above definition that this subdifferential has the following robustness property: $$\label{e:robustness}
\left\{v\in \mathcal{H}:\; \exists x_n {\ensuremath{\stackrel}}{h}{\to}x,\; v_n\to v\;, v_n\in \partial h(x_n)\right\} \subseteq \partial_L h(x).$$ For a convex function $h$ the subdifferential reduces to the classical subdifferential in convex analysis (see, for example, [@Mor06 Theorem 1.93]) $$\partial h(x)=\left\{v\in \mathcal{H}:\; \forall z\in \mathcal{H},\; \langle v,z-x\rangle\leq h(z)-h(x)\right\}.$$ Moreover, for a continuously differentiable function $h$, the subdifferential reduces to the derivative of $h$ denoted by $\nabla h$. We write ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}\partial h = \{x\in \mathcal{H}: \partial h(x)\neq \varnothing\}$. In general, the subdifferential set can be nonconvex (e.g., for $h(x)=-|x|$ at $0\in\mathbb{R}$) while $\partial h$ enjoys comprehensive calculus rules based on [*variational/extremal principles*]{} of variational analysis [@Mor06]. In particular, the following sum rule, quotient rule and maximum rule for limiting subdifferential will be useful for us later:
\[l:calculus\] Let $f,g\colon \mathcal{H}\to \left(-\infty,+\infty\right]$ be proper lower semicontinuous functions, and let $x \in \mathcal{H}$. Then the following hold:
1. \[l:calculus\_sum\] If $f$ is finite at $x$ and $g$ is strictly differentiable[^5] at $x$, then $$\partial_L(f+g)(x) =\partial_L f(x) +\nabla g(x).$$
2. \[l:calculus\_quotient\] If $f$ and $g$ are Lipschitz continuous around $x$ and $g(x)\neq 0$, then $$\partial_L\left(\frac{f}{g}\right)(x) \subseteq \frac{\partial_L(g(x)f)(x) -\partial_L(f(x)g)(x)}{g(x)^2}.$$ If additionally $g$ is strictly differentiable at $x$, then $$\partial_L\left(\frac{f}{g}\right)(x) =\frac{\partial_L(g(x)f)(x) -f(x)\nabla g(x)}{g(x)^2}.$$
\[l:calculus\_sum\]: The proof of the sum rule was given in [@Mor06 Proposition 1.107(ii)].
\[l:calculus\_quotient\]: For the quotient rule, the first conclusion follows from [@Mor06 Proposition 3.45(ii)], while the second one follows from [@Mor06 Corollary 1.111] and \[l:calculus\_sum\].
We now state the calculus rule for functions which can be expressed as the maximum of a collection of smooth functions. Recall that, for a set $S$, the convex hull of a set $S$ is denoted by ${\rm conv} S$.
\[lemma:max\] Let $h(x)=\max_{t \in T}h_t(x)$ where each $h_t$ is continuously differentiable on an open set $O$, and $T$ is a compact index such that $(x,t) \mapsto h_t(x)$ and $(x,t) \mapsto \nabla h_t(x)$ is continuous on $O \times T$. Then, $\partial_L h(x) = {\rm conv} \bigcup_{t \in I_0(x)} \nabla h_t(x)$ where $I_0(x)=\{t \in T: h(x) =h_t(x)\}$.
For a proof, see [@RW98 Theorem 10.31].
For a set $S$, the indicator function $\iota_S$ is given by $$\label{eq:indicator}
\iota_S(x) =\begin{cases}
0 & \text{if~} x \in S, \\
+\infty & \text{if~} x \notin S.
\end{cases}$$ The support function of a closed and convex $S$ is denoted by $\sigma_S$ and is given by $\sigma_S(x)=\sup\{\langle x, a \rangle: a \in S \}$. The (one-sided) directional derivative of $h$ in the direction $d$ is defined by $$h'(x;d)=\lim_{t \to 0^+} \frac{h(x+td)-h(x)}{t},$$ provided the limit exists. It is known that if $h$ is a proper lower semicontinuous convex function on $\mathcal{H}$, then one has, for all $d \in \mathcal{H}$, $$\sigma_{\partial_L h(x)}(d)=\sigma_{\partial h(x)}(d)=h'(x;d).$$
We also recall that a function $h$ is said to be *weakly convex (on $\mathcal{H}$)* if there exists $\rho \geq 0$ such that $h+ \frac{\rho}{2}\|\cdot\|^2$ is a convex function. Moreover, the smallest constant $\rho$ such that $h(x)+ \frac{\rho}{2}\|x\|^2$ is convex is called the *modulus* for a weakly convex function $h$. More generally, a function $h$ is said to be *weakly convex on $S \subseteq \mathcal{H}$ with modulus $\rho$* if $h+\iota_S$ is weakly convex with modulus $\rho$. Weakly convex functions form a broad class of nonconvex functions which covers quadratic functions, convex functions and continuously differentiable functions whose gradient is Lipschitz continuous.
\[lemma:2.3\] Let $h\colon \mathcal{H}\to \left(-\infty,+\infty\right]$ be a proper lower semicontinuous weakly convex function on $\mathcal{H}$. Then, for all $x\in \mathcal{H}$, $\partial_L h(x)$ is a convex set (possibly an empty set). In addition, let $S_0 \subseteq \mathcal{H}$ and suppose that $h$ is continuous on an open set containing $S_0$. Then, for all $x \in S_0$, $\partial_L h(x) \neq \varnothing$.
By assumption, there exists $\rho \geq 0$ such that $H :=h +\frac{\rho}{2}\|\cdot\|^2$ is a convex function. Let $x\in \mathcal{H}$. Using Lemma \[l:calculus\]\[l:calculus\_sum\], $\partial_L H(x) =\partial_L h(x) +\rho x$, and so $\partial_L h(x) =\partial_L H(x) -\rho x$ is a convex set.
Now, suppose that $h$ is continuous on an open set containing $S_0$ and let $x \in S_0$. Then, $H :=h +\frac{\rho}{2}\|\cdot\|^2$ is a convex function and is continuous on a neighborhood of $x$. So, $\partial_L H(x)\neq \varnothing$, and hence, $\partial_L h(x) =\partial_L H(x) -\rho x$ is also nonempty.
Kurdyka–[Ł]{}ojasiewicz property
--------------------------------
In this subsection, we recall the celebrated Kurdyka–[Ł]{}ojasiewicz (KL) property [@K98; @L63] which plays an important role in our convergence analysis later on. For each $\eta \in \left(0,+\infty\right]$, we denote by $\Phi_\eta$ the class of all continuous concave functions $\varphi\colon \left[0, \eta\right)\to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}_+}}$ such that $\varphi(0) =0$ and $\varphi$ is continuously differentiable with $\varphi' >0$ on $\left(0, \eta\right)$.
Let $h\colon \mathcal{H}\to \left(-\infty, +\infty\right]$ be a proper lower semicontinuous function. We say that $h$ satisfies the *KL property* [@K98; @L63] at $\overline{x}\in {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}\partial_L h$ if there exist a neighborhood $U$ of $\overline{x}$, $\eta \in \left(0,+\infty\right]$, and a function $\varphi\in \Phi_\eta$ such that, for all $x\in U$ with $h(\overline{x}) <h(x) <h(\overline{x})+\eta$, one has $$\varphi'(h(x)-h(\overline{x})){\ensuremath{\operatorname{dist}}}(0,\partial_L h(x))\geq 1.$$ If $h$ satisfies the KL property at each point in ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}\partial h$, then $h$ is called a *KL function*.
This definition encompasses broad classes of functions that arise in practical optimization problems. For example, it is known that if $h$ is a proper lower semicontinuous semi-algebraic function, then $h$ is a KL function with $\varphi(s) =\gamma s^{1-\alpha}$ for some $\gamma\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}_{++}}}$ and $\alpha\in \left[0,1\right)$. The semi-algebraic function covers many common nonsmooth functions appears in modern optimization problems such as functions which can be written as maximum or minimum of finitely many polynomials, Euclidean norms and the eigenvalues and rank of a matrix. Also, sums (resp. multiplications, quotients) of two semi-algebraic functions is still a semi-algebraic function. For some recent development of KL property see, for example, [@AB09; @LP18].
\[l:uniformKL\] Let $(x_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ be a bounded sequence in $\mathcal{H}$, let $\Omega$ be the set of cluster points of $(x_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$, and let $h\colon \mathcal{H}\to \left(-\infty, +\infty\right]$ be a proper lower semicontinuous function that is constant on $\Omega$ and satisfies the KL property at each point of $\Omega$. Set $\Omega_0 :=\{\overline{x}\in \Omega: h(x_n)\to h(\overline{x}) \text{~as~} n\to +\infty\}$ and suppose that $\Omega_0\neq \varnothing$. Then there exist $\eta \in \left(0,+\infty\right]$, $\varphi\in \Phi_\eta$, and $n_0\in \mathbb{N}$ such that, for all $\overline{x}\in \Omega_0$, $$\varphi'(h(x_n)-h(\overline{x})){\ensuremath{\operatorname{dist}}}(0,\partial_L h(x_n))\geq 1$$ whenever $n\geq n_0$ and $h(x_n) >h(\overline{x})$.
Since $(x_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ is bounded, $\Omega$ is nonempty and compact. According to [@BST14 Lemma 6], there exists $\varepsilon >0$, $\eta >0$, and $\varphi\in \Phi_\eta$ such that $$\label{e:KLine}
\varphi(h(x)-h(\overline{x})){\ensuremath{\operatorname{dist}}}(0,\partial_L h(x))\geq 1$$ whenever ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{dist}}}(x,\Omega) <\varepsilon$ and $h(\overline{x}) <h(x) <h(\overline{x}) +\eta$.
We note that ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{dist}}}(x_n,\Omega)\to 0$ as $n\to +\infty$. Indeed, suppose otherwise. Then there exist $\overline{\varepsilon} >0$ and a subsequence $(x_{k_n})_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ of $(x_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ such that, for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$, ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{dist}}}(x_{k_n},\Omega)\geq \overline{\varepsilon}$. Since $(x_{k_n})_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ is also bounded, there exists a subsequence $(x_{l_{k_n}})_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ such that $x_{l_{k_n}}\to x^*$. We have that $x^*\in \Omega$ and that, for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$, ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{dist}}}(x_{l_{k_n}},\Omega)\geq \overline{\varepsilon}$. By the continuity of the distance function (see, e.g., [@BC17 Example 1.48]), ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{dist}}}(x^*,\Omega)\geq \overline{\varepsilon}$, which contradicts the fact that $x^*\in \Omega$.
Now, let $\overline{x}\in \Omega_0$. Since ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{dist}}}(x_n,\Omega)\to 0$ and $h(x_n)\to h(\overline{x})$ as $n\to +\infty$, one can find $n_0\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $$\forall n\geq n_0,\quad {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dist}}}(x_n,\Omega) <\varepsilon \quad\text{and}\quad
h(x_n) <h(\overline{x}) +\eta.$$ The conclusion follows from .
Stationary points of fractional program
---------------------------------------
In this subsection, we introduce various versions of stationary points for fractional programs and examine their relationships.
For problem , we say that $\overline{x}\in S$ is
1. a *(limiting) stationary point* if $\displaystyle 0 \in \partial_L\left(\frac{f+\iota_S}{g}\right)(\overline{x})$;
2. a *(limiting) lifted stationary point* if $0 \in g(\overline{x})\partial_L(f+\iota_S)(\overline{x})-f(\overline{x})\partial_Lg(\overline{x});$
3. a *(limiting) strong lifted stationary point* if $f(\overline{x})\partial_Lg(\overline{x}) \subseteq g(\overline{x})\partial_L(f+\iota_S)(\overline{x})$.
Next we examine the relationships between the above three versions of stationary points.
\[remark:stationary\] Firstly, it is well known that a necessary condition for $\overline{x}\in S$ to be a local minimizer of $\frac{f}{g}$ on $S$ is $0\in \partial_L\left(\frac{f+\iota_S}{g}\right)(\overline{x})$. Thus, any local minimizer must be a stationary point.
Now, consider $\overline{x} \in S$ with $f(\overline{x})\geq 0$ and $g(\overline{x})>0$. If $f+\iota_S$ and $g$ are Lipschitz continuous around $\overline{x}$, then, by Lemma \[l:calculus\]\[l:calculus\_quotient\] and the fact that $f(\overline{x})\geq 0$ and $g(\overline{x}) >0$, $$\partial_L\left(\frac{f+\iota_S}{g}\right)(\overline{x})\subseteq \frac{g(\overline{x})\partial_L(f+\iota_S)(\overline{x})-f(\overline{x})\partial_Lg(\overline{x})}{g(\overline{x})^2}.$$ Thus, any stationary point $\overline{x}$ is a lifted stationary point if $f+\iota_S$ and $g$ are Lipschitz continuous around $\overline{x}$. In addition, if $f+\iota_S$ is Lipschitz continuous around $\overline{x}$ and $g$ is strictly differentiable at $\overline{x}$, then, again by Lemma \[l:calculus\]\[l:calculus\_quotient\] and the fact that $g(\overline{x}) >0$, $$\partial_L\left(\frac{f+\iota_S}{g}\right)(\overline{x})
=\frac{g(\overline{x})\partial_L(f+\iota_S)(\overline{x})-f(\overline{x})\nabla g(\overline{x})}{g(\overline{x})^2}.$$ Therefore, a lifted stationary point $\overline{x}$ is also a stationary point whenever $f+\iota_S$ is Lipschitz continuous around $\overline{x}$ and $g$ is strictly differentiable at $\overline{x}$.
From the definition, any strong lifted stationary point is also a lifted stationary point. Moreover, if $g$ is continuously differentiable, then strong lifted stationary points and lifted stationary points are the same. However, if $g$ is not continuously differentiable, then a lifted stationary point need not to be a strong lifted stationary point in general. As a simple illustration, consider the following one-dimensional fractional program $$\label{e:ex}
\min_{x \in [-1,1]} \frac{x^2+1}{|x|+1}.$$ Let $\overline{x}=0$, $f(x)=x^2+1$, $g(x)=|x|+1$ and $S=[-1,1]$. Clearly, $\partial_L (f+\iota_S)(\overline{x})=\{0\}$ and $\partial_L g(\overline{x})=[-1,1]$. Then, $\overline{x}$ is a lifted stationary point because $0 \in g(\overline{x})\partial_L(f+\iota_S)(\overline{x})-f(\overline{x})\partial_Lg(\overline{x})=[-1,1]
$. On the other hand, $\overline{x}$ is not a strong lifted stationary point as $$[-1,1] = f(\overline{x})\partial_Lg(\overline{x}) \nsubseteq g(\overline{x})\partial_L(f+\iota_S)(\overline{x})=\{0\}.$$ Indeed, a direct verification shows that the lifted stationary points of are $-\sqrt{2}+1,0,\sqrt{2}-1$; while the set of strong lifted stationary points of is $\{-\sqrt{2}+1,\sqrt{2}-1\}$, and it coincides with the set of local/global minimizers of problem .
Next, we establish the relationship between the strong lifted stationary points and the recently studied D(irectional) stationary points in the difference-of-convex (DC) optimization literature [@PRA16; @BH20].
Consider problem . We note that, if both $f+\iota_S$ and $g$ are both proper lower semicontinuous and weakly convex, $\overline{x}$ is a strong lifted stationary point of if and only if $\overline{x}$ is a so-called D(irectional)-stationary point [@PRA16] of $f - \frac{f(\overline{x})}{g(\overline{x})} \, g +\iota_S$ in the sense that, for all $d \in \mathcal{H}$, $$\label{eq:88}
\left(f- \frac{f(\overline{x})}{g(\overline{x})} \, g +\iota_S \right)'(\overline{x};d) \geq 0.$$ In particular, this implies that $\overline{x}$ is a strong lifted stationary point is a necessary condition for $\overline{x}$ being a local minimizer of under the assumptions that $f+\iota_S$ and $g$ are both weakly convex. To see this, from the weak convexity assumptions, there exist $L_1,L_2>0$ such that $\hat{f}(x):=f(x)+\iota_S(x)+\frac{L_1}{2}\|x\|^2$ and $\hat{g}(x)=g(x)+\frac{L_2}{2}\|x\|^2$ are convex. Then, $\partial_L (f+\iota_S)(x)=\partial \hat{f}(x)- L_1 x$ and $\partial_L g(x)=\partial \hat{g}(x)-L_2 x$. So, for all $x \in \mathcal{H}$, $\partial_L (f+\iota_S)(x)$ and $\partial_L g(x)$ are both closed and convex sets. Note that for closed and convex sets $A,B$, $A \subseteq B \Leftrightarrow \sigma_A(d) \leq \sigma_B(d)$ for all $d \in \mathcal{H}$. So, $\overline{x}$ is a strong lifted stationary point is equivalent to the fact that, for all $d \in \mathcal{H}$, $$(f+\iota_S)'(\overline{x};d) \geq \frac{f(\overline{x})}{g(\overline{x})} g'(\overline{x};d).$$ Thus, holds.
Extrapolated proximal subgradient (e-PSG) algorithm
===================================================
In this section, we consider problem under the following assumptions.
1. \[a:f\] $f=f^\mathfrak{s}+f^\mathfrak{n}$ where $f^\mathfrak{s}$ is a continuously differentiable convex function whose gradient $\nabla f^\mathfrak{s}$ is Lipschitz continuous with modulus $\ell$ on $\mathcal{H}$, and $f^\mathfrak{n}$ is a proper lower semicontinuous function, $S\cap {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f\neq \varnothing$ and $\forall x\in S\cap {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f$, $f(x)\geq 0$.
2. \[a:g\] (i) $g$ is a proper lower semicontinuous function and either one of the following two condition holds:
1. $g$ is continuous on an open set containing $S$ and is weakly convex on $\mathcal{H}$ with modulus $\beta\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}_+}}$;
2. $g(x) =\max_{t \in T}g_t(x)$, where each $g_t$ is continuously differentiable on an open set $O$ containing $S$ and is weakly convex on $S$ with modulus $\beta\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}_+}}$, and $T$ is a compact index set such that $(x,t) \mapsto g_t(x)$ and $(x,t) \mapsto \nabla g_t(x)$ is continuous on $O \times T$.
\(ii) There exist $m, M\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}_{++}}}$ such that, $\forall x\in S\cap {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f$, $m \leq g(x) \leq M$.
We note that the nonnegative assumption of the numerator $f$ and the positivity assumption of the denominator $g$ are standard in the literature of fractional programs [@BotCse17; @CFS85; @Din67]. Also, these two assumptions are easily satisfied for many practical optimization models in diverse areas. In particular, both assumptions are satisfied for all the motivating examples we mentioned in the introduction.
We now propose the following proximal subgradient algorithm with extrapolation for solving the nonsmooth and nonconvex fractional programming problem .
Before proceeding, we first make a few observations. Firstly, in the special case where $f^\mathfrak{s}\equiv 0$, $f^\mathfrak{n}$ is convex, $\kappa_n = 0$, $\mu_n=0$, $\ell=0$ and $g$ is continuously differentiable (and so, $g_n=\nabla g(x_n)$), Algorithm \[algo:main\] reduces to the proximal gradient algorithm proposed in [@BotCse17]. Secondly, in Step \[step:main\], the part “$f^\mathfrak{s}(u_n) +{\left\langle {\nabla f^\mathfrak{s}(u_n)},{x-u_n} \right\rangle}$” serves as the linear approximation of $f^{\mathfrak{s}}$ at $u_n$. Although the term “$f^\mathfrak{s}(u_n)$” can be removed as it does not contribute to the minimization problem, we prefer to leave it here for understanding the algorithm intuitively. Finally, it is worth noting that when $\overline{\mu} < \frac{\delta(1-\sqrt{\beta}\zeta)\sqrt{mM}}{2M}$, then $\frac{m\delta(1-\sqrt{\beta}\zeta)}{\ell M}>\frac{2m\overline{\mu}}{\ell\sqrt{mM}}$, and so, the choice of $\overline{\kappa}$ in Step \[step:initial\] makes sense.
In the above algorithm, the major computational cost lies in solving the subproblem in Step \[step:main\]. In Step \[step:main\], finding $x_{n+1}$ is indeed equivalent to computing the proximal operator[^6] of $\frac{\tau_n}{1+ \ell \tau_n }\left(f^\mathfrak{n}+\iota_S\right)$ at the point $\frac{v_n+\tau_n\theta_ng_n+ \ell\tau_nu_n -\tau_n \nabla f^{\mathfrak{s}}(u_n)}{1+\ell\tau_n}$, where $f^\mathfrak{n}$ is the nonsmooth part of the numerator. This can be done efficiently for functions $f$ and sets $S$ with specific structures. For example,
1. In the case where $S$ is a polyhedral and $f^\mathfrak{n}$ is the maximum of finitely may affine functions, the optimization problem in Step \[step:main\] can be reformulated as a convex quadratic optimization problem with linear constraints, and so, can be solved by calling a QP solver. This, in particular, covers the motivating examples \[r:ex\_ssr\] and \[r:ex\_Sharpe\] in the introduction.
2. In the case of $S=\mathbb{R}^n$, $f^\mathfrak{s}$ is a convex quadratic function, $f^\mathfrak{n}= \iota_C$ with $C$ being the unit sphere (as in the motivating example \[r:rayleigh\] in the introduction), the optimization problem in Step \[step:main\] reduces to computing the projection onto the unit sphere $C$ which has a closed form solution.
3. In the case of $f^\mathfrak{n}$ is the minimum of finitely many (nonconvex) quadratic function, that is, $f^\mathfrak{n}(x)=\min_{1 \leq i \leq m}\{x^TA_ix+a_i^Tx+\alpha_i\}$ and $S=\{x: \|x\|^2 \leq \rho\}$ (which is a generalization of the motivating example \[r:conic\] in the introduction), the optimization problem in Step \[step:main\] can be computed by solving $m$ many (nonconvex) quadratic optimization problem with a ball constraint. As each quadratic optimization problem with a ball constraint is a trust-region problem, and can be equivalently reformulated as a semi-definite programming (SDP). So, the subproblem can be solved by calling an SDP solver.
4. In the case of $S=\{x:q_i(x) \leq 0, i=1,\ldots,m_1\}$ where $q_i$ are convex quadratic functions, and $f^\mathfrak{n}(x)=\max_{1 \leq i\leq m_2} h_i(x)$ where each $h_i$ is a convex quadratic function, the optimization problem in Step \[step:main\] can be reformulated as a convex quadratic optimization problem with convex quadratic constraints, and so, can be further rewritten as a semidefinite programming problem (SDP) and solved by calling an SDP solver.
We first note that our choice of the extrapolation parameter covers the popular extrapolation parameter used for restarted FISTA in the case where $g$ is convex (see, for example, [@B17 Chapter 10] and [@Nes04]). To see this, as $g$ is convex, one has $\beta=0$. Choose $\overline{\mu}=0$, $\delta=\frac{\ell M}{m}$, and $\overline{\kappa}\in (0,1)$. Let $\kappa_n = \overline{\kappa}\frac{\nu_{n-1}-1}{\nu_n}$, where $$\nu_{-1}=\nu_0=1, \text{~and~} \nu_{n+1}=\frac{1+\sqrt{1+4 \nu_n^2}}{2},$$ and reset $\nu_{n-1}=\nu_n=1$ when $n=n_0,2n_0,3n_0,\ldots$ for some integer $n_0$. In this case, it can be directly verified that $0\leq \kappa_n \le \overline{\kappa} < 1$, and so, the requirement of our extrapolation parameter is satisfied. Also, it is worth noting that our proposed algorithm (Algorithm 1) allows one to perform extrapolation even when the smooth part of the numerator $f^{\mathfrak{s}} \equiv 0$ (as in the the motivating examples \[r:ex\_ssr\] and \[r:ex\_Sharpe\] in the introduction).
Next, we establish the subsequential convergence of Algorithm \[algo:main\]. To do this, we will need the following lemmas which will be used later on. The first lemma shows that our Assumption \[a:g\][(i)]{} on weak convexity implies an important subgradient inequality. The second lemma is known as the decent lemma for differentiable function whose gradient is Lipschitz continuous.
\[lemma:2.4\] Let $S$ be an nonempty subset of $\mathcal{H}$. Suppose that Assumption \[a:g\](i) holds. Then, for all $x, y\in S$ and $\xi \in \partial_L g(x)$, $$\label{eq:1000}
{\left\langle {\xi},{y-x} \right\rangle} \leq g(y) -g(x) +\frac{\beta}{2}\|y-x\|^2.$$
We first consider the case where $g$ is proper lower semicontinuous and weakly convex on $\mathcal{H}$ with modulus $\beta$. Then, $G(x)=g(x)+\frac{\beta}{2}\|x\|^2$ is a proper lower semicontinuous convex function. So, for all $x \in S$ $$\partial_L g(x) =\partial_L \left(G - \frac{\beta}{2}\|\cdot\|^2\right)(x) = \partial_L G(x) -\beta x =\partial G(x) -\beta x,$$ where the second equality follows from the sum rule of limiting subdifferential and the last equality holds as $G$ is convex. Now let $x \in \mathcal{H}$ and take any $\xi \in \partial_L g(x)$. Then, $\xi +\beta x \in \partial G(x)$. So, for all $y \in \mathcal{H}$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\langle {\xi},{y-x} \right\rangle}= {\left\langle {\xi+\beta x},{y-x} \right\rangle} +{\left\langle {-\beta x},{y-x} \right\rangle}
&\leq G(y) -G(x) -\beta {\left\langle {x},{y-x} \right\rangle} \\
&= g(y) +\frac{\beta}{2}\|y\|^2 -(g(x)+\frac{\beta}{2}\|x\|^2) -\beta{\left\langle {x},{y-x} \right\rangle} \\
&= g(y) -g(x) +\frac{\beta}{2}\|y-x\|^2,\end{aligned}$$ and holds.
Let us now assume that $g(x)=\max_{t \in T}g_t(x)$ where each $g_t$ is continuously differentiable on an open set $O$ containing $S$ and is weakly convex on $S$ with modulus $\beta\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}_+}}$, and $T$ is a compact index such that $(x,t) \mapsto g_t(x)$ and $(x,t) \mapsto \nabla g_t(x)$ are continuous on $O \times T$. Then, for each $t \in T$, $g_t + \iota_S$ is weakly convex on $\mathcal{H}$ with modulus $\beta$. So, proceed as in the first part gives us that for all $x \in S \subseteq O$, $t \in T$, $\xi_t \in \partial (g_t+\iota_S)(x)$, and $y \in S$, $${\left\langle {\xi_i},{y-x} \right\rangle} \leq g_t(y)-g_t(x) +\frac{\beta}{2}\|y-x\|^2.$$ As $\nabla g_t(x) \in \nabla g_t(x)+ \partial \iota_S(x)=\partial (g_t+\iota_S)(x)$ (thanks to the fact that $g_t$ is continuously differentiable at $x\in S$ and the sum rule), this implies that, for all $y \in S$, $${\left\langle {\nabla g_t(x)},{y-x} \right\rangle} \leq g_t(y)-g_t(x) +\frac{\beta}{2}\|y-x\|^2.$$ On the other hand, note from Lemma \[lemma:max\] that $\partial_L g(x) = {\rm conv} \bigcup_{t \in I_0(x)} \nabla g_t(x)$ where $I_0(x)=\{t \in T: g(x) =g_t(x)\}$. So, for all $x, y\in S$ and $\xi \in \partial_L g(x)$, there exist $\lambda_t \geq 0$, $t \in \Lambda \subseteq I_0(x)$ with $|\Lambda|<+\infty$ and $\sum_{t \in \Lambda} \lambda_t=1$ such that $$\xi= \sum_{t \in \Lambda} \lambda_t \nabla g_t(x).$$ Therefore, for all $x, y\in S$ and $\xi \in \partial_L g(x)$, $${\left\langle {\xi},{y-x} \right\rangle} = {\left\langle {\sum_{t \in \Lambda} \lambda_t \nabla g_t(x)},{y-x} \right\rangle} \leq \sum_{t \in \Lambda} \lambda_t (g_t(y)-g_t(x) +\frac{\beta}{2}\|y-x\|^2) \leq g(y)-g(x) +\frac{\beta}{2}\|y-x\|^2,$$ where the last inequality follows from $\Lambda \subseteq I_0(x)$ (and so, $g_t(x)=g(x)$ for all $t \in \Lambda$) and $\lambda_t \geq 0$ with $\sum_{t \in \Lambda} \lambda_t=1$. Thus, the conclusion follows.
\[l:descent\] Let $h\colon \mathcal{H}\to \mathbb{R}$ be a differentiable function whose gradient is Lipschitz continuous with modulus $\ell$. Then, for all $x, y\in \mathcal{H}$, $$h(y)\leq h(x) +{\left\langle {\nabla h(x)},{y-x} \right\rangle} +\frac{\ell}{2}\|y-x\|^2.$$
This follows from [@Nes04 Lemma 1.2.3], see also [@BC17 Lemma 2.64(i)].
We are now ready to state the subsequential convergence of Algorithm \[algo:main\].
\[t:cvg\] Suppose that Assumptions \[a:f\] and \[a:g\] hold, and that the set $\{x\in S: \frac{f(x)}{g(x)}\leq \frac{f(x_0)}{g(x_0)}\}$ is bounded. Then the following hold:
1. \[t:cvg\_decrease\] For all $n\in \mathbb{N}$, $x_n\in S\cap {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f$ and $$F_{n+1} +\alpha\|x_{n+1}-x_n\|^2\leq F_n,$$ where $$F_n :=\frac{f(x_n)}{g(x_n)} +\left(\frac{\ell\overline{\kappa}^2}{2m}+\frac{\overline{\mu}}{2\sqrt{mM}}\right)\|x_n-x_{n-1}\|^2
\quad\text{and}\quad \alpha :=\frac{\delta(1-\sqrt{\beta}\zeta)}{2M}-\frac{\overline{\mu}}{\sqrt{mM}}-\frac{\ell\overline{\kappa}^2}{2m} >0.$$ Consequently, the sequence $\left(\frac{f(x_n)}{g(x_n)}\right)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ is convergent.
2. \[t:cvg\_seq\] The sequence $(x_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ is bounded and asymptotically regular[^7]. In particular, $$\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \|x_{n+1}-x_n\|^2 <+\infty.$$
3. \[t:cvg\_crit\] If $\liminf_{n\to +\infty} \tau_n =\overline{\tau} >0$ and $g$ is locally Lipschitz continuous on an open set containing $S$, then, for every cluster point $\overline{x}$ of $(x_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$, it holds that $\overline{x}\in S\cap{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f$, $\lim_{n\to +\infty} \frac{f(x_n)}{g(x_n)} =\frac{f(\overline{x})}{g(\overline{x})}$, and $\overline{x}$ is a lifted stationary point of $\eqref{e:prob}$, that is, $$0\in g(\overline{x})\partial_L(f+\iota_S)(\overline{x})-f(\overline{x})\partial_Lg(\overline{x}).$$ If, in addition, $f$ is locally Lipschitz continuous on an open set containing $S\cap {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f$ and $g$ is strictly differentiable on an open set containing $S\cap {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f$, then $\overline{x}$ is a stationary point of $\eqref{e:prob}$, that is, $$0\in \partial_L\left(\frac{f+\iota_S}{g}\right)(\overline{x}).$$
\[t:cvg\_decrease\]&\[t:cvg\_seq\]: First, it is clear that, for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$, $x_n\in S\cap {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f$, and so $$\label{e:positive}
g(x_n) >0 \text{~~and~~} \theta_n =\frac{f(x_n)}{g(x_n)}\geq 0.$$ We see that, for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$ and $x\in S$, $$\begin{aligned}
&\phantom{=\ \ } f(x) +\frac{1}{2\tau_n}\|x-v_n-\tau_n\theta_ng_n\|^2 +\frac{\ell}{2}\|x-u_n\|^2 \\
& = f^\mathfrak{n}(x) +f^\mathfrak{s}(x) +\frac{1}{2\tau_n}\|x-v_n-\tau_n\theta_ng_n\|^2 +\frac{\ell}{2}\|x-u_n\|^2 \\
& \geq f^\mathfrak{n}(x) +f^\mathfrak{s}(u_n) +{\left\langle {\nabla f^\mathfrak{s}(u_n)},{x-u_n} \right\rangle} +\frac{1}{2\tau_n}\|x-v_n-\tau_n\theta_ng_n\|^2 +\frac{\ell}{2}\|x-u_n\|^2 \\
& \geq f^\mathfrak{n}(x_{n+1}) +f^\mathfrak{s}(u_n) +{\left\langle {\nabla f^\mathfrak{s}(u_n)},{x_{n+1}-u_n} \right\rangle} +\frac{1}{2\tau_n}\|x_{n+1}-v_n-\tau_n\theta_ng_n\|^2 +\frac{\ell}{2}\|x_{n+1}-u_n\|^2\\
& \geq f^\mathfrak{n}(x_{n+1}) +f^\mathfrak{s}(x_{n+1}) -\frac{\ell}{2}\|x_{n+1}-u_n\|^2 +\frac{1}{2\tau_n}\|x_{n+1}-v_n-\tau_n\theta_ng_n\|^2 +\frac{\ell}{2}\|x_{n+1}-u_n\|^2 \\
& = f(x_{n+1})+\frac{1}{2\tau_n}\|x_{n+1}-v_n-\tau_n\theta_ng_n\|^2,\end{aligned}$$ where the first inequality follows from the convexity of $f^\mathfrak{s}$, the second inequality is from the definition of $x_{n+1}$ in Step \[step:main\] of the algorithm, and the last inequality follows from the fact that $f^\mathfrak{s}$ is a differentiable function whose gradient is Lipschitz continuous with modulus $\ell$ (Lemma \[l:descent\] with $h=f^{\mathfrak{s}}$, $y=x_{n+1}$ and $x=u_n$). Therefore, for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$ and $x\in S$, $$\label{e:fxfx+}
f(x)\geq f(x_{n+1}) +\frac{1}{2\tau_n}(\|x_{n+1}-v_n\|^2-\|x-v_n\|^2) -\theta_n{\left\langle {g_n},{x_{n+1}-x} \right\rangle} -\frac{\ell}{2}\|x-u_n\|^2.$$ Letting $x =x_n$ and noting that $x_{n+1}-v_n =(x_{n+1}-x_n) -\mu_n(x_n-x_{n-1})$, $x_n-v_n =-\mu_n(x_n-x_{n-1})$, and $x_n-u_n =-\kappa_n(x_n-x_{n-1})$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
f(x_n) &\geq f(x_{n+1}) +\frac{1}{2\tau_n}\left(\|x_{n+1}-x_n\|^2 -2\mu_n{\left\langle {x_{n+1}-x_n},{x_n-x_{n-1}} \right\rangle}\right) \\
&\qquad -\theta_n{\left\langle {g_n},{x_{n+1}-x_n} \right\rangle} -\frac{\ell\kappa_n^2}{2}\|x_n-x_{n-1}\|^2.\end{aligned}$$ Next, let $\omega\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}_{++}}}$. By Young’s inequality, $${\left\langle {x_{n+1}-x_n},{x_n-x_{n-1}} \right\rangle}\leq \frac{1}{2\omega}\|x_{n+1}-x_n\|^2 +\frac{\omega}{2}\|x_n-x_{n-1}\|^2.$$ Moreover, from Assumption \[a:g\](i), $x_n \in S$ for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$, and $g_n \in \partial_L g(x_n)$. So, Lemma \[lemma:2.4\] implies that $${\left\langle {g_n},{x_{n+1}-x_n} \right\rangle} \leq g(x_{n+1})-g(x_n)+ \frac{\beta}{2}\|x_{n+1}-x_n\|^2.$$ Combining the three above inequalities yields $$\begin{aligned}
f(x_n) &\geq f(x_{n+1}) +\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{\tau_n}-\beta\theta_n-\frac{\mu_n}{\omega\tau_n}\right)\|x_{n+1}-x_n\|^2 \\
&\qquad +\theta_n(g(x_n)-g(x_{n+1})) -\frac{1}{2}\left(\ell\kappa_n^2+\frac{\omega\mu_n}{\tau_n}\right)\|x_n-x_{n-1}\|^2.\end{aligned}$$ Since $1/\tau_n\geq \max\{\sqrt{\beta}\theta_n/\zeta, \delta\}\geq \sqrt{\beta}\theta_n/\zeta$ (and so, $\frac{1}{\tau_n}-\beta\theta_n \ge \frac{1-\sqrt{\beta}\zeta}{\tau_n}$) and $\theta_n =f(x_n)/g(x_n)$, dividing $g(x_{n+1}) >0$ on both sides, it follows that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{e:F-decrease}
\frac{f(x_n)}{g(x_n)} +\frac{1}{2g(x_{n+1})}\left(\ell\kappa_n^2+\frac{\omega\mu_n}{\tau_n}\right)\|x_n-x_{n-1}\|^2 \geq \\ \frac{f(x_{n+1})}{g(x_{n+1})} +\frac{1}{2g(x_{n+1})}\left(\frac{1-\sqrt{\beta}\zeta}{\tau_n}-\frac{\mu_n}{\omega\tau_n}\right)\|x_{n+1}-x_n\|^2.\end{gathered}$$ Now, recalling that $m \leq g(x) \leq M $ for all $x \in S\cap {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f$, $\kappa_n\leq \overline{\kappa}$, $\mu_n\leq \overline{\mu}\tau_n$, and $1/\tau_n\geq \delta$, we derive that $$\frac{f(x_n)}{g(x_n)} +\frac{\ell\overline{\kappa}^2+\omega\overline{\mu}}{2m}\|x_n-x_{n-1}\|^2 \geq \frac{f(x_{n+1})}{g(x_{n+1})} +\left(\frac{\delta(1-\sqrt{\beta}\zeta)}{2M}-\frac{\overline{\mu}}{2M\omega}\right)\|x_{n+1}-x_n\|^2.$$ By choosing $\omega =\sqrt{m/M}$, we get $$\frac{f(x_n)}{g(x_n)} +\left(\frac{\ell\overline{\kappa}^2}{2m}+\frac{\overline{\mu}}{2\sqrt{mM}}\right)\|x_n-x_{n-1}\|^2 \geq \frac{f(x_{n+1})}{g(x_{n+1})} +\left(\frac{\delta(1-\sqrt{\beta}\zeta)}{2M}-\frac{\overline{\mu}}{2\sqrt{mM}}\right)\|x_{n+1}-x_n\|^2,$$ which together with the definitions of $F_n$ and $\alpha$ yields $$\label{e:decrease}
F_{n+1} +\alpha\|x_{n+1}-x_n\|^2\leq F_n.$$ From the choice of $\overline{\kappa}$, we have $\frac{\ell\overline{\kappa}^2}{2m} <\frac{\delta(1-\sqrt{\beta}\zeta)}{2M} -\frac{\overline{\mu}}{\sqrt{mM}}$. Thus, $\alpha >0$ and the sequence $(F_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ is nonincreasing. As $F_n$ is nonnegative, $(F_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ is a convergent sequence, say $F_n \to \overline{F}$. Furthermore, one also has from that, for any positive integer $m$, $$\sum_{n=0}^m \alpha\|x_{n+1}-x_n\|^2 \leq \sum_{n=0}^m (F_n-F_{n+1}) =F_0-F_{m+1} \leq F_0.$$ It follows that $$\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \|x_{n+1}-x_n\|^2 <+\infty.$$ In particular, $x_{n+1}-x_n \to 0$ as $n\to +\infty$, and so $$\frac{f(x_n)}{g(x_n)} =F_n -\left(\frac{\ell\overline{\kappa}^2}{2m}+\frac{\overline{\mu}}{2\sqrt{mM}}\right)\|x_n-x_{n-1}\|^2 \to \overline{F} \quad\text{as~} n\to +\infty.$$ Next, to see the boundedness of $(x_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$, observe that $$\frac{f(x_n)}{g(x_n)} \leq F_n \leq F_0=\frac{f(x_0)}{g(x_0)} +\left(\frac{\ell\overline{\kappa}^2}{2m}+\frac{\overline{\mu}}{2\sqrt{mM}}\right)\|x_{0}-x_{-1}\|^2=\frac{f(x_0)}{g(x_0)}.$$ So, $x_n \in\{ x \in S: \frac{f(x)}{g(x)} \leq \frac{f(x_0)}{g(x_0)}\}$, and hence $\{x_n\}$ is bounded by the assumption that $\{ x \in S: \frac{f(x)}{g(x)} \leq \frac{f(x_0)}{g(x_0)}\}$ is bounded.
\[t:cvg\_crit\]: Let $\overline{x}$ be any cluster point of $(x_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ and let $(x_{k_n})_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ be a subsequence of $(x_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ such that $x_{k_n}\to \overline{x}$. Then $\overline{x}\in S$ and, by the asymptotic regularity, $x_{k_n-1}\to \overline{x}$ and also $u_{k_n-1}\to \overline{x}$ and $v_{k_n-1}\to \overline{x}$. We have from that, for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$ and $x\in S$, $$\label{e:fxkn}
f(x)\geq f(x_{k_n}) -\frac{1}{2\tau_{k_n-1}}\|x-v_{k_n-1}\|^2 -\theta_{k_n-1}{\left\langle {g_{k_n-1}},{x_{k_n}-x} \right\rangle} -\frac{\ell}{2}\|x-u_{k_n-1}\|^2.$$ Since $g$ is locally Lipschitz continuous on an open set containing $S$, we have $g(x_{k_n-1})\to g(\overline{x}) >0$ and, by and passing to a subsequence if necessary, we may assume that $g_{k_n-1}\to \overline{g}\in \partial_Lg(\overline{x})$. Letting $x =\overline{x}$ and $n\to +\infty$ in and noting that $\liminf_{n\to +\infty} \tau_n =\overline{\tau} >0$, we get $$\limsup_{n\to +\infty} f(x_{k_n})\leq f(\overline{x}).$$ This together with the lower semicontinuity of $f$ implies that $\lim_{n\to +\infty} f(x_{k_n}) =f(\overline{x})$. It then follows from the continuity of $g$ on $S$ that $\overline{F} =\lim_{n\to +\infty} \frac{f(x_{k_n})}{g(x_{k_n})} =\frac{f(\overline{x})}{g(\overline{x})}$.
Letting $n\to +\infty$ in , one has, for all $x\in S$, $$f(x)-f(\overline{x})\geq -\frac{1}{2\overline{\tau}}\|x-\overline{x}\|^2 -\frac{f(\overline{x})}{g(\overline{x})}{\left\langle {\overline{g}},{\overline{x}-x} \right\rangle} -\frac{\ell}{2}\|x-\overline{x}\|^2,$$ or equivalently, for all $x \in S$, $$\varphi(x)\geq \varphi(\overline{x}),
\quad\text{where~} \varphi(x) :=f(x) +\left(\frac{1}{2\overline{\tau}}+\frac{\ell}{2}\right)\|x-\overline{x}\|^2-\frac{f(\overline{x})}{g(\overline{x})}{\left\langle {\overline{g}},{x} \right\rangle}.$$ We must have $0\in \partial_L(\varphi+\iota_S)(\overline{x})$, and so $\frac{f(\overline{x})}{g(\overline{x})}\overline{g}\in \partial_L(f+\iota_S)(\overline{x})$. In particular, $\overline{x}\in S\cap{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f$. Since $\overline{g}\in \partial_Lg(\overline{x})$, we obtain that $$0\in g(\overline{x})\partial_L(f+\iota_S)(\overline{x})-f(\overline{x})\partial_Lg(\overline{x}).$$ Finally, the last assertion follows by Remark \[remark:stationary\]. Thus, the conclusion then follows.
For e-PSG algorithm without extrapolation (i.e., all $\mu_n =\kappa_n =0$), the boundedness assumption of $g$ (Assumption \[a:g\](ii)) in Theorem \[t:cvg\] can be relaxed as “$0<g(x)<+\infty$ for all $x \in S \cap {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f$”. To see this, as $\mu_n =\kappa_n =0$, becomes $$\frac{f(x_n)}{g(x_n)} \geq \frac{f(x_{n+1})}{g(x_{n+1})} +\frac{1-\sqrt{\beta}\zeta}{2\tau_ng(x_{n+1})}\|x_{n+1}-x_n\|^2,$$ which implies that $(\theta_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}=(\frac{f(x_n)}{g(x_n)})_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ is nonincreasing. As $(\theta_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ is bounded below, it is convergent. Therefore, for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$, $$x_n\in S_0 :=\left\{x\in S: \frac{f(x)}{g(x)}\leq \frac{f(x_0)}{g(x_0)}\right\},$$ and the sequence $(x_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ is thus bounded. Combining with the continuity of $g$ on $S$ and the boundedness of $S_0$, one has $M' :=\sup_{x \in S_0} g(x) <+\infty$, and so, $\sup_{n \in \mathbb{N}} g(x_n) \le M'<+\infty$. Since $1/\tau_n\geq \delta$, it follows that $$\label{e:xx+}
\frac{f(x_{n+1})}{g(x_{n+1})} +\frac{\delta(1-\sqrt{\beta}\zeta)}{2M'}\|x_{n+1}-x_n\|^2 \leq \frac{f(x_n)}{g(x_n)}.$$ The asymptotic regularity of $(x_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ follows from the convergence of $(\theta_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ and . Also, telescoping yields $$\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \|x_{n+1}-x_n\|^2 <+\infty,$$ from which we can obtain the conclusions of Theorem \[t:cvg\] by proceeding as in the proof of the above theorem.
[A unified analysis framework and]{} global convergence of e-PSG
================================================================
In this section, we will prove that the global convergence of the whole sequence of $(x_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ generated by Algorithm \[algo:main\], under the assumption that a suitable merit function satisfies the KL property. To do this, we first establish a general framework for analyzing descent methods which is amenable for optimization method with multi-steps and inexact subproblems. As we will see later on, the proximal subgradient method with extrapolation which we proposed fits to this framework, and so, our desired global convergence result follows consequently.
Firstly, we fix some notation which will be used later on. Let $\mathcal{H}, \mathcal{K}$ be two finite-dimensional real Hilbert spaces. Let $h\colon \mathcal{K}\to \left(-\infty, +\infty\right]$ be a proper lower semicontinuous function, let $(x_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ and $(z_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ be respectively sequences in $\mathcal{H}$ and $\mathcal{K}$, $(\alpha_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ and $(\beta_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ sequences in ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}_{++}}}$, $(\Delta_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ and $(\varepsilon_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ sequences in ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}_+}}$, and let $\underline{\imath}\leq \overline{\imath}$ be two integers and $\lambda_i\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}_+}}$, $i\in I :=\{\underline{\imath}, \underline{\imath}+1, \dots, \overline{\imath}\}$, with $\sum_{i\in I} \lambda_i =1$. We set $\Delta_k =0$ for $k <0$ and consider the following conditions:
1. \[a:decrease\] (*Sufficient decrease condition*). For each $n\in \mathbb{N}$, $$h(z_{n+1}) +\alpha_n\Delta_n^2\leq h(z_n);$$
2. \[a:error\] (*Relative error condition*). For each $n\in \mathbb{N}$, $$\beta_{n}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dist}}}(0,\partial_L h(z_{n}))\leq \sum_{i\in I} \lambda_i\Delta_{n-i} +\varepsilon_{n};$$
3. \[a:continuity\] (*Continuity condition*). There exist a subsequence $(z_{k_n})_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ and $\widetilde{z}$ such that $$z_{k_n}\to \widetilde{z} \quad\text{and}\quad h(z_{k_n})\to h(\widetilde{z}) \quad\text{as~} n\to +\infty;$$
4. \[a:parameter\] (*Parameter condition*). It holds that $$\underline{\alpha} :=\inf_{n\in \mathbb{N}} \alpha_n >0,\quad
\underline{\gamma} :=\inf_{n\in \mathbb{N}} \alpha_n\beta_n >0,\quad\text{and}\quad
\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty} \varepsilon_n <+\infty;$$
5. \[a:distance\] (*Distance condition*). There exist $j\in \mathbb{Z}$ and $c\in \mathbb{R}$ such that, for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$, $$\|x_{n+1}-x_n\|\leq c\Delta_{n+j}.$$
Next, we present a lemma which serves as a preparation for our abstract convergence result later on.
\[l:noKL\] Suppose that \[a:decrease\] and \[a:continuity\] hold. Let $\Omega$ be the set of cluster points of $(z_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ and set $\Omega_0 :=\{\overline{z}\in \Omega: h(z_n)\to h(\overline{z}) \text{~as~} n\to +\infty\}$. Then the following hold:
1. \[l:noKL\_f\] $\Omega_0 =\{\overline{z}\in \mathcal{K}: \exists z_{k_n}\to \overline{z} \text{~with~} h(z_{k_n})\to h(\overline{z}) \text{~as~} n\to +\infty\}\neq \varnothing$ and $$\forall \overline{z}\in \Omega_0,\quad h(z_n)\downarrow h(\overline{z}) \text{~~as~} n\to +\infty.$$
2. \[l:noKL\_Delta\] If $\underline{\alpha} :=\inf_{n\in \mathbb{N}} \alpha_n >0$, then $$\forall \overline{z}\in \Omega_0,\quad \sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \Delta_n^2\leq \frac{h(z_0)-h(\overline{z})}{\underline{\alpha}} <+\infty$$ and, consequently, $\Delta_n\to 0$ as $n\to +\infty$.
3. \[l:noKL\_crit\] If \[a:error\] holds and $\underline{\delta} :=\inf_{n\in \mathbb{N},\ i\in I} \alpha_{n-i}\beta_n^2 >0$, then $$\forall n\in \mathbb{N},\quad {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dist}}}(0,\partial_L h(z_n))\leq \sqrt{\frac{h(z_{n-\overline{\imath}})-h(z_{n+1-\underline{\imath}})}{\underline{\delta}}} +\frac{\varepsilon_n}{\beta_n}$$ and if additionally $\lim_{n\to +\infty} \varepsilon_n/\beta_n =0$, then $$\forall \overline{z}\in \Omega_0,\quad 0\in \partial_L h(\overline{z}).$$
\[l:noKL\_f\]: We first have from \[a:decrease\] that $(h(z_n))_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ is nondecreasing. Therefore, $(h(z_n))_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ is convergent if and only if it has a converging subsequence. It follows that $$\Omega_0 =\{\overline{z}\in \mathcal{K}: \exists z_{k_n}\to \overline{z} \text{~with~} h(z_{k_n})\to h(\overline{z}) \text{~as~} n\to +\infty\}$$ and by \[a:continuity\], $\Omega_0\neq \varnothing$. The remaining statement follows from the definition of $\Omega_0$ and the monotonicity of $(h(z_n))_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$.
\[l:noKL\_Delta\]: Let $\overline{z}\in \Omega_0$. By \[a:decrease\] and \[l:noKL\_f\], $$\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \alpha_n\Delta_n^2\leq \sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} (h(z_n)-h(z_{n+1})) =h(z_0)-h(\overline{z}).$$ Since $\underline{\alpha} =\inf_{n\in \mathbb{N}} \alpha_n >0$, it follows that $$\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \Delta_n^2\leq \frac{h(z_0)-h(\overline{z})}{\underline{\alpha}} <+\infty,$$ and hence, $\Delta_n\to 0$ as $n\to +\infty$.
\[l:noKL\_crit\]: Now, suppose that (H2) holds and $\underline{\delta} :=\inf_{n\in \mathbb{N},\ i\in I} \alpha_{n-i}\beta_n^2 >0$. Let $n\in \mathbb{N}$. Applying Cauchy–Schwarz inequality and using the fact that $\sum_{i\in I} \lambda_i^2\leq \sum_{i\in I} \lambda_i =1$, we have $$\left(\sum_{i\in I} \lambda_i\Delta_{n-i}\right)^2 \leq \left(\sum_{i\in I} \lambda_i^2\right) \left(\sum_{i\in I} \Delta_{n-i}^2\right) \leq \sum_{i\in I} \Delta_{n-i}^2.$$ Combining with \[a:error\] and then with \[a:decrease\] yields $$\beta_n{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dist}}}(0,\partial_L h(z_n))\leq \sqrt{\sum_{i\in I} \Delta_{n-i}^2} +\varepsilon_n\leq \sqrt{\sum_{i\in I} \frac{h(z_{n-i})-h(z_{n+1-i})}{\alpha_{n-i}}} +\varepsilon_n.$$ Since $\underline{\delta} =\inf_{n\in \mathbb{N},\ i\in I} \alpha_{n-i}\beta_n^2 >0$, we derive that $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dist}}}(0,\partial_L h(z_n))&\leq \sqrt{\sum_{i\in I} \frac{h(z_{n-i})-h(z_{n+1-i})}{\alpha_{n-i}\beta_n^2}} +\frac{\varepsilon_n}{\beta_n}\\
&\leq \sqrt{\sum_{i\in I} \frac{h(z_{n-i})-h(z_{n+1-i})}{\underline{\delta}}} +\frac{\varepsilon_n}{\beta_n}\\
&=\sqrt{\frac{h(z_{n-\overline{\imath}})-h(z_{n+1-\underline{\imath}})}{\underline{\delta}}} +\frac{\varepsilon_n}{\beta_n}.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, if $\lim_{n\to +\infty} \varepsilon_n/\beta_n =0$, then, noting from \[l:noKL\_f\] that $(h(z_n))_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ is convergent, we get $\lim_{n\to +\infty} {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dist}}}(0,\partial_L h(z_n)) =0$. This shows that $0\in \partial_L h(\overline{z})$ for all $\overline{z}\in \Omega_0$, which completes the proof.
Regarding Lemma \[l:noKL\]\[l:noKL\_crit\], we note that, as $\inf_{n\in \mathbb{N}} \alpha_n >0$ and $\lim_{n\to +\infty} \varepsilon_n =0$, it is straightforward to see that the conditions $\inf_{n\in \mathbb{N},\ i\in I} \alpha_{n-i}\beta_n^2 >0$ and $\lim_{n\to +\infty} \varepsilon_n/\beta_n =0$ are guaranteed as long as $\inf_{n\in \mathbb{N}} \beta_n >0$ holds.
\[t:abstract\] Suppose that \[a:decrease\], \[a:error\], \[a:continuity\], and \[a:parameter\] hold and that the sequence $(z_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ is bounded. Let $\Omega$ be the set of cluster points of $(z_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ and suppose that $h$ is constant on $\Omega$ and satisfies the KL property at each point of $\Omega$. Set $\Omega_0 :=\{\overline{z}\in \Omega: h(z_n)\to h(\overline{z}) \text{~as~} n\to +\infty\}$. Then the following hold:
1. \[t:abstract\_Delta\] The sequence $(\Delta_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ satisfies $$\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \Delta_n <+\infty.$$
2. \[t:abstract\_xn\] If \[a:distance\] holds, then $$\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \|x_{n+1}-x_n\| <+\infty,$$ and the sequence $(x_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ is convergent.
3. \[t:abstract\_crit\] If $\inf_{n\in \mathbb{N}} \beta_n >0$, then $$\forall \overline{z}\in \Omega_0,\quad 0\in \partial_L h(\overline{z}).$$
First, $\Omega_0\neq \varnothing$ due to Lemma \[l:noKL\]\[l:noKL\_f\]. Let $\overline{z}\in \Omega_0$. Again by Lemma \[l:noKL\]\[l:noKL\_f\], $$h(z_n)\downarrow h(\overline{z}) \text{~~as~} n\to +\infty.$$
\[t:abstract\_Delta\]: Noting that, for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$, $h(z_n)\geq h(\overline{z})$, we distinguish the following two cases.
*Case 1:* There exists $n_0\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $h(z_{n_0}) =h(\overline{z})$. Then, since $(h(z_n))_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ is nondecreasing, $h(z_n) =h(\overline{z})$ for all $n\geq n_0$. It follows from \[a:decrease\] that $\Delta_n =0$ for all $n\geq n_0$, so $\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \Delta_n <+\infty$.
*Case 2:* For all $n\in \mathbb{N}$, $h(z_n) >h(\overline{z})$. We derive from Lemma \[l:uniformKL\] that there exist $\eta \in \left(0,+\infty\right]$, $\varphi\in \Phi_\eta$, and $n_0\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $$\label{e:KLine'}
\forall n\geq n_0,\quad \varphi'(h(z_n)-h(\overline{z})){\ensuremath{\operatorname{dist}}}(0,\partial_L h(z_n))\geq 1.$$ Letting $r_n :=h(z_n)-h(\overline{z})\downarrow 0$, by combining with \[a:decrease\], \[a:error\], \[a:parameter\], and the concavity of $\varphi$, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\forall n\geq n_0,\quad \Delta_n^2&\leq \frac{1}{\alpha_n}(h(z_n)-h(z_{n+1}))\varphi'(h(z_n)-h(\overline{z})){\ensuremath{\operatorname{dist}}}(0,\partial_L h(z_n))\\
&\leq \frac{1}{\alpha_n\beta_n}\Big(\varphi(r_n) -\varphi(r_{n+1})\Big) \Big(\sum_{i\in I} \lambda_i\Delta_{n-i} +\varepsilon_n\Big)\\
&\leq \frac{1}{\underline{\gamma}}\Big(\varphi(r_n) -\varphi(r_{n+1})\Big) \Big(\sum_{i\in I} \lambda_i\Delta_{n-i} +\varepsilon_n\Big).\end{aligned}$$ Using the inequality of arithmetic and geometric means (AM-GM) gives us that $$\forall n\geq n_0,\quad 2\Delta_n\leq \frac{1}{\underline{\gamma}}\Big(\varphi(r_n) -\varphi(r_{n+1})\Big) +\Big(\sum_{i\in I} \lambda_i\Delta_{n-i} +\varepsilon_n\Big).$$ Since this inequality holds for all $n\geq n_0$, we derive that, for all $m\geq n\geq n_0$, $$\label{e:2sum}
2\sum_{k=n}^m \Delta_k\leq \frac{1}{\underline{\gamma}}\Big(\varphi(r_n) -\varphi(r_{m+1})\Big) +\sum_{k=n}^m\sum_{i\in I} \lambda_i\Delta_{k-i} +\sum_{k=n}^m \varepsilon_k.$$ We have that $$\sum_{k=n}^m\sum_{i\in I} \lambda_i\Delta_{k-i} =\sum_{i\in I} \lambda_i\sum_{k=n}^m \Delta_{k-i} =\sum_{i\in I} \lambda_i\sum_{k=n-i}^{m-i} \Delta_k \leq \sum_{i\in I} \lambda_i\sum_{k=n-\overline{\imath}}^{m-\underline{\imath}} \Delta_k =\sum_{k=n-\overline{\imath}}^{m-\underline{\imath}} \Delta_k,$$ using the fact that $\Delta_k\geq 0$ for all $k\in \mathbb{Z}$ and that $\sum_{i\in I} \lambda_i =1$. Now, by adopting the convention that a summation is zero when the starting index is larger than the ending index, $$\sum_{k=n-\overline{\imath}}^{m-\underline{\imath}} \Delta_k\leq \sum_{k=n}^m \Delta_k +\sum_{k=n-\overline{\imath}}^{n-1} \Delta_k +\sum_{k=m+1}^{m-\underline{\imath}} \Delta_k
=\sum_{k=n}^m \Delta_k +\sum_{i=1}^{\overline{\imath}} \Delta_{n-i} +\sum_{i=\underline{\imath}}^{-1} \Delta_{m-i}.$$ We continue as $$\sum_{k=n}^m \Delta_k\leq \frac{1}{\underline{\gamma}}\Big(\varphi(r_n) -\varphi(r_{m+1})\Big) +\sum_{i=1}^{\overline{\imath}} \Delta_{n-i} +\sum_{i=\underline{\imath}}^{-1} \Delta_{m-i} +\sum_{k=n}^m \varepsilon_k.$$ Letting $m\to +\infty$ and noting from Lemma \[l:noKL\]\[l:noKL\_Delta\] that $\Delta_m\to 0$, we obtain $$\label{e:sumDelta}
\sum_{k=n}^{+\infty} \Delta_k\leq \frac{1}{\underline{\gamma}}\varphi(r_n) +\sum_{i=1}^{\overline{\imath}} \Delta_{n-i} +\sum_{k=n}^{+\infty} \varepsilon_k <+\infty,$$ which yields $\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \Delta_n <+\infty$.
\[t:abstract\_xn\]: This follows from \[t:abstract\_Delta\] and \[a:distance\].
\[t:abstract\_crit\]: As $\inf_{n\in \mathbb{N}} \beta_n >0$, noting that $\inf_{n\in \mathbb{N}} \alpha_n >0$ and $\lim_{n\to +\infty} \varepsilon_n =0$, we have $\inf_{n\in \mathbb{N},\ i\in I} \alpha_{n-i}\beta_n^2 >0$ and $\lim_{n\to +\infty} \varepsilon_n/\beta_n =0$. Therefore, the conclusion of this part follows from Lemma \[l:noKL\]\[l:noKL\_crit\].
The general framework \[a:decrease\]–\[a:distance\] extends various convergence conditions for exact and inexact descent methods in the literature. Specifically, in [@ABS13; @BST14], the authors proposed conditions that satisfied \[a:decrease\]–\[a:distance\] with $\mathcal{K} =\mathcal{H} =\mathbb{R}^N$, $z_n =x_n$, $\Delta_n =\|x_{n+1}-x_n\|^2$, $\alpha_n \equiv a$, $\beta_n \equiv 1/b$, $\varepsilon_n \equiv 0$, $I =\{1\}$, and $\lambda_1 =1$. These conditions were then generalized in [@FGP14] to flexible parameters and real Hilbert spaces. In the finite-dimensional setting, the conditions in [@FGP14] fulfill \[a:decrease\]–\[a:distance\] with $\mathcal{K} =\mathcal{H}$, $z_n =x_n$, $\Delta_n =\|x_{n+1}-x_n\|^2$, $I =\{1\}$, and $\lambda_1 =1$.
The framework \[a:decrease\]–\[a:distance\] also holds in the case of [@BP16 Proposition 4] with $\mathcal{K} =\mathcal{H} =\mathbb{R}^N$, $z_n =x_n$, $\Delta_n =\|x_{n+2}-x_{n+1}\|^2$, $\alpha_n \equiv a$, $\beta_n \equiv 1/b$, $\varepsilon_n \equiv 0$, $I =\{1\}$, and $\lambda_1 =1$. Here, $\Delta_n$ is shifted one step forward comparing to the two aforementioned studies. This difference makes the relative error condition explicit; see [@Noll13 Section 2.4] for a discussion.
In [@OCBP14], the authors provided a framework for convergence analysis of iPiano, a proximal gradient algorithm with extrapolation. In turn, their conditions satisfied \[a:decrease\]–\[a:distance\] with $\mathcal{K} =\mathcal{H}^2$, $z_n =(x_n,x_{n-1})$, $\Delta_n =\|x_n-x_{n-1}\|^2$, $\alpha_n \equiv a$, $\beta_n \equiv 1/b$, $\varepsilon_n \equiv 0$, $I =\{0,1\}$, and $\lambda_0 =\lambda_1 =1/2$. Recently, these conditions have been extended in [@Och19] with $\mathcal{H} =\mathbb{R}^N$, $\mathcal{K} =\mathbb{R}^{N+P}$ and $z_n =(x_n,u_n)$. It is worth noting that the finite index set $I$ of integers in [@Och19] can always be written as $I =\{\underline{\imath}, \underline{\imath}+1, \dots, \overline{\imath}\}$ for $\underline{\imath}\leq \overline{\imath}$. To get the global convergence of $(x_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$, [@Och19 Theorem 10] not only needs \[a:distance\] as our Theorem \[t:abstract\] but also requires that $h$ is bounded from below and that, for any converging subsequence $(z_{k_n})_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ of $(z_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$, $$z_{k_n}\to \widetilde{z} \quad\text{and}\quad h(z_{k_n})\to h(\widetilde{z}) \quad\text{as~} n\to +\infty,$$ which implies that $h$ is constant on $\Omega$.
Next, we show that the full sequence generated by Algorithm \[algo:main\] is globally convergent by further assuming that a suitable merit function is a KL function. We note that, as we will see later in Remark \[remark:4.5\], this assumption is automatically fulfilled if $f$ and $g$ are both semi-algebraic functions and $S$ is a semi-algebraic set, which, in particular, holds for all the motivating examples mentioned before.
\[t:cvgKL\] Let $\lim\inf_{n \to \infty} \tau_n =\overline{\tau} >0$. Suppose that Assumptions \[a:f\] and \[a:g\] hold, that $f$ is locally Lipschitz continuous on an open set containing $S\cap {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f$, $g$ is locally Lipschitz continuous on an open set containing $S$ and continuously differentiable on an open set containing $S\cap {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f$, that $$h(x,y) :=\frac{f(x)+\iota_S(x)}{g(x)} +c\|x-y\|^2$$ is a KL function with $c :=\frac{\ell\overline{\kappa}^2}{2m}+\frac{\overline{\mu}}{2\sqrt{mM}}$, and that the set $\{x\in S: \frac{f(x)}{g(x)}\leq \frac{f(x_0)}{g(x_0)}\}$ is bounded. Suppose that there exist $\varepsilon, \ell_g\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}_{++}}}$ satisfying $$\forall x,y\in S\cap {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f,\quad \|x-y\|\leq \varepsilon \implies \|\nabla g(x)-\nabla g(y))\|\leq \ell_g\|x-y\|.$$ Then $$\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \|x_{n+1}-x_n\| <+\infty$$ and the sequence $(x_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ converges to a point $x_\infty\in S\cap {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f$ with $$0\in \partial_L\left(\frac{f+\iota_S}{g}\right)(x_\infty).$$
Let $z_n=(x_{n+1},x_n)$. Let $\Omega$ be the set of cluster points of $(z_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$. Theorem \[t:cvg\] asserts that the sequence $(z_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ is in $(S\cap {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f) \times (S\cap {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f)$, bounded, and asymptotically regular. Moreover, it holds that, for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$, $$\label{e:decrease'}
h(z_{n+1})+ \alpha\|x_{n+1}-x_n\|^2\leq h(z_n) \quad\text{with~} \alpha :=\frac{\delta(1-\sqrt{\beta}\zeta)}{2M}-\frac{\overline{\mu}}{\sqrt{mM}}-\frac{\ell\overline{\kappa}^2}{2m} >0$$ and that, for every $\overline{z}\in \Omega$, one has $\overline{z}=(\overline{x},\overline{x})$ with $\overline{x}\in S\cap{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f$ and $$\theta_n=\frac{f(x_n)}{g(x_n)}\to \frac{f(\overline{x})}{g(\overline{x})} \quad\text{as~} n\to +\infty.$$ In particular, $h(z_n)=h(x_{n+1},x_n)=\frac{f(x_{n+1})}{g(x_{n+1})}+c\, \|x_{n+1}-x_n\|^2 \rightarrow \frac{f(\overline{x})}{g(\overline{x})}$ as $n \rightarrow +\infty$.
From Step \[step:main\] of Algorithm \[algo:main\] and noting that $g_n =\nabla g(x_n)$, we have for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$, $$0 \in \partial_L(f^\mathfrak{n}+\iota_S)(x_{n+1}) + \nabla f^\mathfrak{s}(u_n) +\frac{1}{\tau_n}(x_{n+1}-v_n-\tau_n\theta_n\nabla g(x_n))+ \ell(x_{n+1}-u_n),$$ which [combined with $\partial_L(f+\iota_S) =\nabla f^\mathfrak{s} +\partial_L(f^\mathfrak{n}+\iota_S)$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{x}_{n+1} &:=\nabla f^\mathfrak{s}(x_{n+1}) -\nabla f^\mathfrak{s}(u_n) -\ell(x_{n+1}-u_n) -\frac{1}{\tau_n}(x_{n+1}-v_n) +\theta_n\nabla g(x_n) \\
&\phantom{:}\in \partial_L(f^\mathfrak{n}+\iota_S)(x_{n+1}).\end{aligned}$$]{}Since $f+\iota_S$ is Lipschitz continuous around $x_n$, $g$ is continuously differentiable at $x_n$, and $g(x_n) >0$, it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_Lh(z_n) &=\left\{\partial_L \left(\frac{f+ \iota_S}{g}\right)(x_{n+1}) + 2c(x_{n+1}-x_n) \right\} \times \{ 2c(x_n-x_{n+1})\}\\
&=\left\{\frac{g(x_{n+1})\partial_L(f+\iota_S)(x_{n+1})-f(x_{n+1})\nabla g(x_{n+1})}{g(x_{n+1})^2}+ 2c(x_{n+1}-x_n)\right\} \times \{ 2c(x_n-x_{n+1})\}\\
&=\left\{\frac{\partial_L(f+\iota_S)(x_{n+1})-\theta_{n+1}\nabla g(x_{n+1})}{g(x_{n+1})}+ 2c(x_{n+1}-x_n)\right\} \times \{ 2c(x_n-x_{n+1})\},\end{aligned}$$ where the second equality follows from the second quotient rule in Lemma \[l:calculus\]. Therefore, we have $\{x_n^* +2c(x_{n+1}-x_n)\} \times\{ 2c(x_n-x_{n+1})\} \in \partial_Lh(z_n)$ with $$x_n^* := \frac{\hat{x}_{n+1} -\theta_{n+1}\nabla g(x_{n+1})}{g(x_{n+1})}.$$
Note that $\tau_n \leq 1/\max\{\sqrt{\beta}\theta_n/\zeta, \delta\} \leq \frac{1}{\delta}$, so $\mu_n \le \overline{\mu}\tau_n \leq \frac{\overline{\mu}}{\delta}$. Next, we see that, for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\|x_{n+1}-v_n\| &\leq \|x_{n+1}-x_n\| +\mu_n\|x_n-x_{n-1}\|\leq \|x_{n+1}-x_n\| + \frac{\overline{\mu}}{\delta} \|x_n-x_{n-1}\|, \\
\|x_{n+1}-u_n\| &\leq \|x_{n+1}-x_n\| +\kappa_n\|x_n-x_{n-1}\|\leq \|x_{n+1}-x_n\| +\overline{\kappa}\|x_n-x_{n-1}\|,\end{aligned}$$ and by the Lipschitz continuity of $\nabla f^\mathfrak{s}$, $$\|\nabla f^\mathfrak{s}(x_{n+1})-\nabla f^\mathfrak{s}(u_n)\|\leq \ell\|x_{n+1}-u_n\|\leq \ell\|x_{n+1}-x_n\| +\ell\overline{\kappa}\|x_n-x_{n-1}\|.$$ Since $(x_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ is bounded, the continuity of $\nabla g$ implies that $(\nabla g(x_n))_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ is also bounded. There thus exists $\mu\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}_{++}}}$ such that, for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$, $\|\nabla g(x_n)\|\leq \mu$. Since $\liminf_{n\to +\infty} \tau_n =\overline{\tau} >0$ and $\lim_{n\to +\infty} \|x_{n+1}-x_n\| =0$, there exists $n_0\in \mathbb{N}$ such that, for all $n \geq n_0$, $$\tau_n \geq \overline{\tau}/2 \quad\text{and}\quad \|x_{n+1}-x_n\|\leq \varepsilon.$$ Now, from the definition of $h(z_n)$, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\theta_n\nabla g(x_n)-\theta_{n+1}\nabla g(x_{n+1})
&= \theta_n(\nabla g(x_n)-\nabla g(x_{n+1})) -c\|x_n-x_{n-1}\|^2\nabla g(x_{n+1}) \\
&\quad +c\|x_{n+1}-x_n\|^2\nabla g(x_{n+1}) +(h(z_{n-1})-h(z_{n}))\nabla g(x_{n+1})\end{aligned}$$ and by the Lipschitz-type continuity of $\nabla g$ and the boundedness of $(\nabla g(x_n))$, for all $n >n_0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\|\theta_n\nabla g(x_n)-\theta_{n+1}\nabla g(x_{n+1})\|
&\leq \ell_g\theta_n\|x_{n+1}-x_n\| +c\varepsilon\mu\|x_n-x_{n-1}\| \\
&\qquad +c\varepsilon\mu\|x_{n+1}-x_n\| +\mu(h(z_{n-1})-h(z_{n})).\end{aligned}$$ Altogether, it follows from the definition of $x_n^*$ that for all $n >n_0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\|\hat{x}_{n+1} -\theta_{n+1}\nabla g(x_{n+1})\|
&\leq \|\nabla f^\mathfrak{s}(x_{n+1})-\nabla f^\mathfrak{s}(u_n)\| +\ell\|x_{n+1}-u_n\| +\frac{1}{\tau_n}\|x_{n+1}-v_n\| \\
&\qquad +\|\theta_n\nabla g(x_n)-\theta_{n+1}\nabla g(x_{n+1})\| \\
&\leq 2\ell\|x_{n+1}-x_n\| +2\ell\overline{\kappa}\|x_n-x_{n-1}\| + \frac{2}{\overline{\tau}}(\|x_{n+1}-x_n\| + \frac{\overline{\mu}}{\delta}\|x_n-x_{n-1}\|) \\
&\qquad +(\ell_g\theta_n+c\varepsilon\mu)\|x_{n+1}-x_n\| +c\varepsilon\mu\|x_n-x_{n-1}\| +\mu(h(z_{n-1})-h(z_{n})).\end{aligned}$$ Noting that $(\theta_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ is convergent and hence bounded and recalling that $g(x)\geq m>0$ for all $x\in S\cap {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f$, we find $K\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}_{++}}}$ such that, for all $n >n_0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\|x_n^*\| &=\frac{\|\hat{x}_{n+1} -\theta_{n+1}\nabla g(x_{n+1})\|}{|g(x_{n+1})|} \\
&\leq K\left(\|x_{n+1}-x_n\| +\|x_n-x_{n-1}\| + (h(z_{n-1})-h(z_{n}))\right).\end{aligned}$$ We deduce that there exists $K_1\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}_{++}}}$ such that, for all $n >n_0$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dist}}}(0,\partial_L h(z_n)) &\leq \sqrt{\|x_n^* + 2c(x_{n+1}-x_n) \|^2 +4c^2 \|x_n-x_{n+1}\|^2} \\
& \le \sqrt{2\|x_n^*\|^2 + 8c^2 \|x_{n+1}-x_n\|^2 +4c^2 \|x_n-x_{n+1}\|^2}\\
&\leq K_1\left(\|x_{n+1}-x_n\| +\|x_n-x_{n-1}\| +h(z_{n-1})-h(z_{n})\right),\end{aligned}$$ where the second inequality is from the elementary inequality that $\|a+b\|^2\le 2\|a\|^2+2\|b\|^2$. Now, by applying Theorem \[t:abstract\] with $I =\{0,1\}$, $\lambda_0 =\lambda_1 =1/2$, $\Delta_n =2K_1\|x_{n+1}-x_n\|$, $\alpha_n \equiv \frac{\alpha}{4K_1^2}>0$, $\beta_n \equiv 1$, and $\varepsilon_n =K_1 (h(z_{n-1})-h(z_{n}))$, we get the conclusion.
\[remark:4.5\] In the above theorem, we impose the assumption that the merit function $h(x,y) =\frac{f(x)+\iota_S(x)}{g(x)} +c\|x-y\|^2$ is a KL function with $c =\frac{\ell\overline{\kappa}^2}{2m}+\frac{\overline{\mu}}{2\sqrt{mM}}$. Note that sums or quotient of two semi-algebraic functions is a semi-algebraic function, and indicator function of a semi-algebraic set (sets described as union or intersections of finitely many sets which can be expressed as lower level sets of polynomials) is also a semi-algebraic function. We note that this assumption is automatically satisfied when $f$ and $g$ are semi-algebraic functions, and $S$ is a semi-algebraic set. This, in particular, covers all the motivating examples we mentioned in the introduction.
Convergence to strong stationary points
=======================================
In this section, we propose another algorithm which converges to a strong lifted stationary points of the fractional programming problem . To do this, we now consider the case where Assumption 2 is replaced by the following stronger assumption:
1. \[a:g’\] (i) $g(x) =\max\{g_i(x): 1\leq i\leq m\}$, where each $g_i$ is continuously differentiable on an open set containing $S$ and weakly convex on $S$ with modulus $\beta\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}_+}}$.
\(ii) There exist $m, M\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}_{++}}}$ such that, $\forall x\in S\cap {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f$, $m \leq g(x) \leq M$.
Recall that the *$\varepsilon$-active set* for $g(x) =\max\{g_i(x): 1\leq i\leq m\}$ is defined by $$I_\varepsilon(x) =\{i \in \{1,\ldots,m\}: g_i(x)\geq g(x)-\varepsilon\}.$$ We then propose an enhanced extrapolated proximal subgradient algorithm as follows.
Before we proceed, we note that Step \[step:select\] in Algorithm \[algo:max\] is motivated by the recent work of Pang et al. [@PRA16] which proposes an enhanced version of the DC algorithm for solving DC programs that converges to a stronger notion of stationary points called D-stationary points. Similar to the work of Pang et al., in Step \[step:main’\], we need to compute the proximal mapping of $f^\mathfrak{n}+\iota_S$ $|I_\varepsilon(x_n)|$ times (which is at most $m$). Although comparing to Algorithm \[algo:main\], the computation cost in solving each subproblem may be higher, as we will see later, the algorithm converges to a strong lifted stationary point of .
\[t:max\] Suppose that Assumptions \[a:f\] and \[a:g’\] hold, and that the set $\{x\in S: \frac{f(x)}{g(x)}\leq \frac{f(x_0)}{g(x_0)}\}$ is bounded. Then the following hold:
1. \[t:max\_decrease\] For all $n\in \mathbb{N}$, $x_n\in S\cap {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f$ and $$F_n :=\frac{f(x_n)}{g(x_n)} +\left(\frac{\ell\overline{\kappa}^2}{2m}+\frac{\overline{\mu}}{2\sqrt{mM}}\right)\|x_n-x_{n-1}\|^2$$ is nonincreasing and convergent. Consequently, the sequence $\left(\frac{f(x_n)}{g(x_n)}\right)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ is convergent.
2. \[t:max\_seq\] The sequence $(x_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ is bounded and asymptotically regular. In particular, $$\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} \|x_{n+1}-x_n\|^2 <+\infty.$$
3. \[t:max\_crit\] If $\liminf_{n\to +\infty} \tau_n =\overline{\tau} >0$, then, for every cluster point $\overline{x}$ of $(x_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$, it holds that $\overline{x}\in S\cap{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f$, $\lim_{n\to +\infty} \frac{f(x_n)}{g(x_n)} =\frac{f(\overline{x})}{g(\overline{x})}$, and $$\label{eq:99}
\frac{f(\overline{x})}{g(\overline{x})}\bigcup_{i \in I_0(\overline{x})} \nabla g_i(\overline{x})\subseteq \partial_L(f+\iota_S)(\overline{x}).$$ In addition, if $f$ is weakly convex on $S$, then $\overline{x}$ is a strong lifted stationary point of in the sense that $$f(\overline{x}) \partial_L g(x) \subseteq g(\overline{x}) \partial_L(f+\iota_S)(\overline{x}).$$
\[t:max\_decrease\]&\[t:max\_seq\]: We first see that, for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$, $x_n\in S\cap {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f$, and so $$g(x_n) >0 \text{~~and~~} \theta_n =\frac{f(x_n)}{g(x_n)}\geq 0.$$ Next, for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$, $i_n\in I_\varepsilon(x_n)$, and $x\in S$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:use0}
f(w_n^{i_n}) &= f^\mathfrak{n}(w_n^{i_n})+f^\mathfrak{s}(w_n^{i_n}) \nonumber\\
&\leq f^\mathfrak{n}(w_n^{i_n}) + f^\mathfrak{s}(u_n) +{\left\langle {\nabla f^\mathfrak{s}(u_n)},{w_n^{i_n}-u_n} \right\rangle} +\frac{\ell}{2}\|w_n^{i_n}-u_n\|^2 \nonumber \\
&\leq f^\mathfrak{n}(x) + f^\mathfrak{s}(u_n) +{\left\langle {\nabla f^\mathfrak{s}(u_n)},{x-u_{k_n}} \right\rangle} +\frac{1}{2\tau_n}\|x-v_n-\tau_n\theta_n\nabla g_{i_n}(x_n)\|^2+\frac{\ell}{2}\|x-u_n\|^2 \nonumber\\
&\qquad -\frac{1}{2\tau_n}\|w_n^{i_n}-v_n-\tau_n\theta_n\nabla g_{i_n}(x_n)\|^2 \nonumber\\
&\leq f^\mathfrak{n}(x) +f^\mathfrak{s}(x) +\frac{1}{2\tau_n}\|x-v_n-\tau_n\theta_n\nabla g_{i_n}(x_n)\|^2 +\frac{\ell}{2}\|x-u_n\|^2 \nonumber\\
&\qquad -\frac{1}{2\tau_n}\|w_n^{i_n}-v_n-\tau_n\theta_n\nabla g_{i_n}(x_n)\|^2 \nonumber\\
&= f(x) +\frac{1}{2\tau_n}\|x-v_n\|^2 -\frac{1}{2\tau_n}\|w_n^{i_n}-v_n\|^2 +\theta_n{\left\langle {\nabla g_{i_n}(x_n)},{w_n^{i_n}-x} \right\rangle} +\frac{\ell}{2}\|x-u_n\|^2 \nonumber\\
&= f(x) +\frac{1}{2\tau_n}\|x-v_n\|^2 -\frac{1}{2\tau_n}\|x_n-v_n\|^2 -\frac{1}{2\tau_n}\|w_n^{i_n}-x_n\|^2 +\frac{\mu_n}{\tau_n}{\left\langle {w_n^{i_n}-x_n},{x_n-x_{n-1}} \right\rangle} \nonumber \\
&\qquad +\theta_n{\left\langle {\nabla g_{i_n}(x_n)},{w_n^{i_n}-x_n} \right\rangle} -\theta_n{\left\langle {\nabla g_{i_n}(x_n)},{x-x_n} \right\rangle} +\frac{\ell}{2}\|x-u_n\|^2,\end{aligned}$$ where the first inequality is from the fact that $\nabla f^\mathfrak{s}$ is Lipschitz continuous with modulus $\ell$ (Lemma \[l:descent\]), the second inequality is from Step \[step:main’\] of Algorithm \[algo:max\], the third inequality follows from the convexity of $f^\mathfrak{s}$, and the last equality uses the fact that $x_n-v_n =-\mu_n(x_n-x_{n-1})$. For $\omega =\sqrt{m/M} >0$, one has from Young’s inequality that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:use1}
{\left\langle {w_n^{i_n}-x_n},{x_n-x_{n-1}} \right\rangle} &\leq \frac{1}{2\omega}\|w_n^{i_n}-x_n\|^2 +\frac{\omega}{2}\|x_n-x_{n-1}\|^2 \notag \\
&= \frac{M}{2\sqrt{mM}}\|w_n^{i_n}-x_n\|^2 +\frac{m}{2\sqrt{mM}}\|x_n-x_{n-1}\|^2.\end{aligned}$$ By Assumption \[a:g’\](i) and Lemma \[lemma:2.4\], $$\label{eq:use2}
{\left\langle {\nabla g_{i_n}(x_n)},{w_n^{i_n}-x_n} \right\rangle}\leq g_{i_n}(w_n^{i_n})-g_{i_n}(x_n) +\frac{\beta}{2}\|w_n^{i_n}-x_n\|^2.$$ Combining inequalities , and , and noting that $g_{i_n}(w_n^{i_n})\leq g(w_n^{i_n})$ by the definition of $g$ and that $\beta\theta_n\leq \sqrt{\beta}\zeta/\tau_n$ by the choice of $\tau_n$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
f(w_n^{i_n})
&\leq f(x) +\frac{1}{2\tau_n}\|x-v_n\|^2 -\frac{1}{2\tau_n}\|x_n-v_n\|^2 -\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1-\sqrt{\beta}\zeta}{\tau_n} -\frac{M\mu_n}{\sqrt{mM}\tau_n}\right)\|w_n^{i_n}-x_n\|^2 \\
&\qquad +\theta_n(g(w_n^{i_n})-g_{i_n}(x_n)) -\theta_n{\left\langle {\nabla g_{i_n}(x_n)},{x-x_n} \right\rangle} +\frac{\ell}{2}\|x-u_n\|^2 +\frac{m\mu_n}{2\sqrt{mM}\tau_n}\|x_n-x_{n-1}\|^2.\end{aligned}$$ Now, using the definition of $x_{n+1}$, we derive that, for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$, $i_n\in I_\varepsilon(x_n)$, and $x\in S$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:fxfx+'}
&f(x_{n+1}) -\theta_ng(x_{n+1}) +\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1-\sqrt{\beta}\zeta}{\tau_n} -\frac{M\mu_n}{\sqrt{mM}\tau_n}\right)\|x_{n+1}-x_n\|^2 \notag \\
&\leq f(w_n^{i_n}) -\theta_ng(w_n^{i_n}) +\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1-\sqrt{\beta}\zeta}{\tau_n} -\frac{M\mu_n}{\sqrt{mM}\tau_n}\right)\|w_n^{i_n}-x_n\|^2 \notag \\
&\leq f(x) -\theta_ng_{i_n}(x_n) +\frac{1}{2\tau_n}\|x-v_n\|^2 -\frac{1}{2\tau_n}\|x_n-v_n\|^2 \notag \\
&\qquad -\theta_n{\left\langle {\nabla g_{i_n}(x_n)},{x-x_n} \right\rangle} +\frac{\ell}{2}\|x-u_n\|^2 +\frac{m\mu_n}{2\sqrt{mM}\tau_n}\|x_n-x_{n-1}\|^2.\end{aligned}$$ Let $i_n\in I_0(x_n)\subseteq I_\varepsilon(x_n)$. Then $g_{i_n}(x_n) =g(x_n)$. Since $f(x_n) =\theta_ng(x_n)$ and $x_n-u_n =-\kappa_n(x_n-x_{n-1})$, letting $x =x_n$ in yields $$f(x_{n+1}) -\theta_ng(x_{n+1}) +\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1-\sqrt{\beta}\zeta}{\tau_n} -\frac{M\mu_n}{\sqrt{mM}\tau_n}\right)\|x_{n+1}-x_n\|^2 \leq \frac{1}{2}\left(\ell\kappa_n^2+\frac{m\mu_n}{\sqrt{mM}\tau_n}\right)\|x_n-x_{n-1}\|^2.$$ Dividing $g(x_{n+1})>0$ on both sides and recalling that $m \leq g(x_{n+1}) \leq M$, $\mu_n \le \overline{\mu} \tau_n$, and $1/\tau_n \ge \delta$, we have that [$$\frac{f(x_{n+1})}{g(x_{n+1})} +\left(\frac{\delta(1-\sqrt{\beta}\zeta)}{2M} -\frac{\overline{\mu}}{2\sqrt{mM}}\right)\|x_{n+1}-x_n\|^2 \leq \frac{f(x_n)}{g(x_n)} +\left(\frac{\ell\kappa_n^2}{2m}+\frac{\overline{\mu}}{2\sqrt{mM}}\right)\|x_n-x_{n-1}\|^2.$$]{} Proceeding as in the proof of Theorem \[t:cvg\]\[t:cvg\_decrease\]&\[t:cvg\_seq\], we obtain conclusions \[t:max\_decrease\] and \[t:max\_seq\] of this theorem.
\[t:max\_crit\]: In view of \[t:max\_decrease\], we set $$\overline{\theta} :=\lim_{n\to +\infty} \theta_n =\lim_{n\to +\infty} \frac{f(x_n)}{g(x_n)}.$$ Let $\overline{x}$ be a cluster point of $(x_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ and let $(x_{k_n})_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ be a subsequence convergent to $\overline{x}$. Then $\overline{x}\in S$ as well as $x_{k_n+1}\to \overline{x}$, $u_{k_n}\to \overline{x}$, and $v_{k_n}\to \overline{x}$ due to the asymptotic regularity of $(x_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$. By the continuity of $g$, there exists $n_0\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $g(\overline{x}) \geq g(x_{k_n}) -\varepsilon$ for all $n\geq n_0$. It follows that, for all $n\geq n_0$, $$I_0(\overline{x})\subseteq I_{\varepsilon}(x_{k_n}).$$
Let $n\geq n_0$ and let $i \in I_0(\overline{x})\subseteq I_{\varepsilon}(x_{k_n})$. We have from that, for all $x\in S$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:fxkn+}
&f(x_{k_n+1}) -\theta_{k_n}g(x_{k_n+1}) +\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1-\sqrt{\beta}\zeta}{\tau_{k_n}} -\frac{M\mu_{k_n}}{\sqrt{mM}\tau_{k_n}}\right)\|x_{k_n+1}-x_{k_n}\|^2 \notag \\
&\leq f(x) -\theta_{k_n} g_i(x_{k_n}) +\frac{1}{2\tau_{k_n}}\|x-v_{k_n}\|^2 -\frac{1}{2\tau_{k_n}}\|x_{k_n}-v_{k_n}\|^2 \notag \\
&\qquad -\theta_{k_n}{\left\langle {\nabla g_i(x_{k_n})},{x-x_{k_n}} \right\rangle} +\frac{\ell}{2}\|x-u_{k_n}\|^2 +\frac{m\mu_{k_n}}{2\sqrt{mM}\tau_{k_n}}\|x_{k_n}-x_{k_n-1}\|^2.\end{aligned}$$ It follows from the continuity of $g$, $g_i$, and $\nabla g_i$ that $g(x_{k_n+1})\to g(\overline{x})$, $g_i(x_{k_n})\to g_i(\overline{x}) =g(\overline{x})$ (as $i\in I_0(\overline{x}))$, and $\nabla g_i(x_{k_n})\to \nabla g_i(\overline{x})$. Letting $x =\overline{x}$ and $n \to +\infty$ in and noting that $\overline{\tau} =\liminf_{k \to \infty}\tau_n >0$, we have $\limsup_{n\to +\infty} f(x_{k_n+1}) \leq f(\overline{x})$. Combining with the lower semicontinuity of $f$ gives $f(x_{k_n+1}) \to f(\overline{x})$ as $n \to +\infty$. Thus, $\theta_{k_n} \to \overline{\theta} =\frac{f(\overline{x})}{g(\overline{x})}$ as $n \to +\infty$.
Now, letting $n \to +\infty$ in , we obtain that, for all $x \in S$, $$f(\overline{x}) \leq f(x) +\left(\frac{1}{2\overline{\tau}}+\frac{\ell}{2}\right)\|x-\overline{x}\|^2 +\frac{f(\overline{x})}{g(\overline{x})}{\left\langle {\nabla g_{i}(\overline{x})},{\overline{x}-x} \right\rangle}.$$ This shows that $\overline{x}$ minimizes the function $\varphi$ over $S$, where $$\varphi(x) :=f(x) +\left(\frac{1}{2\overline{\tau}}+\frac{\ell}{2}\right)\|x-\overline{x}\|^2 -\frac{f(\overline{x})}{g(\overline{x})}{\left\langle {\nabla g_{i}(\overline{x})},{x} \right\rangle}$$ In particular, one sees that, for all $i \in I_0(\overline{x})$, $\frac{f(\overline{x})}{g(\overline{x})} \ \nabla g_{i}(\overline{x}) \in \partial_L (f+\iota_S)(\overline{x})$. So, $\overline{x}\in S\cap {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f$ and $$\label{eq:strong_critical}
\bigcup_{i \in I_0(\overline{x})}\frac{f(\overline{x})}{g(\overline{x})} \ \nabla g_{i}(\overline{x}) \subseteq \partial_L (f+\iota_S)(\overline{x}).$$ By taking convex hull on both sides, we see that $$\partial_L g(\overline{x})={\rm conv}\bigcup_{i \in I_0(\overline{x})}\frac{f(\overline{x})}{g(\overline{x})} \ \nabla g_{i}(\overline{x}) \subseteq {\rm conv} \partial_L (f+\iota_S)(\overline{x}).$$ As $f$ is weakly convex on $S$, $f+\iota_S$ is weakly convex on $\mathcal{H}$. So, Lemma \[lemma:2.3\] implies that $\partial (f+\iota_S)(\overline{x})$ is convex. Thus, the conclusion follows.
A close inspection of the proof and noting that, for all $\eta<\varepsilon$, one has for all large $n$, $I_\eta(\overline{x})\subseteq I_{\varepsilon}(x_{k_n})$. So, in the conclusion of [(iii)]{} indeed can be strengthened as: for all $\eta<\varepsilon$, $$\frac{f(\overline{x})}{g(\overline{x})}\bigcup_{i \in I_\eta(\overline{x})} \nabla g_i(\overline{x})\subseteq \partial_L(f+\iota_S)(\overline{x}).$$
Following the same method of proof used in Theorem \[t:cvgKL\], one can establish the global convergence of Algorithm \[algo:max\] under the KL assumptions in Theorem \[t:cvgKL\] and also the additional assumption that $I_0(\overline{x})=\{i\in\{1,\ldots,m\}: g_i(\overline{x})=g(\overline{x})\}$ is a singleton for all $\overline{x} \in \Omega$ where $\Omega$ is the set of cluster points of $(x_n)$. Another sufficient condition ensuring the global convergence would be any point $\overline{x} \in\Omega$ is isolated. For brevity purpose, we omit the proof here. Unfortunately, these conditions are rather restrictive for the setting of Algorithm \[algo:max\]. It would be interesting to see how one can obtain further weaker conditions ensuring the global convergence of Algorithm \[algo:max\]. This would be an interesting open question and will be examined later.
Numerical examples
==================
In the section, we illustrate our proposed algorithms via numerical examples. We first start with an explicit analytic example and use it to demonstrate the different behavior of Algorithm \[algo:main\] and Algorithm \[algo:max\] as well as the effect of the extrapolations. Then, we examine the performance of the algorithm for the scale invariant sparse signal reconstruction model. All the numerical tests were conducted on a computer with a 2.8 GHz Intel Core i7 and 8 GB RAM, equipped with MATLAB R2015a.
An analytical example
---------------------
Consider the analytical example discussed in Remark \[remark:stationary\] $$\label{e:analytic}
\min_{x \in [-1,1]} \frac{x^2+1}{|x|+1}. \tag{EP1}$$ In this case, $g(x)=|x|+1$ is convex, and so, $\beta=0$. Also, for all $x \in [-1,1]$, $m \le g(x) \le M$, where $m=1$ and $M=2$. The numerator $f(x)=f^{\mathfrak{s}}(x)=x^2+1$ is a convex and continuously differentiable function whose gradient is Lipschitz continuous with modulus $\ell=2$.
[**Algorithm \[algo:main\] vs. Algorithm \[algo:max\].**]{} Let $\delta=\frac{\ell M}{m}=4$ and $\tau_n=\frac{1}{\delta}=\frac{1}{4}$ for all $n$. Set $\overline{\mu}=0$ and let $\overline{\kappa} \in (0,1)$ and $\kappa_n \in [0,\overline{\kappa}]$. We now compare the behavior of Algorithm \[algo:main\] and Algorithm \[algo:max\] for :
Firstly, it can be directly verified that $g_n= {\rm sign}(x_n) \in \partial g(x_n)$. In this case, Algorithm \[algo:main\] reduces to $$x_{n+1}= {\rm P}_{[-1,1]} \left(\frac{2}{3}\left[x_n+\frac{1}{4} \frac{x_n^2+1}{|x_n|+1} {\rm sign}(x_n)\right]\right).$$ If one chooses as initial point $x_0=0$, then $x_n=0$ for all $n$, and so, $(x_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ converges to a lifted stationary point (but not a strong lifted stationary point).
If one chooses as initial point $x_0>0$, then, by induction, it is easy to see that $x_n>0$ and so, $x_n \in (0,1]$. This implies that $$x_{n+1}= {\rm P}_{[-1,1]} \left(\frac{2}{3}\left[x_n+ \frac{x_n^2+1}{4(x_n+1)} \right]\right)= \frac{2}{3}\left[x_n+ \frac{x_n^2+1}{4(x_n+1)} \right],$$ where the last equality is from the fact that $x_n+ \frac{x_n^2+1}{4(x_n+1)} \in [0,\frac{3}{2}]$ for all $x_n \in (0,1]$. Here, $P_{[-1,1]}$ denotes the Euclidean projection onto the set $[-1,1]$. Thus, $x_n \rightarrow \sqrt{2}-1$ which is a lifted stationary point.
Similarly, if one chooses as initial point $x_0<0$, then, $x_n \rightarrow 1-\sqrt{2}$ which is also a lifted stationary point.
Next, we analyze the behavior of Algorithm \[algo:max\]. Recall that $\delta=\frac{\ell M}{m}=4$, $\tau_n=\frac{1}{\delta}=\frac{1}{4}$, $\overline{\mu}=0$, $\kappa_n \in [0,\overline{\kappa}]$ with $\overline{\kappa} \in (0,1)$. Let $\varepsilon=2$. Note that $g(x)=\max\{x+1,-x+1\}$. Then $I_{\varepsilon}(x_n)=\{1,2\}$, and so, $$w_{n}^1= {\rm P}_{[-1,1]} \left(\frac{2}{3}\left[x_n+\frac{1}{4} \frac{x_n^2+1}{|x_n|+1} \right]\right)
\text{~and~}
w_{n}^2= {\rm P}_{[-1,1]} \left(\frac{2}{3}\left[x_n-\frac{1}{4} \frac{x_n^2+1}{|x_n|+1} \right]\right).$$ In Algorithm \[algo:max\], we set $x_{n+1} :=w_n^{\hat{i}_n}$, where $$\hat{i}_n\in {\ensuremath{\operatorname*{argmin}}}_{i \in \{1,2\}} \left((w_n^{i})^2+1 - \frac{x_n^2+1}{|x_n|+1} (|w_n^{i}|+1) +2(w_n^{i}-x_n)^2\right).$$ For the proceeding step for updating $x_{n+1}$, if the values happens to be the same in the above [argmin]{} operations, we choose $\hat{i_n}$ to be the smallest index. By randomly generated the initial guess $x_0$, we observe that Algorithm \[algo:max\] generates a sequence $(x_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ such that $x_n \rightarrow \sqrt{2}-1$ if $x_0 \ge 0$ and $x_n \rightarrow 1-\sqrt{2}$ if $x_0<0.$ Figure \[fig:0\] depicts the trajectory $x_n$ of Algorithm \[algo:max\] with three initial points: $x_0=0, -1, 1$. Interestingly, we note that, in the case where $x_0=0$, Algorithm \[algo:max\] converges to a strong lifted stationary point $\sqrt{2}-1$ while Algorithm \[algo:main\] converges to a lifted stationary point $0$, which is not a strong lifted stationary point.
![Trajectory of Algorithm \[algo:max\] with different initial guess $x_0$ for []{data-label="fig:0"}](frac_example_1.jpg)
[**Effect of the extrapolation parameter.**]{} We now illustrate the behavior of Algorithm \[algo:main\] by varying the extrapolation parameters. To do this, let $\beta=0$, $\delta=\frac{\ell M}{m}=4$, $\tau_n=\frac{1}{\delta}=\frac{1}{4}$ for all $n$. Fix any $\overline{\kappa} \in (0,1)$ and $\kappa_n \in [0,\overline{\kappa}]$. Let $\alpha \in [0,1)$. Set $g_n={\rm sign}(x_n) \in \partial_L g(x_n)$, $\overline{\mu} =\frac{\alpha \delta \sqrt{mM}}{2M} =\sqrt{2} \alpha$, and $\mu_n=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{4}\alpha \frac{\nu_{n-1}-1}{\nu_n}$, where $$\nu_{-1}=\nu_0=1, \text{~and~} \nu_{n+1}=\frac{1+\sqrt{1+4 \nu_n^2}}{2},$$ and reset $\nu_{n-1}=\nu_n=1$ when $n=n_0,2n_0,3n_0,\ldots$ for the integer $n_0=50$. In this case, direct verification shows that $\sup_{n} \nu_n \le 1$, and hence $\mu_n \le \frac{\sqrt{2}}{4} \alpha =\overline{\mu}\tau_n$. Starting with the initialization $x_0=1$, we then run Algorithm \[algo:main\] with different $\alpha \in[0,1)$. Figure \[fig:trajectory\] depicts the distance, in the log scale, between the iterates $x_n$ and the solution $x^*=\sqrt{2}-1$ for $\alpha \in \{0,0.5,0.7,0.99\}$, where the case $\alpha=0$ indeed corresponds to the un-extrapolated cases. As one can see from Figure \[fig:trajectory\], as $\alpha$ increases and approaches $1$, the algorithm tends to converge faster.
![Distance to the solution vs iterations in solving []{data-label="fig:trajectory"}](frac_example_3.jpg)
Scale invariant sparse signal recovery problem
----------------------------------------------
As another illustration, we examine the following scale invariant sparse signal recovery problem discussed in the motivating example $$\label{e:ssr}
\begin{array}{c l}
\min & \dfrac{\|x\|_1}{\|x\|_2} \\
\text{subject to} & x \in \mathbb{R}^N,\ Ax = b,\ {\rm lb}_i \leq x_i \leq {\rm ub}_i,\ i=1,\ldots,N,
\end{array}
\tag{EP2}$$ where ${\rm lb}_i$ and ${\rm ub}_i$ are the lower bound and upper bound for the variables $x_i$, $i=1,\ldots,N$. We follow [@RWDL19] and generate the matrix $A$ via the so-called oversampled discrete cosine transform (DCT), that is, $A=[a_1, a_2,\ldots,a_N] \in \mathbb{R}^{P \times N}$ where $$a_j=\frac{1}{\sqrt{P}} \cos\left(\frac{2\pi w \, j}{F}\right), \ j=1,\ldots,N.$$ where $w$ is a random vector uniformly distributed in $[0,1]^P$ and $F$ is a positive number which gives a measure on how coherent the matrix is. The ground truth $x^g \in \mathbb{R}^N$ is simulated as an $s$-sparse signal where $s$ is the total number of nonzero entries. The support of $x^g$ is a random index set, and the values of nonzero elements follow a Gaussian normal distribution. Then the ground-truth is normalized to have maximum magnitude as $1$ so that we can examine the performance within the $[-1,1]^N$ box constraint. Then, we generate $b=Ax^g$, and set ${\rm lb}_i=-1$ and ${\rm ub}_i=1$. Specifically, in our experiment, following [@RWDL19], we consider the above matrix $A$ of size $(P,N)=(64,1024)$, $F=10$ and the ground-truth sparse vector has $12$ nonzero elements.
We use two methods for solving this scale invariant sparse signal recovery problem: our proposed extrapolated proximal subgradient method (e-PSG) and the alternating direction of method of multipliers (ADMM) proposed in [@RWDL19]. It was shown in [@RWDL19] that the ADMM method works very efficiently although the theoretical justification of the convergence of this method is still lacking.
- ADMM method: We first solve the $L_1$-optimization problem which results when replacing the objective of $(EP_2)$ by $\|x\|_1:=\sum_{i=1}^N |x_i|$. This is done by using the commercial software Gurobi and produces a solution $x_0$ for the $L_1$-optimization problem. Following [@RWDL19], we then use $x_0$ as an initialization and use the ADMM method proposed therein. We terminate the algorithm when the relative error $\frac{\|x_{n+1}-x_n\|}{\max\{\|x_n\|,1\}}$ is smaller than $10^{-9}$.
- Algorithm \[algo:main\] (e-PSG method): Similar to the ADMM method, we also use the solution of the $L_1$-optimization problem as the initial point. We choose $f^s \equiv 0$ (and so, $\ell=0$), $\kappa_n=0$. As $g(x)=\|x\|_2$ is convex, $\beta=0$. Moreover, for all $x$ feasible for , $m \le g(x) \le M$ where $M=\sqrt{N}$ and $m$ is a positive number computed as the Euclidean norm of the least norm solution of $Ax=b$ via the matlab code `m = norm(pinv(A)*b)`. Let $\alpha=0.99$ and set $\mu_n= \frac{\alpha \sqrt{\frac{m}{M}}}{2} \frac{\nu_{n-1}-1}{\nu_n}$, where $$\nu_{-1}=\nu_0=1, \text{~and~} \nu_{n+1}=\frac{1+\sqrt{1+4 \nu_n^2}}{2},$$ and reset $\nu_{n-1}=\nu_n=1$ when $n=n_0,2n_0,3n_0,\ldots$ for the integer $n_0=50$. For any $\delta>0$, let $\tau_n=\frac{1}{\delta}$ and $\overline{\mu}= \frac{\alpha \delta \sqrt{\frac{m}{M}}}{2}< \frac{\delta \sqrt{\frac{m}{M}}}{2}$. It can be verified that $\mu_n \le \frac{\alpha \sqrt{\frac{m}{M}}}{2} = \overline{\mu} \tau_n$, and so, the requirements of the parameters in Algorithm \[algo:main\] are satisfied. We use the same termination criterion as for the ADMM method. For the subproblem arising in Step \[step:main\] of Algorithm \[algo:main\], we reformulate the problem as an equivalent quadratic program with linear constraints, and solve it using the software Gurobi.
We run the ADMM and the e-PSG method (Algorithm \[algo:main\]) for 50 trials. The following table summarize the output of the two methods by listing the average number of
- sparsity level of the initial guess: the number of entries of the initialization (the solution for $L_1$-optimization problem) with value larger than $10^{-6}$;
- sparsity level of the solution: the number of entries of the computed solution with value larger than $10^{-6}$;
- error with respect to the ground truth: the Euclidean norm of the difference of the computed solution and the ground truth $x^g$;
- the objective value of the computed solution;
- CPU time measured in seconds.
From Table \[tab:computation\], one can see that, e-PSG method is competitive with the ADMM method in terms of sparsity level and the CPU time used, and produces a solution with slightly better quality in terms of the final objective value and the error with respect to the ground truth. As plotted in Figure \[fig:1\], one can see that ADMM uses around 2000 iterations to reach the desired relative error tolerance, and has sharp oscillating phenomenon in terms of the objective value (this has also been observed in [@RWDL19], and the authors of [@RWDL19] believed that this is one of the major obstacles in establishing the convergence of the ADMM method); while the proposed e-PSG method quickly approaches the desired error tolerance. On the other hand, it should be noted that the subproblems in the ADMM method have closed form solutions while the subproblems in the e-PSG method are reformulated as quadratic programming problems with linear constraints and solved via the software Gurobi[^8].
------- --------------- ------------------- -------------------- ----------------------- ----------
error w.r.t objective value of
initial guess computed solution the ground truth the computed solution
ADMM 64 12 6.948329e-06 2.724348 1.970365
e-PSG 64 12 4.539185e-10 2.724326 2.375557
------- --------------- ------------------- -------------------- ----------------------- ----------
: Computation results for []{data-label="tab:computation"}
![Objective values vs. iterations in solving []{data-label="fig:1"}](comparison_PSG_ADMM_1.jpg)
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we have proposed proximal subgradient algorithms with extrapolations for solving fractional optimization model where both the numerator and denominator can be nonsmooth and nonconvex. We have shown that the iterated sequence generated by the algorithm is bounded and any of its limit points is a stationary point of the model problem. We have also established the global convergence of the sequence by further assuming KL property of a suitable merit function by providing a unified analysis framework of descent methods. Finally, in the case where the denominator is the maximum of finitely many continuously differentiable weakly convex functions, we have also proposed an enhanced proximal subgradient algorithm with extrapolations, and showed that this enhanced algorithm converges to a stronger notion of stationary points of the model problem.
Our results in this paper point out the following interesting open questions and future work: (1) For the enhanced proximal subgradient algorithm with extrapolations (Algorithm \[algo:max\]), is it possible to extend the case from $g(x)=\max_{1 \leq i \leq m}\{g_i(x)\}$ to $g(x)=\max_{y \in T}\{g_t(x)\}$ where $T$ is a (possibly) infinite set? (2) In Algorithm \[algo:max\], one needs to solve the subproblem $|I_{\varepsilon}(x_n)|$ times, this can be time consuming when the dimension is high. Is it possible to incorporate randomize technique to save the computational cost and establish the convergence in probability sense? (3) How to obtain the global convergence of the full sequence of Algorithm \[algo:max\] under weaker and reasonable assumptions is also an important topic to be examined. Finally, further numerical implementations of our algorithms and comparisons with other competitive methods are left as future research.
[**Acknowledgement:**]{} The authors would like to thank Dr. Yifei Lou for kindly sharing the MATLAB code for the ADMM method used in [@RWDL19].
[99]{}
H. Attouch and J. Bolte, On the convergence of the proximal algorithm for nonsmooth functions involving analytic features, *Math. Program. Ser. B* [**116**]{}(1–2), 5–16 (2009).
H. Attouch, J. Bolte, and B.F. Svaiter, Convergence of descent methods for semi-algebraic and tame problems: Proximal algorithms, forward-backward splitting, and regularized Gauss-Seidel methods, *Math. Program. Ser. A* [**137**]{}(1–2), 91–129 (2013).
H.H. Bauschke and P.L. Combettes, *Convex Analysis and Monotone Operator Theory in Hilbert Spaces*, 2nd ed., Springer, Cham (2017).
A. Beck, *First-Order Methods in Optimization*, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia, (2017).
A. Beck and N. Hallak, On the convergence to stationary points of deterministic and randomized feasible descent directions methods, *SIAM J. Optim.* [**30**]{}, no. 1, 56-79, (2020).
J. Bolte and E. Pauwels, Majorization-minimization procedures and convergence of SQP methods for semi-algebraic and tame programs, *Math. Oper. Res.* [**41**]{}(2), 442–465 (2016).
J. Bolte, S. Sabach, and M. Teboulle, Proximal alternating linearized minimization for nonconvex and nonsmooth problems, *Math. Program. Ser. A* [**146**]{}(1–2), 459–494 (2014).
R.I. Boţ and E.R. Csetnek, Proximal-gradient algorithms for fractional programming, *Optimization* [**66**]{}(8), 1383–1396 (2017).
L. Chen, S. He and S.Z. Zhang, When all risk-adjusted performance measures are the same: in praise of the Sharpe ratio, *Quantitative Finance*, [**11**]{} 10, 1439-1447, (2011).
J.-P. Crouzeix, J.A. Ferland, and S. Schaible, An algorithm for generalized fractional programs, *J. Optim. Theory Appl.* [**47**]{}(1), 35–49 (1985).
W. Dinkelbach, On nonlinear fractional programming, *Management Science* [**13**]{}, 492–498 (1967).
P. Frankel, G. Garrigos, and J. Peypouquet, Splitting methods with variable metric for Kurdyka–[Ł]{}ojasiewicz functions and general convergence rates, *J. Optim. Theory Appl.* [**165**]{}(3), 874–900 (2014).
T. Ibaraki, Solving mathematical programming problems with fractional objective functions, in S. Schaible and W.T. Ziemba (ed.): *Generalized Concavity in Optimization and Economics*, Academic Press, New York-London, 441–472 (1981).
T. Ibaraki, Parametric approaches to fractional programs, *Math. Prog.* [**26**]{}(3), 345–362 (1983).
K. Kurdyka, On gradients of functions definable in o-minimal structures, *Annales de l’institut Fourier* (Grenoble) [**48**]{}(3), 769–783 (1998).
S. Lojasiewicz, Une propriété topologique des sous-ensembles analytiques réels, *Les Équations aux Dérivées Partielles*, Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, 87–89 (1963).
G. Li and T.K. Pong, Calculus of the exponent of Kurdyka–[Ł]{}ojasiewicz inequality and its applications to linear convergence of first-order methods, *Found. Comput. Math.* [**18**]{}(5), 1199–1232 (2018).
B.S. Mordukhovich, *Variational Analysis and Generalized Differentiation I. Basic Theory*, Springer, Berlin (2006).
Y. Nesterov, *Introductory Lectures on Convex Optimization: A Basic Course*, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2004).
D. Noll, Convergence of non-smooth descent methods using the Kurdyka–[Ł]{}ojasiewicz inequality, *J. Optim. Theory Appl.* [**160**]{}(2) 553–572 (2013).
P. Ochs, Unifying abstract inexact convergence theorems and block coordinate variable metric iPiano, *SIAM J. Optim.* [**29**]{}(1), 541–570 (2019).
P. Ochs, Y. Chen, T. Brox, and T. Pock, iPiano: Inertial proximal algorithm for nonconvex optimization, *SIAM J. Imaging Sci.* [**7**]{}(2), 1388–1419 (2014).
J.-S. Pang, M. Razaviyayn, and A. Alvarado, Computing B-stationary points of nonsmooth DC programs, *Math. Oper. Res.* [**42**]{}(1), 95–118 (2016).
Y. Rahimi, C. Wang, H. Dong and Y. Lou, A scale-invariant approach for sparse signal recovery, *SIAM J. Sci. Comput.*, [**41**]{} (6), 3649-3672, (2019).
R.T. Rockafellar and R.J.-B. Wets, *Variational Analysis*, Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences 317, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1998).
S. Schaible, Fractional programming II. On Dinkelbach’s algorithm, *Management Science* [**22**]{}(8), 868–873 (1975/76).
W. Sun and Y.X. Yuan, A conic trust-region method for nonlinearly constrained optimization, *Annals of Oper. Res.* [**103**]{}, 175-191, (2001).
[^1]: Faculty of Mathematics, University of Vienna, A-1090 Vienna, Austria. E-mail: `[email protected]`.
[^2]: Department of Applied Mathematics, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia. E-mail: `[email protected]`.
[^3]: Department of Applied Mathematics, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia. E-mail: `[email protected]`.
[^4]: Research of the first author is partially supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), project number I 2419-N32, and the research of the second and the third authors is partially supported by the Australian Research Council (ARC), project number DP190100555.
[^5]: A function $g$ is strictly differentiable at $x$ if there exists $x^* \in \mathcal{H}$ such that $\displaystyle \lim_{y,z \to x}\frac{|g(y)-g(z)-\langle x^*,y-z\rangle|}{\|y-z\|}=0$. Clearly, if $g$ is continuously differentiable at $x$, then it is strictly differentiable at $x$.
[^6]: The proximal operator of a function $h$ is denoted by ${\rm Prox}_h$ and is defined as ${\rm Prox}_h(x)= {\rm argmin}_y\{h(y)+\frac{1}{2}\|y-x\|^2\}$.
[^7]: A sequence $(x_n)$ is said to be *asymptotically regular* if $\|x_{n+1}-x_n\|\to 0$ as $n\to +\infty$.
[^8]: One possible way to improve the CPU time in using e-PSG is to solve the subproblem via alternating direction method of multiplier method directly. We leave this as a future study.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We report on the microwave properties of a resonant cylindrical cavity made of bulk [MgB$_2$]{} superconductor, produced by the reactive liquid Mg infiltration process. The frequency response of the cavity has been measured in the range $5\div 13$ GHz. Among the various modes, the TE$_{011}$, resonating at 9.79 GHz, exhibits the highest quality factor. For this mode, we have determined the temperature dependence of the quality factor, obtaining values of the order of $10^5$ in the temperature range $4.2\div 30$ K. The values of the surface resistance deduced from the measurements of the quality factor agree quite well with those independently measured in a small sample of [MgB$_2$]{} extracted from the same specimen from which the cavity has been obtained.'
address:
- 'CNISM and Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche e Astronomiche, Università di Palermo, via Archirafi 36, 90123 Palermo, Italy'
- 'EDISON S.p.A, Divisione Ricerca e Sviluppo, foro Buonaparte 31, 20121 Milano, Italy'
- 'Institute of Solid State Physics, Chernogolovka, Moscow District 142432, Russia'
author:
- 'A. Agliolo Gallitto'
- 'G. Bonsignore'
- 'M. Li Vigni'
- 'G. Giunchi'
- 'Yu. A. Nefyodov'
title: 'Microwave response of a cylindrical cavity made of bulk [MgB$_2$]{} superconductor'
---
,
,
,
,
Superconducting microwave cavity ,[MgB$_2$]{} ,Surface resistance 85.25.Am ,74.25.Nf ,74.70.Ad
Introduction
============
Superconducting materials, because of their low surface resistance, are recommended for manufacturing many passive *mw* devices [@lanc; @hein]. Among the various devices, the superconducting resonant cavity is one of the most important application in the systems requiring high selectivity in the signal frequency, such as filters for communication systems [@pand], particle accelerators [@padam; @collings], equipment for material characterization at *mw* frequencies [@lanc92; @zhai].
Since the discovery of the high-temperature superconductors (HTS), several attempts have been done to assemble *mw* cavities made of bulk HTS [@pand; @lanc92; @zaho]; however, limitations in their performance were encountered. Firstly, grain boundaries in these materials are weakly coupled giving rise to reduction of the critical current and/or nonlinear effects, which worsen the device performance [@golo]; furthermore, the process necessary to obtain bulk HTS in a performing textured form is very elaborated. For these reasons, in several applications, most of the superconducting cavities are still manufactured with Nb, requiring liquid He as refrigerator [@padam; @zhai; @Trunin].
Since the discovery of superconductivity at 39 K in [MgB$_2$]{} [@naga], several authors have indicated this material as promising for technological applications [@collings; @bugo; @HeinProc]. The advantages of using MgB$_2$ for this purpose are several. The simple chemical composition makes the synthesis process easy, reducing the production cost in comparison with HTS. The relatively high critical temperature allows to maintain the compound in the superconducting state by using modern closed-cycle cryocoolers, not requiring liquid He as thermal bath. A further interesting property of [MgB$_2$]{} bulk samples is the high connectivity of the superconducting grains. Indeed, contrary to oxide HTS, bulk [MgB$_2$]{}can be used in the polycrystalline form without a significant degradation of its critical current [@bugo; @HeinProc; @larbalestier]. This property has been ascribed to the large coherence length, which makes the material less susceptible to structural defects like grain boundaries [@Rowell]. Due to these amazing properties, MgB$_2$ has been recommended for manufacturing *mw* cavities [@collings; @Tajima], and investigation is carried out to test the potential of different MgB$_2$ materials for this purpose.
In this paper, we report on the *mw* properties of the first cylindrical cavity made of bulk [MgB$_2$]{} [@SUST-cavity]. The material has been produced by the reactive liquid Mg infiltration technology [@brevetto; @giun03]; it exhibits a critical temperature $T_c\approx38.5$ K. The frequency response of the cavity has been measured in the range $5\div 13$ GHz. The quality factor of the cavity for the TE$_{011}$ mode has been investigated as a function of the temperature, from $T=4.2$ K up to $T\approx150$ K. From the $Q$ values, we have determined the temperature dependence of the *mw* surface resistance of the [MgB$_2$]{} material; these results have been compared with those independently obtained in a small plate-like sample of [MgB$_2$]{}extracted from the same specimen used for the cavity.
Cylindrical cavities: theoretical aspects
=========================================
As it is well known, an important valuation index to determine the performance of a resonant cavity is the quality factor $Q$, defined as $$Q=2\pi\frac{energy\ stored\ in\ the\ cavity}{energy\ lost\ per\
cycle}\,.$$ In an empty resonant cavity, essentially two causes contribute to the energy losses: conductor losses, associated to the conduction currents in the cavity walls; radiation losses, due to power that leaves the cavity through the holes for the coupling between the resonator and the external circuit. Therefore, the overall or loaded $Q$, denoted by $Q^L$, can be defined by $$\label{equ:Q-L} \frac{1}{Q^L}=\frac{1}{Q^U} + \frac{1}{Q^R}\,,$$ where $Q^R$ is due to the radiative losses and $Q^U$, the so-called unloaded $Q$, includes only the conductor losses.\
$Q^U$ is given by $$\label{equ:Q-U} Q^U=\frac{\Gamma }{R_s}\,,$$ where $R_s$ is the surface resistance of the material; $\Gamma$ is the geometry factor, it depends on the shape and dimensions of the cavity and the specific resonant mode.
For a cavity coupled to the external circuit through two lines, $Q^U$ can be deduced, from the measured $Q^L$, by taking into account the coupling coefficients, $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$, for both the coupling lines; these coefficients can be calculated by directly measuring the reflected power at each line, as described in Chap. IV of Ref. [@lanc]. Thus, $Q^U$ can be calculated as $$Q^U = (1+\beta_1+\beta_2)Q^L\,.$$ It is worth noting that $Q^R$ can be made large by weakly coupling the excitation and detection lines. In this case, $\beta_1 +
\beta_2 \ll 1$ and $Q^U \approx Q^L$.
As it is well known, resonant cylindrical cavities can support both TE$_{lmn}$ and TM$_{lmn}$ modes; the subscripts *l*, *m* and *n* refer to the number of half-wavelength variations in the standing-wave pattern in $\phi$, $r$ and $z$ directions, respectively. The resonant frequencies of a cylindrical cavity resonating in the TE$_{lmn}$ or TM$_{lmn}$ modes are given by [@lanc] $$\label{equ:f-TE} f^{TE}_{lmn} = \frac{1}{2 \pi\sqrt{\epsilon\mu}}
\sqrt{\left(\frac{n\pi}{d}\right)^2+\left(\frac{z_{lm}^{\prime}}{a}\right)^2}\,,$$ $$\label{equ:f-TM}
f^{TM}_{lmn} = \frac{1}{2 \pi\sqrt{\epsilon\mu}}
\sqrt{\left(\frac{n\pi}{d}\right)^2+\left(\frac{z_{lm}}{a}\right)^2}\,,$$ where $\mu$ and $\epsilon$ are the permeability and dielectric constant of the medium filling the cavity; $a$ and $d$ the radius and length of the cavity; $z_{lm}$ and $z_{lm}^{\prime}$ are the *m*th zeros of the Bessel function of order *l* and of its first derivative, respectively.
Among the various resonant modes, the ones more extensively used are the TE$_{01n}$, which give a reasonably high quality factor. In the TE$_{01n}$ modes, the wall currents are purely circumferential and no currents flow between the end plates and the cylinder. This implies that no electrical contact between plates and cylinder is required, making the cavity assembly easy. The TE$_{01n}$ modes are degenerate in frequency with the TM$_{11n}$ modes and this should be avoided to have a well defined field configuration; however, this degeneracy can be removed introducing a small gap between cylinder and lids. This shifts the resonant frequency of the TM$_{11n}$ modes downwards, leaving the TE$_{01n}$ modes nearly unperturbed. The unloaded quality factor of a cylindrical cavity resonating in the TE$_{01n}$ mode is given by $$\label{equ:Q-TE01n}
Q_{01n}^U = \frac{\Gamma_{01n}}{R_s}\,,$$ with $$\label{equ:GAMMA-TE01n} \Gamma_{01n} =
\sqrt{\frac{\mu}{\epsilon}} \frac{\left[(z_{01}^{\prime}d)^2 + (n
\pi a)^2\right]^{3/2}}{2(z_{01}^{\prime})^2 d^3 + 4 n^2\pi^2
a^3}\,,\;\;\; z_{01}^{\prime} = 3.83170\,.$$
The superconducting [MgB$_2$]{} cavity {#cavity}
======================================
The material from which the cavity is made has been produced by the reactive liquid [MgB$_2$]{} infiltration technology (RLI) [@brevetto; @giun03]. The RLI process consists in the reaction of pure liquid Mg and boron powder, sealed in a stainless steel container with a weight ratio Mg/B over the stoichiometric value ($\approx 0.55$). The reaction between liquid Mg and B powder produces a more stable material, with respect to the hot pressing technique, at temperatures of a few hundred K above the Mg melting point and at moderate pressure. This procedure allows one to obtain specimens of high density and dimensions of the order of tens on centimeters, showing very high mechanical strength [@giun03; @giun-cryo06].
As the first attempt to apply the MgB$_2$ produced by RLI to the cavity-filter technology, we have manufactured a simple cylindrical cavity and have investigated its microwave response in a wide range of frequencies. All the parts of the cavity, cylinder and lids, are made of bulk MgB$_2$ material with $T_c \approx
38.5$ K and density $\approx 2.33~\mathrm{g/cm^3}$. The material has been obtained using commercial crystalline B powder (Starck H. C., Germany, 99.5% purity) and pure Mg; in order to get the B powder to be used in the synthesis process, the original chunks were mechanically crushed and filtered through a 100 micron sieve. In particular, the present cylindrical cavity (inner diameter 40 mm, outer diameter 48 mm, height 42.5 mm) was cut by electroerosion from a thicker bulk MgB$_2$ cylinder, previously prepared as described in Sec. 4.3 of Ref. [@giun-cryo06], internally polished to a surface roughness of about 300 nm.
A photograph of the parts, cylinder and lids, composing the superconducting cavity is shown in Fig. \[Fig-cavity\]. The holes in one of the lids have been used to insert two small loop antennas which couple the cavity with the excitation and detection lines. The loop antenna was constructed on the end of each line, soldering the central conductor to the outer shielding of the semirigid cable. In order to remove the degeneracy between TE$_{01n}$ and TM$_{11n}$ modes, we have incorporated a “mode trap" in the form of circular grooves (1 mm thick, 2 mm wide) inside the cylinder at the outer edges.
\[Fig-cavity\] ![Photograph of the cylinder and the lids composing the bulk MgB$_2$ cavity. The holes in one of the lids are used to insert the coupling loops. After Ref.[@SUST-cavity].](cavity_color.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
Experimental results {#results}
====================
![Microwave response of the [MgB$_2$]{} cavity filled by liquid He in the frequency range 5.3 $\div$ 12.3 GHz. In the omitted ranges, no resonant curves were present.[]{data-label="fig:spettro"}](spettro.eps){width="7.3cm"}
The resonant cavity has been characterized by measuring its frequency response in the range $5\div 13$ GHz by an *hp*-8719D Network Analyzer, using a two-port configuration. The spectrum of the cavity, measured at $T=4.2$ K, is shown in Fig. \[fig:spettro\], in four frequency intervals. The arrows indicate the resonances we have certainly recognized by Eqs. (\[equ:f-TE\]) and (\[equ:f-TM\]); some peaks show a not simple structure, probably due to the superposition of different modes, which hinders to recognize the corresponding mode.
Among the various modes detected, two of them show the highest quality factors; at $T=4.2$ K, with the cavity filled by liquid He, the resonant frequencies of these modes are 9.567 GHz and 11.291 GHz. At room temperature, with the cavity filled by gaseous He, these resonant frequencies move to 9.79 GHz and 11.54 GHz; according to Eq. (\[equ:f-TE\]), they correspond to the TE$_{011}$ and TE$_{012}$ modes. Fig. \[fig:TE-curve\] shows the resonant curves, at $T=4.2$ K, corresponding to the TE$_{011}$ (a) and TE$_{012}$ (b) modes. The lines are Lorentzian fits of the experimental data, which give for the loaded quality factors $Q_{011}^L \approx 158000$ and $Q_{012}^L \approx 144000$.
![Resonant curves, at $T=4.2$ K, corresponding to the TE$_{011}$ (a) and TE$_{012}$ (b) modes. The lines are Lorentzian fits of the experimental curves from which we have extracted the values of $Q^L$ and the central frequency $f_0$.[]{data-label="fig:TE-curve"}](TE-curve.eps){width="7.5cm"}
The quality factor of the TE$_{011}$ mode has been measured as a function of the temperature, in the range $4.2\div 150$ K. In order to calculate the unloaded $Q$-values, we have determined the coupling coefficients by measuring the power reflected by each line. The coupling coefficients, $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$, have been measured at different values of the temperature; they result $\approx 0.2$ at $T=4.2$ K and reduce to $\approx 0.05$ when the material goes to the normal state, at $T \approx 38.5$ K. Fig. \[fig:QvsT-cavity\] shows the temperature dependence of the loaded and unloaded $Q$ for the TE$_{011}$ mode, $Q_{011}^L$ and $Q_{011}^U$. At $T=4.2$ K, we have obtained $Q_{011}^U=2.2\times10^5$; on increasing the temperature, the quality factor maintains values of the order of $10^5$ up to $T
\approx 30$ K and reduces by a factor of $\approx 20$ at $T=T_c$.
![Temperature dependence of the loaded- and unloaded-$Q$ values, $Q_{011}^L$ and $Q_{011}^U$, for the TE$_{011}$ mode.[]{data-label="fig:QvsT-cavity"}](QvsT.eps){width="7.5cm"}
From the values of $Q_{011}^U$, it is possible, using Eq. (\[equ:Q-TE01n\]), to deduce the surface resistance of the [MgB$_2$]{} material from which the cavity is made. In order to identify possible spurious effects in the measurement of the *mw* response of the cavity, we have measured the *mw* surface resistance of a small plate-like sample of [MgB$_2$]{} extracted from the same specimen from which the cavity has been obtained. These measurements have been performed by the technique of hot-finger cavity perturbation [@Trunin], using a Nb cavity resonating at $\approx 9.4$ GHz. Fig. \[fig:RvsT-cavity\] shows a comparison between the $R_s(T)$ values deduced from $Q_{011}^U(T)$ (full symbols) and those obtained in the sample (open symbols). As one can see, when the cavity is in the superconducting state, the $R_s(T)$ curves obtained by the two different techniques are consistent, while for $T>T_c$ they differ by $\approx 10 \%$. This disagreement may be ascribed to the difficulty of measuring with high sensitivity the quality factor of the [MgB$_2$]{} cavity at $T>T_c$, due to its small value. On the contrary, the sensitivity of the measurements performed by the technique of hot-finger cavity perturbation is very high independently of the temperature; indeed, the Nb cavity is always maintained in the superconducting state and only the temperature of the sample is changed.
![Comparison between the temperature dependence of $R_s(T)$ deduced from $Q_{011}^U(T)$ (full symbols) and that obtained at 9.4 GHz in a small [MgB$_2$]{} sample extracted from the same material of the cavity (open symbols).[]{data-label="fig:RvsT-cavity"}](RvsT.eps){width="7.5cm"}
As one can see from Fig. \[fig:TE-curve\]b, the resonant curve for the TE$_{012}$ mode is not very well described by a Lorentzian function; this problem becomes more significant on increasing the temperature, making inaccurate the determination of the quality factor at temperatures higher that $\approx 30$ K. For these reason, we have not reported here the temperature dependence of $Q_{012}$. However, we have verified that, also for the TE$_{102}$ mode, the quality factor takes on values of the order of $10^5$ up to $T\sim 30$ K and reduced by a factor of $\approx 20$ when the material goes to the normal state.
Discussion and Conclusion
=========================
It is well known that one of the most important application of superconducting materials is the implementation of *mw* resonant cavities, which can be used in a large variety of devices [@lanc; @pand; @padam; @collings; @lanc92; @zhai]. Although several studies have been devoted to build *mw* cavities using HTS, actually most of the superconducting cavities are still manufactured with Nb, requiring liquid He as refrigerator. The main problem encountered in using bulk HTS, for this purpose, is due to the weak coupling of grain boundaries in these materials, which act as weak links. On the contrary, it has widely been shown that in bulk [MgB$_2$]{} samples only a small amount of grain boundaries act as weak links [@Rowell; @Samanta; @Khare; @agliJ-SC], hindering the strong suppression of the critical current with magnetic field and the generation of nonlinear effects at high input power. For these reasons, as well as for the relatively high $T_c$, several authors have recommended [MgB$_2$]{} as a convenient material to build *mw* cavity.
Recently, we have investigated the *mw* response of small plate-like samples of MgB$_2$ prepared by RLI process, in the linear and nonlinear regimes [@agliJ-SC; @agli-EUCAS]. These studies have highlighted a weak nonlinear response, as well as relatively small values of the residual surface resistance. In particular, we have found that the *mw* properties of such samples improve on decreasing the size of the B powder used in the synthesis process. Furthermore, bulk samples produced by RLI maintain the surface staining unchanged for years, without controlled-atmosphere protection. This useful property is most likely related to the high density, and consequently high grain connectivity, achieved with the RLI process, as well as to the small and controlled amount of impurity phases [@giun-physicaC]. Prompted by these interesting results, we have built the *mw* resonant cavity using MgB$_2$ produced by the RLI process [@SUST-cavity].
The results of Fig. \[fig:QvsT-cavity\] show that $Q$ takes on values of the order of $10^5$ from $T=4.2$ K up to $T\approx
30$ K, a temperature easily reachable by modern closed-cycle cryocoolers. To our knowledge, these $Q$ values are higher than those reported in the literature for *mw* cylindrical cavities manufactured with HTS, both bulk and films [@pand; @lanc92; @zaho]. So, our results show that MgB$_2$ produced by RLI is a very promising material for building *mw* resonant cavities. We would remark that this is the first attempt to realize a superconducting cavity made of bulk [MgB$_2$]{}. In particular, this investigation has been carried out with the aim to explore the potential of bulk MgB$_2$ materials prepared by RLI to the *mw*-cavity technology.
The MgB$_2$ material from which the present cavity is made has been obtained using crystalline B powder with grain mean size $\approx 100~\mu$m. Our previous studies on bulk MgB$_2$ samples, obtained by the RLI method, have shown that samples prepared using microcrystalline B powder ($\approx 1~\mu$m in size) exhibit smaller residual surface resistance ($\approx 0.5~\mathrm{m}
\Omega$) [@agli-EUCAS]. From Fig. \[fig:RvsT-cavity\], one can see that the residual surface resistance of the cavity is $R_s(4.2~\mathrm{K})\approx 3.5~\mathrm{m}\Omega$. So, we infer that one could improve the quality factor by one order of magnitude manufacturing the cavity with material produced by liquid Mg infiltration in micrometric B powder.
Because of the shorter length of percolation of the liquid Mg into very fine B powder, the production of massive MgB$_2$ samples by RLI using B powder with size $\approx 1~\mu$m turns out to be more elaborate. However, work is in progress to improve the preparation process in order to manufacture large specimens using microcrystalline B powder. Considering that the *mw* fields penetrate in a surface layer of the material of the order of the penetration depth, a more performing *mw* resonant cavity can be obtained designing a composite structure; in particular, one can use microcrystalline B powder for the inner part of the cavity and larger grain-size B powder for the outer part.
In conclusion, we have shown that the RLI process provides a useful method for assembling high-performance *mw* cavities, which may have large scale application. We have obtained quality factors of the order of $10^5$, larger than those reported in the literature for cavities made of HTS, both bulk and films, in the same temperature range. Although higher quality factors have been reported for superconducting cavities made of pure Nb and Nb alloys [@padam], Nb cavities must be kept in liquid-He bath; on the contrary, cavity made of MgB$_2$ can be maintained in the superconducting state by using close-cycle cryocoolers that can easily work at temperature of the order of 10 K.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors are very glad to thank M. Bonura for his continuous interest and helpful suggestions, G. Lapis and G. Napoli for technical assistance. Work partially supported by the University of Palermo (grant Coll. Int. Li Vigni, Co.RI 2005).
[99]{}
M. J. Lancaster, *Passive Microwave Device Applications of High-Temperature Superconductors*, Cambridge University Press (Cambridge 1997).
M. Hein, *High-Temperature Superconductor Thin Films at Microwave Frequencies*, Springer Tracts of Modern Physics, vol. **155**, Springer (Heidelberg 1999).
H. Pandit, D. Shi, N. H. Babu, X. Chaud, D. A. Cardwell, P. He, D. Isfort, R. Tournier, D. Mast, and A. M. Ferendeci, Physica **C 425** (2005) 44.
H. Padamsee, Supercond. Sci. Technol. **14** (2001) R28.
E. W. Collings, M. D. Sumption, and T. Tajima, Supercond. Sci. Technol. **17** (2004) S595.
M. J. Lancaster, T. S. M. Maclean, Z. Wu, A. Porch, P. Woodall, N. NcN. Alford, IEE Proceedings-H, vol. **139** (1992) 149.
Z. Zhai, C. Kusko, N. Hakim, and S. Sridhar, Rev. Sci. Instrum. **71** (2000) 3151.
C. Zahopoulos, W. L. Kennedy, S. Sridhar, Appl. Phys. Lett. **52** (1988) 2168.
M. Golosovsky, Particle Accelerators **351** (1998) 87, and references therein.
M. R. Trunin, Physics-Uspeki **48** (2005) 979.
J. Nagamatsu, N. Nakagawa, T. Muranaka, Y. Zenitani, and J. Akimitsu, Nature (London) **410** (2001) 63.
Y. Bugoslavsky, G. K. Perkins, X. Qi, L. F. Cohen, and A. D. Caplin, Nature (London) **410** (2001) 563.
M. A. Hein, *Proceedings of URSI-GA* (Maastricht 2002); e-print arXiv:cond-mat/0207226.
D. C. Larbalestier, L. D. Cooley, M. O. Rikel, A.A. Polyanskii, J. Jiang, S. Patnaik, X. Y. Cai, D. M. Feldmann, A. Gurevich, A. A. Squitieri, M. T. Naus, C. B. Eom, E. E. Hellstrom, R. J. Cava, K. A. Regan, N. Rogado, M. A. Hayward, T. He, J. S. Slusky, P. Khalifah, K. Inumaru, and M. Haas, Nature (London) **410** (2001) 186.
J. M. Rowell, Supercond. Sci. Technol. **16** (2003) R17.
T. Tajima, *Proceedings of EPAC Conf.* (Paris 2002) 2289.
G. Giunchi, A. Agliolo Gallitto, G. Bonsignore, M. Bonura and M. Li Vigni, Supercond. Sci. Technol. **20** (2007) L16.
EDISON, *patent n. MI2001A000978*.
G. Giunchi, Int. J. Mod. Phys. **B 17** (2003) 453.
G. Giunchi, G. Ripamonti, T. Cavallin, E. Bassani, Cryogenics **46** (2006) 237.
S. B. Samanta, H. Narayan, A. Gupta, A. V. Narlikar, T. Muranaka, and J. Akimtsu, Phys. Rev. **B 65** (2002) 092510.
Neeraj Khare, D. P. Singh, A. K. Gupta, Shashawati Sen, D. K. Aswal, S. K. Gupta, and L. C. Gupta, J. Appl. Phys. **97** (2005) 07613.
A. Agliolo Gallitto, G. Bonsignore, G. Giunchi, and M. Li Vigni, J. Supercond. **20** (2007) 13.
A. Agliolo Gallitto, G. Bonsignore, G. Giunchi, M. Li Vigni, and Yu. A. Nefyodov, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. **43** (2006) 480.
G. Giunchi, C. Orecchia, L. Malpezzi, and N. Masciocchi, Physica **C 433** (2006) 182.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ be an iterated function system (IFS) on $\R^d$ with attractor $K$. Let $(\Sigma,\sigma)$ denote the one-sided full shift over the alphabet $\{1,\ldots, \ell\}$. We define the projection entropy function $h_\pi$ on the space of invariant measures on $\Sigma$ associated with the coding map $\pi:\; \Sigma\to K$, and develop some basic ergodic properties about it. This concept turns out to be crucial in the study of dimensional properties of invariant measures on $K$. We show that for any conformal IFS (resp., the direct product of finitely many conformal IFS), without any separation condition, the projection of an ergodic measure under $\pi$ is always exactly dimensional and, its Hausdorff dimension can be represented as the ratio of its projection entropy to its Lyapunov exponent (resp., the linear combination of projection entropies associated with several coding maps). Furthermore, for any conformal IFS and certain affine IFS, we prove a variational principle between the Hausdorff dimension of the attractors and that of projections of ergodic measures.'
address:
- ' Department of Mathematics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA '
author:
- 'De-Jun FENG'
- Huyi Hu
title: Dimension theory of iterated function systems
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Let $\{S_i: X\to X\}_{i=1}^\ell$ be a family of contractive maps on a nonempty closed set $X\subset \R^d$. Following Barnsley [@Bar-book], we say that $\Phi=\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ is an [*iterated function system*]{} (IFS) on $X$. Hutchinson [@Hut81] showed that there is a unique nonempty compact set $K\subset X$, called the [*attractor*]{} of $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$, such that $K=\bigcup_{i=1}^\ell S_i(K)$. A probability measure $\mu$ on $\R^d$ is said to be [*exactly dimensional*]{} if there is a constant $C$ such that the [*local dimension*]{} $$d(\mu, x)=\lim_{r\to 0}\frac{\log \mu (B(x,r))}{\log r}$$ exists and equals $C$ for $\mu$-a.e. $x\in \R^d$, where $B(x,r)$ denotes the closed ball of radius $r$ centered at $x$. It was shown by Young [@You82] that in such case, the Hausdorff dimension of $\mu$ is equal to $C$. (See also [@Fan94; @Mat95; @Pes-book].)
The motivation of the paper is to study the Hausdorff dimension of an invariant measure $\mu$ (see Section \[S1\] for precise meaning) for conformal and affine IFS with overlaps. To deal with overlaps, we regard such a system as the image of a natural projection $\pi$ from the one-sided full shift space over $\ell$ symbols. Hence we obtain a dynamical system. We introduce a notion [*projection entropy*]{}, which plays the similar role as the classical entropy for IFS satisfying the open set condition, and it becomes the classical entropy if the projection is finite to one. The concept of projection entropy turns out to be crucial in the study of dimensional properties of invariant measures on attractors of either conformal IFS with overlaps or affine IFS.
We develop some basic properties about projection entropy (Theorem \[thm-1.0\], \[thm-1.0’\]). We prove that for conformal IFS with overlaps, every ergodic measure $\mu$ is exactly dimensional and $\disp d(\mu, x)$ is equal to the projection entropy divided by the Lyapunov exponent (Theorem \[thm-1.2\]). Furthermore, if $\Phi$ is a direct product of conformal IFS (see Definition \[de-1.6\] for precise meaning), then for every ergodic measure on $K$ the local dimension can be expressed by a Ledrappier-Young type formula in terms of projection entropies and Lyapunov exponents (Theorem \[thm-1.3\]). We also prove variational results about Hausdorff dimension for conformal IFS and certain affine IFS (Theorem \[thm-1.5\] and \[thm-1.6\]), which says that the Hausdorff dimension of the attractor $K$ is equal to the supremum of Hausdorff dimension of $\mu$ taking over all ergodic measures. The results we obtain cover some interesting cases such as $S_i(x)=\mbox{diag}(\rho_1,\ldots,
\rho_d)x+a_i$, where $i=1,\ldots,\ell$ and $\rho_i^{-1}$ are [*Pisot or Salem numbers*]{} and $a_i\in \Z^d$.
The problem whether a given measure is exactly dimensional, and whether the Hausdorff dimension of an attractor can be assumed or approximated by that of an invariant measure have been well studied in the literature for $C^{1+\alpha}$ conformal IFS which satisfy the open set condition (cf. [@Bed91; @GeHa89; @Pat97]). It is well known that in such case, any ergodic measure $\mu$ is exactly dimensional with the Hausdorff dimension given by the classic entropy divided by the Lyapunov exponent. Furthermore there is a unique invariant measure $\mu$ with $\dim_H(\mu)=\dim_H(K)$, the Hausdorff dimension of $K$. However the problems become much complicated and intractable without the assumption of the open set condition. Partial results have only been obtained for conformal IFS that satisfy the [*finite type condition*]{} (see [@NgWa01] for the definition). In that case, a Bernoulli measure is exactly dimensional and its Hausdorff dimension may be expressed as the upper Lyapunov exponent of certain random matrices (see e.g. [@Fen03; @Fen05; @Lal98; @LePo94; @LaNg99]), and furthermore the Hausdorff dimension of $K$ can be computed (see e.g. [@Lal97; @RaWe98; @NgWa01]).
There are some results for certain special non-overlapping affine IFS. McMullen [@McM84] and Bedford [@Bed84] independently computed the Hausdorff dimension and the box dimension of the attractor of the following planar affine IFS $$\label{1.2}
S_i(x) = \begin{bmatrix}n^{-1} &0\\0&k^{-1}\end{bmatrix} x
+\begin{bmatrix} {a_i}/{n}\\ {b_i}/{k}, \end{bmatrix},\qquad i=1,\ldots, \ell,$$ where all $a_i,b_i$ are integers, $0 \leq a_i <n$ and $0 \leq b_i
<k$. Furthermore they showed that there is a Bernoulli measure of full Hausdorff dimension. This result was extended by Kenyon and Peres [@KePe96] to higher dimensional self-affine Sierpinski sponges, for which ergodic measures are proved to be exactly dimensional with Hausdorff dimension given by a Ledrappier-Young type formula. Another extension of McMullen and Bedford’s result to a boarder class of planar affine IFS $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ was given by Gatzouras and Lalley [@GaLa92], in which $S_i$ map the unit square $(0,1)^2$ into disjoint rectangles with sides parallel to the axes (where the longer sides are parallel to the $x$-axis, furthermore once projected onto the $x$-axis these rectangles are either identical, or disjoint). Further extensions were given recently by Barański [@Bar07], Feng and Wang [@FeWa05], Luzia [@Luz06] and Olivier [@Oli08]. For other related results, see e.g. [@PrUr89; @Led92; @KePe96a; @GaPe97; @Hu96; @HuLa95; @Fen05; @Shm06; @BaMe07; @KaSh08].
Along another direction, in [@Fal88] Falconer gave a variational formula for the Hausdorff and box dimensions for “almost all” self-affine sets under some assumptions. This formula remains true under some weaker conditions [@Sol98; @JPS07]. Käenmäki [@Kae04] proved that for “almost all” self-affine sets there exists an ergodic measure $m$ so that $m\circ \pi^{-1}$ is of full Hausdorff dimension.
Our arguments use ergodic theory and Rohlin’s theory about conditional measures. The proofs of Theorem \[thm-1.1\] and Theorem \[thm-1.3\] are based on some ideas from the work of Ledrappier and Young [@LeYo85] and techniques in analyzing the densities of conditional measures associated with overlapping IFS.
So far we have restricted ourselves on the study of finite contractive IFS. However we point out that part of our results remain valid for certain non-contractive infinite IFS (see Section \[S-10\] for details).
The paper is organized as follows. The main results are given in Section \[S1\]. In Section \[S2\], we prove some density results about conditional measures. In Section \[S3\], we investigate the properties of projection entropy and prove Theorem \[thm-1.0\] and \[thm-1.0’\]. In Section \[S4\], we give some local geometric properties of a $C^1$ IFS. In Section \[S5\], we prove a generalized version of Theorem \[thm-1.1\], which is based on a key proposition (Proposition \[pro-5.1\]) about the densities of conditional measures. In Section \[S6\], we prove Theorem \[thm-1.3\] and \[thm-1.4\]. In Section \[S7\], we prove Theorem \[thm-1.5\] and in Section \[S8\], we prove Theorem \[thm-1.6\]. In Section \[S-10\] we give a remark regarding certain non-contractive infinite IFS.
Statement of main results {#S1}
=========================
Let $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ be an IFS on a closed set $X\subset \R^d$. Denote by $K$ its attractor. Let $\Sigma=\{1,\ldots,\ell\}^\N$ associated with the left shift $\sigma$ (cf. [@Bow75]). Let $\M_\sigma(\Sigma)$ denote the space of $\sigma$-invariant measures on $\Sigma$, endowed with the weak-star topology. Let $\pi: \Sigma\to K$ be the canonical projection defined by $$\label{e-1.1} \{\pi(x)\}=\bigcap_{n=1}^\infty S_{x_1}\circ S_{x_2}\circ\cdots
\circ S_{x_n}(K),\qquad\mbox{where } x=(x_i)_{i=1}^\infty.$$ A measure $\mu$ on $K$ is called [*invariant*]{} (resp., [*ergodic*]{}) for the IFS if there is an invariant (resp. ergodic) measure $\nu$ on $\Sigma$ such that $\mu=\nu\circ \pi^{-1}$.
Let $(\Omega,\F,\nu)$ be a probability space. For a sub-$\sigma$-algebra $\A$ of $\F$ and $f\in L^1(\Omega,\F,\nu)$, we denote by ${\bf E}_\nu(f|\A)$ the the [*conditional expectation of $f$ given $\A$*]{}. For countable $\F$-measurable partition $\xi$ of $\Omega$, we denote by ${\bf I}_\nu(\xi|\A)$ the [*conditional information of $\xi$ given $\A$*]{}, which is given by the formula $$\label{e-1.2}
{\bf I}_\nu(\xi|\A)=-\sum_{A\in \xi}\chi_A\log \E_\nu(\chi_A |\A),$$ where $\chi_A$ denotes the characteristic function on $A$. The [*conditional entropy of $\xi$ given $\A$*]{}, written $H_\nu(\xi|\A)$, is defined by the formula $$H_\nu(\xi|\A)=\int {\bf I}_\nu(\xi|\A)\; d\nu.$$ (See e.g. [@Par-book] for more details.) The above information and entropy are unconditional when $\A={{\mathcal N}}$, the trivial $\sigma$-algebra consisting of sets of measure zero and one, and in this case we write $${\bf I}_\nu(\xi|{{\mathcal
N}})=:{\bf I}_\nu(\xi)\quad\mbox{and}\quad H_\nu(\xi|{{\mathcal
N}})=:H_\nu(\xi).$$
Now we consider the space $(\Sigma, \B(\Sigma),m)$, where $\B(\Sigma)$ is the Borel $\sigma$-algebra on $\Sigma$ and $m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)$. Let $\P$ denote the Borel partition $$\label{e-1P}
\P=\{[j]: 1\leq j\leq \ell\}$$ of $\Sigma$, where $[j]=\{(x_i)_{i=1}^\infty\in \Sigma:\; x_1=j\}$. Let ${\mathcal I}$ denote the $\sigma$-algebra $$\I=\{B\in \B(\Sigma):\; \sigma^{-1}B=B\}.$$ For convenience, we use $\gamma$ to denote the Borel $\sigma$-algebra $\B(\R^d)$ on $\R^d$.
\[de-1.1\] [For any $m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)$, we call $$h_\pi(\sigma,m):=H_m(\P|\sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}\gamma)-H_m(\P|\pi^{-1}\gamma)$$ the [*projection entropy of $m$ under $\pi$ w.r.t. $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$*]{}, and we call $$h_\pi(\sigma,m,x):={\bf E}_m\left(f\big|{\mathcal I}\right)(x)$$ the [*local projection entropy of $m$ at $x$ under $\pi$ w.r.t. $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$*]{}, where $f$ denotes the function ${\bf I}_m(\P|\sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}\gamma)-{\bf I}_m(\P|\pi^{-1}\gamma)$.]{}
It is clear that $h_\pi(\sigma,m)=\int h_\pi(\sigma,m,x)\;dm(x)$. Our first result is the following theorem.
\[thm-1.0\] Let $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ be an IFS. Then
- For any $m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)$, we have $0\leq h_\pi(\sigma,m)\leq h(\sigma,m)$, where $h(\sigma,m)$ denotes the classical measure-theoretic entropy of $m$ associated with $\sigma$.
- The map $m\mapsto h_\pi(\sigma,m)$ is affine on $\M_\sigma(\Sigma)$. Furthermore if $m=\int \nu \;d{\Bbb P}(\nu)$ is the ergodic decomposition of $m$, we have $$h_\pi(\sigma,m)=\int h_\pi(\sigma,\nu) \;d {\Bbb P} (\nu).$$
- For any $m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)$, we have $$\lim_{n\to \infty}\frac{1}{n} {\bf I}_m(\P_0^{n-1}|\pi^{-1}\gamma)(x)=h(\sigma,m,x)-h_\pi(\sigma,m,x)$$ for $m$-a.e. $x\in \Sigma$, where $h(\sigma,m,x)$ denotes the local entropy of $m$ at $x$, that is, $h(\sigma,m,x)={\bf I}_m(\P|\sigma^{-1}\B(\Sigma))(x)$.
Part (iii) of the theorem is an analogue of the classical relativized Shannon-McMillan-Breiman theorem (see, e.g. [@Bog92 Lemma 4.1]). However, we should notice that the sub $\sigma$-algebra $\pi^{-1}\gamma$ in our consideration is not $\sigma$-invariant in general (see Remark \[rem-3.14\]).
Part (iii) also implies that if the map $\pi\colon \Sigma \to K$ is finite-to-one, then $$h_\pi(\sigma,m)=h(\sigma,m)$$ for any $m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)$. In Section \[S3\], we will present a sufficient and necessary condition for the equality (see Corollary \[cor-3.17\]). However for general overlapping IFS, the projection entropy can be strictly less than the classical entropy.
In our next theorem, we give a geometric characterization of the projection entropy for certain affine IFS, which will be used later in the proof of our variational results about the Hausdorff and box dimensions of self-affine sets.
\[thm-1.0’\] Assume that $\Phi=\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ is an IFS on $\R^d$ of the form $$S_i(x)=Ax+c_i \qquad (i=1,\ldots, \ell),$$ where $A$ is a $d\times d$ non-singular contractive real matrix and $c_i\in \R^d$. Let $K$ denote the attractor of $\Phi$. Let $\Q$ denote the partition $\{[0,1)^d+\alpha:\; \alpha\in \Z^d\}$ of $\R^d$. For $n=0, 1,\ldots$, and $x\in \R^d$, we set $
\Q_n=\{A^nQ:\; Q\in \Q\}$. Then
- For any $m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)$, we have $$h_\pi(\sigma,m)=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{H_m(\pi^{-1}\Q_n)}{n}.$$
- Moreover, $$\lim_{n\to \infty}\frac{\log \#\{Q\in \Q:\; A^nQ\cap K\neq \emptyset\}}{n}
=\sup\{h_\pi(\sigma,m):\; m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)\}.$$
To give the applications of projection entropy in dimension theory of IFS, we need some more notation and definitions.
\[e-j7.7\] [$\{S_i: X\to X\}_{i=1}^\ell $ is called a [*$C^1$ IFS*]{} on a compact set $X\subset \R^d$ if each $S_i$ extends to a contracting $C^1$-diffeomorphism $S_i: U\to S_i(U)\subset U$ on an open set $U\supset X$. ]{}
For any $d\times d$ real matrix $M$, we use $\|M\|$ to denote the usual norm of $M$, and $\sm M\sm$ the smallest singular value of $M$, i.e., $$\label{e-M1}
\begin{split}
\|M\| &=\max\{|Mv|: \;
v\in \R^d, |v|=1\} \quad \mbox{and}\\
\sm M\sm &=\min\{|Mv|: \;
v\in \R^d, |v|=1\}.
\end{split}$$
\[de-1.2\] [Let $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ be a $C^1$ IFS. For $x=(x_j)_{j=1}^\infty\in \Sigma$, the [*upper and lower Lyapunov exponents of $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ at $x$*]{} are defined respectively by $$\begin{aligned}
&\overline{\lambda}(x)=-\liminf_{n\to \infty} \frac{1}{n}\log \sm S^\prime_{x_1\ldots x_n}(\pi\sigma^n x)\sm,\quad \\
&\underline{\lambda}(x)=-\limsup_{n\to \infty} \frac{1}{n}\log \| S^\prime_{x_1\ldots x_n}(\pi\sigma^n x)\|,\end{aligned}$$ where $S^\prime_{x_1\ldots x_n}(\pi\sigma^n x)$ denotes the differential of $S_{x_1\ldots x_n}:=
S_{x_1}\circ S_{x_2}\circ \ldots \circ S_{x_n}$ at $\pi\sigma^n x$. When $\overline{\lambda}(x)=\underline{\lambda}(x)$, the common value, denoted as $\lambda(x)$, is called the [*Lyapunov exponent of $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ at $x$*]{}. ]{}
It is easy to check that both $\overline{\lambda}$ and $\underline{\lambda}$ are positive-valued $\sigma$-invariant functions on $\Sigma$ (i.e. $\overline{\lambda}=\overline{\lambda}\circ \sigma$ and $\underline{\lambda}=\underline{\lambda}\circ \sigma$). Recall that for a probability measure $\mu$ on $\R^d$, the [*local upper and lower dimensions*]{} are defined respectively by $$\overline{d}(\mu, x)=\limsup_{r\to 0}\frac{\log \mu (B(x,r))}{\log r},\quad \underline{d}(\mu, x)=\liminf_{r\to 0}\frac{\log \mu (B(x,r))}{\log r},$$ where $B(x,r)$ denotes the closed ball of radius $r$ centered at $x$. If $\overline{d}(\mu, x)=\underline{d}(\mu, x)$, the common value is denoted as $d(\mu,x)$ and is called the [*local dimension*]{} of $m$ at $x$.
The following theorem gives an estimate of local dimensions of invariant measures on the attractor of an arbitrary $C^1$ IFS, without any separation condition.
\[thm-1.1\]Let $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ be a $C^1$ IFS with attractor $K$. Then for $\mu=m\circ
\pi^{-1}$, where $m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)$, we have the following estimates: $$\overline{d}(\mu,\pi x)\leq \frac{h_{\pi}(\sigma, m, x)}
{\underline{\lambda}(x)} \quad\mbox{ and }\quad
\underline{d}(\mu,\pi x)\geq \frac{h_\pi(\sigma,m,x)}
{\overline{\lambda}(x)} \quad\mbox {for $m$-a.e. $x\in \Sigma$,}$$ where $h_\pi(\sigma,m,x)$ denotes the local projection entropy of $m$ at $x$ under $\pi$ (see Definition \[de-1.1\]). In particular, if $m$ is ergodic, we have $$\frac{h_\pi(\sigma,m)}{\int \overline{\lambda} \;dm}\leq \underline{d}(\mu,z)\leq \overline{d}(\mu,z)\leq \frac{h_\pi(\sigma,m)}{\int\underline{\lambda} \;dm} \quad\mbox {for $\mu$-a.e. $z\in K$}.$$
\[de-1.3’\] [Let $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ be a $C^1$ IFS and $m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)$. We say that $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ is [*$m$-conformal*]{} if $\lambda(x)$ exists (i.e., $\overline{\lambda}(x)=\underline{\lambda}(x)$) for $m$-a.e. $x\in
\Sigma$.]{}
As a direct application of Theorem \[thm-1.1\], we have
\[thm-1.2\]Assume that $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ is $m$-conformal for some $m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)$. Let $\mu=m\circ\pi^{-1}$. Then we have $$\label{e-c1}
d(\mu,\pi x)= \frac{h_\pi(\sigma,m,x)}{\lambda(x)}\quad\mbox {for $m$-a.e. $x\in \Sigma$}.$$ In particular, if $m$ is ergodic, we have $$\label{e-c2}
d(\mu,z)=\frac{h_\pi(\sigma,m)}{\int {\lambda} \;dm}\quad\mbox {for $\mu$-a.e. $z\in K$}.$$
Recall that $S: U\to S(U)$ is a conformal map if $S^\prime (x): \R^d\to \R^d$ satisfies $\|S^\prime(x)\|\neq 0$ and $ |S^\prime(x) y|=\|S^\prime (x)\| |y|$ for all $x\in U$ and $y\in \R^d$.
\[de-1.3\] [A $C^1$ IFS $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ is said to be [*weakly conformal*]{} if $$\frac{1}{n}(\log \sm S^\prime_{x_1\ldots x_n}(\pi\sigma^n x)\sm- \log \| S^\prime_{x_1\ldots x_n}(\pi\sigma^n x)\|)$$ converges to $0$ uniformly on $\Sigma$ as $n$ tends to $\infty$. We say that $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ is [*conformal*]{} if each $S_i$ extends to a conformal map $S_i: U\to S_i(U)\subset U$ on an open set $U\supset K$, where $K$ is the attractor of $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$. ]{}
By definition, a conformal IFS is always weakly conformal. Furthermore, a weakly conformal IFS is $m$-conformal for each $m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)$ (see Proposition \[pro-4.6\](ii)). There are some natural examples of weakly conformal IFS which are not conformal. For instance, let $S_i(x)= A_i x+a_i$ ($i=1,\ldots,\ell$) such that, for each $i$, $A_i$ is a contracting linear map with eigenvalues equal to each other in modulus, and $A_i A_j=A_jA_i$ for different $i,j$. Then such an IFS is always weakly conformal but not necessary to be conformal. The first conclusion follows from the asymptotic behavior $$\lim_{n\to \infty}
\sm A_i^n \sm ^{1/n}=\lim_{n\to \infty}
\| A_i^n \| ^{1/n}=\rho(A_i)\qquad (i=1,\ldots, \ell),$$ where $\rho(A_i)$ denotes the spectral radius of $A_i$ (cf. [@Yam67]).
Theorem \[thm-1.2\] verifies the existence of local dimensions for invariant measures on the attractor of an arbitrary weakly conformal IFS attractors, without any separation assumption. We point out that the exact dimensionality for overlapping self-similar measures was first claimed by Ledrappier, nevertheless no proof has been written out (cf. [@PeSo00 p. 1619]). We remark that this property was also conjectured later by Fan, Lau and Rao in [@FLR02].
We can extend the above result to a class of non-conformal IFS.
\[de-1.6\][Assume for $j=1,\ldots, k$, $\Phi_j:=\{S_{i,j}\}_{i=1}^\ell$ is a $C^1$ IFS defined on a compact set $X_j\subset \R^{q_j}$. Let $\Phi:=\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ be the IFS on $X_1\times\cdots \times X_k\subset \R^{q_1}\times \cdots \times \R^{q_k}$ given by $$S_i(z_1,\ldots, z_k)=\left(S_{i,1}(z_1),\ldots, S_{i,k}(z_k)\right) \ \ (i=1,\ldots, \ell,\; j=1,\ldots,k,\; z_j\in X_j).$$ We say that $\Phi$ is the [*direct product*]{} of $\Phi_1,\ldots, \Phi_k$, and write $\Phi=\Phi_1\times\cdots\times \Phi_k$.]{}
\[thm-1.3\] Let $\Phi=\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ be the direct product of $k$ $C^1$ IFS $\Phi_1,\ldots, \Phi_k$. Let $\mu=m\circ
\pi^{-1}$, where $m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)$. Assume that $\Phi_1,\ldots,\Phi_k$ are $m$-conformal. Then
- $d(\mu,z)$ exists for $\mu$-a.e. $z$.
- Assume furthermore that $m$ is ergodic. Then $\mu$ is exactly dimensional. Let $\tau$ be a permutation on $\{1,\ldots,k\}$ such that $$\lambda_{\tau(1)}\leq \lambda_{\tau(2)}\leq \cdots\leq \lambda_{\tau(k)},$$ where $\lambda_j=\int \lambda_j(x) \;dm(x)$, and $\lambda_j(x)$ denotes the Lyapunov exponent of $\Phi_j$ at $x\in \Sigma$. Then we have $$\label{e-affine}
d(\mu,
z)=\frac{h_{\pi_1}(\sigma,m)}{\lambda_{\tau(1)}}+\sum_{j=2}^k\frac{h_{\pi_j}(\sigma,m)-
h_{\pi_{j-1}}(\sigma,m)}{\lambda_{\tau(j)}} \quad \mbox{ for $\mu$-a.e. z},$$ where $\pi_j$ denotes the canonical projection w.r.t. the IFS $\Phi_{\tau(1)}\times\cdots \times \Phi_{\tau(j)}$, and $h_{\pi_j}(\sigma,m)$ denotes the projection entropy of $m$ under $\pi_j$.
We mention that fractals satisfy the conditions of the theorem include many interesting examples such as those studied in [@McM84; @Bed84; @GaLa92; @KePe96], etc.
As an application of Theorem \[thm-1.3\], we have
\[thm-1.4\] Let $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ be an IFS on $\R^d$ of the form $$S_i(x)=A_ix+a_i, \qquad i=1,\ldots, \ell,$$ such that each $A_i$ is a nonsingular contracting linear map on $\R^d$, and $A_i A_j=A_jA_i$ for any $1\leq i,j\leq \ell$. Then for any ergodic measure $m$ on $\Sigma$, $\mu=m\circ \pi^{-1}$ is exactly dimensional.
Indeed, under the assumption of Theorem \[thm-1.4\], we can show that there is a nonsingular linear transformation $T$ on $\R^d$ such that the IFS $\{T\circ S_i\circ T^{-1}\}_{i=1}^\ell$ is the direct product of some weakly conformal IFS. Hence we can apply Theorem \[thm-1.3\] in this situation. We remark that formula (\[e-affine\]) provides an analogue of that for the Hausdorff dimension of $C^{1+\alpha}$ hyperbolic measures along the unstable (resp. stable) manifold established by Ledrappier and Young [@LeYo85].
The problem of the existence of local dimensions has also a long history in smooth dynamical systems. In [@You82], Young proved that an ergodic hyperbolic measure invariant under a $C^{1+\alpha}$ surface diffeomorphism is always exact dimensional. For a measures $\mu$ in high-dimensional $C^{1+\alpha}$ systems, Ledrappier and Young [@LeYo85] proved the existence of $\delta^u$ and $\delta^s$, the local dimensions along stable and unstable local manifolds, respectively, and the upper local dimension of $\mu$ is bounded by the sum of $\delta^u$, $\delta^s$, and the multiplicity of $0$ as an exponent. Eckmann and Ruelle [@EcRu85] indicated that it is unknown whether the local dimension of $\mu$ is the sum of $\delta^u$ and $\delta^s$ if $\mu$ is a hyperbolic measure. Then the problem was referred as Eckmann-Ruelle conjecture, and affirmatively answered by Barreira, Pesin and Schmeling in [@BPS99] seventeen years later. Some partial dimensional results were obtained for measures invariant under hyperbolic endomorphism [@Sch98a; @Sch98b]. Recently, Qian and Xie [@QiXi08] proved the exact dimensionality of ergodic measures invariant under $C^2$ expanding endomorphism on smooth Riemannian manifolds.
In the remaining part of this section, we present some variational results about the Hausdorff dimension and the box dimension of attractors of IFS and that of invariant measures. First we consider conformal IFS.
\[thm-1.5\] Let $K$ be the attractor of a weakly conformal IFS $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{}\qquad \dim_H K&=&\dim_BK\label{e-1.11}\\
&=&\sup
\left\{\dim_H \mu:\; \mu=m\circ \pi^{-1}, \;m\in
\M_\sigma(\Sigma), \; m \mbox{ is ergodic}\right\}\label{e-1.12}\\
&=&\max
\left\{\dim_H \mu:\; \mu=m\circ \pi^{-1}, \;m\in
\M_\sigma(\Sigma)\right\}\nonumber\\
&=&\sup\left\{\frac{h_\pi(\sigma,m)}{\int \lambda \;dm}: \;m\in
\M_\sigma(\Sigma)\right\},\label{e-1.14} \end{aligned}$$ where $\dim_BK$ denotes the box dimension of $K$.
Equality (\[e-1.11\]) was first proved by Falconer [@Fal89] for $C^{1+\alpha}$ conformal IFS. It is not known whether the supremum in (\[e-1.12\]) and (\[e-1.14\]) can be attained in the general setting of Theorem \[thm-1.5\]. However, this is true if the IFS $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ satisfies an additional separation condition defined as follows.
\[de-1.5\] [An IFS $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ on a compact set $X\subset \R^d$ is said to satisfy the [*asymptotically weak separation condition*]{} (AWSC), if $$\lim_{n\to \infty}\frac{1}{n}\log t_n=0,$$ where $t_n$ is given by $$\label{e-1.16}
t_n=\sup_{x\in \R^d} \#\{S_u:\; u\in \{1,\ldots,\ell\}^n,\; x\in S_u(K)\},$$ here $K$ is the attractor of $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$.]{}
The above definition was first introduced in [@Fen07] under a slightly different setting. For example, if $1/\rho$ is a Pisot or Salem number, then the IFS $\{\rho x+a_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ on $\R$, with $a_i\in \Z$, satisfies the AWSC (see Proposition 5.3 and Remark 5.5 in [@Fen07]). Recall that a real number $\beta>1$ is said to be a [*Salem number*]{} if it is an algebraic integer whose algebraic conjugates all have modulus not greater than $1$, with at least one of which on the unit circle. Whilst $\beta>1$ is called a [*Pisot number*]{} if it is an algebraic integer whose algebraic conjugates all have modulus less than $1$. For instance, the largest root ($\approx 1.72208$) of $x^4-x^3-x^2-x+1$ is a Salem number, and the golden ratio $(\sqrt{5}+1)/2$ is a Pisot number. One is referred to [@Sal63] for more examples and properties about Pisot and Salem numbers. Under the AWSC assumption, we can show that the projection entropy map $m\mapsto h_\pi(\sigma,m)$ is upper semi-continuous on $\M_\sigma(\Sigma)$ (see Proposition \[pro-3.9\]) and, as a consequence, the supremum (\[e-1.12\]) and (\[e-1.14\]) can be attained at ergodic measures (see Remark \[rem-4.4\]).
Next we consider some affine IFS.
\[thm-1.6\] Let $\Phi=\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ be an affine IFS on $\R^d$ given by $$S_i(x_1,\ldots,x_d)=(\rho_1 x_1,\cdots, \rho_dx_d)+(a_{i,1},\ldots, a_{i,d}),$$ where $\rho_1>\rho_2>\cdots >\rho_d>0$ and $a_{i,j}\in \R$. Let $K$ denote the attractor of $\Phi$, and write $\lambda_j=\log(1/\rho_j)$ for $j=1,\ldots, d$ and $\lambda_{d+1}=\infty$. View $\Phi$ as the direct product of $\Phi_1,\ldots, \Phi_d$, where $\Phi_j=\{S_{i,j}(x_j)=\rho_jx_j+ a_{i,j}\}_{i=1}^\ell$. Assume that $\Phi_1\times\cdots\times \Phi_j$ satisfies the AWSC for $j=1,\ldots,d$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\dim_HK&=&\max\left\{\dim_H \mu: \;\mu=m\circ \pi^{-1}, \; m \mbox{ is ergodic}\right\}\\
&=&\max\left\{\sum_{j=1}^{d}\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_j}-\frac{1}{\lambda_{j+1}}\right)h_{\pi_j}(\sigma,m)
:\; m \mbox{ is ergodic}\right\},\end{aligned}$$ where $\pi_j$ is the canonical projection w.r.t. the IFS $\Phi_1\times\cdots \times \Phi_j$. Furthermore $$\begin{aligned}
\dim_BK=\sum_{j=1}^{d}\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_j}-\frac{1}{\lambda_{j+1}}\right)H_j,\end{aligned}$$ where $H_j:=\max\{h_{\pi_j}(\sigma,m):\; m \mbox{ is ergodic}\}$.
It is direct to check that if $\Phi_j$ satisfies the AWSC for each $1\leq j\leq d$, then so does $\Phi_1\times\cdots\times \Phi_j$. Hence for instance, the condition of Theorem \[thm-1.6\] fulfills when $1/\rho_j$ are Pisot numbers or Salem numbers and $(a_{i,1},\ldots, a_{i,d})\in \Z^d$. Different from the earlier works on the Hausdorff dimension of deterministic self-affine sets and self-affine measures (see e.g. [@McM84; @Bed84; @KePe96; @GaLa92; @HuLa95; @Bar07; @Oli08]), our model in Theorem \[thm-1.6\] admits certain overlaps. The two variational results in Theorem \[thm-1.6\] provide some new insights in the study of overlapping self-affine IFS. An interesting question is whether the results of Theorem \[thm-1.6\] remain true without the AWSC assumption. It is related to the open problem whether a non-conformal repeller carries an ergodic measure of full dimension (see [@GaPe96] for a survey). We remark that in the general case, we do have the following inequality(see Lemma \[lem-8.2\]): $$\underline{\dim}_B K \geq \sum_{j=1}^{d}\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_j}-\frac{1}{\lambda_{j+1}}\right)\sup\{h_{\pi_j}(\sigma,m):\; m \mbox{ is ergodic}\}.$$ Furthermore Theorem \[thm-1.6\] can be extended somewhat (see Remark \[rem-9.3\] and Theorem \[thm-9.4\]).
Density results about conditional measures {#S2}
==========================================
We prove some density results about conditional measures in this section. To begin with, we give a brief introduction to Rohlin’s theory of Lebesgue spaces, measurable partitions and conditional measures. The reader is referred to [@Roh49; @Par-book1] for more details.
A probability space $(X, \B, m)$ is called a [*Lebesgue space*]{} if it is isomorphic to a probability space which is the union of $[0,s]$ ($0\leq s\leq 1$) with Lebesgue measure and a countable number of atoms. Now let $(X, \B,m)$ be a Lebesgue space. A [*measurable partition*]{} $\eta$ of $X$ is a partition of $X$ such that, up to a set of measure zero, the quotient space $X/\eta$ is separated by a countable number of measurable sets $\{B_i\}$. The quotient space $X/\eta$ with its inherit probability space structure, written as $(X_\eta, \B_\eta, m_\eta)$, is again a Lebesgue space. Also, any measurable partition $\eta$ determine a sub-$\sigma$-algebra of $\B$, denoted by $\widehat{\eta}$, whose elements are unions of elements of $\eta$. Conversely, any sub-$\sigma$-algebra of $\B'$ of $\B$ is also countably generated, say by $\{B_i'\}$, and therefore all the sets of the form $\cap A_i$, where $A_i=B_i^\prime$ or its complement, form a measurable partition. In particular, $\B$ itself is corresponding to a partition into single points. An important property of Lebesgue space and measurable partitions is the following.
\[thm-2.1\] Let $\eta$ be a measurable partition of a Lebesgue space $(X, \B, m)$. Then, for every $x$ in a set of full $m$-measure, there is a probability measure $m^\eta_x$ defined on $\eta(x)$, the element of $\eta$ containing $x$. These measures are uniquely characterized (up to sets of $m$-measure $0$) by the following properties: if $A\subset X$ is a measurable set, then $x\mapsto m^\eta_x(A)$ is $\widehat{\eta}$-measurable and $m(A)=\int
m^\eta_x(A)d m(x)$. These properties imply that for any $f\in
L^1(X,\B, m)$, $m_x^\eta(f)=\E_m(f|\widehat{\eta})(x)$ for $m$-a.e. $x$, and $m(f)=\int \E_m(f|\widehat{\eta})dm$.
The family of measures $\{m^\eta_x\}$ in the above theorem is called the [*canonical system of conditional measures associated with $\eta$*]{}.
Throughout the remaining part of this section, we assume that $(X,\B,m)$ is a Lebesgue space. Let $\eta$ be a measurable partition of $X$, and let $\{m^\eta_x\}$ denote the corresponding canonical system of conditional measures. Suppose that $\pi: X\to \R^d$ is a $\B$-measurable map. Denote $\gamma:=\B(\R^d)$, the Borel-$\sigma$-algebra on $\R^d$. For $y\in \R^d$, we use $B(y,r)$ to denote the closed ball in $\R^d$ of radius $r$ centered at $y$. Also, we denote for $x\in X$, $$\label{e-ball}
B^\pi(x,r)=\pi^{-1} B(\pi x,r).$$
\[lem-2.2\] Let $A\in \B$.
- The map $x\mapsto m_x^\eta(B^\pi(x,r)\cap A)$ is $\hat{\eta} \vee
\pi^{-1}\gamma$-measurable for each $r>0$, where $\hat{\eta} \vee
\pi^{-1}\gamma$ denotes the smallest sub-$\sigma$-algebra of $\B$ containing $\hat{\eta}$ and $\pi^{-1}\gamma$.
- The following functions $$\liminf_{r\to 0}\frac{ m_x^\eta(B^\pi(x,r)\cap A)}{
m_x^\eta(B^\pi(x,r))},\quad \limsup_{r\to 0}\frac{
m_x^\eta(B^\pi(x,r)\cap A)}{ m_x^\eta(B^\pi(x,r))}$$ and $$\inf_{r>0}\frac{ m_x^\eta(B^\pi(x,r)\cap A)}{
m_x^\eta(B^\pi(x,r))}$$ are $\hat{\eta} \vee \pi^{-1}\gamma$-measurable, where we interpret ${0}/ {0}=0$.
We first prove (i). Let $A\in \B$ and $r>0$. For $n\in
\N$, let $\D_n$ denote the collection $$\D_n=\{[0,2^{-n})^d+\alpha:\; \alpha\in 2^{-n}\Z^d\}.$$ For $y\in \R^d$, denote $$W_n(y)=\bigcup_{Q\in \D_n:\; Q\cap B(y,r)\neq \emptyset} Q.$$ Write $\W_n:=\{W_n(y):\; y\in \R^d\}$. It is clear that $\W_n$ is countable for each $n\in \N$. Furthermore, we have $W_n(y)\downarrow B(y,r)$ for each $y\in \R^d$ as $n\to \infty$, that is, $W_{n+1}(y)\subset W_n(y)$ and $\bigcap_{n=1}^\infty
W_n(y)=B(y,r)$. As a consequence, we have $\pi^{-1}W_n(\pi
x)\downarrow B^\pi(x,r)$ and hence $$m_x^\eta(B^\pi(x,r)\cap A)=\lim_{n\to \infty}
m^\eta_x(\pi^{-1}W_n(\pi x)\cap A)\qquad (x\in X).$$ Therefore to show that $x\mapsto m_x^\eta(B^\pi(x,r)\cap A)$ is $\hat{\eta} \vee
\pi^{-1}\gamma$-measurable, it suffices to show that $x\mapsto
m_x^\eta(\pi^{-1}W_n(\pi x)\cap A)$ is $\hat{\eta} \vee
\pi^{-1}\gamma$-measurable for each $n\in \N$.
Fix $n\in \N$. For $F\in \W_n$, let $\Gamma_n(F)=\{x\in X:\; W_n(\pi
x) =F\}$. Then $\Gamma_n(F)\in \pi^{-1}\gamma$. By Theorem \[thm-2.1\], $m_x^\eta(\pi^{-1}F\cap A)$ is an $\hat{\eta}$-measurable function of $x$ for each $F\in \W_n$. However $$m_x^\eta(\pi^{-1}W_n(\pi x)\cap A)=\sum_{F\in
\W_n}\chi_{\Gamma_n(F)} (x) m_x^\eta(\pi^{-1}F\cap A).$$ Hence $m_x^\eta(\pi^{-1}W_n(\pi x) \cap A)$ is $\hat{\eta}
\vee \pi^{-1}\gamma$-measurable, so is $m_x^\eta(B^\pi(x,r)\cap A)$.
To see (ii), note that for $x\in \Sigma$ and $r>0$ satisfying $m_x^\eta(B^\pi(x,r))>0$, we have $$\frac{ m_x^\eta(B^\pi(x,r)\cap A)}{ m_x^\eta(B^\pi(x,r))}=\lim_{q\downarrow r:\; q\in {\Bbb Q}^+}
\frac{ m_x^\eta(B^\pi(x,q)\cap A)}{ m_x^\eta(B^\pi(x,q))}.$$ Hence for the three limits in (ii), we can restrict $r$ to be positive rationals. It together with (i) yields the desired measurability.
\[lem-2.4\] Let $A\in \B$. Then for $m$-a.e. $x\in X$, $$\label{e-2.1} \lim_{r\to 0}\frac{ m_x^\eta(B^\pi(x,r)\cap
A)}{ m_x^\eta(B^\pi(x,r))}=\E_m(\chi_A|\hat{\eta}\vee
\pi^{-1}\gamma)(x).$$
Let $\overline{f}(x)$ and $\underline{f}(x)$ be the values obtained by taking the upper and lower limits in the left hand side of (\[e-2.1\]). By Lemma \[lem-2.2\], both $\overline{f}$ and $\underline{f}$ are $\hat{\eta} \vee \pi^{-1}\gamma$-measurable. In the following we only show that $\overline{f}(x)=\E_m(\chi_A|\hat{\eta}\vee \pi^{-1}\gamma)(x)$ for $m$-a.e. $x$. The proof for $\underline{f}(x)=\E_m(\chi_A|\hat{\eta}\vee \pi^{-1}\gamma)(x)$ is similar.
We first prove that $$\label{e-2.2} \int_{B\cap \pi^{-1}D} \overline{f} \;dm =\int_{B\cap
\pi^{-1}D} \E_m(\chi_A|\hat{\eta}\vee \pi^{-1}\gamma)\;dm \qquad
(B\in \hat{\eta},\; D\in \gamma).$$ By Theorem \[thm-2.1\], for any given $C\in \eta$, $m_x^\eta$ ($x\in C$) represent the same measure supported on $C$, which we rewrite as $m_C$. Fix $C\in \eta$. We define measures $\mu_C$ and $\nu_C$ on $\R^d$ by $\mu_C(E)=m_C(\pi^{-1}E\cap A)$ and $\nu_C(E)=m_C(\pi^{-1}E)$ for all $E\in \gamma$. It is clear that $\mu_C\ll\nu_C$. Define $$g_C(z)=\limsup_{r\to 0} \frac{\mu_C(B(z,r))}{\nu_C(B(z,r))}\qquad (z\in \R^d).$$ Then $\overline{f}(x)=g_{\eta(x)}(\pi x)$ for all $x\in \Sigma$. According to the differentiation theory of measures on $\R^d$ (see, e.g., [@Mat95 Theorem 2.12]), $g_C=\frac{d\mu_C}{d\nu_C}$ $\nu_C$-a.e. Hence for each $D\in \gamma$, we have $\int_D g_C(z)\
d\nu_C(z)=\mu_C(D)$, i.e., $\int_{\pi^{-1}D } g_C(\pi y)
\;dm_C(y)=\mu_C(D)=m_C(\pi^{-1}D\cap A)$. That is, $$\label{e-2.3} \int _{\pi^{-1}D} \overline{f} \;
dm_x^\eta=m_x^\eta(\pi^{-1}D\cap A)\qquad (x\in X).$$ To see (\[e-2.2\]), let $B\in \hat{\eta}$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{B\cap \pi^{-1}D} \overline{f} \;dm &=& \int \chi_B\chi_{\pi^{-1}D} \overline{f} \; dm
=\int \E_m\left(\chi_B\chi_{\pi^{-1}D} \overline{f}|\hat{\eta}\right)\; dm\\
&=&\int \chi_B \E_m\left( \chi_{\pi^{-1}D} \overline{f}|\hat{\eta}\right)\; dm\\
&=&\int_B\left(\int_{\pi^{-1}D} \overline{f}\; dm_x^\eta\right) dm(x)\qquad (\mbox{by Theorem \ref{thm-2.1}})\\
&=&\int_Bm_x^\eta(\pi^{-1}D\cap A) dm(x)\qquad (\mbox{by (\ref{e-2.3})})\\
&=&\int \chi_B(x) \E_m\left(\chi_{\pi^{-1}D\cap A}|\hat{\eta}\right)(x) \;dm(x)\qquad (\mbox{by Theorem \ref{thm-2.1}}).\end{aligned}$$ Thus we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{B\cap \pi^{-1}D} \overline{f} \;dm&=&\int \E_m\left(\chi_B\chi_{\pi^{-1}D\cap A}|\hat{\eta}\right)(x) \;dm(x)\\
&=&\int \chi_B\chi_{\pi^{-1}D\cap A}dm=m(B\cap \pi^{-1}D\cap A)\\
&=&\int \E_m(\chi_{B\cap \pi^{-1}D}\chi_A|\hat{\eta}\vee \pi^{-1}\gamma) \;dm\\
&=&\int \chi_{B\cap \pi^{-1}D} \E_m(\chi_A|\hat{\eta}\vee \pi^{-1}\gamma) \;dm\\
&=&\int_{B\cap \pi^{-1}D} \E_m(\chi_A|\hat{\eta}\vee \pi^{-1}\gamma) \;dm.\end{aligned}$$ This establishes (\[e-2.2\]).
Let $R=\overline{f}-{\bf E}_m(\chi_A|\hat{\eta}\vee \pi^{-1}\gamma)$. Then $R$ is $\hat{\eta}\vee \pi^{-1}\gamma$-measurable and $$\int_{B\cap \pi^{-1}(D)}R \;dm=0 \qquad (B\in \hat{\eta},\; D\in \pi^{-1}\gamma).$$ Denote $\F=\{B\cap \pi^{-1}(D):\; B\in \hat{\eta},\; D\in \pi^{-1}\gamma\}$ and let $$\F'=\left\{\bigcup_{i=1}^k F_i: \; k\in \N,\; F_1,\ldots, F_k \in \F \mbox{ are disjoint}\right\}.$$ It is clear that $\int_FR\; dm=0$ for all $F\in \F'$. Moreover it is a routine to check that $\F'$ is an algebra which contains $\hat{\eta}$ and $\pi^{-1}\gamma$, and hence $\F'$ generates the $\sigma$-algebra $\hat{\eta}\vee \pi^{-1}\gamma$.
We claim that $R=0$ $m$-a.e. Assume this is not true. Then there exists $\epsilon>0$ such that the set $\{R>\epsilon\}$, or $\{R<-\epsilon\}$, has positive $m$-measure. Without loss of generality, we assume that $m\{R>\epsilon\}>0$. Since $\F'$ is an algebra which generates $\hat{\eta}\vee \pi^{-1}\gamma$, there exists a sequence $F_i\in \F'$ such that $m(F_i\triangle \{R>\epsilon\})$ tends to $0$ as $i\to \infty$ (cf. [@Wal-book Theorem 0.7]). We conclude that $\int_{F_i}R\; dm$ tends to $\int_{\{R>\epsilon\}} R\; dm>0$ as $i\to \infty$, which contradicts the fact $\int_{F_i}R\; dm=0$.
\[rem-2.5\]
- Letting $\eta={\mathcal N}$ be the trivial partition of $X$ in the above lemma, we obtain $\displaystyle\lim_{r\to 0}\frac{ m(B^\pi(x,r)\cap
A)}{ m(B^\pi(x,r))}=\E_m(\chi_A|\pi^{-1}\gamma)(x)$ $m$-a.e.
- In general, ${\bf E}_{m^\eta_x}(\chi_A|\pi^{-1}\gamma)(x)=\E_m(\chi_A|\hat{\eta}\vee
\pi^{-1}\gamma)(x)$ $m$-a.e., both of them equal $\displaystyle\lim_{r\to 0}\frac{ m_x^\eta(B^\pi(x,r)\cap
A)}{ m_x^\eta(B^\pi(x,r))}$ $m$-a.e. by (i).
\[pro-2.5\] Let $\xi$ be a countable measurable partition of $X$. Then for $m$-a.e. $x\in X$, $$\label{e-2.4}
\lim_{r\to 0}\log \frac
{m^\eta_x\left(B^\pi(x,r)\cap \xi(x)\right)}
{m^\eta_x\left(B^\pi(x,r)\right)}
=-{\bf I}_m
\left(\xi|\hat{\eta}\vee\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)(x),$$ where ${\bf I}_m(\cdot|\cdot)$ denotes the conditional information (see (\[e-1.2\]) for the definition). Furthermore, set $$\label{e-2.5}
g(x)=-\inf_{r>0}\log\frac
{m^\eta_x\left(B^\pi(x,r)\cap \xi(x)\right)}
{m^\eta_x\left(B^\pi(x,r)\right)}$$ and assume $H_m(\xi)<\infty$. Then $g\geq 0$ and $g\in L^1(X,{\B},m)$.
(\[e-2.4\]) follows directly from Lemma \[lem-2.4\] and the following equality $$\lim_{r\to 0}\log \frac
{m^\eta_x\left(B^\pi(x,r)\cap \xi(x)\right)}
{m^\eta_x\left(B^\pi(x,r)\right)}=\sum_{A\in \xi}\chi_A(x)\lim_{r\to 0}\log \frac
{m^\eta_x\left(B^\pi(x,r)\cap A\right)}
{m^\eta_x\left(B^\pi(x,r)\right)}.$$ Now we turn to the proof of (\[e-2.5\]). It is clear that $g$ is non-negative. By Lemma \[lem-2.2\], $g$ is measurable. In the following we show that $g\in L^1(X,\B,m)$.
Let $C\in \eta$ and $A\in \xi$ be given. As in the proof of Lemma \[lem-2.4\], we define measures $\mu_C$ and $\nu_C$ on $\R^d$ by $\mu_C(E)=m_C(\pi^{-1}E\cap A)$ and $\nu_C(E)=m_C(\pi^{-1}E)$ for all $E\in \gamma$. By Theorem 7.4 in [@Rud-book], we have $$\mu_C\left\{z\in \R^d:\;
\inf_{r>0}\frac{\mu_C(B(z,r))}{\nu_C(B(z,r))}<\lambda\right\}\leq 3^d \lambda\qquad (\lambda>0).$$ Hence for any $\lambda>0$, $$m_C\left(\
\left\{
x\in X:\;
\inf_{r>0} \frac{m_C\left(B^\pi(x,r)\cap A\right)}
{m_C\left(B^\pi(x,r)\right)}<\lambda
\right\}
\cap A \right)
\leq 3^d \lambda.$$ Integrating $C$ with respect to $m_\eta$, we obtain $$m\left(\
\left\{
x\in X:\;
\inf_{r>0} \frac{m^\eta_x\left(B^\pi(x,r)\cap A\right)}
{m^\eta_x\left(B^\pi(x,r)\right)}<\lambda \right\}
\cap A \right)
\leq 3^d \lambda.$$ Denote $\displaystyle g^A(x)=\inf_{r>0}\frac
{m^\eta_x\left(B^\pi(x,r)\cap A\right)}
{m^\eta_x\left(B^\pi(x,r) \right)}$. Then the above inequality can be rewritten as $$m(A\cap \{g^A<\lambda\})\leq 3^d \lambda.$$ Note that by (\[e-2.5\]), $g(x)=-\sum_{A\in \xi}\chi_A(x)\log g^A(x)$. Since $g$ is non-negative, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int g\; dm &=&\int_0^\infty m\{g>t\}\;dt
= \int_0^\infty\sum_{A\in \xi} m(A\cap \{g^A<e^{-t}\})\; dt \\
&\leq& \sum_{A\in \xi} \int_0^\infty \min \{m(A),
3^d e^{-t}\}\;dt\\
&\leq& \sum_{A\in \xi} \left(-m(A)\log m(A)+ m(A)+ m(A)\log 3^d \right)\\
&=&H_m(\xi)+1+\log 3^d.\end{aligned}$$ This finishes the proof of the proposition.
\[rem-2.6\] [ Consider the case $X=\Sigma$ and $\xi=\P$, where $\P$ is defined as in (\[e-1P\]). Suppose that $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ is a family of mappings such that $S_i\colon \pi(\Sigma)\to S_i(\pi(\Sigma))\subset \R^d$ is homeomorphic for each $i$. Then in (\[e-2.4\]) and (\[e-2.5\]), we can change the terms $B^\pi(x,r)$ to $\pi^{-1}R_{r,x}(\pi x)$, where $R_{r,x}(z):=S_{x_1}^{-1} B(S_{x_1} (z),r)$. To see it, fix $i$ and define $\pi'=S_i\circ \pi$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{r\to 0} \frac
{m^\eta_x\left(\pi^{-1}R_{r,x}(\pi x)\cap [i]\right)}
{m^\eta_x\left(\pi^{-1}R_{r,x}(\pi x)\right)}&=&
\lim_{r\to 0} \frac
{m^\eta_x\left(B^{\pi'}(x,r) \cap [i]\right)}
{m^\eta_x\left(B^{\pi'}(x,r)\right)}\\
&=&\E_m(\chi_{[i]}|\hat{\eta}\vee (\pi')^{-1}\gamma)(x).\end{aligned}$$ However, $(\pi')^{-1}\gamma=\pi^{-1}\gamma$ due to the assumption on $S_i$. Hence the last term in the above formula equals $\E_m(\chi_{[i]}|\hat{\eta}\vee \pi^{-1}\gamma)(x)$. Thus we can replace the terms $B^\pi(x,r)$ by $\pi^{-1}R_{r,x}(\pi x)$ in (\[e-2.4\]). For the change in (\[e-2.5\]), we may use a similar argument. ]{}
\[lem-2.7\] Let $\pi\colon X\to\R^d$ and $\phi\colon X\to \R^k$ be two $\B$-measurable maps. Let $\eta$ be the partition of $X$ given by $\eta=\{\pi^{-1}(z)\colon z\in \R^d\}$. Let $A\in \B$ and $t>0$. Then for $m$-a.e. $x\in X$, we have $$\label{e-2.6}
m^\eta_x(B^\phi(x,t)\cap A)\geq \limsup_{r\to 0}\frac{ m\left(B^\phi(x,t)\cap A \cap B^\pi(x,r)\right)}{m\left(B^\pi(x,r)\right)}$$ and $$\label{e-2.7}
m^\eta_x(U^\phi(x,t)\cap A)\leq \liminf_{r\to 0}\frac{ m\left(U^\phi(x,t)\cap A \cap B^\pi(x,r)\right)}{m\left(B^\pi(x,r)\right)},$$ where $B^\phi(x,t):=\phi^{-1}B(\phi x, t)$, $U^\phi(x,t):=\phi^{-1}U(\phi x, t)$, here $U(z,t)$ denotes the open ball in $\R^d$ centered at $z$ of radius $t$.
Fix $A\in \B$ and $t>0$. Similar to the proof of Lemma \[lem-2.2\], for $n\in
\N$, let $\D_n$ denote the collection $$\D_n=\{[0,2^{-n})^k+\alpha:\; \alpha\in 2^{-n}\Z^k\}.$$ For $y\in \R^k$, denote $$W_n(y)=\bigcup_{Q\in \D_n:\; Q\cap B(y,t)\neq \emptyset} Q,\qquad \widehat{W}_n(y)=\bigcup_{Q\in \D_n:\; Q\subset U(y,t)} Q.$$ Write $\W_n:=\{W_n(y):\; y\in \R^k\}$ and $\widehat{\W}_n:=\{\widehat{W}_n(y):\; y\in \R^k\}$. It is clear that both $\W_n$ and $\widehat{\W}_n$ are countable for each $n\in \N$. Furthermore, we have $W_n(y)\downarrow B(y,t)$ and $\widehat{W}_n(y)\uparrow U(y,t)$ for each $y\in \R^k$ as $n\to \infty$. As a consequence, we have $\phi^{-1}W_n(\phi
x)\downarrow B^\phi(x,t)$ and $\phi^{-1}\widehat{W}_n(\phi
x)\uparrow U^\phi(x,t)$ for $x\in X$. Therefore $$m_x^\eta(B^\phi(x,t)\cap A)=\lim_{n\to \infty}
m^\eta_x(\phi^{-1}W_n(\phi x)\cap A)$$ and $$m_x^\eta(U^\phi(x,t)\cap A)=\lim_{n\to \infty}
m^\eta_x(\phi^{-1}\widehat{W}_n(\phi x)\cap A)$$ for each $x\in X$.
In the following we only prove (\[e-2.6\]). The proof of (\[e-2.7\]) is essentially identical. For $n\in \N$ and $F\in \W_n$, let $\Gamma_n(F)=\{x\in X:\; W_n(\phi x)=F\}$. Then for $m$-a.e. $x$ and all $n\in \N$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
m_x^\eta(\pi^{-1}W_n(\phi x)\cap A)&=&\sum_{F\in \W_n}\chi_{\Gamma_n(F)} (x) m_x^\eta(\phi^{-1}F \cap A)\\
&=&\sum_{F\in \W_n}\chi_{\Gamma_n(F)} (x) \E_m(\chi_{\phi^{-1}F\cap A}|\hat{\eta})(x)\\
&=&\sum_{F\in \W_n}\chi_{\Gamma_n(F)} (x) \E_m(\chi_{\phi^{-1}F\cap A}|\pi^{-1}\gamma)(x)\\
%\quad (\mbox{ since $\hat{\eta}\circeq \phi^{-1}\gamma$}) \\
&=&\sum_{F\in \W_n}\chi_{\Gamma_n(F)} (x)\lim_{r\to 0}
\frac{ m\left(\phi^{-1}F\cap A \cap B^\pi(x,r)\right)}{m\left(B^\pi(x,r)\right)} \\
&&\qquad
\qquad \qquad (\mbox{ by Lemma \ref{lem-2.4}})\\
&=&\lim_{r\to 0}\frac{ m\left(\phi^{-1}W_n(\phi x)\cap A \cap B^\pi(x,r)\right)}{m\left(B^\pi(x,r)\right)}\\
&\geq &\limsup_{r\to 0}\frac{ m\left(B^\phi(x,t) \cap A \cap B^\pi(x,r)\right)}{m\left(B^\pi(x,r)\right)}.\end{aligned}$$ Letting $n\to \infty$, we obtain (\[e-2.6\]).
\[rem-2.8\] [Under the condition of Lemma \[lem-2.7\], assume that $$g\colon \pi(X)\to g(\pi(X))\subset \R^d$$ is a homeomorphism. Then we may replace the terms $B^\pi(x,r)$ in (\[e-2.6\]) and (\[e-2.7\]) by $B^{g\pi}(x,r)$. To see it, let $\pi'=g\circ\pi$. It is easy to see the partition $\eta$ is just the same as $\{(\pi')^{-1}(z)\colon z\in \R^d\}$. ]{}
\[pro-2.9\] Let $T\colon X\to X$ be a measure-preserving transformation on $(X,\B,m)$, and let $\eta$ be a measurable partition of $X$. Suppose that $\pi\colon X\to \R^d$ is a bounded $\B$-measurable function. Then for any $r>0$, $$\lim_{n\to \infty}\frac{1}{n}\log m^\eta_{T^nx}\left(B^\pi(T^nx,r)\right)=0 \quad \mbox{ for $m$-a.e.\! $x\in
X$}.$$
Fix $r>0$ and $t>0$. Since $\pi(X)$ is a bounded subset of $\R^d$, we can cover it by $\ell$ balls $B(\pi x_i,r/2)$ of radius $r/2$, where $x_i\in X$ and $i=1,\dots, \ell$. Define $$A_n=\{ x\in X\colon \ m_x^\eta(B^\pi(x,r))\leq
e^{-nt}\}, \qquad n\in \N.$$ If a ball $B^\pi(x_i,r/2)$ intersects $A_n$, then for any $y\in A_n\cap B^\pi(x_i,r/2)$, we have $B^\pi(x_i,r/2)\subset B^\pi(y,r)$ because $B(\pi x_i,r/2)\subset B(\pi y,r)$ by the triangle inequality. So the definition of $A_n$ gives $m_y^\eta(A_n\cap B^\pi( x_i,r/2))
\leq m_y^\eta(B^\pi(y ,r))\leq e^{-nt}$. Hence $$m(A_n\cap B^\pi( x_i,r/2))=\int m_y^\eta(A_n\cap B^\pi( x_i,r/2))\; dm(y)
\leq e^{-nt}$$ and $m(A_n)\leq \ell e^{-nt}$.
This estimate gives directly that $g(x):=\log m_x^\eta(B^\pi(x,r))\in L^1(X, \B, m)$. Note that $g(T^nx)=\sum_{i=1}^n g(T^ix)-\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} g(T^ix)$. By the Birkhoff ergodic theorem we can get $\lim_{n\to \infty} \frac 1n g(T^nx)=0$ for $m$-a.e. $x\in X$, which is the desired result.
\[lem-2.10\] Let $\A$ be a sub-$\sigma$-algebra of $\B$. Let $A\in \B$ with $m(A)>0$. Then $$\E_m(\chi_A|\A)(x)>0$$ for $m$-a.e. $x\in A$.
Let $W:=\{\E_m(\chi_A|\A)\leq 0\}$. Then $W\in \A$. Hence $$0\geq \int_W \E_m(\chi_A|\A)\; dm=\int_W \chi_A \; dm(x)=m(A\cap W),$$ which implies $m(A\cap W)=0$. This finishes the proof.
Projection measure-theoretic entropies associated with IFS {#S3}
==========================================================
Throughout this section, let $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ be an IFS on a closed set $X\subset\R^d$, and $(\Sigma,\sigma)$ the one-sided full shift over $\{1,\ldots,\ell\}$. Let $\M_\sigma(\Sigma)$ denote the collection of all $\sigma$-invariant Borel probability measures on $\Sigma$. Let $\pi\colon\Sigma\to \R^d$ be defined as in (\[e-1.1\]), and $h_\pi(\sigma,\cdot)$ as in Definition \[de-1.1\].
Some basic properties
---------------------
In this subsection, we present some basic properties of projection measure-theoretic entropy. Our first result is the following.
\[pro-3.1\]
- $0\leq h_\pi(\sigma,m)\leq
h(\sigma,m)$ for every $m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)$, where $h(\sigma,m)$ denotes the classical measure-theoretic entropy of $m$.
- The projection entropy function is affine on $\M_\sigma(\Sigma)$, i.e., for any $m_1,m_2\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)$ and any $0\leq p\leq 1$, we have $$\label{e-3.1}
h_\pi(\sigma,pm_1+(1-p)m_2)=ph_\pi(\sigma,m_1)+(1-p)h_\pi(\sigma,m_2).$$
The proof of the above proposition will be given later. Now let us recall some notation. If $\xi$ is a partition of $\Sigma$, then $\widehat{\xi}$ denotes the $\sigma$-algebra generated by $\xi$. If $\xi_1,\ldots, \xi_n$ are countable partitions of $\Sigma$, then $\bigvee_{i=1}^n\xi_i$ denotes the partition consisting of sets $A_1\cap\cdots\cap A_n$ with $A_i\in \xi_i$. Similarly for $\sigma$-algebras $\A_1,\A_2,\ldots,$ $\bigvee_{n}\A_n$ denotes the $\sigma$-algebra generated by $\bigcup_n\A_n$.
Let $\P$ be the partition of $\Sigma$ defined as in (\[e-1P\]). Write $\P_{0}^n=\bigvee_{i=0}^n \sigma^{-i}\P$ for $n\geq 0$. Let $\gamma$ denote the Borel $\sigma$-algebra $\B(\R^d)$ on $\R^d$. Similar to Definition \[de-1.1\], we give the following definition.
\[de-3.1\] [Let $k\in \N$ and $\nu\in \M_{\sigma^k}(\Sigma)$. Define $$h_\pi(\sigma^k,\nu):=H_\nu\left(\P_0^{k-1}\big|\sigma^{-k}\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)-
H_\nu\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\big|\pi^{-1}\gamma\right).$$ ]{}
The term $h_\pi(\sigma^k,\nu)$ can be viewed as the projection measure-theoretic entropy of $\nu$ w.r.t. the IFS $\{S_{i_1}\circ \cdots\circ S_{i_k}:
\;1\leq i_j\leq \ell \mbox { for $1\leq j\leq k$}\}$. The following proposition exploits the connection between $h_\pi(\sigma^k,\nu)$ and $h_\pi(\sigma,m)$, where $m=\frac{1}{k}\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\nu \circ
\sigma^{-i}$.
\[pro-3.2\] Let $k\in \N$ and $\nu\in \M_{\sigma^k}(\Sigma)$. Set $m=\frac{1}{k}\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\nu \circ \sigma^{-i}$. Then $m$ is $\sigma$-invariant, and $h_{\pi}(\sigma,m)=\frac{1}{k}h_\pi(\sigma^k,\nu)$.
To prove Propositions \[pro-3.1\] and \[pro-3.2\], we first give some lemmas about the (conditional) information and entropy (see §2 for the definitions).
\[lem-3.3\] Let $m$ be a Borel probability measure on $\Sigma$. Let $\xi,\eta$ be two countable Borel partitions of $\Sigma$ with $H_m(\xi)<\infty$, $H_m(\eta)<\infty$, and $\A$ a sub-$\sigma$-algebra of $\B(\Sigma)$. Then we have
- ${\bf I}_{m\circ \sigma^{-1}}(\xi|\A)\circ \sigma={\bf I}_m(\sigma^{-1}\xi|\sigma^{-1}\A)$.
- ${\bf I}_m(\xi\vee \eta|\A)={\bf I}_m(\xi|\A)+{\bf I}_m(\eta|\widehat{\xi}\vee \A)$.
- $H_m(\xi\vee \eta|\A)=H_m(\xi|\A)+H(\eta|\widehat{\xi}\vee \A)$.
- If $\A_1\subset \A_2\subset\cdots $ is an increasing sequence of sub-$\sigma$-algebras with $\A_n\uparrow \A$, then ${\bf I}_m(\xi|\A_n)$ converges almost everywhere and in $L^1$ to ${\bf I}_m(\xi|\A)$. In particular, $\lim_{n\to \infty} H_m(\xi|\A_n)=H_m(\xi|\A)$.
\[lem-3.4\] Denote $g(x)=-x\log x$ for $x\geq 0$. For any integer $k\geq 2$ and $x_1,\ldots, x_k\geq 0$, we have $\frac{1}{k}\sum_{i=1}^k g(x_i)\leq g\left(\frac{1}{k}\sum_{i=1}^k
x_i\right)\leq \sum_{i=1}^k g(x_i/k)$ and $$\label{e-3.2} \sum_{i=1}^k g(x_i)-(x_1+\ldots +x_k)\log k\leq
g(x_1+\ldots+x_k)\leq \sum_{i=1}^k g(x_i).$$ Moreover for any $p_1,p_2\geq 0$ with $p_1+p_2=1$, $$\label{e-3.3}
\sum_{j=1}^2 p_jg(x_j)\leq g\left(\sum_{j=1}^2 p_jx_j\right)\leq
\sum_{j=1}^2 p_jg(x_j)+g(p_j) x_j.$$
Standard.
\[lem-3.5\] Let $m$ be a Borel probability measure on $\Sigma$. Assume $\xi$ and $\eta$ are two countable Borel partitions of $\Sigma$ such that each member in $\xi$ intersects at most $k$ members of $\eta$. Then $H_m(\xi)\geq
H_m(\xi\vee \eta)-\log k$.
Although the result is standard, we give a short proof for the convenience of the reader. Denote $g(x)=-x\log x$ for $x\in [0,1]$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
H_m(\xi)&=&\sum_{A\in \xi} g(m(A))=\sum_{A\in \xi}g \left(\sum_{B\in
\eta,\; B\cap A\neq \emptyset} m(A\cap B)\right)\\
&\geq & \sum_{A\in \xi} \left[\left(\sum_{B\in \eta,\; B\cap A\neq
\emptyset}g (m(A\cap B))\right)-m(A)\log k\right]
\quad \mbox{(by (\ref{e-3.2}))}\\
&\geq & \left(\sum_{A\in \xi} \sum_{B\in \eta} g (m(A\cap B))\right)-\log k\\
&=& H_m(\xi\vee \eta)-\log k.\end{aligned}$$ This finishes the proof.
The following simple lemma plays an important role in our analysis.
\[lem-3.6\] $\widehat{\P}\vee \sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}\gamma=\widehat{\P}\vee
\pi^{-1}\gamma$.
We only prove $\widehat{\P}\vee
\sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}\gamma\subseteq\widehat{\P}\vee \pi^{-1}\gamma$. The other direction can be proved by an essentially identical argument. Note that each member in $\widehat{\P}\vee \sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}\gamma$ can be written as $$\bigcup_{j=1}^\ell [j]\cap \sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}A_j$$ with $A_j\in \gamma$. However, it is direct to check that $$[j]\cap \sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}A_j=[j]\cap \pi^{-1}(S_j (A_j)).$$ Since $S_j$ is injective and contractive (thus continuous), we have $S_j(A_j)\in\gamma$. Therefore $\bigcup_{j=1}^\ell [j]\cap
\sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}A_j\in \widehat{\P}\vee \pi^{-1}\gamma$.
\[lem-3.7\] Let $m$ be a Borel probability measure on $\Sigma$ and $k\in \N$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
&\mbox{}& H_m\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\big|\sigma^{-k}\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)-
H_m\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\big|\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)\\
&\mbox{}& \quad=\sum_{j=0}^{k-1} H_{m\circ \sigma^{-j}}(\P|\sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}\gamma)-H_{m\circ \sigma^{-j}}(\P|\pi^{-1}\gamma).\end{aligned}$$ Moreover if $m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)$, then $$H_m\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\big|\sigma^{-k}\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)-
H_m\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\big|\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)=kh_\pi(\sigma,
m).$$
For $j=0,1,\ldots,k-1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\mbox{}&
{\bf I}_m\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\big|\sigma^{-j}\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)-
{\bf I}_m\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\big|\sigma^{-(j+1)}\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)\\
&=& {\bf I}_m\left(\sigma^{-j}\P\big|\sigma^{-j}\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)+
{\bf I}_m\left(\bigvee_{0\leq i\leq k-1,\;i\neq
j}\sigma^{-i}\P\big|\sigma^{-j}\widehat{\P}\vee\sigma^{-j}\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)\\
&& \mbox{}\;\; -{\bf I}_m\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\big|\sigma^{-(j+1)}\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)\qquad (\mbox{by Lemma \ref{lem-3.3}(ii)})
\\
&=& {\bf I}_m\left(\sigma^{-j}\P\big|\sigma^{-j}\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)+
{\bf I}_m\left(\bigvee_{0\leq i\leq k-1,\;i\neq
j}\sigma^{-i}\P\big|\sigma^{-j}\widehat{\P}\vee\sigma^{-(j+1)}\pi^{-1}\gamma\right) \\
&& \mbox{}\;\;-{\bf I}_m\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\big|\sigma^{-(j+1)}\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)\qquad (\mbox{by Lemma \ref{lem-3.6}})\\
&=&
{\bf I}_m\left(\sigma^{-j}\P\big|\sigma^{-j}\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)-{\bf I}_m\left(\sigma^{-j}\P\big|\sigma^{-(j+1)}\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)
\quad (\mbox{by Lemma \ref{lem-3.3}(ii)})\\
&=&{\bf I}_{m\circ \sigma^{-j}}\left(\P\big|\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)\circ
\sigma^j-{\bf I}_{m\circ \sigma^{-j}}\left(\P\big|\sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)\circ
\sigma^{j}\quad (\mbox{by Lemma \ref{lem-3.3}(i)}).\end{aligned}$$ Summing $j$ over $\{0,\ldots,k-1\}$ yields $$\label{e-tt}
\begin{split}
\mbox{}&{\bf I}_m\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\big|\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)-
{\bf I}_m\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\big|\sigma^{-k}\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)\\
&=\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}\left({\bf I}_{m\circ \sigma^{-j}}\left(\P\big|\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)\circ
\sigma^j-{\bf I}_{m\circ \sigma^{-j}}\left(\P\big|\sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)\circ
\sigma^{j}\right).\\
\end{split}$$ Taking integration, we obtain the desired formula.
For any $n\in \N$, let $\D_n$ be the partition of $\R^d$ given by $$\label{e-at1}
\D_n=\{[0,2^{-n})^d+\alpha:\; \alpha\in 2^{-n} \Z^d\}.$$
\[lem-3.8\] Let $m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)$. For each $n\in \N$, we have $$H_m(\P|\sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}\widehat{\D_n})-H_m(\P|\pi^{-1}\widehat{\D_n})\geq -d\log
(\sqrt{d}+1).$$
Since $m$ is $\sigma$-invariant, by Lemma \[lem-3.3\](iii), we have $$\label{e-3.4}
\begin{split}
\mbox{}& H_m(\P|\sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}\widehat{\D_n})-H_m(\P|\pi^{-1}\widehat{\D_n})\\
&=H_m(\P\vee
\sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}{\D_n})-H_m(\sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}{\D_n})\\
&\mbox{}\qquad -H_m(\P\vee \pi^{-1}{\D_n})+H_m(\pi^{-1}{\D_n})\\
&=H_m(\P\vee \sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}{\D_n})-H_m(\P\vee \pi^{-1}{\D_n}).\\
\end{split}$$ Observe that for each $1\leq j\leq \ell$ and $Q\in \D_n$, $$[j]\cap
\sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}(Q)=[j]\cap \pi^{-1}(S_j(Q)).$$ Since $S_j$ is contractive, $\text{diam}(S_j(Q))\leq 2^{-n}\sqrt{d}$ and thus $S_j(Q)$ intersects at most $(\sqrt{d}+1)^d$ members in $\D_n$. It deduces that $[j]\cap \sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}(Q)$ intersects at most $(\sqrt{d}+1)^d$ members in $\P\vee \pi^{-1}{\D_n}$. By Lemma \[lem-3.5\], we have $$\label{e-3.5'}
\begin{split}
H_m(\P\vee
\sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}{\D_n})&\geq H_m(\P\vee \sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}{\D_n}\vee
\pi^{-1}{\D_n})\\
&\mbox{}\qquad -d\log (\sqrt{d}+1)\\
&\geq H_m(\P\vee \pi^{-1}{\D_n})-d\log (\sqrt{d}+1).\\
\end{split}$$ Combining it with (\[e-3.4\]) yields the desired inequality.
We first prove part (i) of the proposition, i.e., $$0\leq h_\pi(\sigma,m)\leq
h(\sigma,m).$$ Since $\widehat{\D_n}\uparrow \gamma$ as $n$ tends to $\infty$, by Lemma \[lem-3.3\](iv), we have $$\lim_{n\to
\infty}H_m(\P|\sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}\D_n)-H_m(\P|\pi^{-1}\D_n)=
H_m(\P|\sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}\gamma)-H_m(\P|\pi^{-1}\gamma).$$ It together with Lemma \[lem-3.8\] yields $$H_m(\P|\sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}\gamma)-H_m(\P|\pi^{-1}\gamma)\geq
-d\log(\sqrt{d}+1).$$ Using the same argument to the IFS $\{S_{i_1\ldots i_k}: 1\leq i_j\leq \ell, 1\leq j\leq k\}$, we have $$H_m\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\big|\sigma^{-k}\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)-
H_m\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\big|\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)\geq
-d\log(\sqrt{d}+1).$$ It together with Lemma \[lem-3.7\] yields $h_\pi(\sigma,m)\geq -d\log (\sqrt{d}+1)/k$. Since $k$ is arbitrary, we have $h_\pi(\sigma,m)\geq 0$. To see $h_\pi(\sigma,m)\leq
h(\sigma,m)$, it suffices to observe that $$\begin{aligned}
kh_\pi(\sigma,m)&=&H_m\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\big|\sigma^{-k}\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)-
H_m\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\big|\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)\\
&\leq&
H_m\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\big|\sigma^{-k}\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)\leq
H_m\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\right).\end{aligned}$$
Now we turn to the proof of part (ii). Let $m_1,m_2\in \M_{\sigma}(\Sigma)$ and $m=pm_1+(1-p)m_2$ for some $p\in [0,1]$. Using (\[e-3.3\]), for any finite or countable Borel partition $\xi$ we have $$\label{e-3.5} |H_m(\xi)-pH_{m_1}(\xi)-(1-p)H_{m_2}(\xi)|\leq
g(p)+g(1-p)\leq \log 2.$$ Let $k\in \N$. By Lemma \[lem-3.7\], Lemma \[lem-3.3\](iv), and (\[e-3.4\]), we have $$\label{e-july3}
\begin{split}
h_\pi(\sigma,m)&= \frac{1}{k}\left(
H_m\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\big|\sigma^{-k}\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)-
H_m\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\big|\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)\right)\\
&= \frac{1}{k}\lim_{n\to \infty} \left(
H_m\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\big|\sigma^{-k}\pi^{-1}\widehat{\D_n}\right)-
H_m\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\big|\pi^{-1}\widehat{\D_n}\right)\right)\\
&= \frac{1}{k}\lim_{n\to \infty} \left(
H_m\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\vee\sigma^{-k}\pi^{-1}\D_n\right)-
H_m\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\vee\pi^{-1}\D_n\right)\right).\\
\end{split}$$ The above statement is true when $m$ is replaced by $m_1$ and $m_2$. However by (\[e-3.5\]), $$H_m\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\vee\sigma^{-k}\pi^{-1}\D_n\right)-
H_m\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\vee\pi^{-1}\D_n\right)$$ differs from $$\sum_{j=1}^2 p_j
\left[H_{m_j}\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\vee\sigma^{-k}\pi^{-1}\D_n\right)-
H_{m_j}\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\vee\pi^{-1}\D_n\right)\right]$$ at most $2\log 2$, where $p_1=p$ and $p_2=1-p$. This together with (\[e-july3\]) yields (\[e-3.1\]).
Let $k\geq 2$ and $\nu\in \M_{\sigma^k}(\Sigma)$. We claim that $h_\pi(\sigma^k,\nu\circ \sigma^{-j})=h_\pi(\sigma^k,\nu)$ for any $1\leq j\leq k-1$. To prove the claim, it suffices to prove $h_\pi(\sigma^k,\nu\circ \sigma^{-1})=h_\pi(\sigma^k,\nu)$. Note that both $\nu$ and $\nu\circ \sigma^{-1}$ are $\sigma^{k}$-invariant. By Lemma \[lem-3.7\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
h_\pi(\sigma^k,\nu)&=&
{H}_\nu\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\big|\sigma^{-k}\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)-
{H}_\nu\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\big|\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)\\
&=&\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}\left(H_{\nu\circ \sigma^{-j}}\left(\P\big|\sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)-H_{\nu\circ \sigma^{-j}}\left(\P\big|\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)\right), \end{aligned}$$ whilst $$\begin{aligned}
h_\pi(\sigma^k,\nu\circ \sigma^{-1})&=&
{H}_{\nu\circ \sigma^{-1}}\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\big|\sigma^{-k}\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)-
{H}_{\nu\circ \sigma^{-1}}\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\big|\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)\\
&=&\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}\left(H_{\nu\circ \sigma^{-j-1}}\left(\P\big|\sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)-H_{\nu\circ \sigma^{-j-1}}\left(\P\big|\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)\right). \end{aligned}$$ Since $\nu$ is $\sigma^{k}$-invariant, we obtain $h_\pi(\sigma^k,\nu\circ \sigma^{-1})=h_\pi(\sigma^k,\nu)$. This finishes the proof of the claim. To complete the proof of the proposition, let $m=\frac{1}{k}\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\nu\circ \sigma^{-i}$. It is clear that $m$ is $\sigma$-invariant. By Proposition \[pro-3.1\](ii), $h_\pi(\sigma^k,\cdot)$ is affine on $\M_{\sigma^k}(\Sigma)$. Hence $$h_\pi(\sigma^k,m)=\frac{1}{k}\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}h_\pi(\sigma^k,\nu\circ\sigma^{-i})=h_\pi(\sigma^k,\nu).$$ Combining it with Lemma \[lem-3.7\] yields the equality $h_\pi(\sigma,m)=\frac{1}{k}h_\pi(\sigma^k,\nu)$.
A version of Shannon-McMillan-Breiman Theorem associated with IFS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we prove the following Shannon-McMillan-Breiman type theorem associated with IFS, which is needed in the proof of Theorem \[thm-1.3\]. It is also of independent interest.
\[pro-3.13\] Let $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ be an IFS and $m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)$. Then $$\label{e-3.10}
\lim_{k\to \infty}\frac{1}{k}{\bf I}_m\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\big|\pi^{-1}\gamma \right)(x)=\E_m(f|\I)(x)=h(\sigma,m,x)-
h_\pi(\sigma,m,x).$$ almost everywhere and in $L^1$, where $$f:={\bf I}_m(\P|\sigma^{-1}\B(\Sigma))+ {\bf I}_m(\P|\pi^{-1}\gamma)-{\bf I}_m(\P|\sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}\gamma),$$ $\I=\{B\in \B(\Sigma):\; \sigma^{-1}B=B\}$, and $h(\sigma,m,x)$, $h_\pi(\sigma,m,x)$ denote the classical local entropy and the local projection entropy of $m$ at $x$ (see Definition \[de-1.1\]), respectively. Moreover if $m$ is ergodic, then the limit in (\[e-3.10\]) equals $h(\sigma,m)-h_\pi(\sigma,m)$ for $m$-a.e. $x\in \Sigma$.
\[rem-3.14\] [If $\xi$ is a countable Borel partition of $\Sigma$, and $\A\subset \B(\Sigma)$ is a sub-$\sigma$-algebra with $\sigma^{-1}\A=\A$, then the relativized Shannon-McMillan-Breiman Theorem states that $$\lim_{k\to \infty}\frac{1}{k}{\bf I}_m\left(\xi_{0}^{k-1}\big|\A \right)(x)=\E_m(g|\I)(x)
\qquad \mbox{ for $m$-a.e.\! $x\in \Sigma$},$$ where $g={\bf I}_m\left(\xi|\A\vee \xi_{1}^\infty \right)$ (see, e.g., [@Bog92 Lemma 4.1]). However under the setting of Proposition \[pro-3.13\], the sub-$\sigma$-algebra $\pi^{-1}\gamma$ is not invariant in general. ]{}
In the following we present a generalized version of Proposition \[pro-3.13\].
\[pro-3.13’\] Let $\xi$ be a countable Borel partition of $\Sigma$ with $H_m(\xi)<\infty$, and let $\A\subset \B(\Sigma)$ be a sub-$\sigma$-algebra so that $\widehat{\xi}\vee \sigma^{-1}\A=\widehat{\xi}\vee\A$. Let $m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)$. Then $$\label{e-3.10'}
\lim_{k\to \infty}\frac{1}{k}{\bf I}_m\left(\xi_{0}^{k-1}\big|\A\right)(x)=\E_m(f|\I)(x)$$ almost everywhere and in $L^1$, where $$f:={\bf I}_m\left(\xi|\sigma^{-1}\A\vee \bigvee_{i=1}^\infty \sigma^{-i}\widehat{\xi}\right)+ {\bf I}_m(\xi|\A)-{\bf I}_m(\xi|\sigma^{-1}\A),$$ and $\I=\{B\in \B(\Sigma):\; \sigma^{-1}B=B\}$.
To prove Proposition \[pro-3.13’\], we need the following lemma.
\[lem-3.15\] Let $m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)$. Let $F_k\in L^1(\Sigma,m)$ be a sequence that converges almost everywhere and in $L^1$ to $F\in L^1(\Sigma,m)$. Then $$\lim_{k\to \infty}\frac{1}{k}\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}F_{k-j}(\sigma^j(x))=\E_m(F|\I)(x)$$ almost everywhere and in $L^1$.
For $k\geq 2$ and $x\in \Sigma$, we write $$g_k(x)={\bf I}_m\left(\xi_{0}^{k-1}\big|\A \right)(x)
-{\bf I}_m\left(\xi_{0}^{k-2}\big|\A \right)(\sigma x).$$ Then $$\label{e-3.11}
{\bf I}_m\left(\xi_{0}^{k-1}\big|\A \right)(x)={\bf I}_m(\xi|\A)(\sigma^{k-1}x)+\sum_{j=0}^{k-2}g_{k-j}(\sigma^jx).$$ We claim that $$\label{e-3.12}
g_k(x)={\bf I}_m\left(\xi\big|\sigma^{-1}\A \vee \bigvee_{i=1}^{k-1}\sigma^{-i}\widehat{\xi} \right)(x)
+ {\bf I}_m\left(\xi\big|\A \right)(x)-{\bf I}_m\left(\xi\big|\sigma^{-1}\A \right)(x).
%\nonumber\\$$ By the claim and Lemma \[lem-3.3\](iv), $g_k$ converges almost everywhere and in $L^1$ to $f$. It together with (\[e-3.11\]) and Lemma \[lem-3.15\] yields (\[e-3.10’\]).
Now we turn to the proof of (\[e-3.12\]). Let $k\geq 2$. We have $$\label{e-3.13}
\begin{split}
{\bf I}_m\left(\xi_{0}^{k-1}\big|\sigma^{-1}\A \right)(x)
&={\bf I}_m\left(\xi\big|\sigma^{-1}\A \right)(x)+
{\bf I}_m\left(\bigvee_{i=1}^{k-1}\sigma^{-i}\xi\big|\sigma^{-1}\A\vee \widehat{\xi} \right)(x)\\
&={\bf I}_m\left(\xi\big|\sigma^{-1}\A \right)(x)+
{\bf I}_m\left(\bigvee_{i=1}^{k-1}\sigma^{-i}\xi\big|\A \vee \widehat{\xi} \right)(x),\\
\end{split}$$ using the property $\sigma^{-1}\A \vee \widehat{\xi}=\A \vee \widehat{\xi}$. Meanwhile, we have $$\label{e-3.14}
\begin{split}
\mbox{} & {\bf I}_m\left(\xi_{0}^{k-1}\big|\sigma^{-1}A \right)(x)\\
&={\bf I}_m\left(\bigvee_{i=1}^{k-1}\sigma^{-i}\xi\big|\sigma^{-1}\A \right)(x)
+
{\bf I}_m\left(\xi\big|\sigma^{-1}\A \vee \bigvee_{i=1}^{k-1}\sigma^{-i}\widehat{\xi} \right)(x)\\
&=
{\bf I}_m\left(\xi_0^{k-2}\big|\A \right)(\sigma x)
+
{\bf I}_m\left(\xi\big|\sigma^{-1}\A \vee \bigvee_{i=1}^{k-1}\sigma^{-i}\widehat{\xi} \right)(x).\\
\end{split}$$ Combining (\[e-3.13\]) with (\[e-3.14\]) yields $$\label{e-3.15}
\begin{split}
&\mbox{} {\bf I}_m\left(\xi\big|\sigma^{-1}\A \right)(x)+
{\bf I}_m\left(\bigvee_{i=1}^{k-1}\sigma^{-i}\xi\big|\A \vee \widehat{\xi} \right)(x)\\
&={\bf I}_m\left(\xi_0^{k-2}\big|\A \right)(\sigma x)
+
{\bf I}_m\left(\xi\big|\sigma^{-1}\A \vee \bigvee_{i=1}^{k-1}\sigma^{-i}\widehat{\xi} \right)(x).\\
\end{split}$$ However $$\label{e-3.16}
{\bf I}_m\left(\xi_{0}^{k-1}\big|\A \right)(x)=
{\bf I}_m\left(\xi\big|\A \right)(x)+
{\bf I}_m\left(\bigvee_{i=1}^{k-1}\sigma^{-i}\xi\big|\A \vee \widehat{\xi} \right)(x).$$ Combining (\[e-3.15\]) with (\[e-3.16\]) yields (\[e-3.12\]). This finishes the proof of Proposition \[pro-3.13’\].
We remark that Proposition \[pro-3.13\] can be stated in terms of conditional measures. To see it, let $$\eta=\{\pi^{-1}(z): z\in \R^d\}$$ be the measurable partition of $\Sigma$ generated by the canonical projection $\pi$ associated with $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$. For $m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)$, let $\{m_x^\eta\}_{x\in \Sigma}$ denote the canonical system of conditional measures w.r.t. $\eta$. For $x\in \Sigma$ and $k\in \N$, let $\P^k_0(x)$ denote the element in the partition $\P_0^k$ containing $x$. Then Proposition \[pro-3.13\] can be restated as the following.
\[pro-3.16\] For $m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)$, we have $$\label{e-3.17} -\lim_{k\to \infty}\frac{1}{k} \log
m^\eta_x(\P^k_0(x))=\E_m(f|\I)(x) \qquad \mbox{ for $m$-a.e.\! $x\in
\Sigma$},$$ where $f:={\bf I}_m(\P|\sigma^{-1}\B(\Sigma))+
{\bf I}_m(\P|\pi^{-1}\gamma)-{\bf I}_m(\P|\sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}\gamma)$. Moreover if $m$ is ergodic, then the limit in (\[e-3.17\]) equals $h(\sigma,m)-h_\pi(\sigma,m)$ for $m$-a.e. $x\in \Sigma$.
It suffices to show that for each $k\in \N$, $$\log m^\eta_x(\P^k_0(x))=-{\bf I}_m(\P^k_0|\pi^{-1}\gamma)(x) \mbox{ almost everywhere}.$$ To see this, by Theorem \[thm-2.1\] we have $$\sum_{A\in
\P^k_0}\chi_A(x)m^\eta_x(A)=\sum_{A\in
\P^k_0}\chi_A(x)\E_m(\chi_A|\pi^{-1}\gamma)(x)\quad \mbox{ for $m$-a.e.\!
$x\in \Sigma$}.$$ Taking logarithm yields the desired result.
\[rem-3.18\] [In Proposition \[pro-3.16\], for $m$-a.e. $x\in \Sigma$, we have $$\lim_{k\to \infty} -\frac{1}{k}\log
m^\eta_x(\P^k_0(y))=\E_m(f|\I)(y) \quad \mbox{ for $m^\eta_x$-a.e.\!
$y\in \eta(x)$}.$$ To see this, denote $$R=\left\{y\in \Sigma: \;-\lim_{k\to \infty}\frac{1}{k} \log
m^\eta_y(\P^k_0(y))=\E_m(f|\I)(y)\right\}.$$ Then $1=m(R)=\int m^\eta_x(R\cap \eta(x))\;dm(x)$. Hence $m^\eta_x(R\cap \eta(x))=1$ $m$-a.e. For $y\in R\cap \eta(x)$, we have $$\lim_{k\to
\infty} -\frac{1}{k}\log m^\eta_x(\P^k_0(y))= \lim_{k\to \infty}
-\frac{1}{k}\log m^\eta_y(\P^k_0(y))= \E_m(f|\I)(y).$$ ]{}
As a corollary of Proposition \[pro-3.16\], we have
\[cor-3.17\] Let $m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
h_\pi(\sigma,m)=h(\sigma,m) & \Longleftrightarrow & \lim_{k\to \infty}\frac{1}{k}\log m_x^\eta(\P_0^k(x))=0 \;\mbox{ $m$-a.e.}\\
& \Longleftrightarrow &\dim_H m_x^\eta=0 \;\mbox{ $m$-a.e.}\end{aligned}$$ In particular, if $\dim_H\pi^{-1}(z)=0$ for each $z\in \R^d$, then $h_\pi(\sigma,m)=h(\sigma,m)$. Here $\dim_H$ denotes the Hausdorff dimension.
Let $f$ be defined as in Proposition \[pro-3.16\]. Then $$\int \E_m(f|\I) \; dm =\int f\;dm= h(\sigma,m)-h_\pi(\sigma,m).$$ By (\[e-3.17\]), $\E_m(f|\I)(x)\geq 0$ for $m$-a.e. $x\in \Sigma$. Hence we have $$\begin{aligned}
h(\sigma,m)=h_\pi(\sigma,m) &\Longleftrightarrow& \E_m(f|\I)=0\;\mbox{ $m$-a.e.} \\
&\Longleftrightarrow &\lim_{k\to \infty}\frac{1}{k}\log m_x^\eta(\P_0^k(x))=0\;\mbox{ $m$-a.e.}\end{aligned}$$ Using dimension theory of measures (see, e.g., [@Fan94]), we have $$\dim_H m_x^\eta={\mbox{ess}\sup}_{y\in \eta(x)} \liminf_{k\to \infty} \frac{\log m_x^\eta(\P_0^k(y))}{\log \ell^{-k}}.$$ It together with Remark \[rem-3.18\] yields $$\E_m(f|\I)=0\;\mbox{ $m$-a.e.}\Longleftrightarrow \dim_H m_x^\eta=0\;\mbox{ $m$-a.e.}$$ This finishes the proof of the first part of the corollary.
To complete the proof, assume that $\dim_H\pi^{-1}(z)=0$ for each $z\in \R^d$. Then for each $x\in \Sigma$, $\dim_H\eta(x)=0$ and hence $\dim_H m_x^\eta=0$. Thus $h_\pi(\sigma,m)=h(\sigma,m)$.
Projection entropy under the ergodic decomposition
--------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we first prove the following result.
\[pro-tt\] Let $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ be an IFS and $m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)$. Assume that $m=\int \nu \;d{\Bbb P}(\nu)$ is the ergodic decomposition of $m$. Then $$h_\pi(\sigma,m)=\int h_\pi(\sigma,\nu) \;d {\Bbb P} (\nu).$$
Let $\I$ denote the $\sigma$-algebra $\{B\in \B(\Sigma):\ \sigma^{-1}B=B\}$, and let $m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)$. Then there exists an $m$-measurable partition $\varepsilon$ of $\Sigma$ such that $\widehat{\varepsilon}=\I$ modulo sets of zero $m$-measure (see [@Par-book1 pp. 37-38]). Let $\{m_x^\varepsilon\}$ denote the conditional measures of $m$ associated with the partition $\varepsilon$. Then $m=\int m_x^\varepsilon\; dm(x)$ is just the ergodic decomposition of $m$ (see e.g., [@Kel-book Theorem 2.3.3]). Hence to prove the proposition, we need to show that $$\label{e-a12}
h_\pi(\sigma,m)=\int h_\pi(\sigma, m_x^\varepsilon) \;dm(x).$$
We first show the direction “$\leq$” in (\[e-a12\]). Note that $\I$ is $\sigma$-invariant and $\widehat{\P}\vee \sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}\gamma=\widehat{\P}\vee \pi^{-1}\gamma$. Hence we have $
\widehat{\P}\vee \sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}\gamma\vee \I=\widehat{\P}\vee \pi^{-1}\gamma\vee \I
$. Taking $\xi=\P$ and $\A=\pi^{-1}\gamma\vee \I$ in Proposition \[pro-3.13’\] yields $$\label{e-a13}
\lim_{k\to \infty}\frac{1}{k}{\bf I}_m\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\big|\pi^{-1}\gamma\vee \I\right)(x)=\E_m(f|\I)(x)$$ almost everywhere and in $L^1$, where $$f:={\bf I}_m\left(\P|\sigma^{-1}\B(\Sigma)\right)+ {\bf I}_m(\P|\pi^{-1}\gamma\vee \I)-{\bf I}_m(\P|\sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}\gamma\vee \I).$$ By Remark \[rem-2.5\](ii), we have $${\bf I}_{m^\varepsilon_x}\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}|\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)(x)={\bf I}_m\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\big|\pi^{-1}\gamma\vee \I\right)(x).$$ Hence according to the ergodicity of $m_x^\varepsilon$ and Proposition \[pro-3.13\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
h(\sigma, m_x^\varepsilon)-h_\pi(\sigma, m_x^\varepsilon)&=&\lim_{k\to \infty}\frac{1}{k}{\bf I}_{m^\varepsilon_x}\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}|\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)(x)\\
&=&\lim_{k\to \infty} \frac{1}{k}{\bf I}_m\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\big|\pi^{-1}\gamma\vee \I\right)(x)\end{aligned}$$ almost everywhere and $$\label{e-a14}
\int h(\sigma, m_x^\varepsilon)-h_\pi(\sigma, m_x^\varepsilon)\; dm(x)=\lim_{k\to \infty}\frac{1}{k}H_m\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\big|\pi^{-1}\gamma\vee \I\right).$$ Using Proposition \[pro-3.13\] again we have $$\label{e-a15}
h(\sigma, m)-h_\pi(\sigma, m)=\lim_{k\to \infty}\frac{1}{k}H_m\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\big|\pi^{-1}\gamma\right).$$ However, $H_m\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\big|\pi^{-1}\gamma\vee \I\right)\leq H_m\left(\P_{0}^{k-1}\big|\pi^{-1}\gamma\right)$ (see e.g. [@Wal-book Theorem 4.3 (v)]). By (\[e-a14\]), (\[e-a15\]) and the above inequality, we have $$\int h(\sigma, m_x^\varepsilon)-h_\pi(\sigma, m_x^\varepsilon)\; dm(x)\leq h(\sigma, m)-h_\pi(\sigma, m).$$ It is well known (see [@Wal-book Theorem 8.4]) that $\int h(\sigma, m_x^\varepsilon)\; dm(x)=h(\sigma, m)$. Hence we obtain the inequality $h_\pi(\sigma, m)\leq \int h_\pi(\sigma, m_x^\varepsilon)\; dm(x)$.
Now we prove the direction “$\geq$ ” in (\[e-a12\]). For any $n\in \N$, let $\D_n$ be defined as in (\[e-at1\]). Since $\widehat{\D_n}\uparrow \gamma$, we have $$\label{e-temp1}
h_\pi(\sigma,m)=\lim_{n\to \infty}H_m(\P|\sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}\widehat{\D_n})-H_m(\P|\pi^{-1}\widehat{\D_n}).$$ Now fix $n\in \N$ and denote $A(m)=H_m(\P|\sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}\widehat{\D_n})-H_m(\P|\pi^{-1}\widehat{\D_n})$ and $$\begin{aligned}
B(m)&=&H_m(\sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}{\D_n}|\P\vee \pi^{-1}\widehat{\D_n})\\
&=&H_m(\P\vee\sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}\widehat{\D_n}\vee \pi^{-1}\widehat{\D_n})-H_m(\P\vee \pi^{-1}\widehat{\D_n}).\end{aligned}$$ Then by (\[e-3.4\]) and (\[e-3.5’\]), we have $$\label{temp2}
B(m)-c\leq A(m)\leq B(m),$$ where $c=d\log(\sqrt{d}+1)$. As a conditional entropy function, $B(m)$ is concave on $\M_\sigma(\Sigma)$ (see, e.g., [@HYZ06 Lemma 3.3 (1)]). Hence by Jensen’s inequality and (\[temp2\]), we have $$A(m)\geq B(m)-c\geq \int B(m^\varepsilon_x) \; dm(x)-c\geq \int A(m^\varepsilon_x) \; dm(x)-c.$$ That is, $$\begin{aligned}
&\mbox{}& H_m(\P|\sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}\widehat{\D_n})-H_m(\P|\pi^{-1}\widehat{\D_n})\\
&\mbox{}& \quad \geq \int H_{m^\varepsilon_x}(\P|\sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}\widehat{\D_n})-H_{m^\varepsilon_x}(\P|\pi^{-1}\widehat{\D_n}) \; dm(x)-c.\end{aligned}$$ Letting $n\to \infty$, using (\[e-temp1\]) and Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem, we have $$h_\pi(\sigma,m)\geq \int h_\pi(\sigma, m^\varepsilon_x)\; dm(x)-c.$$ Replacing $\sigma$ by $\sigma^k$ we have $$\label{e-1120}
h_\pi(\sigma^k,m)\geq \int h_\pi(\sigma^k, m^{\varepsilon_k}_x)\; dm(x)-c,$$ where $\varepsilon_k$ denotes a measurable partition of $\Sigma$ such that $$\widehat{\varepsilon_k}=\{B\in \B(\Sigma):\;\sigma^{-k}B=B\}$$ modulo sets of zero $m$-measure. Note that $m=\int m_x^{\varepsilon_k}\; dm(x)$ is the ergodic decomposition of $m$ with respect to $\sigma^k$. Hence $m=\int (1/k)\sum_{i=0}^{k-1} m_x^{\varepsilon_k}\circ \sigma^{-i}~ dm(x)$ is the ergodic decomposition of $m$ with respect to $\sigma$. It follows that $$\label{e-1120a}
\frac{1}{k}\sum_{i=0}^{k-1} m_x^{\varepsilon_k}\circ \sigma^{-i}=m_x^\varepsilon \quad \mbox{$m$-a.e.}$$ By (\[e-1120\]), Proposition \[pro-3.2\] and (\[e-1120a\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
h_\pi(\sigma^k,m)&=&\frac{1}{k} \sum_{i=0}^{k-1}h_\pi(\sigma^k,m\circ \sigma^{-i})\\
&\geq& \frac{1}{k} \sum_{i=0}^{k-1} \int h_\pi(\sigma^k, m^{\varepsilon_k}_x\circ \sigma^{-i})\; dm(x)-c\\
&=&\int h_\pi\Big(\sigma^k, \frac{1}{k} \sum_{i=0}^{k-1} m^{\varepsilon_k}_x\circ \sigma^{-i}\Big)\; dm(x)-c\\
&=&\int h_\pi(\sigma^k, m^{\varepsilon}_x)\; dm(x)-c.
\end{aligned}$$ Using Proposition \[pro-3.2\] again yields $$h_\pi(\sigma,m)\geq \int h_\pi(\sigma, m^\varepsilon_x)\; dm(x)-c/k\quad \mbox{for any $k\in \N$.}$$ Hence we have $h_\pi(\sigma,m)\geq \int h_\pi(\sigma, m^\varepsilon_x)\; dm(x)$, as desired.
It follows directly from Propositions \[pro-3.1\], \[pro-3.13\] and \[pro-tt\].
The projection entropy for certain affine IFS and the proof of Theorem \[thm-1.0’\]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we assume that $\Phi=\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ is an IFS on $\R^d$ of the form $$S_i(x)=Ax+c_i\qquad (i=1,\ldots, \ell),$$ where $A$ is a $d\times d$ non-singular real matrix with $\|A\|<1$ and $c_i\in \R^d$. Let $K$ denote the attractor of $\Phi$.
Let $\Q$ denote the partition $\{[0,1)^d+\alpha:\; \alpha\in \Z^d\}$ of $\R^d$. For $n=0, 1,\ldots$, and $x\in \R^d$, we set $$\Q_n=\{A^nQ:\; Q\in \Q\},\quad \Q_n+x=\{A^nQ+x:\; Q\in \Q\}.$$ We have the following geometric characterization of $h_\pi$ for the IFS $\Phi$ (i.e., Theorem \[thm-1.0’\]).
\[pro-3.19\]
- Let $m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)$. Then $$\label{e-3.18}
h_\pi(\sigma,m)=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{H_m(\pi^{-1}\Q_n)}{n}.$$
- $$\lim_{n\to \infty}\frac{\log \#\{Q\in \Q:\; A^nQ\cap K\neq \emptyset\}}{n}
=\sup\{h_\pi(\sigma,m):\; m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)\}.$$
To prove the above proposition, we need the following lemma.
\[lem-3.20\] Assume that $\Omega$ is a subset of $\{1,\ldots,\ell\}$ such that $S_i(K)\cap S_j(K)=\emptyset$ for all $i,j\in \Omega$ with $i\neq j$. Suppose that $\nu$ is an invariant measure on $\Sigma$ supported on $\Omega^\N$, i.e., $\nu([j])=0$ for all $j\in \{1,\ldots, \ell\}\backslash \Omega$. Then $h_\pi(\sigma,\nu)=h(\sigma,\nu)$.
It suffices to prove that $h_\pi(\sigma,\nu)\geq h(\sigma,\nu)$. Recall that $$h_\pi(\sigma,\nu)=H_\nu(\P|\sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}\gamma)-H_\nu(\P|\pi^{-1}\gamma)$$ and $H_\nu(\P|\sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}\gamma)\geq H_\nu(\P|\sigma^{-1}\B(\Sigma))=h(\sigma,\nu)$. Hence we only need to show $H_\nu(\P|\pi^{-1}\gamma)=0$. To do this, denote $$\delta=\min\{d(S_i(K), S_j(K)):\; i,j\in \Omega, i\neq j\}.$$ Then $\delta>0$. Let $\xi$ be an arbitrary finite Borel partition of $K$ so that $\mbox{diam}(A)<\delta/2$ for $A\in \xi$. Set ${\mathcal W}=\{[i]:\; i\in \Omega\}$. Since $\nu$ is supported on $\Omega^\N$, we have $$H_\nu(\P|\pi^{-1}\widehat{\xi})=H_\nu(\P\vee \pi^{-1}\xi)-H_\nu(\pi^{-1}\xi)=H_\nu({\mathcal W}\vee \pi^{-1}\xi)-H_\nu(\pi^{-1}\xi).$$ However for each $A\in \xi$, there is at most one $i\in \Omega$ such that $S_i(K)\cap A\neq \emptyset$, i.e., $[i]\cap \pi^{-1}A\neq \emptyset$. This forces that $H_\nu({\mathcal W}\vee \pi^{-1}\xi)=H_\nu(\pi^{-1}\xi)$. Hence $$H_\nu(\P|\pi^{-1}\widehat{\xi})=0.$$ By the arbitrariness of $\xi$ and Lemma \[lem-3.3\](iv), we have $H_\nu(\P|\pi^{-1}\gamma)=0.$
We first prove (i). Let $m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)$. Denote $\gamma=\B(\R^d)$. According to Proposition \[pro-3.2\], we have $$H_m(\P_0^{p-1}|\sigma^{-p}\pi^{-1}\gamma)-H_m(\P_0^{p-1}|\pi^{-1}\gamma)=ph_\pi(\sigma,m)\qquad (p\in \N).$$ Now fix $p$. Since $\widehat{\Q_n}\uparrow \gamma$, by Lemma \[lem-3.3\](iv), there exists $k_0$ such that for $k\geq k_0$, $$\begin{aligned}
&\mbox{}&|H_m(\P_0^{p-1}|\sigma^{-p}\pi^{-1}\gamma)-H_m(\P_0^{p-1}|\sigma^{-p}\pi^{-1}\widehat{\Q_{kp}})|\leq 1,
\quad \mbox{and} \\
&& |H_m(\P_0^{p-1}|\pi^{-1}\gamma)-H_m(\P_0^{p-1}|\pi^{-1}\widehat{\Q_{(k+1)p}})|\leq 1.\end{aligned}$$ It follows that for $k\geq k_0$, $$\label{e-3.20}
\begin{split}
ph_\pi(\sigma,m)-2 & \leq H_m(\P_0^{p-1}|\sigma^{-p}\pi^{-1}\widehat{\Q_{kp}})-H_m(\P_0^{p-1}|\pi^{-1}\widehat{\Q_{(k+1)p}})\\
\mbox{} &\leq ph_\pi(\sigma,m)+2.
\end{split}$$ Now we estimate the difference of conditional entropies in (\[e-3.20\]). Note that $$\begin{aligned}
H_m(\P_0^{p-1}|\sigma^{-p}\pi^{-1}\widehat{\Q_{kp}})&=&H_m(\P_0^{p-1}\vee \sigma^{-p}\pi^{-1}\Q_{kp})-
H_m(\sigma^{-p}\pi^{-1}\Q_{kp})\\
&=&H_m(\P_0^{p-1}\vee \sigma^{-p}\pi^{-1}\Q_{kp})-
H_m(\pi^{-1}\Q_{kp})\end{aligned}$$ and $$H_m(\P_0^{p-1}|\pi^{-1}\widehat{\Q_{(k+1)p}})=H_m(\P_0^{p-1}\vee \pi^{-1}\Q_{(k+1)p})-
H_m(\pi^{-1}\Q_{(k+1)p}).$$ Hence we have $$\label{e-3.21}
\begin{split}
&\mbox{}H_m(\P_0^{p-1}|\sigma^{-p}\pi^{-1}\widehat{\Q_{kp}})-H_m(\P_0^{p-1}|\pi^{-1}\widehat{\Q_{(k+1)p}})\\
&= H_m(\P_0^{p-1}\vee \sigma^{-p}\pi^{-1}\Q_{kp})-H_m(\P_0^{p-1}\vee \pi^{-1}\Q_{(k+1)p})\\
& \mbox{}\quad\;\; +H_m(\pi^{-1}\Q_{(k+1)p})-H_m(\pi^{-1}\Q_{kp}).\\
\end{split}$$ Observe that for each $[u]\in \P_0^{p-1}$ and any $Q\in \Q$, $$[u]\cap \sigma^{-p}\pi^{-1}A^{kp}Q=[u]\cap \pi^{-1}S_u A^{kp}Q.$$ Since the linear part of $S_u$ is $A^p$, the set $S_u A^{kp}Q$ intersects at most $2^d$ elements of $\Q_{(k+1)p}$. Therefore each element of $\P_0^{p-1}\vee\sigma^{-p}\pi^{-1}{\Q_{kp}}$ intersects at most $2^d$ elements of $\P_0^{p-1}\vee \pi^{-1}\Q_{(k+1)p}$. Similarly, the statement is also true if the two partitions are interchanged. Therefore by Lemma \[lem-3.5\], we have $$|H_m(\P_0^{p-1}\vee \sigma^{-p}\pi^{-1}\Q_{kp})-H_m(\P_0^{p-1}\vee \pi^{-1}\Q_{(k+1)p})|\leq d\log 2.$$ It together with (\[e-3.20\]) and (\[e-3.21\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
ph_\pi(\sigma,m)-2-d\log 2&\leq& H_m(\pi^{-1}\Q_{(k+1)p})-H_m(\pi^{-1}\Q_{kp})\\
&\leq & ph_\pi(\sigma,m)+2+d\log 2\end{aligned}$$ for $k\geq k_0$. Hence we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\mbox{}&\limsup_{k\to \infty} \frac{H_m(\pi^{-1}\Q_{kp})}{kp}\leq h_\pi(\sigma,m)+\frac{2+d\log 2}{p} \quad
\mbox{ and }\\ &&\liminf_{k\to \infty} \frac{H_m(\pi^{-1}\Q_{kp})}{kp}\geq h_\pi(\sigma,m)-\frac{2+d\log 2}{p}.\end{aligned}$$ By a volume argument, there is a large integer $N$ ($N$ depends on $A$, $d$, $p$; and it is independent of $k$) such that for any $i=0,\ldots, p-1$, each element of $\Q_{kp+i}$ intersects at most $N$ elements of $\Q_{kp}$, and vice versa. Hence by Lemma \[lem-3.5\], $|H_m(\pi^{-1}\Q_{kp})-H_m(\pi^{-1}\Q_{kp+i})|<\log N$ for $0\leq i\leq p-1$. It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
&\mbox{}&\limsup_{k\to \infty} H_m(\pi^{-1}\Q_{kp})/(kp)=\limsup_{n\to \infty}H_m(\pi^{-1}\Q_{n})/n
\mbox{ and}\\
&\mbox{}&\liminf_{k\to \infty} H_m(\pi^{-1}\Q_{kp})/(kp)=\liminf_{n\to \infty}H_m(\pi^{-1}\Q_{n})/n.
\end{aligned}$$ Thus we have $$\begin{aligned}
h_\pi(\sigma,m)-\frac{2+d\log 2}{p}&\leq& \liminf_{n\to \infty} \frac{H_m(\pi^{-1}\Q_{n})}{n}\leq
\limsup_{n\to \infty} \frac{H_m(\pi^{-1}\Q_{n})}{n}\\
&\leq& h_\pi(\sigma,m)+\frac{2+d\log 2}{p}.\end{aligned}$$ Letting $p$ tend to infinity, we obtain (\[e-3.18\]).
To show (ii), we assume $K\subset [0,1)^d$, without loss of generality. Note that the number of (non-empty) elements in the partition $\pi^{-1}\Q_n$ is just equal to $$N_n:=\#\{Q\in \Q:\; A^nQ\cap K\neq \emptyset\}.$$ Hence by (\[e-3.2\]), we have $$H_m(\pi^{-1}\Q_n)\leq \log N_n, \quad \forall \; m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma).$$ This together with (i) proves $$\liminf_{n\to \infty}\frac{\log N_n}{n}\geq \sup\{h_\pi(\sigma,m):\; m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)\}.$$ To prove (ii), we still need to show $$\label{e-3.23}
\limsup_{n\to \infty}\log N_n/n\leq \sup\{h_\pi(\sigma,m):\; m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)\}.$$ We may assume that $\limsup_{n\to \infty}\log N_n/n>0$, otherwise there is nothing to prove. Let $n$ be a large integer so that $N_n>7^d$. Choose a subset $\Gamma$ of $$\{Q: \; A^nQ\cap K\neq \emptyset, Q\in \Q\}$$ such that $\# \Gamma>7^{-d}N_n$, and $$\label{e-3.24}
2Q\cap 2\widetilde{Q}=\emptyset \qquad \mbox{ for different }Q,\widetilde{Q}\in \Gamma,$$ where $2Q:=\bigcup_{P\in \Q: \; \overline{P}\cap \overline{Q}\neq \emptyset}P$, and $\overline{P}$ denotes the closure of $P$. For each $Q\in \Gamma$, since $A^nQ\cap K\neq \emptyset$, we can pick a word $u=u(Q)\in \Sigma_n$ such that $S_uK\cap A^nQ\neq \emptyset$. Consider the collection $W=\{u(Q): Q\in \Gamma\}$. The separation condition (\[e-3.24\]) for elements in $\Gamma$ guarantees that $$S_{u(Q)}(K)\cap S_{u(\widetilde{Q})}(K)=\emptyset\quad\mbox{for all } Q,\widetilde{Q}\in \Gamma \mbox{ with }Q\neq \widetilde{Q}.$$ Define a Bernoulli measure $\nu$ on $W^\N$ by $$\nu([w_1\ldots w_k])=(\#\Gamma)^{-k}\qquad (k\in \N, \;w_1,\ldots, w_k\in W).$$ Then $\nu$ can be viewed as a $\sigma^n$-invariant measure on $\Sigma$ (by viewing $W^\N$ as a subset of $\Sigma$). By Lemma \[lem-3.20\], we have $h_\pi(\sigma^n, \nu)=h(\sigma^n,\nu)=\log \#\Gamma$. Define $\mu=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\nu\circ \sigma^{-i}$. Then $\mu\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)$, and by Proposition \[pro-3.2\], $$h_\pi(\sigma, \mu)=\frac{h_\pi(\sigma^n, \nu)}{n}=\frac{\log \#\Gamma}{n}\geq \frac{\log (7^{-d}N_n)}{n},$$ from which (\[e-3.23\]) follows.
Upper semi-continuity of $h_\pi(\sigma,\cdot)$ under the AWSC
-------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we prove the following proposition.
\[pro-3.9\] Assume that $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ is an IFS which satisfies the AWSC (see Definition \[de-1.5\]). Then the map $m\mapsto
h_\pi(\sigma, m)$ is upper semi-continuous on $\M_\sigma(\Sigma)$.
We first prove a lemma.
\[lem-3.10\] Let $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ be an IFS with attractor $K\subset \R^d$. Assume that $$\#\{1\leq i\leq \ell:\; x\in S_i(K)\}\leq k$$ for some $k\in \N$ and each $x\in \R^d$. Then $H_\nu(\P|\pi^{-1}\gamma)\leq \log k$ for any Borel probability measure $\nu$ on $\Sigma$.
A compactness argument shows that there is $r_0>0$ such that $$\#\{1\leq i\leq \ell:\; B(x,r_0)\cap S_i(K)\neq \emptyset\}\leq k$$ for each $x\in \R^d$. Let $n\in \N$ so that $2^{-n}\sqrt{d}<r_0$. Then for each $Q\in\D_n$, where $\D_n$ is defined as in (\[e-at1\]), there are at most $k$ different $i\in\{1,\ldots,
\ell\}$ such that $S_i(K)\cap Q\neq \emptyset$. It follows that each member in $\pi^{-1}\D_n$ intersects at most $k$ members of $\P\vee
\pi^{-1}\D_n$. By Lemma \[lem-3.5\], we have $$H_\nu(\P|\pi^{-1}\widehat{\D_n})=H_\nu(\P\vee\pi^{-1}\D_n)-H_\nu(\pi^{-1}\D_n)\leq \log
k.$$ Note that $\pi^{-1}\widehat{\D_n}\uparrow \pi^{-1}\gamma$. Applying Lemma \[lem-3.3\](iv), we obtain $$H_\nu(\P|\pi^{-1}\gamma)=\lim_{n\to \infty}H_\nu(\P|\pi^{-1}\widehat{\D_n})\leq \log
k.$$
As a corollary, we have
\[cor-3.11\] Under the condition of Lemma \[lem-3.10\], we have $$h_\pi(\sigma,m)\geq h(\sigma,m)-\log k$$ for any $m\in
\M_\sigma(\Sigma)$.
By the definition of $h_\pi(\sigma,m)$ and Lemma \[lem-3.10\], we have $$h_\pi(\sigma,m)=H_m(\P|\sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}\gamma)-H_m(\P|\pi^{-1}\gamma)\geq
H_m(\P|\sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}\gamma)-\log k.$$ However, $H_m(\P|\sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}\gamma)\geq
H_m(\P|\sigma^{-1}\B(\Sigma))=h(\sigma,m)$. This implies the desired result.
To prove Proposition \[pro-3.9\], we need the following lemma.
\[lem-3.new\] Let $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ be an IFS with attractor $K$. Suppose that $\Omega$ is a subset of $\{1,\ldots, \ell\}$ such that there is a map $g\colon \{1,\ldots,\ell\}\to \Omega$ so that $$S_i=S_{g(i)}\qquad (i=1,\ldots,\ell).$$ Let $(\Omega^\N, \widetilde{\sigma})$ denote the one-sided full shift over $\Omega$. Define $G: \Sigma\to \Omega^\N$ by $(x_j)_{j=1}^\infty\mapsto (g(x_j))_{j=1}^\infty$. Then
- $K$ is also the attractor of $\{S_i\}_{i\in \Omega}$. Moreover if we let $\widetilde{\pi}\colon \Omega^\N\to K$ denote the canonical projection w.r.t. $\{S_i\}_{i\in \Omega}$, then we have $\pi=\widetilde{\pi}\circ G$.
- Let $m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)$. Then $\nu=m\circ G^{-1}\in \M_{\widetilde{\sigma}}(\Omega^\N)$. Furthermore, $h_\pi(\sigma,m)=h_{\widetilde{\pi}}(\widetilde{\sigma},\nu)$. In particular, $h_\pi(\sigma,m)\leq \log (\#\Omega)$.
\(i) is obvious. To see (ii), let $m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)$. It is easily seen that the following diagram commutes: $$\begin{CD}
\Sigma @ > \sigma >>\Sigma\\
@VGVV @VVGV\\
\Omega^\N @>\widetilde{\sigma}>>\Omega^\N.
\end{CD}$$ That is, $\widetilde{\sigma}\circ G=G\circ \sigma$. Hence $\nu=m\circ G^{-1}\in \M_{\widetilde{\sigma}}(\Omega^\N)$. To show that $h_\pi(\sigma,m)=h_{\widetilde{\pi}}(\widetilde{\sigma},\nu)$, let $\Q=\{[i]: \;i\in \Omega\}$ be the canonical partition of $\Omega^\N$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
h_{\widetilde{\pi}}(\widetilde{\sigma},\nu)
&=&H_{m\circ
G^{-1}}(\Q|\widetilde{\sigma}^{-1}\widetilde{\pi}^{-1}\gamma)-
H_{m\circ G^{-1}}(\Q|\widetilde{\pi}^{-1}\gamma)\\
&=&H_m(G^{-1}(\Q)|G^{-1}\widetilde{\sigma}^{-1}\widetilde{\pi}^{-1}\gamma)-
H_m(G^{-1}(\Q)|G^{-1}\widetilde{\pi}^{-1}\gamma)\\
&=&H_m(G^{-1}(\Q)|\sigma^{-1}{\pi}^{-1}\gamma)-
H_\nu(G^{-1}(\Q)|{\pi}^{-1}\gamma),\end{aligned}$$ using the facts $G\circ \sigma=\widetilde{\sigma}\circ G$ and $\widetilde{\pi}\circ G=\pi$. Since $\P\vee G^{-1}(\Q)=\P$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\mbox{}& h_\pi(\sigma,m)- h_{\widetilde{\pi}}(\widetilde{\sigma}, m\circ
G^{-1})\\
&\mbox{}&\quad =\left(H_m\left(\P|\sigma^{-1}{\pi}^{-1}\gamma\right)-
H_m\left(\P|{\pi}^{-1}\gamma\right)\right)\\
&\mbox{}&\qquad \quad -
\left(H_m(G^{-1}(\Q)|\sigma^{-1}{\pi}^{-1}\gamma)-
H_m(G^{-1}(\Q)|{\pi}^{-1}\gamma)\right)\\
&\mbox{}&\quad =\left(H_m\left(\P|\sigma^{-1}{\pi}^{-1}\gamma\right)-
H_m(G^{-1}(\Q)|\sigma^{-1}{\pi}^{-1}\gamma)\right)\\
&\mbox{}&\qquad \quad -
\left(H_m\left(\P|{\pi}^{-1}\gamma\right)-
H_m(G^{-1}(\Q)|{\pi}^{-1}\gamma)\right)\\
&\mbox{}&\quad =H_m\left(\P|\sigma^{-1}{\pi}^{-1}\gamma\vee G^{-1}(\widehat{\Q})\right)-
H_m\left(\P|{\pi}^{-1}\gamma\vee G^{-1}(\widehat{\Q})\right).\end{aligned}$$ An argument similar to the proof of Lemma \[lem-3.6\] shows that $$\sigma^{-1}{\pi}^{-1}\gamma\vee G^{-1}(\widehat{\Q})={\pi}^{-1}\gamma\vee
G^{-1}(\widehat{\Q}).$$ Hence we have $h_\pi(\sigma,m)= h_{\widetilde{\pi}}(\widetilde{\sigma}, m\circ
G^{-1})$.
Let $(\nu_n)$ be a sequence in $\M_\sigma(\Sigma)$ converging to $m$ in the weak-star topology. We need to show that $\limsup_{n\to \infty}h_\pi(\sigma, \nu_n)\leq h_\pi(\sigma,
m)$. To see this, it suffices to show that $$\label{e-3.8}
\limsup_{n\to
\infty}h_\pi(\sigma, \nu_n)\leq h_\pi(\sigma, m)+\frac{1}{k}\log
t_k$$ for each $k\in \N$, where $t_k$ is given as in Definition \[de-1.5\].
To prove (\[e-3.8\]), we fix $k\in \N$. Define an equivalence relation $\sim$ on $\{1,\ldots, \ell\}^k$ by $u\sim v$ if $S_u=S_v$. Let $\underline{u}$ denotes the equivalence class containing $u$. Denote $S_{\underline{u}}=S_u$. Set $\J=\{\underline{u}:\; u\in \{1,\ldots, \ell\}^k\}$. Let $(\J^\N, T)$ denote the one-sided full shift space over the alphabet $\J$. Let $G: \Sigma\to \J^N$ be defined by $$(x_i)_{i=1}^\infty \mapsto \left(\underline{x_{jk+1}\cdots x_{(j+1)k}}\right)_{j=0}^\infty.$$ It is clear that the following diagram commutes: $$\begin{CD}
\Sigma @>\sigma^k>> \Sigma\\
@VGVV @VVGV\\
\J^N @> T>> \J^N
\end{CD}$$ That is, $T\circ G=G\circ \sigma^k$. It implies that $\nu_n\circ G^{-1}$, $m\circ G^{-1}\in \M_{T}(\J^\N)$ and $$\lim_{n\to \infty}\nu_n\circ G^{-1}=m\circ G^{-1}.$$ Hence we have $$\label{e-3.9}
h(T, m\circ G^{-1})\geq \limsup_{n\to \infty}h(T,\nu_n\circ G^{-1}),$$ where we use the upper semi-continuity of the classical measure-theoretic entropy map on $(\J^\N, T)$. Define $\widetilde{\pi}: \J^\N\to K$ by $$\widetilde{\pi}\left((\underline{u_i})_{i=1}^\infty\right)=
\lim_{n\to \infty}S_{\underline{u_1}}\circ \cdots \circ S_{\underline{u_n}}(K).$$ Then $\widetilde{\pi}\circ G=\pi$. By the assumption of AWSC (\[e-1.16\]) and Corollary \[cor-3.11\] (considering the IFS $\{S_{\underline{u}}:\;
\underline{u}\in \J\}$), we have $$\begin{aligned}
h_{\widetilde{\pi}}(T, m\circ G^{-1})&\geq& h(T, m\circ G^{-1})-\log t_k\\
&\geq& \limsup_{n\to \infty}h(T,\nu_n\circ G^{-1})-\log t_k\qquad (\mbox{ by (\ref{e-3.9})})\\
&\geq& \limsup_{n\to \infty}h_{\widetilde{\pi}}(T,\nu_n\circ G^{-1})-\log t_k,\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality follows from Proposition \[pro-3.1\](i). Then (\[e-3.8\]) follows from the above inequality, together with Proposition \[pro-3.2\] and the following claim: $$\label{e-3.10*}
h_{\widetilde{\pi}}(T, \nu\circ G^{-1})=h_\pi(\sigma^k, \nu)\qquad (\nu\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)).$$ However, (\[e-3.10\*\]) just comes from Lemma \[lem-3.new\], where we consider the IFS $\{S_{u}:\; u\in \{1,\ldots,\ell\}^k\}$ rather than $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$.
Some geometric properties of $C^1$ IFS {#S4}
======================================
In this section we give some geometric properties of $C^1$ IFS.
\[lem-4.1\] Let $S: U\to S(U)\subset \R^d$ be a $C^1$ diffeomorphism on an open set $U\subset \R^d$, and $X$ a compact subset of $U$. Let $c>1$. Then there exists $r_0>0$ such that $$\label{e-a4.1}
c^{-1} \sm S'(x) \sm \cdot |x-y|\leq |S(x)-S(y)|\leq c\|S'(x)\|\cdot |x-y|$$ for all $x\in X$, $y\in U$ with $|x-y|\leq r_0$, where $S'(x)$ denotes the differential of $S$ at $x$, $\sm \cdot\sm$ and $\|\cdot\|$ are defined as in (\[e-M1\]). As a consequence, $$\label{e-a4.2}
B(S(x),c^{-1} \sm S'(x) \sm r)\subset
S\left(B(x,r)\right)\subset B(S(x),c\|S'(x)\|r)$$ for all $x\in X$ and $0<r\leq r_0$.
Let $c>1$. We only prove (\[e-a4.1\]), for it is not hard to derive (\[e-a4.2\]) from (\[e-a4.1\]). Assume on the contrary that (\[e-a4.1\]) is not true. Then there exist two sequences $(x_n)\subset X, (y_n)\subset U$ such that $x_n\neq y_n$, $\lim_{n\to \infty} |x_n-y_n|=0$ and for each $n\geq
1$, $$\label{e-4.2}
\begin{split}
\mbox{either }&|S(x_n)-S(y_n)|\geq c \|S^\prime (x_n)\|\cdot|x_n-y_n|, \\
\mbox{or }\quad &|S(x_n)-S(y_n)|\leq c^{-1} \sm S^\prime (x_n) \sm \cdot|x_n-y_n|.
\end{split}$$ Since $X$ is compact, without lost of generality, we assume that $$\lim_{n\to \infty} x_n=x=\lim_{n\to \infty}y_n.$$ Write $S=(f_1,f_2,\ldots,f_d)^t$. Then each component $f_j$ of $S$ is a $C^1$ real-valued function defined on $U$. Choose a small $\epsilon>0$ such that $$\{z\in \R^d: |z-x|\leq \epsilon \mbox { for some } x\in X\}\subset U.$$ Take $N\in \N$ such that $|x_n-y_n|<\epsilon$ for $n\geq N$. By the mean value theorem, for each $n\geq N$ and $1\leq j\leq d$, there exists $z_{n,j}$ on the segment $L_{x_n, y_n}$ connecting $x_n$ and $y_n$ such that $$f_j(x_n)-f_j(y_n)=\nabla f_j(z_{n,j})\cdot (x_n-y_n),$$ where $\nabla f_j$ denote the gradient of $f_j$. Therefore $|S(x_n)-S(y_n)|=|M_n(x_n-y_n)|$ with $M_n:=(\nabla f_1(z_{n,1}),\ldots, \nabla f_d(z_{n,d}))^t$. It follows $$\label{e-4.3}
\sm M_n \sm \cdot |x_n-y_n|\leq |S(x_n)-S(y_n)|\leq \|M_n\|\cdot|x_n-y_n|.$$ Since $S$ is $C^1$, $M_n$ tends to $S^\prime(x)$ as $n\to \infty$. Thus we have $\sm M_n \sm\to \sm S'(x)\sm$ and $\|M_n\|\to
\|S'(x)\|$. Meanwhile, $\sm S'(x_n) \sm\to \sm S'(x)\sm$ and $\|S'(x_n)\|\to \|S'(x)\|$. These limits together (\[e-4.3\]) lead to a contradiction with (\[e-4.2\]).
Let $\{S_1,\ldots, S_\ell\}$ be a $C^1$ IFS on a compact set $X\subset \R^d$. Let $\pi:\Sigma\to \R^d$ be defined as in (\[e-1.1\]). By Lemma \[lem-4.1\], we have directly
\[lem-4.2\] Let $c>1$. Then there exists $r_0>0$ such that for any $1\leq i\leq \ell$, $x\in \Sigma$ and $0<r<r_0$, $$B(S_i(\pi x), c^{-1}\sm S_i'(\pi x) \sm r)\subset
S_i\left(B(\pi x, r)\right)\subset B(S_i(\pi x), c\|S_i'(\pi x)\|r).$$
Let $\overline{\rho},\underline{\rho}:\;\Sigma\to \R$ be defined by $$\label{e-4.4} \overline{\rho}(x)=\|S^{\prime}_{x_1}(\pi \sigma x)\|,
\quad \underline{\rho}(x)=\sm S^{\prime}_{x_1}(\pi \sigma x)\sm
\qquad (x=(x_i)_{i=1}^\infty\in \Sigma).$$ Let $\P$ be the partition of $\Sigma$ defined as in (\[e-1P\]). For $x\in \Sigma$, let $\P(x)$ denote the element in $\P$ which contains $x$. Then we have
\[lem-4.3\] Let $c>1$. Then there exists $r_0>0$ such that for any $z\in \Sigma$ and $0<r<r_0$, $$B^\pi(z, c^{-1}\underline{\rho}(z)r)\cap \P(z)\subset
B^{\pi\sigma}(z, r)
\cap\P(z)\subset B^\pi(z,c\overline{\rho}(z)r)\cap \P(z),$$ where $B^\pi(z,r)$ is defined as in (\[e-ball\]).
Let $z=(z_j)^\infty_{j=1}\in \Sigma$. Taking $i=z_1$ and $x=\sigma z$ in Lemma \[lem-4.2\] we obtain [$$B(S_{z_1}(\pi \sigma
z),c^{-1}\sm S_{z_1}'(\pi \sigma z)\sm r)\subset S_{z_1}(B(\pi \sigma z,r))\subset
B(S_{z_1}(\pi \sigma z),c\|S_{z_1}'(\pi \sigma z)\|r).$$ ]{} That is, $$B(\pi z,c^{-1}\underline{\rho}(z)r)\subset S_{z_1}B(\pi \sigma
z,r)\subset B(\pi z,c\overline{\rho}(z)r),$$ where weuse the fact $S_{z_1}(\pi \sigma z)=\pi z$, which can be checked directly from the definition of $\pi$. Thus we have [$$B^\pi(\pi z,c^{-1}\underline{\rho}(z)r)\cap \P(z)\subset
\pi^{-1}\left(S_{z_1}\left(B(\pi \sigma z,r)\right)\right)\cap
\P(z)\subset B^\pi(z,c\overline{\rho}(z)r)\cap \P(z).$$ ]{} At last we show that $\pi^{-1}\left(S_{z_1}\left(B(\pi \sigma z,r)\right)\right)\cap \P(z)= B^{\pi\sigma}(z, r) \cap\P(z)$. To see this, let $y=(y_j)_{j=1}^\infty\in \Sigma$. Then we have the following equivalent implications. $$\begin{aligned}
&\mbox{}&y\in\pi^{-1}\left(S_{z_1}\left(B(\pi \sigma z,r)\right)\right)\cap \P(z)\\
&\mbox{}&\quad \Longleftrightarrow y_1=z_1,\quad \pi y\in S_{z_1}
\left(B(\pi \sigma z,r)\right)\\
&\mbox{}&\quad \Longleftrightarrow y_1=z_1, \quad S_{y_1}(\pi \sigma y)\in
S_{z_1}
\left(B(\pi \sigma z,r)\right)\\
& \mbox{}&\quad \Longleftrightarrow y_1=z_1, \quad \pi \sigma y\in
B(\pi \sigma z,r)\\
&\mbox{}&\quad \Longleftrightarrow y_1=z_1, \quad y\in
B^{\pi \sigma}(z,r)\\
&\mbox{}&\quad \Longleftrightarrow y\in B^{\pi \sigma}(z,r)\cap \P(z).\end{aligned}$$ This finishes the proof of the lemma.
\[lem-4.4\] Assume that $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ is a weakly conformal IFS with attractor $K$. Then for any $c>1$, there exists $D>0$ such that for any $n\in \N$, $u\in \{1,\ldots,\ell\}^n$, and $x,y\in K$ we have $$\label{e-4.5} D^{-1} c^{-n} \|S_u^\prime (x)\|\cdot |x-y| \leq
|S_u(x)-S_u(y)|\leq D c^n \|S_u^\prime (x)\|\cdot |x-y|.$$ and $$\label{e-4.6}
D^{-1}c^{-n}\|S_u^\prime(x)\|\leq \mbox{diam}(S_u(K))\leq
Dc^n\|S_u^\prime(x)\|.$$
The results were proved in the conformal case in [@Fen07 Lemma 3.5 and Corollary 3.6]. A slight modification of that proof works for the weakly conformal case.
As a corollary, we have
\[cor-4.5\] Under the assumption of Lemma \[lem-4.4\], for $\alpha>0$, there is $r_0>0$ such that for any $0<r<r_0$ and $z\in K$, there exist $n\in \N$ and $u\in
\{1,\ldots,\ell\}^n$ such that $S_u(K)\subset B(z,r)$ and $$\label{e-4.7} |S_u(x)-S_u(y)|\geq r^{1+\alpha} |x-y|\qquad
(x,y\in K).$$
Denote $a=\inf\{\sm S_i^\prime(x)\sm: \; x\in K, 1\leq
i\leq \ell\}$ and $b=\sup\{\|S_i^\prime(x)\|: \; x\in K, 1\leq i\leq
\ell\}$. Then $0<a\leq b<1$. Choose $c$ so that $$\label{e-t34}
1<c<b^{\frac{-\alpha}{3(2+\alpha)}}.$$ Let $D$ be the constant in Lemma \[lem-4.4\] corresponding to $c$. Take $n_0\in \N$ and $r_0>0$ such that $$\label{e-4.8'} \left(c^3
b^{\alpha/(2+\alpha)}\right)^{n_0}<D^{-3}ab^{\alpha/(2+\alpha)},\quad
(1+\alpha/2) \cdot \frac{\log r_0}{\log a} =n_0.$$
Now fix $z\in K$ and $0<r<r_0$. We shall show that there exist $n\in \N$ and $u\in \{1,\ldots,\ell\}^n$ such that $S_u(K)\subset
B(z,r)$ and (\[e-4.7\]) holds. To see this, take $\omega=(\omega_i)_{i=1}^\infty\in \Sigma$ such that $z=\pi \omega$, where $\pi$ is defined as in (\[e-1.1\]). Let $n$ be the unique integer such that $$\label{e-t36}
\|S^\prime_{\omega_1\cdots \omega_n}(\pi
\sigma^n\omega)\|<r^{1+\alpha/2}\leq \|S^\prime_{\omega_1\cdots
\omega_{n-1}}(\pi \sigma^{n-1}\omega)\|.$$ It follows $a^n<r^{1+\alpha/2}\leq b^{n-1}$, which together with (\[e-4.8’\]) forces that $$\label{e-t35}
n>n_0 \quad \mbox{and}\quad c^{3n}<D^{-3} a
r^{-\alpha/2}.$$ To see (\[e-t35\]), we first assume on the contrary that $n\leq n_0$. Then $$a^n\geq a^{n_0}=a^{(1+\alpha/2)\log r_0/\log \alpha}=r_0^{1+\alpha/2}>r^{1+\alpha/2},$$ which contradicts the fact $a^n<r^{1+\alpha/2}$. Hence $n>n_0$. To see $c^{3n}< D^{-3}a r^{-\alpha/2}$, note that $$\begin{aligned}
c^{3n}r^{\alpha/2}&\leq &c^{3n}b^{(n-1)\alpha/(2+\alpha)} \qquad (\mbox{ using $r^{1+\alpha/2}\leq b^{n-1}$ })\\
&\leq & \left(c^3b^{\alpha/(2+\alpha)}\right)^n b^{-\alpha/(2+\alpha)}\\
&\leq & \left(c^3b^{\alpha/(2+\alpha)}\right)^{n_0} b^{-\alpha/(2+\alpha)} \qquad (\mbox{ using $n>n_0$ and (\ref{e-t34}) })\\
&\leq & D^{-3} a \quad \qquad (\mbox{by (\ref{e-4.8'})}).\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof of (\[e-t35\]). By (\[e-4.6\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{diam} S_{\omega_1\cdots \omega_n}(K)\leq Dc^n
\|S^\prime_{\omega_1\cdots \omega_n}(\pi \sigma^n\omega)\|\leq Dc^n
r^{1+\alpha/2}<r.\end{aligned}$$ Since $z\in S_{\omega_1\cdots \omega_n}(K)$, the above inequality implies $S_{\omega_1\cdots \omega_n}(K)\subset B(z,r)$. By (\[e-4.6\]) again, we have $$\label{e-qq*}
\|S_u'(x)\|\geq D^{-2}c^{-2n}\|S_u'(y)\|,\quad \forall \; u\in \{1,\ldots,\ell\}^n, \;\forall\;x,y\in K.$$ By Lemma \[lem-4.4\], we have for $x,y\in K$, $$\begin{aligned}
&\mbox{}& |S_{\omega_1\cdots \omega_n}(x)-S_{\omega_1\cdots
\omega_n}(y)|\\
&\mbox{}& \quad \geq D^{-1}c^{-n}
\|S^\prime_{\omega_1\cdots \omega_n}(x)\|\cdot |x-y|\\
&\mbox{}& \quad\geq D^{-3}c^{-3n}\|S^\prime_{\omega_1\cdots \omega_n}(\pi\sigma^n
\omega)\|\cdot |x-y|\qquad\mbox{ (by (\ref{e-qq*}))}\\
&\mbox{}& \quad\geq D^{-3}c^{-3n}\|S^\prime_{\omega_1\cdots
\omega_{n-1}}(\pi\sigma^{n-1} \omega)\|\sm
S^\prime_{\omega_n}(\pi\sigma^n\omega) \sm \cdot |x-y|\\
&\mbox{}& \quad\geq D^{-3}c^{-3n}a r^{1+\alpha/2} |x-y|\qquad\mbox{ (by (\ref{e-t36}))}\\
&\mbox{}& \quad\geq r^{1+\alpha}|x-y| \qquad\mbox{ (by (\ref{e-t35}))}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence the corollary follows by taking $u=\omega_1\cdots \omega_n$.
\[pro-4.6\] Let $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ be a $C^1$ IFS with attractor $K$. Assume that $K$ is not a singleton. Then
- for any $m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)$, we have for $m$-a.e. $x=(x_i)_{i=1}^\infty\in \Sigma$, $$\begin{aligned}
&\mbox{}& \liminf_{n\to \infty}\frac{\log
\text{\rm diam} S_{x_1\ldots x_n}(K)}{n}\geq -\overline{\lambda}(x),\\
&& \limsup_{n\to
\infty}\frac{\log \mbox{\rm diam} S_{x_1\ldots x_n}(K)}{n}\leq -\underline{\lambda}(x),\end{aligned}$$ where $\underline{\lambda},\overline{\lambda}$ are defined as in Definition \[de-1.2\]. In particular, if $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ is $m$-conformal, then for $m$-a.e. $x=(x_i)_{i=1}^\infty\in
\Sigma$, $$\lim_{n\to \infty}\frac{\log \mbox{\rm diam} S_{x_1\ldots x_n}(K)}{n}=
-\lambda(x).$$
- If $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ is weakly conformal, then it is $m$-conformal for each $m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)$.
We first prove (i). Take $c>1$ small enough so that $c\sup_{x\in \Sigma} \overline{\rho}(x)<1$. Let $r_0>0$ be given as in Lemma \[lem-4.2\]. Let $x=(x_i)_{i=1}^\infty\in \Sigma$. Applying Lemma \[lem-4.2\] repeatedly, we have $$\label{e-t37}
S_{x_1\cdots
x_n}(B(\pi \sigma^n x,r_0))\subset
B(\pi x, c^{n}\overline{\rho}(x)\cdots
\overline{\rho}(\sigma^{n-1}x)r_0).$$ Since $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ is contractive, there is a constant $k$ such that $$S_{x_{n+1}\cdots x_{n+k}}(K)\subset B(\pi \sigma^n
x,r_0).$$ This together with (\[e-t37\]) yields $$\label{e-t29}
\text{diam} S_{x_1\ldots
x_{n+k}}(K)\leq \text{diam} S_{x_1\cdots
x_n}(B(\pi \sigma^n x,r_0)) \leq c^{n}\overline{\rho}(x)\ldots
\overline{\rho}(\sigma^{n-1}x)r_0.$$ Since $K$ is not a singleton, there exists $0<r_1<r_0$ such that for each $z\in K$, there exists $w\in K$ such that $r_1\leq |z-w|\leq r_0$. Indeed, to obtain $r_1$, one chooses an integer $n_0$ large enough such that $\sup_{u\in
\Sigma_{n_0}} \text{diam} S_u(K)\leq r_0$, then set $$r_1=(1/2)\inf_{u\in
\Sigma_{n_0}} \text{diam} S_u(K).$$ For each such pair $(z,w)$, applying (\[e-a4.1\]) repeatedly yields $$\text{diam} S_{x_1\ldots x_{n}}(K)\geq |S_{x_1\ldots
x_{n}}(z)-S_{x_1\ldots x_{n}}(w)|\geq r_1 c^{-n}\prod_{j=1}^n \sm
S_{x_j}^\prime(S_{x_{j+1}\ldots x_n}(z)\sm .$$ Hence by taking $z=\pi{\sigma^n} x$, we have $$\label{e-t4.15}
\text{diam} S_{x_1\ldots x_{n}}(K)\geq r_1
c^{-n}\underline{\rho}(x)\ldots \underline{\rho}(\sigma^{n-1}x).$$ Denote $$\begin{aligned}
&\mbox{}& g_*(x)=\liminf_{n\to \infty}\frac{\log \text{diam}
S_{x_1\ldots x_n}(K)}{n}\quad\mbox{ and }\\
&&g^*(x)=\limsup_{n\to
\infty}\frac{\log \text{diam} S_{x_1\ldots x_n}(K)}{n}.\end{aligned}$$ It is clear that $g_*(x)=g_*(\sigma x)$ and $g^*(x)=g^*(\sigma x)$. Let $\I$ denote the $\sigma$-algebra $\{B\in \B(\Sigma):\; \sigma^{-1}B=B\}$. Then by (\[e-t4.15\]), the Birkhoff ergodic theorem, and Theorem 34.2 in [@Bil95], we have for $m$-a.e. $x\in \Sigma$, $$\label{e-t291}
\begin{split}
g_*(x)=\E_m(g_*|\I)(x)&\geq \E_m\left(\lim_{n\to \infty}\frac{-n\log c+\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\log \underline{\rho}\circ \sigma^{-i}}{n}\big|\I\right)(x)\\
&=-\log c+\lim_{n\to \infty}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\E_m(\log \underline{\rho}\circ \sigma^{-i}|\I)(x)\\
&=-\log c+\E_m(\log \underline{\rho}|\I)(x)\\
\end{split}$$ and similarly by (\[e-t29\]), $$\label{e-t292}g^*(x)\leq \log c+\E_m(\log \overline{\rho}|\I)(x).$$ For $p\in \N$, write $A_p(x)=\log \sm S^\prime_{x_1\cdots x_p}(\pi \sigma^p x)\sm$ and $A^*_p(x)=\log \| S^\prime_{x_1\cdots x_p}(\pi \sigma^p
x)\|$. Consider the IFS $\{S_{i_1\ldots i_p}:\;1\leq i_j\leq \ell, 1\leq
j\leq p\}$ rather than $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$. Then (\[e-t291\]) and (\[e-t292\]) can be replaced by $$g_*(x)\geq -\log c+\frac{1}{p}\E_m(A_p|\I_p)(x),\qquad g^*(x)\leq \log c+\frac{1}{p}\E_m(A_p^*|\I_p)(x),$$ where $\I_p:=\{B\in \B(\Sigma):\; \sigma^{-p}B=B\}$. Taking the conditional expectation with respect to $\I$ in the above inequalities and noting that $g_*$, $g^*$ are $\sigma$-invariant, we obtain $$\label{e-t293}
g_*(x)\geq -\log c+\frac{1}{p}\E_m(A_p|\I)(x),\qquad g^*(x)\leq \log c+\frac{1}{p}\E_m(A_p^*|\I)(x).$$ Since $A_p(x)$ is sup-additive (i.e., $A_{p+q}(x)\geq A_p(x)+ A_q(\sigma^p x)$) and $A^*_p(x)$ is sub-additive (i.e., $A^*_{p+q}(x)\leq A^*_p(x)+ A^*_q(\sigma^p x)$), by Kingman’s sub-additive ergodic theorem (cf. [@Wal-book]), we have $$\label{e-t294}
\lim_{p\to \infty} A_p(x)/p=-\overline{\lambda}(x),\qquad \lim_{p\to \infty} A^*_p(x)/p=-\underline{\lambda}(x)$$ almost everywhere and in $L^1$. Hence letting $c\to 1$ and $p\to
\infty$ in (\[e-t293\]) and using Theorem 34.2 in [@Bil95], we obtain that $g_*(x)\geq -\overline{\lambda}(x)$ and $g^*(x)\leq
-\underline{\lambda}(x)$ almost everywhere. This finishes the proof of (i).
To see (ii), assume that $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ is weakly conformal and $m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)$. Then $|A_p(x)-A^*_p(x)|/p$ converges to $0$ uniformly as $p$ tends to infinity. This together with (\[e-t294\]) yields $\overline{\lambda}(x)=\underline{\lambda}(x)$ for $m$-a.e. $x\in \Sigma$. This proves (ii).
Estimates for local dimensions of invariant measures for $C^1$ IFS {#S5}
==================================================================
In this section, we prove a general version of Theorem \[thm-1.1\], which is also needed in the proof of Theorem \[thm-1.3\]. Let $\{T_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ be a $C^1$ IFS on $\R^d$, and $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ a $C^1$ IFS on $\R^k$. Let $\phi: \Sigma\to
\R^d$ and $\pi: \Sigma\to \R^k$ denote the canonical projections associated with $\{T_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ and $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ respectively. Let $\eta$ and $\xi$ be two partitions of $\Sigma$ defined respectively by $$\eta=\{\phi^{-1}(z):\; z\in \R^d\} ,\qquad \xi=\sigma^{-1}\eta.$$
Let $\P$ be the partition of $\Sigma$ given as in (\[e-1P\]) and let $\overline{\rho}(x),\underline{\rho}(x)$ be defined as in (\[e-4.4\]). Applying Lemma \[lem-4.3\] to the IFS $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$, we have for any $c>1$ there exist $0<\delta<c-1$ and $r_0>0$ such that for any $r\in (0, r_0)$ and $x\in \Sigma$, $$\label{e-5.1}
B^\pi(x,(c-\delta)^{-1}\underline{\rho} (x) r)\cap \P(x)\subset B^{\pi\sigma}(x,r)\cap \P(x)\subset B^\pi(x,(c-\delta)\overline{\rho}(x) r)\cap \P(x).$$ The following technical proposition is substantial in our proof.
\[pro-5.1\] Let $m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)$ and $c>1$. Let $\delta,r_0$ be given as above. Then there exists $\Lambda\subset\Sigma$ with $m(\Lambda)=1$ such that for all $x\in \Lambda$ and $r\in (0, r_0)$, $$\label{e-5.2}
\frac{m_x^{\eta}(B^\pi(x,c\overline{\rho} (x) r) \cap \P(x)) }{
m_{\sigma x}^{\eta}(B^\pi(\sigma x, r))}\geq f(x)\cdot
\frac{m_x^{\xi}(B^{\pi\sigma}(x, r) \cap \P(x)) }{
m_{x}^{\xi}(B^{\pi\sigma}(x, r))}$$ and $$\label{e-5.3} \frac{m_x^{\eta}(B^{\pi}(x,c^{-1}\underline{\rho} (x)r) \cap \P(x)) }{ m_{\sigma x}^{\eta}(B^\pi(\sigma x, r))}\leq f(x)\cdot
\frac{m_x^{\xi}(B^{\pi\sigma}(x,(1-c\delta/2)r)
\cap \P(x)) }{ m_{ x}^{\xi}(B^{\pi\sigma}(x,(1-c\delta/2)r))},$$ where $f:=\sum_{A\in \P}
\chi_A\frac{\E_m(\chi_A|\phi^{-1}\gamma)}{\E_m(\chi_A|\sigma^{-1}\phi^{-1}\gamma)}$, $\gamma=\B(\R^d)$.
Write $R_{t,x}(z)=T_{x_1}^{-1}B(T_{x_1} z, t)$ for $t>0$, $x=(x_i)_{i=1}^\infty\in \Sigma$ and $z\in \R^d$. It is direct to check that $$\label{e-5.4'} \sigma^{-1} \phi^{-1}R_{t,x}(\phi \sigma x)\cap
\P(x)=B^\phi(x,t)\cap \P(x).$$ Hence for $m$-a.e. $x$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{m(\phi^{-1}R_{t,x}(\phi \sigma x))}{m(B^\phi(x,t))}&=& \frac{m(B^\phi(x,t)\cap
\P(x))}{m(B^\phi(x,t))}\cdot
\frac{m(\phi^{-1}R_{t,x}(\phi \sigma x))}{m(B^\phi(x,t)\cap \P(x))}\\
&=& \frac{m(B^\phi(x,t)\cap \P(x))}{m(B^\phi(x,t))}\cdot \frac{m(\sigma^{-1}\phi^{-1}R_{t,x}(\phi \sigma
x))}{m(\sigma^{-1} \phi^{-1}R_{t,x}(\phi \sigma x)\cap \P(x))}.\end{aligned}$$ Letting $t\to 0$ and applying Proposition \[pro-2.5\] and Remark \[rem-2.6\], we have $$\label{e-5.4} \lim_{t\to 0}\frac{m(\phi^{-1}R_{t,x}(\phi \sigma
x))}{m(B^\phi(x,t))}=\sum_{A\in \P}
\chi_A(x)\frac{\E_m(\chi_A|\phi^{-1}\gamma)(x)}{\E_m(\chi_A|\sigma^{-1}\phi^{-1}\gamma)(x)}=:f(x).$$ for $m$-a.e. $x$. Let $\widetilde{\Lambda}$ denote the set of $x\in\Sigma$ such that the following properties (1)-(4) hold:
\(1) $\displaystyle\lim_{t\to 0}\frac{m(B^\phi(x,t)\cap
\P(x))}{m(B^\phi(x,t))}=\sum_{A\in \P}\chi_A
\E_m(\chi_A|\phi^{-1}\gamma)(x)>0$.
\(2) $\displaystyle\lim_{t\to
0}\frac{m(\sigma^{-1}\phi^{-1}R_{t,x}(\phi \sigma x)\cap
\P(x))}{m(\sigma^{-1}\phi^{-1} R_{t,x}(\phi\sigma x))}=\sum_{A\in
\P}\chi_A \E_m(\chi_A|\sigma^{-1}\phi^{-1}\gamma)(x)>0$.
\(3) For all $q\in {\Bbb Q}^+$, [$$\begin{aligned}
&& m^\eta_x(B^\pi(x,q)\cap \P(x))\geq \limsup_{t\to 0}
\frac{ m\left(B^\pi(x,q)\cap \P(x)\cap B^\phi(x,t)\right)}{m\left(B^\phi(x,t)\right)},\\
&& m^\eta_x(U^\pi(x,q)\cap \P(x))\leq \liminf_{t\to 0}\frac{ m\left(B^\pi(x,q)\cap \P(x) \cap
B^\phi(x,t)\right)}{m\left(B^\phi(x,t)\right)},\\
&& m^\xi_x(B^{\pi\sigma}(x,q)\cap \P(x))\geq \limsup_{t\to 0}\frac{ m\left(
B^{\pi\sigma}(x,q)\cap \P(x) \cap \sigma^{-1}\phi^{-1}R_{t,x}(\phi\sigma x)\right)}
{m\left(\sigma^{-1}\phi^{-1}R_{t,x}(\phi \sigma x)\right)},\\
&&m^\xi_x(U^{\pi\sigma}(x,q)\cap \P(x))\leq \liminf_{t\to 0}\frac{
m\left(B^{\pi\sigma}(x,q)\cap \P(x) \cap \sigma^{-1}\phi^{-1}R_{t,x}(\phi\sigma x)\right)}
{m\left(\sigma^{-1}\phi^{-1}R_{t,x}(\phi \sigma x)\right)},\\\end{aligned}$$ ]{} where $U^\pi(x,q):=\pi^{-1}U(\pi x,q)$, $U^{\pi\sigma}(x,q):=\sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}U(\pi\sigma x,q)$ and $U(z,q)$ denotes the open ball in $\R^k$ of radius $q$ centered at $z$.
\(4) $\displaystyle\lim_{t\to 0}\frac{m(\phi^{-1}R_{t,x}(\phi \sigma x))}{m(B^\phi(x,t))}=f(x)$.\
Then we have $m(\widetilde{\Lambda})=1$ by Proposition \[pro-2.5\], Lemma \[lem-2.7\], Remarks \[rem-2.6\], \[rem-2.8\] and (\[e-5.4\]).
Now let $\Lambda=\widetilde{\Lambda}\cap
\sigma^{-1}\widetilde{\Lambda}$. Then $m(\Lambda)=1$. Fix $x\in
\Lambda$ and $r\in (0,r_0)$. Let $q_1\in {\Bbb Q}^+\cap (r,
cr/(c-\delta))$. Choose $q_2, q_3\in {\Bbb Q}^+$ such that $q_1<q_2<cr/(c-\delta)$ and $q_2(c-\delta)\overline{\rho}(x)<q_3<c\overline{\rho}(x)r$. By (\[e-5.1\]), we have $B^\pi(x,q_3) \cap \P(x)\supset
B^{\pi\sigma}(x,q_2) \cap \P(x).$ It together with (\[e-5.4’\]) yields $$\label{e-5.6'} B^\pi(x,q_3) \cap
\P(x)\cap B^\phi(x,t))\supset B^{\pi\sigma}(x,q_2) \cap \P(x)\cap \sigma^{-1}\phi^{-1}R_{t,x}(\phi
\sigma x)).$$ Hence we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\mbox{}& \frac{m_x^{\eta}(B^\pi(x,c\overline{\rho} (x) r) \cap \P(x)) }{
m_{\sigma x}^{\eta}(B^\pi(\sigma x, r))}\\
&\geq&
\frac{m_x^{\eta}(B^\pi(x,q_3) \cap \P(x)) }{
m_{\sigma x}^{\eta}(U^{\pi\sigma}(x,q_1))}
\\
&\geq &
\frac
{
\limsup_{t\to 0}m(B^\pi(x,q_3) \cap \P(x)\cap B^\phi(x,t))/m(B^\phi(x,t))
}
{\liminf_{t\to 0}m(B^\pi(\sigma x,q_1)\cap \phi^{-1}R_{t,x}(\phi \sigma x))/m(\phi^{-1}R_{t,x}(\phi \sigma x))
}\\
&& \qquad (\mbox{by Lemma \ref{lem-2.7} and Remark \ref{rem-2.8}})\\
&\geq & \lim_{t\to 0} \frac{m(\phi^{-1}R_{t,x}(\phi \sigma
x))}{m(B^\phi(x,t))}\cdot \limsup_{t\to 0}\frac{
m(B^\pi(x,q_3) \cap \P(x)\cap B^\phi(x,t)) } {
m(\sigma^{-1}B^{\pi}( \sigma x,q_1) \cap
\sigma^{-1}\phi^{-1}R_{t,x}(\phi \sigma x))
}\\
&= & \lim_{t\to 0} \frac{m(\phi^{-1}R_{t,x}(\phi \sigma
x))}{m(B^\phi(x,t))}\cdot \limsup_{t\to 0}\frac{
m(B^\pi(x,q_3) \cap \P(x)\cap B^\phi(x,t)) } {
m(B^{\pi\sigma}(x,q_1) \cap
\sigma^{-1}\phi^{-1}R_{t,x}(\phi \sigma x))
}.\\\end{aligned}$$ Denote $$\begin{aligned}
&\mbox{}&X_t:=m(B^{\pi\sigma}(x,q_2) \cap \P(x)\cap \sigma^{-1}\phi^{-1}R_{t,x}(\phi\sigma x)),\\
&\mbox{}&Y_t:=m(B^{\pi\sigma}( x,q_1) \cap \sigma^{-1}\phi^{-1}R_{t,x}(\phi \sigma x)),\\
&\mbox{}&Z_t:=m(\sigma^{-1}\phi^{-1}R_{t,x}(\phi\sigma x)).\end{aligned}$$ Using the property (4), we have
$$\begin{aligned}
&\mbox{}& \frac{m_x^{\eta}(B^\pi(x,c\overline{\rho} (x) r) \cap \P(x)) }{
m_{\sigma x}^{\eta}(B^\pi(\sigma x, r))}\\
&\geq & f(x)\cdot
\limsup_{t\to 0}\frac{
m(B^\pi(x,q_3) \cap \P(x)\cap B^\phi(x,t))
}
{
m(B^{\pi\sigma}( x,q_1) \cap \sigma^{-1}\phi^{-1}R_{t,x}(\phi \sigma x))
}\\
&\geq & f(x)\cdot
\limsup_{t\to 0}X_t/Y_t\qquad (\mbox{by (\ref{e-5.6'})})\\
&\geq & f(x)\cdot
\limsup_{t\to 0}\frac{X_t/Z_t}{Y_t/Z_t}
\geq f(x)\cdot
\frac{\liminf_{t\to 0}X_t/Z_t}
{\limsup_{t\to 0} Y_t/Z_t
}\\
&\geq & f(x)\cdot
\frac{m^\xi_x(U^{\pi\sigma}( x,q_1) \cap \P(x))
}
{m^\xi_x(B^{\pi\sigma}( x,q_1))
}\quad (\mbox{by Lemma \ref{lem-2.7} and Remark \ref{rem-2.8}})\\
&\geq & f(x)\cdot \frac{m^\xi_x(B^{\pi\sigma}(x, r) \cap \P(x)) } {m^\xi_x(B^{\pi\sigma}( x,q_1))
}.\end{aligned}$$
Letting $q_1\downarrow r$, we obtain (\[e-5.2\]). (\[e-5.3\]) follows from an analogous argument.
Let $(\phi,\pi)$ denote the map $\Sigma\to \R^d\times\R^k$, $x\mapsto (\phi x,\pi x)$. It is easy to see that $(\phi,\pi)$ is the canonical projection w.r.t. the direct product of $\{T_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ and $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$. In the following we give a general version of Theorem \[thm-1.1\].
\[thm-5.2\] Let $m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)$. Then for $m$-a.e. $x\in \Sigma$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&& \limsup_{r\to 0} \frac{\log m^\eta_x(B^\pi(x,r))}{\log r}\leq \frac{\E_m(g|\I)(x)}{- \underline{\lambda}(x)} \quad {\mbox{and}} \label{e-5.5}\\
&&\liminf_{r\to 0} \frac{\log m^\eta_x(B^\pi(x,r))}{\log
r}\geq \frac{\E_m(g|\I)(x)}{- \overline{\lambda}(x)},
\label{e-5.6}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
g&:=&{\bf I}_m(\P|\sigma^{-1}\phi^{-1}\B(\R^d))-{\bf I}_m(\P|\phi^{-1}\B(\R^d))\\
&\mbox{}&\;\; +{\bf I}_m(\P|(\phi,\sigma)^{-1}\B(\R^d\times \R^k))-
{\bf I}_m(\P|\sigma^{-1}(\phi,\pi)^{-1}\B(\R^d\times\R^k)),\end{aligned}$$ and $\overline{\lambda}(x)$,$\underline{\lambda}(x)$ denote the upper and lower Lyapunov exponents of $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ at $x$ (see Definition \[de-1.2\]). In particular, if $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ is $m$-conformal, we have $$\lim_{r\to 0} \frac{\log m^\eta_x(B^\pi(x,r))}{\log
r}=\frac{h_{(\phi, \pi)}(\sigma,m, x)-h_\phi(\sigma,m,x)}{ \lambda(x)}.$$
It suffices to prove (\[e-5.5\]) and (\[e-5.6\]). For short we only prove (\[e-5.5\]). The proof of (\[e-5.6\]) is analogous.
We first prove the following inequality $$\label{e-5.7}
\limsup_{r\to 0} \frac{\log m^\eta_x(B^\pi(x,r))}{\log r}\leq \frac{\E_m(g|\I)(x)}
{\E_m(\log \overline{\rho}|\I)(x)}\qquad \mbox{$m$-a.e.},$$ where $\overline{\rho}(x)=\|S'_{x_1}(\sigma x)\|$ for $x=(x_i)_{i=1}^\infty$. To see it, let $c>1$ so that $$c\sup_{x\in \Sigma} \overline{\rho}(x)<1.$$ Let $
r_0$ and $f$ be given as in Proposition \[pro-5.1\]. For $n\in \N$ and $x\in \Sigma$, define $$\overline{\rho}_n(x)=\overline{\rho}(x)\overline{\rho}(\sigma x)\cdots \overline{\rho}(\sigma^{n-1}x).$$ Write $$\begin{split}
H_n(x)&:=\log \frac{m_x^\eta\left(B^\pi(x, c^n\overline{\rho}_n(x)r_0)\right)}
{m_{\sigma x}^\eta\left(B^\pi(\sigma x, c^{n-1}\overline{\rho}_{n-1}(\sigma x)r_0)\right)}, \\
G_n(x)&:=\log \frac{m_x^\eta\left(B^\pi(x, c^n\overline{\rho}_n(x)r_0) \cap \P(x)\right)}
{m_{x}^\eta\left(B^\pi(x, c^{n}\overline{\rho}_{n}(x)r_0)\right)},\\
W_n(x)&:=\log \frac{m_x^\xi\left(B^{\pi\sigma}(x, c^{n-1}\overline{\rho}_{n-1}(\sigma x)r_0) \cap \P(x)\right)}
{m_{x}^\xi\left(B^{\pi\sigma}(x, c^{n-1}\overline{\rho}_{n-1}(\sigma x)r_0)\right)}.\\
\end{split}$$ Then by Proposition \[pro-5.1\] we have for $m$-a.e. $x$, $H_n(x)+G_n(x)\geq \log f(x) +W_n(x)$, that is, $$H_{n}(x)\geq \log f(x)-G_{n}(x)+W_{n}(x).$$ However $$\log m_x^\eta\left(B^\pi(x, c^n\overline{\rho}_n(x)r_0) \right)=
\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}H_{n-j}(\sigma^jx)+
\log m^\eta_{\sigma^n x}\left(B^\pi(\sigma^n x, r_0)\right).$$ Hence for $m$-a.e. $x$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e-5.8}
\frac{\log m_x^\eta\left(B^\pi(x, c^n\overline{\rho}_n(x)r_0) \right)}{n}&\geq& \frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\left[\log f(\sigma^jx)-G_{n-j}(\sigma^j x)+W_{n-j}(\sigma^{j}x)\right]
\nonumber \\
&& \mbox{} +\frac{1}{n}
\log m^\eta_{\sigma^n x}\left(B^\pi(\sigma^n x, r_0)\right).\end{aligned}$$ Note that by Proposition \[pro-2.5\], $$\begin{aligned}
&\mbox{}& G_n\to G:=-{\bf I}_m(\P|\hat{\eta}\vee \pi^{-1}\B(\R^k)),\\
&& W_n\to W:=-{\bf I}_m(\P|\sigma^{-1}\hat{\eta}\vee \sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}\B(\R^k))\end{aligned}$$ pointwise and in $L^1$. By Lemma \[lem-3.15\] and Proposition \[pro-2.9\], we have for $m$-a.e. $x$, $$\begin{aligned}
\liminf_{n\to \infty}\frac{\log
m_x^\eta\left(B^\pi(x, c^n\overline{\rho}_n(x)r_0)
\right)}{n}&\geq&
{\E_m((\log f-G+W)|\I)(x)}\\
&=&\E_m(g|\I)(x).\end{aligned}$$ In the meantime, by Birkhoff ergodic Theorem, we have $$\lim_{n\to
\infty} \frac{1}{n}\log (c^n\overline{\rho}_n(x)r_0) =\log c
+\E_m(\log \overline{\rho}|\I)(x) \quad \mbox{$m$-a.e.}$$ Hence we have $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{r\to 0}\frac{\log m_x^\eta\left(B^\pi(x,r)\right)}{\log r}
&=&\limsup_{n\to \infty}\frac{\log m_x^\eta\left(B^\pi(x, c^n\overline{\rho}_n(x)r_0) \right)}
{\log (c^n\overline{\rho}_n(x)r_0)}\\
&\leq &
\frac{\E_m(g|\I)(x)}{\log c +\E_m(\log \overline{\rho}|\I)(x)}.
\end{aligned}$$ Taking $c\to 1$, we obtain (\[e-5.7\]).
Let $q\in \N$. Considering the IFS $\{T_{i_1\ldots i_q}: \; 1\leq i_j\leq \ell,\; 1\leq j\leq q\}$ and $\{S_{i_1\ldots i_q}: \; 1\leq i_j\leq \ell,\; 1\leq j\leq q\}$, analogous to (\[e-5.7\]) we have $$\label{e-5.9}
\limsup_{r\to 0} \frac{\log m^\eta_x(B^\pi(x,r))}{\log r}\leq \frac{\E_m(g_q|\I)(x)}
{\E_m(\log h_q|\I)(x)},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
g_q&:=&{\bf I}_m(\P_0^{q-1}|\sigma^{-q}\phi^{-1}\B(\R^d))-{\bf I}_m(\P_0^{q-1}|\phi^{-1}\B(\R^d))\\
&\mbox{}&\;\; +{\bf I}_m(\P_{0}^{q-1}|(\phi,\pi)^{-1}\B(\R^d\times
\R^k))- {\bf
I}_m(\P_{0}^{q-1}|\sigma^{-q}(\phi,\pi)^{-1}\B(\R^d\times\R^k))\end{aligned}$$ and $h_q(x):=\|S^\prime_{x_1\ldots x_q}(\sigma^{q}x)\|$ for $x=(x_i)_{i=1}^{\infty}$.
Due to (\[e-tt\]), we have $\E_m(g_q|\I)(x)=q\E_m(g|\I)(x)$. It is easily seen that $h_q(x)$ is sub-multiplicative in the sense that $h_{p+q}(x)\leq h_{p}(x)h_q(\sigma^px)$. Thus by Kingman sub-additive ergodic theorem (cf. [@Wal-book]), we have $$\lim_{q\to \infty} \frac{1}{q}\E_m(\log h_q|\I)(x)=-\underline{\lambda}(x)\quad\mbox{ for $m$-a.e.\! $x$}.$$ Hence letting $q\to \infty$ in (\[e-5.9\]) we obtain (\[e-5.5\]). This finishes the proof of Theorem \[thm-5.2\].
In Theorem \[thm-5.2\], we take $T_i(x)=x/2$ for all $1\leq i\leq \ell$ to obtain Theorem \[thm-1.1\]. To see it, we know that the attractor of $\{T_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ is just the singleton $\{0\}$. Hence $\eta$ is the trivial partition $\{\Sigma,\emptyset\}$ of $\Sigma$, and thus we have $m^\eta_x\equiv m$.
Proofs of Theorem \[thm-1.3\] and Theorem \[thm-1.4\] {#S6}
=====================================================
Proof of Theorem \[thm-1.3\]
----------------------------
Let $\Phi=\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ be the direct product of $k$ $C^1$ IFS $\Phi_1,\ldots, \Phi_k$, which are defined respectively on compact $X_i\subset \R^{q_i}$ ($i=1,\ldots,k$). For each $i$, let $\Gamma_i$ denote the canonical projection w.r.t. $\Phi_i$, and let $\lambda_i(x)$ denote the Lyapunov exponent of $\Phi_i$ at $x$ provided it exists.
Let $m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)$. Assume that $\Phi_1,\ldots,\Phi_k$ are $m$-conformal. Let $\Omega$ denote the collection of all permutations of $\{1,\ldots,k\}$. For $\tau\in \Omega$, we denote $$\Lambda_\tau:=
\left\{x\in \Sigma: \; \lambda_i(x) \mbox{ exists for all $i$,\; }
\lambda_{\tau(1)}(x)\leq \lambda_{\tau(2)}(x)\leq \cdots \leq \lambda_{\tau(k)}(x)\right\}.$$ Then $m\left(\bigcup_{\tau\in \Omega}\Lambda_\tau\right)=1$. Let $\pi$ denote the canonical projection associated with the IFS $\Phi$. In the following we show that the local dimension $d(m\circ \pi^{-1},\pi x)$ exists for $m$-a.e. $x\in \Sigma$.
Without loss of generality we only show that $d(m\circ \pi^{-1},\pi x)$ exists for $m$-a.e. $x\in \Lambda_e$, where $e$ denotes the identity in $\Omega$. Here we may assume $m(\Lambda_e)>0$. For other $\Lambda_\tau$’s, the proof is essentially identical under a change of coordinates.
For $i=1,\ldots, k$, let $\pi_i$ denote the canonical projection w.r.t. $\Phi_1\times\cdots\times\Phi_i$. It is clear that $\pi=\pi_k$. Bear in mind that $$\lambda_1(x)\leq \lambda_2(x)\leq \cdots\leq \lambda_k(x)\qquad (x\in \Lambda_e).$$
For $i=1,\ldots, k$, we use $\{m^i_x\}$ to denote the family of conditional measures $\{m^{\eta_i}_x\}$ of $m$ associated with the partition $$\eta_i=\left\{\pi_i^{-1}(z): \; z\in \prod_{t=1}^i\R^{q_t}\right\}.$$ For convenience, we use $\{m^0_x\}$ denote the family of conditional measures of $m$ with the trivial partition $\{\Sigma,\emptyset\}$. It is clear that $m^0_x=m$ for all $x\in \Sigma$.
For $i=1,\ldots, k$, we give a metric $d_i$ on $\prod_{t=1}^i\R^{q_t}$ by $$d_i((z_1,\ldots, z_i), (w_1,\ldots, w_i))=\sup_{1\leq t\leq i}
|z_t-w_t|_{\R^{q_t}}.$$ and define $d=d_k$. We claim that for any $x\in \Lambda_e$ and $\epsilon>0$, $$\label{e-t301} \eta_i(x)\cap \P_0^n(x)\subset B^\pi(x, e^{-n(\lambda_{i+1}(x)-\epsilon)})$$ when $n$ is large enough. Here $B^\pi(x,r)$ is defined as in (\[e-ball\]). To see the claim, let $x\in \Lambda_e$ and $y\in
\eta_i(x)$. Then $\pi_i y=\pi_i x$. Thus $$d(\pi y,\pi x)=\sup_{1\leq
t\leq k}|\Gamma_ty,\Gamma_tx|_{\R^{q_t}}=\sup_{i+1\leq t\leq
k}|\Gamma_ty,\Gamma_tx|_{\R^{q_t}}.$$ Since $y\in \P_0^n(x)$ and $\lambda_{i+1}(x)\leq\ldots\leq \lambda_k(x)$, by Proposition \[pro-4.6\], we have $$d(\pi y,\pi x)\leq
e^{-n(\lambda_{i+1}(x)-\epsilon)}$$ when $n$ is large enough, and (\[e-t301\]) follows.
For $i=0,1,\ldots, k$ and $x\in \Sigma$, denote $$h_i(x)=\lim_{n\to \infty}\frac{-\log m^i_x(\P^n_0(x))}{n+1}$$ provided that the limit exists. By Proposition \[pro-3.16\], $$\label{e-h}
h_i(x)=h(\sigma,m,x)-h_{\pi_i}(\sigma,m,x)\quad \mbox{ for $m$-a.e.\! }x\in \Sigma.$$ For $i=0,1,\ldots, k-1$ and $x\in \Sigma$, denote $$\vartheta_i(x)=\liminf_{r\to 0}\frac{\log
m^i_x(B^{\Gamma_{i+1}}(x,r))}{\log r}.$$ By Theorem \[thm-5.2\] and (\[e-h\]), we have $$\label{e-h'} \vartheta_i(x)=\frac{
h_{\pi_{i+1}}(\sigma,m,x)-h_{\pi_i}(\sigma,m,x)} {\lambda_{i+1}(x)}=
\frac{h_i(x)-h_{i+1}(x)}{\lambda_{i+1}(x)}$$ for $m$-a.e. $x\in \Sigma$.
For $i=0,1,\ldots, k$ and $x\in \Sigma$, define $$\overline{\delta}_i(x)=\limsup_{r\to 0}\frac{\log m^i_x(B^\pi(x,r))}{\log r},\quad
\underline{\delta}_i(x)=\liminf_{r\to 0}\frac{\log m^i_x(B^\pi(x,r))}{\log r}.$$ We claim that
- $\overline{\delta}_{k}(x)=\underline{\delta}_{k}(x)=0$ for all $x\in \Sigma$.
- $h_{i}(x)-h_{i+1}(x)\geq \lambda_{i+1}(\overline{\delta}_i(x)-\overline{\delta}_{i+1}(x))$ for $m$-a.e. $x\in \Lambda_e$ and $i=0,1\ldots, k-1$;
- $\underline{\delta}_{i+1}(x)+\vartheta_i(x)\leq \underline{\delta}_i(x)$ for $m$-a.e. $x\in \Lambda_e$ and $i=0,1\ldots, k-1$;
It is easy to see that (C1)-(C3) together with (\[e-h\])-(\[e-h’\]) force that for $m$-a.e. $x\in \Lambda_e$, $\underline{\delta}_i(x)=\overline{\delta}_i(x)$ (we denoted the common value as $\delta_i(x)$) for $i=0,\ldots,k$ and, furthermore $$d(m\circ\pi^{-1},\pi x)=\delta_0(x)=\sum_{i=0}^{k-1} \vartheta_i(x)=
\sum_{i=0}^{k-1} \frac{h_i(x)-h_{i+1}(x) }{\lambda_{i+1}(x)}.$$ which is the desired result in Theorem \[thm-1.3\]. In the following we prove (C1)-(C3) respectively.
Since $\eta_k=\left\{\pi^{-1}(z): z\in \prod_{t=1}^k\R^{q_t}\right\}$, we have $$m^k_x(B^\pi(x,r))=m^k_x(\eta_k(x))=1$$ for all $x\in \Sigma$. Thus $\overline{\delta}_k(x)=\underline{\delta}_k(x)=0$ for all $x\in \Sigma$.
We give a proof by contradiction, which is modified from [@LeYo85 §10.2]. Assume that (C2) is not true. Then there exists $0\leq i\leq k$ such that $$h_i(x)-h_{i+1}(x)<\lambda_{i+1}(x) (\overline{\delta}_i(x)-\overline{\delta}_{i+1}(x))$$ on a subset of $\Lambda_e$ with positive measure. Hence there exist $\alpha>0$ and real numbers $h_i,h_{i+1},\lambda_{i+1}, \overline{\delta}_i,\overline{\delta}_{i+1}$ with $\lambda_{i+1}>0$ such that $$\label{e-ass}
h_i-h_{i+1}<\lambda_{i+1} (\overline{\delta}_i-\overline{\delta}_{i+1})-\alpha$$ and for any $\epsilon>0$, there exists $B_\epsilon\subset \Lambda_e$ with $m(B_\epsilon)>0$ so that for $x\in B_\epsilon$, $$|h_i(x)-h_i|<\epsilon/2, \quad |h_{i+1}(x)-h_{i+1}|<\epsilon/2, \quad |\lambda_{i+1}(x)-\lambda_{i+1}|<\epsilon/2$$ and $$|\overline{\delta}_i(x)-\overline{\delta}_i|<\epsilon/2, \quad |\overline{\delta}_{i+1}(x)-\overline{\delta}_{i+1}|<\epsilon/2.$$ Fix $\epsilon>0$. There exists $n_0\colon B_\epsilon\to \N$ such that for $m$-a.e. $x\in B_\epsilon$ and $n>n_0(x)$, we have
- $\displaystyle
\frac{\log m^{i+1}_x\left(B^\pi(x,e^{-n(\lambda_{i+1}-2\epsilon)})\right)}
{-n(\lambda_{i+1}-2\epsilon)}\leq
\overline{\delta}_{i+1}+\epsilon;$
- $\displaystyle
-\frac{1}{n} \log m^{i+1}_x(\P_{0}^n(x))\geq h_{i+1}-\epsilon$(by (\[e-h\]));
- $\displaystyle
\eta_i(x)\cap \P_0^n(x)\subset B^\pi(x,e^{-n(\lambda_{i+1}-2\epsilon)})$ (by (\[e-t301\]));
- $\displaystyle
-\frac{1}{n}\log m^i_x(\P_0^n(x))\leq h_i+\epsilon$(by (\[e-h\])).
Take $N_0$ such that $$\Delta:=\{x\in B_\epsilon\colon n_0(x)\leq N_0\}$$ has the positive measure. By Lemma \[lem-2.4\] and Lemma \[lem-2.10\], there exist $c>0$ and $\Delta'\subset \Delta$ with $m(\Delta')>0$ such that for $x\in \Delta'$, there exists $n=n(x)\geq N_0$ such that
- $\displaystyle \frac{m^{i+1}_x (L\cap \Delta)}{m^{i+1}_x(L)}\geq c$, where $$L:=B^\pi(x,e^{-n(\lambda_{i+1}-2\epsilon)});$$
- $\displaystyle
\frac{\log m^{i}_x\left(B^\pi(x,2e^{-n(\lambda_{i+1}-2\epsilon)})\right)} {-n(\lambda_{i+1}-2\epsilon)}> \overline{\delta}_{i}-\epsilon;$
- $\displaystyle\frac{\log (1/c)}{n}<\epsilon$.
Take $x\in \Delta'$ such that (1)–(7) are satisfied with $n=n(x)$. Denote $C=\eta_{i+1}(x)$ and $C'=\eta_i(x)$. Then by (5) and (1), $$m_x^{i+1}(L\cap \Delta )\geq cm_x^{i+1}(L)\geq
ce^{-n(\lambda_{i+1}-2\epsilon)(\overline{\delta}_{i+1}+\epsilon)}.$$ But for each $y\in L\cap \Delta$, we have by (2), $m_y^{i+1}(\P_0^n(y))\leq e^{-n(h_{i+1}-\epsilon)}$. It follows that the number of distinct $\P_0^n$-atoms intersecting $C\cap L\cap
\Delta$ is larger than $$m_x^{i+1}(L\cap \Delta)
e^{n(h_{i+1}-\epsilon)}.$$ However each such a $\P_0^n$-atom, say $\P_0^n(y)$, intersects $C'\cap L\cap \Delta$, and this together with (3) guarantees that $C'\cap \P_0^n(y)$ is contained in $C'\cap
B^\pi(x,2e^{-n(\lambda_{i+1}-2\epsilon)})$. To see this, let $z\in \P_0^n(y)\cap C^\prime\cap L\cap \Delta$. Since $z\in
\Delta$, we have $d(\pi z, \pi x)\leq
e^{-n(\lambda_{i+1}-2\epsilon)}$. Thus $$\C'\cap\P_0^n(y)=\eta_i(z)\cap \P_0^n(z)\subset B^\pi(x,e^{-n(\lambda_{i+1}-2\epsilon)})
\subset B^\pi(x,2e^{-n(\lambda_{i+1}-2\epsilon)}).$$ Meanwhile by (4), $m^i_x(\P_0^n(y))\geq e^{-n(h_i+\epsilon)}$ (for $w\in \P_0^n(y)\cap C'\cap L$, we have $\eta_i(x)=\eta_i(w)$ and thus $m^i_x(\P_0^n(y))=m_w^i(\P_0^n(w))$). Hence we have $$\begin{aligned}
m^i_{x}(B^\pi(x,2e^{-n(\lambda_{i+1}-2\epsilon)})) &\geq &
\# \{ \mbox{$\P_0^n$-atoms intersecting } C'\cap L\cap\Delta\} \cdot e^{-n(h_i+\epsilon)}\\
&\geq & m_x^{i+1}(L\cap \Delta) e^{n(h_{i+1}-\epsilon)}e^{-n(h_i+\epsilon)}\\
&\geq & ce^{-n(\lambda_{i+1}-2\epsilon)
(\overline{\delta}_{i+1}+\epsilon)}e^{n(h_{i+1}-\epsilon)}e^{-n(h_i+\epsilon)}.\end{aligned}$$ Comparing this with (6), we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\mbox{}&(\lambda_{i+1}-2\epsilon)(\overline{\delta}_{i}-\epsilon)\\
&& \quad \leq (\lambda_{i+1}-2\epsilon)(\overline{\delta}_{i+1}+\epsilon)(\lambda_i-2\epsilon)+\frac{\log (1/c)}{n}+h_i-h_{i+1}+2\epsilon\\
&& \quad \leq (\lambda_{i+1}-2\epsilon)(\overline{\delta}_{i+1}+\epsilon)(\lambda_i-2\epsilon)+h_i-h_{i+1}+3\epsilon.\end{aligned}$$ Taking $\epsilon\to 0$ yields $h_i-h_{i+1}\geq \lambda_{i+1} (\overline{\delta}_i-\overline{\delta}_{i+1})$, which leads to a contradiction with (\[e-ass\]).
Here we give a proof by contradiction, adopting an idea from the proof of [@LeYo85 Lemma 11.3.1]. Assume that (C3) is not true. Then there exists $0\leq i\leq k-1$ such that $
\underline{\delta}_{i+1}(x)+\vartheta_i(x)>\underline{\delta}_i(x) $ on a subset of $\Lambda_e$ with positive measure. Hence there exists $\beta>0$ and real numbers $\underline{\delta}_i,\underline{\delta}_{i+1},\lambda_{i}$ such that $$\label{e-as1}
\underline{\delta}_{i+1}+\vartheta_i>\underline{\delta}_i+\beta,$$ and for any $\epsilon>0$, there exists $A_\epsilon\subset \Lambda_e$ with $m(A_\epsilon)>0$ so that for $x\in A_\epsilon$, $$\label{e-as2}
|\underline{\delta}_i(x)-\underline{\delta}_i|<\epsilon/2, \quad
|\underline{\delta}_{i+1}(x)-\underline{\delta}_{i+1}|<\epsilon/2,
\quad |\vartheta_i(x)-\vartheta_{i}|<\epsilon/2.$$
Let $0<\epsilon<\beta/4$. Find $N_1$ and a set $A_\epsilon'\subset A_\epsilon$ with $m(A_\epsilon')>0$ such that for $x\in A_\epsilon'$ and $n>N_1$, $$\label{e-6.2} m_x^{i+1}\left(B^\pi(x,2e^{-n})\right)\leq
e^{-n(\underline{\delta}_{i+1}-\epsilon)}.$$ By Lemma \[lem-2.4\] and Lemma \[lem-2.10\], we can find $c>0$ and $A_\epsilon''\subset A_\epsilon'$ with $m(A_\epsilon'')>0$ and $N_2$ such that for all $x\in A_\epsilon''$ and $n\geq N_2$, $$\frac{m_x^i(A_\epsilon'\cap B^\pi(x,e^{-n}))}{m_x^i(B^\pi(x,e^{-n}))}>c.$$ For $x\in A_\epsilon''$ and $n\geq N_2$, we have $$\label{e-6.3}
\begin{split}
m_x^i(B^\pi(x,e^{-n}))&\leq c^{-1}m_x^i(A_\epsilon'\cap B^\pi(x,e^{-n}))\\
&= c^{-1}\int m_y^{i+1}(A_\epsilon'\cap B^\pi(x,e^{-n}))\; dm^i_x(y)\\
&= c^{-1}\int_{B^{\Gamma_{i+1}}(x,e^{-n})} m_y^{i+1}(A_\epsilon'\cap B^\pi(x,e^{-n}))\; dm^i_x(y).\\
\end{split}$$
Let $y\in \eta_i(x)$ such that $\eta_{i+1}(y)\cap A_\epsilon'\cap B^\pi(x,e^{-n})\neq \emptyset$. Then there exists $w\in A_\epsilon'\cap B^\pi(x,e^{-n})$ such that $\pi_{i+1}y=\pi_{i+1} w$. Hence $A_\epsilon'\cap B^\pi(x,e^{-n}) \subset B^\pi(w,2e^{-n})$ and by (\[e-6.2\]) $$\begin{aligned}
m^{i+1}_y(A_\epsilon'\cap B^\pi(w,e^{-n}))&=&m^{i+1}_w(A_\epsilon'\cap B^\pi(w,e^{-n}))\\
&\leq& m^{i+1}_w(B^\pi(w,2e^{-n}))\\
&\leq& e^{-n(\underline{\delta}_{i+1}-\epsilon)}.\end{aligned}$$ Combining it with (\[e-6.3\]), we have $$m_x^i(B^\pi(x,e^{-n})) \leq c^{-1}e^{-n(\underline{\delta}_{i+1}-\sigma)}
m^i_x(B^{\Gamma_{i+1}}(x,e^{-n}))\qquad (x\in A_\epsilon'',\; n\geq N_2).$$ Letting $n\to \infty$, we obtain $\underline{\delta}_i(x)\geq
\underline{\delta}_{i+1}-\epsilon+\vartheta_i(x)$ for $x\in
A_\epsilon''$. Combining it with (\[e-as2\]) yields $$\underline{\delta}_i\geq
\underline{\delta}_{i+1}+\vartheta_i-4\epsilon\geq
\underline{\delta}_{i+1}+\vartheta_i-\beta,$$ which contradicts (\[e-as1\]).
Proof of Theorem \[thm-1.4\]
----------------------------
[A real square matrix $A$ is called [*asymptotically similar*]{} if all the (complex) eigenvalues of $A$ are equal in modulus. Correspondingly, a linear transformation $T$ on a finite-dimensional vector space $V$ is called [*asymptotically similar*]{} if its representation matrix (associated with some basis of $V$) is asymptotically similar. ]{}
\[lem-6.2\] Let $(A_1,\ldots, A_\ell)$ be an $\ell$-tuple of commuting linear transformations on $\R^d$. Then there are subspaces $V_1, \ldots, V_k$ of $\R^d$ such that
- $\R^d=V_1\oplus \cdots \oplus V_k$;
- $V_i$ is $A_{j}$-invariant for $1\leq i\leq k$ and $1\leq j\leq \ell$;
- The restriction of $A_j$ on $V_i$ is asymptotically similar for $1\leq i\leq k$ and $1\leq j\leq \ell$.
For brevity, we only prove the lemma in the case $\ell=2$. The reader will see that the idea works for all cases.
Let $S, T$ be two commuting linear transformations on $\R^d$. Let $f$ denote the real minimal polynomial of $S$. Suppose $f=f_1^{t_1}\cdots f_p^{t_p}$ is the decomposition of $f$ into powers of distinct, real irreducible monic factors $f_i$. Let $W_i$ denote the null space of $[f_i(S)]^{t_i}$, $i=1,\ldots, p$. Then $W_i$’s are $S$-invariant and $\R^d=W_1\oplus\cdots\oplus W_p$ (cf. [@Sto52 Theorem 7.3]). Moreover $S_{W_i}$, the restriction of $S$ on $W_i$, is asymptotically similar.
Since $ST=TS$, $W_i$ is also $T$-invariant for each $i$. But $T_{W_i}$ may be not asymptotically similar. However, as above, for each $i$, we can decomposed $W_i$ into $W_i=W_{i,1}\oplus\cdots \oplus W_{i,u_i}$ such that $W_{i,j}$ are the null spaces corresponding to some factors of the minimal polynomial of $T_{W_i}$. Again, $W_{i,j}$ is $T_{W_i}$-invariant and $S_{W_i}$-invariant. Furthermore $T_{W_{i,j}}$ and $S_{W_{i,j}}$ are asymptotically similar. Hence $\R^d=\bigoplus_{i,j} W_{i,j}$ is the desired decomposition for $S$ and $T$.
Let $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ be the IFS given in the theorem. By Lemma \[lem-6.2\], there is a non-singular linear transformation $Q$ on $\R^d$ such that $\{QS_iQ^{-1}\}_{i=1}^\ell$ is the direct product of $k$ asymptotically conformal IFS. Hence the desired result follows from Theorem \[thm-1.3\].
A variational principle about dimensions of self-conformal sets {#S7}
===============================================================
In this section, we assume that $K$ is the attractor of a $C^1$ weakly conformal IFS $\Phi=\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ on a compact set $X\subset \R^d$. The main result of this section is the following variational principle.
\[thm-7.1\] Under the above setting, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{}\qquad \dim_H K&=&\dim_BK\label{e-7.1'}\\
&=&
\sup
\left\{\dim_H \mu:\; \mu=m\circ \pi^{-1}, \;m\in
\M_\sigma(\Sigma), \; m \mbox{ is ergodic}\right\}\label{e-7.2'}\\
&=&
\max
\left\{\dim_H \mu:\; \mu=m\circ \pi^{-1}, \;m\in
\M_\sigma(\Sigma)\right\}\label{e-7.2''}\\
&=&\sup\left\{\frac{h_\pi(\sigma,m)}{\int{\lambda} \;dm}: \;m\in
\M_\sigma(\Sigma)\right\}.\label{e-7.3'} \end{aligned}$$
Without loss of generality we assume that $\overline{\dim}_B(K)>0$, where $\overline{\dim}_B$ denotes the upper box-counting dimension (cf. [@Fal-book]). Let $$0<t_3<t_2<t_1< \overline{\dim}_B(K).$$ We first prove that there is an ergodic measure $m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)$ such that $\dim_H m\circ \pi^{-1}\geq t_3$. To achieve this, let $\alpha=\frac{t_2}{t_3}-1$ and let $r_0$ be given as in Corollary \[cor-4.5\]. Since $\overline{\dim}_B(K)>t_1$, for any $0<\epsilon<r_0$, there exist $r\in (0,\epsilon)$ and integer $N\geq r^{-t_1}$ such that there are disjoint closed balls $B(z_i,r)$ ($i=1,\ldots, N$) with centers $z_i\in K$. By Corollary \[cor-4.5\], we can find words $w_i\in \Sigma^*$ ($i=1,\ldots, N$) such that $S_{w_i}(K)\subset B(z_i,r)$ and $$\label{e-7.5}
|S_{w_i}(x)-S_{w_i}(y)|\geq r^{1+\alpha}|x-y| \qquad (x,y\in K).$$ This implies $r^{1+\alpha}\mbox{diam}(K)\leq \mbox{diam}(S_{w_i}(K))\leq 2r$. According to this fact and (\[e-4.6\]), there exist two positive constants $A,B$ (independent of $r$) such that $$B\log (1/r)\leq |w_i|\leq A\log (1/r)\mbox{ for all $1\leq i\leq N$}.$$ Hence by the pigeon hole principle, there is a subset $\J$ of $\{1,\ldots, N\}$ with cardinality $$\# \J\geq \frac{N}{(A-B)\log (1/r)+1}\geq \frac{r^{-t_1}}{(A-B)\log (1/r)+1}\geq r^{-t_2}$$ such that the words $w_i$ ($i\in \J$) have the same length, say $n$.
Now we adopt an argument from the proof of [@Fal89 Theorem 4]. Let $$\delta=\min\{d(B(z_i,r), B(z_j,r)): \; i,j\in \J, i\neq j\}.$$ For any positive integer $q$ and distinct sequences $i_1,\ldots, i_q$ and $j_1,\ldots, j_q$ taking values in $\J$, let $k$ be the least integer such that $i_k\neq j_k$. Applying (\[e-7.5\]) $(k-1)$ times, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\mbox{}& d(S_{w_{i_1}}\circ\cdots \circ S_{w_{i_q}}(K), S_{w_{j_1}}\circ\cdots \circ S_{w_{j_q}}(K))\\
&& \quad \geq r^{(1+\alpha)(k-1)}d(B(z_{i_k},r), B(z_{j_k},r))\geq r^{q(1+\alpha)}\delta.\end{aligned}$$ Define a measure $\eta$ on the class of finite unions of sets $S_{w_{i_1}}\circ\cdots \circ S_{w_{i_q}}(K)$ by letting $\eta(S_{w_{i_1}}\circ\cdots \circ S_{w_{i_q}}(K))=(\#\J)^{-q}$. This extends to a measure $\eta$ on the $\sigma$-algebra generating by these sets. Let $U$ be any subset of $K$ with $\mbox{diam}(U)<\delta$ and let $q$ be the least integer such that $$r^{(q+1)(1+\alpha)}\delta\leq \mbox{diam}(U)< r^{q(1+\alpha)}\delta.$$ Then $U$ intersects at most one set $S_{w_{i_1}}\circ\cdots \circ
S_{w_{i_q}}(K)$, hence $$\begin{aligned}
\eta(U)&\leq &(\#\J)^{-q}
\leq r^{t_2q} \leq r^{-t_2}\delta^{-t_2/(1+\alpha)}
\mbox{diam}(U)^{t_2/(1+\alpha)}\\
&=&r^{-t_2}\delta^{-t_3} \mbox{diam}(U)^{t_3}. \end{aligned}$$ This implies $\dim_H\eta\geq t_3$.
We point out that the measure $\eta$ constructed as above is, indeed, the projection of a $\sigma^n$-invariant and ergodic measure $\nu$ under $\pi$. Actually $\nu$ is the unique measure on $\Sigma$ satisfying $$\nu([w_{i_1}\ldots w_{i_q}])=(\#\J)^{-q} \qquad (q \in \N, \; i_1,\ldots , i_q\in \J).$$ Applying Theorem \[thm-1.2\] to the IFS $\{S_{w_i}: \; i\in \J\}$, We have $$\dim_H \eta=\dim_H \nu\circ \pi^{-1}=\frac{h_\pi(\sigma^n, \nu)}{-\int \log \|S_{x_1\ldots x_n}^\prime(\pi \sigma^nx)\| d\nu}.$$ Take $m=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \nu\circ \sigma^{-i}$. Then $m$ is $\sigma$-invariant and ergodic. Applying Theorem \[thm-1.2\] and Proposition \[pro-3.2\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\dim_Hm\circ \pi^{-1} &=&\frac{h_\pi(\sigma, m)}{-\int \log \|S_{x_1}^\prime(\pi\sigma x)\| dm}=
\frac{h_\pi(\sigma^n, \nu)}{-\int \log \|S_{x_1\ldots x_n}^\prime(\pi\sigma^n x)\| d\nu}\\
&=&\dim_H\eta\geq t_3.\end{aligned}$$ Since $t_3<\overline{\dim}_BK$ is arbitrarily given, we obtain (\[e-7.1’\]) and (\[e-7.2’\]). To show (\[e-7.2”\]), let $(m_i)$ be a sequence of measures in $\M_\sigma(\Sigma)$ with $$\lim_{i\to \infty} \dim_H m_i\circ \pi^{-1}=\dim_HK.$$ Take a sequence of positive numbers $(a_i)$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^\infty
a_i=1$. Then $m=\sum_{i=1}^\infty a_i m_i$ is an element in $\M_\sigma(\Sigma)$ with $$\dim_H m\circ \pi^{-1}= \sup_{i}\dim_H
m_i\circ \pi^{-1}=\dim_HK.$$
To show (\[e-7.3’\]), according to (\[e-7.2’\]), it suffices to show that $$\label{e-7.6}
\dim_Hm\circ \pi^{-1}\geq \frac{h_\pi(\sigma,m)}{-\int\log \|S^\prime_{x_1}(\pi\sigma x)\| \;dm(x)} \qquad
(m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)).$$ Fix $m$ and let $\mu=m\circ \pi^{-1}$. Denote by $\Lambda$ the righthand side of (\[e-7.6\]). By Theorem \[thm-1.2\], $d(\mu,z)$ exists for $\mu$-a.e. $z\in \R^d$. Hence to show (\[e-7.6\]), we only need to show that for any $\epsilon>0$, there is a Borel set $E\subset \R^d$ such that $\mu(E)>0$ and $d(\mu, z)\geq \Lambda-\epsilon$ for $z\in E$. Assume this is false. Then $d(\mu, z)< \Lambda-\epsilon$ for $\mu$-a.e. $z\in \R^d$. Thus by Theorem \[thm-1.2\] again, we have $$h_\pi(\sigma,m,x)<
\lambda(x)(\Lambda-\epsilon)\qquad \mbox{for $m$-a.e.\! $x\in \Sigma$}.$$ Taking integration w.r.t. $m$ on both sides yields $$h_\pi(\sigma,m)<(\Lambda-\epsilon) \int \lambda\;dm,$$ which leads to a contradiction.
\[rem-4.4\] [Assume that $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ is a weakly conformal IFS which satisfies the AWSC (see Definition \[de-1.5\]). Then the supremum in (\[e-7.2’\]) and (\[e-7.3’\]) can be attained by ergodic measures. To see this, by Proposition \[pro-3.9\], the map $m\mapsto h_\pi(\sigma,m)$ is upper semi-continuous on $\M_\sigma(\Sigma)$, hence the supremum in (\[e-7.3’\]) is attained at some member, say $m_0$, in $\M_\sigma(\Sigma)$. Let $m_0=\int \nu \; d{\Bbb P}(\nu)$ be the ergodic decomposition of $m_0$. By Theorem \[thm-1.0\](ii), we have $$\dim_HK=\frac{h_\pi(\sigma,m_0)}{\int \lambda \; dm_0}=\frac{\int h_\pi(\sigma,\nu)\; d{\Bbb P}(\nu)}{\int\!\int \lambda\;d\nu\; d{\Bbb P}(\nu)}.$$ Since $\frac{h_\pi(\sigma,\nu)}{\int \lambda\;d\nu}\leq \dim_HK$ for each $\nu$, the above equality implies that $\frac{h_\pi(\sigma,\nu)}{\int \lambda\;d\nu}= \dim_HK$ for ${\Bbb P}$-a.e.$\;\nu$. Hence the supremum in (\[e-7.3’\]) can be attained at some ergodic measure, so do the supremum in (\[e-7.2’\]). ]{}
Proof of Theorem \[thm-1.6\] {#S8}
============================
We first present some lemmas.
\[lem-8.1\] Let $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ be an IFS with attractor $K$. For $n\in \N$, write $\Sigma_n=\{1,\ldots,\ell\}^n$ and denote $$N_n=\#\{S_u:\; u\in \Sigma_n\}.$$ Then
- $\sup\{h_\pi(\sigma,m):\; m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)\}\leq \frac{\log N_n}{n}$.
- Let $t_n=\sup_{x\in \R^d}\#\{S_u:\; u\in \Sigma_n, x\in S_u(K)\}$. Then $$\sup\{h_\pi(\sigma,m):\; m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma), \mbox { $m$ is ergodic}\}\geq \frac{\log N_n-\log t_n}{n}.$$
We first show (i). Let $n\in \N$ and $m\in \M_{\sigma}(\Sigma)$. By the definition of $N_n$, we can construct a subset $\Omega$ of $\Sigma_n$ with $\#\Omega=N_n$ such that for any $u\in \Sigma_n$, there exists $w\in \Omega$ so that $S_u=S_w$. Hence there is a map $g:\;\Sigma_n\to \Omega$ such that $S_u=S_{g(u)}$ for each $u\in \Sigma_n$. Let $(\Omega^\N, T)$ denote the one-sided full shift over $\Omega$. Define $G:\; \Sigma\to \Omega^\N$ by $$G((x_i)_{i=0}^\infty)=(w_j)_{j=1}^\infty\qquad ((x_i)_{i=1}^\infty\in \Sigma),$$ where $w_j=g(x_{(j-1)n+1}x_{(j-1)n+2}\cdots x_{jn})$. Let $\widetilde{\pi}:\ \Omega^\N\to \R^d$ denote the canonical projection w.r.t. the IFS $\{S_u:\; u\in \Omega\}$. Then by Lemma \[lem-3.new\](ii), we have $$h_\pi(\sigma^n,m)=h_{\widetilde{\pi}}(T,m\circ G^{-1})\leq \log (\#\Omega)=\log N_n.$$ It follows that $h_\pi(\sigma,m)\leq \log N_n/n$. This proves (i).
To show (ii), let $\nu$ be the Bernoulli measure on $\Omega^\N$ with probability weight $(1/N_n, \ldots, 1/N_n)$. Then $\nu$ can be viewed as a $\sigma^n$-invariant measure on $\Sigma$. By Lemma \[lem-3.new\](ii), we have $h_\pi(\sigma^n,\nu)=h_{\widetilde{\pi}}(T,\nu)$. Note that for $x\in \R^d$, there are at most $t_n$ words $u$ in $\Omega$ such that $x\in S_u(K)$. By Corollary \[cor-3.11\], we have $$h_{\widetilde{\pi}}(T,\nu)\geq h(T,\nu)-\log t_n=\log N_n-\log
t_n.$$ Let $\mu=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\nu\circ \sigma^{-i}$. Then $\mu$ is $\sigma$-invariant and ergodic, furthermore $$h_\pi(\sigma,\mu)=\frac{1}{n}h_\pi(\sigma^n,\nu)=\frac{1}{n}h_{\widetilde{\pi}}(T,\nu)\geq
(\log N_n-\log t_n)/n,$$ as desired.
\[lem-8.2\] Let $\Phi=\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ be an affine IFS on $\R^d$ given by $$S_i(x_1,\ldots,x_d)=(\rho_1 x_1,\cdots, \rho_dx_d)+(a_{i,1},\ldots, a_{i,d}),$$ where $1>\rho_1>\rho_2>\cdots >\rho_d>0$ and $a_{i,j}\in \R$. Let $K$ denote the attractor of $\Phi$, and write $\lambda_j=\log(1/\rho_j)$ for $j=1,\ldots, d$ and $\lambda_{d+1}=\infty$. View $\Phi$ as the direct product of $\Phi_1,\ldots, \Phi_d$, where $\Phi_j=\{S_{i,j}(x_j)=\rho_jx_j+ a_{i,j}\}_{i=1}^\ell$. Let $\pi_j$ denote the canonical projection w.r.t. the IFS $\Phi_1\times\cdots \times \Phi_j$. Then we have $$\label{e-8.1}
\sum_{j=1}^d\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_j}-\frac{1}{\lambda_{j+1}}\right){H}_j
\leq
\underline{\dim}_B(K)\leq \overline{\dim}_B(K)\leq \sum_{j=1}^d\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_j}-\frac{1}{\lambda_{j+1}}\right)\widetilde{H}_j,$$ with $H_j=\sup\left\{h_{\pi_j}(\sigma,m):\; m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)\right\}$ and $$\widetilde{H}_j=\lim_{n\to \infty} \frac{\log \#\left\{S^{(j)}_u:\; u\in \Sigma_n\right\}}{n},$$ where $\left\{S^{(j)}_i\right\}_{i=1}^\ell$ is the IFS $\Phi_1\times\cdots \times \Phi_j$ on $\R^j$.
Without loss of generality we assume that $$S_{i}([0,1]^d)\subset [0,1]^d\qquad (i=1,\ldots,\ell).$$ For $n\in \N$, we write $$N_n^{(j)}=\#\{S_u^{(j)}:\ u\in \Sigma_n\} \qquad (j=1,\ldots,d),$$ and $$q_d(n)=n,\quad q_j(n)=\left[\left(\frac{\log \rho_d}{\log \rho_j}-\frac{\log \rho_d}{\log \rho_{j+1}}\right)n\right]\mbox{ for }1\leq j\leq d-1,$$ where $[x]$ denotes the integral part of $x$.
Construct $\Omega_{n,j}\subset \Sigma_{q_j(n)}$ ($j=1,\ldots,d$) such that $\#\Omega_{n,j}=N_{q_j(n)}^{(j)}$ and for each $u\in \Sigma_{q_j(n)}$, there is $w\in \Omega_{n,j}$ so that $S^{(j)}_u=S^{(j)}_w$. Then the family of following rectangles $$\label{e-8.2}
\prod_{j=1}^d S_{w_dw_{d-1}\cdots w_j, j}([0,1])\qquad (w_1\in \Omega_{n,1}, \ldots, w_d\in \Omega_{n,d})$$ is a cover of $K$. To see it, let $u_j\in \Sigma_{q_j(n)}$ ($j=1,\ldots,d$). Then we can find $w_j\in \Omega_{n,j}$ ($j=1,\ldots,d$) such that $S^{(j)}_{u_j}=S^{(j)}_{w_j}$. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
S_{u_du_{d-1}\ldots u_1}(K)&\subset& S_{u_du_{d-1}\ldots u_1}([0,1]^d)
\subset \prod_{j=1}^d S_{u_du_{d-1}\cdots u_1, j}([0,1])\\
&\subset &\prod_{j=1}^d S_{u_du_{d-1}\cdots u_j, j}([0,1])
= \prod_{j=1}^d S_{w_dw_{d-1}\cdots w_j, j}([0,1]).\end{aligned}$$ It follows that the family of rectangles in (\[e-8.2\]) covers $K$. One can check that each rectangle in (\[e-8.2\]) is an almost $(\rho_d)^n$-cube. Hence by the definition of box-counting dimension, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{\dim}_BK&\leq& \limsup_{n\to \infty}\frac{\prod_{j=1}^{d}\# \Omega_{n,j}}{-\log (\rho_d)^n}=
\limsup_{n\to \infty}\frac{\prod_{j=1}^{d} N_{q_j(n)}^{(j)}}{-\log (\rho_d)^n}\\
&=& \sum_{j=1}^d\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_j}-\frac{1}{\lambda_{j+1}}\right)\widetilde{H}_j.\end{aligned}$$ This proves one part of (\[e-8.1\]).
To see the other part of (\[e-8.1\]), for $j=1,\ldots, d$, let $\Q_j$ denote the collection $\{[0,1)^j+\alpha: \;\alpha\in \Z^j\}$, and define $$M_n^{(j)}=\#\{Q\in \Q_j:\; \mbox{diag}(\rho_1^n,\ldots, \rho_j^n)Q \cap K_j\neq \emptyset\},$$ where $K_j$ denotes the attractor of $\Phi_1\times\cdots\times
\Phi_j$. Then by Proposition \[pro-3.19\](ii), we have $H_j=\lim_{n\to \infty} \frac{\log M_n^{(j)}}{n}$. We claim that for $n\in \N$, there exists a subset $\overline{\Omega}_{n, j}\subset
\Sigma_n$ with cardinality $\geq 7^{-j}M_n^{(j)}$ such that $$\label{e-8.3} S_w^{(j)}([0,1]^j)\cap S_{w'}^{(j)}([0,1]^j)=
\emptyset \mbox{ for all } w,w'\in \overline{\Omega}_{n,j} \mbox{
with } w\neq w'.$$ To show the claim, we construct a finite subset of $\Q_j$, denoted by $W_n^{(j)}$, such that (i) $\#W_n^{(j)}\geq 7^{-j}M_n^{(j)}$; (ii) $\mbox{diag}(\rho_1^n,\ldots, \rho_j^n)Q \cap K_j\neq
\emptyset$ for each $Q\in W_n^{(j)}$; (iii) $2Q\cap
2\widetilde{Q}=\emptyset$ for $Q,\widetilde{Q}\in W_n^{(j)}$ with $Q\neq \widetilde{Q}$, where $2Q:=\bigcup_{Q'\in \Q_j:\; Q'\cap
Q\neq \emptyset} Q'$. For each $Q\in W_n^{(j)}$, since $\mbox{diag}(\rho_1^n,\ldots, \rho_j^n)Q \cap K_j\neq \emptyset$, we can pick a word $w(Q)\in \Sigma_n$ such that $\mbox{diag}(\rho_1^n,\ldots, \rho_j^n)Q \cap S_{w(Q)}^{(j)}K_j\neq
\emptyset$ and hence $$\mbox{diag}(\rho_1^n,\ldots, \rho_j^n)Q \cap S_{w(Q)}^{(j)}([0,1]^j)\neq \emptyset.$$ Denote $\overline{\Omega}_{n,j}=\{w(Q):\; Q\in W_n^{(j)}\}$. The separation condition (iii) for the elements in $W_n^{(j)}$ guarantees (\[e-8.3\]). This finishes the proof of the claim.
As above, we can construct $\overline{\Omega}_{n,j}$ well for each $j=1,\ldots, d$ and $n\in \N$. Now fix $n$ and consider the following collection of rectangles: $$\label{e-8.4}
\prod_{j=1}^d S_{w_dw_{d-1}\cdots w_j, j}([0,1])\qquad (w_j\in \overline{\Omega}_{q_j(n),j},\; 1\leq j\leq d).$$ It is clear that the above rectangles are almost $(\rho_d)^n$-cubes and each of them intersects with $K$. Furthermore they are disjoint due to (\[e-8.3\]). Hence by the definition of box-counting dimension, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\underline{\dim}_B(K)&\geq& \liminf_{n\to \infty} \frac{\prod_{j=1}^d \#\overline{\Omega}_{q_j(n),j}}{-\log (\rho_d)^n}\geq \liminf_{n\to \infty} \frac{\prod_{j=1}^d 7^{-j}M_{q_j(n)}^{(j)}}{-\log (\rho_d)^n}\\
&=&\sum_{j=1}^d\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_j}-\frac{1}{\lambda_{j+1}}\right){H}_j.\end{aligned}$$ This finishes the proof of (\[e-8.1\]).
We divide the proof into two steps:
[*Step 1. Show the variational principle for $\dim_HK$*]{}.
We first give an upper bound for $\dim_HK$. Fix $n\in \N$. Define $$N_j=\#\{S^{(j)}_u:\; u\in \Sigma_n\}\qquad (j=1,\ldots,d),$$ where $\{S^{(j)}_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ denotes the IFS $\Phi_1\times\cdots\times \Phi_j$. Then we can construct $$\Omega_j\subset \Sigma_n\quad (j=d,d-1,\ldots,1)$$ such that $\#\Omega_j=N_j$, $\Sigma_n\supset \Omega_d\supset \Omega_{d-1}\supset\cdots \supset \Omega_1$ and furthermore, for each $u\in \Sigma_n$ and $1\leq j\leq d$, there is $w_j\in \Omega_j$ such that $S_u^{(j)}=S^{(j)}_{w_j}$. Hence there are natural maps $\theta_d,\theta_{d-1},\ldots,\theta_1$ with $$\Sigma_n\stackrel{\theta_d}{\longrightarrow}\Omega_d \stackrel{\theta_{d-1}}{\longrightarrow} \Omega_{d-1}\stackrel{\theta_{d-2}}{\longrightarrow}\cdots\stackrel{\theta_2}{\longrightarrow}\Omega_2
\stackrel{\theta_1}{\longrightarrow}\Omega_1$$ such that $S_u^{(j)}=S_{\theta_j(u)}^{(j)}$ for any $1\leq j\leq d$ and $u\in \Omega_{j+1}$, with convention $\Omega_{d+1}=\Sigma_n$.
Let $Z_d:\Omega_d\to \R$ be the indicator of $\Omega_d$, i.e., $Z_d(u)=1$ for all $u\in \Omega_d$. Define $$Z_{d-1}(w)=\sum_{u\in \theta_{d-1}^{-1}(w)} Z_{d}(u)\qquad (w\in
\Omega_{d-1}).$$ Define inductively $$Z_{j}(w)=\sum_{u\in \theta_{j}^{-1}(w)} Z_{j+1}(u)^{\frac{\log \rho_{j+1}}{\log \rho_{j+2}}}\qquad (w\in \Omega_{j}, \; j=d-2,\ldots, 1).$$ In particular, define $$Z_0=\sum_{u\in \Omega_1} Z_{1}(u)^{\frac{ \log \rho_1}{\log \rho_{2}}}.$$ Using the technique by Kenyon & Peres [@KePe96] (which is an extension of McMullen [@McM84]), we have $$\label{e-8.5}
\dim_HK\leq \frac{\log Z_0}{-n\log \rho_1}.$$ More precisely, define a probability vector $\left(p(u)\right)_{u\in \Omega_d}$ by $$p(u)=\frac{Z_d(u)}{Z_{d-1}(\theta_{d-1}(u))}\cdot
\prod_{j=1}^{d-1}
\frac{
Z_{j}(\theta_j\theta_{j+1}\cdots \theta_{d-1}(u))^
{
\frac{\log \rho_{j}}{\log \rho_{j+1}}
}
}
{
Z_{j-1}(\theta_{j-1}\theta_j\cdots \theta_{d-1}(u))
}$$ with convention $Z_0(\theta_0\ldots \theta_{d-1}(u))=Z_0$ for any $u\in \Omega_{d}$. Let $\nu$ be the product measure on $(\Omega_d)^\N$ by assigning probability $p(u)$ to each digit $u\in \Omega_d$. The measure $\nu$ can be viewed as a measure on $\Sigma$, which is $\sigma^n$-invariant and ergodic. Let $\mu=\nu\circ \pi^{-1}$. Then $$\label{e-8.6}
\liminf_{r\to 0}\frac{\log\mu(B(\pi x, r))}{\log r}\leq \frac{\log Z_0}{-n\log \rho_1}\qquad (x\in \Sigma).$$ A detailed proof of (\[e-8.6\]) was given by Shmerkin (see the proof of (4.3) in [@Shm06]) for the case $d=2$, whilst a slight modification of the proof of [@KePe96 Theorem 1.2] provides a proof of (\[e-8.6\]) for $d\geq 2$. Then (\[e-8.5\]) follows from (\[e-8.6\]) and Billingsley’s lemma.
Now we want to indicate certain connection between the upper bound $\frac{\log Z_0}{-n\log \rho_1}$ and the projection entropies. First we define the projections $\theta_{j}^*: \; \Omega_{j+1}^\N\to \Omega_j^\N$ ($j=d-1,\ldots,1$) by $$\theta_{j}^*\left((u_k)_{k=1}^\infty\right)=\left(\theta_{j}(u_k)\right)_{k=1}^\infty\qquad (\left(u_k\right)_{k=1}^\infty\in \Omega_{j+1}^\N).$$ Then it is easy to see that for each $1\leq j\leq d-1$, the measure $$\nu_j:=\nu\circ \left(\theta_j^*\circ \theta_{j+1}^*\circ \cdots\circ \theta_{d-1}^*\right)^{-1}$$ is a product measure on $\Omega_j^\N$. Let $T_j$ denote the left shift operator on $\Omega_j^\N$. By a direct calculation, we have $$\label{e-8.7}
\frac{\log Z_0}{-n\log \rho_1}=\sum_{j=1}^d\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_j}-\frac{1}{\lambda_{j+1}}\right)
\frac{h(T_j,\nu_j)}{n}.$$ Thus we have $$\label{e-8.8}
\dim_HK\leq \sum_{j=1}^d\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_j}-\frac{1}{\lambda_{j+1}}\right)
\frac{h(T_j,\nu_j)}{n}.$$
Let $\widetilde{\pi}_j$ ($j=1,\ldots, d$) denote the canonical projection from $\Omega_j^\N$ to $\R^j$ w.r.t. the IFS $\{S^{(j)}_u\}_{u\in \Omega_j}$ ( remember that $\pi_j$ denotes the canonical projection from $\Sigma$ to $\R^d$ w.r.t. $\{S^{(j)}_u:\;
u\in \Sigma_n\}$). According to Lemma \[lem-3.new\](ii), we have $$\label{e-8.9}
h_{\widetilde{\pi}_j}(T_j,\nu_j)=h_{\pi_j}(\sigma^n,\nu) \qquad (j=1,\ldots,d).$$ Since $\Phi_1\times \cdots \times \Phi_j$ ($j=1,\ldots,d$) satisfy the AWSC, there is a sequence $(t_n)$ of positive integers with $\lim_n\log t_n/n=0$, such that $$\label{e-AA} \sup_{x\in \R^j}\#\{S_{u}^{(j)}:\; u\in \Omega_j, \;
x\in S_{u}^{(j)}(K_j)\}\leq t_n \qquad (j=1,\ldots, d),$$ where $K_j$ denotes the attractor of $\Phi_1\times\cdots \times \Phi_j$. By Corollary \[cor-3.11\], we have $$h_{\widetilde{\pi}_j}(T_j,\nu_j)\geq h(T_j,\nu_j)-\log t_n\geq
h(T_j,\nu_j)-\log t_n.$$ It together with (\[e-8.9\]) yields $h_{\pi_j}(\sigma^n,\nu)\geq
h(T_j,\nu_j)-\log t_n$. Now applying Theorem \[thm-1.3\] to the IFS $\{S_u:u\in \Sigma_n\}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\dim_H\nu\circ \pi^{-1}&=&\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^d \left(\frac{1}{\lambda_j}-\frac{1}{\lambda_{j+1}}\right)
h_{\pi_j}(\sigma^n,\nu)\\
&\geq& \frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^d \left(\frac{1}{\lambda_j}-\frac{1}{\lambda_{j+1}}\right)
(h(T_j,\nu_j)-\log t_n)\\
&\geq& \dim_HK-\frac{\log t_n}{n}\cdot\sum_{j=1}^d
\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_j}-\frac{1}{\lambda_{j+1}}\right)\qquad
(\mbox{by (\ref{e-8.8})}).\end{aligned}$$ Let $m=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\nu\circ \sigma^{-i}$. Then $m$ is ergodic and $\dim_Hm\circ \pi^{-1}=\dim_H\nu\circ\pi^{-1}$. Letting $n$ tend to $\infty$, we obtain $$\label{e-8.10}
\sup
\{
\dim_H m\circ \pi^{-1}:\; m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma), \mbox { $m$ is ergodic }\}\geq\dim_HK.$$ It is clear the “$\geq$” in above inequality can be replaced by “$=$” since $m\circ \pi^{-1}$ is supported on $K$. Note that $h_{\pi_j}(\sigma, \cdot)$ ($j=1,\ldots, d$) are upper semi-continuous on $\M_\sigma(\Sigma)$ (see Proposition \[pro-3.9\] and (\[e-AA\])). By Theorem \[thm-1.0\](ii) and Theorem \[thm-1.3\], we see that the supremum in (\[e-8.10\]) is attained at some ergodic element in $\M_\sigma(\Sigma)$. This finishes the proof of the variational principle for $\dim_HK$.
[*Step 2. Show the variational principle for $\dim_BK$*]{}.
By Lemma \[lem-8.2\], we only need to show that under the assumption of Theorem \[thm-1.6\], $$\label{e-8.12}
H_j\geq \widetilde{H}_j \qquad (j=1,\ldots, d),$$ where $$H_j=\sup\{h_{\pi_j}(\sigma,m):\; m\in \M_\sigma(\Sigma)\},\quad
\widetilde{H}_j=\lim_{n\to \infty} \frac{\log \#\{S^{(j)}_u:\; u\in \Sigma_n\}}{n}.$$ To see (\[e-8.12\]), by (\[e-AA\]) and Lemma \[lem-8.1\], we have $$H_j\geq \frac{\log \#\left\{S^{(j)}_u:\; u\in \Sigma_n\right\}-\log
t_n}{n} \qquad (n\in \N).$$ Letting $n\to \infty$, we obtain (\[e-8.12\]) by the assumption $\log t_n/n\to 0$. This finishes the proof of the theorem.
\[rem-9.3\] [With an essentially identical proof, Theorem \[thm-1.6\] can be extended to the following class of IFS $\Phi=\Phi_1\times \cdots \times \Phi_k$ on $\R^{q_1}\times\cdots\times\R^{q_k}$, where $\Phi_j$ has the form $\{A_j z_j+ c_{i,j}\}_{i=1}^\ell$ such that $A_j$ is the inverse of an integral matrix and all the eigenvalues of $A_j$ equals $\rho_j$ in modulus, $\rho_1>\cdots>\rho_k$, $c_{i,j}\in \Q^{q_j}$. ]{}
This together with Lemma \[lem-6.2\] and the proof of Theorem \[thm-1.4\] yields
\[thm-9.4\] Let $\Phi=\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ be an IFS on $\R^d$ of the form $$S_i(x)=Ax+c_i\qquad (i=1,\ldots,\ell),$$ where $A$ is the inverse of an integral expanding $d\times d$ matrix, $c_i\in \Z^d$. Let $K$ be the attractor of the IFS. Then there is an ergodic measure on $K$ of full Hausdorff dimension.
A final remark about infinite non-contractive IFS {#S-10}
=================================================
In the previous sections, we have made the restriction that an IFS consists of finitely many contractive maps. We remark that part of our results can be extended to certain infinite non-contractive IFS.
Let $\Phi=\{S_i\}_{i=1}^\infty$ be a family of maps on $\R^d$ of the form $$S_i(x)=\rho_iR_i(x)+a_i\qquad(i=1,2,\ldots),$$ where $\rho_i>0$, $R_i$ are orthogonal $d\times d$ matrices, $a_i\in \R^d$.
Let $(X,\sigma)$ be the left shift over the alphabet $\{i:\; i\in \N\}$, and let $m$ be an ergodic measure on $X$ satisfying $H_m(\P_\infty)<\infty$, where $\P_\infty$ denotes the partition of $X$ given by $$\P_\infty=\{[i]:\; i\in \N\},$$ where $[i]=\{(x_i)_{i=1}^\infty\in X:\; x_1=i\}$. Assume that $\Phi$ is [*$m$-contractive*]{} in the sense that $$\label{e-10.1}
\sum_{i=1}^\infty (\log \rho_i) m([i])<0,\qquad \sum_{i=1}^\infty (\log |a_i|) m([i])<\infty.$$ Denote $$\lambda=-\sum_{i=1}^\infty (\log \rho_i) m([i]).$$
Let $X'$ denote the set of points $x=(x_i)_{i=1}^\infty\in X$ such that $$\lim_{n\to \infty} (1/n) \log (\rho_{x_1}\rho_{x_2}\ldots \rho_{x_n})=-\lambda, \quad \lim_{n\to \infty} (1/n) \log |a_{x_n}|=0.$$ Then $X'$ satisfies $\sigma^{-1}(X')=X'$. Furthermore by Birkhoff’s ergodic theorem, $$m(X')=1.$$ Define the projection map $\pi:\; X'\to \R^d$ by $$\pi(x)=\lim_{n\to \infty} S_{x_1}\circ S_{x_2}\circ \cdots\circ S_{x_n}(0) \qquad (x\in X').$$ It is easily checked that $\pi$ is well defined. Let $\mu=m\circ \pi^{-1}$ be the projection of $m$ under $\pi$. We have the following theorem
\[thm-10.1\] Under the above setting, $\mu=m\circ \pi^{-1}$ is exactly dimensional and $$\dim_H\mu=\frac{h_\pi(\sigma,m)}{\lambda},$$ where $H_\pi(\sigma,m)=H_m(\P_\infty|\sigma^{-1}\pi^{-1}\gamma)-H_m(\P_\infty|\pi^{-1}\gamma)$, $\gamma=\B(\R^d).$
We remark that when $m$ is a Bernoulli product measure, $\mu=m\circ \pi^{-1}$ is the stationary measure of certain affine random walk determined by $\Phi$ and $m$, and the decay property of $\mu$ at infinity has been extensively studied in the literature (cf. [@GuLe08] and references therein).
The proof of Theorem \[thm-10.1\] is essentially identical to that given in Section \[S5\]. Indeed we only need to replace $\Sigma$ in Section \[S5\] by $X'$, and replace ‘let $c>1$ so that $c\sup_{x\in \Sigma}\overline{\rho}(x)<1$’ in the proof of Theorem \[thm-5.2\] by ‘let $1<c<e^{\lambda}$’.
[**Acknowledgement**]{}. The authors are grateful to François Ledrappier for his encouragement and helpful comments. They are indebted to Eric Olivier for stimulating discussions of the variational principle about the Hausdorff dimension of self-affine sets, and to Wen Huang for the discussions of the entropy theory. They also thank Quansheng Liu, Emile Le Page and Yong-Luo Cao for valuable comments, and Guo-Hua Zhang for critical reading of the manuscript. The first author was partially supported by the RGC grant in CUHK, Fok Ying Tong Education Foundation and NSFC (Grant 10571100). The second author was partially supported by NSF under grants DMS-0240097 and DMS-0503870.
[99]{}
Barański, K. Hausdorff dimension of the limit sets of some planar geometric constructions. [*Adv. Math.*]{} [**210**]{} (2007), 215–245.
Barnsley, M. [*Fractals everywhere*]{}. Academic Press, Inc., Boston, MA, 1988.
Barral, J. and Mensi, M. Gibbs measures on self-affine Sierpiński carpets and their singularity spectrum. [*Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems*]{} [**27**]{} (2007), 1419–1443.
Barreira, L., Pesin, Ya., and Schmeling, J. Dimension and product structure of hyperbolic measures. [*Ann. of Math.*]{} [**149**]{} (1999), 755–783.
Bedford, T. [*Crinkly curves, Markov partitions and box dimension in self-similar sets*]{}, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Warwick, 1984.
Bedford, T. Applications of dynamical systems theory to fractals—a study of cookie-cutter Cantor sets. [*Fractal geometry and analysis*]{} (Montreal, PQ, 1989), 1–44, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 1991.
Billingsley, P. [*Probability and measure*]{}. Third edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1995.
Bogenschütz, T. Entropy, pressure, and a variational principle for random dynamical systems, [*Random Comput. Dynam.*]{} [**1**]{} (1992/93), 99–116.
Bowen, R. Equilibrium states and the ergodic theory of Anosov diffeomorphisms, [*Lecture notes in Math.,*]{} No. [**470**]{}, Springer-Verlag, 1975.
Eckmann, J. P. and Ruelle, D. Ergodic theory of chaos and strange attractors. [*Rev. Modern Phys.*]{} [**57**]{} (1985), 617–656.
Falconer, K. J. The Hausdorff dimension of self-affine fractals. [*Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.*]{} [**103**]{} (1988), 339–350
Falconer, K. J. Dimensions and measures of quasi self-similar sets. [*Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**106**]{} (1989), 543–554.
Falconer, K. J. [*Fractal geometry, mathematical foundations and applications*]{}. Wiley, 1990.
Fan, A. H. Sur les dimensions de mesures. [*Studia Math.*]{} [**111**]{} (1994), 1–17.
Fan, A. H., Lau, K. S., and Rao, H. Relationships between different dimensions of a measure. [*Monatsh. Math.*]{} [**135**]{} (2002), 191–201.
Feng, D. J. The smoothness of $L^q$-spectrum of self-similar measures with overlaps. [*J. Lond. Math. Soc.* ]{} [**68**]{} (2003), 102–118.
Feng, D. J. The limited Rademacher functions and Bernoulli convolutions associated with Pisot numbers. [*Adv. Math.*]{} [**195**]{} (2005), 24–101.
Feng, D. J. Gibbs properties of self-conformal measures and the multifractal formalism. [*Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems*]{} [**27**]{} (2007), 787–812.
Feng, D. J. and Wang, Y. A class of self-affine sets and self-affine measures. [*J. Fourier Anal. Appl.*]{} [**11**]{} (2005), 107–124.
Gatzouras, D. and Lalley, S. P. Hausdorff and box dimensions of certain self-affine fractals. [*Indiana Univ. Math. J.*]{} [**41**]{} (1992), 533–568.
Gatzouras, D. and Peres, Y. Invariant measures of full dimension for some expanding maps. [*Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems*]{} [**17**]{} (1997), 147–167.
Gatzouras, D. and Peres, Y. The variational principle for Hausdorff dimension: a survey. [*Ergodic theory of $\Z\sp d$ actions*]{} (Warwick, 1993–1994), London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser. [**228**]{}, 113–125, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1996.
Geronimo, J. S. and Hardin, D. P. An exact formula for the measure dimensions associated with a class of piecewise linear maps. Fractal approximation. [*Constr. Approx.*]{} [**5**]{} (1989), 89–98.
Guivarc’h, Y. and Le Page, E. On spectral properties of a family of transfer operators and convergence to stable laws for affine random walks. [*Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems*]{} [**28**]{} (2008), 423–446.
Hu, H. Dimensions of invariant sets of expanding maps. [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**176**]{} (1996), 307–320.
Huang, W., Ye, X. D., and Zhang, G. H. A local variational principle for conditional entropy. [*Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems*]{} [**26**]{} (2006), 219–245.
Hueter I. and Lalley, S. P. Falconer’s formula for the Hausdorff dimension of a self-affine set in $\R\sp 2$. [*Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems*]{} [**15**]{} (1995), 77–97.
Hutchinson, J. E. Fractals and self-similarity. [*Indiana Univ. Math. J.*]{} [**30**]{} (1981), 713–747.
Jordan, T., Pollicott M., and Simon, K. Hausdorff dimension for randomly perturbed self affine attractors. [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**270**]{} (2007), 519–544.
Käenmäki, A. On natural invariant measures on generalised iterated function systems. [*Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math.*]{} [**29**]{} (2004), 419–458.
Käenmäki, A. and Shmerkin, P. Overlapping self-affine sets of Kakeya type. [*Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems*]{}. At press.
Keller, G. [*Equilibrium states in ergodic theory*]{}. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998.
Kenyon R. and Peres, Y. Measures of full dimension on affine-invariant sets. [*Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems*]{} [**16**]{} (1996), 307–323.
Kenyon R. and Peres, Y. Hausdorff dimensions of sofic affine-invariant sets. [*Israel J. Math.*]{} [**94**]{} (1996), 157–178.
Lalley, S. P. $\beta$-expansions with deleted digits for Pisot numbers $\beta$. [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**349**]{} (1997), 4355–4365.
Lalley, S. P. Random series in powers of algebraic integers: Hausdorff dimension of the limit distribution. [*J. London Math. Soc.*]{} [**57**]{} (1998), 629–654.
Lau, K. S. and Ngai, S. M. Multifractal measure and a weak separation condition. [*Adv. Math.*]{} [**141**]{} (1999), 45–96.
Ledrappier, F. “On the dimension of some graphs” in [*Symbolic dynamics and its applications*]{} (New Haven, CT, 1991), Contemp. Math. [**135**]{}, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1992, 285–293.
Ledrappier, F. and Porzio, A. A dimension formula for Bernoulli convolutions. [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**76**]{} (1994), 1307–1327.
Ledrappier, F. and Young, L.-S. The metric entropy of diffeomorphisms. I. Characterization of measures satisfying Pesin’s entropy formula. II. Relations between entropy, exponents and dimension. [*Ann. of Math.*]{} [**122**]{} (1985), 509–539; 540–574.
Luzia, N. A variational principle for the dimension for a class of non-conformal repellers. [*Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems*]{} [**26**]{} (2006), 821–845.
Mañé, R. [*Ergodic theory and differentiable dynamics*]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1987.
Mattila, P. [*Geometry of Sets and Measures in Euclidean Spaces*]{}, Cambridge University Press, 1995.
McMullen, C. The Hausdorff dimension of general Sierpiński carpets. [*Nagoya Math. J.*]{} [**96**]{} (1984), 1–9.
Ngai, S. M. and Wang, Y. Hausdorff dimension of self-similar sets with overlaps. [*J. London Math. Soc.* ]{} [**63**]{} (2001), 655–672.
Olivier, E. Variational principle for dimension and the uniqueness of the measure with full dimension on (mod $1$) Sierpiński carpets. Preprint. Patzschke, N. Self-conformal multifractal measures. [*Adv. in Appl. Math.*]{} [**19**]{} (1997), 486–513.
Parry, W. [*Topics in ergodic theory*]{}, Cambridge University Press, 1981.
Parry, W. [*Entropy and generators in ergodic theory*]{}. W. A. Benjamin, Inc., New York-Amsterdam, 1969.
Przytycki, F. and Urbański, M. On the Hausdorff dimension of some fractal sets. [*Studia Math.*]{} [**93**]{} (1989), 155–186.
Pesin, Ya. [*Dimension theory in dynamical systems: contemporary views and applications*]{}. The University of Chicago Press, 1997.
Peres, Y. and Solomyak, B. Existence of $L\sp q$ dimensions and entropy dimension for self-conformal measures. [*Indiana Univ. Math. J.*]{} [**49**]{} (2000), 1603–1621.
Qian, M. and Xie, J.-S. Entropy formula for endomorphisms: relations between entropy, exponents and dimension. [*Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst.*]{} [**21**]{} (2008), 367–392.
Rao, H. and Wen, Z. Y. A class of self-similar fractals with overlap structure. [*Adv. in Appl. Math.*]{} [**20**]{} (1998), 50–72.
Rohlin, V. A. On the fundamental ideas of measure theory. [*Mat. Sbornik N.S.*]{} 25 (67) (1949), 107–150. (see also [*Amer. Math. Soc. Translation 1952*]{}, (1952). no. 71.)
Rudin, W. [*Real and complex analysis*]{}. Third edition. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1987.
Salem, R. [*Algebraic numbers and Fourier analysis*]{}. D. C. Heath and Co., Boston, 1963.
Shmerkin, P. Overlapping self-affine sets. [*Indiana Univ. Math. J.*]{} [**55**]{} (2006), 1291–1331.
Schmeling, J. A dimension formula for endomorphisms—the Belykh family. [*Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems*]{} [**18**]{} (1998), 1283–1309.
Schmeling, J. and Troubetzkoy, S. Dimension and invertibility of hyperbolic endomorphisms with singularities. [*Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems*]{} [**18**]{} (1998), 1257–1282.
Solomyak, B. Measure and dimension for some fractal families. [*Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.*]{} [**124**]{} (1998), 531–546.
Stoll, R. R. [*Linear algebra and matrix theory*]{}. McGraw-Hill Company, Inc., New York–Toronto–London, 1952.
Walters, P. [*An introduction to ergodic theory*]{}. Springer-Verlag, 1982.
Yamamoto, T. On the extreme values of the roots of matrices. [*J. Math. Soc. Japan*]{} [**19**]{} (1967), 173–178.
Young, L.-S. Dimension, entropy and Lyapunov exponents. [*Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems*]{} [**2**]{} (1982), 109–124.
[^1]: 2000 [*Mathematics Subject Classification*]{}: Primary 28A78, Secondary 37C45, 37A45, 28A80, 11Z05
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
date:
---
=15.5cm =-1cm \#1[$^{[#1]}$]{} \#1[$\setbox0=\hbox{#1} \dp0=1.5pt \mathsurround=0pt
\underline{\box0}$]{} ø\
i
-6.5cm
2.5cm
[On the Intermittency and Chaos]{} 0.5cm
[in High Energy Collisions [^1]]{} 1.5cm
[Fu Jinghua Liu Lianshou Wu Yuanfang ]{} 0.5cm
[Institute of Particle Physics, Huazhong Normal University, Wuhan 430079 China]{} 0.5cm
[Tel: 027 87673313 FAX: 027 87662646 email: [email protected]]{}
2.5cm
[Abstract]{}
It is shown that an event sample from the Monte Carlo simulation of a random cascading $\alpha$ model with fixed dynamical fluctuation strength is intermittent but not chaotic, while the variance of dynamical fluctuation strength in different events will result in both the intermittency and the chaoticity behavior. This shows that fractality and chaoticity are two connected but different features of non-linear dynamics in high energy collisions.
0.18in
For classical system, the description of non-linear behavior is well established. It has been known by lattice calculation that the classical non-Abelian gauge theory generally exhibits deterministic chaos and that the Lyapunov exponent can be numerically determined [@classichaos]. But for quantum system, because of the ambiguity associated with quantum chaos in the realm of quantization, nonconservation of the number of degrees of freedom and lack of a meaningful definition of a trajectory, there is no corresponding description existed. The study of non-linear behavior in high energy physics has, therefore, to be started phenomenologically.
The first signal of such a behaviour came from the unexpectedly large local fluctuations in a single event of very high multiplicity recorded by the JACEE collaboration [@JACEE]. Such large fluctuations may not be simply due to statistical reason and was taken as a signal of the existence of non-linear dynamical fluctuations. It was soon realized that the idea can be applied to events of any multiplicity provided that a proper averaging of factorial moments is performed, as done in the pioneer work [@BP] of Białas and Peschanski. These authors have been able to show that, if the statistical fluctuations are of Bernouli (fixed multiplicity case) or Poisson (variable multiplicity case) type, the averaged factorial moments $F_q$ is equal to the averaged dynamical probability moments $C_q$. The anomalous scaling of the latter has taken the name of intermittency (or fractal). This led to extensive experimental studies [@Kittel], and the expected anomalous scaling has been observed successfully in the experiments [@NA2227].
It should be realized, however, that the averaging procedure, apart from its clear advantages, brings also a danger of losing some important information on the spatial patterns from event to event. In particular, some interesting effects, if present only in a part of events produced in high-energy collisions, may be missed. A possible example of this kind is the quark-gluon plasma which is expected to be characterized by specific intermittency exponents [@QGP]. It seems therefore important and urgent [@CaoHwa] to study the fluctuation of single-event moments $C_q^{(\rm e)}$ inside an event sample[^2]. This fluctuation is related to the chaotic behavior of the system [@CaoHwa]. A quantity $\mu_q$ called entropy index can be introduced [@CHPRD] as an adequate parameter in measuring the chaotic behavior. The positivity of entropy index $\mu_q >0$ is proved to be a criterion for chaos [@Sigma].
Thus, two kind of non-linear phenomena — fractality (intermittency) and chaoticity have been proposed in high energy collisions. In this short note we will study the relation beteen them using Monte Carlo simulation of a random cascading $\alpha$ model. We will show that the anomalous scaling of the averaged probability moments (fractality or intermittency) and that of the event-space moments of single-event ones (chaoticity) are two connected but different features of non-linear dynamics. The system will exhibite both the fractal and the chaos behaviour only when the dynamical fluctuation strength is not fixed but is distributed over a certain range.
Let us first recall briefly the study of fractality (intermittency) in high energy collisions. This study is performed through the observation of anomalous scaling of averaged factorial moments $F_q$, which is equal to the averaged probabilty moments $C_q$ F\_q(M) = C\_q(M) \_[i=1]{}\^M M\^[\_q]{}, where a phase space region $\Delta$ is divided into $M$ sub-cells, $p_i$ is the probability for a particle to fall in the $i$th sub-cell.
For a flat inclusive distribution the moment $C_q^{(\rm e)}$ for each event is defined as $$C_q^{(\rm e)}= M^{q-1} \sum_{i=1}^M {\f(p_i^{(\rm e)}\g)}^q .$$ We can now consider $C_q^{(\rm e)}$ not only through its average — intended to get a better estimate of the hypothetical anomalous scaling of single-bin moments, cf. eqn.(1) — but also as a pattern-descriptor for particle fluctuations inside bins (just one among the many that could be devised).
$C_q^{(\rm e)}$ may fluctuate greatly from event to event. In a sample consisting of a large number $N$ of events, we get a distribution of $C_q^{(\rm e)}$, denoted by $P\f(C_q^{(\rm e)}\g)$, which is normalized to unity. The conventionally defined factorial moments, cf eqn.(1), give only an estimate of the mean of $P\f(C_q^{(\rm e)}\g)$. By taking the normalized moments of $P\f(C_q^{(\rm e)}\g)$ in event-space defined as $$C_{p,q}=\la {C_q^{(e)}}^p\ra\f/\la C_q^{(e)}\ra^p\g. ,$$ we have a quantification of the fluctuation of the spatial patterns, i.e. we can investigate the full shape of the distribution and, especially, the way it changes with the resolution $\delta=\Delta/M$. The value of $p$ can be any positive real number. If $C_{p,q}(M)$ has a power law behaviour in $M$, i.e. $$C_{p,q}(M) \propto M^{\psi_q(p)},$$ then a new entropy index can be defined as, $$\mu_q=\f.\frac{d}{dp}\psi_q(p)\g|_{p=1}.$$
It is easy to see that finite, nonvanishing positive values of $\mu_q$ corresponds to wide $P\f(C_q^{(\rm e)}\g)$, which in turn means unpredictable spatial pattern from event to event. By applying the measure to known classical chaotic system, it has been shown [@Sigma] that $\mu_q$ can be used as a measure of chaos in problems where only the spatial patterns can be observed and the positivity of $\mu_q$ is a criterion for chaos.
An alternative way of calculating $\mu_q$ [@Sigma] is to express $C_{p,q}$ as $$C_{p,q}=\la {\Phi_q^{(e)}}^p\ra,$$ in which, $$\Phi_q^{(e)}=C_q^{(e)}\f/\la C_q^{(e)}\ra\g. .$$ With the definition $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e12}
\Sigma_q=\la \Phi_q^{(e)} \ln \Phi_q^{(e)} \ra,\end{aligned}$$ we can obtain $$\mu_q={\frac{\partial \Sigma_q}{\partial \ln M}}$$ in the scaling region, i.e. where $\Sigma_q$ exhibits a linear dependence on $\ln M$. We will use this formula in calculating the entropy indices $\mu_q$.
Let us turn now to the consideration of the relation between the fractality and chaoticity in high energy collisions. Since the random cascading $\alpha$-model [@BP][@KXTB] is often used to study the dynamical fluctuations in these collisions, we will use this simple model as a tool for our investigation.
In the random cascading $\alpha$-model, the $M$ divisions of a phase space region $\Delta$ are made in steps. At the first step, it is divided into two equal parts; at the second step, each part in the first step is further divided into two equal parts, and so on. The steps are repeated until $M= {\Delta Y / \delta y}=2^{\nu}.$ How particles are distributed from step-to-step between the two parts of a given phase space cell is defined by independent random variable $ \omega_{\nu j_{\nu}}$, where $j_{\nu}$ is the position of the window ($1\le j_{\nu}\le 2^{\nu}$) and $\nu$ is the number of steps. It is given by [@KXTB]: $$\omega_{\nu,2j-1}={1\over 2}(1+\alpha r) \ \ \ ; \ \ \
\omega_{\nu,2j}={1\over 2}(1-\alpha r), \qquad j=1,\dots,2^{\nu-1}$$ where, $r$ is a random number distributed uniformly in the interval $[-1,1]$. $\alpha$ is a positive number less than unity, which determines the region of the random variable $\omega$ and describes the strength of dynamical fluctuations in the model. After $\nu$ steps, the probability in the $m$th window ($m=1,\dots,M$) is $p_m=\omega_{1j_1}\omega_{2j_2}\dots
\omega_{\nu j_{\nu}}$. Then according to eqn(1), probabilty moment $C_q^{(e)}$ in each event of different division steps are calculated, and the moment $C_{p,q}$ and entropy index $\mu_q$ of the sample are obtained using eqn.(3) and eqn.(9).
Our research is done in the following two steps.
\(A) Fix the model parameter to a definit value, say $\alpha=0.34$, the experimental results being around this value. The results of $\ln C_q$, $\ln C_{p,q}$ and $\Sigma_q$ vs. $\ln M$ from 6000 MC simulation events are shown in Fig.1$(a),(b),(c)$ respectively.
In Fig.1($a$) we see a straight line in bi-logarithm plot, which is an indication of intermittency (or fractality). However, the behavior of $\ln C_{p,q}$ vs. $\ln M$ in the model, cf. Fig.1($b$), is much different from the expected result for chaos [@CaoHwa]. It does not show any scaling behavior or upward bending when $M$ goes larger as the chaotic behaviour requires [@CaoHwa]. The first going up of $C_{p,q}$ is due to an intrinsic uncertainty of the intermittency parameters [@BiaZiaja]. The cascade responsible for intermittent behaviour has different realizations in different events, and the intermittency exponents determined from different realizations of the same random cascade are scattered around the average, i.e. the method has a finite resolution with respect to the parameters of the random cascade. The $C_{p,q}$ saturates when $M$ goes large means that there isn’t any essential fluctuation of spatial pattern from event to event. Therefore, this kind of $\alpha$ model cannot reflect the feature of chaoticity. From the result showing in Fig.1($c$), using eqn.(9), we can get for this case $\mu_q \sim 0$. If we donot consider the finite resolution of model, there isn’t any chaotic behavior.
In order to reproduce both intermittency (fractal) and chaos we take the second step.
\(B) Instead of giving $\alpha$ a fixed value we let it be a random variable having a Gaussian distribution. The mean value and variance of the Gaussian are both chosen as 0.22. Calculating from 6306 events, the result of $\ln C_q$ vs. $\ln M$ are shown in Fig.2. It can be seen from the figure that there is very good power-law or scaling behavior, which means that though we have changed the method of setting model parameter, the anomalous scaling of the mean value of $C_q^{(e)}$ (intermittency phenomenon) survives. With the method developed in Ref. [@strength] we can get the effective fluctuation strength in this case as $\alpha_{\rm eff}=0.337$. This value of $\alpha_{\rm eff}$ is within the limited range available in actual experiments. However, the behavior of $\ln C_{p,q}$ vs. $\ln M$ in the present case is much different from the case (A) and shows a typical behaviour of chaoticity, cf. Fig.3.
From this result we see that a distribution of $\alpha$ will cause a distribution of single event probabilty moment $C_q^{(\rm e)}$, i.e. for an event sample we have a wide $P(C_q^{(\rm e)})$. For increasing $M$, along with the expected increase of the average, $P(C_q^{(\rm e)})$ will show a rapid broadening, i.e. a more violent fluctuation of $C_q^{(\rm e)}(M)$ for different events, which will result in a even more unpredictable spatial pattern from event to event.
Using eqn.(8) and eqn.(9), we can calculate entropy indices for this case. The result of $\Sigma_q$ vs. $\ln M$ are shown in Fig.4($a$). By performing a linear fit of $\Sigma_q$ vs. $\ln M$ in the range $M=8$ to $M=64$ (i.e. omitting the first three points), $\mu_q$ is obtained and plotted in Fig.4($b$).
By this two steps of MC simulation we can see that the procedure of doing simulation with random cascading $\alpha$ model of fixed strength parameter $\alpha$, as has been widely used before, captured only one aspect of the non-linear property (intermittency) but cannot reproduce the fluctuation of spatial patterns from event to event. It will cause the losing of information on the spatial patterns in different events and some intersting effects if they are present only in a part of events, may be lost. If we want to give a more complete description of the non-linear properties using $\alpha$ model, the model parameter cannot be fixed.
In conclusion, the nonvanishing positive values of $\mu_q$, which is an indication of chaos, correspond to wide $P(C_q^{(\rm e)})$, which in turn means unpredictable spatial pattern from event to event. Such an unpredictability of wide $P(C_q^{(\rm e)})$ is caused by different dynamical fluctuation strength in different events, i.e. by a distribution of dynamical fluctuation strength in an event sample. Events in one sample are all beginning with similar initial condition. During the collision process each event will evolve with a different strength of dynamical fluctuation and result in a fluctuation of spatial pattern in final state event space.
Dynamical fluctuation strength is directly related to the dynamical mechanism in a particular collision. We take the distribution of dynamical fluctuation strength, i.e. the distribution of model parameter $\alpha$, to be a Gaussian only because it is the most common distribution of random variables in nature. We have also tried a uniform distribution of $\alpha$ and non-zero positive entropy indices $\mu_q$ can be obtained too. (The result is not shown here). Revealing the distribution of dynamical fluctuation strength in different collisions will be a very constructive work and it will certainly help us a lot in studying the mechanism of strong interactions. How the different distributions of dynamical fluctuation strength together with it’s mean value and width will influence the entropy index of an event sample is also a problem worthwhile further investigation.
As has been stressed in the introduction, this study is restricted to the probability moments and the problem of eliminating statistical fluctuations in experimental data analysis has been postponed. To develope an effective method for eliminating the statistical fluctuations for single-event moments is a challenge for future investigation.
\#1\#2\#3\#4[[\#1]{} [**\#2**]{} (\#3) \#4]{}
[99]{}
See e.g. S. G. Matinyan, [*Sov. J. Part. Nucl.*]{} [**16**]{} (1985) 226 ; B. Müller and A. Trayanov, .
T. H. Burnett et al., .
A. Białas and R. Peschanski, ; ;
E.A. De Wolf, I.M. Dremin and W. Kittel, [*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**270**]{} (1996) 1.
N.M. Agababyan et al. (NA22), [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B382**]{} (1996) 305; [*ibid*]{} [**B431**]{} (1998) 451; S. Wang, Z. Wang and C. Wu, .
H. Leutwyler, [*Proc. XXVI Int. Conf. on High Energy Physics*]{}, Dallas, 1992, ed. J. R. Sanford (AIP Conf. Proc. No. 272, New Yprk, 1993).
Z. Cao and R. Hwa, .
Z. Cao and R. Hwa, .
Z. Cao and R. Hwa, .
Wu Yuanfang, Zhang Kunshi and Liu Lianshou, [ *Chinese Science Bulletin*]{} [**36**]{} (1991) 1077.
A. Białas and B. Ziajia, .
Liu Lianshou, Fu Jinghua and Wu Yuanfang, [*Scaling Exponents and Fluctuation Strength in High Energy Collisions*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B**]{} in press.
0.8cm
($a$) Averaged $C_2$, ($b$) $C_{p.2}$, ($c$) $\Sigma_2$ for fixed $\alpha$. Full lines are for guiding the eye. 0.5cm
Averaged $C_2$ for Gaussian-distributed $\alpha$. 0.5cm
The ln$C_{p,q}$ vs. ln$M$ for the random cascading model with
Gaussian-distributed $\alpha$. Full lines are for guiding the eye.
0.5cm $\Sigma_q$ and $\mu_q$ for Gaussian-distributed $\alpha$. Full lines are for guiding the eye.
(260,240) (-120,-400)
7.5cm
(260,240) (-120,-400)
8.0cm
(260,240) (-108,-250)
-2.0cm
(260,240) (-108,-350)
3.0cm
[^1]: This work is supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. (NSFC) under Grant No.19575021.
[^2]: It has been shown [@BP] that the statistical fluctuations can be eliminated by using the factorial moments averaged over event sample. However, the extension of this method to single-event moments is highly non-trivial. It is easy to show that the elimination of statistical fluctuations in single-event factorial moments $F_q^{(\rm e)}$ is incomplete. In order to avoid the complication caused by statistical fluctuations we will in this paper restrict ourself to the study of probability moments $C_q^{(\rm e)}$ directly.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We define and study in detail *utraslow scaled Brownian motion (USBM)* characterised by a time dependent diffusion coefficient of the form $D(t)\simeq
1/t$. For unconfined motion the mean squared displacement (MSD) of USBM exhibits an ultraslow, logarithmic growth as function of time, in contrast to the conventional scaled Brownian motion. In an harmonic potential the MSD of USBM does not saturate but asymptotically decays inverse-proportionally to time, reflecting the highly non-stationary character of the process. We show that the process is weakly non-ergodic in the sense that the time averaged MSD does not converge to the regular MSD even at long times, and for unconfined motion combines a linear lag time dependence with a logarithmic term. The weakly non-ergodic behaviour is quantified in terms of the ergodicity breaking parameter. The USBM process is also shown to be ageing: observables of the system depend on the time gap between initiation of the test particle and start of the measurement of its motion. Our analytical results are shown to agree excellently with extensive computer simulations.
address: |
$\dagger$Institute of Physics and Astronomy, University of Potsdam, 14476 Potsdam, Germany\
$\ddagger$Department of Physics, Moscow State University, 119899 Moscow, Russia\
$\flat$Akhiezer Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kharkov Institute of Physics and Technology, Kharkov 61108, Ukraine\
$\sharp$Department of Physics, Tampere University of Technology, 33101 Tampere, Finland
author:
- 'Anna S. Bodrova$^{\dagger,\ddagger}$, Andrey G. Cherstvy$^\dagger$, Aleksei V. Chechkin$^{\flat,\dagger}$, and Ralf Metzler$^{\dagger,\sharp}$'
title: Ultraslow scaled Brownian motion
---
Introduction
============
In the wake of the development of modern particle tracking techniques strong deviations of the time dependence of the mean squared displacement (MSD) from the linear law $\langle x^2(t)\rangle\simeq t$ derived by Einstein [@einst] and Smoluchowski [@smolu] have been observed in a variety of complex fluidic environments [@hoefling; @pt; @igor_sm; @pccp; @meroz]. Typically, anomalous diffusion of the power-law form $$\label{msd_powerlaw}
\left< x^2(t)\right>\simeq t^\alpha$$ is observed, where, depending on the value of the anomalous diffusion exponent $\alpha$, we distinguish subdiffision with $0<\alpha<1$ and superdiffusion with $\alpha>1$ [@bouchaud; @report]. Accordingly, subdiffusion was observed in the cytoplasm of living cells [@golding; @tabei], in artificially crowded liquids [@lene1; @weiss1], and in structured or functionalised environments [@wong]. Also superdiffusive motion was found in living cells [@christine; @elbaum].
Recently, interest in ultraslow diffusion processes with the logarithmic form $$\label{msd}
\left< x^2(t)\right>\simeq\log^{\gamma}(t)$$ of the MSD with different values for the exponent $\gamma$ has been revived [@pccp]. Ultraslow diffusion may be generated by periodically iterated maps [@maps] and observed for random walks on bundled structures [@bundled]. A prototype model for ultraslow diffusion is provided by Sinai diffusion in quenched landscapes with random force field, for which $\gamma=4$ [@sinai; @dou1; @gleb; @aljaz]. In the context of Sinai diffusion ultraslow continuous time random walks with super heavy-tailed waiting times with $\gamma>0$ [@aljaz; @havlin; @chechkinepl; @denisov1] were discussed. Ultraslow scaling of the MSD of the form (\[msd\]) were obtained in aperiodic environments (variable $\gamma$) [@aperiodic1] and vacancy induced motion ($\gamma=1$) [@oshanin]. Moreover, it occurs in heterogeneous diffusion processes with exponentially varying diffusivity ($\gamma=2$) [@HDP-PCCP], or interacting many-body systems in low dimensional disordered environments with $\gamma=1/2$ [@sanders], the dynamics of the latter being governed by an ultraslow, ageing counting processes [@lomholt].
The logarithmic time dependence (\[msd\]) with $\gamma=1$ of the MSD is also observed for the self diffusion of particles in free cooling granular gases with constant, sub-unity restitution coefficient in the homogeneous cooling state [@brilbook]. Granular gases are rarefied granular systems, in which particles move along ballistic trajectories between instantaneous collisions [@brilbook]. They are common in Space, for instance, in protoplanetary discs, interstellar clouds and planetary rings [@schmidtbook]. At terrestrial conditions granular gases may be obtained by placing granular matter into containers with vibrating [@wildman] or rotating [@rotdriv] walls. If no net external forces (gravitation, etc.) are acting on the granular system, the motion of granular particles gradually slows down due to dissipative collisions between them [@brilbook]. This microgravity condition can be achieved, inter alia, with parabolic airplane flights or satellites [@microgravity; @flights; @hayakawa] or by the use of diamagnetic levitation [@magnetic]. We note that in very dense two-dimensional lattice gas systems, ultraslow diffusion emerges, as well [@gleb_ultra].
![Time dependence of the ensemble averaged MSD $\left< x^2(t)\right>$ obtained from event driven molecular dynamics simulations of three-dimensional force-free granular gases [@annagg]. At short times the particles follow ballistic trajectories, while for longer times the ensemble averaged MSD has a logarithmic time dependence. The inset focuses on the logarithmic long time behaviour.[]{data-label="Ggran"}](fig1.pdf){width="12cm"}
Figure \[Ggran\] shows the crossover from the ballistic to the ultraslow form (\[msd\]) of the MSD of a granular gas with constant restitution coefficient $\varepsilon=0.8$ in the homogeneous cooling state. Haff’s law demonstrates that the kinetic temperature of such a free granular gas with constant restitution coefficient decays inverse-proportionally with time, $T(t)\simeq1/t$ [@haff]. For the effective self diffusion of the gas particles—mediated by particle-particle collisions—this property translates into the time dependent diffusion coefficient $D(t)\simeq1/t$ [@D1; @D2; @annagg]. We note that a diffusivity of the form $D(t)=D_0+D_1/t$ with a component decaying inverse-proportionally with time was used in the modelling of the motion of molecules in porous environments [@Sen] as well as of water diffusion in brain tissue measured by magnetic resonance imaging [@novikov].
Here we study in detail the process of ultraslow scaled Brownian motion (USBM) with time dependent diffusion coefficient $D(t)\simeq1/t$. Starting from the Langevin equation for USBM and a summary of the simulations procedure we present analytical and numerical results for the MSD and the time averaged MSD for the cases of unconfined (Section \[free\]) and confined (Section \[confined\]) motion. We analyse in detail the disparity between the ensemble and time averaged MSD and quantify the statistical scatter of the amplitude of the time averaged MSD of individual realisations of the USBM process. Moreover we study the ageing properties of USBM, that is, the explicit dependence of the physical observables on the time difference between the initiation of the system and the start of the observation. In Section \[concl\] we present our Conclusions. In the Appendix we present details of the calculation of higher order moments and the ergodicity breaking parameter.
Unconfined ultraslow scaled Brownian motion {#free}
===========================================
Overdamped Langevin equation for ultraslow scaled Brownian motion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
![Schematic of the motion of a Brownian particle in a bath with decreasing temperature $T(t)\simeq t^{2\alpha-2}$ for $0\le\alpha<1$. The diffusion coefficient of the Brownian particle decays with time as $D(t)\simeq t^{\alpha-1}$. USBM corresponds to the case $\alpha=0$, while standard SBM is strictly limited to $0<\alpha<2$ [@sbm].[]{data-label="fig-scheme"}](fig2.pdf){width="12cm"}
Anomalous diffusion processes with power-law form (\[msd\_powerlaw\]) of the MSD are often modelled in terms of scaled Brownian motion (SBM) characterised by an explicitly time dependent diffusivity of the power-law form $D(t)\simeq t^{\alpha
-1}$ with $0<\alpha<2$, see, for instance, references [@weiss; @verkman; @wu; @szymaski; @mitra; @lutsko] as well as the study by Saxton [@saxton] and further references therein. In SBM this form of $D(t)$ is combined with the regular Langevin equation [@langevin] $$\label{langevin}
\frac{dx(t)}{dt}=\sqrt{2D(t)}\times\zeta(t),$$ in which $\zeta(t)$ represents white Gaussian noise with the normalised covariance $$\left\langle \zeta(t_1)\zeta(t_2)\right\rangle=\delta(t_1-t_2)$$ and zero mean $\langle\zeta(t)\rangle=0$. While for a system connected to a thermal reservoir a description in terms of a time dependent temperature underlying SBM is unphysical [@sbm], time dependent diffusion coefficients appear naturally in systems that are open or dissipate energy into other degrees of freedom such as the granular gases discussed above, see the schematic in figure \[fig-scheme\]. In fact, granular gases with a viscoelastic, relative particle speed-dependent restitution coefficient correspond to SBM with $\alpha=1/6$ [@brilbook; @annagg]. Diffusion in media with explicitly time dependent temperature can, for instance, also be observed in snow melt dynamics [@molini; @snow].
A diffusion equation with a time dependent diffusivity proportional to $t^2$ was originally introduced by Batchelor [@batchelor] to describe the anomalous Richardson relative diffusion [@richardson] in turbulent atmospheric systems. SBM with diffusivity $D(t)\simeq t^{\alpha-1}$ was studied extensively during the last few years [@LimSBM; @fulinski; @SokolovSBM; @sbm; @hadiseh]. In particular, the weakly non-ergodic disparity between ensemble and time averages in SBM as well as its ageing behaviour were analysed [@fulinski; @SokolovSBM; @sbm; @hadiseh], see also below. Processes with both time and position dependent diffusion coefficients were also reported [@andrey2015]. SBM is a Markovian process with stationary increments $\zeta(t)$, however, it is rendered non-stationary by the time dependence of the coefficient $D(t)$. SBM is therefore fundamentally different [@pccp; @sbm] from seemingly similar processes such as fractional Brownian motion or fractional Langevin equation motion [@fbm].
Following the motivation from our studies of granular gases with constant restitution coefficient [@annagg] we here consider USBM with the time dependent diffusion coefficient $$\label{eq-dc-marginal-sbm}
D(t)=\frac{D_0}{1+t/\tau_0}.$$ The time scale $\tau_0$ defines the characteristic time beyond which the long time scaling $D(t)\sim D_0\tau_0/t$ sets in. We here introduce $\tau_0$ to avoid a divergence of $D(t)$ at $t=0$. The case (\[eq-dc-marginal-sbm\]) is explicitly excluded in the allowed range for the scaling exponent $\alpha$ in SBM and, as we will see, constitutes a new class of stochastic processes. In the following we solve the overdamped Langevin equation (\[langevin\]) with the time dependent diffusion coefficient (\[eq-dc-marginal-sbm\]) analytically and perform extensive computer simulations of the corresponding finite-difference analogue of the Langevin equation. In this procedure, at each time step the increment of the particle position takes on the value $$x_{i+1}-x_i=\sqrt{2D(i)}(W_{i+1}-W_i),\,\,\, i=0,1,2,\ldots,$$ where $W_{i+1}-W_i$ is the increment of the standard Wiener process and $D(i)$ is the value of the time dependent diffusivity (\[eq-dc-marginal-sbm\]) at the time instant $i$. We simulated $N=10^3$ independent particles (runs) with the parameters $\tau_0=1$ and $D_0=1/2$ in all graphs presented below.
Ensemble and time averaged mean squared displacements {#sec-tamsd}
-----------------------------------------------------
From direct integration of the Langevin equation (\[langevin\]) with the time dependent diffusivity (\[eq-dc-marginal-sbm\]) we find the ultraslow, logarithmic growth $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\left\langle x^2(t) \right\rangle&=&\int_0^t\int_0^t\sqrt{D(t')D(t'')}\langle\zeta(t')
\zeta(t'')\rangle dt''dt'\\
&=&2D_0\tau_0\log\left(1+\frac{t}{\tau_0}\right)
\label{x2SBM}\end{aligned}$$ of the ensemble averaged MSD. USBM therefore reproduces the asymptotic behaviour of the MSD for granular gases in the homogeneous cooling state and with constant restitution coefficient [@annagg], as shown in figure \[Ggran\].
In addition to the ensemble averaged MSD $\langle x^2(t)\rangle$ of the particle motion, it is often useful to compute the time averaged MSD $$\overline{\delta^2(\Delta)}=\frac{1}{t-\Delta}\int_0^{t-\Delta}\Big[x(t'+\Delta)
-x(t')\Big]^2dt'.
\label{delta2}$$ Here, the lag time $\Delta$ defines the width of the averaging window slid over the time series $x(t)$ of the particle position of overall length $t$ (the measurement time). Time averages of the form (\[delta2\]) are often used in experiments and large scale simulations studies based on single particle tracking approaches, in which typically few but long trajectories are available [@golding; @tabei; @weigel]. The careful analysis of the time averaged MSD (\[delta2\]) provides additional important information on the studied process as compared to the ensemble averaged MSD $\langle x^2(t)\rangle$, see, for instance, the analyses in references [@tabei; @weigel]. Often one takes the additional average over $N$ individual particle traces $\overline{\delta^2_i(\Delta)}$, $$\label{deltamean}
\left<\overline{\delta^2(\Delta)}\right>=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\overline{
\delta^2_i(\Delta)}.$$ For ergodic processes[^1] such as Brownian motion, fractional Brownian motion, and fractional Langevin equation motion the time averaged MSD converges to the ensemble averaged MSD in the limit of sufficiently long times, $\lim_{t\to\infty}\overline{
\delta^2(\Delta)}=\langle x^2(\Delta)\rangle$ [@pccp]. This property is due to the stationarity of the increments of these processes [@yaglom]. The ergodic behaviour $\lim_{t\to\infty}\overline{\delta^2(\Delta)}=\langle x^2(
\Delta)\rangle$ of these processes holds for unconfined motion when the system is in fact out-of-equilibrium, an advantage of the particular definition (\[delta2\]). Moreover, ergodic systems fulfil the equivalence $$\left<\overline{\delta^2(\Delta)}\right>=\left<x^2(\Delta)\right>$$ even at finite $t$ [@pccp]. Systems in which we observe the disparity $\left<
\overline{\delta^2(\Delta)}\right>\neq\left<x^2(\Delta)\right>$ and therefore also $\lim_{t\to\infty}\overline{\delta^2(\Delta)}\neq\left<x^2(\Delta)\right>$ are called weakly non-ergodic [@pt; @igor_sm; @pccp; @meroz; @glass; @pccp11].[^2]
To calculate the time averaged MSD (\[deltamean\]) for USBM we do not need to consider the mixed position autocorrelations in the definition of the time averaged MSD, as the expression in the angular brackets simplify as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\left<\overline{\delta^2(\Delta)}\right>&=&\frac{1}{t-\Delta}\int_0^{t-\Delta}
\left<\Big[x(t'+\Delta)-x(t')\Big]^2\right>dt'\\
&=&\frac{1}{t-\Delta}\int_0^{t-\Delta}\Big[\langle x^2(t'+\Delta)\rangle-\langle
x^2(t')\rangle\Big]dt'.\end{aligned}$$ This is due to the property[^3] $$\label{xxx}
\langle x(t)x(t+\Delta)\rangle=\langle x^2(t)\rangle.$$ for stochastic processes whose increments are independent random variables. We thus find the exact form for the time averaged MSD of USBM, $$\left<\overline{\delta^2(\Delta)}\right>=\frac{2D_0\tau_0}{t-\Delta}\Big[\ell(t)
-\ell(\Delta)-\ell(t-\Delta)\Big],
\label{delta_full}$$ where we introduced the auxiliary function $$\label{lt}
\ell(t)=(t+\tau_0)\log\left(1+\frac{t}{\tau_0}\right).$$ The time averaged MSD (\[delta\_full\]) thus crosses over from the limiting behaviour $$\label{d0}
\left<\overline{\delta^2(\Delta)}\right>\sim2D_0\tau_0\frac{\Delta}{t}\log\left(
\frac{t}{\Delta}\right)$$ at short lag times $\tau_0\ll\Delta\ll t$ combining a linear with a logarithmic $\Delta$ dependence, to the purely logarithmic law $$\label{d1}
\left<\overline{\delta^2(\Delta)}\right>\sim2D_0\tau_0\log\left(\frac{t+\tau_0}{t
-\Delta+\tau_0}\right)$$ at $\tau_0\ll\Delta\approx t$. We see that as the lag time $\Delta$ approaches the measurement time $t$, the time average MSD approaches the MSD (\[x2SBM\]), $\left<
\overline{\delta^2(t)}\right>\to\left<x^2(t)\right>$. The results of our simulations of the USBM process for both ensemble and time averaged MSDs agree very well with the above analytical results, as demonstrated in figure \[Gdeltadamped\]. In that plot the thin grey curves depict the simulations results for the time averaged MSD for individual trajectories. The amplitude spread between different trajectories is fairly small for $\Delta\ll t$ and increases when the lag time $\Delta$ approaches the trace length $t$ due to worsening statistics.
![Ensemble and time averaged MSDs for USBM with the time dependent diffusion coefficient (\[eq-dc-marginal-sbm\]). The analytical result (\[x2SBM\]) for the MSD $\left\langle x^2(t)\right\rangle$ shown by the black line compares nicely with our simulations (diamonds). Similarly, the simulations results for different measurement times (squares and circles) agree very well with the analytical result (\[delta\_full\]) for the time averaged MSD $\left<\overline{\delta^2(\Delta)}
\right>$ shown by the blue lines for two different measurement times. The asymptotic laws (\[d0\]) and (\[d1\]) are indicated by the dashed black lines. The thin grey curves represent the results of the simulations for individual time traces.[]{data-label="Gdeltadamped"}](fig3.pdf){width="12cm"}
Stochasticity of the time averaged mean squared displacement and ergodicity breaking parameter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even ergodic processes such as Brownian motion exhibit a certain degree of stochasticity of time averaged observables for shorter measurement times. The amplitude fluctuations at a given lag time $\Delta$ of the time averaged MSD as compared to the trajectory average (\[deltamean\]) is quantified in terms of the ergodicity breaking parameter [@pccp; @BarkaiEB; @he; @rytovEB] $$\label{EB0}
\mathrm{EB}(\Delta)=\lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{\left<\left(\overline{\delta^2(\Delta)}
\right)^2\right>-\left<\overline{\delta^2(\Delta)}\right>^2}{\left<\overline{\delta
^2(\Delta)}\right>^2}=\lim_{t\to\infty}\left<\xi^2\right>-1,$$ where in the second equality we introduced the relative deviation [@he] $$\xi=\frac{\overline{\delta^2(\Delta)}}{\left<\overline{\delta^2(\Delta)}\right>}.$$ The necessary condition for ergodicity of a stochastic process is that the ergodicity breaking parameter vanishes in the limit of infinitely long trajectories. Brownian motion provides the basal level for the approach to ergodicity according to [@BarkaiEB] $$\mathrm{EB}_{\mathrm{BM}}=\frac{4\Delta}{3t}.
\label{EBM}$$ Fractional Brownian motion and fractional Langevin equation motion are ergodic [@fbm; @BarkaiEB]. Weakly non-ergodic processes, which are characterised by the disparity $\left<\overline{\delta^2(\Delta)}\right>\neq\langle x^2(\Delta)\rangle$ [@pt; @igor_sm; @pccp; @meroz; @pccp11; @he] include continuous time random walks with scale-free distributions of waiting times [@pt; @igor_sm; @pccp; @pccp11; @he] and heterogeneous diffusion processes [@hdp; @HDP-AGED]. In the limit of long traces, the value of their ergodicity breaking parameter remains finite, which is indicative of the intrinsic randomness of time averages of these processes. In contrast, the ergodicity breaking parameter for SBM vanishes in the limit of long trajectories [@SokolovSBM]. The ergodicity breaking parameter for USBM is derived in the Appendix. The final expression in the relevant limit $\tau_0\ll
\Delta\ll t$ reads $$\label{eq-eb-log}
\mathrm{EB}(\Delta)\sim\frac{4C}{\log^2\left(t/\Delta\right)},$$ where the constant $C=\pi^2/6-1\simeq 0.645$. Thus, the time averaged MSD for USBM becomes increasingly reproducible as the length of the time traces is extended, albeit the approach to zero is logarithmically slow. We demonstrate the functional form of the ergodicity breaking parameter as function of the lag time $\Delta$ for two different measurement times and the approach of $\mathrm{EB}$ to its asymptotic behaviour (\[eq-eb-log\]) in figure \[GEB\].
![Ergodicity breaking parameter $\mathrm{EB}(\Delta)=\left\langle\xi^2(
\Delta)\right\rangle-1$ versus $\log^2\left(t/\Delta\right)$ for varying $\Delta$, as obtained from computer simulations. The dashed line shows the asymptotic (\[eq-eb-log\]). Note the logarithm-squared horizontal axis.[]{data-label="GEB"}](fig4.pdf){width="12cm"}
![Distribution $\phi(\xi)$ of the amplitude scatter of the time averaged MSD. The dashed lines show the fit of the simulations data with the function $\phi
(\xi)\propto\exp(-a/\xi)\exp\left(-b\xi\right)$.[]{data-label="GPHI"}](fig5.pdf){width="12cm"}
The ergodicity breaking parameter quantifies the statistical spread of the time averaged MSD. An important indicator for different types of stochastic processes is also the complete distribution $\phi(\xi)$ [@pccp; @pccp11; @he; @jpa]. As shown in figure \[GPHI\] this distribution has an asymmetric bell-shaped curve approximately centred around the ergodic value $\xi=1$. The tail at larger $\xi$ values appears somewhat longer compared to the tail at shorter $\xi$.[^4] For longer lag times at fixed overall length $t$ of the time series the width of the distribution $\phi(\xi)$ grows. This is consistent with the fact that at larger value of $\Delta/t$ the time averages become more random. In figure \[GPHI\] we also show a fit to the function $$\phi(\xi)\propto\exp(-a/\xi)\exp(-b\xi),$$ which appears to capture the functional behaviour reasonably well. We note that the shape of $\phi(\xi)$ appears narrower compared to the one of heterogeneous diffusion processes with power-law space dependence of the diffusivity [@hdp] which was fitted by a three-parameter Gamma distribution [@hdp; @denis]. In comparison, the distribution $\phi(\xi)$ for standard SBM is quite narrow, although it widens as the exponent $\alpha$ approaches zero and particularly as the lag time $\Delta$ grows [@sbm].
Ageing ultraslow scaled Brownian motion
---------------------------------------
For processes with stationary increments such as Brownian motion or fractional Brownian motion, if we initiate the system at $t=0$ but start recording it only at some later time $t_a$, the physical observables will not explicitly depend on the ageing time $t_a$.[^5] However, for several anomalous processes pronounced ageing effects are found. These include continuous time random walk processes with scale free distributions of waiting times [@schulz; @burov], correlated continuous time random walks [@tejedor], non-linear maps generating subdiffusion [@barkai2003], systems with annealed and quenched disorder [@kruesemann], heterogeneous diffusion processes [@HDP-AGED], or standard SBM [@hadiseh].
In contrast to subdiffusive continuous time random walk processes, in which ageing emerges due to the divergence of a characteristic waiting time [@schulz], in ultraslow SBM the non-stationarity of the system stems from the explicit time dependence of the diffusion coefficient. When the recording of the particle position starts at a finite time $t_a$, this ageing time explicitly appears in the particle’s MSD. For the aged MSD [@schulz; @pccp] in analogy to equation (\[x2SBM\]) we find that $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\left< x^2_a(t,t_a)\right>&=&2\int_{t_a}^{t_a+t}\int_{t_a}^{t_a+t}\left<\sqrt{D(t')}
\zeta(t')\sqrt{D(t'')}\zeta(t'')\right>dt'dt''\\
&=&2D_0\tau_0\log\left(1+\frac{t}{t_a+\tau_0}\right).
\label{x2SBMage}\end{aligned}$$ In the limit of strong ageing, $ t_a\gg t$, this expression yields the linear scaling $$\left\langle x^2_a(t,t_a) \right\rangle \approx 2D_0\tau_0\frac{t}{t_a}.
\label{xata}$$ of the MSD with time $t$, the ageing time $t_a$ rescaling the effective particle diffusivity. The transition between this ageing-dominated linear scaling for the MSD and the anomalous logarithmic time dependence in the weak ageing limit $t\gg
t_a$ is clearly seen in figure \[Gage\].
![Ensemble and time averaged MSDs $\langle x^2_a(t,t_a)\rangle$ and $\left<
\overline{\delta_a^2(\Delta)}\right>$ for ageing USBM. The measurement time is $t=9
\times10^4$ and the ageing time was chosen as $t_a=10^4$. Symbols: simulations results. Lines: theoretical results of equations (\[x2SBMage\]) and (\[delta\_age\]).[]{data-label="Gage"}](fig6.pdf){width="12cm"}
For the aged time averaged MSD [@pccp; @schulz] we obtain the result $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\left<\overline{\delta_a^2(\Delta,t_{a})}\right>&=&\frac{1}{t-\Delta}\int_{t_a}^{
t-\Delta+t_a}\left<\Big[x(t'+\Delta)-x(t')\Big]^2\right>dt'\\
&=&\frac{2D_0\tau_0}{t-\Delta}\Big[\ell(t_a+t)-\ell(t_a+\Delta)-\ell(t_a+t-\Delta)
+\ell(t_a)\Big],
\label{delta_age}\end{aligned}$$ where the auxiliary function $\ell(t)$ was defined in equation (\[lt\]). In the limit $\tau_0\ll\Delta\ll t$ and $\Delta\ll t_a$ the aged time averaged MSD factories into a term containing all the information on the ageing and measurement times $t_a$ and $t$, and another capturing the physically relevant dependence on the lag time $\Delta$ and the measurement time $t$, $$\left<\overline{\delta_a^2(\Delta,t_a)}\right>\sim2D_0\tau_0\frac{\Delta}{t}\log
\left(1+\frac{t}{t_a}\right).
\label{da}$$ This factorisation is analogous to that of heterogeneous diffusion processes [@HDP-AGED], scale-free subdiffusive continuous time random walks [@schulz], and standard SBM [@hadiseh]. However, in contrast to these processes the aged time averaged MSD for short lag times does not factorise into the product of the non-aged time averaged MSD (\[d1\]) and a factor containing the ageing time.
![Time averaged MSD $\left<\overline{\delta_a^2}\right>$ versus ageing time $t_a$. The analytical results (\[da\]) and (\[das\]) are shown by the dashed lines, while the symbols correspond to the results of simulations. Parameters: measurement time $t=10^3$ and lag time $\Delta=10$.[]{data-label="Gandrey"}](fig7.pdf){width="12cm"}
For strong ageing $t_a\gg t$ we obtain the linear scaling $$\left<\overline{\delta_a^2(\Delta,t_a)}\right>\sim2D_0\tau_0\frac{\Delta}{t_a}.
\label{das}$$ In this limit, that is, the system becomes apparently ergodic and we observe the equality $\left<\overline{\delta_a^2(\Delta,t_a)}\right>=\langle x^2_a(\Delta,t_a)
\rangle$, as can be seen from comparison with equations (\[xata\]) and (\[das\]). Figure \[Gandrey\] shows the convergence of the time averaged MSD to the limiting behaviour (\[das\]). Such a behaviour was previously observed for aged subdiffusive SBM [@hadiseh], heterogeneous diffusion processes [@HDP-AGED], and continuous time random walk processes [@schulz]. In the case of USBM this phenomena has a clear physical explanation: at the beginning of the experiment the diffusion coefficient $D(t)$ significantly decreases during the measurement time $t\gg\tau_0$ from $D(0)=D_0$ to $D(t)\sim D_0\tau_0/t$, and the system is strongly non-stationary. In contrast, after a long ageing period $t_a\gg t$ the diffusion coefficient remains practically unchanged during the measurement time, $D(t_a+t)\simeq D(t_a)=D_0\tau_0/t_a$.
Figure \[Gandrey\] explicitly shows how the amplitude of the time averaged MSD is reduced due to ageing in the system. How do the fluctuations of individual time averaged MSD traces change in the presence of ageing? The derivation of the ergodicity breaking parameter for the aged process is provided in the Appendix. The final result in the limit $\Delta\ll
t$ and $\Delta\ll t_a$ assumes the form $$\mathrm{EB}_a=\frac{4\Delta t/t_a}{3t_a(1+t/t_a)\log^2(1+t/t_a)}.
\label{EBa}$$ In the strong ageing limit $t_a\gg t$ the ergodicity breaking parameter $\mathrm{EB}
_a$ is independent of the ageing time $t_a$, and it asymptotically converges to the result (\[EBM\]) of Brownian diffusion. Our theoretical results agree well with the simulations, as witnessed by figure \[GEBa\]. For weak ageing $t_a\ll
\Delta,t$ the result (\[delta\_full\]) of the non-aged USBM process is recovered.
![Ergodicity breaking parameter $\mathrm{EB}_a$ normalised by the Brownian value ${\mathrm{EB}_{\rm BM}}$ (\[EBM\]) as function of ageing time $t_a$. The dashed lines correspond to the analytical result (\[EBa\]), while the symbols are the results of simulations. Parameters are the same as in figure \[Gandrey\]. For strong ageing, $t_a\gg t$, $\mathrm{EB}_a$ does not depend on $t_a$ and approaches ${\mathrm{EB}_{\rm BM}}$ (\[EBM\]).[]{data-label="GEBa"}](fig8.pdf){width="12cm"}
Confined ultraslow scaled Brownian motion {#confined}
=========================================
The motion of particles in external confinement is an important physical concept for applications of stochastic processes, and it is also relevant from an experimental point of view. Namely, the motion of particles in cells may repeatedly hit the cell wall, or the tracer particles may experience a restoring force in particle tracing experiments by help of optical tweezers. Here we consider the generic case of confinement in an harmonic potential. USBM in the presence of such a linear restoring force is governed by the overdamped Langevin equation with additional Hookean force term $-kx$, $$\frac{dx}{dt}=\sqrt{2D(t)}\times\zeta(t)-kx.
\label{DampedLangevinConf}$$
Ensemble and time averaged mean squared displacements {#ensemble-and-time-averaged-mean-squared-displacements}
-----------------------------------------------------
The ensemble averaged MSD follows directly from this stochastic equation, and we obtain $$\left\langle x^2(t) \right\rangle = 2D_0\tau_0\mathscr{E}(t+\tau_0).
\label{x2conf}$$ Here we defined the auxiliary function $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\mathscr{E}(x)&=&e^{-2kx}\int_{2k\tau_0}^{2kx}\frac{\exp(-y)}{y}dy\\
&=&e^{-2k\left(x+\tau_0\right)}\Big[\mathrm{Ei}(2kx)-\mathrm{Ei}(2k\tau_0)\Big]
\label{mathcal}\end{aligned}$$ where in the second line we used the definition of the exponential integral $$\mathrm{Ei}(z)=-\int_{-z}^{\infty}\frac{\exp(-y)}{y}dy.$$ The asymptotic behaviour of the MSD for long times $t\gg 1/k$ has the time dependence $$\langle x^2(t)\rangle=\frac{D_0\tau_0}{kt}.
\label{x2confas}$$ Reflecting the temporal decay of the temperature encoded in the time dependent diffusion coefficient (\[eq-dc-marginal-sbm\]) we observe the $1/t$ scaling of the MSD in confinement. This underlines the highly non-stationary and athermal character of this process [@fulinski; @sbm; @hadiseh].
The time averaged MSD for confined USBM is obtained from the relation $$\label{dddconf}
\left<\overline{\delta^2(\Delta)}\right>=\frac{1}{t-\Delta}\int_0^{t-\Delta}\Big[
\langle x^2(t'+\Delta)\rangle-2\langle x(t')x(t'+\Delta)\rangle+\langle x^2(t')
\rangle\Big].$$ The covariance of the position for ultraslow SBM in confinement can no longer be simplified according to equation (\[xxx\]) but has the time dependence $$\label{xcor}
\langle x(t_1)x(t_2)\rangle=2D_0\tau_0e^{-k\left(t_2-t_1\right)}\mathscr{E}(\tau_0
+t_1).$$ Introducing relations (\[x2conf\]) and (\[xcor\]) into equation (\[dddconf\]) we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\left<\overline{\delta^2(\Delta)}\right>&=&\frac{D_0\tau_0}{(t-\Delta)k}\Bigg\{
\log\left(\frac{t+\tau_0}{\Delta+\tau_0}\right)-\mathscr{E}(t+\tau_0)+\\
\nonumber
&&+\left(1-2e^{-k\Delta}\right)\left[\log\left(1+\frac{t-\Delta}{\tau_0}\right)
-\mathscr{E}(t-\Delta+\tau_0)\right]\\
&&+\mathscr{E}(\Delta+\tau_0)\Bigg\}.
\label{dconf}\end{aligned}$$ For long times and strong external confinement, $\left\{t,t_a,\Delta\right\}\gg
\left\{1/k,\tau_0\right\}$ this expression simplifies to $$\left<\overline{\delta^2(\Delta)}\right>=\frac{D_0\tau_0}{kt}\left[2\left(1+\frac{
\Delta}{t}\right)\log\left(\frac{t}{\tau_0}\right)-\log\left(\frac{\Delta}{\tau_0}
\right)\right].
\label{dconfas}$$ The time averaged MSD has a pronounced plateau for $\Delta\ll t,t_a$, $$\left<\overline{\delta^2(\Delta)}\right>=\frac{2D_0\tau_0}{kt}\log\left(\frac{t}{
\tau_0}\right),
\label{dconfmean}$$ that is, in this regime the time averaged MSD is independent of the lag time, compare the discussion in references [@sbm; @hadiseh]. Simulations based on the Langevin equation with the Hookean forcing are in excellent agreement with these analytical results, as shown in figure \[Gconf\].
![Ensemble and time averaged MSDs $\langle x^2(t)\rangle$ and $\left<
\overline{\delta^2(\Delta)}\right>$ for confined USBM. The black line represents the analytical result (\[x2conf\]), while the blue line denotes equation (\[dconf\]). The red line shows the asymptotic behaviour (\[dconfas\]), and the horizontal dashed line the leading term (\[dconfmean\]). The symbols correspond to the simulations of equation (\[DampedLangevinConf\]).[]{data-label="Gconf"}](fig9.pdf){width="12cm"}
Ageing ultraslow scaled Brownian motion in confinement
------------------------------------------------------
### Ensemble averaged mean squared displacement.
For confined ageing USBM, in which we measure the MSD starting from the ageing time $t_a$ until time $t$, the result for the MSD becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\left< x_a^2(t,t_a)\right>&=&\left<\left[x(t_a+t)-x(t_a)\right]^2\right>\\
\nonumber
&=&\left< x^2(t_a+t)\right>+\left< x^2(t_a)\right>-2\left< x(t_a+t)x(t_a)\right>\\
&=&2D_0\tau_0\Big[\mathscr{E}(t_a+\tau_0)+\mathscr{E}(t_a+t+\tau_0)-2e^{-kt}
\mathscr{E}(t_a+\tau_0)\Big],
\label{x2SBMa}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathscr{E}(x)$ is defined in equation (\[mathcal\]). Expression (\[x2SBMa\]) reduces to equation (\[x2conf\]) for vanishing ageing, $t_a=0$. However, even in the presence of weak ageing, $t_a\ll1/k$, at long times $t\gg1/k$ the behaviour of the MSD reads $$\left< x_a^2(t,t_a)\right>=2D_0\tau_0\log\left(1+\frac{t_a}{\tau_0}\right)+\frac{
D_0\tau_0}{kt}.
\label{xconfage}$$ contrasting the behaviour in equation (\[x2confas\]). The ensemble averaged MSD for ageing USBM at different ageing times is depicted in figure \[Gxconfage\]. At short times $t<1/k$ the weakly aged MSD follows the non-aged behaviour. Eventually it attains the plateau given by the first term in equation (\[xconfage\]), instead of decaying towards zero as in the non-aged case. In the analysis of experimental data times the exact moment of the system’s initiation may often not be known, for instance, when measuring biological cells. The apparent plateau revealed here for confined ageing USBM dynamics may thus erroneously be mistaken as a signature of a stationary process.
![Ensemble averaged MSD $\langle x_a^2(t,t_a)\rangle$ for confined ageing USBM at different ageing times: $t_a=0$ (no ageing, black line), $t_a=0.1$ (weak ageing, red line), and $t_a=10^5$ (strong ageing, blue line). Note that for better visibility the curve for $t_a=10^5$ was multiplied by a factor of $10^3$.[]{data-label="Gxconfage"}](fig10.pdf){width="12cm"}
Expanding the exponential integral in equation (\[x2SBMa\]), in the strong ageing limit $t_a\gg \left\{\tau_0,1/k\right\}$ we find $$\langle x_a^2(t,t_a)\rangle=\frac{D_0\tau_0}{kt_a}\left(1+\frac{1}{1+t/t_a}-2e^{
-kt}\right).
\label{xage}$$ For $t\ll 1/k$ we recover the unconfined result (\[xata\]). In the opposite limit $t\gg 1/k$ the behaviour of equation (\[xage\]) crosses over to $$\label{xctat}
\langle x_a^2(t,t_a)\rangle=\frac{D_0\tau_0}{k}\left(\frac{1}{t_a}+\frac{1}{t_a+t}
\right).$$ In this case we recover a transition between two plateaus, as it was observed for subdiffusive SBM [@hadiseh]. Namely, for short measurement times $t\ll t_a$ we find from result (\[xctat\]) that $$\label{short}
\langle x_a^2(t,t_a)\rangle=\frac{2D_0\tau_0}{kt_a},$$ while at long measurement times $t\gg t_a$ this turns to $$\label{long}
\langle x_a^2(t,t_a)\rangle=\frac{D_0\tau_0}{kt_a}.$$ This behaviour, which appears unique for USBM and SBM, is depicted in figure \[Gxconfage\]).
![Ensemble and time averaged MSDs $\langle x_a^2(t,t_a)\rangle$ and $\left<
\overline{\delta_a^2(\Delta)}\right>$ for confined ageing USBM. The symbols depict simulations of equation (\[DampedLangevinConf\]). The blue line corresponds to the theoretical result (\[dconfage\]), and the red line shows the asymptotic (\[dconfagas\]). The horizontal dashed line shows the leading term (\[dconfagasas\]).[]{data-label="Gconfage"}](fig11.pdf){width="12cm"}
### Time averaged mean squared displacement.
The time averaged MSD for ageing confined USBM is derived analogously to the non-aged case, yielding $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\left<\overline{\delta_a^2(\Delta,t_a)}\right>&=&\frac{D_0\tau_0}{(t-\Delta)k}
\left\{\left(1-2e^{-k\Delta}\right)\left[\log\left(1+\frac{t-\Delta}{t_a+\tau_0}
\right)\right.\right.\\
\nonumber
&&\hspace*{1.8cm}-\mathscr{E}(t_a+t-\Delta+\tau_0)+\mathscr{E}(t_a+\tau_0)\Bigg]\\
\nonumber
&&+\log\left(\frac{t_a+t+\tau_0}{t_a+\Delta+\tau_0}\right)\\
&&-\mathscr{E}(t_a+t+\tau_0)+\mathscr{E}(t_a+\Delta+\tau_0)\Bigg\}.
\label{dconfage}\end{aligned}$$ In the limit of strong confinement $1/k\ll\left\{t_a,t,\Delta\right\}$ this expression can be significantly simplified to obtain $$\left<\overline{\delta_a^2(\Delta,t_a)}\right>=\frac{D_0\tau_0}{k(t-\Delta)}\left[
\log\left(\frac{t+t_a+\tau_0}{t_a+\Delta+\tau_0}\right)+\log\left(1+\frac{t-\Delta
}{t_a+\tau_0}\right)\right].
\label{dconfagas}$$ For $\Delta\ll t,t_a$ we again find an apparent plateau, $$\left<\overline{\delta_a^2(\Delta,t_a)}\right>=\frac{2D_0\tau_0}{kt}\log\left(1+
\frac{t}{t+t_a}\right).
\label{dconfagasas}$$ In the case of strong ageing $t_a\gg t$ we find $$\left<\overline{\delta_a^2(\Delta,t_a)}\right>=\frac{2D_0\tau_0}{kt_a}.$$ Comparison to equation (\[short\]) shows that the time averaged MSD becomes equal to the ensemble MSD in this strong ageing regime, and ergodicity is apparently restored as in the unconfined case. The behaviour of the ensemble and time averaged MSDs for confined ageing USBM are depicted in figure \[Gconfage\].
The ergodicity breaking parameter $\mathrm{EB}$ for confined USBM is depicted in figure \[GEBconf\] for both absence and presence of ageing. It is a decreasing function of the ratio $t/\Delta$ for large $t/\Delta$, while at small values of $t/\Delta$ it remains practically unchanged.
![Ergodicity breaking parameter $\mathrm{EB}$ as function of $t/\Delta$ in the non-aged ($t_a=0$) and aged ($t_a=3000$) cases.[]{data-label="GEBconf"}](fig12.pdf){width="12cm"}
Conclusions {#concl}
===========
We proposed and studied ultraslow scaled Brownian motion, a new anomalous stochastic process with a time dependent diffusion coefficient of the form $D(t)\simeq1/t$. Formally USBM corresponds to the lower bound $\alpha=0$ of scaled Brownian motion with diffusivity $D(t)\simeq t^{\alpha-1}$ ($0<\alpha$) [@LimSBM; @fulinski; @sbm; @SokolovSBM; @hadiseh], yet its dynamical behaviour is significantly different. We showed that USBM yields a logarithmic time dependence of the MSD rather than the power-law scaling of SBM. USBM’s time averaged MSD was shown to acquire a combination of power-law and logarithmic lag time dependence. USBM is weakly non-ergodic and ageing. The ergodicity breaking parameter quantifying the random character of time averages of the MSD has a weak logarithmic dependence on the ratio $\Delta/t$ of lag time $\Delta$ and length $t$ of the recorded trajectories, tending to zero in the limit of infinitely long traces and/or short lag times. In the case of strong ageing the system tends to usual Brownian motion and the behaviour of the system becomes apparently ergodic. Under external confinement the behaviour of the USBM dynamics exhibits an apparent plateau for the time averaged MSD, while the ensemble averaged MSD decays proportionally to $1/t$ at longer times, reflecting the highly non-stationary character of USBM. Ageing produces an apparent plateau for the ensemble averaged MSD and a crossover between two plateaus for the time averaged MSD. USBM adds to the rich variety of ultraslow processes with logarithmic growth of the ensemble averaged MSD yet displays several unique features in comparison to other ultraslow processes.
Potential applications of USBM are foremost in the description of random particle motion in intrinsically non-equilibrium system such as free cooling granular gases or systems coupled to explicitly time dependent thermal reservoirs. On a more general level we hope that the discussion of ultraslow processes will lead to a rethinking of claims in diffusion studies that certain particles appear immobile. Namely, one often observes a population splitting into a (growing) fraction of immobile particles and another fraction of particles performing anomalous diffusion of the form (\[msd\_powerlaw\]) [@pop_split]. Ageing continuous time random walks [@schulz] or heterogeneous diffusion processes [@HDP-PCCP; @HDP-AGED] give rise to such a behaviour. However, given the tools provided here on ultraslow diffusion it might be worthwhile checking whether the observe “immobile” particles may in fact perform logarithmically slow diffusion.
The authors thank N. V. Brilliantov, A. Godec, I. M. Sokolov and F. Spahn for stimulating discussions. The simulations were run at the Chebyshev supercomputer of the Moscow State University. This work was supported by the EU IRSES DCP-PhysBio N269139 project, the Academy of Finland (FiDiPro scheme to RM), Berlin Mathematical Society (to AVC) and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG Grant CH 707/5-1 to AGC).
Derivation of the ergodicity breaking parameter
===============================================
The ergodicity breaking parameter (\[EB0\]) requires the fourth order moment $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\left<\left(\overline{\delta^2(\Delta)}\right)^2\right>&=&\frac{1}{\left(t-\Delta
\right)^2}\int_0^{t-\Delta}\int_0^{t-\Delta}\left<\left(x(t_1+\Delta)-x(t_1)
\right)^2\right.\\
&&\hspace*{3.2cm}\times\left.\left(x(t_2+\Delta)-x(t_2)\right)^2\right> dt_2dt_1.\end{aligned}$$ Using Isserlis’ or Wick’s theorem the integrand can be rewritten in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\langle\left(x(t_1+\Delta)-x(t_1)\right)^2\left(x(t_2+\Delta)-x(t_2)\right)^2
\rangle\\
\nonumber
&&\hspace*{-7.2cm}
=\left\langle\left(x(t_1+\Delta)-x(t_1)\right)^2\right\rangle\left\langle\left(x(
t_2+\Delta)-x(t_2)\right)^2\right\rangle\\
&&\hspace*{-6.8cm}
+2\left\langle\left(x(t_1+\Delta)-x(t_1)\right)\left(x(t_2+\Delta)-x(t_2)\right)
\right\rangle^2.\end{aligned}$$ The numerator in equation (\[EB0\]) may thus be represented as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\mathcal{N}&=&\left<\left(\overline{\delta^2(\Delta)}\right)^2\right>-\left<
\overline{\delta^2(\Delta)}\right>^2\\
\nonumber
&=&\frac{2}{\left(t-\Delta\right)^2}\int_0^{t-\Delta}\int_0^{t-\Delta}\left<[
x(t_1+\Delta)-x(t_1)]\right.\\
&&\hspace*{4cm}\left.\times[x(t_2+\Delta)-x(t_2)]\right>^2dt_2dt_1.
\label{a1}\end{aligned}$$ Taking into account relation (\[xxx\]) and the symmetry of expression (\[a1\]) with respect to $t_1$ and $t_2$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\mathcal{N}&=&\frac{4}{\left(t-\Delta\right)^2}\\
&&\times\int_0^{t-\Delta}\int_{t_1}^{t-
\Delta}\left(\left\langle x^2\left(t_1+\Delta\right)\right\rangle-\left\langle
x\left(t_1+\Delta\right)x\left(t_2\right)\right\rangle\right)^2dt_2dt_1.\end{aligned}$$ The integrand is non-zero only if $t_1+\Delta> t_2$. Introducing the new variable $\tau=t_2-t_1$ and changing the order of integration, we arrive at the following expression $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\mathcal{N}&=&\frac{4}{\left(t-\Delta\right)^2}\int_0^{\Delta}\\
&&\times\int_0^{t-\Delta-\tau}\left(\left\langle x^2\left(t_1+\Delta\right)
\right\rangle-\left\langle x^2\left(t_1+\tau\right)\right\rangle\right)^2dt_1d\tau.\end{aligned}$$ Introducing the MSD (\[x2SBM\]) and changing the variable $t_1+\tau_0\to t_1$, we obtain $$\mathcal{N}=\frac{16D_0^2\tau_0^2}{\left(t-\Delta\right)^2}\int_0^{\Delta}\int_{
\tau_0}^{\tau_0+t-\Delta-\tau}\log^2\left(\frac{t_1+\Delta}{t_1+\tau}\right)dt_1
d\tau.$$ Let us consider the case $\tau_0\ll\Delta\ll t$. Introducing the variables $x=t_1
/\Delta$ and $y=\tau/\Delta$ and changing the upper limit of integration to infinity and the lower limit to zero in the inner integral, we get $$\label{XY}
\mathcal{N}=
\frac{16D_0^2\tau_0^2C\Delta^2}{\left(t-\Delta\right)^2}.$$ Here the constant $C$ is given by $$C=\int_0^1\int_0^{\infty}\log^2\left(\frac{x+1}{x+y}\right)dxdy=\frac{\pi^2}{6}
-1\simeq0.645.
\label{intC}$$ Dividing $\mathcal{N}$ by $\left<\overline{\delta^2(\Delta)}\right>^2$ from equation (\[d1\]) we recover the final expression (\[eq-eb-log\]) for the ergodicity breaking parameter.
In the case of ageing $$\mathrm{EB}_a(\Delta)=\lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{\left<\left(\overline{\delta_a^2(
\Delta,t_a)}\right)^2\right>-\left<\overline{\delta_a^2(\Delta,t_a)}\right>^2)}{
\left<\overline{\delta_a^2(\Delta,t_a)}\right>^2}.$$ The derivation is similar to the non-aged case, $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&&\left\langle\left(\overline{\delta_a^2(\Delta,t_a)}\right)^2\right\rangle-
\left\langle\overline{\delta_a^2(\Delta,t_a)}\right\rangle^2\\
&&\hspace*{1.6cm}=\frac{16D_0^2\tau_0^2}{
\left(t-\Delta\right)^2}\int_0^{\Delta}\int_{t_a+\tau_0}^{t_a+\tau_0+t-\Delta-\tau}
\log^2\left(\frac{t_1+\Delta}{t_1+\tau}\right)dt_1d\tau.\end{aligned}$$ Expanding the integrand for $t_1>t_a\gg 1$, we get $$\log^2\left(\frac{t_1+\Delta}{t_1+\tau}\right)\simeq\left(\frac{\Delta-\tau}{t_1}
\right)^2.$$ Evaluating the integral for $t_a\gg\Delta$, $t\gg\Delta$, we obtain $$\left<\left(\overline{\delta_a^2(\Delta)}\right)^2\right>-\left<\overline{\delta_a
^2(\Delta)}\right>^2=\frac{16D_0^2\tau_0^2\Delta^3}{3t_at\left(t+t_a\right)},$$ and the ergodicity breaking parameter $\mathrm{EB}_a(\Delta)$ is then given by equation (\[EBa\]).
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{}
A. Einstein, Ann. Phys. **17**, 549 (1905).
M. von Smoluchowski, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) **21**, 756 (1906).
F. Höfling and T. Franosch, Rep. Prog. Phys. **76**, 046602 (2013).
E. Barkai, Y. Garini, and R. Metzler, Phys. Today **65**(8), 29 (2012).
I. M. Sokolov, Soft Matter **8**, 9043 (2012).
R. Metzler, J.-H. Jeon, A. G. Cherstvy and E. Barkai, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. **16**, 24128 (2014).
Y. Meroz, I. M. Sokolov, Phys. Rep. **573**, 1 (2015).
J.-P. Bouchaud, A. Georges, Phys. Rep. **195**, 127 (1990).
R. Metzler and J. Klafter, Phys. Rep. **339**, 1 (2000); J. Phys. A **37**, R161 (2004).
I. Golding and E. C. Cox, Phys. Rev. Lett. **96**, 098102 (2006); I. Bronstein, Y. Israel, E. Kepten, S. Mai, Y. Shav-Tal, E. Barkai, and Y. Garini, Phys. Rev. Lett. **103**, 018102 (2009).
S. M. A. Tabei, S. Burov, H. Y. Kim, A. Kuznetsov, T. Huynh, J. Jureller, L. H. Philipson, A. R. Dinner, and N. F. Scherer, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA **110**, 4911 (2013); J.-H. Jeon, V. Tejedor, S. Burov, E. Barkai, C. Selhuber-Unkel, K. Berg-S[ø]{}rensen, L. Oddershede, and R. Metzler, Phys. Rev. Lett. **106**, 048103 (2011).
J.-H. Jeon, N. Leijnse, L. B. Oddershede, and R. Metzler, New J. Phys. **15**, 045011 (2013)
J. Szymanski and M. Weiss, Phys. Rev. Lett. **103**, 038102 (2009); W. Pan, L. Filobelo, N. D. Q. Pham, O. Galkin, V. V. Uzunova, and P. G. Vekilov Phys. Rev. Lett. **102**, 058101 (2009).
I. Y. Wong, M. L. Gardel, D. R. Reichman, E. R. Weeks, M. T. Valentine, A. R. Bausch, and D. A. Weitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. **92**, 178101 (2004); Q. Xu, L. Feng, R. Sha, N. C. Seeman, and P. M. Chaikin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **106**, 228102 (2011).
D. Goldstein, T. Elhanan, M. Aronovich, and D. Weihs, Soft Matter **9**, 7167 (2013); J. F. Reverey, J.-H. Jeon, M. Leippe, R. Metzler, and C. Selhuber-Unkel (unpublished).
A. Caspi, R. Granek, and M. Elbaum, Phys. Rev. Lett. **85**, 5655 (2000); C. Wilhelm, Phys. Rev. Lett. **101**, 028101 (2008).
J. Dr[ä]{}ger and J. Klafter, Phys. Rev. Lett. **84**, 5998 (2000).
D. Cassi, S. Regina, Phys. Rev. Lett. **76**, 2914 (1996).
Ya. G. Sinai, Theory Prob. Appl. **27**, 256 (1982).
D. S. Fisher, P. Le Doussal, and C. Monthus, Phys. Rev. E **64**, 066107 (2001); P. Le Doussal, C. Monthus, and D. S. Fisher, Phys. Rev. E **59**, 4795 (1999).
G. Oshanin, A. Rosso, and G. Schehr, Phys. Rev. Lett. **110**, 100602 (2013); D. S. Dean, S. Gupta, G. Oshanin, A. Rosso, and G. Schehr, J. Phys. A **47**, 372001 (2014).
A. Godec, A. V. Chechkin, E. Barkai, H. Kantz, and R. Metzler, J. Phys. A **47**, 492002 (2014).
S. Havlin and G. H. Weiss, J. Stat. Phys. **58**, 1267 (1990).
A. V. Chechkin, J. Klafter, and I. M. Sokolov, Europhys. Lett. **63**, 326 (2003).
S. Denisov and H. Kantz, Phys. Rev. E **83**, 041132 (2011); S. I. Denisov, S. B. Yuste, Yu. S. Bystrik, H. Kantz, and K. Lindenberg, Phys. Rev. E **84**, 061143 (2011).
F. Igloi, L. Turban, and H. Rieger, Phys. Rev. E **59**, 1465 (1999); S. Arias, X. Waintal, and J. L. Pichard, Euro. Phys. J. B **10**, 149 (1999).
O. Bénichou and G. Oshanin, Phys. Rev. E **66**, 031101 (2002).
A. G. Cherstvy and R. Metzler, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. **15**, 20220 (2013).
L. P. Sanders, M. A. Lomholt, L. Lizana, K. Fogelmark, R. Metzler, and T. Ambjörnsson, New J. Phys. **16**, 113050 (2014).
M. A. Lomholt, L. Lizana, R. Metzler, and T. Ambjörnsson, Phys. Rev. Lett. **110**, 208301 (2013).
N. V. Brilliantov and T. Pöschel, Kinetic Theory of Granular Gases (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2004).
J. Schmidt, K. Ohtsuki, N. Rappaport, H. Salo, and F. Spahn, in Saturn From Cassini-Huygens, edited by M. K. Dougherty, L. W. Esposito, and S. M. Krimigis (Springer, Berlin, 2009).
R. D. Wildman and D. J. Parker, Phys. Rev. Lett **88**, 064301 (2002); A. Prevost, D. A. Egolf, and J. S. Urbach, *ibid.* **89**, 084301 (2002).
O. Zik, D. Levine, S. Lipson, S. Shtrikman, and J. Stavans, Phys. Rev. Lett. **73**, 644 (1994).
Y. Grasselli, G. Bossis, and G. Goutallier, Europhys. Lett. **86**, 60007 (2009).
E. Falcon, R. Wunenburger, P. Evesque, S. Fauve, and C. Chabot, Phys. Rev. Lett. **83**, 440 (1999).
S. Tatsumi, Y. Murayama, H. Hayakawa, and M. Sano, J. Fluid Mech. **641**, 521 (2009).
C. C. Maass, N. Isert, G. Maret, and C. M. Aegerter, Phys. Rev. Lett. **100**, 248001 (2008).
O. B[é]{}nichou and G. Oshanin, Phys. Rev. E **66**, 031101 (2002); Phys. Rev. E **64**, 020103(R) (2001); O. B[é]{}nichou, P. Illien, C. Mejía-Monasterio, and G. Oshanin, J. Stat. Mech., P05008 (2013); O. B[é]{}nichou, A. Bodrova, D. Chakraborty, P. Illien, A. Law, C. Mejía-Monastrio, G. Oshanin, and R. Voituriez Phys. Rev. Lett. **111**, 260601 (2013).
P. K. Haff, J. Fluid Mech. **134**, 401 (1983).
N. V. Brilliantov and T. P[ö]{}schel, Phys. Rev. E **61**, 1716 (2000).
J. J. Brey, M. J. Ruiz-Montero, D. Cubero, and R. Garcia-Rojo, Phys. of Fluids **12**, 876 (2000); I. Pagonabarraga, E. Trizac, T. P. C. van Noije, and M. H. Ernst, Phys. Rev. E **65**, 011303 (2001).
A. Bodrova, A. V. Chechkin, A. G. Cherstvy, and R. Metzler, E-print arXiv:1501.04173.
P. N. Sen, Concepts in Magnetic Resonance, **23A**, 1 (2004).
D. S. Novikov, J. H. Jensen, J. A. Helpern, and E. Fieremans, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA **111**, 5088 (2014).
G. Guigas, C. Kalla, and M. Weiss, FEBS Lett. **581**, 5094 (2007).
N. Periasmy and A. S. Verkman, Biophys. J. **75**, 557 (1998).
J. Wu and M. Berland, Biophys. J. **95**, 2049 (2008).
J. Szymaski, A Patkowski, J Gapiski, A. Wilk, and R. Hoyst, J. Phys. Chem. B **110**, 7367 (2006).
P. P. Mitra, P. N. Sen, L. M. Schwartz, and P. Le Doussal, Phys. Rev. Lett. **68**, 3555 (1992).
J. F. Lutsko and J. P. Boon, Phys. Rev. Lett. **88**, 022108 (2013).
M. J. Saxton, Biophys. J. **81**, 2226 (2001).
P. Langevin, C. R. Acad. Sci. (Paris) **146** 530 (1908).
J.-H. Jeon, A. V. Chechkin, and R. Metzler, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. **16**, 15811 (2014).
A. Molini, P. Talkner, G. G. Katul, A. Porporato, Physica A **390**, 1841 (2011).
D. De Walle and A. Rango, Principles of Snow Hydrology (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2008).
G. K. Batchelor, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. **48**, 345 (1952).
L. F. Richardson, Proc. Roy. Soc. A **110**, 709 (1926).
S. C. Lim and S. V. Muniandy, Phys. Rev. E **66**, 021114 (2002).
A. Fulinski, J. Chem. Phys. **138**, 021101 (2013); Phys. Rev. E **83**, 061140 (2011).
F. Thiel and I. M. Sokolov, Phys. Rev. E **89**, 012115 (2014).
H. Safdari, A. V. Chechkin, G. R. Jafari, R. Metzler, E-print arXiv:1501.04810.
A. G. Cherstvy, and R. Metzler, E-print arXiv:1502.01554.
I. Goychuk, Adv. Chem. Phys. **150**, 187 (2012); J.-H. Jeon and R. Metzler, Phys. Rev. E **85**, 021147 (2012).
A. V. Weigel, B. Simon, M. M. Tamkun, and D. Krapf, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA **108**, 6438 (2011); J.-H. Jeon, H. Martinez-Seara Monne, M. Javanainen, and R. Metzler, Phys. Rev. Lett. **109**, 188103 (2012); G. R. Kneller, K. Baczynski, and M. Pasienkewicz-Gierula, J. Chem. Phys. **135**, 141105 (2011); K. Burnecki, E. Kepten, J. Janczura, I. Bronshtein, Y. Garini, and A. Weron, Biophys. J. **103**, 1839 (2012).
A. Yaglom, Correlation theory of stationary and related random functions (Springer, Berlin, 1987).
J. P. Bouchaud, J. Phys. I France. **2**, 1705 (1992).
S. Burov, J.-H. Jeon, R. Metzler, and E. Barkai, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. **13**, 1800 (2011).
J.-H. Jeon and R. Metzler, Phys. Rev. E **85**, 021147 (2012).
W. Deng and E. Barkai, Phys. Rev. E **79**, 011112 (2009).
Y. He, S. Burov, R. Metzler, and E. Barkai, Phys. Rev. Lett. **101**, 058101 (2008).
S. M. Rytov, Yu. A. Kravtsov, and V. I. Tatarskii, Principles of Statistical Radiophysics 1: Elements of Random Process Theory (Springer, Heidelberg, 1987).
J.-H. Jeon and R. Metzler, J. Phys. A **43**, 252001 (2010).
A. G. Cherstvy, A. V. Chechkin, and R. Metzler, New J. Phys. **15**, 083039 (2013); Soft Matter **10**, 1591 (2014); A. G. Cherstvy and R. Metzler, Phys. Rev. E **90**, 012134 (2014).
D. Grebenkov, Phys. Rev. E **84**, 031124 (2011).
J. Kursawe, J. H. P. Schulz, and R. Metzler, Phys. Rev. E **88**, 062124 (2013).
J. H. P. Schulz, E. Barkai, and R. Metzler, Phys. Rev. Lett. **110**, 020602 (2013); Phys. Rev. X **4**, 011028 (2014).
S. Burov, R. Metzler, and E. Barkai, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA **107**, 13228 (2010).
V. Tejedor and R. Metzler, J. Phys. A **43**, 082002 (2010); M. Magdziarz, R. Metzler, W. Szczotka, and P. Zebrowski, Phys. Rev. E **85**, 051103 (2012).
E. Barkai, Phys. Rev. Lett. **90**, 104101 (2003)
H. Krüsemann, A. Godec, R. Metzler. Phys. Rev. E **89**, 040101 (2014)
A. G. Cherstvy, A. V. Chechkin, and R. Metzler, J. Phys. A **47**, 485002 (2014).
G. T. Sch[ü]{}tz, H. Schneider, and T. Schmidt, Biophys. J. **73**, 1073 (1997); T. Kues, R. Peters, and U. Kubitschek, Biophy. J. **80**, 2954 (2001); P. H. M. Lommerse, B. E. Snaar-Jagalska, H. P. Spaink, and T. Schmidt, J. Cell Science **118**, 1799 (2005); S. Manley, J. M. Gillette, G. H. Patterson, H. Shroff, H. F. Hess, E. Betzig, and J. Lippincott-Schwartz, Nature Methods **5**, 155 (2008).
[^1]: We consider processes ergodic in the Boltzmann-Khinchin sense when the long time average of a physical observable converges to the associated time average.
[^2]: Note that also transiently non-ergodic behaviour may become relevant as it may mask intrinsic relaxation times when time averages are measured [@lene1; @pre12].
[^3]: In contrast, this is not valid in the case of granular gases, where particles move ballistically in between instantaneous collisions [@annagg], or for processes driven by long-range correlated increments such as fractional Brownian motion or fractional Langevin equation motion [@pccp; @fbm; @BarkaiEB].
[^4]: For Brownian motion, fractional Brownian motion, and fractional Langevin equation motion an approximately Gaussian shape of $\phi(\xi)$ is found [@pccp; @jpa].
[^5]: For confined fractional Langevin equation motion, a transient ageing dependence exists [@jochen].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
As data sets grow in dimensionality, non-parametric measures of dependence have seen increasing use in data exploration due to their ability to identify non-trivial relationships of all kinds. One common use of these tools is to test a null hypothesis of statistical independence on all variable pairs in a data set. However, because this approach attempts to identify any non-trivial relationship no matter how weak, it is prone to identifying so many relationships — even after correction for multiple hypothesis testing — that meaningful follow-up of each one is impossible. What is needed is a way of identifying a smaller set of “strongest” relationships of all kinds that merit detailed further analysis.
Here we formally present and characterize [*equitability*]{}, a property of measures of dependence that aims to overcome this challenge. Notionally, an equitable statistic is a statistic that, given some measure of noise, assigns similar scores to equally noisy relationships of different types (e.g., linear, exponential, etc.) [@MINE]. We begin by formalizing this idea via a new object called the interpretable interval, which functions as an interval estimate of the amount of noise in a relationship of unknown type. We define an equitable statistic as one with small interpretable intervals.
We then draw on the equivalence of interval estimation and hypothesis testing to show that under moderate assumptions an equitable statistic is one that yields well powered tests for distinguishing not only between trivial and non-trivial relationships of all kinds but also between non-trivial relationships of different strengths, regardless of relationship type. This means that equitability allows us to specify a threshold relationship strength $x_0$ below which we are uninterested, and to search a data set for relationships of all kinds with strength greater than $x_0$. Thus, equitability can be thought of as a strengthening of power against independence that enables fruitful analysis of data sets with a small number of strong, interesting relationships and a large number of weaker, less interesting ones. We conclude with a demonstration of how our two equivalent characterizations of equitability can be used to evaluate the equitability of a statistic in practice.
author:
- 'Yakir A. Reshef[^1] [^2] [^3]'
- 'David N. Reshef[^4]'
- 'Pardis C. Sabeti[^5] [^6] [^7]'
- 'Michael M. Mitzenmacher'
bibliography:
- '\\pathToCommon/References.bib'
title: 'Equitability, interval estimation, and statistical power'
---
Introduction
============
Suppose we have a data set that we would like to explore to find pairwise associations of interest. A commonly taken approach that makes minimal assumptions about the structure in the data is to compute a measure of dependence, i.e., a statistic whose population value is non-zero exactly in cases of statistical dependence, on many candidate pairs of variables. The score of each variable pair can be evaluated against a null hypothesis of statistical independence, and variable pairs with significant scores can be kept for follow-up [@storey2003statistical; @emilsson2008genetics]. When faced with this task, there is a wealth of measures of dependence from which to choose, each with a different set of properties [@reshef2015estimating; @szekely2007measuring; @Kraskov; @breiman1985estimating; @hoeffding1948non; @heller2013consistent; @jiang2014non; @gretton2005measuring; @gretton2012kernel; @lopez2013randomized].
While this approach works well in some settings, it is unsuitable in many others due to the size of modern data sets. In particular, as data sets grow in dimensionality, the above approach often results in lists of significant relationships that are too large to allow for meaningful follow-up of every identified relationship. For example, in the gene expression data set analyzed in [@heller2014consistent], several measures of dependence reliably identified thousands of significant relationships amounting to between $65$ and $75$ percent of the variable pairs in the data set. Given the extensive manual effort that is usually necessary to better understand each of these “hits”, further characterizing all of them is impractical.
A tempting way to deal with this challenge is to rank all the variable pairs in a data set according to the test statistic used (or according to p-value) and to examine only a small number of pairs with the most extreme values. However, this is a poor idea because, while a measure of dependence guarantees non-zero scores to dependent variable pairs, the magnitude of these non-zero scores can depend heavily on the type of dependence in question, thereby skewing the top of the list toward certain types of relationships over others. For example, if some measure of dependence $\varphi$ systematically assigns higher scores to, say, linear relationships than to sinusoidal relationships, then using $\varphi$ to rank variable pairs in a large data set could cause noisy linear relationships in the data set to crowd out strong sinusoidal relationships from the top of the list. The natural result would be that the human examining the top-ranked relationships would never see the sinusoidal relationships, and they would not be discovered.
The consistency guarantee of measures of dependence is therefore not strong enough to solve the data exploration problem posed here. What is needed is a way not just to identify as many relationships of different kinds as possible in a data set, but also to identify a small number of strongest relationships of different kinds.
Here we formally present and characterize [*equitability*]{}, a framework for meeting this goal. In previous work, equitability was informally introduced as follows: an equitable measure of dependence is one that, given some measure of noise, assigns similar scores to equally noisy relationships, regardless of relationship type [@MINE]. In this paper, we formalize this notion in the language of estimation theory and tie it to the theory of hypothesis testing.
Specifically, we define an object called the interpretable interval that functions as an interval estimate of the strength of a relationship of unknown type. That is, given a set $\Q$ of standard relationships on which we have defined a measure $\Phi$ of relationship strength, the interpretable interval is a range of values that act as good estimates of the true relationship strength $\Phi$ of a distribution, assuming it belongs to $\Q$. In the same way that a good estimator has narrow confidence intervals, an equitable statistic is one that has narrow interpretable intervals. As we explain, this property can be viewed as a natural generalization of one of the “fundamental properties” described by Renyi in his framework for measures of dependence [@renyi1959measures].
We then draw a connection between equitability and statistical power using the equivalence between interval estimation and hypothesis testing. This connection shows that whereas typical measures of dependence are analyzed in terms of power to distinguish non-trivial associations from statistical independence, under moderate assumptions an equitable statistic is one that can distinguish finely between relationships of two different strengths that may both be non-trivial, regardless of the types of the two relationships in question. This result gives us a new way to understand equitability as a natural strengthening of the requirement of power against independence in which we ask that our statistic be useful not just for detecting deviations of different types from independence but also for distinguishing strong relationships from weak relationships regardless of relationship type.
Finally, motivated by the connection between equitability and power, we define a new property, [*detection threshold*]{}, which, at some fixed sample size, is the minimal relationship strength $x$ such that a statistic’s corresponding independence test has a certain minimal power on relationships of all kinds with strength at least $x$. We show that low detection threshold is strictly weaker than high equitability in that high equitability implies it but the converse does not hold. Therefore, when equitability is too much to ask, low detection threshold on a broad set of relationships with respect to an interesting measure of relationship strength may be a reasonable surrogate goal.
Throughout this paper, we give concrete examples of how our formalism relates to the analysis of equitability in practice. Indeed, the purpose of the theoretical framework provided here is to allow for such practical analyses, and so we close with a demonstration of an empirical analysis of the equitability of several popular measures of dependence.
This paper is accompanied by two companion papers. The first [@reshef2015estimating] introduces two new statistics that aim for good equitability on functional relationships and good power against statistical independence, respectively. The second [@reshef2015comparisons] conducts a comprehensive empirical analysis of the equitability and power against independence of both of these new methods as well as several other leading measures of dependence.
The results we present here, in addition to contributing to a better understanding of equitability, also provide an organizing framework in which to consolidate some of the recent discussion around equitability. For instance, our formalization of equitability is sufficiently general to accommodate several of variants that have arisen in the literature. This allows us to precisely discuss the definition given by Kinney and Atwal [@kinney2014equitability; @reshef2014comment] of what, in our theoretical framework, corresponds to perfect equitability. In particular, our framework allows us to explain the limitations of an impossibility result presented by Kinney and Atwal about perfect equitability. Additionally, our framework and the connection it provides to statistical power also allows us to crystallize and address the concerns about the power against independence of equitable methods raised by Simon and Tibshirani [@simon2012comment]. (However, empirical questions concerning the performance of the maximal information coefficient and related statistics are deferred to the companion papers [@reshef2015comparisons; @reshef2015estimating].)
We conclude with a discussion of what situations benefit from using equitability as a desideratum for data analysis. It is our hope that the theoretical results in this paper will provide a foundation for further work not only on equitability and methods for achieving equitability, but also on other possible expansions of our goals for measures of dependence in the setting of data exploration or other related settings.
Equitability {#sec:equitability}
============
Equitability has been described informally by the authors as the ability of a statistic to “give similar scores to equally noisy relationships of different types” [@MINE]. Though useful, this informal definition is imprecise in that it does not specify what is meant by “noisy” or “similar”, and does not specify for which relationships the stated property should hold. In this section we provide the formalism necessary to discuss equitability more rigorously.
To do this, we fix a statistic $\hvphi$ (presumed to be a measure of dependence), a measure of relationship strength $\Phi$ called the [*property of interest*]{}, and a set $\Q$ of [*standard relationships*]{} on which $\Phi$ is defined. The idea is that $\Q$ contains relationships of many different types, and for any distribution $\mcZ \in \Q$, $\Phi(\mcZ)$ is the way we would ideally quantify the strength of $\mcZ$ if we had knowledge of the distribution $\mcZ$. Our goal is then, given a sample $Z$ of size $n$ from $\mcZ$, to use $\hvphi(Z)$ to draw inferences about $\Phi(\mcZ)$.
Our general approach is to construct a set of intervals, the [*interpretable intervals*]{} of $\hvphi$ with respect to $\Phi$, by inverting a certain set of hypothesis tests. We show that these intervals can be used to turn $\hvphi(Z)$ into an interval estimate of $\Phi(\mcZ)$, and we call the statistic $\hvphi$ equitable if its interpretable intervals are small, i.e., if it yields narrow interval estimates of $\Phi(\mcZ)$.
After constructing the interpretable intervals of $\hvphi$ with respect to $\Phi$, we demonstrate how our vocabulary can be used to define a few different concrete instantiations of the concept of equitability. We do this by using our framework to state several of the notions of- and results about equitability that have appeared in the literature, and discussing the relationships among them. Following this, we provide a short schematic illustration of how the definitions we provide would be used to quantitatively evaluate the equitability of a statistic in practice, and a discussion of how equitability is related to measurement of effect size more generally.
In what follows, we keep our exposition generic in order to accommodate variations – both existing and potential – on the concepts defined here. However, as a motivating example, we often return to the setting of [@MINE], in which $\hvphi$ is a statistic like the maximal information coefficient $\MICestE$, $\Q$ is a set of noisy functional relationships, and $\Phi$ is the coefficient of determination ($R^2$) with respect to the generating function. In this setting, the equitability of $\MICestE$ corresponds to its utility for constructing narrow interval estimates of the $R^2$ of a relationship that is in $\Q$ but whose specific functional form is unknown.
Interpretable intervals
-----------------------
Let $\hvphi$ be a statistic taking values in $[0,1]$, let $\Q$ be a set of distributions, and let $\Phi : \Q \rightarrow [0,1]$ be some measure of relationship strength. As mentioned previously, we refer to $\Q$ as the set of standard relationships and to $\Phi$ as the property of interest. To construct the interpretable intervals of $\hvphi$ with respect to $\Phi$, we must first ask how much $\hvphi$ can vary when evaluated on a sample from some $\mcZ \in \Q$ with $\Phi(\mcZ) = x$. The definition below gives us a way to measure this. (In this definition and in definitions in the rest of this paper, we implicitly assume a fixed sample size of $n$.)
Let $\hvphi$ be a statistic taking values in $[0,1]$, and let $x, \alpha \in [0,1]$. The $\alpha$-reliable interval of $\hvphi$ at $x$, denoted by $\reliablestat{\alpha}{\hvphi}{x}$, is the smallest closed interval $A$ with the property that, for all $\mcZ \in \Q$ with $\Phi(\mcZ) = x$, we have $$\Pr{\hvphi(Z) < \min A} < \alpha/2 \quad \mbox{and} \quad \Pr{\hvphi(Z) > \max A} < \alpha/2$$ where $Z$ is a sample of size $n$ from $\mcZ$.
The statistic $\hvphi$ is [*$1/d$-reliable*]{} with respect to $\Phi$ on $\Q$ at $x$ with probability $1-\alpha$ if and only if the diameter of $\reliablestat{\alpha}{\hvphi}{x}$ is at most $d$.
See Figure \[fig:reliabilityInterpretability\]a for an illustration. The reliable interval at $x$ is an acceptance region of a size-$\alpha$ test of the null hypothesis $H_0:\Phi(\mcZ) = x$. If there is only one $\mcZ$ satisfying $\Phi(\mcZ) = x$, this amounts to a central interval of the sampling distribution of $\hvphi$ on $\mcZ$. If there is more than one such $\mcZ$, the reliable interval expands to include the relevant central intervals of the sampling distributions of $\hvphi$ on all the distributions $\mcZ$ in question. For example, when $\Q$ is a set of noisy functional relationships with several different function types and $\Phi$ is $R^2$, the reliable interval at $x$ is the smallest interval $A$ such that for any functional relationship $\mcZ \in \Q$ with $R^2(\mcZ) = x$, $\hvphi(Z)$ falls in $A$ with high probability over the sample $Z$ of size $n$ from $\mcZ$.
Because the reliable interval $\reliablestat{\alpha}{\hvphi}{x}$ can be viewed as the acceptance region of a level-$\alpha$ test of $H_0 : \Phi(\mcZ) = x$, the equivalence between hypothesis tests and confidence intervals yields interval estimates of $\Phi$ in terms of $\reliablestat{\alpha}{\hvphi}{x}$. These intervals are the interpretable intervals, defined below.
Let $\hvphi$ be a statistic taking values in $[0,1]$, and let $y, \alpha \in [0,1]$. The $\alpha$-interpretable interval of $\hvphi$ at $y$, denoted by $\interpretablestat{\alpha}{\hvphi}{y}$, is the smallest closed interval containing the set $$\left\{ x \in [0,1] : y \in \reliablestat{\alpha}{\hvphi}{x} \right\} .$$
The statistic $\hvphi$ is [*$1/d$-interpretable*]{} with respect to $\Phi$ on $\Q$ at $y$ with confidence $1-\alpha$ if and only if the diameter of $\interpretablestat{\alpha}{\hvphi}{y}$ is at most $d$.
See Figure \[fig:reliabilityInterpretability\]a for an illustration. The correspondence between hypothesis tests and interval estimates [@casella2002statistical] gives us the following guarantee about the coverage probability of the interpretable interval, whose proof we omit.
\[prop:interval\_estimates\] Let $\hvphi$ be a statistic taking values in $[0,1]$, and let $\alpha \in [0,1]$. For all $x \in [0,1]$ and for all $\mcZ \in \Q$, $$\Pr{\Phi(\mcZ) \in \interpretablestat{\alpha}{\hvphi}{\hvphi(Z)}} \geq 1-\alpha$$ where $Z$ is a sample of size $n$ from $\mcZ$.
The definitions just presented have natural non-stochastic counterparts in the large-sample limit that we summarize below.
Let $\varphi : \Q \rightarrow [0,1]$ be a function of distributions. For $x \in [0,1]$, the smallest closed interval containing the set $\varphi(\Phi^{-1}(\{x\}))$ is called the [*reliable interval*]{} of $\varphi$ at $x$ and is denoted by $\reliable{\varphi}{x}$. For $y \in [0,1]$, the smallest closed interval containing the set $\{ x : y \in \reliable{\varphi}{x} \}$ is called the [*interpretable interval*]{} of $\varphi$ at $y$ and is denoted by $\interpretable{\varphi}{y}$.
See Figure \[fig:reliabilityInterpretability\]b for an illustration.
----- -----
(a) (b)
----- -----
Defining equitability
---------------------
Proposition \[prop:interval\_estimates\] implies that if the interpretable intervals of $\hvphi$ with respect to $\Phi$ are small then $\hvphi$ will give good interval estimates of $\Phi$. There are many ways to summarize whether the interpretable intervals of $\hvphi$ are small; we focus here on two simple ones.
The worst-case $\alpha$-reliability (resp. $\alpha$-interpretability) of $\hvphi$ is $1/d$ if it is $1/d$-reliable (resp. interpretable) at all $x$ (resp. $y$) $\in [0,1]$. $\hvphi$ is said to be [*worst-case $1/d$-reliable*]{} (resp. [*$1/d$-interpretable*]{}) with probability (resp. confidence) $1-\alpha$.
The average-case $\alpha$-reliability (resp. $\alpha$-interpretability) of $\hvphi$ is $1/d$ if its reliability (resp. interpretability), averaged over all $x$ (resp. $y$) $\in [0,1]$, is at least $1/d$. $\hvphi$ is said to be [*average-case $1/d$-reliable*]{} (resp. [*$1/d$-interpretable*]{}) with probability (resp. confidence) $1-\alpha$.
(One could imagine more fine-grained ways to summarize reliability/interpretability according to, for example, some prior over the distributions in $\Q$ that reflects a belief about the importance or prevalence of various types of relationships; for simplicity, we do not pursue this here.)
With this vocabulary, we can now define equitability: [*average/worst-case equitability*]{} is simply average/worst-case interpretability with respect to some $\Phi$ that reflects relationship strength. In this paper, we distinguish between interpretability in general and equitability specifically by using “interpretability” in general statements and “equitability” in contexts in which $\Phi$ is specifically considered as a measure of relationship strength. Also, we often use “interpretability” and “equitability” with no qualifier to mean worst-case interpretability/equitability.
The corresponding definitions of average/worst-case interpretability/reliability can be made for $\varphi$ in the large-sample limit as well. In that setting, it is possible that all the interpretable intervals of $\varphi$ with respect to $\Phi$ have size 0; that is, the value of $\varphi(\mcZ)$ uniquely determines the value of $\Phi(\mcZ)$. In this case, the worst-case reliability/interpretability of $\varphi$ is $\infty$, and $\varphi$ is said to be [*perfectly reliable/interpretable*]{}, or [*perfectly equitable*]{} depending on context.
Before continuing, let us build intuition by giving two examples of statistics that are perfectly interpretable in the large-sample limit. First, the mutual information [@Cover2006; @csiszar2008axiomatic] is perfectly interpretable with respect to the correlation $\rho^2$ on the set $\Q$ of bivariate normal random variables. This is because for bivariate normals we have that $1-2^{-2I} = \rho^2$ [@linfoot1957informational]. Additionally, Theorem 6 of [@szekely2009brownian] shows that for bivariate normals distance correlation is a deterministic function of $\rho^2$ as well. Therefore, distance correlation is also perfectly interpretable and perfectly reliable with respect to $\rho^2$ on the set of bivariate normals $\Q$.
The perfect interpretability with respect to $\rho^2$ on bivariate normals exhibited in both of these examples is in fact equivalent to one of the “fundamental properties” introduced by Renyi in his framework for thinking about ideal properties of measures of dependence [@renyi1959measures]. This property contains a compromise: it guarantees interpretability that on the one hand is perfect, but on the other hand applies only on a relatively small set of standard relationships. One goal of equitability is to give us the tools to relax the “perfect” requirement in exchange for the ability to make $\Q$ a much larger set, e.g., a set of noisy functional relationships. Thus, equitability can be viewed as a generalization of Renyi’s requirement that allows for a tradeoff between the precision with which our statistic tells us about $\Phi$ and the set $\Q$ on which it does so.
Examples of- and results about equitability
-------------------------------------------
We now give examples, using the vocabulary developed here, of some concrete instantiations of- and results about equitability. Our focus here is on functional relationships, as defined below.
A random variable distributed over $\R^2$ is called a [*noisy functional relationship*]{} if and only if it can be written in the form $(X + \ep, f(X) + \ep')$ where $f : [0,1] \rightarrow \R$, $X$ is a random variable distributed over $[0,1]$, and $\ep$ and $\ep'$ are (possibly trivial) random variables. We denote the set of all noisy functional relationships by $\F$.
### Equitability on functional relationships with respect to $R^2$
We can now state one specific type of equitability on functional relationships: equitability with respect to $R^2$.
Let $\Q \subset \F$ be a set of noisy functional relationships. A measure of dependence is [*$1/d$-equitable*]{} on $\Q$ with respect to $R^2$ if it is $1/d$-interpretable with respect to $R^2$ on $\Q$.
We observe that this definition still depends on the set $\Q$ in question. The general approach taken in the literature thus far has been to fix some set $F$ of functions that on the one hand is large enough to be representative of relationships encountered in real data sets, but on the other hand is small enough to enable empirical analysis, and to make equitability a realistic goal.
As important as the choice of functions to include in $F$ is the choice of marginal distributions and noise model, both of which are left unspecified in our definition of noisy functional relationships. In past work, we have examined several possibilities. The simplest is $X \sim \mbox{Unif}$, $\ep' \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma^2)$ with $\sigma$ varying, and $\ep = 0$. Slightly more complex noise models include having $\ep$ and $\ep'$ i.i.d. Gaussians, or having $\ep$ be Gaussian and $\ep' = 0$. More complex marginal distributions include having $X$ be distributed in a way that depends on the graph of $f$, or having it be non-stochastic [@MINE; @reshef2015comparisons]. Given that we often lack a neat description of the noise in real data sets, we would ideally like a statistic to be highly equitable on as many different such models as possible.
We can also easily imagine models besides the ones described above: for instance, we might define $\ep_a$ and $\ep_b$ to be non-Gaussian, we might allow them to depend on each other, or we might allow their variance to depend on $f(X)$. The importance of such modifications depends on the context, but our formalism is designed to be flexible enough to handle general models that include such variations.
### A setting in which perfect equitability is impossible
One version of equitability on functional relationships for which perfect equitability has been shown to be impossible was introduced by Kinney and Atwal [@kinney2014equitability]. This version of equitability uses as standard relationships the set $$\Q_K = \left\{ (X, f(X) + \eta) \mbox{ } \big| \mbox{ } f : [0,1] \rightarrow [0,1], (\eta \perp X) | f(X)\right\}$$ with $\eta$ representing a random variable that is conditionally independent of $X$ given $f(X)$. This model describes functional relationships with noise in the second coordinate only, where that noise can depend arbitrarily on the value of $f(X)$ but must be otherwise independent of $X$.
Kinney and Atwal prove that no non-trivial measure of dependence can be perfectly worst-case interpretable with respect to $R^2$ on the set $\Q_K$. However, we note here that this result, while interesting, has two serious limitations. The first limitation, pointed out by Murrell *et al.* in the technical comment [@Murrell2014comment], is that $\Q_K$ is extremely large: in particular, the fact that the noise term $\eta$ can depend arbitrarily on the value of $f(X)$ leads to identifiability issues such as obtaining the noiseless relationship $f(X) = X^2$ as a noisy version of $f(X) = X$. The more permissive (i.e. large) a model is, the easier it is to prove an impossibility result for it. Since $\Q_K$ is not contained in the other major models considered in, e.g., [@MINE] and [@reshef2015comparisons], it follows that this impossibility result does not imply impossibility for any of those models.
The second limitation of Kinney and Atwal’s result is that it only addresses [*perfect*]{} equitability rather than the more general, approximate notion with which we are primarily concerned.[^8] While a statistic that is perfectly equitable with respect to $R^2$ may indeed be difficult or even impossible to achieve for many large models $\Q$ including some of the models in [@MINE] and [@reshef2015comparisons], such impossibility would make [*approximate*]{} equitability no less desirable a property. The question thus remains how equitable various measures are, both provably and empirically. To borrow an analogy from computer science, the fact that a problem is proven to be NP-complete does not mean that we that we do not want efficient algorithms for the problem; we simply may have to settle for approximate solutions. Similarly, there is merit in searching for measures of dependence that appear to be highly equitable with respect to $R^2$ in practice.
For more on this discussion, see the technical comment [@reshef2014comment].
Quantifying equitability via interpretable intervals {#sec:equitabilityExample}
----------------------------------------------------
Let us give a simple demonstration of how the formalism above can be used to empirically quantify equitability with respect to $R^2$ on a specific set of noisy functional relationships. We take as our statistic the sample correlation $\hat \rho$. Since this statistic is meant to detect linear dependencies, we do not expect it to be equitable on a broad class of relationships. In fact it is not even a measure of dependence, since its population value can be zero for relationships with non-trivial dependence. However, we analyze it here as an instructional example since it is widely used and gives intuitive scores. We analyze the equitability of other statistics in Section \[sec:equitabilityAnalysis\].
Figure \[fig:equitabilityExample\]a shows an analysis of the equitability with respect to $R^2$ of $\hat \rho$ at a sample size of $n=500$ on the set $$\Q = \{ \left( X, f(X) + \ep'_\sigma \right) : X \sim \mbox{Unif}, \ep'_\sigma \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma^2), f \in F, \sigma \in \R_{\geq 0} \}$$ where $F$ is a set of 16 functions analyzed in [@reshef2015comparisons]. (See Appendix \[app:analysis\_details\].)
To evaluate the equitability of $\hat \rho$ in this context, we generate, for each function $f \in F$ and for 41 noise levels chosen for each function to correspond to $R^2$ values uniformly spaced in $[0,1]$, $500$ independent samples of size $n=500$ from the relationship $Z_{f, \sigma} = (X, f(X) + \ep'_\sigma)$. We then evaluate $\hat \rho$ on each sample to estimate the 5th and 95th percentiles of the sampling distribution of $\hat \rho$ on $Z_{f, \sigma}$. By taking, for each $\sigma$, the maximal 95th percentile value and the minimal 5th percentile value across all $f \in F$, we obtain estimates of the $0.1$-reliable interval at each noise level. From the reliable intervals we can then construct interpretable intervals, and the equitability of $\hat \rho$ is the reciprocal of the length of the largest interpretable interval.
As expected, the interpretable intervals at many values of $\hat \rho$ are large. This is because our set of functions $F$ contains many non-linear functions, and so a given value of $\hat \rho$ can be assigned to relationships of different types with very different $R^2$ values. This is shown by the pairs of thumbnails in the figure, each of which depicts two relationships with the same $\hat \rho$ but different values of $R^2$. Thus, $\hat \rho$ has poor equitability with respect to $R^2$ on this set $\Q$. In contrast, Figure \[fig:equitabilityExample\]b depicts the way this analysis would look if $\rho$ were [*perfectly*]{} equitable: all the interpretable intervals would have size 0.
----- -----
(a) (b)
----- -----
Discussion
----------
In this section we formalized the notion of equitability via the concepts of reliability and interpretability. Given a statistic $\hvphi$ and a measure of relationship strength $\Phi$ defined on some set $\Q$ of standard relationships, we constructed a set of intervals called the interpretable intervals of $\hvphi$ with respect to $\Phi$. We constructed the interpretable intervals so they yield interval estimates of $\Phi$, and we then defined the (worst-case) equitability of $\hvphi$ to be the inverse of the size of the largest interpretable interval.
Strictly speaking, equitability simply requires that a natural set of confidence intervals obtained from analyzing $\hvphi$ as an estimator of $\Phi$ be small. However, there is a subtlety here: since in our setting $\Q$ typically contains several different relationship types, there are usually multiple relationships in $\Q$ with a given value of $\Phi$. This is different from the conventional framework of estimation of a parameter $\theta$, in which we assume that there is exactly one distribution with any given value of $\theta$, and we must account for this difference in our definitions.
When $\Q$ is so small that this subtlety does not arise, equitability becomes a less rich property. To see this, notice that if there is only one relationship in $\Q$ for every value of $\Phi$, then asymptotic monotonicity of $\hvphi$ with respect to $\Phi$ is sufficient for perfect equitability in the large-sample limit. In this scenario, the main obstacle to the equitability of $\hvphi$ is finite-sample effects, as with parameter estimation. For example, on the set $\Q$ of bivariate Gaussians, many measures of dependence are asymptotically perfectly equitable with respect to the correlation.
However, this differs from the motivating data exploration scenario we consider, in which $\Q$ contains many different relationship types and there are multiple different relationships corresponding to a given value of $\Phi$. Here, equitability can be hindered either by finite-sample effects, or by the differences in the asymptotic behavior of $\hvphi$ on different relationship types in $\Q$. This is illustrated in Figure \[fig:analogy\].
Regardless of the size of $\Q$ though, equitability is fundamentally meant for a situation in which we cannot simply estimate $\Phi$ directly. (In fact, if $\hvphi$ is a consistent estimator of $\Phi$ on $\Q$, it is trivially perfectly equitable in the large-sample limit.) This is because in data exploration we typically require that $\hvphi$ be a measure of dependence in order to obtain a minimal robustness guarantee, and this requirement makes it very difficult to make $\hvphi$ a consistent estimator of $\Phi$ on a large set $\Q$. For instance, suppose $\Q$ is a set of noisy functional relationships and $\Phi = R^2$. Here, computing the sample $R^2$ relative to a non-parametric estimate of the generating function will be asymptotically perfectly equitable. However, this approach is undesirable for data exploration because of its lack of robustness, as exemplified by the fact that it would assign a score of zero to, e.g., a circular relationship. Therefore, we are left with the problem of finding the next-best thing: a measure of dependence $\hvphi$ whose values have a clear, if approximate, interpretation in terms of $\Phi$. Equitability supplies us with a way of talking about how well $\hvphi$ does in this regard.
We close this section with the observation that, though we largely focused here on setting $\Q$ to be some set of noisy functional relationships, the appropriate definitions of $\Q$ and $\Phi$ may change from application to application. For instance, instead of functional relationships one may be interested in relationships supported on one-manifolds, with added noise. Or perhaps instead of $R^2$ one may decide to focus on the mutual information between the sampled y-values and the corresponding de-noised y-values [@kinney2014equitability], or on the fraction of deterministic signal in a mixture [@ding2013copula]. In each case the overarching goal should be to have $\Q$ be as large as possible without making it impossible to define an interesting $\Phi$ or making it impossible to find a measure of dependence that achieves good equitability on $\Q$ with respect to this $\Phi$. Finding such families $\Q$ and properties $\Phi$ is an important avenue of future work.
Equitability and statistical power {#sec:equitAndPower}
==================================
In the previous section we defined equitability in terms of interval estimation, and observed that the interpretable intervals of a statistic $\hvphi$ with respect to a property of interest $\Phi$ yield interval estimates of $\Phi$ on a set of distributions $\Q$. Given our construction of interpretable intervals via inversion of a set of hypothesis tests, it becomes natural to ask whether there is any connection between equitability and the power of those tests with respect to specific alternatives.
In this section we answer this question by showing that equitability can be equivalently formulated in terms of power with respect to a family of null hypotheses corresponding to different relationship strengths. This result re-casts equitability as a strengthening of power against statistical independence on $\Q$ and gives a second formal definition of equitability that is easily quantifiable using standard power analysis.
Henceforth, we fix the statistic $\hvphi$ and then use $\reliablestat{\alpha}{}{x}$ to denote the $\alpha$-reliable interval of $\hvphi$ at $x \in [0,1]$ and $\interpretablestat{\alpha}{}{x}$ to denote the $\alpha$-interpretable interval of $\hvphi$ at $y \in [0,1]$.
Intuition
---------
Before stating and proving the relationship between equitability and power, let us first build some intuition for why it should hold. We begin by recalling that the reliable interval $\reliablestat{\alpha}{}{x_0}$ is an acceptance region of a two-sided level-$\alpha$ test of $H_0 : \Phi(\mcZ) = x_0$. Since the interval estimates obtained by inverting this test are the interpretable intervals of $\hvphi$, it makes sense to ask whether there is any property of these hypothesis tests that improves as the interpretability of the statistic $\hvphi$ increases. To see why the relevant property is power, let us consider the following illustrative question: what is the minimal $x_1 > 0$ such that a right-tailed[^9] level-$\alpha$ test of $H_0 : \Phi = 0$ will have power at least $1-\beta$ on $H_1 : \Phi = x_1$? As shown graphically in Figure \[fig:equitabilityAndPowerAgainstIndep\], the answer can be stated in terms of the reliable and interpretable intervals of $\hvphi$.
Specifically, if $t_\alpha$ is the maximal element of $\reliablestat{2\alpha}{}{0}$, then the minimal value of $\Phi$ at which a right-tailed test based on $\hvphi$ will achieve power $1-\beta$ is $\Phi = \max \interpretablestat{2\beta}{}{t_\alpha}$, i.e., the maximal element of the $\beta$-interpretable interval at $t_\alpha$. So if the statistic is highly interpretable at $t_\alpha$, then we will be able to achieve high power against very small departures from the null hypothesis of independence. That is, good interpretability on $\Q$ implies good power against independence on $\Q$. It turns out that this reasoning holds in general and in both directions, as we establish below.
Definitions
-----------
To be able to state our main result, we need to formally describe how equitability would be formulated in terms of power. This requires two definitions. The first is a definition of a power function that parametrizes the space of possible alternative hypotheses specifically by the property of interest. The second is a definition of a property of this power function called its uncertain interval. It will turn out later than uncertain intervals are interpretable intervals and vice versa.
As before, let $\hvphi$ be a statistic, let $\Q$ be a set of standard relationships, and let $\Phi : \Q \rightarrow [0,1]$ be a property of interest defined on $\Q$. Given a set of right-tailed tests based on the same test statistic, we refer to the one with the smallest critical value as the most [*permissive*]{} test.
Fix $\alpha, x_0 \in [0,1]$, and let $T^{x_0}_\alpha$ be the most permissive level-$\alpha$ right-tailed test based on $\hvphi$ of the (possibly composite) null hypothesis $H_0 : \Phi(\mcZ) = x_0$. For $x_1 \in [0,1]$, define $$\powerfunc{\alpha}{x_0}(x_1) = \inf_{\mcZ : \Phi(\mcZ) = x_1} \Pr{T^{x_0}_\alpha(Z)\mbox{ rejects}}$$ where $Z$ is a sample of size $n$ from $\mcZ$. That is, $\powerfunc{\alpha}{x_0}(x_1)$ is the power of $T_\alpha^{x_0}$ with respect to the composite alternative hypothesis $H_1 : \Phi = x_1$.
We call the function $\powerfunc{\alpha}{x_0} : [0,1] \rightarrow [0,1]$ the [*level-$\alpha$ power function*]{} associated to $\hvphi$ at $x_0$ with respect to $\Phi$.
Note that in the above definition our null and alternative hypotheses may be composite since they are based on $\Phi$ and not on a complete parametrization of $\Q$. That is, $\mcZ$ can be one of several distributions with $\Phi(\mcZ) = x_0$ or $\Phi(\mcZ) = x$ respectively.
Under the assumption that $\Phi(\mcZ) = 0$ if and only if $\mcZ$ represents statistical independence, the power function $\powerfunc{\alpha}{0}$ gives the power of optimal level-$\alpha$ right-tailed tests based on $\hvphi$ at distinguishing various non-zero values of $\Phi$ from statistical independence across the different relationship types in $\Q$. One way to view the main result of this section is that the set of power functions at values of $x_0$ [*besides*]{} 0 contains much more information than just the power of right-tailed tests based on $\hvphi$ against the null hypothesis of $\Phi = 0$, and that this information can be equivalently viewed in terms of interpretable intervals. Specifically, we can recover the interpretability of $\hvphi$ at every $y \in [0,1]$ by considering its power functions at values of $x_0$ beyond 0.
Let us now define the precise aspect of the power functions associated to $\hvphi$ that will allow us to do this.
The [*uncertain set*]{} of a power function $\powerfunc{\alpha}{x_0}$ is the set $\{x_1 \geq x_0 : \powerfunc{\alpha}{x_0}(x_1) < 1-\alpha \}$.
The main result of this section will be that uncertain sets are interpretable intervals and vice versa.
Preliminary lemmas
------------------
Our proof of the alternate characterization of equitability in terms of power requires two short lemmas. The first shows a connection between the maximum element of a reliable interval and the minimal element of an interpretable interval, namely that these two operations are inverses of each other.
\[lem:reliable\_interpretable\_inverse\] Given a statistic $\hvphi$, a property of interest $\Phi$, and some $\alpha \in [0,1]$, define $f(x) = \max \reliablestat{\alpha}{}{x}$ and $g(y) = \min \interpretablestat{\alpha}{}{y}$. If $f$ is strictly increasing, then $f$ and $g$ are inverses of each other.
Let $y = f(x) = \max \reliablestat{\alpha}{}{x}$. We know that $\min \interpretablestat{\alpha}{}{y} \leq x$, for if it were greater than $x$ then we would have that $x \notin \interpretablestat{\alpha}{}{y}$, which would imply that $y \notin \reliablestat{\alpha}{}{x}$, contradicting the definition of $y$. On the other hand, we cannot have $\min \interpretablestat{\alpha}{}{y} < x$, because this would imply that there is some $x' < x$ such that $y \in \reliablestat{\alpha}{}{x'}$, meaning that $\max \reliablestat{\alpha}{}{x'} \geq y = \max \reliablestat{\alpha}{}{x}$, which contradicts the fact that $f$ is strictly increasing.
The second lemma gives the connection between reliable intervals and hypothesis testing that we will exploit in our proof.
\[lem:critical\_value\] Fix a statistic $\hvphi$, a property of interest $\Phi$, and some $\alpha, x_0 \in [0,1]$. The most permissive level-$(\alpha/2)$ right-tailed test based on $\hvphi$ of the null hypothesis $H_0 : \Phi(\mcZ) = x_0$ has critical value $\max \reliablestat{\alpha}{}{x_0}$.
We seek the smallest critical value that yields a level-$(\alpha/2)$ test. This would be the supremum, over all $\mcZ$ with $\Phi(\mcZ) = x_0$, of the $(1-\alpha/2)\cdot 100\%$ value of the sampling distribution of $\hvphi$ when applied to $\mcZ$. By definition this is $\max \reliablestat{\alpha}{}{x_0}$.
Proving the main result: equitability in terms of statistical power
-------------------------------------------------------------------
We are now ready to prove our main result, which is the following equivalent characterization of equitability in terms of statistical power.
\[thm:equivalence\] Fix a set $\Q \subset \P$, a function $\Phi : \Q \rightarrow [0,1]$, and $0 < \alpha < 1/2$. Let $\hvphi$ be a statistic with the property that $\max \reliablestat{2\alpha}{}{x}$ is a strictly increasing function of $x$. Then for all $d > 0$, the following are equivalent.
1. $\hvphi$ is worst-case $1/d$-interpretable with respect to $\Phi$ with confidence $1-2\alpha$.
2. For every $x_0, x_1 \in [0,1]$ satisfying $x_1 - x_0 > d$, there exists a level-$\alpha$ right-tailed test based on $\hvphi$ that can distinguish between $H_0 : \Phi(\mcZ) \leq x_0$ and $H_1 : \Phi(\mcZ) \geq x_1$ with power at least $1-\alpha$.
Theorem \[thm:equivalence\] can be seen to follow from the proposition below.
\[prop:equitabilityAndPower\] Fix $0 < \alpha < 1$ and $d > 0$, and suppose $\hvphi$ is a statistic with the property that $\max \reliablestat{\alpha}{}{x}$ is a strictly increasing function of $x$. Then for $y \in [0,1]$, the interval $\interpretablestat{\alpha}{}{y}$ equals the closure of the uncertain set of $\powerfunc{\alpha/2}{x_0}$ for $x_0 = \min \interpretablestat{\alpha}{}{y}$. Equivalently, for $x_0 \in [0,1]$, the closure of the uncertain set of $\powerfunc{\alpha/2}{x_0}$ equals $\interpretablestat{\alpha}{}{y}$ for $y = \max \reliablestat{\alpha}{}{x_0}$.
An illustration of this proposition and its proof is shown in Figure \[fig:equitabilityAndPower\].
The equivalence of the two statements follows from Lemma \[lem:reliable\_interpretable\_inverse\], which states that $y = \max \reliablestat{\alpha}{}{x_0}$ if and only if $x_0 = \min \interpretablestat{\alpha}{}{y}$. We therefore prove only the first statement, namely that $\interpretablestat{\alpha}{}{y}$ is the uncertain set of $\powerfunc{\alpha/2}{x_0}$ for $x_0 = \min \interpretablestat{\alpha}{}{y}$.
Let $U$ be the uncertain set of $\powerfunc{\alpha/2}{x_0}$. We prove the claim by showing first that $\inf U = \min \interpretablestat{\alpha}{}{y}$, and then that $\sup U = \max \interpretablestat{\alpha}{}{y}$.
To see that $\inf U = \min \interpretablestat{\alpha}{}{y}$, we simply observe that because $\alpha/2 < 1/2$, we have $\powerfunc{\alpha/2}{x_0}(x_0) \leq \alpha/2 < 1-\alpha/2$, which means that $U$ is non-empty, and so by construction its infimum is $x_0$, which we have assumed equals $\min \interpretablestat{\alpha}{}{y}$.
Let us now show that $\sup U \geq \max \interpretablestat{\alpha}{}{y}$: by the definition of the interpretable interval, we can find $x$ arbitrarily close to $\max \interpretablestat{\alpha}{}{y}$ from below such that $y \in \reliablestat{\alpha}{}{x}$. But this means that there exists some $\mcZ$ with $\Phi(\mcZ) = x$ such that if $Z$ is a sample of size $n$ from $\mcZ$ then $$\Pr{\hvphi(Z) < y} \geq \frac{\alpha}{2}$$ i.e., $$\Pr{\hvphi(Z) \geq y} < 1- \frac{\alpha}{2} .$$ But since as we already noted $y = \max \reliablestat{\alpha}{}{x_0}$, Lemma \[lem:critical\_value\] tells us that it is the critical value of the most permissive level-$(\alpha/2)$ right-tailed test of $H_0 : \Phi(\mcZ) = x_0$. Therefore, $\powerfunc{\alpha/2}{x_0}(x) < 1-\alpha/2$, meaning that $x \in U$.
It remains only to show that $\sup U \leq \max \interpretablestat{\alpha}{}{y}$. To do so, we note that $y \notin \reliablestat{\alpha}{}{x}$ for all $x > \max \interpretablestat{\alpha}{}{y}$. This implies that either $y > \max \reliablestat{\alpha}{}{x}$ or $y < \min \reliablestat{\alpha}{}{x}$. However, since $y \in \reliablestat{\alpha}{}{x_0}$ and $\max \reliablestat{\alpha}{}{\cdot}$ is an increasing function, no $x > x_0$ can have $y > \max \reliablestat{\alpha}{}{x}$. Thus the only option remaining is that $y < \min \reliablestat{\alpha}{}{x}$. This means that if $Z$ is a sample of size $n$ from any $\mcZ$ with $\Phi(\mcZ) = x > \max \interpretablestat{\alpha}{}{y}$, then $$\Pr{\hvphi(Z) < y} < \frac{\alpha}{2}$$ i.e., $$\Pr{\hvphi(Z) \geq y} \geq 1- \frac{\alpha}{2} .$$ As above, this implies that $\powerfunc{\alpha/2}{x_0}(x) \geq 1-\alpha/2$, which means that $x \notin U$, as desired.
Quantifying equitability via statistical power {#sec:equitabilityViaPower}
----------------------------------------------
Theorem \[thm:equivalence\] gives us an alternative to measuring equitability via lengths of interpretable intervals. Instead, for every $x_0 \in [0,1)$ and for every $x_1 > x_0$, we can use many samples of size $n$ to estimate the power of right-tailed tests based on $\hvphi$ at distinguishing $H_0: \Phi = x_0$ from $H_1 :\Phi = x_1$. This process is illustrated schematically in Figure \[fig:equitability\_power\_schematic\]. In that figure, good equitability corresponds to high power on pairs $(x_1, x_0)$ even when $x_1 - x_0$ is small.
Discussion
----------
In this section, we gave a characterization of equitability in terms of statistical power with respect to a family of null hypotheses corresponding to different relationship strengths. (See Theorem \[thm:equivalence\].) This characterization shows what the concept of equitability/interpretability is fundamentally about: being able to distinguish not just signal ($\Phi > 0$) from no signal ($\Phi = 0$) but also stronger signal ($\Phi = x_1$) from weaker signal ($\Phi = x_0$), and being able to do so across relationships of different types. This indeed makes sense when a data set contains an overwhelming number of heterogeneous relationships that exhibit, say, $\Phi(\mcZ) = 0.3$ and that we would like to ignore because they are not as interesting as the small number of relationships with, say, $\Phi(\mcZ) = 0.8$.
Let us now explore how the power requirement into which equitability translates differs from the conventional lens through which measures of dependence are analyzed. We do so by returning once more to the case in which $\Q$ is a set of noisy functional relationships and the property of interest is $R^2$. In this setting, the conventional way to assess a measure of dependence would be through analysis of its power with respect to a null hypothesis of independence and with a simple alternative hypothesis. Such an analysis would consider, say, right-tailed tests based on the statistic $\hvphi$ and evaluate their power at rejecting the null hypothesis of $R^2 = 0$, i.e. statistical independence, first on linear relationships with varying noise levels, then separately on exponential relationships with varying noise levels, and so on.
In contrast, our result shows that for $\hvphi$ to be $1/d$-equitable, it must yield right-tailed tests with high power at distinguishing null hypotheses of the form $R^2 \leq x_0$ from alternative hypotheses of the form $R^2 \geq x_1$ for [*any*]{} $x_1 > x_0 + d$. This is more stringent than the conventional analysis described above for the following three reasons.
1. Instead of just one null hypothesis $x_0$ (i.e., $x_0 = 0$), there are many possible values of $x_0$ corresponding to different $R^2$ values.
2. Each of the new null hypotheses can be composite since $\Q$ can contain relationships of many different types (e.g. noisy linear, noisy sinusoidal, and noisy parabolic). Whereas for many measures of dependence all of these relationships may have reduced to a single null hypothesis of statistical independence in the case of $R^2 = 0$, they yield composite null hypotheses once we allow $R^2$ to be non-zero.
3. The alternative hypotheses here are also composite, since each one similarly consists of several different relationship types with the same $R^2$. Whereas conventional analysis of power against independence considers only one alternative at a time, here we require that tests simultaneously have good power on sets of alternatives with the same $R^2$.
This understanding of equitability is both good news and bad news. On the one hand, it provides us with a concrete sense of the relationship of equitability to power against independence, which has been the more traditional way of evaluating measures of dependence. In so doing, it also makes clear the motivation behind equitability and the cases in which it is useful. On the other hand, however, the understanding that equitability corresponds to power against a much larger set of null hypotheses suggests, via “no free lunch”-type considerations, that if we want to achieve higher power against this larger set of null hypotheses, we may need to give up some power against independence. And indeed, in [@reshef2015comparisons] we demonstrate empirically that such a trade-off does seem to exist for several measures of dependence.
However, there are situations in which it may be desirable to give up some power against independence in exchange for a degree of equitability. For instance, recall the analysis [@heller2014consistent] of the gene expression data set discussed earlier in this paper. In that analysis, not only did several measures of dependence each detect thousands of significant relationships after correction for multiple hypothesis testing, but there was also an overlap of over $85\%$ among the relationships detected by the five best-performing methods. In data exploration scenarios such as this one, in which existing measures of dependence reliably identify so many relationships, focusing on additional gains in power against independence appears less of a significant priority than deciding how to choose among the large number of relationships already detected.
Equitability implies low detection threshold
============================================
The primary motivation given for equitability is that often data sets contain so many relationships that we are not interested in all deviations from independence but rather only in the strongest few relationships. However, there are also many data sets in which, due to low sample size, multiple-testing considerations, or relative lack of structure in the data, very few relationships pass significance. Alternatively, there are also settings in which equitability is too ambitious even at large sample sizes. In such settings, we may indeed be interested in simply detecting deviations from independence rather than ranking them by strength.
In this situation, there is still cause for concern about the effect on our results of our choice of test statistic $\hvphi$. For instance, it is easy to imagine that, despite asymptotic guarantees, an independence test will suffer from low power even on strong relationships of a certain type at a finite sample size $n$ because the test statistic systematically assigns lower scores to relationships of that type. To avoid this, we might want a guarantee that, at a sample size of $n$, the test has a given amount of power in detecting relationships whose strength as measured by $\Phi$ is above a certain threshold, across a broad range of relationship types. This would ensure that, even if we cannot rank relationships by strength, we at least will not miss important relationships as a result of the statistic we use.
In this section we show a straightforward connection between equitability as defined above and this desideratum, which we call [*low detection threshold*]{}. In particular, we show via the alternate characterization of equitability proven in the previous section that low detection threshold is a straightforward consequence of high equitability. Since the converse does not hold, low detection threshold may be a reasonable criterion to use in situations in which equitability is too much to ask.
Given a set $\Q$ of standard relationships, and a property of interest $\Phi$, we define low detection threshold as follows.
A statistic $\hvphi$ has a [*$(1-\beta)$-detection threshold*]{} of $d$ at level $\alpha$ with respect to $\Phi$ on $\Q$ if there exists a level-$\alpha$ right-tailed test based on $\hvphi$ of the null hypothesis $H_0 : \Phi(\mcZ) = 0$ whose power on $H_1 : \mcZ$ at a sample size of $n$ is at least $1-\beta$ for all $\mcZ \in \Q$ with $\Phi(\mcZ) > d$.
The connection between equitability and low detection threshold is then a straightforward corollary of Theorem \[thm:equivalence\].
Fix some $0 < \alpha < 1$, let $\hvphi$ be worst-case $1/d$-interpretable with respect to $\Phi$ on $\Q$ with confidence $1-2\alpha$, and assume that $\max \reliablestat{2\alpha}{}{\cdot}$ is a strictly increasing function. Then $\hvphi$ has a $(1-\alpha)$-detection threshold of $d$ at level $\alpha$ with respect to $\Phi$ on $\Q$.
Assume that $\Phi$ has the property that it is zero precisely in cases of statistical independence. Then the above corollary says that equitability and interpretability — to the extent they can be achieved — make strong guarantees about power against independence on $\Q$. On the other hand, it is easy to see that low detection threshold need not imply equitability. Therefore, minimal power against independence is a strictly weaker criterion than equitability.
The connection between equitability and detection threshold with respect to $\Phi$ is important because there exist situations in which equitability may be difficult to achieve but in which we still want some sort of guarantee about the robustness of our power against independence to changes in relationship type. This general theme of not missing relationships because of their type is the intuitive heart of equitability, and the above corollary shows how this conception might be utilized in other ways.
Another way that low detection threshold arises naturally is if we pre-filter our data set using some independence test before conducting a more fine-grained analysis with a second statistic. In that case, low detection threshold ensures that we will not “throw out” important relationships prematurely just because of their relationship type. In our companion paper [@reshef2015comparisons], we propose precisely such a scheme, and we analyze the detection threshold of the preliminary test in question to argue that the scheme will perform well.
Quantifying equitability in practice {#sec:equitabilityAnalysis}
====================================
Having defined equitability and seen how it can be interpreted in terms of power, we now consider the equitability on a set of noisy functional relationships of some commonly used methods: the maximal information coefficient as estimated by $\MICestE$ [@reshef2015estimating], distance correlation [@szekely2007measuring; @szekely2009brownian; @huo2014fast], and mutual information [@Cover2006; @csiszar2008axiomatic] as estimated using the Kraskov estimator [@Kraskov].
In this analysis, we use $\Phi = R^2$ as our property of interest, $n=500$ as our sample size, and $$\Q = \{ (x + \ep_\sigma, f(x) + \ep'_\sigma) : x \in X_f, \ep_\sigma, \ep'_\sigma \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma^2), f \in F, \sigma \in \R_{\geq 0} \}$$ where $\ep_\sigma$ and $\ep'_\sigma$ are i.i.d., $F$ is the set of functions in Appendix \[app:analysis\_details\], and $X_f$ is the set of $n$ x-values that result in the points $(x_i, f(x_i))$ being equally spaced along the graph of $f$.
The results of the analysis are shown in Figure \[fig:equitabilityAnalysis\]. The figure visualizes the analysis via both interpretable intervals and statistical power. By Theorem \[thm:equivalence\], these two viewpoints are equivalent, and they are both shown here in order to help the reader build intuition for this equivalence. For instance, the worst-case $0.1$-interpretability of $\MICestE$ here is $2.92$, because the widest interpretable interval is of size $2.92$. And indeed, $\MICestE$ yields right-tailed tests with $1-0.1/2 = 95\%$ power at distinguishing any null hypothesis of the form $H_0: R^2(\mcZ) = x_0$ from any alternative hypothesis of the form $H_1: R^2(\mcZ) = x_1$ provided $x_1 - x_0 > 1/2.92 = 0.342$.
As the figure demonstrates, the equitability of $2.92$ achieved by $\MICestE$ on this $\Q$ is the highest among the methods examined. In contrast, the equitabilities with respect to $R^2$ of distance correlation and mutual information estimation on this $\Q$ are $1$ and $1.04$, respectively. For a more extensive analysis that varies the sample size as well as noise model and marginal distributions, and compares many more methods, see [@reshef2015comparisons].
\
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
Informally, given some measure $\Phi$ of relationship strength, the [*equitability*]{} of a measure of dependence $\hvphi$ with respect to $\Phi$ is the degree to which $\hvphi$ allows us to draw inferences about relationship strength across a broad set of relationship types. We give here a conceptual framework to motivate equitability and then discuss the contributions of this work.
### The motivation for equitability
There are two different ways to motivate equitability. The first is to begin with a measure of dependence $\hvphi$ and to observe that, though $\hvphi$ will asymptotically allow us to detect all deviations from independence in a data set, it need not tell us anything about the strength of those relationships. Since it often happens that we detect many more relationships than can be realistically followed up, it would be desirable to have $\hvphi$ tell us something not just about the presence or absence of a relationship, but also about relationship strength as defined by $\Phi$ on at least a partial set of “standard relationships” $\Q$.
The second way is to suppose that $\hvphi$ is a consistent estimator of $\Phi$ on $\Q$ and to ask “what is the minimal requirement we can add to ensure that $\hvphi$ is robust to detecting relationships outside of $\Q$?” Perhaps the weakest stipulation we can impose is that the population value $\varphi$ of our statistic be non-zero in cases of non-trivial dependence of any sort. That is, we want $\hvphi$ to be a measure of dependence as well.
Both of these scenarios would be resolved by a measure of dependence that is also a consistent estimator of $\Phi$. However, in many interesting cases there is no known statistic satisfying both properties: for instance, if $\Q$ is a set of noisy functional relationships and $\Phi$ is $R^2$, then on the one hand computing the sample $R^2$ with respect to a non-parametric estimate of the generating function will be a consistent estimator of $\Phi$, but will give a score of 0 to a circle. And on the other hand, no measure of dependence is known also to be a consistent estimator of $R^2$ on noisy functional relationships.
This naturally leads us to wonder whether, despite the difficulty of simultaneously estimating $\Phi$ consistently and retaining the properties of a measure of dependence, we can at least seek an approximate version of this ideal. Doing so, however, requires a weaker requirement than consistent estimation. This is what leads us to equitability. Equitability allows us to seek statistics that have the robustness of measures of dependence but that also, via their relationship to a property of interest $\Phi$, give values that have a clear, if approximate, interpretation and can therefore be used to rank relationships.
### Contributions of this work
In this paper, we formalized and developed the theory of equitability in three ways. We first defined the equitability of a statistic $\hvphi$ on $\Q$ with respect to $\Phi$ as the extent to which $\hvphi$ give us good interval estimates of $\Phi$ on $\Q$. Our definition rests on an object called the interpretable interval, which has coverage guarantees with respect to $\Phi$. We define $\hvphi$ to be equitable if all of its interpretable intervals are small.
Second, we showed that this formalization of equitability can be equivalently stated in terms of power against a specific set of null hypotheses corresponding to different relationship strengths. That is, while measures of dependence have conventionally been judged by their power at distinguishing non-trivial signal from statistical independence, equitability is equivalent to the stronger property of being able to distinguish different degrees of possibly non-trivial signal strength from each other.
Third, we defined a concept called low detection threshold, which stipulates that, at a fixed sample size, a statistic yield independence tests with a guaranteed minimal power to detect relationships whose strength passes a certain threshold, across a range of relationship types. We showed that low detection threshold is a straightforward consequence of equitability. Since the converse does not hold, low detection threshold is a natural weaker criterion that one could aim for when equitability proves difficult to achieve.
Our formalization and its results serve three primary purposes. The first is to provide a framework for rigorous discussion and exploration of equitability and related concepts. The second is to situate equitability in the context of interval estimation and hypothesis testing and to clarify its relationship to central concepts in those areas such as confidence and statistical power. The third is to show that equitability and the language developed around it can help us to both formulate and achieve other useful desiderata for measures of dependence.
These connections provide a framework for thinking about the utility of both current and future measure of dependence for exploratory data analysis. Power against independence, the lens through which measures of dependence are currently evaluated, is appropriate in many settings in which very few significant relationships are expected, or in which we want to know whether one specific relationship is non-trivial or not. However, in situations in which most measures of dependence already identify a large number of relationships, a rigorous theory of equitability will allow us to begin to assess when we can glean more information from a given measure of dependence than just the binary result of an independence test.
Of course, there is much left to understand about equitability. For instance, to what extent is it achievable for different properties of interest? What are natural and useful properties of interest for sets $\Q$ besides noisy functional relationships? For common statistics such as $\MIC$ [@MINE] or $\MICestE$ [@reshef2015estimating], can we obtain a theoretical characterization of the sets $\Q$ for which good equitability with respect to $R^2$ is achieved? Are there systematic ways of obtaining equitable behavior via a learning framework as was done for causation in [@lopez2015towards]? These questions all deserve attention.
Equitability as framed here is certainly not the only goal to which we should strive in developing new measures of dependence. As data sets not only grow in size but also become more varied, there will undoubtedly develop new and interesting use-cases for measures of dependence, each with its own way of assessing success. Notwithstanding which particular modes of assessment are used, it is important that we formulate and explore concepts that move beyond power against independence, at least in the bivariate setting. Equitability provides one approach to coping with the changing nature of data exploration, but more generally, we can and should ask more of measures of dependence.
Acknowledgments
===============
The authors would like to acknowledge R Adams, E Airoldi, H Finucane, A Gelman, M Gorfine, R Heller, J Huggins, J Mueller, and R Tibshirani for constructive conversations and useful feedback.
Details of analyses {#app:analysis_details}
===================
Functions analysed in Figures \[fig:equitabilityExample\] and \[fig:equitabilityAnalysis\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is the legend showing which function types correspond to the colors in each of Figures \[fig:equitabilityExample\] and \[fig:equitabilityAnalysis\]. The functions used are the same as the ones in the equitability analyses of [@reshef2015comparisons].
Parameters used in Figure \[fig:equitabilityAnalysis\]
------------------------------------------------------
In the analysis of the equitability of $\MICestE$, distance correlation, and mutual information, the following parameter choices were made: for $\MICestE$, $\alpha = 0.8$ and $c=5$ were used; for distance correlation no parameter is required; and for mutual information estimation via the Kraskov estimator, $k=6$ was used. The parameters chosen were the ones that maximize overall equitability in the detailed analyses performed in [@reshef2015comparisons]. For mutual information, the choice of $k=6$ (out of the parameters tested: $k=1,6,10,20$) also maximizes equitability on the specific set $\Q$ that is analyzed in Figure \[fig:equitabilityAnalysis\].
[^1]: School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University.
[^2]: Co-first author.
[^3]: To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: [[email protected]]([email protected])
[^4]: Department of Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
[^5]: Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University.
[^6]: Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard.
[^7]: Co-last author.
[^8]: As a matter of record, we wish to clarify a confusion in Kinney and Atwal’s work. They write “The key claim made by Reshef *et al.* in arguing for the use of MIC as a dependence measure has two parts. First, MIC is said to satisfy not just the heuristic notion of equitability, but also the mathematical criterion of $R^2$-equitability...”, with the latter term referring to what we here define as perfect equitability [@kinney2014equitability]. However, such a claim was never made in our previous work [@MINE]. Rather, that paper [@MINE] informally defined equitability as an approximate notion and compared the equitability of $\MIC$, mutual information estimation, and other schemes empirically, concluding not that $\MIC$ is perfectly equitable but rather that it is the most equitable statistic available in a variety of settings. One method can be more equitable than another, even if neither method is perfectly equitable.
[^9]: We consider a one-sided test here, and henceforth in this section. The reason is because in practice when $\Phi$ corresponds to relationship strength, we are interested in rejecting a null hypothesis representing weaker relationships. In such a situation, it is more common to perform a one-sided test. Nevertheless, results similar to those shown in this section can be derived for two-sided tests as well.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Göttsche gave a formula for the dimension of the cohomology of Hilbert schemes of points on a smooth projective surface $S$. When $S$ admits an action by a finite group $G$, we describe the action of $G$ on the cohomology spaces. In the case that $S$ is a K3 surface, each element of $G$ gives a trace on $\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{i}H^{i}(S^{[n]},\mathbb{C})q^{n}$. When $G$ acts faithfully and symplectically on $S$, the resulting generating function is of the form $q/f(q)$, where $f(q)$ is a cusp form. We relate the cohomology of Hilbert schemes of points to the cohomology of the compactified Jacobian of the tautological family of curves over an integral linear system on a K3 surface as $G$-representations. Finally, we give a sufficient condition for a $G$-orbit of curves with nodal singularities not to contribute to the representation.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 47405, U.S.A.'
author:
- Sailun Zhan
title: Counting rational curves on K3 surfaces with finite group actions
---
Introduction
============
Let $S$ be a smooth projective K3 surface over $\mathbb{C}$. In [@YZ96] and [@Bea99], the number of rational curves in an integral linear system on $S$ is calculated using the relative compactified Jacobian. The idea is that the Euler characteristic of the relative compactified jacobian equals the number of maximally degenerate fibers if all rational fibers are nodal, and these are the raional curves we want. But the relative compactified jacobian is birational to the Hilbert scheme of points of $S$, the Euler characteristic of which is computed in [@Go90]. Hence we get the number of rational curves and the generating series: $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}N(n) t^{n}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}e({\overline{J^{n}(\mathcal{C}_{n})}})t^{n}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}e(S^{[n]}) t^{n}=\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}(1-t^{n})^{-24}=\frac{t}{\Delta(t)}$$ where $N(n)$ is the number of rational curves contained in an $n$-dimensional linear system $|\mathcal{L}|$, $\mathcal{C}_{n}$ is the tautological family of curves over $|\mathcal{L}|$ with fibers being integral, $S^{[n]}$ is the Hilbert scheme of $n$ points of $S$ and $\Delta(t)=t\prod_{n\geq 1}(1-t^n)^{24}$ is the unique cusp form of weight 12 for $SL_{2}(\mathbb{Z})$.
In this paper $G$ will always be a finite group. We will consider a smooth projective K3 surface over $\mathbb{C}$ with a $G$-action, and ask whether we can prove a similar equality for $G$-representations. Since the main idea is to count the number of rational points in finite fields and then use comparison theorems between singular cohomology and $l$-adic cohomology, we will also consider the situation in characteristic $p$. $H^{i}(\cdot,\mathbb{C})$ denotes the singular cohomology and $H^{i}(\cdot,\mathbb{Q}_{l})$ denotes the $l$-adic cohomology. We will consider power series with coefficients lying in the ring of virtual graded $G$-representations $R_{k}(G)$, of which the elements are the formal differences of isomorphism classes of finite dimensional graded $k$-representations of $G$. The addition is given by direct sum and the multiplication is given by tensor product.
The main results are as follows.
[**Theorem 1.1.**]{} [*Let $S$ be a smooth projective surface over $\mathbb{F}_{q}$ with a $G$-action, where $q$ is a power of $p$. Suppose $p\nmid|G|$. Let $S^{[n]}$ be the Hilbert scheme of n points of $S$, and let $S^{(n)}$ be the $n$-th symmetric power of $S$. Then we have the following equality as virtual graded $G$-representations.*]{} $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}[H^{*}({S^{[n]}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}}}, \mathbb{Q}_l)]t^{n}=\prod_{m=1}^{\infty}\left(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}[H^{*}({S^{(n)}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}}},\mathbb{Q}_l)][-2n(m-1)]t^{mn}\right)$$ $$=\prod_{m=1}^{\infty}\frac{\left(\sum_{i=0}^{b_{1}}[(\wedge^{i}H^{1})\otimes \mathbb{Q}_{l,q^{i(m-1)}}]t^{mi}\right)\left(\sum_{i=0}^{b_{3}}[(\wedge^{i}H^{3})\otimes \mathbb{Q}_{l,q^{i(m-1)}}]t^{mi}\right)}{\Bigl(1-[\mathbb{Q}_{l,q^{m-1}}]t^m\Bigr)\left(\sum_{i=0}^{b_{2}}(-1)^{i}[(\wedge^{i}H^{2})\otimes \mathbb{Q}_{l,q^{i(m-1)}}]t^{mi}\right)\Bigl(1-[\mathbb{Q}_{l,q^{m+1}}]t^m\Bigr)}$$ [*where the coefficients lie in $R_{\mathbb{Q}_{l}}(G)$, $H^{*}:=\oplus H^{i}$ and $[-2n(m-1)]$ indicates shift in degrees. $\wedge^{i}H^{j}$ means $\wedge^{i}H^{j}(S_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}},\mathbb{Q}_{l})$ of degree $ij$, and $\mathbb{Q}_{l,q^n}$ denotes the one-dimensional trivial $G$-representation $\mathbb{Q}_{l}[-2n]$. In particular, the above equalities hold in $R_{\mathbb{C}}(G)[[t]]$ for the singular cohomology if $S$ is a smooth projective surface over $\mathbb{C}$ with a $G$-action by comparison theorems.*]{} $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}[H^{*}(S^{[n]}, \mathbb{C})]t^{n}=\prod_{m=1}^{\infty}\left(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}[H^{*}(S^{(n)},\mathbb{C})][-2n(m-1)]t^{mn}\right)$$ $$=\prod_{m=1}^{\infty}\frac{\left(\sum_{i=0}^{b_{1}}[(\wedge^{i}H^{1})\otimes \mathbb{C}_{q^{i(m-1)}}]t^{mi}\right)\left(\sum_{i=0}^{b_{3}}[(\wedge^{i}H^{3})\otimes \mathbb{C}_{q^{i(m-1)}}]t^{mi}\right)}{\Bigl(1-[\mathbb{C}_{q^{m-1}}]t^m\Bigr)\left(\sum_{i=0}^{b_{2}}(-1)^{i}[(\wedge^{i}H^{2})\otimes \mathbb{C}_{q^{i(m-1)}}]t^{mi}\right)\Bigl(1-[\mathbb{C}_{q^{m+1}}]t^m\Bigr)}.$$
[**Corollary 1.2.**]{} [*Let $S$ be a smooth projective surface over $\mathbb{C}$ with a $G$-action. If we fix $i\geq 0$, then $H^{i}(S^{[n]},\mathbb{C})$ become stable for $n\geq i$ as $G$-representations.*]{}
[**Theorem 1.3.**]{} [*Let $X$ and $Y$ be smooth projective algebraic varieties over $\mathbb{C}$ with a $G$-action. If $X$ and $Y$ have trivial canonical bundles and there is a birational map $f:X\rightarrow Y$ which commutes with the $G$-action, then*]{} $$H^{*}(X,\mathbb{C})\cong H^{*}(Y,\mathbb{C})$$ [*as graded G-representations.*]{}
Note that Theorem 1.3 is the finite group actions version of Batyrev’s result [@Ba99]. As explained in [@Ba99 Prop 3.1], there exists $U\subset X$ (resp. $V\subset Y$) which is the maximal open subset where $f$ (resp. $f^{-1}$) is defined, and we have $f:U\rightarrow V$ is an isomorphism. The requirement of commuting with the $G$-action in Theorem 1.3 means that $U, V$ are $G$-stable, and $f:U\rightarrow V$ commutes with the $G$-action.
Recall that a linear system $|\mathcal{L}|$ is called an integral linear system if every effective divisor in it is integral. $|\mathcal{L}|$ is called $G$-stable if $G$ induces an action on the projective space $|\mathcal{L}|$, which means $G$ maps an effective divisor in $|\mathcal{L}|$ again to an effective divisor in $|\mathcal{L}|$.
[**Corollary 1.4.**]{} [*Let $S$ be a smooth projective K3 surface over $\mathbb{C}$ with a $G$-action, and let $\mathcal{C}_n$ be the tautological family of curves over any $n$-dimensional integral $G$-stable linear system. Then we have the following equalities as virtual graded $G$-representations.*]{} $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}[e({\overline{J^{n}(\mathcal{C}_n)}})]t^{n}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}[e(S^{[n]})]t^{n}=\prod_{m=1}^{\infty}\left(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}[e({S^{(n)}})][-2n(m-1)]t^{mn}\right)\tag{$*$}$$ $$=\prod_{m=1}^{\infty}\frac{\left(\sum_{i=0}^{b_{1}}(-1)^{i}[\wedge^{i}H^{1}][-2i(m-1)]t^{mi}\right)\left(\sum_{i=0}^{b_{3}}(-1)^{i}[\wedge^{i}H^{3}][-2i(m-1)]t^{mi}\right)}{\Bigl(1-\mathbb{C}[-2(m-1)]t^m\Bigr)\left(\sum_{i=0}^{b_{2}}(-1)^{i}[\wedge^{i}H^{2}][-2i(m-1)]t^{mi}\right)\Bigl(1-\mathbb{C}[-2(m+1)]t^m\Bigr)}$$ [*where the coefficients lie in $R_{\mathbb{C}}(G)$, $e(X)$ means $\sum_{i}(-1)^{i}H^{i}(X,\mathbb{C})$, and $\wedge^{i}H^{j}$ means $\wedge^{i}H^{j}(S,\mathbb{C})$ of degree $ij$.*]{}
[**Remark 1.5.**]{} Note that we are fixing the surface $S$ here, so the equality above should be understood as: if $S$ admits an $n$-dimensional integral $G$-stable linear system, then $[e(\overline{J^{n}(\mathcal{C}_n)})]$ equals the coefficient of $t^n$ on the right hand side.
Recall that for a complex K3 surface $S$ with an automorphism $g$ of finite order $n$, $H^{0}(S,K_{S})=\mathbb{C}\omega_{S}$ has dimension 1, and we say $g$ acts symplectically on $S$ if it acts trivially on $\omega_{S}$, and $g$ acts non-symplectically otherwise, namely, $g$ sends $\omega_{S}$ to $\zeta_{n}^{k}\omega_{S}$, $0<k<n$, where $\zeta_{n}$ is a primitive $n$-th root of unity.
For the right hand side of $(*)$, we have
[**Theorem 1.6.**]{} [*Let $G$ be a finite group which acts faithfully and symplectically on a complex K3 surface $S$. Then*]{} $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\text{Tr}(g)|_{[e(S^{[n]})]}t^{n}=\text{exp}\left(\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{\epsilon(\text{ord}(g^{k}))t^{mk}}{k}\right)$$ [*for all $g\in G$, where $\epsilon(n)=24\left(n\prod_{p|n}\left(1+\frac{1}{p}\right)\right)^{-1}$. In particular, if $G$ is generated by a single element $g$ of order $N\leq 8$, then we have*]{}
$N$ $\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\text{Tr}(g)|_{[e(S^{[n]})]}t^{n}$
----- --------------------------------------------------------------
$1$ $t/\eta(t)^{24}$
$2$ $t/\eta(t)^{8}\eta(t^{2})^{8}$
$3$ $t/\eta(t)^{6}\eta(t^{3})^{6}$
$4$ $t/\eta(t)^{4}\eta(t^{2})^{2}\eta(t^{4})^{4}$
$5$ $t/\eta(t)^{4}\eta(t^{5})^{4}$
$6$ $t/\eta(t)^{2}\eta(t^{2})^{2}\eta(t^{3})^{2}\eta(t^{6})^{2}$
$7$ $t/\eta(t)^{3}\eta(t^{7})^{3}$
$8$ $t/\eta(t)^{2}\eta(t^{2})\eta(t^{4})\eta(t^{8})^{2}$
[*where $\eta(t)=t^{1/24}\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}(1-t^{n})$.*]{}
[**Remark 1.7.**]{} Notice that if $g$ acts symplectically on $S$, then $g$ has order $\leq 8$ by [@H16 Corollary 15.1.8]. We know the generating series for topological Euler characteristic $\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}e(S^{[n]})t^{n}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\text{Tr}(1)|_{[e(S^{[n]})]}t^{n}$ equals $t/\Delta(t)$, where $\Delta(t)=\eta(t)^{24}$ is a level 1 cusp form of weight 12. But by Theorem 1.6, we deduce that when an element $g$ of order $N$ acts faithfully and symplectically on $S$, we have $\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\text{Tr}(g)|_{[e(S^{[n]})]}t^{n}=t/F(t)$, where $F(t)$ is also a cusp form for $\Gamma_{0}(N)$ of weight $\lceil\frac{24}{N+1}\rceil$ ([@CS17 Proposition 5.9.2]). This coincides with the results by Jim Bryan and Ádám Gyenge in [@BG19] when $G$ is a cyclic group. See also [@BO18 Lemma 3.1].
[**Theorem 1.8.**]{} [*Let $G=\left<g\right>$ be a finite group generated by an automorphism $g$ of order $p$, which acts non-symplectically on a complex K3 surface $S$. Then we have*]{} $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\text{Tr}(1)|_{[e(S^{[n]})]}t^{n}=\left(\prod_{m=1}^{\infty}(1-t^{m})\right)^{-24}$$ $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\text{Tr}(g)|_{[e(S^{[n]})]}t^{n}=\left(\prod_{m=1}^{\infty}(1-t^{m})\right)^{dp-24}\left(\prod_{m=1}^{\infty}(1-t^{mp})\right)^{-d}$$ [*for all $g\in G$, $g\neq 1$, where $d=\frac{{\rm{rank}}\,T(g)}{p-1}$, and $T(g):=(H^{2}(S,\mathbb{Z})^{g})^{\bot}$ is the orthogonal complement of the $g$-invariant sublattice.*]{}
For the left hand side of $(*)$, recall that in [@Bea99], for the curve $C$ in $\mathcal{C}_n$, we have $e(\overline{J^{n}(C)})=0$ if the normalization $\tilde{C}$ has genus $\geq$ 1, and $e(\overline{J^{n}(C)})=1$ if $C$ is a nodal rational curve. Hence intuitively that is why $e(\overline{J^{n}(\mathcal{C}_{n})})$ counts the number of rational curves in $\mathcal{C}_{n}$ if we assume all rational curves in $\mathcal{C}_{n}$ are nodal. But in our situation, $e(\overline{J^{n}(C)})=0$ does not mean $[e(\overline{J^{n}(C)})]=0$ as $G$-representations. Hence non-rational curves may also contribute to $[e({\overline{J^{n}(\mathcal{C}_n)}})]$, and certain $G$-orbits of curves contribute certain representations (See Example 1, 2 and 3). Nevertheless, we show that a $G$-orbit of curves with nodal singularities will contribute nothing if the normalization of the curve quotient by its stablizer is not rational. By this method, we are able to understand certain $G$-orbits in the linear system. We denote by $[e(X)]$ the alternating sum of the compactly supported $l$-adic cohomology $\sum_{n=0}(-1)^{n}[H^{n}_{c}(X_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}},\mathbb{Q}_{l})]$ when we are in the situation of characteristic $p$.
[**Theorem 1.9.**]{} [*Let $C$ be an integral curve over $\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}$ with nodal singularities and a $G$-action. Suppose $p\nmid|G|$. Denote by $\tilde{C}$ its normalization. If $\tilde{C}/\left<g\right>$ is not a rational curve [(]{}i.e. $\mathbb{P}^{1}$[)]{} over $\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}$ for every $g\in G$, then $[e(\overline{J^{n}C})]=0$ as $G$-representations.*]{}
[**Corollary 1.10.**]{} [*Let $C$ be an integral curve over $\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}$ with nodal singularities and a $G$-action. Suppose $p\nmid|G|$. Denote by $\tilde{C}$ its normalization. If $\tilde{C}/G$ is not a rational curve [(]{}i.e. $\mathbb{P}^{1}$[)]{} over $\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}$, then $[e(\overline{J^{n}C})]=0$ as $G$-representations.*]{}
By the above discussions, we show that the representation $[e(\overline{J^{n}(\mathcal{C}_{n})})]$ actually ‘counts’ the curves in $\mathcal{C}_{n}$ whose normalization quotient by its stablizer is rational (See Example 1, 2, and 3).
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 explains how we can compare cohomology groups using the Weil conjectures. In Section 3, we work with Hilbert schemes of points and prove Theorem 1.1 and Corollary 1.2. In Section 4, we review the method of $p$-adic integrals in [@Ba99] and prove Theorem 1.3 by applying it in our case. In Section 5, we deal with compactified jacobians and prove Theorem 1.9 and Corollary 1.10. In Section 6, we prove Corollary 1.4, Theorem 1.6 and Theorem 1.8 by using the results in previous sections. Then we give three explicit examples when $G$ equals $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ or $\mathbb{Z}/3\mathbb{Z}$. Finally, when $G=PSL(2,7), A_{6}, A_{5}\ {\rm or}\ S_{5}$, we determine the smooth projective curve $C$ over $\mathbb{C}$ with a faithful $G$-action if there exists $g\in G$ such that $C/{\left<g\right>}=\mathbb{P}^{1}$.
I thank my advisor Professor Michael Larsen for his guidance and valuable discussions throughout this work, and in particular, for suggesting the problem. I also thank Professor Jim Bryan for several helpful suggestions and comments.
Preliminaries
=============
Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety over $\mathbb{C}$. Then we can choose a finitely generated $\mathbb{Z}$-subalgebra $\mathcal{R}\subset\mathbb{C}$ such that $X\cong\mathcal X\times_{\mathcal S}\text{Spec}\mathbb{C}$ for a regular projective scheme $\mathcal X$ over $\mathcal{S}=\text{Spec}\mathcal{R}$, and we can choose a maximal ideal $\mathfrak q$ of $\mathcal R$ such that $\mathcal X$ has good reduction modulo $\mathfrak q$. We denote by $\bar{X}$ the smooth projective variety over ${\mathbb{F}_{q}}$ after reduction, where $q$ is some power of a prime number $p$.
Denote $\bar{X}\otimes_{\mathbb{F}_{q}}\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}$ by $\bar{X}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}}$. By comparison theorems between étale cohomology and singular cohomology for smooth projective varieties, we have $H^{i}(\bar{X}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}},\mathbb{Q}_{l})\otimes\mathbb{C}\cong H^{i}({X},\mathbb{Q}_{l})\otimes\mathbb{C}\cong H^{i}(X,\mathbb{C})$, and this isomorphism is compatible with the $G$-action by functoriality if there is a finite group $G$ acting on $X$. Also by the fact that $H^{i}(\bar{X}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}}/G,\mathbb{Q}_{l})\cong H^{i}(\bar{X}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}},\mathbb{Q}_{l})^{G}$ for a projective variety $X$ with a finite group $G$-action, we have $$H^{i}(\bar{X}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}}/G,\mathbb{Q}_{l})\otimes\mathbb{C}\cong H^{i}(\bar{X}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}},\mathbb{Q}_{l})^{G}\otimes\mathbb{C}\cong H^{i}({X},\mathbb{C})^{G}\cong H^{i}(X/G,\mathbb{C})$$ for a smooth projective $X$.
Now we first recall the proof of the following well-known fact, the idea of which will be used throughout the paper.
[**Proposition 2.1.**]{} [*Let $X$ and $Y$ be two smooth projective varieties over $\mathbb{C}$. By considering good reductions of $\mathcal X$ and $\mathcal Y$ modulo some $\mathfrak q$, if $|\bar{X}(\mathbb{F}_{q^n})|=|\bar{Y}(\mathbb{F}_{q^n})|$ for every $n\geq 1$, then $H^{n}(X,\mathbb{C})\cong H^{n}(Y,\mathbb{C})$ as vector spaces over $\mathbb{C}$.*]{}
[**Proof.**]{} By the Lefschetz fixed point formula for Frobenius, we have $|\bar{X}(\mathbb{F}_{q^n})|=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{i}\text{Tr}(F_{q^n}, H^{i}(\bar{X}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}}, \mathbb{Q}_l))$, where $F_{q^n}$ denotes the geometric Frobenius. Let $\alpha_{n,i},i=1,2,...,a_n$ (resp. $\beta_{n,i},i=1,2,...,b_n$) denote the eigenvalues of $F_q$ acting on $H^{n}(\bar{X}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}}, \mathbb{Q}_l)$ (resp. $H^{n}(\bar{Y}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}}, \mathbb{Q}_l)$), where $a_n$ (resp. $b_n$) is the $n$-th betti number. Then since $|\bar{X}(\mathbb{F}_{q^n})|=|\bar{Y}(\mathbb{F}_{q^n})|$, we have $\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{i}\sum_{j=1}^{a_i}\alpha_{i,j}^{n}=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{i}\sum_{j=1}^{b_i}\beta_{i,j}^{n}$ for every $n\geq 1$. Then by linear independence of the characters $\chi_{\alpha}:\mathbb{Z}^{+}\rightarrow\mathbb{C}, n\mapsto \alpha^n$ and taking into consideration that $\alpha_{i,j},\beta_{i,j},j=1,2,...$ all have absolute value $q^{i/2}$ by Weil’s conjecture, we deduce that for each $i$, the list of eigenvalues ${\alpha_{i,1},...,\alpha_{i,a_i}}$ must be the same as the list of eigenvalues ${\beta_{i,1},...,\beta_{i,b_i}}$ up to reordering, which implies, in particular, $a_{i}=b_{i}$ for each $i$. Hence the proposition follows. $\square$
Since we only know that the multiplicities of the eigenvalues of two sides are the same and we do not know whether the Frobenius action is semisimple, we cannot get $H^{n}(\bar{X}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}},\mathbb{Q}_{l})\cong H^{n}(\bar{Y}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}},\mathbb{Q}_{l})$ as Galois representations. Actually what we proved above is that $[H^{*}(\bar{X}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}},\mathbb{Q}_{l})]=[H^{*}(\bar{Y}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}},\mathbb{Q}_{l})]$ in the graded Grothendieck group $G_{0}(\mathbb{Q}_{l}[Gal_{\mathbb{F}_{q}}])$, which is the abelian group generated by the set $\{[X]|X\in {\rm graded}\ \mathbb{Q}_{l}[Gal_{\mathbb{F}_{q}}]-\rm{Mod}\}$ of isomorphism classes of finitely generated graded Galois modules modulo the relations $[A]-[B]+[C]=0$ if there is a graded short exact sequence $0\rightarrow A\rightarrow B\rightarrow C\rightarrow 0$. Using the same idea, we can prove Macdonald’s formula [@M62] by the Weil conjectures.
[**Proposition 2.2.**]{} [*Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety of dimension $N$ over ${\mathbb{C}}$. Then by choosing some good reduction of $\mathcal{X}$ over $\mathfrak q$, we have*]{} $$\sum_{k=0}^{\infty} [H^{*}(\bar{X}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}}^{(k)},\mathbb{Q}_{l})]t^{k}=\prod_{j=0}^{2N}\left(\prod_{i=1}^{b_j}(1+(-1)^{j+1}[\mathbb{Q}_{l,\alpha_{j,i}}]t)\right)^{(-1)^{j+1}}$$ [*where the coefficients lie in $G_{0}(\mathbb{Q}_{l}[Gal_{\mathbb{F}_{q}}])$, $\alpha_{j,i}$ denote the eigenvalues of $F_q$ acting on $H^{j}(\bar{X}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}}, \mathbb{Q}_l)$, and $\mathbb{Q}_{l,\alpha_{j,i}}$ denotes the one-dimensional Galois representation of degree $j$ with eigenvalue $\alpha_{j,i}$ by the geometric Frobenius $F_{q}$.* ]{}
[**Proof.**]{} First we note that for a smooth projective variety $\bar{X}$ over $\mathbb{F}_{q}$, $\bar{X}^{(k)}$ does have the purity property. Namely, the absolute value of the eigenvalues of Frobenius $F_{q}$ on $H^{n}(\bar{X}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}}^{(k)},\mathbb{Q}_{l})$ is $q^{n/2}$. This is because $H^{n}(\bar{X}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}}^{(k)},\mathbb{Q}_{l})\cong H^{n}(\bar{X}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}}^{k},\mathbb{Q}_{l})^{S_{k}}\subset H^{n}(\bar{X}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}}^{k},\mathbb{Q}_{l})$, and $\bar{X}^{k}$ is smooth projective, hence pure. Now by the Weil conjectures, we have $$\text{exp}(\sum_{r=1}^{\infty}|\bar{X}(\mathbb{F}_{q^r})|\frac{t^r}{r})=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}|\bar{X}^{(k)}(\mathbb{F}_{q})|t^{k}=\prod_{j=0}^{2N}\left(\prod_{i=1}^{b_j}(1-\alpha_{j,i}t)\right)^{(-1)^{j+1}}.$$ The first equality is a combinatorial fact [@Go94 Remark 1.2.4]. Let $\{\beta_{k,n,i}\}$ denote the eigenvalues of $F_q$ on $H^{n}(\bar{X}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}}^{(k)},\mathbb{Q}_{l})$. Then we have $$\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{m}\sum_{i}\beta_{k,m,i}t^{k}=\prod_{j=0}^{2N}\left(\prod_{i=1}^{b_j}(1-\alpha_{j,i}t)\right)^{(-1)^{j+1}}.$$ Replacing $q$ by $q^n$, we get the following equality for every $n\geq 1$ $$\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{m}\sum_{i}\beta_{k,m,i}^{n}t^{k}=\prod_{j=0}^{2N}\left(\prod_{i=1}^{b_j}(1-\alpha_{j,i}^{n}t)\right)^{(-1)^{j+1}}.$$ Note that if we define the weight of $\alpha$ as $2\log_{q}|\alpha|$, then $\alpha_{j,i}$ has an odd weight if $j$ is odd and there is a minus sign before it. On the other hand, $\alpha_{j,i}$ has an even weight if $j$ is even and there is a plus sign before it since $1/(1-\alpha t)=\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}(\alpha t)^{m}$. On the left hand side, the same situation holds, namely if the eigenvalues have odd (resp. even) weights, then there are minus (resp. plus) signs before them. Hence by linear independence of the characters, we deduce the desired equality in $G_{0}(\mathbb{Q}_{l}[F_{q}])$. $\square$
Recall the definition of the Poincaré polynomial $P(X,z):=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\text{dim}H^{n}(X,\mathbb{C})z^{n}$.
[**Corollary 2.3.**]{} [*Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety of dimension $N$ over $\mathbb{C}$. Then the generating series of Poincar$\acute e$ polynomials of $X^{(n)}$ is given by*]{} $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}P(X^{(n)},z)t^{n}=\prod_{j=0}^{2N}\Bigl(1+(-1)^{j+1}z^{j}t\Bigr)^{(-1)^{j+1}b_{j}}.$$
[**Proof.**]{} Take the Poincaré polynomial of both sides of the equality. $\square$
[**Corollary 2.4.**]{} [*Let $X$ be a smooth projective curve, an abelian variety, or a smooth projective K3 surface over ${\mathbb{C}}$. Denote the dimension of $X$ by $N$. Then by choosing some good reduction of $\mathcal{X}$ over $\mathfrak q$, we have*]{} $$\sum_{k=0}^{\infty} [H^{*}(\bar{X}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}}^{(k)},\mathbb{Q}_{l})]t^{k}=\prod_{j=0}^{2N}\left(\sum_{i=0}^{b_j}(-1)^{(j+1)i}[\wedge^{i}H^{j}(\bar{X}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}},\mathbb{Q}_{l})]t^{i}\right)^{(-1)^{j+1}}$$ [*where the coefficients lie in $R_{\mathbb{Q}_{l}}(Gal_{\mathbb{F}_{q}})$, and $\wedge^{i}H^{j}(\bar{X}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}})$ has degree $ij$.*]{}
[**Proof.**]{} This follows from the fact that the action of the Frobenius on $H^{n}(\bar{X}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}},\mathbb{Q}_{l})$ is semisimple if $X$ is a smooth projective curve, an abelian variety or a K3 surface [@De72]. Hence the action of the Frobenius on $H^{n}(\bar{X}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}}^{(k)},\mathbb{Q}_{l})$ is also semisimple since $$H^{n}(\bar{X}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}}^{(k)},\mathbb{Q}_{l})\cong H^{n}(\bar{X}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}}^{k},\mathbb{Q}_{l})^{S_{k}}\cong \bigoplus_{n_{1}+...+n_{k}=n}\left(\bigotimes_{i=1}^{k}H^{n_{i}}(\bar{X}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}},\mathbb{Q}_{l})\right)^{S_{k}}.$$ So the equality in Proposition 2.2 is actually an equality as graded Galois modules. $\square$
Now if we have a smooth projective variety with finite group actions, we then need a lemma corresponding to Proposition 2.1. The idea is that if $X$ is a quasi-projective variety over $\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}$ with an automorphism $\sigma$ of finite order, then $X$ and $\sigma$ can be defined over some $\mathbb{F}_q$. Let $F_q$ be the corresponding geometric Frobenius. Then for $n \geq 1$, the composite $F_{q}^{n}\circ\sigma$ is the Frobenius map relative to some new way of lowering the field of definition of $X$ from $\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}$ to $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$ ([@DL76 Prop.3.3] and [@Ca85 Appendix(h)]). Then the Grothendieck trace formula implies that $\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{k}\text{Tr}((F_{q}^{n}\sigma)^{*},H_{c}^{k}(X,\mathbb{Q}_{l}))$ is the number of fixed points of $F_{q}^{n}\sigma$.
[**Proposition 2.5.**]{} [*Let $X$ and $Y$ be two smooth projective varieties over $\mathbb{C}$ with finite group $G$-actions. By considering good reductions of $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$ modulo some $\mathfrak{q}$ such that $G$-actions can be defined over $\mathbb{F}_{q}$, if $|\bar{X}(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}})^{gF_{q^n}}|=|\bar{Y}(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}})^{gF_{q^n}}|$ for every $n\geq 1$ and $g\in G$, then $H^{n}(X,\mathbb{C})\cong H^{n}(Y,\mathbb{C})$ as $G$-representations for every $n$.*]{}
[**Proof.**]{} Fix $g\in G$. Since $g$ commutes with $F_{q}$ and the action of $g$ on the cohomology group is semisimple, there exists a basis of the cohomology group such that the actions of $g$ and $F_{q}$ are in Jordan normal forms simultaneously. Let $\alpha_{n,i},i=1,2,...,a_n$ (resp. $\beta_{n,i},i=1,2,...,b_n$) denote the eigenvalues of $F_q$ acting on $H^{n}(\bar{X}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}}, \mathbb{Q}_l)$ (resp. $H^{n}(\bar{Y}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}}, \mathbb{Q}_l)$) in such a basis, where $a_n$ (resp. $b_n$) is the $n$-th betti number. Let $c_{n,i},i=1,2,...,a_n$ (resp. $d_{n,i},i=1,2,...,b_n$) denote the eigenvalues of $g$ acting on the same basis of $H^{n}(\bar{X}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}}, \mathbb{Q}_l)$ (resp. $H^{n}(\bar{Y}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}}, \mathbb{Q}_l)$). Then since $$|\bar{X}(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}})^{gF_{q^n}}|=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{i}\text{Tr}((gF_{q^{n}})^{*},H^{i}(\bar{X}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}},\mathbb{Q}_{l}))$$ and $|\bar{X}(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}})^{gF_{q^n}}|=|\bar{Y}(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}})^{gF_{q^n}}|$ for every $n\geq 1$, we have $$\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{i}\sum_{j=1}^{a_i}c_{i,j}\alpha_{i,j}^{n}=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{i}\sum_{j=1}^{b_i}d_{i,j}\beta_{i,j}^{n}$$ for every $n\geq 1$. By the linear independence and eigenvalue discussions as before, we have $a_{i}=b_{i}$ and $\sum_{j=1}^{a_i}c_{i,j}=\sum_{j=1}^{b_i}d_{i,j}$ for each $i$. But since $g$ is arbitrary, this means that the characters for the $G$-representations $H^{i}(\bar{X}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}},\mathbb{Q}_{l})$ and $H^{i}(\bar{Y}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}},\mathbb{Q}_{l})$ are the same. Hence $H^{n}(X,\mathbb{C})\cong H^{n}(Y,\mathbb{C})$ as $G$-representations for every $n$ by comparison theorems. $\square$
By a similar argument as in the proof of Proposition 2.2, we obtain
[**Corollary 2.6.**]{} [*Let $X$ be a smooth projective curve, an abelian variety, or a smooth projective K3 surface over ${\mathbb{C}}$. Denote the dimension of $X$ by $N$. Then by choosing some good reduction of $\mathcal{X}$ over $\mathfrak q$ such that the $G$-action can be defined over $\mathbb{F}_{q}$, we have*]{} $$\sum_{k=0}^{\infty} [H^{*}({X}^{(k)},\mathbb{C})]t^{k}=\prod_{j=0}^{2N}\left(\sum_{i=0}^{b_j}(-1)^{(j+1)i}[\wedge^{i}H^{j}({X},\mathbb{C})]t^{i}\right)^{(-1)^{j+1}}$$ [*where the coefficients lie in $R_{\mathbb{C}}(G)$.* ]{}
[**Proof.**]{} Similar as before, except that now we have $$\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{m}\sum_{i}h_{k,m,i}\beta_{k,m,i}^{n}t^{k}=\prod_{j=0}^{2N}\left(\prod_{i=1}^{b_j}(1-g_{j,i}\alpha_{j,i}^{n}t)\right)^{(-1)^{j+1}}$$ where $h_{k,m,i}$ are the eigenvalues of $g$ on $H^{m}(\bar{X}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}}^{(k)},\mathbb{Q}_{l})$, and $g_{j,i}$ are the eigenvalues of $g$ on $H^{j}(\bar{X}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}},\mathbb{Q}_{l})$. Hence we deduce that the trace of $g$ on the left hand side equals the trace of $g$ on the right hand side for the equality in Corollary 2.6. $\square$
Hilbert scheme of points
========================
Let $X^{[n]}$ denote the component of the Hilbert scheme of $X$ parametrizing subschemes of length $n$ of $X$. For properties of Hilbert scheme of points, see references [@I77], [@Go94] and [@N99]. The following theorem is proved for smooth projective surfaces over $\mathbb{C}$ in [@Go90], and for quasi-projective surfaces over $\mathbb{C}$ in [@GS93].
[**Theorem 3.1.**]{} [*The generating function of the Poincaré polynomials of the Hilbert scheme $X^{[n]}$ is given by* ]{} $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} p(X^{[n]},z)t^n=\prod_{m=1}^{\infty} \frac{(1+z^{2m-1}t^m)^{b_{1}(X)}(1+z^{2m+1}t^{m})^{b_{3}(X)}}{(1-z^{2m-2}t^m)^{b_{0}(X)}(1-z^{2m}t^m)^{b_{2}(X)}(1-z^{2m+2}t^m)^{b_{4}(X)}}.$$
By analyzing the structure of $X^{[n]}$ [@Go90 Lemma 2.9], we know that $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}|\bar{X}^{[n]}(\mathbb{F}_{q^{k}})|t^{n}=\prod_{m=1}^{\infty}\left(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}|\bar{X}^{(n)}(\mathbb{F}_{q^{k}})|q^{kn(m-1)}t^{nm}\right)$$ for some $q$ and every $k\geq 1$, which implies $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}[H^{*}(\bar{X}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}}^{[n]},\mathbb{Q}_{l})]t^{n}=\prod_{m=1}^{\infty}\left(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}[H^{*}(\bar{X}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}}^{(n)},\mathbb{Q}_{l})](-n(m-1))[-2n(m-1)]t^{nm}\right).$$
Now using Proposition 2.2 and replacing $t$ by $[\mathbb{Q}_{l,q^{m-1}}]t^{m}$, we have $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}[H^{*}(\bar{X}_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}}^{[n]},\mathbb{Q}_{l})]t^{n}=\prod_{m=1}^{\infty}\left(\frac{\prod_{i=1}^{b_1}(1+[\mathbb{Q}_{l,\alpha_{1,i}}\otimes\mathbb{Q}_{l,q^{m-1}}]t^{m})\prod_{i=1}^{b_3}(1+[\mathbb{Q}_{l,\alpha_{3,i}}\otimes\mathbb{Q}_{l,q^{m-1}}]t^{m})}{(1-[\mathbb{Q}_{l,q^{m-1}}]t^{m})\prod_{i=1}^{b_2}(1-[\mathbb{Q}_{l,\alpha_{2,i}}\otimes\mathbb{Q}_{l,q^{m-1}}]t^{m})(1-[\mathbb{Q}_{l,q^{m+1}}]t^{m})}\right).$$
Taking the Poincaré polynomials of both sides, we obtain Theorem 3.1 for smooth projective surfaces. We notice that the first term in the product on the right hand side of Theorem 3.1 is the generating series of the Poincaré polynomial for $X^{(n)}$, which seems like a coincidence at first glance. But actually each term is some twisted generating series of the Poincaré polynomial for $X^{(n)}$.
Now suppose we have a smooth projective surface over $\mathbb{C}$ with a $G$-action, and we want a similar equality as above. By considering some good reduction of the surface, we can restrict ourselves to the characteristic $p$ and $p\nmid|G|$.
The following discussion will be used to deduce the key Lemma 3.3.
Let $S$ be a smooth projective surface over $\mathbb{F}_{q}$ with an automorphism $g$ over $\mathbb{F}_{q}$ of finite order. If $x\in S(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})^{gF_{q}}$ where $F_{q}$ is the geometric Frobenius, then $x$ lies over a closed point $y\in S$. Denote the residue degree of $y$ by $N$. Hence $x\in S(\mathbb{F}_{q^{N}})$ and there are $N$ geometric points $x, F_{q}(x),..., F_{q}^{N-1}(x)$ lying over $y$.
Let us study the relative Hilbert scheme of $n$ points at a closed point. $${\rm Hilb}^{n}({\rm Spec}(\widehat{\mathcal{O}_{S,y}})/{\rm Spec}\mathbb{F}_{q})\cong{\rm Hilb}^{n}({\rm Spec}(\mathbb{F}_{q^{N}}[[s,t]])/{\rm Spec}\mathbb{F}_{q}).$$
Since $g$ and $\mathbb{F}_{q}$ fix $y$, they act on this Hilbert scheme. Over $\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}$, we have $${\rm Hilb}^{n}({\rm Spec}(\widehat{\mathcal{O}_{S,y}})/{\rm Spec}\mathbb{F}_{q})\otimes_{\mathbb{F}_{q}}\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}\cong{\rm Hilb}^{n}({\rm Spec}(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}\otimes_{\mathbb{F}_{q}}\mathbb{F}_{q^{N}}[[s,t]])/{\rm Spec}\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})$$ by the base change property of the Hilbert scheme. Denote by $u$ a primitive element of the field extension $\mathbb{F}_{q^{N}}/\mathbb{F}_{q}$ and denote by $f(x)$ the irreducible polynomial of $u$ over $\mathbb{F}_{q}$. Since we have an $\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}$-algebra isomorphism $$\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}\otimes_{\mathbb{F}_{q}}\mathbb{F}_{q^{N}}\cong\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}\otimes_{\mathbb{F}_{q}}(\mathbb{F}_{q}[x]/(f(x)))\cong \overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}(x)/(x-u)\times...\times\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}(x)/(x-u^{q^{N-1}})$$ by the Chinese Remainder Theorem, we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm Hilb}^{n}({\rm Spec}(\widehat{\mathcal{O}_{S,y}})/{\rm Spec}\mathbb{F}_{q})\otimes_{\mathbb{F}_{q}}\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}&\cong{\rm Hilb}^{n}({\rm Spec}((\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}\times...\times\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})[[s,t]])/{\rm Spec}\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})\\
&\cong{\rm Hilb}^{n}(\coprod {\rm Spec}\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}[[s,t]]/{\rm Spec}\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}).
\end{aligned}$$ Hence the $\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}$-valued points of ${\rm Hilb}^{n}({\rm Spec}(\widehat{\mathcal{O}_{S,y}})/{\rm Spec}\mathbb{F}_{q})$ correspond to the closed subschemes of degree $n$ of $\coprod {\rm Spec}\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}[[s,t]]$, i.e. the closed subschemes of degree $n$ of $S$ whose underlying space is a subset of the points $x, F_{q}(x),..., F_{q}^{N-1}(x)$.
Since $F_{q}$ acts on $\mathbb{F}_{q^{N}}[[s,t]]$ by sending $s$ to $s^{q}$, $t$ to $t^{q}$ and $c\in\mathbb{F}_{q^{N}}$ to $c^{q}$, we deduce from the above discussion that $F_{q}$ acts on $(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}\times...\times\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})[[s,t]]$ by sending $s$ to $s^{q}$, $t$ to $t^{q}$ and $(\alpha_0,\alpha_1,...,\alpha_{N-2},\alpha_{N-1})\in \overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}\times...\times\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}$ to $(\alpha_1,\alpha_{2},...,\alpha_{N-1},\alpha_{0})$.
Let $\sigma$ be an element of ${\rm Gal}(\mathbb{F}_{q^{N}}/\mathbb{F}_{q})$. Recall that for an $\mathbb{F}_{q^{N}}$-vector space $V$, a $\sigma$-linear map $f:V\rightarrow V$ is an additive map on $V$ such that $f(\alpha v)=\sigma(\alpha)f(v)$ for all $\alpha\in\mathbb{F}_{q^{N}}$ and $v\in V$.
[**Lemma 3.2.**]{} [*Let $H=\left<g\right>$. Suppose $p\nmid|H|$, then we can choose $s$ and $t$ such that $g$ acts on $\mathbb{F}_{q^{N}}[[s,t]]$ $\sigma$-linearly, where $\sigma$ is the inverse of the Frobenius automorphism of ${\rm Gal}(\mathbb{F}_{q^{N}}/\mathbb{F}_{q})$.*]{}
[**Proof.**]{} $g$ acts as an $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-automorphism on $\mathbb{F}_{q^{N}}[[s,t]]$ sending $(s,t)$ to $(s,t)$ and $\mathbb{F}_{q^{N}}$ to $\mathbb{F}_{q^{N}}$. Since we know $F_{q}$ sends $(\alpha_0,\alpha_1,...,\alpha_{N-2},\alpha_{N-1})\in \overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}\times...\times\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}$ to $(\alpha_1,\alpha_{2},...,\alpha_{N-1},\alpha_{0})$ and $gF_{q}$ fixes the geometric points $x, F_{q}(x),..., F_{q}^{N-1}(x)$, we deduce that $g$ sends $(\alpha_0,\alpha_1,...,\alpha_{N-2},\alpha_{N-1})\in \overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}\times...\times\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}$ to $(\alpha_{N-1},\alpha_{0},...,\alpha_{N-3},\alpha_{N-2})$. Hence $g(\alpha)=\sigma(\alpha)$ for all $\alpha\in\mathbb{F}_{q^{N}}$ where $\sigma$ is the inverse of the Frobenius automorphism.
Now we write $g(s)=as+bt+...$ and $g(t)=cs+dt+...$ where $a,b,c,d\in\mathbb{F}_{q}$ since $g$ commutes with $F_{q}$. Define an automorphism $\rho(g)$ of $\mathbb{F}_{q^{N}}[[s,t]]$ by $\rho(g)(s)=as+bt$, $\rho(g)(t)=cs+dt$ and the action of $\rho(g)$ on $\mathbb{F}_{q^{N}}$ is the same as the action of $g$. Then we denote the $\mathbb{F}_{q^{N}}$-automorphism $\frac{1}{|H|}\sum_{h\in H}h\rho(h)^{-1}$ by $\theta$. Notice that $\theta$ is an automorphism because the linear term of $\theta$ is an invertible matrix. We deduce that $g\theta=\theta\rho(g)$, which implies $\theta^{-1}g\theta=\rho(g)$. Hence we are done. $\square$
Notice that Lemma 3.2 is the only place we use the assuption $p\nmid|G|$ for Theorem 1.1.
From Lemma 3.2, we now know that the $g$-action on $(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}\times...\times\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})[[s,t]]$ is given by sending $s$ to $(a,...,a)s+(b,...,b)t$, $t$ to $(c,...,c)s+(d,...,d)t$ and $(\alpha_0,\alpha_1,...,\alpha_{N-2},\alpha_{N-1})\in \overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}\times...\times\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}$ to $(\alpha_{N-1},\alpha_{0},...,\alpha_{N-3},\alpha_{N-2})$.
Hence the action of $gF_{q}$ on $(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}\times...\times\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})[[s,t]]$ is given by sending $s$ to $(a,...,a)s^{q}+(b,...,b)t^{q}$, $t$ to $(c,...,c)s^{q}+(d,...,d)t^{q}$ and $(\alpha_0,\alpha_1,...,\alpha_{N-2},\alpha_{N-1})\in \overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}\times...\times\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}$ to itself. Hence $gF_{q}$ acts on each complete local ring, which is what we expected since $gF_{q}$ fixes each geometric point over $y$. In particular, it acts on $\widehat{\mathcal{O}_{S_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}},x}}\cong(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}\times\{0\}\times...\times\{0\})[[s,t]]\cong\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}[[s,t]]$.
Recall that ${\rm Hilb}^{n}(\widehat{\mathcal{O}_{S_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}},x}})(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})$ parametrizes closed subschemes of degree $n$ of $S_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}}$ supported on $x$.
[**Lemma 3.3.**]{} $$|{\rm Hilb}^{n}(\widehat{\mathcal{O}_{S_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}},x}})(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})^{gF_{q}}|=|{\rm Hilb}^{n}(\mathbb{F}_{q}[[s,t]])(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})^{F_{q}}|$$
[**Proof.**]{} First we define an $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-automorphism $\tilde{g}$ on $\mathbb{F}_{q}[[s,t]]$ by $$\tilde{g}(s)=as+bt\ \ {\rm and}\ \ \tilde{g}(t)=cs+dt$$ Recall that the action of $F_{q}$ on $\mathbb{F}_{q}[[s,t]]$ is an $\mathbb{F}_{q}$-endomorphism sending $s$ to $s^{q}$ and $t$ to $t^{q}$. By Lemma 3.2 and the above discussion, we observe that the action of $gF_{q}$ on $\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}[[s,t]]$ on the left is the same as the action of $\tilde{g}{F_{q}}$ on $\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}[[s,t]]$ on the right. Hence we have $$|{\rm Hilb}^{n}(\widehat{\mathcal{O}_{S_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}},x}})(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})^{gF_{q}}|=|{\rm Hilb}^{n}(\mathbb{F}_{q}[[s,t]])(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})^{\tilde{g}{F_{q}}}|.$$ Now for the right hand side, $\tilde{g}$ is an automorphism of finite order and $F_{q}$ is the geometric Frobenius. Then by the Grothendieck trace formula, we have $$|{\rm Hilb}^{n}(\mathbb{F}_{q}[[s,t]])(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})^{\tilde{g}{F_{q}}}|=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{k}{\rm Tr}((\tilde{g}{F_{q}})^{*}, H^{k}_{c}({\rm Hilb}^{n}(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}[[s,t]]),\mathbb{Q}_{l})).$$ But the action of $\tilde{g}$ factors through $GL_{2}(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})$. Now we use the fact that if $G$ is a connected algebraic group acting on a separated and finite type scheme $X$, then the action of $g\in G$ on $H^{*}_{c}(X,\mathbb{Q}_{l})$ is trivial \[DL76, Corollary 6.5\]. Hence we have $$\begin{aligned}
|{\rm Hilb}^{n}(\mathbb{F}_{q}[[s,t]])(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})^{\tilde{g}{F_{q}}}|&=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{k}{\rm Tr}(({F_{q}})^{*}, H^{k}_{c}({\rm Hilb}^{n}(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}[[s,t]]),\mathbb{Q}_{l}))\\
&=|{\rm Hilb}^{n}(\mathbb{F}_{q}[[s,t]])(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})^{F_{q}}|.\ \ \square
\end{aligned}$$
From Lemma 3.3 we observe that $|{\rm Hilb}^{n}(\widehat{\mathcal{O}_{S_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}},x}})(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})^{gF_{q}}|$ is a number independent of the choice of the $gF_{q}$-fixed point $x$.
[**Lemma 3.4.**]{} $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}|S^{[n]}(\overline{\mathbb{F}_q})^{gF_{q}}|t^{n}=\prod_{r=1}^{\infty}\left(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}|{\rm Hilb}^{n}(\widehat{\mathcal{O}_{S_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}},x}})(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})^{g^{r}F_{q}^{r}}|t^{nr}\right)^{|P_{r}(S,gF_{q})|}$$ [*where ${\rm Hilb}^{n}(\widehat{\mathcal{O}_{S_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}},x}})$ is the punctual Hilbert scheme of $n$ points at some $g^{r}F_{q}^{r}$-fixed point $x\in S(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})$, and $P_{r}(S,gF_{q})$ denotes the set of primitive 0-cycles of degree $r$ of $gF_{q}$ on $S$, whose elements are of the form $\sum_{i=0}^{r-1}g^{i}F_{q}^{i}(x)$ with $x\in S(\overline{\mathbb{F}_q})^{g^{r}F_{q}^{r}}\backslash(\cup_{j<r}S(\overline{\mathbb{F}_q})^{g^{j}F_{q}^{j}})$.*]{}
[**Proof.**]{} Let $Z\in S^{[n]}(\overline{\mathbb{F}_q})^{gF_{q}}$. Suppose $(n_{1},...,n_{r})$ is a partition of $n$ and $Z=(Z_{1},...,Z_{r})$ with $Z_{i}$ being the closed subscheme of $Z$ supported at a single point with length $n_{i}$. Then Supp$Z$ decomposes into $gF_{q}$ orbits. We can choose an ordering $\leq$ on $S(\overline{\mathbb{F}_q})$. In each orbit, we can find the smallest $x_{j}\in S(\overline{\mathbb{F}_q})$. Suppose $Z_{j}$ with length $l$ is supported on $x_{j}$ and $x_{j}$ has order $k$. Then the component of $Z$ which is supported on the orbit of $x_{j}$ is determined by $Z_{j}$, namely, it is $\cup_{i=0}^{k-1}g^{i}F_{q}^{i}(Z_{j})$ with length $kl$. Also notice that $Z_{j}$ is fixed by $g^{k}F_{q}^{k}$. Hence, to give an element of $S^{[n]}(\overline{\mathbb{F}_q})^{gF_{q}}$ is the same as choosing some $gF_{q}$ orbits and for each orbit choosing some element in ${\rm Hilb}^{n}(\widehat{\mathcal{O}_{S_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}},x}})(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})^{g^{k}F_{q}^{k}}$ for some $g^{k}F_{q}^{k}$-fixed point $x$ in this orbit such that the final length altogether is $n$. Combining all of these into power series, we get the desired equality. $\square$
The idea we used above is explained in detail in [@Go90 lemma 2.7]. We implicitly used the fact that $\pi:(S^{[n]}_{(n)})_{red}\rightarrow S$ is a locally trivial fiber bundle in the Zariski topology with fiber ${\rm Hilb}^{n}(\mathbb{F}_{q}[[s,t]])_{red}$ [@Go94 Lemma 2.1.4], where $S^{[n]}_{(n)}$ parametrizes closed subschemes of length $n$ that are supported on a single point. Denote ${\rm Hilb}^{n}(\mathbb{F}_{q}[[s,t]])$ by $V_{n}$.
Now combining Lemma 3.3 and Lemma 3.4, we have $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}|S^{[n]}(\overline{\mathbb{F}_q})^{gF_{q}}|t^{n}=\prod_{r=1}^{\infty}\left(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}|V_{n}(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})^{F_{q}^{r}}|t^{nr}\right)^{|P_{r}(S,gF_{q})|}.$$
Recall the following structure theorem for the punctual Hilbert scheme of points [@ES87 Prop 4.2].
[**Proposition 3.5.**]{} [*Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field. Then ${\rm Hilb}^{n}(k[[s,t]])$ over $k$ has a cell decomposition, and the number of $d$-cells is $P(d,n-d)$, where $P(x,y):=\#$$\{\text{partition of x into parts}\leq y\}$.*]{}
Denote by $p(n,d)$ the number of partitions of $n$ into $d$ parts. Then $p(n,d)=P(n-d,d)$. Now we can proceed similarly as in the proof of [@Go90 Lemma 2.9].
[**Proof of Theorem 1.1**]{} Since we have $$\prod_{i=1}^{\infty}\left(\frac{1}{1-z^{i-1}t^{i}}\right)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}p(n,n-i)t^{n}z^{i},$$ by Proposition 3.5 we get $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\#\{\text{m-dim cells of }{\rm Hilb}^{n}(k[[s,t]])\}t^{n}z^{m}=\prod_{i=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{1-z^{i-1}t^{i}}.$$ Let $l\in\mathbb{N}$. Then by choosing sufficiently large $q$ powers $Q$ such that the cell decomposition of $V_{n,\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}}$ is defined over $\mathbb{F}_{Q}$, we have $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}|V_{n,\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}}}(\mathbb{F}_{Q^{r}})|t^{nr}\overset{t^l}\equiv\prod_{i=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{1-Q^{r(i-1)}t^{ri}}.$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}|S^{[n]}(\overline{\mathbb{F}_q})^{gF_{Q}}|t^{n}&\overset{t^l}\equiv\prod_{r=1}^{\infty}\prod_{i=1}^{\infty}\left(\frac{1}{1-Q^{r(i-1)}t^{ri}}\right)^{|P_{r}(S,gF_{Q})|}\\
&=\text{exp}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}\sum_{r=1}^{\infty}\sum_{h=1}^{\infty}|P_{r}(S,gF_{Q})|Q^{hr(i-1)}t^{hri}/h\right)\\
&=\text{exp}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}(\sum_{r|m}r|P_{r}(S,gF_{Q})|)Q^{m(i-1)}t^{mi}/m\right)\\
&=\prod_{i=1}^{\infty}\text{exp}\left(\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}|S(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{Q}})^{g^{m}F_{Q}^{m}}|Q^{m(i-1)}t^{mi}/m\right)\\
&=\prod_{i=1}^{\infty}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}|S^{(n)}(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{Q}})^{gF_{Q}}|Q^{n(i-1)}t^{ni}.
\end{aligned}$$ By replacing $Q$ by $Q$-powers and using the Grothendieck trace formula as in the proof of Proposition 2.5, we get $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}[H^{*}({S_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}}^{[n]}}, \mathbb{Q}_l)]t^n=\prod_{m=1}^{\infty}\left(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}[H^{*}({S_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}}^{(n)}},\mathbb{Q}_l)][-2n(m-1)]t^{mn}\right)$$ as graded $G$-representations. Now by Corollary 2.6 and replacing $t$ by $\mathbb{Q}_{l,q^{m-1}}t^{m}$, we have $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}[H^{*}(S_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}}^{[n]},\mathbb{Q}_{l})]t^{n}$$ $$=\prod_{m=1}^{\infty}\frac{\left(\sum_{i=0}^{b_{1}}[(\wedge^{i}H^{1})\otimes \mathbb{Q}_{l,q^{i(m-1)}}]t^{mi}\right)\left(\sum_{i=0}^{b_{3}}[(\wedge^{i}H^{3})\otimes \mathbb{Q}_{l,q^{i(m-1)}}]t^{mi}\right)}{\Bigl(1-[\mathbb{Q}_{l,q^{m-1}}]t^m\Bigr)\left(\sum_{i=0}^{b_{2}}(-1)^{i}[(\wedge^{i}H^{2})\otimes \mathbb{Q}_{l,q^{i(m-1)}}]t^{mi}\right)\Bigl(1-[\mathbb{Q}_{l,q^{m+1}}]t^m\Bigr)}.$$ $\square$
[**Corollary 3.6.**]{} [*For a smooth projective surface $S$ over $\mathbb{C}$, we have*]{} $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}[e(S^{[n]})]t^{n}$$ $$=\prod_{m=1}^{\infty}\frac{\left(\sum_{i=0}^{b_{1}}(-1)^{i}[\wedge^{i}H^{1}][-2i(m-1)]t^{mi}\right)\left(\sum_{i=0}^{b_{3}}(-1)^{i}[\wedge^{i}H^{3}][-2i(m-1)]t^{mi}\right)}{\Bigl(1-\mathbb{C}[-2(m-1)]t^m\Bigr)\left(\sum_{i=0}^{b_{2}}(-1)^{i}[\wedge^{i}H^{2}][-2i(m-1)]t^{mi}\right)\Bigl(1-\mathbb{C}[-2(m+1)]t^m\Bigr)}$$ where the coefficients lie in $R_{\mathbb{C}}(G)$.
[**Remark 3.7.**]{} Notice that the generating series of Euler numbers of $S^{[n]}$ is $\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}e(S^{[n]})t^{n}=\prod_{m=1}^{\infty}(1-t^{m})^{-e(S)}$. But this is not the case if we consider $G$-representations and regard $\prod_{m=1}^{\infty}(1-t^{m})^{-[e(S)]}$ as $\text{exp}(\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}[e(S)](-\log(1-t^{m})))=\text{exp}(\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}[e(S)](\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}t^{mk}/k)))$. What we have is actually $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}{\rm Tr}(g)|_{[e(S^{[n]})]}t^{n}=\prod_{m=1}^{\infty}\left(\frac{(\prod_{i=1}^{b_1}(1-{g_{1,i}}t^{m}))(\prod_{i=1}^{b_3}(1-{g_{3,i}}t^{m}))}{(1-t^{m})(\prod_{i=1}^{b_2}(1-{g_{2,i}}t^{m}))(1-t^{m})}\right)$$ $$=\text{exp}\left(\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{t^{mk}}{k}\left(1-\sum_{i=1}^{b_{1}}{g_{1,i}}^{k}+\sum_{i=1}^{b_{2}}g_{2,i}^{k}-\sum_{i=1}^{b_{3}}{g_{3,i}}^{k}+1\right)\right).$$ We will use this expression to determine the $G$-representation $[e(S^{[n]})]$ later when $S$ is a K3 surface.
[**Proof of Corollary 1.2**]{} We let $$G(t):=(1-t)\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}[H^{*}(S^{[n]},\mathbb{C})]t^{n}$$ $$=\prod_{m=1}^{\infty}\frac{(1-t)\left(\sum_{i=0}^{b_{1}}[\wedge^{i}H^{1}][-2i(m-1)]t^{mi}\right)\left(\sum_{i=0}^{b_{3}}[\wedge^{i}H^{3}][-2i(m-1)]t^{mi}\right)}{\Bigl(1-\mathbb{C}[-2(m-1)]t^m\Bigr)\left(\sum_{i=0}^{b_{2}}(-1)^{i}[\wedge^{i}H^{2}][-2i(m-1)]t^{mi}\right)\Bigl(1-\mathbb{C}[-2(m+1)]t^m\Bigr)}$$ We denote by $a_{i,j}$ the degree $i$ part of the coefficient of $t^{j}$. If $i<j$, then $a_{i,j}(G(t))=0$ as $G$-representation. Now fix $i$, take $n\geq i$, and then we have $$\begin{aligned}
H^{i}(S^{[n]},\mathbb{C})&=a_{i,n}\Bigl(\Bigl(\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}t^{k}\Bigr)G(t)\Bigr)\\
&=\sum_{k=0}^{n}a_{i,k}(G(t))\\
&=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}a_{i,k}(G(t))\\
&=a_{i,0}(G(1)).
\end{aligned}$$ Notice that $a_{i,0}(G(1))$ is a representation independent of $n$. Hence $H^{i}(S^{[n]},\mathbb{C})$ become stable as $G$-representations for $n\geq i$. $\square$
Birational varieties with trivial canonical bundles
===================================================
We first review the idea in the proof of the following theorem.
[**Theorem 4.1. [@Ba99]**]{} [*Let $X$ and $Y$ be smooth n-dimensional projective varieties over $\mathbb{C}$. Assume that the canonical line bundles $\omega_{X}^{n}$ and $\omega_{Y}^{n}$ are trivial and that $X$ and $Y$ are birational. Then $X$ and $Y$ have the same Betti numbers, that is,*]{} $$H^{i}(X,\mathbb{C})\cong H^{i}(Y,\mathbb{C})\quad {\rm for}\ {\rm all}\ i\geq 0 .$$
Let $F$ be a finite extension of the $p$-adic field $\mathbb{Q}_{p}$, $R\subset F$ be the maximal compact subring, $\mathfrak q\subset R$ the maximal ideal, and $\mathbb{F}_{q}=R/\mathfrak{q}$ the residue field with $|\mathbb{F}_{q}|=q=p^r$.
Now let $X$ be a smooth $n$-dimensional algebraic variety over $F$. Assume that $X$ admits an extension $\mathcal X$ to a regular $S$-scheme, where $S=\text{Spec} R$. Then if the relative dualizing sheaf $\Omega_{\mathcal{X}/S}^{n}$ is trivial, there exists a global section $\omega\in\Gamma(\mathcal{X},\Omega_{\mathcal{X}/S}^{n})$ which has no zeros in $\mathcal{X}$. This $\omega$ is called a gauge form, and it determines a canonical $p$-adic measure $d\mu_{\omega}$ on the locally compact $p$-adic topological space $\mathcal{X}(F)$ of $F$-rational points. This $d\mu_{\omega}$ is called the Weil $p$-adic measure associated with the gauge form $\omega$, and it is defined as follows:
Let $x\in\mathcal{X}(F)$ be an $F$-point and let $t_1,...,t_n$ be local $p$-adic analytic parameters at $x$. Then $t_1,...,t_n$ define a $p$-adic homeomorphism $\theta:U\rightarrow \mathbb{A}^{n}(F)$ of an open subset $U\subset\mathcal{X}(F)$ and $\theta(U)\subset\mathbb{A}^{n}(F)$ in the $p$-adic topology. Let $\omega=\theta^{*}(g\text{d}t_{1}\wedge...\wedge \text{d}t_{n})$, where $g$ is a $p$-adic analytic function on $\theta(U)$ having no zeros. Then $d\mu_{\omega}$ on $U$ is defined to be the pullback with respect to $\theta$ of the $p$-adic measure $||g(t)||d\bf{t}$ on $\theta(U)$, where $||\cdot||$ can be taken as the absolute value on $F$ extended from $||\cdot||_{p}$ on $\mathbb{Q}_{p}$, and $d\bf{t}$ is the standard $p$-adic Haar measure on $\mathbb{A}^{n}(F)$ normalized by the condition $\int_{\mathbb{A}^{n}(R)}d{\bf t}=1$.
Notice that if we choose another global section $\omega'$, then $d\mu_\omega$ and $d\mu_{\omega'}$ may not agree on $\mathcal{X}(F)$, but they agree on $\mathcal{X}(R)$ since $\omega'=\omega h$ for an invertible function $h$ and $h$ has $p$-adic norm 1 on $\mathcal{X}(R)$.
Hence in general even if we do not assume the canonical bundle is trivial, since it is locally trivial, we can still define a $p$-adic measure $d\mu$ at least on the compact $\mathcal{X}(R)$.
Now we list some properties of these measures [@Ba99]:
[**Theorem 4.2.**]{} [*Let $\mathcal{X}$ be a regular $S$-scheme with a gauge form $\omega$, and let $d\mu_{\omega}$ be the corresponding Weil $p$-adic measure on $\mathcal{X}(F)$. Then*]{} $$\int_{\mathcal{X}(R)}d\mu_{\omega}=\frac{|\mathcal{X}(\mathbb{F}_{q})|}{q^n}$$
[**Theorem 4.3.**]{} [*Let $\mathcal{X}$ be a regular $S$-scheme, and let $d\mu$ be the $p$-adic measure on $\mathcal{X}(R)$. Then*]{} $$\int_{\mathcal{X}(R)}d\mu=\frac{|\mathcal{X}(\mathbb{F}_{q})|}{q^n}$$
[**Theorem 4.4.**]{} [*Let $\mathcal{X}$ be a regular $S$-scheme and let $\mathcal{Z}\subset\mathcal{X}$ be a closed reduced subscheme of codimension $\geq$ 1. Then the subset $\mathcal{Z}(R)\subset\mathcal{X}(R)$ has zero measure with respect to the canonical $p$-adic measure $d\mu$ on $\mathcal{X}(R)$.*]{}
Combining all of these, let $X$ and $Y$ be smooth projective birational varieties of dimension $n$ over $\mathbb{C}$ with trivial canonical bundles. Then there exist Zariski open dense subsets $U\subset X$ and $V\subset Y$ with ${\rm codim}_{X}(X\backslash U)\geq 2$ and ${\rm codim}_{Y}(Y\backslash V)\geq 2$ and an isomorphism $\phi:U\rightarrow V$. By a standard argument, we can choose a finitely generated $\mathbb{Z}$-subalgebra ${R}\subset\mathbb{C}$ such that ‘everything’ (e.g. $X, Y, U, V$) can be defined over Spec${R}$ and have good reductions over some maximal ideal $\mathfrak{q}$. Let $\omega_{X}$ and $\omega_{Y}$ be gauge forms on $X$ and $Y$ respectively and $\omega_{U}$ and $\omega_{V}$ their restriction to $U$ and $V$. Since $\phi^{*}\omega_{V}$ is another gauge form on $U$, $\phi^{*}\omega_{V}=h\omega_{U}$ for some nowhere vanishing regular function $h\in\Gamma(U,\mathcal{O}_{X}^{*})$. The property ${\rm codim}_{X}(X\backslash U)\geq 2$ implies that $h\in\Gamma(X,\mathcal{O}_{X}^{*})$. Hence $||h(x)||=1$ for all $x\in X(F)$ (notice that $X(F)=X(R)$), which means the Weil $p$-adic measures on $U(F)$ associated with $\phi^{*}{\omega_{V}}$ and $\omega_{U}$ are the same. Hence $$\int_{U(F)}d\mu_{X}=\int_{V(F)}d\mu_{Y}.$$ By Theorem 4.4, we have $$\int_{X(R)}d\mu_{X}=\int_{X(F)}d\mu_{X}=\int_{U(F)}d\mu_{X}=\int_{V(F)}d\mu_{Y}=\int_{Y(F)}d\mu_{Y}=\int_{Y(R)}d\mu_{Y}.$$ Applying Theorem 4.2, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{|{X}(\mathbb{F}_{q})|}{q^n}&=\frac{|{Y}(\mathbb{F}_{q})|}{q^n}\\
|{X}(\mathbb{F}_{q})|&=|{Y}(\mathbb{F}_{q})|.
\end{aligned}$$ Replacing $R$ by its cyclotomic extension obtained by adjoining all $(q^{r}-1)$-th roots of unity, the residue field $\mathbb{F}_{q}$ will become $\mathbb{F}_{q^r}$ and we get the same equality regarding $\mathbb{F}_{q^r}$-rational points for $r\geq 1$. Hence we have $$H^{i}(X,\mathbb{C})\cong H^{i}(Y,\mathbb{C})\quad {\rm for}\ {\rm all}\ i\geq 0.$$
Now let $X$ and $Y$ be smooth projective algebraic varieties over $\mathbb{C}$ with finite group $G$-actions. If $X$ and $Y$ have trivial canonical bundles and there is a birational map $f:X\rightarrow Y$ which commutes with $G$-actions, where the meaning of commuting with $G$-actions is explained after Theorem 1.3, then as above there exists ${R}$, which is the maximal compact subring in a local $p$-adic field, such that ‘everything’ (e.g. $X, Y, U, V$) can be defined over Spec${R}$ and have good reductions over some maximal ideal $\mathfrak{q}$. For a fixed $\sigma\in G$, we have $X(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})^{\sigma F_{q}}\subset X(\mathbb{F}_{q^N})$ and $Y(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})^{\sigma F_{q}}\subset Y(\mathbb{F}_{q^N})$ for some positive integer $N$. Let $R'$ be the integral closure of $R$ in the unramified extension of $F$ such that the residue field is $\mathbb{F}_{q^N}$. Then we have
[**Proposition 4.5.**]{} $$\int_{\tilde{{X}}(R')}d\mu_{\omega}=\frac{|X(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})^{\sigma F_{q}}|}{q^{Nn}}$$ [*where $\tilde{X}(R')=\{x\in X(R')|\bar{x}\in X(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})^{\sigma F_{q}}\}$.*]{}
[**Proof.**]{} Let $\phi:X(R')\rightarrow X(\mathbb{F}_{q^N})$, $x\rightarrow\bar{x}$ be the reduction map. If $\bar{x}\in X(\mathbb{F}_{q^N})$ is a closed $\mathbb{F}_{q^N}$-point and $g_1,...,g_n$ are generators of the maximal ideal of $\mathcal{O}_{X,\bar{x}}$, then they define a $p$-adic analytic homeomorphism $\gamma:\phi^{-1}(\bar{x})\rightarrow\mathbb{A}^{n}(\mathfrak q')$, where $\phi^{-1}(\bar{x})$ is the fiber of $\phi$ over $\bar{x}$ and $\mathbb{A}^{n}(\mathfrak q')$ is the set of $R'$-rational points of $\mathbb{A}^{n}$ whose coordinates lie in $\mathfrak q'$. Now as in the proof of [@Ba99 Theorem 2.5], we know that $$\int_{\phi^{-1}(\bar{x})}d\mu_{\omega}=\int_{\mathbb{A}^{n}(\mathfrak q')}d{\bf t}=\frac{1}{q^{Nn}}.$$ Hence we have $$\int_{\tilde{X}(R')}d\mu_{\omega}=\frac{|X(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})^{\sigma F_{q}}|}{q^{Nn}}.$$ $\square$
[**Proof of Theorem 1.3.**]{} The Weil $p$-adic measures on $U(F')$ associated with $f^{*}\omega_{V}$ and $\omega_{U}$ are the same, which implies the following equality $$\int_{\tilde{U}(F')}d\mu_{X}=\int_{\tilde{V}(F')}d\mu_{Y}$$ where $\tilde{U}(F')=\{x\in U(F')|\bar{x}\in X(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})^{\sigma F_{q}}\}$, $\tilde{V}(F')=\{x\in V(F')|\bar{x}\in Y(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})^{\sigma F_{q}}\}$ and $f$ induces a bijection between $\tilde{U}(F')$ and $\tilde{V}(F')$.
Hence $$\int_{\tilde{X}(R')}d\mu_{X}=\int_{\tilde{U}(F')}d\mu_{X}=\int_{\tilde{V}(F')}d\mu_{Y}=\int_{\tilde{Y}(R')}d\mu_{Y}.$$ Then by Proposition 4.5, we have $$|X(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})^{\sigma F_{q}}|=|Y(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{q}})^{\sigma F_{q}}|.$$ Replacing $R$ by its cyclotomic extension and then by Proposition 2.5, we get $$H^{*}(X,\mathbb{C})\cong H^{*}(Y,\mathbb{C})$$ as graded G-representations. $\square$
Compactified Jacobians
=======================
Recall some facts from [@AK76], [@A04] and [@EGK00]. Let $C/S$ be a flat projective family of integral curves. By a torsion-free rank-1 sheaf $\mathcal I$ on $C/S$, we mean an $S$-flat coherent $\mathcal{O}_C$-module $\mathcal I$ such that, for each point $s$ of $S$, the fiber $\mathcal{I}_s$ is a torsion-free rank-1 sheaf on the fiber $C_s$. We say that $\mathcal I$ is of degree $n$ if $\chi(\mathcal{I}_{s})-\chi(\mathcal{O}_{C_{s}})=n$ for each $s$.
Given $n$, consider the étale sheaf associated to the presheaf that assigns to each locally Noetherian $S$-scheme $T$ the set of isomorphism classes of torsion-free rank-1 sheaves of degree $n$ on $C_{T}/T$. This sheaf is representable by a projective $S$-scheme, denoted $\bar{J}_{C/S}^{n}$. It contains $J^{n}:=\rm{Pic}^{n}_{C/S}$ as an open subscheme. For every $S$-scheme $T$, we have a natural isomorphism $\bar{J}_{C_{T}/T}^{n}=\bar{J}_{C/S}^{n}\times T$. If $S=\rm{Spec}$$k$ for an algebraically closed field $k$, we denote $\bar{J}_{C/S}^{n}$ by $\overline{J^{n}C}$.
Recall that at the beginning we are considering $\mathcal{C}$, which is the tautological family of curves over an $n$-dimensional integral $G$-stable linear system. Since $\mathcal{C}$ has a stratification according to the geometric genus of the fibers and the $G$-action (see $\S 6$), we can temporarily focus our attention on $\overline{J^{n}C}$ for a single singular curve $C$ with a $G$-action (note that our $G$-action on $\overline{J^{n}C}$ is given by pushing forward the torsion-free rank-1 sheaves). This is reasonable since we have
[**Lemma 5.1.**]{} [*Let $X$ be an algebraic variety over $\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}$ with a $G$-action, $U$ an open subvariety of $X$, $Z:=X\backslash U$ the closed subvariety. If both $U$ and $Z$ are $G$-stable, then* ]{} $$[e(X)]=[e(U)]+ [e(Z)]$$ [*as $G$-representations, i.e. in $R_{\mathbb{Q}_{l}}(G)$, and $[e(X)]:=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{n}[H_{c}^{n}(X,\mathbb{Q}_{l})]$.*]{}
[**Proof.**]{} One way to see this is to consider the bounded long exact sequence $0\rightarrow H^{0}_{c}(U)\rightarrow H^{0}_{c}(X)\rightarrow H^{0}_{c}(Z)\rightarrow ...$ and check that Tr$(g)=0$ on $-[e(U)]+[e(X)]-[e(Z)]$ for every $g$. Another way is to use the description of Tr$(g)$ on $e(X)$ without involving cohomology [@Ca85 Appendix(h)]. $\square$
Now we have an integral curve $C$ over $\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}$. Recall that $\overline{J^{n}C}$ parametrizes the isomorphism classes of torsion-free rank-1 sheaves of degree $n$ on $C$, and we have the following facts [@Bea99].
[**Proposition 5.2.**]{}
*Let $C$ be an integral curve over an algebraically closed field $k$.*
\(1) If $L\in \overline{J^{n}C}$ is a non-invertible torsion-free rank 1 sheaf, then $L=f_{*}L'$, where $L'$ is some invertible sheaf on some partial normalization $f:C'\rightarrow C$.
\(2) If $f:C'\rightarrow C$ is a partial normalization of $C$, then the morphism $f_{*}:\overline{J^{n}C'}\rightarrow\overline{J^{n}C}$ is a closed embedding.
Using these two facts, we obtain the following corollary.
[**Corollary 5.3.**]{} [*Let all the singularities of an integral curve $C$ be nodal singularities. Then $\overline{J^{n}C}$ has the following stratification*]{} $$\overline{J^{n}C}=\coprod_{C'\rightarrow C} {J^{n}C'}$$ [*where $\overline{J^{n}C}$ parametrizes rank-1 torsion-free sheaves of degree n, and $C'$ goes through all partial normalizations of $C$ [(]{}including $C$ itself[)]{}.*]{}
Now let $J^{n}C'$ be some stratum which is preserved by $G$. We want to calculate the $G$-representation $[e(J^{n}C')]$. Here we need to make use of the short exact sequence of algebraic groups $$0\rightarrow L\rightarrow J^{n}C'\rightarrow J^{n}\tilde{C'}\rightarrow 0$$ where $L$ is a smooth connected linear algebraic group [@BLR90 $\S$9 Corollary 11], and $\widetilde{C'}$ is the normalization of $C'$. Since $L$ is linear, we have that $J^{n}C'$ is a principal Zariski fiber bundle over $J^{n}\tilde{C'}$ [@Se88 Chapter VII, Proposition 6]. Now we need to prove the following lemma.
[**Lemma 5.4.**]{} [*Let $B$ and $F$ be separated schemes of finite type over $\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}$, and let $G$ be a finite group acting on $B\times F$ and $B$ such that the projection $B\times F\rightarrow B$ is $G$-equivariant. Suppose $B$ is connected. Then we have*]{} $$[e(B\times F)]=[e(B)][e(F)]$$ [*as virtual $G$-representations, i.e. in $R_{\mathbb{Q}_{l}}(G)$, where the action of $g\in G$ on $H_{c}^{*}(F,\mathbb{Q}_{l})$ is given by $H_{c}^{*}(\{g(b)\}\times F,\mathbb{Q}_{l})\rightarrow H_{c}^{*}(\{b\}\times F,\mathbb{Q}_{l})$ by choosing any closed point $b\in B$.*]{}
[**Proof.**]{} We begin with a homotopy argument. Fix $g\in G$. By assumption, we have a commutative diagram $$\begin{CD}
B\times F @>g>> B\times F\\
@V\pi VV @VV\pi V\\
B @>g>> B
\end{CD}$$ Hence we have a map $\phi=(g,\pi)$ from $B\times F$ to the fiber product $B\times F$, which maps $(b,f)$ to $(b,g_{b}(f))$, where $g_{b}:F\cong \{b\}\times F\rightarrow \{g(b)\}\times F\cong F$, and the diagram $$\begin{CD}
B\times F @>\phi>> B\times F\\
@V\pi VV @VV\pi V\\
B @>id>> B
\end{CD}$$ commutes. On the other hand, we have $$\begin{CD}
B\times F @>>> F\\
@V\pi VV @VVV\\
B @>>> \overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}
\end{CD}$$ Hence $R^{i}\pi_{!}(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})$ is the constant sheaf $H_{c}^{i}(F,\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})$ on $B$. The automorphism $\phi$ acts on it and, at $b\in B$ it acts the way $g_{b}$ acts on $H_{c}^{i}(F,\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})$. Since an endomorphism of a constant sheaf over a connected base is constant, the action of $\phi$ is the same everywhere. Passing to limit, we deduce that the actions of $g_{b}$ on $H_{c}^{*}(F,\mathbb{Q}_{l})$ are the same for every $b\in B$.
By the same idea we used before, now it suffices to prove the following: $$|(B\times F)(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}})^{gF_{Q}}|=|B(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}})^{gF_{Q}}||F(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}})^{gF_{Q}}|$$ But by what we just proved and the Lefschetz trace formula, we have $|(\{b_1\}\times F)(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}})^{gF_{Q}}|=|(\{b_{2}\}\times F)(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}})^{gF_{Q}}|$, where $b_{1}, b_{2}$ are fixed points of $gF_{Q}$. Hence the equality follows. $\square$
[**Corollary 5.5.**]{} [*Let $B$, $E$ and $F$ be separated schemes of finite type over $\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}$. Suppose $E$ is a Zariski-locally trivial fiber bundle over $B$ with fiber $F$ and let $G$ be a finite group acting on $E$ and $B$, the action of which is compatible with the projection $\pi:E\rightarrow B$. If $B$ is irreducible, then we have*]{} $$[e(E)]=[e(B)][e(F)]$$ [*as virtual $G$-representations, i.e. in $R_{\mathbb{Q}_{l}}(G)$.*]{}
[**Proof.**]{} Fixing $g\in G$, it suffices to prove that the action of $g_{b_1}$ on $H_{c}^{*}(F,\mathbb{Q}_{l})$ is the same as the action of $g_{b_{2}}$ for any $b_{1}, b_{2}\in B$ fixed by $g$. Take open neighborhoods $U_{1}, U_{2}$ of $b_{1}, b_{2}$ which trivialize the bundle. Replacing $U$ by $\cap_{n=0}^{\infty} g^{n}(U)$, we can assume $U_{1}, U_{2}$ are $g$-stable and connected since $B$ is irreducible. Now let $V=U_{1}\cap U_{2}$ and take any closed point $b_{0}\in V$. By Lemma 5.4, we deduce that the action of $g_{b_1}$ is the same as the action of $g_{b_{0}}$, which is the same as the action of $g_{b_{2}}$. Hence we have $$|E(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}})^{gF_{Q}}|=|B(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}})^{gF_{Q}}||F(\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}})^{gF_{Q}}|$$ and we are done. $\square$
[**Corollary 5.6.**]{} [*Let $C$ be an integral projective curve over $\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}$ with finite group $G$-actions. Then* ]{} $$[e(J^{n}C)]=[e(L)][e(J^{n}\tilde{C})]$$ [*as virtual $G$-representations, i.e. in $R_{\mathbb{Q}_{l}}(G)$, where $L$ is a linear algebraic group and $\tilde{C}$ is the normalization of $C$.*]{}
[**Proof.**]{} Let $f^{*}:J^{n}C\rightarrow J^{n}\tilde{C}$ be the pullback map. Since $g$ is an automorphism on $C$ and $\tilde{C}$, we have $g_{*}f^{*}=f^{*}g_{*}$. Now we use Corollary 5.5. $\square$
Now to prove Theorem 1.9, we first prove the following statement about $e(J^{n}C)$.
[**Lemma 5.7.**]{} [*Let $C$ be an integral curve over $\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}$ with nodal singularities and a $G$-action. Suppose $p\nmid|G|$. If $\tilde{C}/\left<g\right>$ is not a rational curve for every $g\in G$, then $[e({J^{n}C})]=0$ as $G$-representations.*]{}
[**Proof.**]{} By Corollary 5.6, it suffices to prove $[e(J^{n}\tilde{C})]=0$, which is equivalent to ${\rm Tr}(g)|_{[e(J^{n}\tilde{C})]}=0$ for any $g\in G$. But $J^{n}\tilde{C}$ is an abelian variety, which means $H^{i}(J^{n}\tilde{C},\mathbb{Q}_{l})\cong\wedge^{i}H^{1}(J^{n}\tilde{C},\mathbb{Q}_{l})$. Since $p\nmid|G|$, $\tilde{C}/\left<g\right>$ is smooth. Then since $\tilde{C}/\left<g\right>$ is not rational, we have $H^{1}(\tilde{C}/\left<g\right>,\mathbb{Q}_{l})\neq 0$. Hence $H^{1}(J^{n}\tilde{C},\mathbb{Q}_{l})^{\left<g\right>}\neq 0$, which implies ${\rm Tr}(g)|_{[e(J^{n}\tilde{C})]}=0$. This is because $H^{1}(J^{n}\tilde{C},\mathbb{Q}_{l})=V_{0}\oplus V_{1}$, where $V_{0}$ is the non-empty eigenspace of $g$ with eigenvalue 1, and $V_{1}$ is its complement. We have $\sum(-1)^{i}\wedge^{i}H^{1}(J^{n}\tilde{C},\mathbb{Q}_{l})=(\sum(-1)^{i}\wedge^{i}V_{0})\otimes(\sum(-1)^{i}\wedge^{i}V_{1}$) and $\sum(-1)^{i}\wedge^{i}V_{0}$ has trace 0. $\square$
Now with the help of Corollary 5.3, we have
[**Proof of Theorem 1.9.**]{} Fix $g\in G$. Recall that we have $\overline{J^{n}C}=\coprod_{C'\rightarrow C} {J^{n}C'}$ by Corollary 5.3. Depending on the action of $g$ on the nodes of $C$, $g_{*}$ permutes or acts on the strata $J^{n}C'$. For any union of two or more strata permuted by $g_{*}$ cyclically, the trace of $g$ on any $H^{i}_{c}$ equals 0 since $g$ acts by cyclically permuting the $H^{i}_{c}$ of the components. For the stratum which is stable under $g$, the trace of $g$ is also 0 by Lemma 5.7. Hence $[e(\overline{J^{n}C})]=0$ by Lemma 5.1. $\square$
[**Proof of Corollary 1.10.**]{} If $\tilde{C}/G$ is not a rational curve, then $\tilde{C}/\left<g\right>$ is not rational for any $g\in G$. $\square$
[**Remark 5.8.**]{} We are dealing with characteristic $p$ in this section because we do not know whether Corollary 5.5 is true for singular cohomology in characteristic 0. Since $B$, $E$, and $F$ are not assumed to be smooth projective, we cannot use the proper smooth base change theorem.
Rational curves on surfaces
===========================
Let $S$ be a smooth projective $K3$ surface over $\mathbb{C}$ with a $G$-action, and let $\mathcal{C}$ be the tautological family of curves over an $n$-dimensional integral linear system $|\mathcal{L}|$ acted on by $G$. Then $\overline{J^{n}\mathcal{C}}$ is a smooth projective variety over $|\mathcal{L}|$ whose fiber over a point $t\in\mathcal{L}$ is the compactified jacobian $\overline{J^{n}C_{t}}$. Choose some good reduction over $q$ such that ‘everything’ ($\overline{J^{n}\mathcal{C}}$, $S$, $G$-action etc.) is defined over $\mathbb{F}_{q}$, and we assume $|\mathcal{L}|$ is still integral. Then $|\mathcal{L}|$ has a stratification where each stratum $B$ satisfies ${\rm Stab}_{G}(t)=H$ for every $t\in B$ and some subgroup $H$, and the fibers $\mathcal{C}_{t}$ of the stratum have the same geometric genus. This is because for any subgroup $H$ in $G$, $|\mathcal{L}|^{H}\backslash\cup_{H'\supsetneqq H}|\mathcal{L}|^{H'}$ is a locally closed subspace. The reason for the stratification by the geometric genus is that the geometric genus gives a lower semicontinuous function in our case [@Sh12]. Now notice that $gB=B$ if $g\in N_{G}(H)$ and $gB\cap B=\emptyset$ if $g\notin N_{G}(H)$. Hence we have a new stratification of $|\mathcal{L}|$ where each stratum $\cup_{g\in G}gB$ is $G$-invariant. Let $\pi:\overline{J^{n}\mathcal{C}}\rightarrow|\mathcal{L}|$ be the compactified jacobian of the family of curves. Then by considering $\pi^{-1}(\cup_{g\in G}gB)$ for all $B$, we obtain a stratification of $\overline{J^{n}\mathcal{C}}$, where each stratum is $G$-stable and is a Zariski-locally trivial fiber bundle over $\cup_{g\in G}gB$ for the corresponding $B$. Then since $$H_{c}^{*}(\pi^{-1}(\cup_{g\in G}gB),\mathbb{Q}_{l})={\rm Ind}_{N_{G}(H)}^{G}H_{c}^{*}(\pi^{-1}B,\mathbb{Q}_{l}),$$ we know that $[e(\overline{J^{n}\mathcal{C}})]$ equals $$\sum [e(\pi^{-1}(\cup_{g\in G}gB))]=\sum{\rm Ind}_{N_{G}(H)}^{G}[e(\pi^{-1}B)]=\sum {\rm Ind}_{N_{G}(H)}^{G} [e(\overline{J^{n}C_{0}})][e(B)]$$ by Lemma 5.1 and Corollary 5.5, where $C_{0}$ is the fiber $\mathcal{C}_{t}$ for some $t\in B$, ${\rm Ind}_{N_{G}(H)}^{G}$ is the induced representation, and $e(\overline{J^{n}C_{0}})$ can be expressed using Corollary 5.3, 5.6 or Theorem 1.9.
[**Proof of Corollary 1.4.**]{} Recall that we have a birational map from $\overline{J^{n}\mathcal{C}}$ to $S^{[n]}$ [@Bea99], which maps a pair $(C_{t},L)$ to a unique effective divisor $D$ on $C_{t}$ which is linearly equivalent to $L$, and can be viewed as a length $d$ subscheme of $S$. Note that the $G$-actions commutes with this map in the sense of Theorem 1.3. Hence by Theorem 1.3 $[e(\overline{J^{n}\mathcal{C}})]=[e(S^{[n]})]$ as $G$-representations. Now by using Corollary 3.6 we are done. $\square$
Now we want to explicitly describe $\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}[e(S^{[n]})]t^{n}$ as a $G$-representation. For that purpose, we cite the following theorems ([@Mu88 Proposition 1.2] and [@AST11 Lemma 2.3]).
[**Theorem 6.1. [@Mu88]**]{} [*Let $g$ be a symplectic automorphism of a complex K3 surface $S$ of order $n<\infty$. Then the number of fixed points of $g$ is equal to $\epsilon(n)=24\left(n\prod_{p|n}\left(1+\frac{1}{p}\right)\right)^{-1}$.*]{}
[**Theorem 6.2. [@AST11]**]{} [*Let $g$ be a non-symplectic automorphism of a complex K3 surface $S$ of prime order $p$. Then the Euler characteristic of $S^{g}$ is $24-dp$, where $S^{g}$ denotes the fixed locus of $g$, $d=\frac{{\rm rank}\,T(g)}{p-1}$, and $T(g):=(H^{2}(S,\mathbb{Z})^{g})^{\bot}$.*]{}
[**Proof of Theorem 1.6.**]{} By remark 3.7, we deduce that $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\text{Tr}(g)|_{[e(\bar{S}^{[n]})]}t^{n}=\text{exp}\left(\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{\text{Tr}(g^{k})|_{[e(\bar{S})]}t^{mk}}{k}\right).$$ Then using the Lefschetz fixed point formula and Theorem 6.1, we get the equality we want.
When $G$ is a cyclic group of order $N$, we have $N\leq 8$ by [@H16 Corollary 15.1.8]. Recall the definition of the Dedekind eta function $\eta(t)=t^{1/24}\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}(1-t^{n})$, where $t=e^{2\pi iz}$. Fix a generator $g$ of $G$.
If $N$ is a prime number $p$, we notice that ord$(g^{k})=1$ if $p|k$, and ord$(g^{k})=p$ otherwise. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\text{Tr}(g)|_{[e(\bar{S}^{[n]})]}t^{n}&=\text{exp}\left(\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{\epsilon(p)t^{mk}}{k}\right)\text{exp}\left(\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{(24-\epsilon(p))t^{mpk}}{pk}\right)\\
&=\left(\prod_{m=1}^{\infty}(1-t^{m})\right)^{-\epsilon(p)}\left(\prod_{m=1}^{\infty}(1-t^{mp})\right)^{\frac{\epsilon(p)-24}{p}}\\
&=\left(\prod_{m=1}^{\infty}(1-t^{m})(1-t^{mp})\right)^{-\frac{24}{p+1}}\\
&=t/\eta(t)^{\frac{24}{p+1}}\eta(t^{p})^{\frac{24}{p+1}}.
\end{aligned}$$
If $N=4$, we have $$\text{Tr}(g^{k})|_{[e(\bar{S})]}=
\begin{cases}
4, & {\rm if}\ k\equiv 1,3\ ({\rm mod}\ 4)\\
8, & {\rm if}\ k\equiv 2\ ({\rm mod}\ 4)\\
24, & {\rm if}\ k\equiv 0\ ({\rm mod}\ 4).
\end{cases}$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\text{Tr}(g)|_{[e(\bar{S}^{[n]})]}t^{n}&=\text{exp}\left(\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}\sum_{k\equiv 1,3}\frac{4t^{mk}}{k}+\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}\sum_{k\equiv 2}\frac{8t^{mk}}{k}+\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}\sum_{k\equiv 0}\frac{24t^{mk}}{k}\right)\\
&=\prod_{m=1}^{\infty}(1-t^{m})^{-4}(1-t^{2m})^{-2}(1-t^{4m})^{-4}\\
&=t/\eta(t)^{4}\eta(t^{2})^{2}\eta(t^{4})^{4}.
\end{aligned}$$
If $N=6$, we have $$\text{Tr}(g^{k})|_{[e(\bar{S})]}=
\begin{cases}
2, & {\rm if}\ k\equiv 1,5\ ({\rm mod}\ 6)\\
6, & {\rm if}\ k\equiv 2,4\ ({\rm mod}\ 6)\\
8, & {\rm if}\ k\equiv 3\ ({\rm mod}\ 6)\\
24, & {\rm if}\ k\equiv 0\ ({\rm mod}\ 6).
\end{cases}$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\text{Tr}(g)|_{[e(\bar{S}^{[n]})]}t^{n}&=\text{exp}\left(\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}\sum_{k\equiv 1,5}\frac{2t^{mk}}{k}+\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}\sum_{k\equiv 2,4}\frac{6t^{mk}}{k}+\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}\sum_{k\equiv 3}\frac{8t^{mk}}{k}+\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}\sum_{k\equiv 0}\frac{24t^{mk}}{k}\right)\\
&=\prod_{m=1}^{\infty}(1-t^{m})^{-2}(1-t^{2m})^{-2}(1-t^{3m})^{-2}(1-t^{6m})^{-2}\\
&=t/\eta(t)^{2}\eta(t^{2})^{2}\eta(t^{3})^{2}\eta(t^{6})^{2}.
\end{aligned}$$
If $N=8$, we have $$\text{Tr}(g^{k})|_{[e(\bar{S})]}=
\begin{cases}
2, & {\rm if}\ k\equiv 1,3,5,7\ ({\rm mod}\ 8)\\
4, & {\rm if}\ k\equiv 2,6\ ({\rm mod}\ 8)\\
8, & {\rm if}\ k\equiv 4\ ({\rm mod}\ 8)\\
24, & {\rm if}\ k\equiv 0\ ({\rm mod}\ 8).
\end{cases}$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\text{Tr}(g)|_{[e(\bar{S}^{[n]})]}t^{n}&=\text{exp}\left(\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}\sum_{k\equiv 1,3,5,7}\frac{2t^{mk}}{k}+\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}\sum_{k\equiv 2,6}\frac{4t^{mk}}{k}+\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}\sum_{k\equiv 4}\frac{8t^{mk}}{k}+\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}\sum_{k\equiv 0}\frac{24t^{mk}}{k}\right)\\
&=\prod_{m=1}^{\infty}(1-t^{m})^{-2}(1-t^{2m})^{-1}(1-t^{4m})^{-1}(1-t^{8m})^{-2}\\
&=t/\eta(t)^{2}\eta(t^{2})\eta(t^{4})\eta(t^{8})^{2}.
\end{aligned}$$ $\square$
[**Proof of Theorem 1.8.**]{} By remark 3.7, we have $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}{\rm Tr}(g)|_{[e(\bar{S}^{[n]})]}t^{n}=\text{exp}\left(\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{\text{Tr}(g^{k})|_{[e(\bar{S})]}t^{mk}}{k}\right).$$ By the topological Lefschetz formula, we have $$e_{top}(S^{g})=\sum_{i=0}^{4}(-1)^{i}{\rm Tr}(g^{*}|H^{i}(S,\mathbb{C}))=\sum_{i=0}^{4}(-1)^{i}{\rm Tr}(g^{*}|H^{i}(\bar{S},\mathbb{Q}_{l}))={\rm Tr}(g)|_{[e(\bar{S})]}.$$ Fix $g\neq 1$ and notice that $S^{g}$ is the same as $S^{g^{k}}$ for $p\nmid k$. We have ${\rm Tr}(g)|_{[e(\bar{S})]}={\rm Tr}(g^{k})|_{[e(\bar{S})]}=24-dp$ by Theorem 6.2. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\text{Tr}(g)|_{[e(\bar{S}^{[n]})]}t^{n}&=\text{exp}\left(\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{(24-dp)t^{mk}}{k}\right)\text{exp}\left(\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{(dp)t^{mpk}}{pk}\right)\\
&=\left(\prod_{m=1}^{\infty}(1-t^{m})\right)^{dp-24}\left(\prod_{m=1}^{\infty}(1-t^{mp})\right)^{-d}.
\end{aligned}$$ $\square$
[**Example 1 ($\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$).**]{} Here we look at an explicit K3 surface with a symplectic $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$-action. Consider the elliptic K3 surface $S$ defined by the Weierstrass equation $$y^{2}=x^{3}+(t^{4}+a_{1}t^{2}+a_{2})x+(t^{12}+b_{1}t^{10}+b_{2}t^{8}+b_{3}t^{6}+b_{4}t^{4}+b_{5}t^{2}+b_{6})$$ where $(a_{1},a_{2})\in\mathbb{C}^{2}$, $(b_{1},...,b_{6})\in\mathbb{C}^{6}$ are generic. The fibration has 24 nodal fibers (Kodaira type $I_{1}$) over the zeros of its discriminant polynomial and those zeros do not contain $0$ and $\infty$. The automorphsim of order 2 $$\sigma(x,y,t)=(x,-y,-t)$$ acts non-trivially on the basis of the fibration and preserves the smooth elliptic curves over $t=0$ and $t=\infty$. Now denote one of the fibers by $L$, then $|L|$ is a $\left<\sigma\right>$-invariant integral linear system and all of the singular curves in $|L|$ are nodal rational curves. We want to understand the $\sigma$-orbits in $|L|$.
Since we know explicitly the action of $\sigma$, by calculation we know that there are 4 $\sigma$-fixed points on the fiber over $t=0$ and 4 $\sigma$-fixed points on the fiber over $t=\infty$. So $\sigma$ has 8 isolated fixed points, hence it is a symplectic involution.
Now we know from Theorem 1.6 that $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\text{Tr}(\sigma)|_{[e(\bar{S}^{[n]})]}t^{n}=\left(\prod_{k=1}^{\infty}(1-t^{k})\right)^{-8}\left(\prod_{k=1}^{\infty}(1-t^{2k})\right)^{-8}.$$ This implies ${\rm Tr}(\sigma)|_{[e(S)]}=8$ by looking at the coefficient of $t$. Hence we have ${\rm Tr}(\sigma)|_{[e(\overline{J\mathcal{C}})]}=8$ by Corollary 1.4. But in this case, there are only two strata contributing to $[e(\overline{J\mathcal{C}})]$ as $\left<\sigma\right>$-representations (see Remark 6.3). One consists of nodal rational curves which are not $\sigma$-stable. The other consists of elliptic curves whose quotient by $\sigma$ is rational. The first stratum contributes $n_{1}[\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}]$ if there are $n_{1}$ such $\sigma$-orbits in $|L|$, where $[\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}]$ is the regular representation. The second stratum contributes $n_{2}(2V_{1}-2V_{-1})$ if there are $n_{2}$ such elliptic curves in $|L|$, where $V_{s}$ is the 1-dim representation on which $\sigma$ has eigenvalue $s$. Hence $$[e(\overline{J\mathcal{C}})]=n_{1}[\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}]+n_{2}(2V_{1}-2V_{-1})$$ But since we already know the representation $[e(\overline{J\mathcal{C}})]$, by calculation we have $n_{1}=12$ and $n_{2}=2$.
On the other hand, this coincides with the geometric picture. From the definition of $\sigma$ we observe that there are indeed 12 $\sigma$-orbits of nodal rational curves. Denote by $C_{0}, C_{\infty}$ the fibers over $t=0, \infty$. Since $\sigma$ preserve $C_{0}$ and there are 4 $\sigma$-fixed points, we deduce that the degree 2 morphism $C_{0}\rightarrow C_{0}/\left<\sigma\right>$ has 4 ramification points. Hence by Riemann-Hurwitz formula $C_{0}/\left<\sigma\right>$ is smooth rational. By the same argument, $C_{\infty}/\left<\sigma\right>$ is also smooth rational. This is what we have expected since there should be two such curves from the calculation of the representations.
[**Example 2 ($\mathbb{Z}/3\mathbb{Z}$).**]{} Here we look at an explicit K3 surface with a non-symplectic $\mathbb{Z}/3\mathbb{Z}$-action [@AST11 Remark 4.2]. Consider the elliptic K3 surface $S$ defined by the Weierstrass equation $$y^{2}=x^{3}+(t^6+a_{1}t^{3}+a_{2})x+(t^{12}+b_{1}t^{9}+b_{2}t^{6}+b_{3}t^{3}+b_{4})$$ where $(a_{1},a_{2})\in\mathbb{C}^{2}$, $(b_{1},...,b_{4})\in\mathbb{C}^{4}$ are generic. The fibration has 24 nodal fibers (Kodaira type $I_{1}$) over the zeros of its discriminant polynomial and those zeros do not contain $0$ and $\infty$. The automorphsim of order 3 $$\sigma(x,y,t)=(x,y,\zeta_{3}t)$$ acts non-trivially on the basis of the fibration and preserves the smooth elliptic curves over $t=0$ and $t=\infty$. Now denote one of the fibers by $L$, then $|L|$ is a $\left<\sigma\right>$-invariant integral linear system and all of the singular curves in $|L|$ are nodal rational curves. We want to understand the $\sigma$-orbits in $|L|$.
First we observe that $\sigma$ fixs the fiber over $t=0$. Hence $\left<\sigma\right>$ acts non-symplectically on $S$. We know from [@AST11 Theorem 4.1] that rank $T(\sigma)=14$. Then using Theorem 1.8 we have $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\text{Tr}(\sigma)|_{[e(\bar{S}^{[n]})]}t^{n}=\left(\prod_{k=1}^{\infty}(1-t^{k})\right)^{-3}\left(\prod_{k=1}^{\infty}(1-t^{3k})\right)^{-7}.$$ This implies ${\rm Tr}(\sigma)|_{[e(S)]}=3$ by looking at the coefficient of $t$. Hence we have ${\rm Tr}(\sigma)|_{[e(\overline{J\mathcal{C}})]}=3$ by Corollary 1.4. But in this case, there are only two strata contributing to $[e(\overline{J\mathcal{C}})]$ as $\left<\sigma\right>$-representations (see Remark 6.3). One consists of nodal rational curves which are not $\sigma$-stable. The other consists of elliptic curves whose quotient by $\sigma$ is rational. In particular, the fiber over $t=0$ will not contribute to $[e(\overline{J\mathcal{C}})]$. The first stratum contributes $n_{1}[\mathbb{Z}/3\mathbb{Z}]$ if there are $n_{1}$ such $\sigma$-orbits in $|L|$, where $[\mathbb{Z}/3\mathbb{Z}]$ is the regular representation. The second stratum contributes $n_{2}(2V_{1}-V_{\zeta_{3}}-V_{\zeta^{-1}_{3}})$ if there are $n_{2}$ such elliptic curves in $|L|$ , where $V_{s}$ is the 1-dim representation on which $\sigma$ has eigenvalue $s$. Hence $$[e(\overline{J\mathcal{C}})]=n_{1}[\mathbb{Z}/3\mathbb{Z}]+n_{2}(2V_{1}-V_{\zeta_{3}}-V_{\zeta^{-1}_{3}})$$ But since we already know the representation $[e(\overline{J\mathcal{C}})]$, by calculation we have $n_{1}=8$ and $n_{2}=1$.
On the other hand, this coincides with the geometric picture. From the definition of $\sigma$ we observe that there are indeed 8 $\sigma$-orbits of nodal rational curves. Since the action of $\sigma$ is explicit, by calculation we know that there are 3 $\sigma$-fixed points on the fiber over $t=\infty$. Denote by $C_{\infty}$ the fiber over $t=\infty$. Then this implies that the degree 3 morphism $C_{\infty}\rightarrow C_{\infty}/\left<\sigma\right>$ has 3 ramification points. Hence by Riemann-Hurwitz formula $C_{\infty}/\left<\sigma\right>$ is smooth rational, which is what we have expected.
[**Remark 6.3 ($\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ in general)**]{}. Let us consider a complex K3 surface $S$ with a $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$-action (i.e. an involution $\sigma$). Take a $\sigma$-invariant integral linear system $\mathcal{L}$ of dimension $d$. Assume all the rational curves in $\mathcal{L}$ have nodal singularities.
For the stratum of $\mathcal{L}$ which consists of curves that are not $\sigma$-stable and of geometric genus $>0$, denote by $M$ the corresponding stratum of $\overline{J^{d}\mathcal{C}}$. Then $[e(M)]=e(M/\left<\sigma\right>)[\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}]=e(\overline{J^{d}C_{0}})e(B/\left<\sigma\right>)[\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}]$, where $[\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}]$ is the regular representation. But $e(\overline{J^{d}C_{0}})=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} (-1)^{n}{\rm dim}H^{n}(\overline{J^{d}C_{0}},\mathbb{Q}_{l})=0$ by Theorem 1.9. Hence $[e(M)]=0$ as representation.
For the stratum of $\mathcal{L}$ which consists of curves that are not $\sigma$-stable and are nodal rational curves, we have $[e(M)]=n_{0}[\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}]$ where $n_{0}$ is the number of $\sigma$-orbits of nodal rational curves, since $e(\overline{J^{d}C_{0}})=1$ by Corollary 5.3, Corollary 5.6 and $e(\mathbb{G}_{m})=0$.
For those curves that are $\sigma$-stable, we first notice that $\sigma$ fixes some curve only if $\sigma$ acts non-symplectically on $S$, and in that case the fixed curves are always smooth ([@AST11 $\S 2$]). Let $C_{0}$ be a smooth curve of genus $d\geq 1$ fixed by $\sigma$. If $d=1$, then the fixed locus of $\sigma$ consists of two disjoint elliptic curves and they are linearly equivalent. If $d>1$, then it is the only curve of genus $d$ fixed by $\sigma$ ([@AST11 Theorem 3.1]). In either case, the stratum consisting of $\sigma$-fixed curves contributes 0 to the representation since the Euler characteristic of an abelian variety is $0$.
For the stratum of $\mathcal{L}$ which consists of curves that are $\sigma$-stable, if the normalization of the curves quotient by $\left<\sigma\right>$ is not rational, then by Theorem 1.9, we have $[e(M)]=0$.
Hence there are only two strata contributing to $[e(\overline{J^{d}\mathcal{C}})]$. One consists of $\sigma$-orbits of nodal rational curves. The other consists of the curves whose normalization quotient by $\left<\sigma\right>$ are smooth rational.
In particular, for the stratum which consists of $\sigma$-stable smooth curves whose quotient by $\left<\sigma\right>$ are rational, by a similar argument as in the proof of Lemma 5.7, we have $[e(J^{d}(C_{0}))]=2^{2d-1}V_{1}-2^{2d-1}V_{-1}$, where $V_{s}$ is the 1-dim representation on which $\sigma$ has eigenvalue $s$.
Now let us give an example of a 2-dim $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$-invariant linear system. This example is suggested by Jim Bryan.
[**Example 3 (2-dim $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$).**]{} Let $S$ be a K3 surface given by the double cover of $\mathbb{P}_{2}$ branched over a smooth sextic curve $C$ in $\mathbb{P}_{2}$. Let $\tau$ be the involution on $\mathbb{P}_{2}$ sending $(x: y: z)$ to $(-x: y: z)$. Denote the covering involution by $i: S\rightarrow S$. Then if we suppose $C$ is $\tau$-invariant, the ‘composition’ of $\tau$ and $i$ will give a symplectic involution $\sigma$ on $S$ ([@GS07 Section 3.2]).
The fixed locus of $\tau$ on $\mathbb{P}_{2}$ consists of a point $x_{0}=(1: 0: 0)$ and a line $l_{0}=\{(x: y: z)| x=0\}$. Denote the six intersection points of $l_{0}$ and $C$ by $x_{3}, x_{4},..., x_{8}$. Let $\pi: S\rightarrow\mathbb{P}_{2}$ be the double cover map. Denote the two points in $\pi^{-1}(x_{0})$ by $x_{1}, x_{2}$. Then the fixed locus of $\sigma$ is the eight points $x_{1}, x_{2},..., x_{8}$. Notice that $\sigma$ commutes with $i$ and the induced action of $\sigma$ on $\mathbb{P}_{2}$ is just $\tau$.
Now let $\mathcal{L}=\pi^{*}\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{2}}(1)$. Then the linear system $|\mathcal{L}|$ consists of the curves which are the preimages of the lines in $\mathbb{P}^{2}$ under $\pi$. For a generic choice of $C$, $|\mathcal{L}|$ is a $\sigma$-invariant integral linear system. A generic line will intersects $C$ in six points, and its preimage is a smooth genus 2 curve. Some lines will intersect $C$ in a tangent point and 4 other distinct points, and their preimages are curves with one node. The other lines are the 324 bitangents of $C$, which can be seen from the Plücker formula or the coefficient of $t^{2}$ in $\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}(1-t^{n})^{-24}$.
Let $\mathcal{C}\rightarrow|\mathcal{L}|$ be the tautological family of curves over $|\mathcal{L}|$. Now we know from Theorem 1.6 that $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\text{Tr}(\sigma)|_{[e({S}^{[n]})]}t^{n}=\left(\prod_{k=1}^{\infty}(1-t^{k})\right)^{-8}\left(\prod_{k=1}^{\infty}(1-t^{2k})\right)^{-8}.$$
This implies ${\rm Tr}(\sigma)|_{[e({S}^{[2]})]}=52$ by looking at the coefficient of $t^{2}$. Hence we have ${\rm Tr}(\sigma)|_{[e(\overline{J\mathcal{C}})]}=52$ by Corollary 1.4. Since we know ${\rm Tr}(1)|_{[e(S^{[2]})]}=324$, we have $$[e(\overline{J\mathcal{C}})]=188V_{1}+136V_{-1}$$ where $V_{1}$ is the 1-dimensional trivial representation and $V_{-1}$ is the 1-dimensional representation on which $\sigma$ has eigenvalue $-1$.
To give a geometric interpretation of this representation, we first concentrate on the $\sigma$-invariant curves in $|\mathcal{L}|$ since non-invariant curves with zero or one node will contribute nothing to the representation, and non-invariant nodal rational curves will contribute some multiple of the regular representation. The $\sigma$-invariant curves in $|\mathcal{L}|$ are given by the preimages of the $\tau$-invariant lines, which consists of the line $l_{0}=\{(x: y: z)| x=0\}$ and all the lines passing through $x_{0}=(1: 0: 0)$, i.e., $\{(x: y: z)| by+cz=0\}$, $(b: c)\in\mathbb{P}^{1}$.
The preimage of $l_{0}$ is a smooth genus 2 curve, and it has 6 ramification points $x_{3}, x_{4},..., x_{8}$ under $\sigma$. Hence its preimage quotient by $\sigma$ is a smooth rational curve, and it will contribute $8V_{1}-8V_{-1}$ to the representation by a similar argument as in the proof of Lemma 5.7.
The preimages of $\{(x: y: z)| by+cz=0\}$ are more complicated. A generic line will intersect $C$ in six points, and its preimage is a smooth curve of genus 2. It has 2 ramification points $x_{1}, x_{2}$ under $\sigma$. Hence its preimage quotient by $\sigma$ is an elliptic curve, and it will contribute nothing to the representation.
Now let us consider those tangent lines. We first observe that if a line passes through one of the six points $x_{3}, x_{4},..., x_{8}$, then by looking at the $\sigma$-action on the preimage of the line, this point must be a tangent point. So its preimage is a curve with one node, and the normalization of it has 4 ramification points $x_{1}, x_{2}, x_{i}^{1}, x_{i}^{2}$ under $\sigma$, where $x_{i}^{1}, x_{i}^{2}$ are the two points on the normalization over the point $x_{i}$ if our line passes through $x_{i}$, $i\in\{3,4,...,8\}$. Hence the normalization of its preimage quotient by $\sigma$ is a rational curve, and we denote its contribution to the representation by $[e(\overline{J{C}_{1}})]$.
Now if there is a tangent point $y$ of the tangent line which is not one of the six points $x_{3}, x_{4},..., x_{8}$, then since both of the line and the curve $C$ are $\tau$-invariant, this line must have another tangent point $\tau(y)$. Hence this line must be a bitangent. In order to calculate the number of the $\tau$-invariant bitangents, we notice that the degree of the dual curve of $C$ is 30. We already have 6 tangent lines with one tangent point, and all the other $\tau$-invariant tangent lines are bitangents. Hence there should be 12 $\tau$-invariant bitangents. The preimage of the $\tau$-invariant bitangent is a rational curve with two nodes, and $\tau$ permutes the nodes. The normalization of the preimage has 2 ramification points $x_{1}, x_{2}$ under $\sigma$. Hence the normalization of its preimage quotient by $\sigma$ is a rational curve, and we denote its contribution to the representation by $[e(\overline{J{C}_{2}})]$.
Finally, non-invariant curves with two nodes will also contribute to the representation. We know there are 324 curves with two nodes, and 12 of them are $\sigma$-invariant by the discussion above. So there are 312 non-invariant nodal rational curves, which will contribute $156[\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}]=156V_{1}+156V_{-1}$ to the representation.
Combining all of the above, we have $$\begin{aligned}
188V_{1}+136V_{-1}&=[e(\overline{J\mathcal{C}})]\\
&=8V_{1}-8V_{-1}+6[e(\overline{J{C}_{1}})]+12[e(\overline{J{C}_{2}})]+156V_{1}+156V_{-1}.
\end{aligned}$$ Hence we only need to check $$[e(\overline{J{C}_{1}})]+2[e(\overline{J{C}_{2}})]=4V_{1}-2V_{-1}$$ and this is true by the following two lemmas.
[**Lemma 6.4.**]{} [*Let $C_{1}$ be an integral curve of arithmetic genus 2 with one node over $\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}$. If there is a involution $\sigma$ acting on it, and the action $\sigma$ on its normalization $\tilde{C_{1}}$ has 4 fixed points, two of which are the points over the node, then we have* ]{} $$[e(\overline{J{C}_{1}})]=2V_{1}-2V_{-1}$$ as $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$-representations.
[**Lemma 6.5.**]{} [*Let $C_{2}$ be an integral curve of arithmetic genus 2 with two nodes over $\overline{\mathbb{F}_{p}}$. If there is a involution $\sigma$ acting on it, and $\sigma$ permutes the nodes, then we have* ]{} $$[e(\overline{J{C}_{2}})]=V_{1}$$ as $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$-representations.
[**Proof of Lemma 6.4.**]{} Since $C_{1}$ is an integral curve of arithmetic genus 2 with one node, its normalization $\pi:\tilde{C_{1}}\rightarrow C_{1}$ is an elliptic curve, and we denote it by $E$. By Corollary 5.3 and Corollary 5.6, we have $$[e(\overline{J{C}_{1}})]=[e({J{C}_{1}})]+[e({J{E}})]=[e(\mathbb{G}_{m})][e(JE)]+[e(JE)].$$
Now we notice that $\sigma$ has 4 fixed points on $E$, so $E\rightarrow E/\left<\sigma\right>$ realizes $E$ as a double cover of $\mathbb{P}^{1}$. Hence $$[e(JE)]=[H^{0}(E,\mathbb{Q}_{l})]-[H^{1}(E,\mathbb{Q}_{l})]+[H^{2}(E,\mathbb{Q}_{l})]=2V_{1}-2V_{-1}.$$
On the other hand, since $\sigma$ fixes the points over the node, we deduce from the short exact sequence $$0\rightarrow\mathcal{O}_{C_{1}}^{*}\rightarrow\pi_{*}\mathcal{O}_{E}^{*}\rightarrow\delta\rightarrow 0$$ that $\sigma$ acts trivially on the skyscraper sheaf $\delta$. Hence $\sigma$ acts trivially on $H^{0}(C_{1}, \delta)=\mathbb{G}_{m}$. So $[e(\mathbb{G}_{m})]=e(\mathbb{G}_{m})V_{1}=0$ since the topological Euler characteristic of $\mathbb{G}_{m}$ is 0.
Combining the above discussion, we have $$[e(\overline{J{C}_{1}})]=2V_{1}-2V_{-1}.$$ $\square$
[**Proof of Lemma 6.5.**]{} Since $C_{2}$ is an integral curve of arithmetic genus 2 with two nodes, its normalization $\pi:\tilde{C_{2}}\rightarrow C_{2}$ is a rational curve. It also has two partial normalizations by resolving one of the nodes $\pi_{1}:C_{2}^{'}\rightarrow C_{2}$ and $\pi_{2}:C_{2}^{''}\rightarrow C_{2}$. By Corollary 5.3 and Corollary 5.6, we have $$[e(\overline{J{C}_{2}})]=[e({J{C}_{2}})]+[e({J{C}^{'}_{2}})]+[e({J{C}^{''}_{2}})]+[e({J\mathbb{P}^{1}})]=[e(\mathbb{G}_{m}\times\mathbb{G}_{m})]+e(\mathbb{G}_{m})[\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}]+V_{1}$$ since $\sigma$ permutes two nodes.
On the other hand, $\mathbb{G}_{m}$ is an affine curve. So dim $H^{2}_{c}(\mathbb{G}_{m},\mathbb{Q}_{l})=1$ and dim $H^{0}_{c}(\mathbb{G}_{m},\mathbb{Q}_{l})=0$. Since the topological Euler characteristic of $\mathbb{G}_{m}$ is 0, we also have dim $H^{1}_{c}(\mathbb{G}_{m},\mathbb{Q}_{l})=1$. Notice that $\sigma$ permutes two $\mathbb{G}_{m}$’s, and hence by the Künneth formula we have $$\begin{aligned}{}
[e(\mathbb{G}_{m}\times\mathbb{G}_{m})]&=[H^{1}_{c}(\mathbb{G}_{m},\mathbb{Q}_{l})\otimes H^{1}_{c}(\mathbb{G}_{m},\mathbb{Q}_{l})]-[H^{1}_{c}(\mathbb{G}_{m},\mathbb{Q}_{l})\otimes H^{2}_{c}(\mathbb{G}_{m},\mathbb{Q}_{l})]\\
&-[H^{2}_{c}(\mathbb{G}_{m},\mathbb{Q}_{l})\otimes H^{1}_{c}(\mathbb{G}_{m},\mathbb{Q}_{l})]+[H^{2}_{c}(\mathbb{G}_{m},\mathbb{Q}_{l})\otimes H^{2}_{c}(\mathbb{G}_{m},\mathbb{Q}_{l})]\\
&=V_{-1}-[\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}]+V_{1}\\
&=0.
\end{aligned}$$
Combining the above discussion, we have $$[e(\overline{J{C}_{2}})]=V_{1}.$$ $\square$
Finally, let us give some discussions when $G$ equals a certain finite simple group.
[**Example 4 (PSL(2,7)).**]{} Let $S$ be a complex K3 surface acting faithfully by $G=PSL_{2}(\mathbb{F}_{7})$. Such a K3 surface exists. For example, $PSL(2,7)$ acts faithfully and symplectically on the surface $X^{3}Y+Y^{3}Z+Z^{3}X+T^{4}=0$ in $\mathbb{P}^{3}$ by means of a linear action on $\mathbb{P}^{3}$ [@Mu88]. We know from Theorem 1.9 that a $G$-stable curve $C$ with nodal singularities in an integral linear system does contribute to the representation $[e(\overline{J^{d}\mathcal{C}})]$ only if there exists some $g\in G$ such that $\tilde{C}/\left<g\right>=\mathbb{P}^{1}$. It turns out that if this happens, then $\tilde{C}$ must be the Klein quartic, which is the Hurwitz surface of the lowest possible genus. Notice that $G$ acts on $C$ faithfully since any non-trivial element of $G$ acts symplectically on $S$ and cannot fix curves.
[**Proposition 6.6.**]{} [*Let $C$ be a smooth projective curve over $\mathbb{C}$ with a faithful $G=PSL(2,7)$-action. If there exists $g\in PSL(2,7)$ such that ${C}/\left<g\right>=\mathbb{P}^{1}$, then the genus of $C$ is $3$ and $g$ has order $7 $. In particular, the automorphism group of $C$ reaches its Hurwitz bound, and hence $C$ is the Klein quartic.*]{}
[**Proof.**]{} The idea is to use the equivariant Riemann-Hurwitz formula [@Se79 Chapter VI $\S 4$] for $\pi:C\rightarrow C/G=\mathbb{P}^{1}$. We have $$[e(C)]=e(\mathbb{P}^{1})I_{\left<1\right>}-\sum_{p\in\mathbb{P}^{1}}(I_{\left<1\right>}-I_{\left<g\right>})$$ as $G$-representations, where $\left<g\right>$ is the stablizer of some point over $p$, $I_{\left<g\right>}$ denotes the induced representation ${\rm Ind}^{G}_{\left<g\right>}\mathbbm{1}$, and $\mathbbm{1}$ is the 1-dim trivial representation. Notice that $I_{\left<g\right>}$ is independent of the point we choose over $p$.
Since $G$ acts trivially on $\mathbb{P}^{1}$, we have $$H^{1}(C,\mathbb{C})=\sum_{p\in\mathbb{P}^{1}}(I_{\left<1\right>}-I_{\left<g\right>})-2I_{\left<1\right>}+2\mathbbm{1}$$ and what we are going to do is to compare the representations on both sides. For this purpose, we need the character table of $PSL(2,7)$.
$1A_{1}$ $2A_{21}$ $3A_{56}$ $4A_{42}$ $7A_{24}$ $7B_{24}$
------------ ----------- --------------------- ----------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------
$\chi_{1}$ 1 1 1 1 1 1
$\chi_{2}$ $1^{(3)}$ $1(-1)^{(2)}$ $1\omega\bar{\omega}$ 1i(-i) $\zeta_{7}\zeta_{7}^{2}\zeta_{7}^{4}$ $\zeta_{7}^{3}\zeta_{7}^{5}\zeta_{7}^{6}$
$\chi_{3}$ $1^{(3)}$ $1(-1)^{(2)}$ $1\omega\bar{\omega}$ 1i(-i) $\zeta_{7}^{3}\zeta_{7}^{5}\zeta_{7}^{6}$ $\zeta_{7}\zeta_{7}^{2}\zeta_{7}^{4}$
$\chi_{4}$ $1^{(6)}$ $1^{(4)}(-1)^{(2)}$ $1^{(2)}\omega^{(2)}\bar{\omega}^{(2)}$ $1^{(2)}(-1)^{(2)}i(-i)$ $\zeta_{7}...\zeta_{7}^{6}$ $\zeta_{7}...\zeta_{7}^{6}$
$\chi_{5}$ $1^{(7)}$ $1^{(3)}(-1)^{(4)}$ $1^{(3)}\omega^{(2)}\bar{\omega}^{(2)}$ $1(-1)^{(2)}i^{(2)}(-i)^{(2)}$ $1\zeta_{7}...\zeta_{7}^{6}$ $1\zeta_{7}...\zeta_{7}^{6}$
$\chi_{6}$ $1^{(8)}$ $1^{(4)}(-1)^{(4)}$ $1^{(2)}\omega^{(3)}\bar{\omega}^{(3)}$ $1^{(2)}(-1)^{(2)}i^{(2)}(-i)^{(2)}$ $1^{(2)}\zeta_{7}...\zeta_{7}^{6}$ $1^{(2)}\zeta_{7}...\zeta_{7}^{6}$
This is a refined character table which can be deduced from the usual character table. Each entry denotes the eigenvalues of the element in given conjuacy classes acting on given irreducible representations, $nA_{m}$ denotes the conjugacy class of size $m$ in which each element has order $n$, $a^{(i)}b^{(j)}$ denotes eigenvalue $a$ with multiplicity $i$ and eigenvalue $b$ with multiplicity $j$, and $\zeta_{7}...\zeta_{7}^{6}$ means $\zeta_{7}\zeta_{7}^{2}\zeta_{7}^{3}\zeta_{7}^{4}\zeta_{7}^{5}\zeta_{7}^{6}$.
For induced representations, we have $I_{\left<g\right>}(x)=\frac{1}{|\left<g\right>|}\sum_{h\in G}\chi(hxh^{-1})$, where $\chi(x)=1$ if $x\in\left<g\right>$, and $\chi(x)=0$ otherwise. Hence using our character table and calculating by Schur orthogonality relations, we have $$\begin{aligned}
I_{2}&=\chi_{1}+\chi_{2}+\chi_{3}+4\chi_{4}+3\chi_{5}+4\chi_{6}\\
I_{3}&=\chi_{1}+\chi_{2}+\chi_{3}+2\chi_{4}+3\chi_{5}+2\chi_{6}\\
I_{4}&=\chi_{1}+\chi_{2}+\chi_{3}+2\chi_{4}+\chi_{5}+2\chi_{6}\\
I_{7}&=\chi_{1}+\chi_{5}+2\chi_{6}
\end{aligned}$$ where $I_{n}$ denotes $I_{\left<g\right>}$ for the element $g$ of order $n$.
Now since there exists $g\in G$ such that ${C}/\left<g\right>=\mathbb{P}^{1}$, we have $H^{1}(C,\mathbb{C})^{g}=H^{1}(C/\left<g\right>,\mathbb{C})=0$. But for $\chi_{1}$, $\chi_{5}$ and $\chi_{6}$, whatever $g$ is, there are always non-trivial $g$-fixed vectors. This implies that $H^{1}(C,\mathbb{C})$ does not contain $\chi_{1}$, $\chi_{5}$ and $\chi_{6}$ at all. Hence the coefficients of $\chi_{1}$, $\chi_{5}$ and $\chi_{6}$ in $\sum_{p\in\mathbb{P}^{1}}(I_{\left<1\right>}-I_{\left<g\right>})-2I_{\left<1\right>}+2\mathbbm{1}$ must be 0. This gives us only two possibilities: $H^{1}(C,\mathbb{C})=I_{1}-I_{2}-I_{3}-I_{4}+2\mathbbm{1}$ or $H^{1}(C,\mathbb{C})=I_{1}-I_{2}-I_{3}-I_{7}+2\mathbbm{1}$. If we look at the dimensions of the right hand sides, the first one gives dimension -12 and the second gives dimension 6. Hence the only possibility is $H^{1}(C,\mathbb{C})=I_{1}-I_{2}-I_{3}-I_{7}+2\mathbbm{1}=\chi_{2}+\chi_{3}$, which shows that the genus of $C$ is $\frac{1}{2}\text{dim}H^{1}(C,\mathbb{C})=3$. We also deduce from this argument that $g$ must has order 7 since the element of order not equal to 7 does have fixed vectors in $\chi_{2}$ and $\chi_{3}$. $\square$
Following this observation, we do the calculations for some other groups in Mukai’s list [@Mu88].
[**Example 5 ($A_6$).**]{} $G=A_{6}$ acts faithfully and symplectically on the K3 surface $\sum_{1}^{6}X_{i}=\sum_{1}^{6}X^{2}_{i}=\sum_{1}^{6}X^{3}_{i}=0$ in $\mathbb{P}^{5}$ via permutation action of coordinates on $\mathbb{P}^{5}$. Then by Theorem 1.9, a $G$-stable curve $C$ with nodal singularities in an integral linear system will not contribute to the representation $[e(\overline{J^{d}\mathcal{C}})]$.
[**Proposition 6.7.**]{} [*Let $C$ be a smooth projective curve over $\mathbb{C}$ with a faithful $G=A_{6}$-action. Then for any $g\in A_{6}$, we have ${C}/\left<g\right>\neq\mathbb{P}^{1}$.*]{}
[**Proof.**]{} We have the following character table for $A_{6}$.
$1A_{1}$ $2A_{45}$ $3A_{40}$ $3B_{40}$
------------ ------------ --------------------- ----------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------
$\chi_{1}$ 1 1 1 1
$\chi_{2}$ $1^{(5)}$ $1^{(3)}(-1)^{(2)}$ $1^{(3)}\omega\bar{\omega}$ $1\omega^{(2)}\bar{\omega}^{(2)}$
$\chi_{3}$ $1^{(5)}$ $1^{(3)}(-1)^{(2)}$ $1\omega^{(2)}\bar{\omega}^{(2)}$ $1^{(3)}\omega\bar{\omega}$
$\chi_{4}$ $1^{(8)}$ $1^{(4)}(-1)^{(4)}$ $1^{(2)}\omega^{(3)}\bar{\omega}^{(3)}$ $1^{(2)}\omega^{(3)}\bar{\omega}^{(3)}$
$\chi_{5}$ $1^{(8)}$ $1^{(4)}(-1)^{(4)}$ $1^{(2)}\omega^{(3)}\bar{\omega}^{(3)}$ $1^{(2)}\omega^{(3)}\bar{\omega}^{(3)}$
$\chi_{6}$ $1^{(9)}$ $1^{(5)}(-1)^{(4)}$ $1^{(3)}\omega^{(3)}\bar{\omega}^{(3)}$ $1^{(3)}\omega^{(3)}\bar{\omega}^{(3)}$
$\chi_{7}$ $1^{(10)}$ $1^{(4)}(-1)^{(6)}$ $1^{(4)}\omega^{(3)}\bar{\omega}^{(3)}$ $1^{(4)}\omega^{(3)}\bar{\omega}^{(3)}$
$4A_{90}$ $5A_{72}$ $5B_{72}$
------------ -------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\chi_{1}$ 1 1 1
$\chi_{2}$ $1{(-1)}^{(2)}i(-i)$ $1\zeta_{5}\zeta_{5}^{2}\zeta_{5}^{3}\zeta_{5}^{4}$ $1\zeta_{5}\zeta_{5}^{2}\zeta_{5}^{3}\zeta_{5}^{4}$
$\chi_{3}$ $1{(-1)}^{(2)}i(-i)$ $1\zeta_{5}\zeta_{5}^{2}\zeta_{5}^{3}\zeta_{5}^{4}$ $1\zeta_{5}\zeta_{5}^{2}\zeta_{5}^{3}\zeta_{5}^{4}$
$\chi_{4}$ $1^{(2)}(-1)^{(2)}i^{(2)}(-i)^{(2)}$ $1^{(2)}\zeta_{5}\zeta_{5}^{2(2)}\zeta_{5}^{3(2)}\zeta_{5}^{4}$ $1^{(2)}\zeta_{5}^{(2)}\zeta_{5}^{2}\zeta_{5}^{3}\zeta_{5}^{4(2)}$
$\chi_{5}$ $1^{(2)}(-1)^{(2)}i^{(2)}(-i)^{(2)}$ $1^{(2)}\zeta_{5}^{(2)}\zeta_{5}^{2}\zeta_{5}^{3}\zeta_{5}^{4(2)}$ $1^{(2)}\zeta_{5}\zeta_{5}^{2(2)}\zeta_{5}^{3(2)}\zeta_{5}^{4}$
$\chi_{6}$ $1^{(3)}(-1)^{(2)}i^{(2)}(-i)^{(2)}$ $1\zeta_{5}^{(2)}\zeta_{5}^{2(2)}\zeta_{5}^{3(2)}\zeta_{5}^{4(2)}$ $1\zeta_{5}^{(2)}\zeta_{5}^{2(2)}\zeta_{5}^{3(2)}\zeta_{5}^{4(2)}$
$\chi_{7}$ $1^{(2)}(-1)^{(2)}i^{(3)}(-i)^{(3)}$ $1^{(2)}\zeta_{5}^{(2)}\zeta_{5}^{2(2)}\zeta_{5}^{3(2)}\zeta_{5}^{4(2)}$ $1^{(2)}\zeta_{5}^{(2)}\zeta_{5}^{2(2)}\zeta_{5}^{3(2)}\zeta_{5}^{4(2)}$
For induced representations, we have $$\begin{aligned}
I_{2}&=\chi_{1}+3\chi_{2}+3\chi_{3}+4\chi_{4}+4\chi_{5}+5\chi_{6}+4\chi_{7}\\
I_{3A}&=\chi_{1}+3\chi_{2}+\chi_{3}+2\chi_{4}+2\chi_{5}+3\chi_{6}+4\chi_{7}\\
I_{3B}&=\chi_{1}+\chi_{2}+3\chi_{3}+2\chi_{4}+2\chi_{5}+3\chi_{6}+4\chi_{7}\\
I_{4}&=\chi_{1}+\chi_{2}+\chi_{3}+2\chi_{4}+2\chi_{5}+3\chi_{6}+2\chi_{7}\\
I_{5}&=\chi_{1}+\chi_{2}+\chi_{3}+2\chi_{4}+2\chi_{5}+\chi_{6}+2\chi_{7}
\end{aligned}$$
Now suppose there exists $g\in G$ such that ${C}/\left<g\right>=\mathbb{P}^{1}$. Then we have $H^{1}(C,\mathbb{C})^{g}=H^{1}(C/\left<g\right>,\mathbb{C})=0$. But for all the irreducible representations of $G$, whatever $g$ is, there are always non-trivial $g$-fixed vectors. This implies that $H^{1}(C,\mathbb{C})=0$. Hence $\sum_{p\in\mathbb{P}^{1}}(I_{\left<1\right>}-I_{\left<g\right>})-2I_{\left<1\right>}+2\mathbbm{1}=0$. But no combination will give this equality. Hence such $g$ does not exist. $\square$
[**Example 6 ($A_{5}$).**]{} $G=A_{5}$ acts faithfully and symplectically on the K3 surface $\sum_{1}^{5}X_{i}=\sum_{1}^{6}X^{2}_{i}=\sum_{1}^{5}X^{3}_{i}=0$ in $\mathbb{P}^{5}$ via permutation action of the first 5 coordinates on $\mathbb{P}^{5}$. Then by theorem 1.9, a $G$-stable curve $C$ with nodal singularities in an integral linear system can contribute to the representation $[e(\overline{J^{d}\mathcal{C}})]$ only if $\tilde{C}$ is rational.
[**Proposition 6.8.**]{} [*Let $C$ be a smooth projective curve over $\mathbb{C}$ with a faithful $G=A_{5}$-action. If there exists $g\in A_{5}$ such that ${C}/\left<g\right>=\mathbb{P}^{1}$, then $C$ must be a smooth rational curve.*]{}
[**Proof.**]{} We have the following character table for $A_{5}$.
$1A_{1}$ $2B_{15}$ $3A_{20}$ $5A_{12}$ $5B_{12}$
------------ ----------- --------------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------------------- -------------------------------
$\chi_{1}$ 1 1 1 1 1
$\chi_{2}$ $1^{(3)}$ $1(-1)^{(2)}$ $1\omega\bar{\omega}$ $1\zeta_{5}\zeta_{5}^{4}$ $1\zeta_{5}^{2}\zeta_{5}^{3}$
$\chi_{3}$ $1^{(3)}$ $1(-1)^{(2)}$ $1\omega\bar{\omega}$ $1\zeta_{5}^{2}\zeta_{5}^{3}$ $1\zeta_{5}\zeta_{5}^{4}$
$\chi_{4}$ $1^{(4)}$ $1^{(2)}(-1)^{(2)}$ $1^{(2)}\omega\bar{\omega}$ $\zeta_{5}...\zeta_{5}^{4}$ $\zeta_{5}...\zeta_{5}^{4}$
$\chi_{5}$ $1^{(5)}$ $1^{(3)}(-1)^{(2)}$ $1\omega^{(2)}\bar{\omega}^{(2)}$ $1\zeta_{5}...\zeta_{5}^{4}$ $1\zeta_{5}...\zeta_{5}^{4}$
For induced representations, we have $$\begin{aligned}
I_{2}&=\chi_{1}+\chi_{2}+\chi_{3}+2\chi_{4}+3\chi_{5}\\
I_{3}&=\chi_{1}+\chi_{2}+\chi_{3}+2\chi_{4}+\chi_{5}\\
I_{5}&=\chi_{1}+\chi_{2}+\chi_{3}+\chi_{5}
\end{aligned}$$
Now suppose there exists $g\in G$ such that ${C}/\left<g\right>=\mathbb{P}^{1}$. Then we have $H^{1}(C,\mathbb{C})^{g}=H^{1}(C/\left<g\right>,\mathbb{C})=0$. But for $\chi_{1}$, $\chi_{2}$, $\chi_{3}$ and $\chi_{5}$, whatever $g$ is, there are always non-trivial $g$-fixed vectors. This implies that $H^{1}(C,\mathbb{C})$ does not contain $\chi_{1}$, $\chi_{2}$, $\chi_{3}$ and $\chi_{5}$ at all. Hence the coefficients of $\chi_{1}$, $\chi_{2}$, $\chi_{3}$ and $\chi_{5}$ in $\sum_{p\in\mathbb{P}^{1}}(I_{\left<1\right>}-I_{\left<g\right>})-2I_{\left<1\right>}+2\mathbbm{1}$ must be 0. This gives us only one possibility: $H^{1}(C,\mathbb{C})=I_{1}-I_{2}-I_{3}-I_{5}+2\mathbbm{1}=0$, which implies $C$ has genus 0. $\square$
[**Example 7 ($S_{5}$).**]{} $G=S_{5}$ acts faithfully and symplectically on the K3 surface $\sum_{1}^{5}X_{i}=\sum_{1}^{6}X^{2}_{i}=\sum_{1}^{5}X^{3}_{i}=0$ in $\mathbb{P}^{5}$ via permutation action of the first 5 coordinates on $\mathbb{P}^{5}$. Then by theorem 1.9, a $G$-stable curve $C$ with nodal singularities in an integral linear system can contribute to the representation $[e(\overline{J^{d}\mathcal{C}})]$ only if $\tilde{C}$ has genus 4. In this case $\tilde{C}$ has the largest possible automorphism group for a genus $4$ curve and $\tilde{C}$ is Bring’s curve.
[**Proposition 6.9.**]{} [*Let $C$ be a smooth projective curve over $\mathbb{C}$ with a faithful $G=S_{5}$-action. If there exists $g\in S_{5}$ such that ${C}/\left<g\right>=\mathbb{P}^{1}$, then $C$ has genus $4$ and $g$ has order $5$. In particular, $C$ is Bring’s curve.*]{}
[**Proof.**]{} We have the following character table for $S_{5}$.
$1A_{1}$ $2A_{10}$ $2A_{15}$ $3A_{20}$
------------ ----------- --------------------- --------------------- -----------------------------------------
$\chi_{1}$ 1 1 1 1
$\chi_{2}$ 1 -1 1 1
$\chi_{3}$ $1^{(4)}$ $1^{(3)}(-1)$ $1^{(2)}(-1)^{(2)}$ $1^{(2)}\omega\bar{\omega}$
$\chi_{4}$ $1^{(4)}$ $1(-1)^{(3)}$ $1^{(2)}(-1)^{(2)}$ $1^{(2)}\omega\bar{\omega}$
$\chi_{5}$ $1^{(5)}$ $1^{(3)}(-1)^{(2)}$ $1^{(3)}(-1)^{(2)}$ $1\omega^{(2)}\bar{\omega}^{(2)}$
$\chi_{6}$ $1^{(5)}$ $1^{(2)}(-1)^{(3)}$ $1^{(3)}(-1)^{(2)}$ $1\omega^{(2)}\bar{\omega}^{(2)}$
$\chi_{7}$ $1^{(6)}$ $1^{(3)}(-1)^{(3)}$ $1^{(2)}(-1)^{(4)}$ $1^{(2)}\omega^{(2)}\bar{\omega}^{(2)}$
$4A_{30}$ $5A_{24}$ $6A_{20}$
------------ -------------------------- ------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------
$\chi_{1}$ 1 1 1
$\chi_{2}$ -1 1 -1
$\chi_{3}$ $1{(-1)}i(-i)$ $\zeta_{5}...\zeta_{5}^{4}$ $1(-1)\omega\bar{\omega}$
$\chi_{4}$ $1{(-1)}i(-i)$ $\zeta_{5}...\zeta_{5}^{4}$ $1(-1)(-\omega)(-\bar{\omega})$
$\chi_{5}$ $1(-1)^{(2)}i(-i)$ $1\zeta_{5}...\zeta_{5}^{4}$ $1\omega\bar{\omega}(-\omega)(-\bar{\omega})$
$\chi_{6}$ $1^{(2)}(-1)i(-i)$ $1\zeta_{5}...\zeta_{5}^{4}$ $-1\omega\bar{\omega}(-\omega)(-\bar{\omega})$
$\chi_{7}$ $1(-1)i^{(2)}(-i)^{(2)}$ $1^{(2)}\zeta_{5}...\zeta_{5}^{4}$ $1(-1)\omega\bar{\omega}(-\omega)(-\bar{\omega})$
For induced representations, we have $$\begin{aligned}
I_{2A}&=\chi_{1}+3\chi_{3}+\chi_{4}+3\chi_{5}+2\chi_{6}+3\chi_{7}\\
I_{2B}&=\chi_{1}+\chi_{2}+2\chi_{3}+2\chi_{4}+3\chi_{5}+3\chi_{6}+2\chi_{7}\\
I_{3}&=\chi_{1}+\chi_{2}+2\chi_{3}+2\chi_{4}+\chi_{5}+\chi_{6}+2\chi_{7}\\
I_{4}&=\chi_{1}+\chi_{3}+\chi_{4}+\chi_{5}+2\chi_{6}+\chi_{7}\\
I_{5}&=\chi_{1}+\chi_{2}+\chi_{5}+\chi_{6}+2\chi_{7}\\
I_{6}&=\chi_{1}+\chi_{3}+\chi_{4}+\chi_{5}+\chi_{7}
\end{aligned}$$
Now since there exists $g\in G$ such that ${C}/\left<g\right>=\mathbb{P}^{1}$, we have $H^{1}(C,\mathbb{C})^{g}=H^{1}(C/\left<g\right>,\mathbb{C})=0$. But for $\chi_{1}$, $\chi_{5}$ and $\chi_{7}$, whatever $g$ is, there are always non-trivial $g$-fixed vectors. This implies that $H^{1}(C,\mathbb{C})$ does not contain $\chi_{1}$, $\chi_{5}$ and $\chi_{7}$ at all. Hence the coefficients of $\chi_{1}$, $\chi_{5}$ and $\chi_{7}$ in $\sum_{p\in\mathbb{P}^{1}}(I_{\left<1\right>}-I_{\left<g\right>})-2I_{\left<1\right>}+2\mathbbm{1}$ must be 0. This gives us only two possibilities: $H^{1}(C,\mathbb{C})=I_{1}-I_{2}-I_{4}-I_{5}+2\mathbbm{1}=2\chi_{4}$ or $H^{1}(C,\mathbb{C})=I_{1}-I_{2}-I_{5}-I_{6}+2\mathbbm{1}=2\chi_{4}+2\chi_{6}$. For the second case, we notice that whatever conjugacy class $g$ belongs to, there always exists $g$-fixed vectors in $2\chi_{4}+2\chi_{6}$. Hence $H^{1}(C,\mathbb{C})=I_{1}-I_{2}-I_{4}-I_{5}+2\mathbbm{1}=2\chi_{4}$. It follows that $C$ has genus $4$ and $g$ has order $5$. $\square$
[DD2]{}
Alexeev, V.: Compactified Jacobians and Torelli map. *Publ. RIMS, Kyoto Univ.* **40** (2004), 1241–1265.
Altman, A.; Kleiman, S.: Compactifying the Jacobian, *Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.* **82(6)** (1976), 947–949.
Artebani, M.; Sarti, A.; Taki, S.: K3 surfaces with non-symplectic automorphisms of prime order. *Math. Z.* **268** (2011), 507–533.
Batyrev, V.V.: Birational Calabi-Yau n-folds have equal Betti numbers. New Trends in Algebraic Geometry, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, Cambridge University Press, 1999, 1–12.
Beauville, A.: Counting rational curves on K3 surfaces. *Duke Math. J.* **97** (1999), 99–108.
Bryan, J.; Gyenge, Á.: G-fixed Hilbert schemes on K3 surfaces, modular forms, and eta products. arXiv:1907.01535.
Bosch, Siegfried; Lütkebohmert, Werner; Raynaud, Michel: Néron models, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete (3)\[Results in Mathematics and Related Areas(3)\], vol. 21, pp. x+325, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990.
Bryan, J.; Oberdieck, G.: CHL Calabi-Yau threefolds: Curve counting, Mathieu moonshine and Siegel modular forms. arXiv:1811.06102.
Carter, R.W.: Finite Groups of Lie Type: Conjugacy Classes and Complex Characters, Wiley, 1985.
Cohen, H.; Strömberg, F: Modular Forms: A Classical Approach, Graduate Studies in Math. 179, Amer. Math. Soc., 2017.
Deligne, P.: La conjecture de Weil pour les surfaces K3. *Invent. math.* **15** (1972), 206–226.
Deligne, P.; Lusztig, G.: Representations of reductive groups over finite fields. *Ann. of Math.* **103** (1976), 103–161.
Ellingsrud, G.; Strømme, S.A.: On the homology of the Hilbert scheme of points in the plane. *Invent. math.* **87** (1987), 343–352.
Esteves, E.; Gagné, M.; Kleiman, S.: Abel maps and presentation schemes. *Comm. in Algebra* **28(12)** (2000), 5961–5992.
Fantechi, B.; Göttsche, L.; van Straten, D.: Euler number of the compactified Jacobian and multiplicity of rational curves. *J. Alg. Geom.* **8** (1999), 115–133.
Göttsche, L.: The Betti numbers of the Hilbert scheme of points on a smooth projective surface. *Math. Ann.* **286** (1990), 193–207.
Göttsche, L.: Hilbert Schemes of Zero-Dimensional Subschemes of Smooth Varieties, LNM 1572, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 1994.
Göttsche, L.; Soergel, W.: Perverse sheaves and the cohomology of Hilbert schemes of smooth algebraic surfaces. *Math. Ann.* **296** (1993), 235–245.
van Geemen, B.; Sarti, A.: Nikulin involutions on K3 surfaces. *Math. Z.* **255** (2007), 731–753.
Huybrechts, D.: Lectures on K3 Surfaces, Cambridge studies in advanced mathematics 158, Cambridge University Press, 2016.
Iarrobino, A.A.: Punctual Hilbert Schemes. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. **10** , no. 188, viii+112 pp, 1977.
Macdonald, I.G.: The Poincaré polynomial of a symmetric product. *Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.* **58(4)** (1962), 563–568.
Mukai, S.: Finite groups of automorphisms of K3 surfaces and the Mathieu group. *Invent. math.* **94** (1988), 183–221.
Nakajima, H.: Lectures on Hilbert Schemes of Points on Surfaces. University Lecture Series, 18. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1999. xii+132 pp.
Serre, J.P.: Local Fields, GTM 67, Springer-Verlag New York, 1979.
Serre, J.P.: Algebraic Groups and Class Fields, GTM 117, Springer-Verlag New York, 1988.
Shende, V.: Hilbert schemes of points on a locally planar curve and the Severi strata of its versal deformation. *Compos. Math.* **148(2)** (2012), 531–547.
Yau, S.T.; Zaslow, E.: BPS states, String duality, and Nodal curves on K3. *Nuclear Physics B* **471(3)** (1996), 503–512.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Neutron scattering experiments at the magnetic vacancy percolation threshold concentration, $x_v$, using the random-field Ising crystal $\rm Fe_{0.76}Zn_{0.24}F_2$, show stability of the transition to long-range order up to fields $H=6.5$ T. The observation of the stable long-range order corroborates the sharp boundary observed in computer simulations at $x_v$ separating equilibrium critical scattering behavior at high magnetic concentration from low concentration hysteretic behavior. Low temperature $H>0$ scattering line shapes exhibit the dependence on the scattering wavevector expected for percolation threshold fractal structures.'
author:
- 'W. C. Barber, F. Ye, and D. P. Belanger'
- 'J. A. Fernandez-Baca'
title: Magnetic Vacancy Percolation in Dilute Antiferromagnets
---
The dilute, anisotropic antiferromagnet $\rm Fe_xZn_{1-x}F_2$ is an extensively studied prototype of the three dimensional ($d=3$) random-field Ising model (RFIM) [@b00]. As a result of the magnetic vacancies, the magnetic moment is not uniform and this allows a strong coupling to to an external magnetic field applied along the spin-ordering direction. This constitutes the mechanism for the generation of random fields [@fa79]. It was shown that such a system is in the same universality class as a pure Ising magnet with random fields imposed [@c84]. Settling the question of universality of the phase transition does not, however, address the effect of vacancies on microscopic domain formation, which can mask the phase transition in scattering experiments. Such microdomain formation, which occurs since domain walls can take advantage energetically of the vacancies, needs to be well understood in order to properly interpret the RFIM behavior of dilute magnets.
For many years controversy surrounded the interpretation of neutron scattering experiments [@b00] on the RFIM critical behavior of dilute anisotropic antiferromagnets in external magnetic fields, $H$, particularly $\rm Fe_{x}Zn_{1-x}F_2$ and its less anisotropic isomorph $\rm Mn_{x}Zn_{1-x}F_2$. All of these studies, regardless of whether traditional scaling or various phenomenological models were used in the interpretations, were done at concentrations $x \le 0.75$ [@brkj85; @hfbt93]. This was natural since the strength of the random field increases with dilution and available field strengths required high vacancy concentrations to readily create suitably strong random fields. It was, of course, realized that no ordering would take place for magnetic concentration below the magnetic percolation threshold concentration, $x_p=0.246$. The magnetic [*vacancy*]{} percolation threshold concentration occurs at $x_v=1-x_p=0.754$. Below this concentration, vacancies form a cluster that spans the crystal. The significant role of magnetic vacancy percolation in the formation of microdomains was not fully appreciated until recently [@bb00] and, prior to that, it was widely assumed that microdomain formation was an intrinsic property of the RFIM as realized in dilute antiferromagnets. The microdomain structures for small $x$ have been studied extensively [@hbkn92; @bjkn87]. It has recently been shown that these structures play a crucial role in exchange-bias structures important to magnetic recording technology [@mgkbgnu00; @zdhcc99]. Microscopic domain structure, for which the characteristic length scale is small compared to the instrumental resolution, masks the neutron scattering critical behavior for two reasons. First, the scattering contribution from microscopic domains is superimposed on the scattering from thermal fluctuations, making it futile to separate the two. Second, there is a concomitant decrease in the Bragg scattering, which consequently no longer represents the strength of the RFIM order parameter. This has been particularly frustrating, since characterization of the RFIM transition is important in light of the present disagreements between simulations and experiments [@bb00].
The critical behavior of $\rm Fe_{0.93}Zn_{0.07}F_2$ using neutron scattering techniques provided evidence [@sbf99] that microscopic domains could be avoided altogether by doing measurements at high magnetic concentrations, although very high quality crystals and high fields are required. Further experiments have been done using $\rm Fe_{0.85}Zn_{0.15}F_2$ and $\rm Fe_{0.87}Zn_{0.13}F_2$ [@ymkyfb02; @yzllbgl02]. These experiments are providing the avenue for a complete experimental characterization of the RFIM universal critical behavior. It has become quite clear that the behavior at large $x$ is quite distinct from that at low $x$ which exhibits microdomain structure. Computer simulations [@bb00] were done to model the behavior of the formation of microdomains and long-range order in $\rm Fe_{x}Zn_{1-x}F_2$ in an attempt to understand how the behavior crosses from one type of behavior to the other. It is suggested by these simulations that low-temperature metastability and microscopic domain formation vanish abruptly above $x=0.76$, which closely coincides with the concentration of the magnetic vacancy percolation threshold concentration, $x_v=0.754$. Apparently, the percolating lattice of vacancies results in the instability of long-range order below the transition. In previous experiments, little attention has been paid to the percolation of magnetic vacancies. In light of its importance to the understanding of the RFIM we were motivated to investigate the scattering in $\rm Fe_{0.76}Zn_{0.24}F_2$, which is very close to the critical concentration $x_v$. The concentration was determined using density measurements and the concentration gradient of a few tenths of a percent was determined using room temperature birefringence techniques [@kfjb88].
Considerable focus has been given to the study of behavior near the complementary threshold concentration for magnetic percolation, $x_p=1-x_v$, using neutron scattering, specific heat, linear birefringence, magnetization and ac susceptibility techniques [@by93; @mcr89; @brc00; @bb00b; @jdnb97]. The value $x_p=0.246$ is based on a calculation including only the dominant $J_2$ interaction [@se64]. However, for concentrations close to $x_p$, the system is extremely sensitive to very weak interactions that are insignificant away from $x_p$. Spin-glass-like behavior at $H=0$ has been well characterized. Even far above $x_p$, large fields cause a crossover from the low-field microdomain-dominated random-field behavior to the spin-glass-like behavior [@mkjhb91; @bmmkje91; @mltl99; @mltl98; @rfm00; @satk88].
The neutron scattering experiments were performed at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory High Flux Isotope Reactor using a double-axis spectrometer configuration. The beam was horizontally collimated to $20$ min of arc before and after the sample and 48 min of arc before the monochromator. The neutron energy was either $13.7$ meV on the HB1 spectrometer or $14.7$ meV on the HB1A spectrometer. Higher energy neutrons were eliminated using pyrolytic graphite filters. Most of the data were taken with transverse scans about the $(1 0 0)$ antiferromagnetic Bragg point. The $\rm Fe_{0.76}Zn_{0.24}F_2$ crystal has an irregular shape approximately $4 \times 5 \times 10$ mm. It has a resolution limited Bragg peak, but very small secondary peaks appear for $q >0$ in the low temperature scans. Near the transition, these tiny peaks are not evident. All the data used in the analysis of the line shapes at low temperatures are on the $q<0$ side of the Bragg peak, where no hint of any secondary peaks are observed. The thermometry was based on a commercially calibrated carbon thermometer. Two primary thermal cycling procedures that are often employed to investigate hysteresis in the RFIM include: 1) cooling in the absence of a field, raising the field and warming through the transitions (ZFC); and 2) cooling in the field (FC).
Figure 1 shows scattering intensity vs. q, in reciprocal lattice units (rlu), at $H=3$ and $5$ T close to the transition temperatures $T_c=61.6$ and $60.4$ K, respectively. The transition at $H=0$ is at $63.2$ K. Whereas the critical scattering from samples with $x<x_v$ exhibits strong hysteresis, it is clear that the $|q|>0$ critical scattering shown in Fig. 1 is free from hysteresis and that indicates there is no microscopic domain structure frozen in upon FC.
For experiments free of extinction effects, the magnetic Bragg scattering intensity is expected to follow the power law behavior $$I = {M_s}^2 \sim |t|^{2\beta}$$ where $M_s$ is the staggered magnetization and $\beta \approx 0.35$ for the random-exchange model and $\beta \approx 0.16$ the RFIM [@yzllbgl02]. However, neutron scattering in high-quality bulk crystals can suffer from severe extinction; the beam is depleted of neutrons that satisfy the Bragg condition and the scattering intensity is therefore saturated and cannot exhibit the correct $T$ dependence. The extinction effects usually preclude determination of a reliable value of $\beta$, the critical exponent for the staggered magnetization, from an analysis of the neutron scattering data in very high quality bulk crystals. The Bragg scattering does show hysteresis, which indicates incomplete FC ordering on very long length scales, relative to the instrumental resolution. Such hysteresis occurs for all $x$ and is likely a consequence of the slow activated dynamics [@f86; @kmj86; @nkj91; @bkk95] of the RFIM very close to $T_c(H)$.
The ZFC Bragg intensity, corrected for the background determined at high $T$, is shown in Fig. 2 vs. $T$ for $H=3$ T. The inset of Fig. 2 shows the critical scattering at small $q$, but well outside the transverse instrumental resolution where the Bragg intensity is negligible. The scattering line shapes in this sample are complicated by admixture of critical scattering and contributions from the vacancy lattice because of the proximity of this sample to $x_v$, as will be discussed. Hence, we could not confidently analyze in detail the critical scattering line shape. Nevertheless, we obtained an approximate accounting of the critical scattering intensity by taking a squared-Lorentzian line shape folded with the appropriate resolution correction. An overall amplitude had to be chosen for the fit shown in the inset. This same amplitude was applied to the $q=0$ case and the resulting curve is shown in the main part of Fig. 2 as the solid curves. Subtracting this from the raw data (open symbols) yields the corrected Bragg scattering data (filled symbols). Taking into account the concentration gradient rounding of a few tenths of a percent, it is quite apparent that the Bragg intensity data approach $T_c(H)$ with a steep slope, in contrast with scattering experiments[@bwshnlrl96] with $x<x_v$, where the slope is nearly zero. Although we cannot analyze the data according to Eq. 1 to obtain $\beta$ because of extinction, we may still conclude from the shape of the Bragg intensity vs. T that this sample does not form microscopic domain structure. This is consistent with the lack of hysteresis in the critical scattering shown in Fig. 1.
At the percolation threshold concentrations, magnetic sites or magnetic vacancy sites form fractal structures. In either case, scattering from the fractal structure will exhibit a power law behavior [@sa94; @iifn95] $$I_f \sim q^{-2.53} \quad .$$ The only difference is that in the case of magnetic vacancies there is also a Bragg scattering peak from the average $M_s$. With magnetic site percolation, the average $M_s$ is zero at the threshold. Since we believe the $x=0.76$ crystal is close to $x_v$, we plotted the logarithm of the scattering intensity vs. the logarithm of $-q$ for $q<0$ in Fig. 3. Only some of the scans are shown; data were taken for $H=0$ and for $2T<H<7$ T in steps of $0.5$ T. Several interesting features are evident.
As shown explicitly for two fields, $H=5$ and $7$ T in Fig. 3, the ZFC line shapes, for $T=29$ K or less, are all identical with the $H=0$ line shape and are the lowest in intensity. For comparison, a line with a fractal exponent of 2.53 for three dimension, with the spectrometer resolution folded in, is plotted in the graph with the amplitude adjusted to fit the ZFC intensity data. It is clear that the ZFC scattering line shapes for $x=0.76$ follow Eq. 2 quite well. To contrast this behavior, we show in Fig. 3 similar data for a sample with concentration of $x \approx 0.87$ [@ymkyfb02], indicated by the solid triangles, for $T=58.5$ K, only $3.4$ K below the transition. The scattering for this concentration, well above $x_v$, shows little evidence of scattering outside the Bragg region as expected since the vacancies do not form large fractal structures at this concentration. The behavior for ZFC shown in Fig. 3 suggests strongly that, for $x=0.76$, the scattering is indeed from the vacancy percolation fractal structure under the ZFC procedure.
The FC data for $x=0.76$ increase in intensity with the applied field. We compare the data to Eq. 2 by adjusting the amplitude to fit the data at $q=10^{-1.7}$ rlu. It is quite clear that for $H>0$ the line shapes deviate strongly from the behavior in Eq. 2, more so as the field increases. The inset of Fig. 3 shows the deviations of the intensities from the curves representing Eq. 2 at $q = -0.007$, $-0.009$, and $-0.012$ rlu as a function of the applied field. The deviations for $H \le 6.5$ T increase smoothly with the field. Two possible sources exist for the excess scattering. One is the relief of extinction. This has been observed for neutron Bragg scattering in the RFIM experiments on bulk crystals [@b00], but not for scattering outside the Bragg region. The other possibility, perhaps more significant, is the scattering from domains, which coexist with antiferromagnetic long-range order, that increase in number with increasing applied field. Since the total scattering in FC comes from sources in addition to that of vacancy sites, it is difficult to analyze in detail.
The difference between FC intensities and Eq. 2 at $H=7$ T deviate strongly from the smooth curves describing the data for $H \le 6.5$ T, as shown in the inset of Fig. 3. This qualitatively new behavior most likely represents a breakdown of the antiferromagnetic long-range structure for $H>6.5$ T. In such a case many more domains are introduced into the system, resulting in much more scattering intensity. This field is consistent with the increasing field at which spin-glass-like behavior appears for samples with $x<x_v$, as shown in Fig. 4. Apparently, even at low temperatures, long-range antiferromagnetic order for $x=0.76$ is stable upon FC for $H<7$ T, in contrast to the behavior for $x<x_v$, where metastable domains dominate the scattering under the FC procedure. For $x \approx 0.87$, only a few percent above $x_v$, magnetization experiments [@samb02] indicate that the transition to long-range antiferromagnetic order breaks down only for fields above $H=18$ T, nearly three times the field that causes a breakdown in the behavior of the sample with $x=0.76$, demonstrating the stability of antiferromagnetic order for $x>x_v$.
We have shown that the magnetic concentration range for which equilibrium random field critical scattering is observed for dilute antiferromagnets in an external field has a lower bound at $x_v$. Whereas our $x=0.76$ crystal shows no critical scattering hysteresis, it is quite evident for slightly smaller magnetic concentrations [@hfbt93]. Our results suggest that the percolation of vacancy sites occurring for $x<x_v$ precipitates the formation of domains below $T_c(H)$ in ZFC preparation as well as in FC, corroborating the conclusions drawn from simulations [@bb00]. A theoretical connection between the one dimensional fractal geometry of vacancy sites at percolation and three dimensional domains has not been adequately explained from a theoretical perspective.
It is now evident that there are three magnetic concentration regimes in $d=3$ dilute antiferromagnets separated by the percolation threshold concentrations $x_p$ and $x_v$. For $x>x_v$, long-range antiferromagnetic order is stable up to very large magnetic fields. For $x_p<x<x_v$ the system is unstable. At low fields, the formation of microdomain structure takes place upon FC for all $T<T_c(H)$ and upon ZFC close to $T_c(H)$. A spin-glass-like phase forms at high field. Below $x_p$, there can be no long-range magnetic order. It is the geometry of the lattice in question which defines the location of these boundaries, and although we study one particular magnetic lattice type, the body centered tetragonal structure of $\rm Fe_{x}Zn_{1-x}F_2$, our results should apply more generally to dilute magnets in an applied field.
Interestingly, the specific heat behavior is not dependent in an obvious way on the concentration. Similar hysteresis upon FC and ZFC is observed [@b00] very close to $T_c(H)$ for concentrations above and below $x_v$. No specific heat hysteresis is observed at low $T$. The contrast between the relative insensitivity of the specific heat techniques with the extreme sensitivity of the scattering techniques is certainly due to the greater dependence of the scattering on long length correlations that are greatly affected by domain formation. The hysteresis in the case of specific heat is related to the activated dynamics very close to $T_c(H)$ that affects the behavior at all $x$ and not domain formation, which only occurs for $x<x_v$.
From the results of this investigation, we conclude that studies of the random-field phase transition should be conducted with magnetic concentrations greater than $x_v$. It is advantageous to use concentrations not too much greater than this to maximize the random-fields for available applied fields. However, if the concentration is too close to $x_v$, one must take into account scattering from the magnetic vacancy percolation cluster. Recent experiments at $x=0.87$ indicate that, at this concentration, such scattering is negligible [@ymkyfb02; @yzllbgl02].
This work was funded by Department of Energy Grant No.DE-FG03-87ER45324 and by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which is managed by UT-Battelle, LLC, for the U.S. Dept.of Energy under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725.
[999]{}
D.P. Belanger, Brazilian J. of Phys. [**30**]{}, 682 (2000) and references therein.
S. Fishman and A. Aharony, J. Phys. C [**12**]{}, L729 (1979).
J.L. Cardy, Phys. Rev. B [**29**]{}, 505 (1984).
D. P. Belanger , S. M. Rezende, A. R. King, and V. Jaccarino, J. Appl. Phys. [**57**]{}, 3294 (1985).
J. P. Hill, Q. Feng, R. J. Birgeneau and T. R. Thurston, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 3655 (1993), although the nominal concentration is $x=0.75$ the actual concentration may be slightly less, judging from the $H=0$ transition temperature [@bkbj80].
W.C. Barber and D.P. Belanger, J. Appl. Phys. [**87**]{}, 7049 (2000).
S.-J. Han, D.P. Belanger , W. Kleemann and U. Nowak, Phys. Rev. B [**45**]{}, 9728 (1992).
D.P. Belanger, V. Jaccarino, A.R. King, and R.M. Nicklow, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**59**]{}, 930, (1987).
P. Miltényi, M. Gierlings, J. Keller, B. Beschoten, G. Güntherodt, and U. Nowak and K. D. Usadel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 4224 (2000).
S. Zhang, D. V. Dimitrov, G. C. Hadjipanayis, J. W. Cai, and C. L. Chien, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. [**198-199**]{}, 468 (1999).
Z. Slanic, D.P. Belanger, J.A. Fernandez-Baca, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 426, (1999).
F. Ye, M. Matsuda, S. Katano, H. Yoshizawa, J. A. Fernandez-Baca, D. P. Belanger, unpublished.
F. Ye, L. Zhou, S. Larochelle, L. Lu, D. P. Belanger, M. Greven, and D. Lederman, Phys. Rev. Letters [**89**]{}, 157202 (2002).
A. R. King, I. B. Ferreira, V. Jaccarino, and D. P. Belanger, Phys. Rev. B [**37**]{}, 219 (1988).
D. P. Belanger and H. Yoshizawa, Phys. Rev. B [**47**]{}, 5051 (1993).
F. C. Montenegro, M. D. Coutinho-Filho, and S. M. Rezende, Europhys. Lett. [**8**]{}, 382 (1989).
E. P. Barbosa, E. P. Raposo and M. D. Coutinho-Filho, J. Appl. Phys. [**87**]{}, 6531 (2000).
W. C. Barber and D. P. Belanger, Phys. Rev. B [**61**]{}, 8960 (2000).
K. Jonason , C. Djurberg , P. Nordblad, and D. P. Belanger, Phys. Rev. B [bf 56]{}, 5404 (1997).
M. F. Sykes and J. W. Essam, Phys. Rev. [**133**]{}, A310 (1964).
F.C. Montenegro, A.R. King, V. Jaccarino, S-J. Han and D.P. Belanger, Phys. Rev. B [**44**]{}, 2155 (1991).
D. P. Belanger , Wm. E. Murray, Jr., F. C. Montenegro, A. R. King, V. Jaccarino and R. W. Erwin, Phys. Rev. B [**44**]{}, 2161 (1991).
F. C. Montenegro, K. A. Lima, M. S. Torikachvili, and A. H. Lacerda, Mater. Sci. Forum [**302-303**]{}, 371 (1999).
F. C. Montenegro, K. A. Lima, M. S. Torikachvili, and A. H. Lacerda, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. [177-181]{}, 145 [1998]{}.
A. Rosales-Rivera, J. M. Ferreira, and F. C. Montenegro, Europhys. Lett. [**50**]{}, 264 [2000]{}.
J. Satooka, H. Aruga Katori, A. Tobo and K. Katsumata, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 709 (1998).
D. S. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**56**]{}, 416 (1986).
A. R. King, J. A. Mydosh and V. Jaccarino, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**56**]{}, 2525 (1986).
A. E. Nash, A. R. King and V. Jaccarino, Phys. Rev. B [**43**]{}, 1272 (1991).
Ch. Binek, S. Kuttler and W. Kleemann, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 2412 (1995).
D. P. Belanger, J. Wang, Z. Slanic, S-J. Han, R. M. Nicklow, M. Lui, C. A. Ramos and D. Lederman, Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{}, 3420 (1996).
D. Stauffer and A. Aharony, [*Introduction to Percolation Theory, 2nd Ed.*]{}, Francis and Taylor, (London), 1994.
H. Ikeda, K. Iwasa, J.A. Fernandez-Baca, and R.M. Nicklow, Physica B [**213**]{}, 146 (1995).
T. Sakon, A. Awaji, M. Motokawa, and D. P. Belanger, J. Phys. Soc. Japan [**71**]{}, 411 (2002).
D. P. Belanger , A. R. King, F. Borsa, and V. Jaccarino, J. Magn. Magn. Mat. [**15-18**]{}, 807-808 (1980).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $F$ be a number field and $D$ a quaternion algebra over $F$. Take a cuspidal automorphic representation $\pi$ of $D_\A^\times$ with trivial central cahracter. We study the zeta functions with period integrals on $\pi$ for the perhomogeneous vector space $(D^\times\times D^\times\times\GL_2, D\oplus D)$. We show their meromorphic continuation and functional equation, determine the location and orders of possible poles and compute the residue. Arguing along the theory of Saito and computing unramified local factors, the explicit formula of the zeta functions is obtained. Counting the order of possible poles of this explicit formula, we show that if $L(1/2, \pi)\neq0$, there are infinitely many quadratic extension $E$ of $F$ which embeds in $D$, such that $\pi$ has nonvanishing toric period with respect to $E$.'
address:
- |
Miyu Suzuki\
Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Institute of Science and Engineering\
Kanazawa University\
Kakumamachi, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, 920-1192, JAPAN
- |
Satoshi Wakatsuki\
Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Institute of Science and Engineering\
Kanazawa University\
Kakumamachi, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, 920-1192, JAPAN
author:
- Miyu Suzuki and Satoshi Wakatsuki
title: 'Zeta functions and nonvanishing theorems for toric periods on $\GL_2$'
---
Introduction
============
Background and Main result
--------------------------
In a series of papers [@Wal1; @Wal2; @Wal3; @Wal4], Waldspurger studied Shimura correspondence between half integral weight and integral weight modular forms in the framework of automorphic representations of the metaplectic group $\mathrm{Mp}_2$. One of the remarkable results in these papers is a detailed description of the automorphic discrete spectrum of $\mathrm{Mp}_2$. Theta correspondence plays a central role in this representation theoretic treatment. In the course of the study, especially in [@Wal2; @Wal4], Waldspurger found a close relation among special values of $L$-functions, period integrals and nonvanishing of theta correspondence. Our research focuses on nonvanishing of the period integrals with an eye on the work of Waldspurger [@Wal4] which was extended by Friedberg and Hoffstein [@FH]. We briefly review these results.
Let $E$ be a quadratic étale algebra over a number field $F$. Let $\eta$ denote the quadratic character of $\A_F^\times/F^\times$ associated with $E$ via the global class field theory if $E$ is a field and the trivial character otherwise. We write the ring of adèles of $F$ by $\A=\A_F$ and set $\A_E=\A_F\otimes_FE$. We fix an embedding $E\hookrightarrow\M_2(F)$ and regard $\operatorname{Res}_{E/F}\bb{G}_{m, E}$ as an $F$-subgroup of $\GL_2$. Here, $\operatorname{Res}_{E/F}$ denotes the restriction of scalars.
We say that $\pi$ is $E^\times$-distinguished if the integral $$\mP_E(\vp)=\int_{E^\times Z(\A)\bs\A_E^\times}\vp(h)\d h$$ defines a non-zero linear form on $\pi$. Here, $Z$ denotes the center of $\GL_2$.
Fix a finite set $S$ of places of $F$. For $\xi\in F^\times$, let $\chi_\xi$ denote the quadratic character $(\,\cdot, \xi)_\A$ of $\A^\times$, where $(\cdot,\cdot)_\A$ is the product of local Hilbert symbols. The next theorem is [@Wal4 Théorèm 4].
\[thm:W1\] Let $\pi'$ be an irreducible cuspidal automorphic representation of $\GL_2(\A)$ with trivial central character. Take a positive real number $\de_v$ for each $v\in S$. If we have $\ve(1/2, \pi')=1$, there exists $\xi\in F^\times$ such that
- For any $v\in S$, $|\xi-1|_v<\de_v$.
- $L(1/2, \pi'\otimes\chi_\xi)\neq0$.
As noted in the introduction of [@GI], this theorem plays an important role in the argument of Waldspurger to complete the full description of the automorphic discrete spectrum of $\mathrm{Mp}_2$.
Friedberg and Hoffstein generalized Theorem \[thm:W1\] to the following result. Fix a quadratic character $\chi_0$ of $\A^\times/F^\times$. Let $\Psi(S; \chi_0)$ denote the set of quadratic characters $\chi$ of $\A^\times/F^\times$ such that $\chi_v=\chi_{0,v}$ for all $v\in S$. For each non-trivial $\chi\in\Psi(S;\chi_0)$, let $E_\chi$ be the corresponding quadratic extension of $F$ via the global class field theory.
\[thm:FH\] Let $\pi'$ be an irreducible cuspidal automorphic representation of $\GL_2(\A)$ which is self-dual. Suppose that we have $\ve(1/2, \pi'\otimes\chi)=1$ for some $\chi\in\Psi(S;\chi_0)$. Then there are infinitely many $\chi\in\Psi(S;\chi_0)$ such that $L(1/2, \pi'\otimes\chi)\neq0$.
In the proof, Waldspurger used in an essential way the result of Flicker on the Shimura lifting from $\GL_2$ to a certain double cover of $\GL_2$. Instead of it, the argument of Friedberg and Hoffstein is based on a technique of analytic number theory. They studied poles of a Dirichlet series with coefficients given by $L$-functions.
These theorems on special values of $L$-functions can be restated in terms of nonvanishing of periods. In order to do that, we recall another theorem of Waldspurger from [@Wal4]. Let $X(E)$ denote the set of quatenion algebras over $F$ which $E$ embeds as an $F$-algebra. For $D\in X(E)$, we set $D_\A=D\otimes_F\A$. For an irreducible cuspidal automorphic representation $\pi$ of $D_\A^\times$, there is a unique irreducible automorphic representation $\pi'=\operatorname{JL}(\pi)$ of $\GL_2(\A)$ such that for almost all places $v$ of $F$ at which $D$ splits, $\pi_v$ is isomorphic to $\pi'_v$.
\[thm:W2\] (1) For $D\in X(E)$, let $\pi$ be an irreducible cuspidal automorphic representation of $D_\A^\times$ with trivial central character such that $\pi'=\operatorname{JL}(\pi)$ is cuspidal. If $\pi$ is $E^\times$-distinguished, then $L(1/2, \pi')L(1/2, \pi'\otimes\eta)\neq0$.
\(2) Let $\pi'$ be an irreducible cuspidal automorphic representation of $\GL_2(\A)$ with trivial central character. If $L(1/2, \pi')L(1/2, \pi'\otimes\eta)\neq0$, then there is a unique $D\in X(E)$ and an irreducible cuspidal automorphic representation $\pi$ of $D_\A^\times$ which is is $E^\times$-distinguished and $\pi'=\operatorname{JL}(\pi)$. Moreover, it was proved by Tunnell [@Tunnell] and Saito [@Saito] that the ramification set of $D$ is $\{v\mid \ve(1/2, \pi'_{E, v})=-1\}$. In other words, $D_v$ is division if and only if $\ve(1/2, \pi'_{E, v})=-1$. Here, $\pi'_E$ is the base change of $\pi'$ to $\GL_2(\A_E)$.
Applying this theorem, we see that Theorem \[thm:FH\] has following corollary
Let $\pi'$ be an irreducible cuspidal automorphic representation of $\GL_2(\A)$ with trivial central character. Suppose that we have $\ve(1/2, \pi'\otimes\chi)=1$ for some $\chi\in\Psi(S;\chi_0)$ and $L(1/2, \pi')\neq0$. Then there are infinitely many $\chi\in\Psi(S;\chi_0)$ such that there exists $D_\chi\in X(E_\chi)$ and an irreducible cuspidal automorphic representation $\pi$ of $D_{\chi, \A}^\times$ which is $E_\chi^\times$-distinguished and $\pi'=\operatorname{JL}(\pi)$.
Now we state our main result. Let $D$ be a quaternion algebra over $F$. The set of quadratic étale algebras over $F$ which $E$ embeds is denoted by $X(D)$.
\[thm:main\] Let $\pi$ be an irreducible cuspidal automorphic representation of $D_\A^\times$ with trivial central character which is not $1$-dimensional. Suppose we have $L(1/2, \pi)\neq0$. Then we can take a quadratic étale algebra $\cE_v$ over $F_v$ for each $v\in S$ so that there are infinitely many $E\in X(D)$ such that $\pi$ is $E^\times$-distinguished and $E_v=\cE_v$ for any $v\in S$.
0Unfortunately, this theorem is not a generalization of Theorem \[thm:FH\] because $S$-components of $E$ are not arbitrary in our theorem. Despite this defect, it has following novelty:
- Theorem \[thm:main\] is about representations of arbitrary inner forms of $\GL_2$, while Theorem \[thm:W1\] and Theorem \[thm:FH\] only treats representations of $\GL_2$.
- Theorem \[thm:main\] asserts nonvanishing of infinitely many periods, which is stronger than the assertions of Theorem \[thm:W1\] and Theorem \[thm:FH\] which assert nonvanishing of central values of $L$-functions for infinitely many quadratic twists.
The difference between our theorem and Theorem \[thm:FH\] is reduced to a local problem. In order to see this, let us try to deduce Theorem \[thm:main\] from Theorem \[thm:FH\]. Take a quarternion algebra $D$ and a cuspidal automorphic representation $\pi$ as in Theorem \[thm:main\]. Let $S(\pi)$ denote the finite set of places of $F$ which includes all Archimedean placs and places at which $\pi$ is ramified or $D$ is division. What we have to find is a quadratic extension $E_0$ satisfying two conditions:
- for any $v\in S(\pi)$, $D_v$ is division if and only if $\ve(1/2, \pi'_{E_0, v})=-1$
- $\ve(1/2, \pi\otimes\eta_{E_0})=1$,
where $\pi'_{E_0}$ denotes the base change of $\pi'=\operatorname{JL}(\pi)$ to $\GL_2(\A_{E_0})$ and $\eta_{E_0}$ is the qudratic character of $\A^\times$ attached to $E_0$. Suppose we have such an $E_0$. Theorem \[thm:FH\] asserts that there are infinitely many quadratic extension $E$ of $F$ such that $E_v=E_{0, v}$ for any $v\in S(\pi)$ and $L(1/2, \pi\otimes\eta_{E})\neq0$. From Theorem \[thm:W2\] (2), we see that $\pi$ is $E^\times$-distinguished for each such $E$.
Now we assume we have $E_0$ which satisfies (a). For $v\in S(\pi)$, $\pi_v$ is generic unramified and has trivial central character, hence for any quadratic étale algebra $K_v$ over $F_v$, we have $\ve(\pi_{K_v})=1$. Combining this with (a), we get $$1=\ve(1/2, \pi'_{E_0})=\ve(1/2, \pi)\ve(1/2, \pi\otimes\eta_{E_0})\eta_{E_0}(-1)=\ve(1/2, \pi\otimes\eta_{E_0}).$$ Thus (b) follows from (a). The only remaining problem is to find $E_0$ which satisfies (a). This can be done if there is a quadratic étale algebra $\cE_v$ over $F_v$ at each $v\in S(\pi)$ so that we have $\ve(1/2, \pi'_{\cE_v})=-1$ if and only if $D_v$ is division. Once we have such a family $\{\cE_v\}$, we can take a quadratic extension $E_0$ so that $E_{0, v}=K_v$ for each $v\in S(\pi)$ by the strong approximation theorem. However, it seems not easy to prove the existence of such a family $\{\cE_v\}$ in general. Conversely, the existence of such $\{\cE_v\}_v$ follows immediately from Theorem \[thm:main\].
Our method to prove Theorem \[thm:main\] is to use prehomogeneous zeta functions with period integrals. We will show in Theorem \[thm:nonvanishing423\] that if our zeta functions have a pole, then there exists such a quadratic extension $E_0$. The proof of this fact is not so long. Hence, if one combines Theorem \[thm:FH\] with Theorem \[thm:nonvanishing423\], then one obtains a short proof of Theorem \[thm:main\]. On the other hand, we will give an alternative proof in Theorem \[thm:infinite\] by the explicit formula of the zeta functions, that is, Theorem \[thm:main\] is proved by our zeta functions without using Theorem \[thm:FH\]. In the following subsections, we explain the zeta functions, the proofs and possibilities of further applications.
Prehomogeneous zeta functions with period integrals
---------------------------------------------------
Our main tool is the prehomogeneous zeta functions with period integrals which were introduced by F. Sato in [@Sato]. Besides the application to the study of period integrals, this paper has contribution to the theory of prehomogeneous zeta functions with period integrals. In this subsection, we give an overview of prior research on this topic.
After introducing new zeta functions, he focused efforts on proving their global functional equations for several specific prehomogeneous vector spaces. A special case (the case of spherical Maass cusp forms) of the zeta functions we treat in this paper appears in his paper [@Sato3]. In [@Sato3], the global functional equation is obtained in classical setting (not adelic) and from the point of view of [@KS], the zeta functions are shown to be a Dirichlet series of the Fourier coefficients of certain cusp forms of half integral weight. This fact seems to reflect a hidden relation between the prehomogeneous zeta functions with period integrals and the lifting of automorphic forms. In the course of his proof, he obtained the local functional equation of the local prehomogeneous zeta functions with matrix coefficients of real spherical principal series. The local functional equation of the zeta functions attached to spherical representations are shown in general setting under some conditions by Bopp and Rubenthaler [@BR]. In that paper, they aimed to generalize the Godement-Jacquet theory. Recently, the theory of the local functional equations has greatly developed by the works of Wen-Wei Li [@Li1; @Li2; @Li3; @Li4]. According to his results, the local zeta functions for arbitrary admissible representations satisfy certain local functional equations.
On the one hand the local theory is now established in general by Li, but on the other hand nothing is known about the global theory and a lot of open questions are raised in [@Li1 Chapter 8]. We mention that this paper answers those questions for specific prehomogeneous vector spaces. Firstly, he explained in [@Li1 Corollary 8.3.7] that the nonvanishing of the zeta functions implies the automorphic representation is distinguished. In this paper, we will show that the zeta function has a pole provided the central value of the $L$-function is nonzero, and obtain a sufficient condition for distinction. Secondly, the meromorphic continuation and the functional equation of the zeta functions conjectured in [@Li1 Definition 8.4.1] is obtained in Theorem \[thm:global\] and Corollary \[cor:funct\]. Lastly, we will obtain the essential factorization , of our zeta functions, which is an expression as a sum of Euler products of local zeta functions proposed in [@Li1 Definition 8.2.5]. This expression will be obtained from the Saito’s formula and Waldspurger’s formula and plays an important role in the application to the study of the period integrals. In addition, we explicitly compute the local zeta functions and deduce from it the explicit formula of our global zeta functions. As is explained later, the nonvanishing of infinitely many periods immediately follows from this explicit formula.
Methods and details of the results
----------------------------------
The main point of proving Theorem \[thm:main\] is a new way to show nonvanishing of infinitely many period integrals. The setting of our question seems purely algebraic, but it seems that we need the methods and techniques of analytic number theory. A basic idea in analytic number theory to handle such problems is relating them to the existence of poles or zeros of some Dirichlet series or other similar infinite series. One of the most typical examples is the Dirichlet prime number theorem and its generalization called the Chebotarev’s density theorem. These theorems assert the existence of infinite number of prime numbers or places of number fields with certain properties, and are proved by analyzing Dirichlet and Dirichlet-Hecke $L$-functions.
In this paper, we introduce a new method along the same lines as these previous works with a different tool, the prehomogeneous zeta functions with period integrals. This method combines the techniques of analytic number theory with analysis of prehomogeneous zeta functions *à la* H. Saito [@Saito1]. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first example that the prehomogeneous zeta function with period integrals are used to study nonvanishing of specific period integrals.
Let us switch back to the setting of Theorem \[thm:main\]. Set $G=D^\times\times D^\times\times\GL_2$ and $V=D\oplus D$. The $F$-rational representation $\rho$ of $G$ on $V$ is defined by $$(x, y)\cdot\rho(g_1, g_2, g_3):=(g_1^{-1}xg_2, g_1^{-1}yg_2)g_3,
\quad (g_1,g_2,g_3)\in G, \quad (x,y)\in V.$$ Then, the triple $(G, \rho, V)$ is an $F$-form of a prehomogeneous vector space. We write the regular locus of $V$ by $V^0$. Let $\pi$ be a cuspidal automorphic representation of $D_\A^\times:=(D\otimes\A)^\times$ with trivial central character. For cusp forms $\phi_1, \phi_2$ in $\pi$ and a Schwartz function $\Phi$ on $V(\A)$, we define the global zeta function with period integrals by $$Z(\Phi, \phi_1, \phi_2, s)=\int_{H(F)\bs H(\A)}|\omega(h)|^s\phi_1(g_1)\phi_2(g_2)\sum_{x\in V^0(F)}\Phi(x\cdot\rho(h))\d h.$$ Here, $H$ is the quotient of $G$ by the kernel of $\rho\,\colon G\rightarrow\GL(V)$, $\omega$ is the character attached to the fundamental relative invariant of $(G, \rho, V)$ and $(g_1, g_2, g_3)$ is a representative in $G$ of $h\in H$.
By the orbit decomposition in Proposition \[prop:orbits\], we obtain $$\label{eq:0418ef}
Z(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2,s)=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{E\in X(D)}\int_{H_{x(\delta)}^0(\A)\bsl H(\A)} \cP_E(\phi_1^{g_1})\, \cP_E(\phi_2^{g_2}) \, |\omega( \tilde{h} )|^s \Phi(x(\delta)\cdot \tilde{h}) \, \d \tilde{h},$$ where $\phi_i^{g_i}=\pi(g_i)\phi_i$, $x(\delta)$ means a representative element of a $H(F)$-orbit in $V^0(F)$ corresponding to $E$, and $\d \tilde{h}$ denotes a quotient measure on $H_{x(\delta)}^0(\A)\bsl H(\A)$. For other unexplained notation, see § \[sec:space\]. From this, we see that $\pi$ is $E^\times$-distinguished for at least one $E\in X(D)$ if the zeta function is not identically zero. By analyzing the principal part of our zeta functions (Theorem \[thm:global\]), we will see that if $L(1/2, \pi)\neq0$, we can take $\Phi$ and $\phi$ so that $Z(s, \Phi, \phi, \bar{\phi}, s)$ has a simple pole at $s=1/2$ under the conditions of Theorem \[thm:main\]. In particular, $\pi$ is $E^\times$-distinguished for at least one $E\in X(D)$.
To show the nonvanishing of infinitely many periods, we need more close analysis on our zeta functions. Applying the technique of essential factorization developed by Saito for ordinary prehomogeneous zeta functions and computing explicitly the unramified components of the Euler factor, we get $$\label{eq:0419ex}
Z(\Phi,\phi,\overline{\phi},s)=\sum_{\cE_S\in X(D_S)} \prod_{v\in S} Z_{\cE_v}(\phi_v,\Phi_v,s) \times \xi(s,D,\phi,\cE_S),$$ where $S$ is a finite set of places of $F$ containing all “bad” places, $\cE_S=\prod_{v\in S}\cE_v$ in $X(D_S):=\prod_{v\in S}X(D_v)$, $Z_{\cE_v}(\phi_v,\Phi_v,s)$ is the local zeta function (cf. ) and $$\begin{aligned}
\xi(s,D,\phi,\cE_S):=& \frac{ 1 }{2 \, |\Delta_F|^4 \, c_F } \frac{\zeta^S_F(2s-1) \, L^S(2s-1,\pi,\mathrm{Ad}) }{\zeta^S_F(2)^3} \prod_{v\in S}\alpha_{\cE_v}^\#(\phi_v,\phi_v)^{-1} \\
& \sum_{E\in X(D,\pi,\cE_S)} \frac{ L(1,\eta)^2 \, |\cP_E(\phi)|^2\, \mathcal{D}_E^S(\pi,s)}{N(\mathfrak{f}_\eta^S)^{s-1}}\end{aligned}$$ (Theorem \[thm:20200105t1\]). Here, $\phi=\otimes_v \phi_v$ is a suitably chosen cusp form in $\pi$, $\mathcal{D}_E^S(\pi,s)$ is a function defined as a certain infinite product, and $X(D,\pi,\cE_S)$ denotes the set of $E\in X(D)$ whose $v$-component coincides with $\cE_v$ for $v\in S$ such that $\pi$ is $E^\times$-distinguished. For other unexplained notation, see § \[sec:w0504\], § \[sec:fac\] and § \[sec:exp\]. Together with the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:main\] and an element $\cE_S'=\prod_{v\in S}\cE_v'$ such that $X(D,\pi,\cE_S')$ is not empty, the assertion follows from the following observation and comparison of the order of the pole at $s=1$ of the both sides of the above equation:
- The global zeta function $Z(\Phi,\phi,\overline{\phi},s)$ is holomorphic at $s=1$.
- $\zeta_F^S(2s-1)$ has a simple pole at $s=1$.
- With suitable choices of $\Phi$ and $\phi$, the local zeta function $Z_{\cE_v'}(\phi_v,\Phi_v,s)$ is entire and does not have zero at $s=1$ for each $v\in S$, and $Z_{\cE_v}(\phi_v,\Phi_v,s)=0$ if $\cE_v\neq \cE_v'$.
- The infinite product defining $\mathcal{D}_E^S(\pi,s)$ converges absolutely for $\mathrm{Re}(s)>1$ and $\mathrm{Re}(\mathcal{D}_E^S(\pi,s))$ tends to $+\infty$ when $s\rightarrow 1+0$.
See the proofs of Theorems \[thm:nonvanishing423\] and \[thm:infinite\] for the detail.
In order to refine our result to get a generalization of Theorem \[thm:FH\], we should study the local zeta functions at “bad places” in more detail. To be more precise, what is needed for such a refinement is nonvanishing of the gamma factors which appear in the local functional equations proved by Wen-Wei Li [@Li4]. In § \[sec:20200424\], we will discuss the prospect of the future works in this direction. A detailed study on analytic properties of local zeta functions provides us quantitative information. For example, from the study of the gamma factors, we might be able to obtain convexity bound of $\xi(s,D,\phi,\cE_S)$, see [@SS Theorem 2 (iii)]. As another application of our global and local zeta functions, probably we can use the Dirichlet series $\xi(s,D,\phi,\cE_S)$ to study the mean value theorem for $\lim_{X\to\inf}X^{-1}\sum_{E\in X(D,\pi,\cE_S),\, N(\mathfrak{f}_\eta^S)^{1/2}<X}L(1,\eta)^2 \, |\cP_E(\phi)|^2$, see [@KY1] and [@Taniguchi2].
The following is the structure of the paper. In the next section, we recall the structure theory of the prehomogeneous vector spaces we consider and Waldspurger’s formula for toric periods. In § \[sec:globalzeta424\], we recall the notion of the prehomogeneous zeta functions with period integrals and show their basic properties such as absolute convergence, meromorphic continuation and the global functional equation. From the analysis of the principal part and the explicit formula of our zeta functions, we prove Theorem \[thm:main\]. Finally in § \[sec:localzeta424\], we will give the the details of the unramified computation and show the explicit formula of the zeta functions.
**Acknowledgments.** The authors thank Wen-Wei Li for helpful discussions and sharing his impeccably written preprints with us. Needless to say, this paper owes its inspiration to a series of his recent pioneering works. The authors also would like to thank Kimball Martin for pointing out that the difference between our result and Theorem \[thm:FH\] is reduced to a local problem. A further thank you to both Atsushi Ichino and Tamotsu Ikeda for useful comments and kindly answering our questions. The first author would like to thank Hang Xue for helpful comments. The second author thanks Akihiko Yukie for helpful discussions.
Preliminaries
=============
The space of pairs of quaternion algebras {#sec:space}
-----------------------------------------
Throughout this subsection, let $F$ be a field of characteristic not two. Let $\bar{F}$ denote an algebraic closure of $F$, and set $\underline{G}:=\GL_2(\bar{F})^3$, and $\underline{V}:=\bar{F}^2\otimes \bar{F}^2\otimes\bar{F}^2$. A rational irreducible representation $\underline{\rho}$ is defined by $v\cdot\underline{\rho}(g)=(v_1g_1)\otimes(v_2g_2)\otimes(v_3g_3)$ where $g=(g_1,g_2,g_3)\in \underline{G}$ and $v=(v_1,v_2,v_3)\in \underline{V}$. Then, the triple $(\underline{G},\underline{\rho},\underline{V})$ is a prehomogeneous vector space, that is, it has an open dense orbit. This space is classified into a special case $(n,m)=(4,2)$ of the irreducible reduced prehomogeneous vector spaces (20) $(\SO_n\times \GL_m,M_{n,m})$ in [@SK Theorem 24 in § 3]. Its split $F$-form $F^2\otimes F^2\otimes F^2$ was introduced in [@WY] as the $D_4$ case from the viewpoint of field extensions, and its $\Z$-structure $\Z^2\otimes \Z^2\otimes \Z^2$ is well-known as Bhargava’s cube [@Bhargava]. Its $F$-forms were classified in \[Saito, Theorem 2.11 (3)\]. The $F$-rational orbits of the non-split $F$-forms $\GL_2(E)\times \GL_2(F)$ and $\GL_2(E')$, where $E$ (resp. $E'$) is a quadratic (resp. cubic) extension of $F$, were studied in [@KY] and [@GS]. In addition, Kable and Yukie studied their zeta functions and density theorems in [@KY1], [@Yukie] and so on. Besides, Taniguchi [@Taniguchi1; @Taniguchi2] studied another type non-split $F$-form, which is a pair of quaternoin algebras. In this section, we review basic properties of the spaces of pairs of quaternion algebras, which include the split case $F^2\otimes F^2\otimes F^2\cong M_2\oplus M_2$.
### Setup
Let $D$ denote a quaternion algebra over $F$. When $D$ is not division, we may identify $D$ with $M_2(F)$, and a standard $F$-involution $\iota$ on $D$ can be chosen as $x^\iota:=\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & 0 \end{smallmatrix}\right)\,{}^t\!x \left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0 & -1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{smallmatrix}\right)$. When $D$ is division, there exist a quadratic extension $E$ of $F$ and an element $b\in F^\times$ such that $D$ is regarded as $$D=\left\{ \begin{pmatrix} \xi & \eta \\ b\overline{\eta} & \overline{\xi} \end{pmatrix} \in M_2(E) \mid \xi,\eta\in E \right\}$$ where $E\ni a\mapsto\overline{a}\in E$ is the non-trivial Galois action on $E/F$, and a standard $F$-involution $\iota$ on $D$ can be chosen as $\left(\begin{smallmatrix} \xi & \eta \\ b\overline{\eta} & \overline{\xi} \end{smallmatrix}\right)^\iota=\left(\begin{smallmatrix} \overline{\xi} & -\eta \\ -b\overline{\eta} & \xi \end{smallmatrix}\right)$. Set $\det(x):= x\, x^\iota\in F$ and $\Tr(x):=x+x^\iota\in F$ $(x\in D)$.
An algebraic group $G$ over $F$ is defined by $$G:=G_1\times G_2\times G_3, \quad G_1=G_2=\GL_1(D), \quad G_3=\GL_2,$$ and an $8$-dimensional vector space $V$ over $F$ is defined by $V(F)=D\oplus D$. Define a $F$-rational representation $\rho:G\to \GL(V)$ by $$(x,y) \cdot \rho(g_1,g_2,g_3) := (g_1^{-1}xg_2,g_1^{-1}yg_2)g_3, \quad (g_1,g_2,g_3)\in G, \quad (x,y)\in V.$$ Then, the kernel $Z_\rho$ of $\rho$ is $$Z_\rho:=\mathrm{Ker}\rho=\{ (aI_2,bI_2,ab^{-1}I_2)\in G \mid a,b\in\mathbb{G}_m \}\cong \mathbb{G}_m\times \mathbb{G}_m,$$ where we write $I_n$ for the unit matrix in $M_n$.
Set $H:=Z_\rho\bsl G$, and we identify $H$ with $\rho(G)$. Denote by $x\cdot \rho(h)$ or $x\cdot h$ $(x\in V$, $h\in H)$ the faithful $F$-representation of $H$ obtained from the above representation $\rho$ of $G$. The group $X_F(H)$ of $F$-rational characters of $H$ is generated by $\omega_0$ which is defined by $$\omega_0(h):=\det(g_1)^{-1}\det(g_2)\, \det(g_3) \qquad (h=Z_\rho(g_1,g_2,g_3)\in H).$$ Let $\mathcal{W}$ denote the vector space over $F$ defined by $\mathcal{W}(F)=\{ x\in D \mid \Tr(x)=0 \}$. A representation $\rho_0$ of $H$ on $\mathcal{W}$ over $F$ is defined by $x\cdot \rho_0(h):=g_1^{-1}x\, g_1$ where $h=Z_\rho(g_1,g_2,g_3)\in H$. Define a $F$-morphism $P_0$ from $V$ to $\mathcal{W}$ by $P_0(x,y):=x\, y^\iota-y \, x^\iota$, $(x,y)\in V$. Then, $P_0$ satisfies $P_0((x,y)\cdot \rho(h))=\omega_0(h)\, P_0(x,y)\cdot\rho_0(h)$.
For each point $x\in V(F)$, we say that $x$ is regular if $x\cdot \rho(G(\bar{F}))$ is open dense in $V(\bar{F})$, and $x$ is singular otherwise. Suppose that $x_0$ is a regular element in $V(F)$. Let $H_x$ denote the stabilizer of $x$ in $H$, and $H_x^0$ the connected component of $1$ in $H$. Set $P(x):=-\det(P_0(x))$ and $\omega(h):=\omega_0(h)^2$. Then, $P(x\cdot\rho(h))=P(x)$ $(\forall h\in H_x(F))$ holds, and $P(x)$ on $V$ is called the fundamental relative invariant. Set $V^0:=\{ x\in V \mid P(x)\neq0 \}$, and then $V^0(F)$ means the set of regular elements in $V(F)$.
### Orbit decompositions {#sec:orbits}
In what follows, we describe $F$-rational orbits and stabilizers for $(G,\rho,V)$. Let $G_x$ denote the stabilizer of $x$ in $G$. We write $O_n$ for the zero matrix in $M_n$, and $E_{ij}$ for the matrix unit of the entry $(i,j)$ in $M_n$. The following propositions can be proved by direct calculations.
\[prop:sor1\] Suppose that $D=M(2,F)$. The following is a list of representative elements of singular $G(F)$-orbits in $V(F)$.
- $x_0:=(O_2,O_2)$, $G_{x_0}=G$.
- $x_1:=(O_2,E_{12})$, $G_{x_1}=\{ ( \left(\begin{smallmatrix}a&* \\ 0 & * \end{smallmatrix}\right) ,\left(\begin{smallmatrix}*&* \\ 0 & b \end{smallmatrix}\right) ,\left(\begin{smallmatrix}*&* \\ 0 & c \end{smallmatrix}\right) )\in G \mid a=bc \}$.
- $x_2:=(O_2,I_2)$, $G_{x_2}=\{ ( g,h,\left(\begin{smallmatrix}*&* \\ 0 & c \end{smallmatrix}\right) )\in G \mid g=c h \}$.
- $x_3:=(E_{11},E_{12})$, $G_{x_3}\cong G_{x_2}$.
- $x_4:=(E_{12},E_{22})$, $G_{x_4}\cong G_{x_2}$.
- $x_5:=(E_{12},I_2)$, $G_{x_5}=\{ ( \left(\begin{smallmatrix}a_1&a_2 \\ 0&a_3 \end{smallmatrix}\right),\left(\begin{smallmatrix}a_1&a_2 \\ 0&a_3 \end{smallmatrix}\right)\left(\begin{smallmatrix}1/c_3 & -c_2/c_1 c_3 \\ 0 & 1/c_3 \end{smallmatrix}\right),\left(\begin{smallmatrix} c_1 & c_2 \\ 0 & c_3 \end{smallmatrix}\right))\in G \mid a_1c_3=a_3c_1 \}$.
\[prop:sor2\] Suppose that $D$ is division. There are only two singular $G(F)$-orbits in $V(F)$. One is the trivial orbit $x_0:=(0,0)$, and the other is $x_2\cdot \rho(G(F))$ where $x_2:=(0,1)$.
Let $E$ be a quadratic étale algebra over $F$. Choose an element $\delta=\delta_E \in E$ such that $E=F(\delta)$ and $\Tr(\delta)=0$. Set $d=d_E=\delta^2$. Define a similitude orthogonal group $\mathrm{GO}_{2,E}$ over $F$ by $$\mathrm{GO}_{2,E}:=\left\{ g\in \GL_2 \mid \exists \mu(g) \in \mathbb{G}_m \;\; \text{s.t.} \;\; {}^t\!g\begin{pmatrix} 1&0 \\ 0&-d_E \end{pmatrix} g= \mu(g) \begin{pmatrix} 1&0 \\ 0&-d_E \end{pmatrix} \right\}.$$ For each algebraic group $\mathscr{U}$ over $F$, let $\mathscr{U}^0$ denote the connected component of $1$ in $\mathscr{U}$. Note that $\mathrm{GO}_{2,E}^0$ is isomorphic to $R_{E/F}(\mathbb{G}_m)$ over $F$.
\[prop:orbits\] Let $X(D)$ denote the set of quadratic étale algebras over $F$, which are embedded in $D$ over $F$. For each $\alpha$ in $D$, we set $x(\alpha):=(1,\alpha)$. A set of representative elements of regular $G(F)$-orbits in $V(F)$ is given by $\{ \, x(\delta_E) \mid E \in X(D) \, \}$. Notice that $P(x(\delta))=4d\in d(F^\times)^2$. In addition, $$G_{x(\delta)}^0= \left\{ ( a_1+ b_1 \, \delta , \, a_2+b_2 \, \delta, \, g_3)\in G \mid a_j^2- b_j^2d \neq 0 \; \; (j=1,2), g_3=\left(\begin{smallmatrix} a_1&b_1d \\ b_1&a_1 \end{smallmatrix}\right)\left(\begin{smallmatrix} a_2&b_2d \\ b_2&a_2 \end{smallmatrix}\right)^{-1} \right\},$$ $$[G_{x(\delta)}:G_{x(\delta)}^0]=2, \quad G_{x(\delta)}^0\cong \mathrm{GO}_{2,E}^0 \times \mathrm{GO}_{2,E}^0.$$ It follows from the Skolem-Noether theorem that there exists an element $\gamma \in D^\times$ such that $(\gamma, \gamma, \diag(1,-1))\in G_{x(\delta)}(F) \setminus G_{x(\delta)}^0(F)$ and $\gamma^{-1} \delta \gamma = -\delta$.
Suppose that $F$ is a number field. Let $\fp_D$ denote the set consisting of places $v$ of $F$ such that $D\otimes F_v$ is division, where $F_v$ denotes the completion of $F$ at $v$. It is known that $E$ belongs to $X(D)$ if and only if $E$ is not split for each $v\in \fp_D$.
Waldspurger’s formula {#sec:w0504}
---------------------
Suppose $E/F$ is a quadratic extension of number fields. Let $D$ be a quaternion algebra over $F$ which $E$ embeds and $\pi=\otimes_v\pi_v$ be a cuspidal automorphic representation of $D_\A^\times$ with trivial central character. We recall the explicit formula relating the central $L$-value $L(1/2, \pi)L(1/2, \pi\otimes\eta)$ and the period $\mP_E$ which was proved by Waldspurger in [@Wal2].
For each place $v$, take a $D_v^\times$-invarian non-degenerate Hermitian pairing $\l\,,\r_v$ on $\pi_v$ so that we have $$\l\,,\r=\prod_v\l\,,\r_v.$$ Here, the left hand side is the Petersson inner prouct on $\pi$. We also take a local Haar measure $\d h_v$ on $F_v^\times\bs E_v^\times$ for each $v$ so that we have $$\d h=\prod_v\d h_v,$$ where the left hand side is the Tamagawa measure on $\A_F^\times\bs\A_E^\times$. Then, the integral $$\al_{E_v}(\vp_v, \vp'_v)=\int_{F_v^\times\bs E_v^\times}\l\pi_v(h_v)\vp_v, \vp'_v\r_v\,\d h_v, \hspace{10pt} \vp_v, \vp'_v\in\pi_v$$ converges absolutely and defines an element of $\operatorname{Hom}_{E_v^\times\times E_v^\times}(\pi_v\boxtimes\bar{\pi}_v, \C)$. We define the normalized $E_v^\times$-invariant Hermitian pairing $\al_{E_v}^\#(\cdot,\cdot)$ by $$\al_{E_v}^\#(\vp_v, \vp'_v)=\frac{L(1, \pi_v, \operatorname{Ad})L(1, \eta_v)}{\zeta_{F_v}(2)L(1/2, \pi_v)L(1/2, \pi_v\otimes\eta_v)}\cdot\al_{E_v}(\vp_v, \vp'_v).$$
\[thm:Wald\] For any $\vp=\otimes_v\vp_v$ and $\vp'=\otimes_v\vp'_v\in\pi$ in $\pi$, one has $$\label{eq:Wald}
\mP_E(\vp)\ol{\mP_E(\vp')}=\frac14\cdot\frac{\zeta_F(2)L(1/2, \pi)L(1/2, \pi\otimes\eta)}{L(1, \pi, \operatorname{Ad})L(1, \eta)}\cdot\prod_v\al_{E_v}^\#(\vp_v, \vp'_v)$$ In particular, we have $\al_{E_v}^\#(\vp_v, \vp'_v)=1$ for almost all $v$.
This explicit formula is used in the next section to obtain the Euler product of the contribution of each orbit to the zeta function.
Global zeta functions with toric periods {#sec:globalzeta424}
========================================
Notations {#sec:notation}
---------
Let $F$ be an algebraic number field, and let $\Sigma$ denote the set of all the places of $F$. For any $v\in\Sigma$, we denote by $F_v$ the completion of $F$ at $v$. If $v<\inf$, we write $\fo_v$ for the ring of integers of $F_v$, and $\varpi_v$ for a prime element of $\fo_v$. We put $q_v=\#(\fo_v/\varpi_v\fo_v)$. Let $\A$ denote the adele ring of $F$. Let $\d x$ denote the Haar measure on $\A$ normalized by $\int_{\A/F} \d x=1$. For each $v<\inf$, we fix a Haar measure $\d x_v$ on $F_v$ normalized by $\int_{\fo_v}\d x_v=1$. Further, we choose Haar measures $\d x_v$ on $F_v$ for $v|\inf$ so that $\d x = \Delta_F^{-1/2} \prod_{v\in\Sigma} \d x_v$ holds, where $\Delta_F$ denotes the absolute discriminant of $F/\Q$.
We denote by $|\; |_v$ the normal valuation of $F_v$. Then, we have $\d (ax_v)=|a|_v \d x_v$ for any $a\in F_v^\times$. Define the idele norm $|\; |=|\; |_\A$ on $\A^\times$ by $|x|=|x|_\A=\prod_{v\in\Sigma} |x_v|_v$ for all $x=(x_v)\in\A^\times$. Choose a non-trivial additive character $\psi_\Q$ on $\A_\Q/\Q$, and set $\psi_F=\psi_\Q \circ \Tr_{F/\Q}$. Then, $\d x$ is the self-dual Haar measure with respect to $\psi_F$. For each $v\in \Sigma$, we set $\psi_{F_v}=\psi_{F}|_{F_v}$. For each $v\in\Sigma$, let $\d^\times x_v$ denote a Haar measure on $F_v^\times$ as ${\displaystyle \d^\times x_v=(1-q_v^{-1})^{-1}\, \tfrac{\d x_v}{|x|_v} }$ if $v<\inf$ and ${\displaystyle \d^\times x_v=\tfrac{\d x_v}{|x|_v} }$ if $v|\inf$. The idele norm $|\;|$ induces an isomorphism $\A^\times/\A^1\to\R_{>0}$. Choose the Haar measure $\d^\times x=\prod_{v\in\Sigma}\d^\times x_v$ on $\A^\times$ and normalize the Haar measure $\d^1 x$ on $\A^1$ in such a way that the quotient measure on $\R_{>0}$ is $\d t/t$, where $\d t$ is the Lebesgue measure on $\R$.
For a finite subset $S$ of $\Sigma$, we set $F_S=\prod_{v\in S}F_v$. Define the norm $|\; |_S$ on $F_S^\times$ by $|x|_S=\prod_{v\in S}|x_v|_v$ for $x=(x_v)\in F_S^\times$. Let $\psi_{F_S}(x)=\prod_{v\in S}\psi_{F_v}(x_v)$ for $x=(x_v)\in F_S$. For any vector space $\mathcal{V}$ over $F$, let $\cS(\mathcal{V}(F_S))$ and $\cS(\mathcal{V}(\A))$ denote the Schwartz spaces of $\mathcal{V}(F_S)$ and $\mathcal{V}(\A)$ respectively.
Global zeta functions and their principal parts
-----------------------------------------------
Let $D$ be a quaternion algebra over $F$, set $D_\A:=D\otimes \A$. Then we have $V(\A)=D_\A\oplus D_\A$. Let $Z$ denote the center of $\GL_1(D)$. Choose an automorphic form $\phi_j\in L^2(Z(\A)D^\times\bsl D_\A^\times)$ $(j=1,2)$. Here, we refer to [@GJ p.145] for the sense of automorphic forms. Suppose that $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ are cuspidal.
A bilinear form $\langle \; , \; \rangle$ on $V$ is defined by $$\langle (x_1,x_2) , (y_1,y_2) \rangle:=\Tr(x_1 y_1)+\Tr(x_2 y_2),$$ and the dual space of $V$ is identified with $V$ by $\langle \; , \; \rangle$. Let $\rho^\vee$ denote the contragredient representation of $\rho$ on $V$ with respect to $\langle \;\; , \;\; \rangle$, that is, $\langle x\cdot \rho(g) , y\cdot \rho^\vee(g) \rangle=\langle x , y \rangle$. Then, one has $Z_\rho=\mathrm{Ker}\rho^\vee$ and $$(y_1,y_2)\cdot \rho^\vee(g_1,g_2,g_3) =(g_2^{-1} y_1 g_1,g_2^{-1}y_2g_1)\, ^t{}\!g_3^{-1}.$$ For $s\in\C$ and $\Phi\in\cS(V(\A))$, we define the global zeta functions $Z(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2,s)$ and $Z^\vee(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2,s)$ as $$Z(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2,s):=\int_{H(F)\bsl H(\A)} |\omega(h)|^s \phi_1(g_1)\, \phi_2(g_2)\sum_{x\in V^0(F)} \Phi(x\cdot \rho(h))\, \d h,$$ $$Z^\vee(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2,s):=\int_{H(F)\bsl H(\A)} |\omega^\vee(h)|^s \phi_1(g_1)\, \phi_2(g_2)\sum_{x\in V^0(F)} \Phi(x\cdot \rho^\vee(h))\, \d h,$$ where $h=Z_\rho(g_1,g_2,g_3)\in H(\A)$, $\omega^\vee:=\omega^{-1}$ and $\d h$ is a Haar measure on $H(\A)$.
\[lem:abs\] There exists a sufficiently large constant $T>0$ such that $Z(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2,s)$ and $Z^\vee(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2,s)$ are absolutely and uniformly convergent on any compact set in $\{ s\in \C \mid \Re(s)>T \}$. Hence, they are holomorphic on the domain $\{ s\in \C \mid \Re(s)>T \}$.
See [@Saito2].
We set $$Z_+(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2,s):=\int_{H(F)\bsl H(\A) , |\omega(h)|\geq 1} |\omega(h)|^s \phi_1(g_1)\, \phi_2(g_2)\sum_{x\in V^0(F)} \Phi(x\cdot \rho(h))\, \d h ,$$ $$Z_+^\vee(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2,s):=\int_{H(F)\bsl H(\A),|\omega^\vee(h)|\geq 1} |\omega^\vee(h)|^s \phi_1(g_1)\, \phi_2(g_2)\sum_{x\in V^0(F)} \Phi(x\cdot \rho^\vee(h))\, \d h .$$ The zeta integrals $Z_+(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2,s)$ and $Z_+^\vee(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2,s)$ are entire on $\C$ by Lemma \[lem:abs\].
Choose a Haar measure $\d g$ on $D_\A^\times$. Set $$f_{\phi_1,\phi_2}(g'):=\int_{Z(\A) D^\times \bsl D_\A^\times}\phi_1(g)\, \phi_2(gg') \, \d g \qquad (g'\in D_\A^\times), \quad f^\vee_{\phi_1,\phi_2}=f_{\phi_2,\phi_1}.$$ This function $f_{\phi_1,\phi_2}$ is called a matrix coefficient. A Godement-Jacquet zeta integral $Z^\GJ(\Psi,f_{\phi_1,\phi_2},s)$ is defined by $$Z^\GJ(\Psi,f_{\phi_1,\phi_2},s):= \int_{D_\A^\times} \Psi(g) \, f_{\phi_1,\phi_2}(g) \, |\det(g)|^s \, \d g \qquad (\Psi\in\cS(D_\A))$$ which is absolutely convergent for $\Re(s)>2$, [@GJ Theorem 13.8 in p.179]. In addition, it is analytically continued to the whole $s$-plane. Let $\d x$ denote the Haar measure on $D_\A$ normalized by $\int_{D\bsl D_\A}\d x=1$. Set $\widehat\Psi(y):=\int_{D_\A} \Psi(x) \psi_F(\Tr(xy)) \, \d x$ and then we obtain the functional equation $$Z^\GJ(\Psi,f_{\phi_1,\phi_2},s)=Z^\GJ(\widehat{\Psi},f_{\phi_1,\phi_2}^\vee,2-s).$$
We choose a self-dual Haar measure $\d x$ on $V(\A)$ with respect to $\psi_F(\langle \; , \; \rangle)$, that is, we have $\int_{V(F)\bsl V(\A)} \d x=1$. Set $$\widehat\Phi(y):=\int_{V(\A)} \Phi(x) \psi_F(\langle x, y \rangle) \, \d x .$$ Choose a Haar measure $\d g_3$ on $G_3(\A)=\GL_2(\A)$ as $$\d g_3:=\frac{\d t_1}{t_1} \frac{\d t_2}{t_2} \, \d^1a \, \d^1c \, \d b \, \d k$$ for $\diag\left(t_1^{1/2} t_2^{-1/2}, t_1^{1/2}t_2^{1/2}\right) \, \left(\begin{smallmatrix}a&b \\ 0&c\end{smallmatrix}\right) k\in \GL_2(\A)$, $t_1,t_2\in\R_{>0}$, $a,c\in\A^1$, $b\in\A$, $k\in K$, $\operatorname{vol}(F\bsl \A)=\operatorname{vol}(K)=1$, and we set $$c_F:=\operatorname{vol}(F^\times \bsl \A^1).$$ Choose a Haar measure $\d z_j$ $(j=1,2)$ on $Z(\A)$ as $\d z_j:=t^{-1}\d t \, \d^1 a$ for $z=t^{1/2}a I_2 \in Z(\A)$, $a\in\A^1$ and $t\in\R_{>0}$. Let $\d g_j$ $(j=1,2)$ denote the Haar measure on $D^\times_\A$ as above. Then, a Haar measure $\d h$ on $H(\A)$ is chosen by $\d h:=\d g_1 \, \d g_2 \, \d g_3/\d z_1\, \d z_2$ for $h=Z_\rho (g_1,g_2,g_3)\in H(\A)$ and $(z_1I_2,z_2I_2,z_1z_2^{-1}I_2)\in Z_\rho(\A)$. Let $K$ denote the standard maximal compact subgroup in $\GL(2,\A)$. Set $$\Phi_K(x):= \int_K \Phi(x\cdot \rho(1,1,k)) \, \d k.$$ The principal part of $Z(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2,s)$ is described as below.
\[thm:global\] Assume that $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ are cuspidal, and one of them is orthogonal to the constant functions on $H_j(F)\bsl H_j(\A)$. For any $\Re(s)>T$ and any $\Phi \in \cS(V(\A))$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
Z(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2,s)=& Z_+(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2,s)+Z_+^\vee(\widehat\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2,2-s) \\
& +c_F \frac{Z^\GJ(\big(\widehat{\Phi}_K\big)_1,f_{\phi_1,\phi_2}^\vee,1)}{2s-3}-c_F \frac{Z^\GJ(\left(\Phi_K\right)_1,f_{\phi_1,\phi_2},1)}{2s-1},\end{aligned}$$ where $\Phi_1(x):=\Phi(x,0)$. Note that we have $\widehat{(\Phi_K)}=\widehat{\Phi}_K$ and $\Phi_K(x_1,x_2)=\Phi_K(x_2,x_1)$. Hence, $Z(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2,s)$ is meromorphically continued to the whole $s$-plane, and might have a simple pole at $s=3/2$ or $s=1/2$.
The proof will be given in § \[sec:principleproof\].
\[cor:funct\] The zeta integrals satisfy the functional equation $$Z(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2,s)=Z^\vee(\widehat\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2,2-s).$$
Comparing $\rho^\vee$ with $\rho$, one can show that $$\begin{aligned}
Z^\vee(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2,s)=& Z_+^\vee(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2,s)+Z_+(\widehat\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2,2-s) \\
& +c_F \frac{Z^\GJ(\big(\widehat{\Phi}_K\big)_1,f_{\phi_1,\phi_2},1)}{2s-3}-c_F\frac{Z^\GJ(\left(\Phi_K\right)_1,f_{\phi_1,\phi_2}^\vee,1)}{2s-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the functional equation is proved by this and Theorem \[thm:global\].
Set $\sK:=\{(1,1,k)\in G(\A) \mid k\in K\}$. We say that $\Phi$ is $\sK$-spherical if $\Phi(x\cdot \rho(k))=\Phi(x)$ holds for any $k\in \sK$. We may suppose that $\Phi$ is $\sK$-spherical without loss of generality, because $\phi_1(g_1)$, $\phi_2(g_2)$ and $|\det(g)|^s$ are stable under $\sK$. Actually, $\Phi_K$ is $\sK$-spherical.
\[prop:202001241\] Let $\pi=\otimes_v \pi_v$ be an automoprhic representation of $D_\A^\times$ with trivial central character. When $D$ is division, we suppose that $\pi$ is not one dimensional. When $D=M_2(F)$, we suppose that $\pi$ is cuspidal. If $L(1/2,\pi)\neq 0$, then there exist $\phi=\otimes_v\phi_v\in\pi$ and $\sK$-spherical $\Phi=\otimes_v\Phi_v\in \cS(V(\A))$ such that $Z(\Phi,\phi,\overline{\phi},s)\not\equiv 0$.
Let $K_v$ denote the standard maximal compact subgroup of $\GL_2(F_v)$. Then, we have $K=\prod_{v\in\Sigma}K_v$ and $\sK=\prod_{v\in\Sigma} \sK_v$ where $\sK_v:=\{(1,1,k)\in G(F_v) \mid k\in K_v \}$.
Let $S$ denote a finite set of places which contains all infinite places and finite places $v$ such that $D\otimes F_v$ is division, $\pi_v$ is ramified, $\phi_v$ is non-spherical for $K_v$, or $\Phi_v$ is not the characteristic function of $V(\fo_v)$. Then, we have $$Z^\GJ(\left(\Phi\right)_1,f_{\phi,\overline{\phi}},1) = L(1/2,\pi) \times \prod_{v\in S} \frac{Z^\GJ((\Phi_v)_1,f_v,1)}{L_v(1/2,\pi_v)}$$ where $f_{\phi,\overline{\phi}}=\otimes_v f_v$ and $f_v(g_v)=\langle \pi_v(g_v)\phi_v,\phi_v\rangle_v$. If this does not vanish, then $Z(\Phi,\phi,\overline{\phi},s)$ has a simple pole at $s=1/2$ by Theorem \[thm:global\], that is, it is not identically zero. It is sufficient to prove that $Z^\GJ((\Phi_v)_1,f_v,1)$ does not vanish for each $v\in S$ and a suitable $\sK_v$-spherical test function $\Phi_v$.
Let $v$ be a finite place in $S$, and denote by $\fO_v$ a maximal order of $D\otimes F_v$. Let $\Psi_{v,m}$ (resp. $\tilde\Psi_{v,m}$) denote the characteristic function of $\varpi_v^{m}\fO_v$ (resp. $\fo_v^\times I_2+\varpi_v^m\fO_v$) where $m\in\Z$. Let $\Phi_{1,v}(x_1,x_2):=\tilde\Psi_{v,m}(x_1)\, \Psi_{v,m}(x_2)$ and $\Phi_v(x):=\int_K \Phi_{1,v}(x\cdot\rho(1,1,k))\, \d k$. Then, we have $(\Phi_v)_1(x_1)=\tilde\Psi_{v,m}(x_1)$ if $m>0$. Therefore, choosing a large $m>0$, there exists a function $\phi_v\in\pi_v$ such that $Z^\GJ((\Phi_v)_1,f_v,1)\neq 0$.
In what follows, we suppose that $v$ is an infinite place of $F$. Consider the case $D\otimes F_v\cong M_2(F_v)$. Set $\Psi_{v,0}(x):=e^{-\pi \Tr(x{}^t\!x)}$ if $F_v\cong \R$, and $\Psi_{v,0}(x):=e^{-2\pi \Tr(x{}^t\!\overline{x})}$ if $F_v\cong \C$. Set $\Phi_v(x_1,x_2):=\Psi_{v,0}(x_1)\, \Psi_{v,0}(x_2)$, which is $\sK_v$-spherical. If $\pi_v$ is spherical, then it is obvious that $Z^\GJ((\Phi_v)_1,f_v,1)\neq 0$ for a spherical vector $\phi_v$ in $\pi_v$, see [@GH]. Hence, by the classification of the unitary representations, we have only to check the four cases: (I) $D\otimes F_v\cong M_2(\R)$ and $\pi_v$ is a discrete series, (II) $D\otimes F_v\cong M_2(\R)$ and $\pi_v$ is a non-spherical unitary principal series, (III) $D\otimes F_v$ is division, (IV) $F_v\cong \C$ and $\pi_v$ is a non-spherical principal series.
Case (I): As a matrix coefficient of $\pi_v$, we can take $\phi_v$ as $f_v(\left(\begin{smallmatrix}a&b \\ c&d\end{smallmatrix}\right))=(a+d+i(b-c))^{-2l}$ for some $l\in\Z_{\geq 1}$. Set $\tilde\Psi_v(x_1):=f_v(x_1)^{-1}\det(x_1)^2\, \Psi_{v,0}(x_1)$, $\Phi_{1,v}(x_1,x_2):=\tilde\Psi_v(x_1)\, \Psi_{v,0}(x_2)$ and $\Phi_v(x):=\int_{K_v} \Phi_{1,v}(x\cdot\rho(1,1,k))\, \d k$. Then, $(\Phi_v)_1=c\times \tilde\Psi_v$ holds for some constant $c>0$. Hence, we obtain $Z^\GJ((\Phi_v)_1,f_v,1)\neq 0$.
Case (II): In this case, there is a vector $\phi_v\in\pi_v$ such that $K_v= \O(2)$ acts on $\phi_v$ by $\det$. Hence, we can do the same argument as in (I) by setting $\tilde\Psi_v(x_1):=\det(x_1)\Psi_{v,0}(x_1)$.
Case (III): In this case, $F_v\cong \R$, $D\otimes \R\cong\mathbb{H}$ ($\mathbb{H}$ denotes the Hamiltonian quaternion) and $\mathbb{H}^\times \cong \R_{>0}\times \mathrm{SU}_2$. In addition, $f_v$ can be chosen as a homogeneous polynomial on $\mathrm{SU(2)}\subset \mathbb{H}/\R_{>0}$ by the Peter-Weyl theorem. Let $x\mapsto x^\iota$ denote the usual involution on $\mathbb{H}$, and $\Psi_{v,0}(x):=e^{-\pi\Tr(xx^\iota)}$. Set $\tilde\Psi_v(x_1):=\overline{f_v(x_1)}\, \det(x_1)\, \Psi_{v,0}(x_1)$, $\Phi_{1,v}(x_1,x_2):=\tilde\Psi_v(x_1)\, \Psi_{v,0}(x_2)$ and $\Phi_v(x):=\int_{K_v} \Phi_{1,v}(x\cdot\rho(1,1,k))\, \d k$. Then, we have $Z^\GJ((\Phi_v)_1,f_v,1)\neq 0$ by the same reason as in (I).
Case (IV): In this case, we consider the induced representation of $\chi\boxtimes \chi^{-1}$, where $\chi$ is a quasi-character on $\C^\times$. If we consider its compact picture as the representation space, then we can do the same argument as in (III).
Proof of Theorem \[thm:global\] {#sec:principleproof}
-------------------------------
For the case that $D$ is division and $\phi_1$, $\phi_2$ belongs to a one dimensional representation of $D_\A^\times$ with trivial central character, Taniguchi determined the principal part in [@Taniguchi1] by using the smooth Eisenstein series, but here we do not use it in order to make the argument simpler. We will prove Theorem \[thm:global\] by using the Poisson summation formula repeatedly and inserting additional terms. Our arguments are similar to some previous works, see, e.g., [@Shintani Proof of Lemma 4] and [@Kogiso], see also [@FHW § 5.2] for the cancellation, which they did not mention. To sum up, the technical problem we need to handle is to find cancellations of divergent terms and suitable additional terms.
For a moment, let us suppose $D= M_2(F)$ and $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ are constant functions in the space of the trivial representation. In this case, the principal part of $Z(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2,s)$ is not yet determined. We briefly explain the difficulty. There are two points where divergent terms appear in the calculation of the principal part using the Poisson summation formula. One is the point where the series obtained by changing the order of the integral and the sum over singular elements diverges, and the other one is the point where the fundamental domain of the stabilizer has infinite volume. In the case of the zeta functions with cusp forms, the second problem does not occur and we can determine the principal part by the method explained above. On the other hand, when we consider the zeta function for the trivial representation, the second problem occurs for the regular element corresponding to $E=F\oplus F$. As mentioned above, though this regular element is eliminated from the defining sum of the zeta functions, we should take them into account when using the Poisson summation formula. Thus we can not apply the method of this paper to the zeta functions of the trivial representation. The same problem also occurs for the space of binary quadratic forms. They are handled by using the normalization of the multivariable zeta functions [@Shintani], the Eisenstein series [@Yukiebook] and the truncation operators [@HW]. Therefore, also in our spaces, it is expected that we need some additional techniques to deal with this problem and the argument becomes complicated.
### Contributions of singular orbits
Let $H(\A)^1:=\{h\in H(\A) \mid |\omega(h)|=1 \}$, and then we have $H(\A)=\{ (I_2,I_2,t^{1/2}I_2) \mid t\in\R_{>0} \}\, H(\A)^1$. We will use the notation $x_j$ which means the elements given in Propositions \[prop:sor1\] and \[prop:sor2\]. By the Poisson summation formula on $V(F)$, if $\Re(s)$ is sufficiently large, then one obtains $$Z(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2,s)=Z_+(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2,s)+Z_+^\vee(\widehat\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2,2-s)+I(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2,s),$$ where $$I(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2,s):=\int_0^1 t^{2s} I^1(\Phi_t,\phi_1,\phi_2) \frac{\d t}{t}, \qquad \Phi_t(x):=\Phi(t^{1/2}x),$$ $$\begin{gathered}
I^1(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2):=\\
\int_{H(F)\bsl H(\A)^1} \phi_1(g_1) \, \phi_2(g_2) \left( \sum_{x\in V(F)\setminus V^0(F)} \widehat{\Phi}(x\cdot \rho^\vee(h))- \sum_{x\in V(F)\setminus V^0(F)} \Phi(x\cdot\rho(h)) \right) \, \d^1 h.\end{gathered}$$ For each subset $\mathcal{U}$ in $V(F)\setminus V^0(F)$, the integral $$\int_{H(F)\bsl H(\A)^1} \phi_1(g_1) \, \phi_2(g_2) \left( \sum_{x\in \mathcal{U}} \widehat{\Phi}(x\cdot \rho^\vee(h))- \sum_{x\in \mathcal{U}} \Phi(x\cdot\rho(h)) \right) \, \d^1 h$$ is called the contribution of $\mathcal{U}$ to $I^1(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2)$. Notice that the contribution of $x_0=(0,0)$ to $I^1(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2)$ vanishes under the assumption of $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$, because $$\int_{H(F)\bsl H(\A)^1} \left| \phi_1(h_1) \, \phi_2(h_2) \Phi((0,0)) \right| \, \d^1 h ,\quad \int_{H(F)\bsl H(\A)^1} \left| \phi_1(h_1) \, \phi_2(h_2) \widehat{\Phi}((0,0)) \right| \, \d^1 h$$ are convergent. Therefore, to prove Theorem \[thm:global\], it is sufficient to determine the contributions of $\sqcup_{j=1}^5 x_j\cdot H(\Q)$ to $I^1(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2)$.
By the proof of Theorem \[thm:global\], $$\int_0^\inf t^{2s} \left| \int_{H(F)\bsl H(\A)^1} |\omega(h)|^{s}\, \phi_1(h_1)\, \phi_2(h_2) \sum_{x\in V^0(F)} \Phi(t^{1/2}x\cdot \rho(h)) \, \d^1 h\right| \frac{\d t}{t}$$ converges for $\Re(s)>1$.
### The case that $D$ is division
Suppose that $D$ is division. Let $B$ denote the Borel subgroup consisting of upper triangular matrices in $\GL_2$. Set $$H_B\left( \begin{pmatrix}1&u \\ 0&1 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}a&0 \\ 0&b \end{pmatrix}k\right):=\log|a/b| \qquad (u\in\A, \;\; a,b\in\A^\times , \;\; k\in K).$$
\[lem:absdiv\] The contribution of $x_2\cdot H(\Q)$ to $I^1(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2)$ equals $$c_F \{ -Z^\GJ((\Phi_K)_1,f_{\phi_1,\phi_2},1)+Z^\GJ((\widehat{\Phi}_K)_1,f_{\phi_1,\phi_2}^\vee,1) \}.$$
Let $s\in\C$. First, we will prove that the integrals $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:20413e1}
\int_{H(F)\bsl H(\A)^1} \big| \phi_1(g_1) \, \phi_2(g_2) \big| \, \sum_{\gamma \in B(F)\bsl \GL_2(F)} \left|e^{-sH_B(\gamma g_3)} \right| \\
\left| \sum_{w \in D^\times} \Phi((0,w)\cdot \rho((1,1,\gamma)h)) - \int_{D_\A} \Phi((0,x)\cdot \rho((1,1,\gamma) h))\, \d x \right| \, \d^1 h,\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:20413e2}
\int_{H(F)\bsl H(\A)^1}\big| \phi_1(g_1) \, \phi_2(g_2) \big| \sum_{\gamma \in B(F)\bsl \GL_2(F)} \left| e^{-sH_B(\gamma g_3)} \right| \\
\left| \sum_{w \in D^\times} \widehat{\Phi}((w,0)\rho^\vee((1,1,\gamma)h)) - \int_{D_\A} \widehat{\Phi}((x,0)\rho^\vee((1,1,\gamma)h))\, \d x \right| \, \d^1 h\end{gathered}$$\[eq:413e1\] are convergent for $-1<\Re(s)<1$. Let $$|\Phi|_B(x):=\int_{B(F)\bsl B(\A)^1 K} |\Phi( (0,x) \, \rho(1,1,b)) | \, \d b ,$$ $$|\Phi|_B^{(2)}(x):= \int_{B(F)\bsl B(\A)^1 K} \left|\int_{D_\A} \Phi((0,z)\, \rho(1,1,b))\, \psi_F(\Tr(xz)) \, \d z \right| \, \d b .$$ Since $B(F)\bsl B(\A)^1K$ is compact, $|\Phi|_B$ and $|\Phi|_B^{(2)}(x)$ are bounded by certain Schwartz functions on $D_\A$. Using the Poisson summation formula one can show $$\begin{gathered}
\eqref{eq:20413e1}\ll \int_{G_2(F)\bsl G_2(\A)^1}\d^1 g \, \int_1^\inf\frac{\d t}{t} \, \left| f_{\phi_1,\phi_2}(g) \right| \, t^{s+1} \, \sum_{w \in D^\times} |\Phi|_B(w g t^{1/2}) \\
+ \int_{G_2(F)\bsl G_2(\A)^1}\d^1 g \, \int_1^\inf\frac{\d t}{t} \, \left| f_{\phi_1,\phi_2}(g) \right| \, t^{s-1} \, |\Phi|_B^{(2)}(0) \\
+\int_{G_2(F)\bsl G_2(\A)^1}\d^1 g \, \int_0^1 \frac{\d t}{t} \, \left| f_{\phi_1,\phi_2}(g) \right| \, t^{s-1} \sum_{w \in D^\times}|\Phi|_B^{(2)}(w {}^t\!g^{-1} t^{-1/2}) \\
+ \int_{G_2(F)\bsl G_2(\A)^1}\d^1 g \, \int_0^1 \frac{\d t}{t} \, \left| f_{\phi_1,\phi_2}(g) \right| \, t^{s+1} \, |\Phi|_B(0) .\end{gathered}$$ Hence, the convergence of is proved. The convergence of can be proved similarly. By using the convergence of and , the integral $$\begin{gathered}
\mathscr{Y}_1(s):=\int_{H(F)\bsl H(\A)^1} \phi_1(g_1) \, \phi_2(g_2) \, \sum_{\gamma \in B(F)\bsl \GL_2(F)} e^{-sH_B(\gamma g_3)} \\
\left\{ -\sum_{w \in D^\times} \Phi((0,w)\cdot \rho((1,1,\gamma)h)) + \sum_{w \in D^\times} \widehat{\Phi}((w,0)\rho^\vee((1,1,\gamma)h)) \right\} \, \d^1 h \end{gathered}$$ is convergent in the range $-1<\Re(s)<1$. Note that we have used the cancellation $$\int_{D_\A} \Phi((0,x)\rho(h))\, \d x- \int_{D_\A} \widehat{\Phi}((x,0)\rho^\vee(h))\, \d x =0 \qquad (h\in H(\A)^1).$$ Furthermore, for $-1<\Re(s)<1$ we get $\mathscr{Y}_1(s)=\mathscr{Y}_2(s)$ where $$\begin{gathered}
\mathscr{Y}_2(s):=c_F\int_0^\inf t^{s+1} \, \int_{\mathrm{diag}(Z(\A)^1)G_1(F)\times G_2(F)\bsl G_1(\A)^1\times G_2(\A)^1}\phi_1(g_1)\phi_2(g_2) \\
\left\{ - \sum_{w\in D^\times} \Phi_K((0,t^{1/2}g_1^{-1}w g_2)) + \sum_{w\in D^\times} \widehat\Phi_K((t^{1/2}g_2^{-1}w g_1,0)) \right\} \, \d g_1 \, \d g_2 \, \frac{\d t}{t}\end{gathered}$$ $(G_j(\A)^1:=\{g\in G_j(\A)\mid |\det(g)|=1\}$, $Z(\A)^1:=Z(\A)\cap G_j(\A)^1)$. Note that we can exchange $\int_{H(F)\bsl H(\A)^1}$ and $\sum_{\gamma \in B(F)\bsl \GL_2(F)}$ in that range. It is easy to prove that $\mathscr{Y}_2(s)$ is analytically continued to the whole $s$-plane by the Poisson summation formula. In addition, we obtain $$\mathscr{Y}_2(s)=c_F\{-Z^\GJ((\Phi_K)_1,f_{\phi_1,\phi_2},s+1)+Z^\GJ((\widehat{\Phi}_K)_1,f_{\phi_1,\phi_2}^\vee,s+1)\}$$ in the range $\Re(s)>1$ by the bijection $$\begin{gathered}
\{\mathrm{diag}(Z(\A)) G_1(F)\times G_2(F) \bsl G_1(\A)\times G_2(\A) \} \times D^\times \ni (g_1,g_2,w) \\
\mapsto (g_1,g_1^{-1}w g_2) \in (Z(\A)G_1(F)\bsl G_1(\A)) \times G_2(\A).\end{gathered}$$ Thus, the assertion is proved, because the contribution of $x_2\cdot H(\Q)$ to $I^1(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2)$ equals $\mathscr{Y}_1(0)=\mathscr{Y}_2(0)=c_F\{-Z^\GJ((\Phi_K)_1,f_{\phi_1,\phi_2},1)+Z^\GJ((\widehat{\Phi}_K)_1,f_{\phi_1,\phi_2}^\vee,1)\}$.
For the case that $D$ is division, we obtain Theorem \[thm:global\] by Lemma \[lem:absdiv\].
### The case $D=M_2(F)$
Assume that $D=M_2(F)$.
\[lem:conv0816\] If $\phi$ is a cuspidal automorphic form on $Z(\A) \GL_2(F)\bsl \GL_2(\A)$, then $$\int_{Z(\A)B(F)\bsl \GL_2(\A)} |\phi(g)| \, e^{(1+\epsilon)\, H_B(g)} \, \d g$$ is convergent for any $\epsilon>0$.
It is well-known that a cuspidal automorphic form $\phi$ is bounded on $\GL_2(\A)^1:=\{g\in\GL_2(\A)\mid |\det(g)|=1\}$ and rapidly decreasing on the Siegel set $\{ pak \mid p\in \omega$, $a=\diag(e^t,e^{-t})$, $k\in K$, $t>T_0 \}$ for any $T_0\in\R$ and any compact set $\omega$ in $B(\A)$. The assertion follows from these facts.
\[lem:contx2\] The contribution of $x_1\cdot H(\Q)\sqcup x_2\cdot H(\Q)$ to $I^1(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2)$ is $$c_F \{ -Z^\GJ((\Phi_K)_1,f_{\phi_1,\phi_2},1)+Z^\GJ((\widehat{\Phi}_K)_1,f_{\phi_1,\phi_2}^\vee,1) \}.$$
One can apply the same argument as in the proof of Lemma \[lem:absdiv\]. Namely, one can prove that $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{H(F)\bsl H(\A)^1} \big| \phi_1(g_1) \, \phi_2(g_2) \big| \, \sum_{\gamma \in B(F)\bsl \GL_2(F)} \left| e^{-sH_B(\gamma g_3)} \right| \\
\left| \sum_{w \in M_2(F)\, \mathrm{rank}(w)>0} \Phi((0,w)\cdot \rho((1,1,\gamma)h)) - \int_{M_2(\A)} \Phi((0,x)\cdot \rho((1,1,\gamma) h))\, \d x \right| \, \d^1 h ,\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{H(F)\bsl H(\A)^1}\big| \phi_1(g_1) \, \phi_2(g_2) \big| \sum_{\gamma \in B(F)\bsl \GL_2(F)} \left| e^{-sH_B(\gamma g_3)} \right| \\
\left| \sum_{w \in M_2(F),\mathrm{rank}(w)>0} \widehat{\Phi}((w,0)\cdot\rho^\vee((1,1,\gamma)h)) - \int_{M_2(\A)} \widehat{\Phi}((x,0)\cdot \rho^\vee((1,1,\gamma)h))\, \d x \right| \, \d^1 h\end{gathered}$$ are convergent for $-1<\Re(s)<1$ by the cuspidality of $\phi_j$. In the proof, we must divide the integration domain into $H_B(\gamma g_3)>0$ and $H_B(\gamma g_3)<0$ in order to use the Poisson summation formula, and care about the convergence of the sum over $\mathscr{A}_1:= \{w\in M_2(F) \mid \mathrm{rank}(w)=1\}$. We prove, as one example, the convergence of the sum over $\mathscr{A}_1$ of the integral over $H_B(\gamma g_3)<0$. As for the integration over $H_B(\gamma g_3)<0$, we do not apply the Poisson summation formula. In that case, the contribution of $\mathscr{A}_1$ to the first integral is bounded by $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{F^\times\bsl\A^1} \d^1 \alpha \, \int_1^\inf \frac{\d t}{t} \, \int_{Z(\A)B(F)\bsl \GL_2(\A)} \d g_1 \, \int_{Z(\A)B(F)\bsl \GL_2(\A)} \d g_2 \, \left| \phi_1(g_1) \, \phi_2(g_2) \right| \\
t^{1+\Re(s)} e^{-H_B(g_1)}e^{-H_B(g_2)} \sum_{u\in F^\times}\left| \Phi((0,\begin{pmatrix} 0& \alpha t^{1/2} e^{-H_B(g_1)/2}e^{-H_B(g_2)/2} u \\ 0&0 \end{pmatrix})\cdot \rho(k_1,k_2,k_3)) \right| \end{gathered}$$ up to constant, where $g_j=b_j k_j$, $b_j\in B(F)\bsl B(\A)$, $k_j\in K$. Thus, from the condition $t>1$, we see that the above integral converges by Lemma \[lem:conv0816\] if we change the variable $t$ by $te^{H_B(g_1)}e^{H_B(g_2)}$ after perturbing the power of $t^{1+\Re(s)}$ by $t^{3+\Re(s)}$. We can prove the convergence of other terms by similar argument.
By the convergence of the above integrals, the contribution of $x_1\cdot H(\Q)\sqcup x_2\cdot H(\Q)$ to $I^1(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2)$ is equal to $\mathscr{Y}_3(0)$, where we set $$\begin{gathered}
\mathscr{Y}_3(s):=c_F\int_0^\inf t^{s+1} \, \int_{\mathrm{diag}(Z(\A)^1)G_1(F)\times G_2(F)\bsl G_1(\A)^1\times G_2(\A)^1}\phi_1(g_1)\phi_2(g_2) \\
\left\{ - \sum_{w \in M_2(F),\mathrm{rank}(w)>0} \Phi_K((0,t^{1/2}g_1^{-1}w g_2)) + \sum_{w \in M_2(F),\mathrm{rank}(w)>0} \widehat\Phi_K((t^{1/2}g_2^{-1}w g_1,0)) \right\} \, \d g_1 \, \d g_2 \, \frac{\d t}{t},\end{gathered}$$ and $\mathscr{Y}_3(s)$ is convergent in the range $-1<\Re(s)<1$. Furthermore, we can prove that $\mathscr{Y}_3(s)$ is analytically continued to the whole $s$-plane by using the Poisson summation formula. Therefore, by the same argument as in the proof of Lemma \[lem:absdiv\] we find that the contribution of $x_2\cdot H(F)$ is $c_F \{ -Z^\GJ((\Phi_K)_1,f_{\phi_1,\phi_2},1)+Z^\GJ((\widehat{\Phi}_K)_1,f_{\phi_1,\phi_2}^\vee,1) \}$. In addition, the contribution of $x_1\cdot H(\Q)$ vanishes by the cuspidality of $\phi_j$ and Lemma \[lem:conv0816\], because the first term for $\mathrm{rank}(w)=1$ is transformed into $$- 2c_F \prod_{j=1,2}\int_{Z(\A)B(F)\bsl G_j(\A)} \phi_j (g_j)e^{sH_B(g_j)} \d g_j \, \int_{F^\times\bsl \A^\times} |a|^{2+2s} \sum_{x\in F^\times}\Phi_K(0,\begin{pmatrix} 0& ax \\ 0&0 \end{pmatrix}) \, \d^\times a=0$$ if $s>1$, and the second one is computed similarly.
\[lem:contx34\] The contribution of $x_3\cdot H(\Q)\sqcup x_4\cdot H(\Q) $ to $I^1(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2)$ is zero.
For $x=\left( \left(\begin{smallmatrix}x_{11}&x_{12} \\ x_{21}&x_{22} \end{smallmatrix}\right),\left(\begin{smallmatrix}y_{11}&y_{12} \\ y_{21}&y_{22} \end{smallmatrix}\right) \right)\in V(F)$, we set $$\sF_3(x):=\left(\begin{pmatrix} x_{11}&x_{12} \\ y_{11}&y_{12} \end{pmatrix},\begin{pmatrix}x_{21}&x_{22} \\ y_{21}&y_{22} \end{pmatrix}\right) ,\quad
\sF_4(x):=\left(\begin{pmatrix} x_{11}&y_{11} \\ x_{21}&y_{21} \end{pmatrix},\begin{pmatrix}x_{12}&y_{12} \\ x_{22}&y_{22} \end{pmatrix} \right) .$$ Then, we have $\sF_j(x_2\cdot H(F))=x_j\cdot H(F)$ $(j=3,4)$. If $(*)$ is one of the following functions $$\Phi(\sF_3(w,0)\cdot \rho((\gamma,1,1)h)) , \quad \Phi(\sF_4(0,w)\cdot \rho((1,\gamma,1)h)) ,$$ $$\widehat\Phi( \sF_3(w,0)\cdot \rho^\vee((1,\gamma,1)h)) , \quad \widehat\Phi( \sF_4(0,w)\cdot \rho^\vee((\gamma,1,1)h)) ,$$ then one can prove that $$\int_{H(F)\bsl H(\A)^1} \big| \phi_1(g_1) \, \phi_2(g_2) \big| \, \sum_{\gamma \in B(F)\bsl \GL_2(F)} \left| \sum_{w \in D^\times} (*) \right| \, \d^1 h$$ is convergent by dividing the integration domain into $H_B(\gamma g_j)>0$ and $H_B(\gamma g_j)<0$, and using the fact that $\phi_j(g_j) \, e^{r H_B(g_j)}$ is bounded on $\{ g_j\in Z(\A)B(F)\bsl \GL_2(\A)\mid H_B(g_j)>0 \}$ for any $r>0$. Hence, the contribution of $x_3\cdot H(\Q)\sqcup x_4\cdot H(\Q) $ vanishes by the cuspidality of $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$.
\[lem:contx5\] The contribution of $x_5\cdot H(\Q)$ to $I^1(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2)$ is zero.
Set $$\mathscr{A}_2:=\{ (u_1E_{12},u_2E_{11}+u_3E_{22}+cE_{12}) \mid u_1,u_2,u_3\in F^\times, \;\; c\in F \},$$ $$\mathscr{A}_3:=\{ (u_2E_{11}+u_3E_{22}+cE_{12},u_1E_{12}) \mid u_1,u_2,u_3\in F^\times, \;\; c\in F \},$$ The contribution of $x_5\cdot H(\Q)$ equals $\mathscr{Y}_4(0)+\mathscr{Y}_5(0)$, where $$\mathscr{Y}_4(s):=-\int_{H(F)\bsl H(\A)^1} \phi_1(g_1) \, \phi_2(g_2) \sum_{\gamma\in (B(F)\bsl \GL_2(F))^3} e^{-s\sum_{j=1}^3H_B(\gamma_j g_j)} \sum_{w\in\mathscr{A}_2} \Phi(w\cdot \rho(\gamma h)) \, \d^1 h ,$$ $$\mathscr{Y}_5(s):=\int_{H(F)\bsl H(\A)^1} \phi_1(g_1) \, \phi_2(g_2) \sum_{\gamma\in (B(F)\bsl \GL_2(F))^3} e^{-s\sum_{j=1}^3H_B(\gamma_j g_j)} \sum_{w\in\mathscr{A}_3} \widehat{\Phi}(w\cdot\rho^\vee(\gamma h)) \, \d^1 h$$ where $\gamma=(\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\gamma_3)$. Let $N$ denote the unipotent radical of $B$, and let $\bK$ denote the standard maximal compact subgroup in $H(\A)$, that is, $\bK=K\times K\times K$. Set $B(\A)^1:=\{ n\diag(a_1,a_2)\in B(\A) \mid n\in N(\A)$, $a_1,a_2\in\A^1\}$. The function $\mathscr{Y}_4(s)$ is transformed into $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{Z(\A)^1 B(F)\bsl B(\A)^1 }\d b_1 \int_{Z(\A)^1 B(F)\bsl B(\A)^1 }\d b_2 \, \int_\bK \d k \, \int_0^\inf \frac{\d t_1}{t_1} \, \int_0^\inf \frac{\d t_2}{t_2} \, \int_0^\inf \frac{\d t_3}{t_3} \\
\int_\A \d c \, \int_{F^\times\bsl \A^1} \d^1 a_1 \, \int_{F^\times\bsl \A^1} \d^1 a_2 \, (t_1t_2t_3)^{-1-2s} \, \phi_1(b_1\mathfrak{t}_1k_1) \, \phi_2(b_2\mathfrak{t}_2k_2)\, \\
\sum_{u_1,u_2,u_3\in F^\times} \Phi(( t_1^{-1} t_2^{-1}t_3 u_1 E_{12}, t_1^{-1}t_2t_3^{-1}u_2E_{11} + t_1t_2^{-1}t_3^{-1}u_3E_{22}+cE_{12}) \cdot \rho((\mathfrak{t}_1^{-1} b_1\mathfrak{t}_1,\mathfrak{t}_2^{-1} b_2\mathfrak{t}_2,\mathfrak{a}_3)k) \end{gathered}$$ up to constant, where $k=(k_1,k_2,k_3)\in \bK$, $\mathfrak{t}_1=\diag(t_1^{1/2},t_1^{-1/2})$, $\mathfrak{t}_2=\diag(t_2^{1/2},t_2^{-1/2})$, $\mathfrak{a}_3=\diag(a_1,a_2)$. Hence, one can prove that $\mathscr{Y}_4(s)$ is absolutely convergent for any $s\in\C$ and entire on $\C$ by using Lemma \[lem:conv0816\] and dividing the integration domain into $t_1t_2t_3<1$ and $t_1t_2t_3>1$. Since $\mathscr{Y}_5(s)$ also satisfies a similar transformation, it follows that $\mathscr{Y}_5(s)$ is absolutely convergent for any $s\in\C$ and entire on $\C$. Furthermore, for $\Re(s)>0$, $ \mathscr{Y}_4(s)$ is equal to $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{ \A} \d c \, \int_{\A^\times}\d^\times a_1 \, \int_{\A^\times}\d^\times a_2 \, \int_{\A^\times}\d^\times a_3 \, \int_{N(F)\bsl N(\A)}\d n_1 \, \int_{N(F)\bsl N(\A)}\d n_2 \, \int_\bK \d k \\
|a_1a_2a_3|^{2s+1} \phi_1(n_1 \diag(a_1^{-1},1)k_1) \, \phi_2(n_2\diag(a_1^{-1}a_3^{-1}a_2,1)k_2) \, \Phi((a_1E_{12} ,a_2E_{11}+a_3E_{22}+cE_{12} ) \cdot \rho(k)) \end{gathered}$$ up to constant, where $k=(k_1,k_2,k_3)\in\bK$, and $\mathscr{Y}_5(s)$ also satisfies a similar equality. Hence, $\mathscr{Y}_4(s)$ and $\mathscr{Y}_5(s)$ are identically zero.
By Lemmas \[lem:contx2\], \[lem:contx34\], and \[lem:contx5\], we obtain Theorem \[thm:global\] for the case $D=M_2(F)$.
Essential factorization {#sec:fac}
-----------------------
We apply Saito’s formula [@Saito1; @Saito2] to $Z(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2,s)$. Notice that the Hasse principle holds for $H$, since it is necessary for his formula. First of all, we fix several measures along the lines of Saito [@Saito2 p.13–14].
Let $\fo$ denote the integer ring of $F$, and $\fO$ a maximal order in $D$. An integral structure on $V$ is given by $\fO$. We choose an integral basis $x_1,\dots,x_8$ on $V$, and then we have a gauge form $$\d X:= \d x_1\, \d x_2 \, \cdots \d x_8.$$ A Haar measure $\d X_v$ on $V(F_v)$ is obtained from $\d X_v$ and the Haar measure on $F_v$ given in § \[sec:notation\]. We may suppose that $\det$ on $D$ is defined over $\fo$ without loss of generality, namely, $P$ is in $\fo[V]$. Choose a gauge form $\omega$ on $H$ over $F$. Then, the Tamagawa measure $\d h$ on $H(\A)$ is given by $$\d h:= c_F^{-1}\, |\Delta_F|^{-5}\prod_{v\in\Sigma} c_v \, \omega_v$$ where $\omega_v$ is the measure on $G(F_v)$ associated with $\omega$, and $$c_v:=\begin{cases} 1 & \text{if $v|\inf$}, \\ (1-q_v^{-1})^{-1} & \text{if $v<\inf$}. \end{cases}$$ For each $E \in X(D)$, we have a $F$-rational regular point $x(\delta)=x(\delta_E)\in V(F)$ as in Proposition \[prop:orbits\], and set $$H_{x(\delta)}:=Z_\rho\bsl G_{x(\delta)} \quad \text{and} \quad H_{x(\delta)}^0:=Z_\rho\bsl G_{x(\delta)}^0 .$$ A mapping $\mu_{x(\delta)}$ is defined by $$\mu_{x(\delta)}: \, Y_{x(\delta)}:=H_{x(\delta)}^0 \bsl H\ni H_{x(\delta)}^0 g \mapsto H_{x(\delta)} g \in H_{x(\delta)} \bsl H \cong V^0.$$ Set $\d Y=\mu_{x(\delta)}^* \d X$, and we have $$\omega_\delta=(\mu_{x(\delta)}^*P)(Y)^{-2} \d Y$$ is a $H$-invariant gauge on $Y_{x(\delta)}$. Let $\xi=\omega/\lambda_{x(\delta)}^*\omega_\delta$ denote the gauge form on $H_{x(\delta)}^0$ determined by $\omega$ and $\lambda_{x(\delta)}^*\omega_\delta$, where $\lambda_{x(\delta)} :H\to Y$, $\lambda_{x(\delta)}(g)=H_{x(\delta)}^0g$. Let $\eta=\otimes_v \eta_v$ denote the Hecke character on $F^\times\R_{>0}\bsl \A^\times$ corresponding to $E$, $L(s,\eta)$ denote the Hecke $L$-function, and we set $\mathfrak{d}_v:= (1-\eta_v(\varpi_v) q_v^{-1})^{-2}$ if $v<\inf$ and $\eta_v$ is unramified, and $\mathfrak{d}_v:= 1$ otherwise. Then, we obtain the Tamagawa measure $$L(1,\eta)^{-2}|\Delta_F|^{-1}\prod_{v\in\Sigma} \mathfrak{d}_v \, \xi_v$$ on $H_{x(\delta)}^0(\A)$. Note that $L(s, \eta)$ has a simple pole at $s=1$ when $E=F\oplus F$. By abuse of notation, we let $$L(1,\eta):=c_F \, (=\mathrm{Res}_{s=1}L(s,\eta))$$ in this case. We take the measure $\d y$ on $Y_{x(\delta)}(\A)$ as $$\d y:=c_F^{-1}\, L(1,\eta)^2\, |\Delta_F|^{-4}\prod_{v\in\Sigma} c_v \mathfrak{d}_v^{-1} \omega_{\delta,v} .$$
Suppose that $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ are in $\pi$. We obviously find $$\label{eq:20200105e1}
Z(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2,s)=\sum_{E \in X(D)}Z_E(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2,s),$$ where $$Z_E(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2,s):=\int_{H(F)\bsl H(\A)} |\omega(h)|^s \phi_1(g_1)\, \phi_2(g_2)\sum_{x\in x(\delta_E)\cdot H(F)} \Phi(x\cdot \rho(h))\, \d h .$$ Set $$\phi_j^h(x):=\phi_j(xh) \qquad (h,x\in H_j(\A), \quad j=1,2).$$
\[lem:Saito\] $$Z_E(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2,s)=\frac{1}{2} \int_{Y_{x(\delta)}(\A)} \cP_E(\phi_1^{g_1})\, \cP_E(\phi_2^{g_2}) \, |P(\mu_{x(\delta)}(y))|^s \Phi(\mu_{x(\delta)}(y)) \, \d y$$ where $y=H_{x(\delta)}^0 h=H_{x(\delta)}^0(g_1,g_2,g_3)\in H_{x(\delta)}^0\bsl H(\A)=Y_{x(\delta)}(\A)$.
See [@Saito1 Proof of Theorem 2.1]. We write some datum concerned with his formula: $|H_{x(\delta)}^0\bsl H_{x(\delta)}(F)|=2$, $|A(H_{x(\delta)}^0)|=1$ if $\delta\in (F^\times)^2$, $|A(H_{x(\delta)}^0)|=4$ if $\delta\not\in (F^\times)^2$, and $\mathrm{Ker}(\iota^0_{x(d),A})$ is trivial. See [@Saito1 p.598] and [@HW Section 4.2] for the computation.
From now, we put $$\phi_1=\phi \quad \text{and} \quad \phi_2=\overline{\phi},$$ and suppose that $\pi$ is not one dimensional. This assumption is necessary only for Theorems \[thm:Wald\] in the following argument. We are always supposing that $\pi$ is cuspidal. Let $\pi=\otimes_v\pi_v$ and $\phi=\otimes_v\phi_v$, and set $$\phi_v^{g_v}:=\pi_v(g_v)\phi_v \quad (g_v \in D_v^\times) .$$ Assume that $\Phi=\otimes_v \Phi_v$, and for each place $v$. Let $X(D_v)$ denote the set of quadratic étale algebras over $F_v$ embedded in $D_v$. For each $E_v\in X(D_v)$, we set $$V_{E_v}(F_v):=\{ x\in V(F_v) \mid P(x)\in d_{E_v} (F_v^\times)^2 \}=x(\delta_v)\cdot \rho(G(F_v)),$$ where we have chosen elements $\delta_{E_v}\in E_v$ and $d_{E_v}=\delta_{E_v}^2\in F_v^\times$ as in § \[sec:orbits\]. For each place $v\in\Sigma$, a local zeta function $Z_{E_v}(\phi_v,\Phi_v,s)$ is defined by $$\label{eq:local422}
Z_{E_v}(\phi_v,\Phi_v,s):= \frac{2\, c_v\, L(1,\pi_v,\mathrm{Ad}) }{L(1,\eta_v) \, \zeta_{F_v}(2)\, L(1/2,\pi_{E,v}) } \int_{V_{E_v}(F_v)} \alpha_{E_v}(\phi_v^{g_{1,v}},\phi_v^{g_{2,v}}) \, |P(X_v)|^{s-2} \, \Phi_v(X_v) \, \d X_v$$ where $X_v=x(\delta)\cdot \rho(g_{1,v},g_{2,v},g_{3,v})$. By Theorems \[thm:Wald\] and Lemma \[lem:Saito\], we have the Euler product $$\label{eq:20200105e2}
Z_E(\Phi,\phi,\overline{\phi},s)= \frac{L(1,\eta) \, \zeta_F(2) \, L(1/2,\pi_E)}{8 \, |\Delta_F|^4 \, c_F \, L(1,\pi,\mathrm{Ad})} \prod_{v\in\Sigma} Z_{E_v}(\phi_v,\Phi_v,s).$$
We note on the fact $$|Y_{x(\delta)}(F_v)/H(F_v)|=1$$ by [@Saito1 Proposition (2)], $V_{E}(F_v)=x(\delta)\cdot H(F_v)$ and $|H_{x(\delta)}/H^0_{x(\delta)}(F_v)|=2$. In addition, for the element $(\gamma,\gamma,\diag(1,-1))\in G_{x(\delta)}(F)\setminus G_{x(\delta)}^0(F)$ given in Proposition \[prop:orbits\], we have $$\alpha_{E_v}(\phi_v^{\gamma g_{1,v}},\phi_v^{\gamma g_{2,v}})= \alpha_{E_v}(\phi_v^{ g_{1,v}},\phi_v^{ g_{2,v}}),$$ since $\gamma^{-1} h_v\gamma$ is the conjugate of $h_v$ for any $h_v\in E_v^\times \subset D_v^\times$. It follows from these facts that the factor $\alpha_{E_v}(\phi_v^{g_{1,v}},\phi_v^{g_{2,v}})$ is uniquely determined by the point $x(\delta)\cdot \rho(g_{1,v},g_{2,v},g_{3,v})$ on $V(F_v,d)$.
Explicit formula {#sec:exp}
----------------
Let $\pi=\otimes_{v\in\Sigma}\pi_v$ be an automorphic representation of $D_\A^\times$ with trivial central character, and choose an automorphic form $\phi=\otimes \phi_v\in\pi$. Suppose that $\pi$ is cuspidal if $D=M_2$, and $\pi$ is not one dimensional if $D$ is division. Choose a finite set $S$ of places of $F$, and set $F_S:=\prod_{v\in S}F_v$. Assume that $S$ contains all infinite places of $F$, any finite place $v$ such that $\pi_v$ is ramified, and all finite places dividing $2$. We also suppose that $\phi_v$ is spherical and $D_v$ is split for any $v\notin S$. Put $\lambda_v:=q_v^{1/2} (\alpha_v+\alpha_v^{-1})$ where $\alpha_v$ denotes the Satake parameter of $\pi_v$. Set $$\mathcal{D}_E^S(\pi,s):=\prod_{v\notin S} (1+\mathcal{R}_{E_v}(\pi_v,s) \, q_v^{-2s+1})$$ where $$\label{eq:REv}
\mathcal{R}_{E_v}(\pi_v,s):= \begin{cases} 1+q_v^{-1}+q_v^{-2s} -2\eta_v(\varpi_v)\, q_v^{-1}\lambda_v & \text{if $\eta_v$ is unramified}, \\ 1& \text{if $\eta_v$ is ramified}. \end{cases}$$ Set $\Phi:=\otimes_v \Phi_v$. Assume that $\Phi_v$ denotes the characteristic function of $V(\fo_v)$ for each $v\notin S$. Let $D_S:=\prod_{v\in S}D_v$, and $X(D_S):=\prod_{v\in S}X(D_v)$. Choose an element $\cE_S=\prod_{v\in S}\cE_v$ in $X(D_S)$. We set $$X(D,\pi,\cE_S):=\{ E\in X(D) \mid E_v=\cE_v \;\; (\forall v\in S) , \;\; \cP_E\neq 0 \}.$$ Let $N(\mathfrak{f}_{\eta_v})$ denote the norm of the conductor of $\eta_v$, and we set $N(\mathfrak{f}_\eta^S):=\prod_{v\notin S}N(\mathfrak{f}_{\eta_v})$. Now, define a Dirichlet series $\xi(s,D,\phi,\cE_S)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\xi(s,D,\phi,\cE_S):=& \frac{ \zeta_F(2) }{8 \, |\Delta_F|^4 \, c_F \, L(1,\pi,\mathrm{Ad})} \frac{\zeta^S_F(2s-1) \, L^S(2s-1,\pi,\mathrm{Ad}) }{\zeta^S_F(2)^3} \\
& \sum_{E\in X(D,\pi,\cE_S)} \frac{\alpha_E^\#(\phi,S)\, L(1,\eta) \, L(1/2,\pi_E) \, \mathcal{D}_E^S(\pi,s)}{N(\mathfrak{f}_\eta^S)^{s-1}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_E^\#(\phi,S):= \prod_{v\not\in S} \alpha_{E_v}^\#(\phi_v,\phi_v)$, and $\zeta_F^S(s)$ and $L^S(s,\pi,\mathrm{Ad})$ are defined by the Euler products outside $S$ for $\zeta_F(s)$ and $L(s,\pi,\mathrm{Ad})$ respectively. The following is an explicit formula of the zeta function $Z(\Phi,\phi,\overline{\phi},s)$.
\[thm:20200105t1\] Suppose that $\pi$ is cuspidal if $D=M_2(F)$, and $\pi$ is not one dimensional if $D$ is division. Let $\phi\in\pi$ and $\phi\neq 0$. For sufficiently large $\Re(s)>0$, $\xi(s,D,\phi,\cE_S)$ is absolutely convergent, and we have $$Z(\Phi,\phi,\overline{\phi},s)= \sum_{\cE_S \in X(D_S)} \prod_{v\in S} Z_{\cE_v}(\phi_v,\Phi_v,s) \times \xi(s,D,\phi,\cE_S).$$ If the support of $\otimes_{v\in S} \Phi_v$ is contained in $\prod_{v\in S}V_{\cE_v}(F_v)$, then we have for sufficiently large $\Re(s)>0$ $$Z(\Phi,\phi,\overline{\phi},s)= \prod_{v\in S} Z_{\cE_v}(\phi_v,\Phi_v,s) \times \xi(s,D,\phi,\cE_S)$$
The absolute convergence is ensured by Lemma \[lem:abs\]. The equalities follow from , and Theorem \[thm:localzeta\].
\[lem:202001251\] Choose a place $v\in\Sigma$ and an element $\cE_v\in X(D_v)$. Let $\phi_v\in\pi_v$, $\phi_v\neq 0$, and $\alpha_{\cE_v}(\; ,\; )\neq 0$. Then, there exists a test function $\Phi_v\in \cS(V(F_v))$ such that the support of $\Phi_v$ is contained in $V_{\cE_v}(F_v)$, and $Z_{\cE_v}(\phi_v,\Phi_v,s)$ is entire on $\C$ and $Z_{\cE_v}(\phi_v,\Phi_v,1)\neq 0$.
We may suppose $\alpha_{\cE_v}(\phi_v,\phi_v)\neq 0$ without loss of generality, because $\alpha_{\cE_v}(\phi_v^{g_1},\phi_v^{g_2})\neq 0$ holds for some $(g_1,g_2,1)\in G(F_v)$. Recall the topological isomorphism $G_{x(\delta_v)}(F_v) \bsl G(F_v)\cong V_{\cE_v}(F_v)$, where $\cE_v=F_v(\delta_v)$. Hence, if $v<\inf$ and we choose a sufficiently small neighborhood $x(\delta_v)+\varpi_v^MV(\fo_v)$ at $x(\delta_v)$, whose characteristic function is denoted by $\Phi_v$, then $Z_{\cE_v}(\phi_v,\Phi_v,s)$ is entire and $Z_{\cE_v}(\phi_v,\Phi_v,1)\neq 0$. When $v|\inf$, we can get the same assertion for a suitable test function.
\[prop:merozeta\] $\xi(s,D,\phi,\cE_S)$ is meromorphically continued to the whole $s$-plane.
This follows from Theorems \[thm:global\] and \[thm:20200105t1\] and Lemma \[lem:202001251\].
Non-vanishing theorems
----------------------
Let $\pi=\otimes_v \pi_v$ be an automoprhic representation of $D_\A^\times$ with trivial central character. When $D$ is division, we suppose that $\pi$ is not $1$-dimensional. When $D=M(2,F)$, we suppose that $\pi$ is cuspidal. From the proof of the next theorem, we see that the existence of the poles of the zeta functions implies nonvanishing of periods.
\[thm:nonvanishing423\] If $L(1/2,\pi)\neq 0$, then there exists an element $\cE_S\in X(D_S)$ such that $X(D,\pi,\cE_S)$ is not empty.
This follows from Proposition \[prop:202001241\] and Lemma \[lem:Saito\].
\[thm:infinite\] If $X(D,\pi,\cE_S)$ is not empty, then $X(D,\pi,\cE_S)$ is an infinite set.
Let us consider the right hand side $(*)$ of the formula of Theorem \[thm:20200105t1\]. Assume that $X(D,\phi,\cE_S)$ is finite. Choose an element $\delta'\in X(D,\phi,\cE_S)$. Then, it is obviously possible to choose a finite set $S'\supset S$ so that $X(D,\phi,\cE_{S'})$ consists of the single element $E'$ such that $\cE_{S'}=(E'_v)_{v\in S'}$. By Theorem \[thm:20200105t1\] and Lemma \[lem:202001251\] for $\cE_{S'}$, we can choose $\Phi=\otimes_{v\in\Sigma} \Phi_v$ so that we have $$(*)=c'\times \prod_{v\in S'} Z_{E_v'}(\phi_v,\Phi_v,s) \times \frac{\zeta^{S'}_F(2s-1) \, L^{S'}(2s-1,\pi,\mathrm{Ad}) \, \mathcal{D}_{E'}^{S'}(\pi,s)}{N(\mathfrak{f}_{\eta'}^{S'})^{s-1}}$$ for some constant $c'\neq 0$, $Z_{E_v'}(\phi_v,\Phi_v,s)$ is entire and $Z_{E_v'}(\phi_v,\Phi_v,1)\neq 0$ $(\forall v\in S')$. Hence, it follows from Proposition \[prop:merozeta\] that $\mathcal{D}_{E'}^{S'}(\pi,s)$ is meromorphically continued to $\C$. In addition, $\mathcal{D}_{E'}^{S'}(\pi,s,)$ is absolutely convergent for $\Re(s)>1$ and we have $\Re(\mathcal{D}_{E'}^{S'}(\pi,s))$ tends to $+\inf$ $(s\to 1+0)$, because we may suppose that $S'$ contains all small finite places $v$ without loss of generality and we find $\mathcal{R}_v(\pi_v,s,\delta)=1+O(q_v^{-1/2})$ $(q_v\to\inf)$ uniformly for $s>1-\epsilon$ by a bound of $\lambda_v$, see [@Kim] and [@BB]. Thus, $\mathcal{D}_{E'}^{S'}(\pi,s)$ has a pole at $s=1$, that is, $(*)$ has a pole at $s=1$. This is a contradiction for the holomorphy of $Z(\Phi,\phi,\overline{\phi},s)$ at $s=1$, see Theorem \[thm:global\].
Functional equations and an expected refinement {#sec:20200424}
-----------------------------------------------
What is required for extending our main theorem to cover Theorem \[thm:FH\] is a close study on the local functional equations at “bad” places. They are established in the research of Wen-Wei Li which is currently in progress, see [@Li4]. Here, we give an overview of the local functional equations and how we will apply them to the study of nonvanishing of periods.
Take a cuspidal automorphic representation $\pi=\otimes_v \pi_v$ of $D_\A^\times$ with trivial central character of dimension greater than $1$ and an automorphic form $\phi=\otimes_v \phi_v\in\pi$. Define the local zeta function $Z_{\cE_v}^\vee(\phi_v,\Phi_v,s)$ for the contragredient representation $\rho^\vee$ of $\rho$ in the same manner for $Z_{\cE_v}(\phi_v,\Phi_v,s)$ (see ). Li’s local functional equation [@Li4 Theorem 5.6] states that there exist meromorphic functions $\gamma_{\cE_v,\cR_v}(s,\phi_v)$ on $\C$ such that the local functional equation $$\label{eq:glfunct}
Z_{\cE_v}^\vee(\phi_v,\widehat{\Phi_v},2-s)=\sum_{\cR_v\in X(D_v)} \gamma_{\cE_v,\cR_v}(s,\phi_v)\, Z_{\cR_v}( \phi_v,\Phi_v,s)$$ holds for any Schwartz function $\Phi_v$ on $V(F_v)$, where $\widehat{\Phi_v}$ denotes its Fourier transform. Notice that, in order to derive from [@Li4 Theorem 5.6], we need $\dim \mathrm{Hom}_{\cE_v^\times}(\pi_v,\trep)\leq 1$. Combining and and the global functional equation $Z(\Phi,\phi,\overline{\phi},s)=Z^\vee(\widehat\Phi,\phi,\overline{\phi},2-s)$ (Corollary \[cor:funct\]), we get $$\label{eq:xifunct}
\xi(s,D,\phi,\cE_S) =\sum_{\cR_S\in X(D_S)} \prod_{v\in S}\gamma_{\cR_v,\cE_v}(s,\phi_v) \times \xi(2-s,D,\overline{\phi},\cR_S) .$$ The explicit computation of the gamma factors $\gamma_{\cR_v,\cE_v}(s,\phi_v)$ is carried out in [@Sato2] and [@Sato3] for some representations of real groups. In the following proposition, we will show a nonvanishing result at the real place by using the functional equation and an analytic property of $\gamma_{\cR_v,\cE_v}(s,\phi_v)$, which follows from [@Sato3 Theorem 2].
Suppose $F=\Q$ and $D_\inf=M_2(\R)$. Let $\pi=\otimes_v \pi_v$ be a cuspidal automorphic representation of $D_\A^\times$ with trivial central character such that $\pi_\inf$ is a spherical principal series. Assume $L(1/2, \pi)\neq 0$. Then, $X(D,\pi,\R\oplus\R)$ (resp. $X(D,\pi,\C)$) is infinite, that is, there are infinitely many real (resp. imaginary) quadratic fields $E\in X(D)$ such that $\pi$ is $E^\times$-distinguished.
By Theorem \[thm:infinite\] it is sufficient to prove that $X(D,\pi,\R\oplus \R)$ and $X(D,\pi,\C)$ are not empty. By $L(1/2, \pi)\neq 0$ and Theorem \[thm:nonvanishing423\], $X(D,\pi,\R\oplus \R)$ or $X(D,\pi,\C)$ is not empty. Hence, we will duduce a contradiction under the assumption that only one of $X(D,\pi,\R\oplus \R)$ and $X(D,\pi,\C)$ is empty. We discuss only the case that $X(D,\pi,\R\oplus \R)\neq\emptyset$ and $X(D,\pi,\C)=\emptyset$, since the proof for the other case is completely the same.
Assume that $X(D,\pi,\R\oplus \R)\neq\emptyset$ and $X(D,\pi,\C)=\emptyset$. Set $S_0:=S\setminus \{\inf\}$. By the assumption and Proposition \[prop:202001241\], there exists an element $\cR_{S_0}\in X(D_{S_0})$ such that $\xi(s,D,\phi,(\R\oplus\R,\cR_{S_0}))$ is not identically zero. Besides, by $X(D,\pi,\C)=\emptyset$, we have $\xi(s,D,\phi,(\C,\cR_{S_0}))\equiv 0$. Let $\phi_\inf$ be a spherical vector of $\pi_\inf$ and put $$\Gamma(s,\phi_\inf):=\begin{pmatrix} \gamma_{\R\oplus\R,\R\oplus\R}(s,\phi_v) & \gamma_{\C,\R\oplus\R}(s,\phi_v)\\ \gamma_{\R\oplus\R,\C}(s,\phi_v) & \gamma_{\C,\C}(s,\phi_v)\end{pmatrix}.$$ Then, it follows from the functional equation that $$\label{eq:funct0423}
\begin{pmatrix} \xi(s,D,\phi,(\R\oplus\R,\cR_{S_0})) \\ \xi(s,D,\phi,(\C,\cR_{S_0})) \end{pmatrix}= \Gamma(s,\phi_\inf) \begin{pmatrix} \Xi_{\R\oplus \R}(\phi,s) \\ \Xi_{\C}(\phi,s) \end{pmatrix},$$ where, for $\mathcal{Q}=\R\oplus \R$ or $\C$, we set $$\Xi_{\mathcal{Q}}(\phi,s):=\sum_{\cE_S\in X(D_S), \; \cE_\inf=\mathcal{Q}}\prod_{v\in S_0}\gamma_{\cE_v,\cR_v}(s,\phi_v) \times\xi(2-s,D,\overline{\phi},\cE_S).$$ It follows from [@Sato3 Theorem 2] that all entries of $\Gamma(s,\phi_\inf)$ are not identically zero. Hence, we get $\Xi_{\R\oplus\R}(\phi,s)\not\equiv 0$ or $\Xi_{\C}(\phi,s)\not\equiv 0$ by $\xi(s,D,\phi,(\R\oplus\R,\cR_{S_0}))\not\equiv 0$ and . Furthermore, by $\xi(s,D,\phi,(\R\oplus\R,\cR_{S_0}))\equiv 0$ and we find that $\Xi_{\R\oplus\R}(\phi,s)$ and $\Xi_{\C}(\phi,s)$ are not identically zero. This implies that $X(D,\pi,\C)$ is not empty, and so this is a contradiction.
From this, we see that the gamma factors know something about nonvanishing of periods at “bad places”. Thus, in order to extend our results to cover Theorem \[thm:FH\], we should clarify the analytic properties of the gamma factors $\gamma_{\cE_v,\cR_v}(s,\phi_v)$ in .
One dimensional representations
-------------------------------
The proof of Theorem \[thm:infinite\] tells us that we may be able to show nonvanishing of infinitely many periods from the explicit formula of the zeta functions with infinite dimensional automorphic representations. We will also mention the zeta functions with 1-dimensional representations because they can be applied to density theorems and trace formulas according to the previous works, see, e.g., [@Taniguchi2], [@HW]. Let $\pi$ be a one dimensional unitary representation of $H_j(F)\bsl H_j(\A)$ $(j=1,2)$. Define a zeta function $Z(\Phi,s,\pi)$ by $$Z(\Phi,s,\pi):=\int_{H(F)\bsl H(\A)} |\omega(h)|^s \, \pi(g_1^{-1}g_2) \sum_{x\in V^0(F), \, P(x)\not\in (F^\times)^2} \Phi(x\cdot \rho(h))\, \d h .$$ When $D$ is division, $Z(\Phi,s,\pi)$ agrees with $Z(\Phi,\phi_1,\phi_2,s)$ up to constant. The following explicit formulas and were essentially proved by Saito, see [@Saito0 Theorem 3.4 (2) $n=4$, $r=2$] and [@Saito1].
### Trivial representation
We set $$\xi(s,\cE_S):= \frac{\zeta_F^S(2s-2) \, \zeta_F^S(2s-1)^2 \, \zeta_F^S(2s) }{2 \, |\Delta_F|^4 \, c_F\, \zeta^S_F(2)^3} \sum_{E\in X(D,\trep,\cE_S), \, E\neq F\oplus F} \frac{ L(1,\eta)^2 \, \mathcal{D}_E^S(\trep,s)}{N(\mathfrak{f}_\eta^S)^{s-1}},$$ and it follows that $$\label{eq:onedimtri}
Z(\Phi,s,\trep)= \sum_{\cE_S\in X(D_S)} \prod_{v\in S} Z_{\cE_v}(\Phi_v,s) \times \xi(s,\cE_S)$$ where $Z_{\cE_v}(\Phi_v,s):=\int_{V_{\cE_v}(F_v)}|P(x)|^{s-2}\Phi_v(x) \, \d x$. Hence, $Z(\Phi,s,\trep)$ is expressed as an infinite sum of Euler products, since $X(D,\trep,\cE_S)$ is an infinite set.
### Non-trivial representation
Consider the case $\pi=\eta\circ\det$ for some non-trivial quadratic character $\eta=\otimes_v \eta_v$ on $F^\times\bsl \A^\times$. We treat only this special case for simplicity, though one should consider Hecke characters on narrow ideal classes in general. There exists a unique quadratic extension $E$ over $F$ such that $E\neq F\oplus F$ and $\eta$ corresponds to $E$ via the class field theory. It follows from the strong multiplicity one theorem that the set $X(D,\pi,\cE_S)$ consists of only $E$ if $E_v=\cE_v$ $(\forall v\in S)$, and it is the empty set otherwise. Hence, we have $$\label{eq:onedim}
Z(\Phi,s,\eta\circ\det)= \prod_{v\in S} Z_{E_v}(\Phi_v,s,\eta_v) \times \frac{L(1,\eta)^2}{ 2\, |\Delta_F|^4 \, c_F \zeta^S_F(2)^3 \, N(\mathfrak{f}_\eta^S)^{s-1}} \times \zeta_F^S(2s-1)\, \zeta_F^S(2s-2) ,$$ where $Z_{E_v}(\Phi_v,s,\eta_v):=Z_{\cE_v}(\Phi_v,s):=\int_{V_{\cE_v}(F_v)}|P(x)|^{s-2}\Phi_v(x) \, \eta_v(\det(h_1^{-1}h_2)) \, \d x$ $(x=x(\delta_v)\cdot h)$, since $\eta_v$ is unramified for any $v\not\in S$ and $\mathcal{D}_E^S(\pi,s)=\zeta^S_F(2s-1)^{-1}\zeta^S_F(2s)^{-1}$.
Local zeta functions with Waldspurger’s model over $p$-adic fields {#sec:localzeta424}
==================================================================
Notation {#sec:notation2}
--------
Let $F$ denote a $p$-adic field, $\fo$ the integer ring of $F$, $\varpi$ a prime element, and $q:=\# (\fo/\varpi\fo)$. We set $\F_q:=\fo/\varpi\fo$ which is a finite field of order $q$. Throughout this section, we suppose that $2$ does not divide $q$, and $D$ is split over $F$. Hence, we use the notations given in § \[sec:space\] by setting $D=M_2$. We also use the notations and normalizations given in § \[sec:notation\] by taking a finite place $v$, and we omit $v$ for simplification. For example, we have $|\varpi|=q$, $\int_\fo \d x=1$, and so on.
Let $E$ be a étale quadratic algebra over $F$. In the same manner as in § \[sec:orbits\], we choose elements $\delta=\delta_E\in E$ such that $E=F(\delta)$ and $\Tr(\delta)=0$. Put $d=d_E:=\delta^2$, and we can suppose $$d_E\in\fo^\times\sqcup\pi\fo^\times$$ without loss of generality. Write $\eta=\eta_E$ for the quadratic character on $F^\times$ corresponding to $E$, that is, $\eta(x)=(x,d)$, where $(\; , \; )$ means the Hilbert symbol on $F^\times\times F^\times$. We write $\ff_\eta$ for the conductor of $\eta$, and put $N(\ff_\eta):=\#(\fo/\ff)$. Set $L(s,\eta):=(1-\eta(\varpi)q^{-s})^{-1}$ if $\eta$ is unramified, and $L(s,\eta):=1$ otherwise. We write $\trep$ for the trivial representation on $F^\times$.
Let $W:=\{x\in M_2 \mid x={}^t\!x \}$, and $\left(\begin{smallmatrix} x_1& x_{12}/2 \\ x_{12}/2 & x_2 \end{smallmatrix}\right)\in W(F)$ is denoted by $(x_1,x_{12},x_2)$ below. Define equivariant maps $\cF_j:V(F)\to W(F)$ $(j=1,2)$ as, for $x=\left( \left( \begin{smallmatrix}x_{11}&x_{12} \\ x_{21}&x_{22} \end{smallmatrix}\right),\left(\begin{smallmatrix}y_{11}&y_{12} \\ y_{21}&y_{22} \end{smallmatrix}\right) \right)\in V(F)$, $$\cF_1(x):=\left(\det\begin{pmatrix}x_{11}&x_{12} \\ y_{11}&y_{12} \end{pmatrix}, \det\begin{pmatrix}x_{11}&x_{12} \\ y_{21}&y_{22} \end{pmatrix}+\det\begin{pmatrix}x_{21}&x_{22} \\ y_{11}&y_{12} \end{pmatrix} , \det\begin{pmatrix}x_{21}&x_{22} \\ y_{21}&y_{22} \end{pmatrix} \right),$$ $$\cF_2(x):=\left(\det\begin{pmatrix} x_{11}&y_{11} \\ x_{21}&y_{21} \end{pmatrix}, \det\begin{pmatrix}x_{11}&y_{12} \\ x_{21}&y_{22} \end{pmatrix}+\det\begin{pmatrix}x_{12}&y_{11} \\ x_{22}&y_{12} \end{pmatrix} , \det\begin{pmatrix}x_{12}&y_{12} \\ x_{22}&y_{22} \end{pmatrix}\right) .$$ For $g=(g_1,g_2,g_3)\in G$ and $x\in V$, we have $$\cF_1(x\, \rho(g))=\det(g_2) \, \det(g_3) \, g_1^{-1}\cF_1(x)\, {}^t\!g_1^{-1}, \quad \cF_2(x\, \rho(g))=\det(g_1)^{-1} \, \det(g_3) \, {}^t\! g_2\cF_2(x)\, g_2.$$ Notice that $P(x)=-4\det(\cF_j(x))$ holds for $j=1$, $2$, and $\cF_1$ is essentially same as $P_0$ given in § \[sec:space\]. It is well-known that these maps play an important role in Bhargava’s theory.
Let $\pi$ be an irreducible unitary unramified representation of $\GL_2(F)$ with trivial central character. This can be written uniquely as a quotient of a principal series representation $\chi\times\chi^{-1}$ with an unramified character $\chi$ of $F^\times$． The local $L$-factors of $\pi$ we need in this work is as follows:
- $L(s, \pi)=(1-\chi(\varpi)q^{-s})^{-1}(1-\chi^{-1}(\varpi)q^{-s})^{-1}$: the standard $L$-factor
- $L(s, \pi, \operatorname{Ad})=(1-q^{-s})^{-1}(1-\chi^2(\varpi)q^{-s})^{-1}(1-\chi^{-2}(\varpi)q^{-s})^{-1}$: the adjoint $L$-factor.
Throughout this section, we fix the representation $\pi$ as above.
Waldspurger’s model
-------------------
We fix $\GL_2(F)$-invariant Hermitian pairing $\l\,,\r$ on $\pi$ and define the $E^\times\times E^\times$-invriant bilinear form $\al_E$ on $\pi\boxtimes\bar{\pi}$ by $$\al_E(\phi_1, \phi_2)=\int_{F^\times\bs E^\times}\l\pi(t)\phi_1, \phi_2\r\,d^\times t.$$ Though this integral is over a non-compact region when $E^\times$ is a split torus, it converges absolutely. Let $\phi$ be the $K$-spherical vector of $\pi$ of norm 1. Assume that $\al_E(\phi, \phi)$ is not zero． For nonnegative integers $l_1$ and $l_2$, we set $$\be_E(l_1):=\al_{\pi,\delta}(\pi(\diag(\varpi^{-l_1}, 1))\phi,\phi)\, \al_E(\phi, \phi)^{-1},$$ and $$\be_E(l_1, l_2):=\al_E(\pi(\diag(\varpi^{-l_1}, 1))\phi, \pi(\diag(1, \varpi^{l_2}))\phi) \, \al_E(\phi, \phi)^{-1}.$$ Note that $$\beta_E(0,0)=1, \quad \beta_E(l,0)=\beta_E(l), \quad \beta_E(l_1,l_2)=\overline{\beta_E(l_2,l_1)}.$$ Set $\alpha:=\chi(\varpi)\in\C^\times$ for $\pi=\chi\boxtimes\chi^{-1}$. Since $\pi$ is unitary, one has $$q^{-1/2}\leq |\alpha|\leq q^{1/2}, \quad \lambda:=q^{1/2}(\alpha+\alpha^{-1})\in\R,$$ see [@Tadic]. Using the notation $\lambda$, the $L$-factors are described as $$L(s,\pi)=(1-q^{-1/2}\lambda q^{-s}+q^{-2s})^{-1},\quad L(s,\pi,\mathrm{Ad})=\{1-(q^{-1}\lambda^2-1) q^{-s}+(q^{-1}\lambda^2-1)q^{-2s}-q^{-3s} \}^{-1}.$$ By [@KP Lemmas 3.2, 3.3], one has the relation $$\label{eq:re1}
q\beta_E(l+2,m) - \lambda \cdot \beta_E(l+1,m) + \beta_E(l,m) = 0$$ for $l,m\in\Z_{\geq0}$. In addition $$\label{eq:re3}
\beta_E(1)=\frac{\lambda-2}{q-1} \;\; \text{if $d_E\in(\fo^\times)^2$}, \quad \frac{\lambda}{q+1}\;\; \text{if $d_E\in\fo^\times\setminus(\fo^\times)^2$}, \quad \frac{\lambda-1}{q}\;\; \text{if $d_E\in\varpi\fo^\times$.}$$
Let $l_1$ and $ l_2$ be nonnegative integers. We have $$\label{eq:re5}
\be_E(l_1, l_2)=\be_E(l_1) \, \be_E(l_2).$$
For $x$ in $\GL_2(F)$, two linear forms $$\varphi\mapsto\al_E(\varphi, \phi), \hspace{10pt} \varphi\mapsto\al_E(\varphi, \pi(x)\phi)$$ on $\pi$ are both $H$-invariant. From the multiplicity one theorem proven in [@G97], there exists a constant $c_\phi(x)$ such that $$\label{eq0}
\al_E(\varphi, \pi(x)\phi)=c_\phi(x)\al_E(\varphi, \phi)$$ for any $\varphi\in\pi$. We compute $c_\phi(\diag(1, \varpi^{l_2}))$.
Substituting $x=\diag(1, \varpi^{l_2})$ and $\varphi=\phi$ in (\[eq0\]), we see that $$c_\phi(1, \diag(\varpi^{l_2}))=\ol{\beta_E(l_2)}.$$ Here, we used the fact that $\al_E(\phi, \phi)$ is a positive real number and the obvious equation $$\ol{\al_E(\varphi, \pi(x)\phi)}=\al_E(\pi(x)\phi, \varphi).$$
From , we know that $\be_\pi(l_2)$ is a real number. Thus $c_\phi(\diag(1, \varpi^{l_2}))=\be_\pi(l_2)$. Again substituting $\varphi=\pi(\diag(\varpi^{-l_1}, 1))\phi$ and $x=\diag(1, \varpi^{l_2})$ in (\[eq0\]), we obtain $$\be_E(l_1, l_2)=\be_E(l_2)\al_E(\pi(\diag(\varpi^{-l_1}, 1))\phi, \phi)\, \, \al_E(\phi, \phi)^{-1}=\be_E(l_1) \, \be_E(l_2).$$
Some formulas for $\beta_E(l_1,l_2)$
------------------------------------
We will give some formulas for $\beta_E(l_1,l_2)$ by using the techniques of [@BFF] and [@KP]. They will be used for the proof of Theorem \[thm:localzeta\]. Throughout this subsection, $x$, $y$, $z$ are variables, and suppose $j\in \Z_{\geq 0}$. Set $$A_j(x):=\sum_{k=0}^\inf \beta_E(j+k) \, x^k.$$ From we have $$q A_{j+2}(x) - \lambda A_{j+1}(x) + A_j(x) =0.$$ Further, by $x A_{j+1}(x) = A_j(x) - \beta_E(j)$, we find $$q\left( A_j(x)-\beta_E(j)-\beta_E(j+1)x \right)- x\lambda \left( A_j(x)-\beta_E(j)\right)+ x^2 A_j(x) = 0.$$ Hence, $$\label{eq:re6}
A_j(x)=\frac{ \beta_E(j)+\beta_E(j+1)x-q^{-1}\lambda\cdot \beta_E(j)x }{1-\lambda q^{-1}x+q^{-1}x^2}=\frac{ \beta_E(j)-\beta_E(j-1)\, q^{-1}x }{1-\lambda q^{-1}x+q^{-1}x^2},$$ cf. [@KP Proposition 3.4]. We set $$B_j(x):= \sum_{l=0}^\inf \beta_E(l+j)^2 \, x^l , \quad
C_j(x):= \sum_{l=0}^\inf \beta_E(l+j+1) \, \beta_E(l+j) \, x^l .$$
\[lem:relation\] $$C_j(x)=\frac{q^{-1}\lambda}{1+q^{-1}x}B_j(x) + \frac{ \beta_E(j) \, \beta_E(j+1)-q^{-1}\lambda \cdot \beta_E(j)^2 }{1+q^{-1}x}.$$
By one gets $$q C_{j+1}(x) - \lambda B_{j+1}(x) + C_j(x)=0 .$$ By $xB_{j+1}(x)=B_j(x)-\beta_E(j)^2$ and $xC_{j+1}(x)=C_j(x)-\beta_E(j+1)\, \beta_E(j)$ one finds $$(C_j(x)-\beta_E(j+1)\, \beta_E(j))-q^{-1}\lambda(B_j(x)-\beta_E(j)^2)+q^{-1}xC_j(x)=0.$$
\[prop:410x\] We have $$\begin{gathered}
B_j(x)=D(x) \times \\
\Big[\beta_E(j)^2 + x\{ \beta_E(j+1)^2-q^{-1}(q^{-1}\lambda^2-1)\, \beta_E(j)^2\} + q^{-1}x^2\{ \beta_E(j+1)-q^{-1}\lambda\cdot \beta_E(j)\}^2\Big],\end{gathered}$$ where $$D(x):=\{1-(q^{-1}\lambda^2-1)\, q^{-1}x +(q^{-1}\lambda^2-1)\, q^{-2}x^2 -q^{-3}x^3 \}^{-1} .$$
By one gets $$q^2B_{j+2}(x)-\lambda^2B_{j+1}(x)+2\lambda C_j(x)-B_j(x)=0.$$ By Lemma \[lem:relation\] and $xB_{j+1}(x)=B_j(x)-\beta_E(j)^2$, we have $$\begin{gathered}
(B_j(x)-\beta_E(j)^2-x\beta_E(j+1)^2)-q^{-2}\lambda^2x(B_j(x)-\beta_E(j)^2)-q^{-2}x^2B_j(x) \\
+2q^{-2}x^2\lambda \left\{ \frac{q^{-1}\lambda}{1+q^{-1}x}B_j(x) + \frac{ \beta_E(j) \, \beta_E(j+1)-q^{-1}\lambda \cdot \beta_E(j)^2 }{1+q^{-1}x} \right\}=0.\end{gathered}$$ Hence, $$\begin{gathered}
(1-(q^{-1}\lambda^2-1)\, q^{-1}x +(q^{-1}\lambda^2-1)\, q^{-2}x^2 -q^{-3}x^3)B_j(x) \\
= (\beta_E(j)^2+x\beta_E(j+1)^2 -q^{-2}\lambda^2x\beta_E(j)^2)(1+q^{-1}x)- 2q^{-2}x^2\lambda(\beta_E(j) \, \beta_E(j+1)-q^{-1}\lambda \cdot \beta_E(j)^2) .\end{gathered}$$
Set $$U_j(x,y):=\sum_{l_1=0}^\inf \sum_{l_2=j}^\inf \beta_E(l_1+l_2+1) \, \beta_E(l_2) \, x^{l_1} y^{l_2} .$$
\[prop:412x\] $$U_j(x,y) = y^j \times \frac{ (q^{-1}\lambda-q^{-1}x- q^{-2}xy)B_j(y) + \beta_E(j)\beta_E(j+1)-q^{-1}\lambda \cdot \beta_E(j)^2}{(1-\lambda q^{-1}x+q^{-1}x^2)(1+q^{-1}y)}.$$
It follows from that $$U_j(x,y) =y^j \sum_{l=0}^\inf A_{l+j+1}(x)\, \beta_E(l+j)\, y^l =\frac{y^j}{1-\lambda q^{-1}x+q^{-1}x^2} \left( C_j(y)-q^{-1}x \, B_j(y) \right).$$ Hence, the assertion is proved by Lemma \[lem:relation\].
\[lem:20191230\] $$\sum_{k=0}^\inf \sum_{u=0}^\inf x^k y^u \beta_E(k+u+1)^2 =D(y) \times \{ B_0(x) \, f_1(x,y)+f_2(x,y) \},$$ $$\begin{aligned}
f_1(x,y)&= x^{-2}y+x^{-1}+q^{-1}x^{-1}y-q^{-2}\lambda^2 x^{-1}y+q^{-3}y^2 ,\\
f_2(x,y)&= -x^{-2}y-x^{-1}y\, \beta_E(1)^2 -x^{-1}-q^{-1}x^{-1}y+q^{-2}\lambda^2 x^{-1}y .\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
& \sum_{k=0}^\inf \sum_{u=0}^\inf x^k y^u \beta_E(k+u+1)^2 = \sum_{k=0}^\inf x^k B_{k+1}(y) \\
&=D(y)\sum_{k=0}^\inf x^k \{ \beta_E(k+1)^2 + y(\beta_E(k+2)^2-(q^{-2}\lambda^2 -q^{-1})\beta_E(k+1)^2)+q^{-3}y^2\beta_E(k)^2 \}\\
&= D(y)\, \{ yB_2(x)+ (1+q^{-1}y-q^{-2}\lambda^2)B_1(x)+q^{-3}y^2B_0(x) \}.\end{aligned}$$
Hence, the assertion follows from $xB_1(x)=B_0(x)-1$ and $x^2B_2(x)=B_0(x)-1-x\beta_E(1)^2$.
\[lem:0409l\] $$\begin{gathered}
(1+q^{-1}z)\, (1-\lambda q^{-1}y+q^{-1}y^2) \sum_{k=1}^\inf \sum_{l=0}^\inf \sum_{u=0}^\inf x^k y^l z^u \beta_E(k+u,k+l+u+1) \\
=(q^{-1}\lambda-q^{-1}y-q^{-2}yz) x \sum_{k=0}^\inf x^k B_{k+1}(z) - q^{-1}x\, C_0(x).\end{gathered}$$
This equality can be proved by and Lemma \[lem:relation\].
Main result
-----------
We will consider the special case for the local zeta function given in § \[sec:fac\]. Set $$\cK:=\GL_2(\fo)\times \GL_2(\fo)\times \GL_2(\fo), \qquad V_E(\fo):= \{x\in V(\fo) \mid P(x)\in d_E(F^\times)^2\},$$ $$g(l_1,l_2,m_1,m_2,c):=\left( \begin{pmatrix} \varpi^{-l_1} & 0 \\ 0& 1\end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0& \varpi^{l_2}\end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} \varpi^{m_1} & c \\ 0& \varpi^{m_2}\end{pmatrix} \right) \in G(F),$$ $$S_E(l_1,l_2,m_1,m_2,c):=x(\delta_E)\cdot \rho\left( g(l_1,l_2,m_1,m_2,c)\cK\right).$$ Our purpose is to explicitly calculate the local zeta function $$Z_E(\pi,s):=\int_{V_E(\fo)} \beta_E(l_1,l_2) \, |P(x)|^{s-2} \, \d x \qquad (s\in\C ),$$ where $(l_1,l_2)$ is determined by the condition that $x$ belongs to $S(E,l_1,l_2,m_1,m_2,c)$ for some $m_1$, $m_2\in\Z$ and some $c\in F$, see .
\[thm:localzeta\] Let $\pi$ be any irreducible unitary spherical representation of $\PGL_2(F)$. Then, we obtain $$Z_E(\pi,s)=\frac{1}{2} \frac{L(1,\eta)^2 \,L(2s-1,\trep)\,L(2s-1,\pi,\mathrm{Ad}) }{L(1,\trep) \, L(2,\trep)^3 \, N(\ff_\delta)^{s-1}} \times \left(1+\mathcal{R}_E(\pi,s) \, q^{-2s+1}\right),$$ where $\mathcal{R}_E(\pi,s)$ was defined in , that is, $\mathcal{R}_E(\pi,s) :=1+q^{-1}+q^{-2s} -2 \eta(\varpi) \, q^{-1} \lambda$ if $d_E \in \fo^\times$, and $\mathcal{R}_E(\pi,s) := 1$ if $d_E \in \varpi \fo^\times$.
Decompositions {#sec:binaryquad}
--------------
Let $X(D)$ denote the set of all étale quadratic algebras over $F$. This notation $X(D)$ is the same as $X(D_v)$ as in § \[sec:fac\] if we put $D=M_2$. Set $Q(x):=-4\det(x)$ $(x\in W(F))$ and $W(\fo):=\left\{(x_1, x_{12}x_2) \mid x_1,x_{12},x_2\in\fo \right\}$. For each $E\in X(D)$, we set $$W_E(F):=\{ x\in W(F) \mid Q(x)\in d_E(F^\times)^2 \} , \quad W_E(\fo):=W(\fo)\cap W_E(F).$$ Let $\qG:=\GL_1(F)\times \GL_2(F)$, and a rational representation $\rho_W$ of $\qG$ on $W$ is defined by $$x \, \rho_W(a,h)=\frac{a}{\det(h)} \, {}^t\! h x h ,\qquad (a,h)\in \qG, \quad x\in W(F).$$ It is obvious that $\mathrm{Ker}\rho_W=\{ (1,a I_2)\in \qG \mid a\in F^\times \}\cong F^\times$. An orbit decomposition of $W^0(F):=\{x\in W(F) \mid Q(x)\neq 0\}$ is given by $$W^0(F)= \bigsqcup_{E\in X(D)}W_E(F),\quad W(F)= y(\delta_E) \, \rho_W(\qG), \qquad y(\delta_E):=\diag( 1,-d_E)\in W(\fo) .$$ The stabilizer $\qG_E$ of $y(\delta)$ in $\qG$ and its connected component $\qG_E^0$ at $1$ are given by $$\qG_E^0=\{(1,g)\in \qG \mid g\in \mathrm{GO}_{2,E}^0(F)\}, \quad
\qG_E=\qG_E^0 \sqcup \diag( 1,-1) \qG_E^0 .$$ Let $\qK=\GL_1(\fo)\times\GL_2(\fo)$, and set $S_E(l_1,l_2):=\varpi^{l_1} \, \diag( 1 ,-d_E \varpi^{2l_2})\, \rho_W(\qK)$. Then $$W_E(F)= \bigsqcup_{l_1\in\Z} \bigsqcup_{l_2\in\Z_{\geq 0}} S_E(l_1,l_2), \quad W_E(\fo)= \bigsqcup_{l_1\in\Z_{\geq 0}} \bigsqcup_{l_2\in\Z_{\geq 0}} S_E(l_1,l_2).$$ From this we have $$\label{eq:906e1}
\qG_E^0\bsl \qG/\qK=\qG_E\bsl \qG/\qK=\bigsqcup_{m_1\in\Z} \bigsqcup_{m_2\in\Z_{\geq 0}} \qG_E^0 (\varpi^{m_1}, \diag(1,\varpi^{m_2})) \qK.$$ In addition, $$\label{eq:sym2}
\operatorname{vol}( S_E(l_1,l_2)) = \frac{1}{2} \, \frac{1}{L(1,\trep)\, L(2,\trep)} \begin{cases} q^{-3l_1-2l_2} & \text{if $d_E\in \fo^\times$ and $l_2>0$}, \\ q^{-3l_1-2l_2-1} & \text{if $d_E\in \varpi \fo^\times$}, \\ q^{-3l_1}L(1,\eta) & \text{if $d_E\in \fo^\times$ and $l_2=0$}, \end{cases}$$ under the normalization $\operatorname{vol}(W(\fo))=1$. See [@IS Lemma 3.2] or [@Saito0 Proposition 2.8] for the proof.
By we have $$G_{x(\delta)}^0(F)\bsl G(F)/\cK=\bigsqcup_{l_1,l_2\in \Z_{\geq 0}}\bigsqcup_{m_1,m_2\in \Z , \; c\in F/\varpi^{m_1}\fo} G_{x(\delta)}^0(F)\, g(l_1,l_2,m_1,m_2,c) \cK .$$ Further, putting $l_3:=\min(l_1,l_2)$, we get $$\label{eq:decoV}
V_E(\fo)=\bigsqcup_{l_1,l_2\in\Z_{\geq 0}} \bigsqcup_{m_1\geq -l_3}\bigsqcup_{m_2\in\Z_{\geq 0} } \bigsqcup_{c\in \varpi^{-l_3}\fo/\varpi^{m_1}\fo} S_E(l_1,l_2,m_1,m_2,c).$$ The parameter $(l_1,l_2)$ in the definition of $Z_E(\pi,s)$ is determined by the condition that $x$ belongs to $\bigcup_{m_1,m_2\in\Z, \; c\in F/\varpi^{m_1}\fo} S_E(l_1,l_2,m_1,m_2,c) $.
\[lem:param\] For each $x\in V(\fo,E)$ and the parameter $(l_1,l_2)$, we have the relation $$|d_E| \, q^{-2l_j} \times \left(\max \cF_j(x)\right)^2 =|P(x)| \qquad (j=1, \, 2),$$ where $\max \cF_j(x)$ means the maximum among $\{ |y_1|, \;\; |y_{12}| , \;\; |y_2| \}$ if $\cF_j(x)=(y_1,y_{12},y_2)$.
This follows from $$\cF_1(x(\delta)\cdot\rho(g(l_1,l_2,m_1,m_2,c)))=(\delta\varpi^{2l_1},0,-1) \times \varpi^{l_2+m_1+m_2},$$ $$\cF_2(x(\delta)\cdot\rho(g(l_1,l_2,m_1,m_2,c)))=(1,0,-\delta\varpi^{2l_2}) \times \varpi^{l_1+m_1+m_2}.$$
Proof of Theorem \[thm:localzeta\]
----------------------------------
Set $\sG:=G(\F_q)$. By Propositions \[prop:sor1\] and \[prop:orbits\], we have a list of $\mathscr{G}$-orbits in $V(\F_q)$. We use the same representative elements $x_j$ $(0\leq j\leq 5)$ given in Proposition \[prop:sor1\]. By a direct calculation, one obains the following lemma.
\[lem:card\] A list of cardinalities of orbits is as follows: $$\# \sG = \sG_{x_0}=q^{12}(1-q^{-1})^3(1-q^{-2})^3, \quad \#(x_0 \cdot \rho(\sG))=1,$$ $$\# \mathscr{G}_{x_1}=q^8 (1-q^{-1})^5, \quad \#(x_1 \cdot \rho(\mathscr{G}))= q^4(1+q^{-1})^2 (1-q^{-2}),$$ $$\# \mathscr{G}_{x_j}=q^7 (1-q^{-1})^3(1-q^{-2}), \quad \#(x_j \cdot \rho(\mathscr{G}))= q^5 (1-q^{-2})^2 \quad(j=2,3,4),$$ $$\# \mathscr{G}_{x_5}=q^5 (1-q^{-1})^3, \quad \#(x_5 \cdot \rho(\mathscr{G}))= q^7(1-q^{-2})^3,$$ $$\# \mathscr{G}_{x_6}=2q^4 (1-q^{-1})^4, \quad \#(x_6 \cdot \rho(\mathscr{G}))=\frac{1}{2} q^8(1+q^{-1})(1-q^{-2})^2,$$ $$\# \mathscr{G}_{x_7}=2q^4 (1-q^{-2})^2, \quad \#(x_7 \cdot \rho(\mathscr{G}))=\frac{1}{2} q^8(1-q^{-1})^3(1-q^{-2}),$$ where we have chosen regular elements $x_6$ and $x_7$ in $V(\F_q)$ such that $P(x_6)\in (\F_q^\times)^2$ and $P(x_7)\in \F_q^\times\setminus (\F_q^\times)^2$.
For each $x_j$ $(0\leq j\leq 7)$, we set $$Z_{E,j}(\pi,s):=\int_{(x_j\rho(G(\fo/\varpi\fo)) + \varpi V(\fo))\cap V_E(\fo)} \beta_E(l_1,l_2) \, |P(x)|^{s-2} \, \d x.$$ For any $x\in V_E(\fo)$ and any $m\in\Z$, $\varpi^m x$ has the same parameter $(l_1,l_2)$ as that of $x$ by Lemma \[lem:param\]. Hence, we obtain $$\label{eq:1}
(1-q^{-4s})Z_E(\pi,s)=\int_{V_E(\fo)\setminus \varpi V_E(\fo)}\beta_E(l_1,l_2) \, |P(x)|^{s-2} \, \d x = \sum_{j=1}^7 Z_{E,j}(\pi,s).$$ Therefore, the explicit calculation for $Z_E(\pi,s)$ is reduced to those of $Z_{E,j}(\pi,s)$. This is a standard method by Igusa for computations of local zeta functions, see [@Igusa].
### Contribution of $x_2\cdot \rho(\sG)$
Any element in $x_2\cdot \rho(\sG)+\varpi V(\fo)$ can be reduced to the form $$X_2:= \left( \begin{pmatrix} 1&0 \\ 0&1 \end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} x&z \\ y&-x \end{pmatrix}\right) \quad (x,y,z\in\varpi\fo)$$ by the action of $\sG$, and then the integral $Z_{E,2}(\pi,s)$ is $$\#(x_2 \cdot \rho(\sG)) \times q^{-5} \times \int_{(\varpi\fo)^{\oplus 3},\, P(X_2)\in d_E(F^\times)^2} \beta_E(l_1,l_2) \, |P(X_2)|^{s-2} \d x \, \d y \, \d z .$$ In addition, we have $\cF_1(X_2)= (z,-2x,-y)$ and $\cF_2(X_2)= (y,-2x,-z)$. Hence, by , Lemma \[lem:card\] and the fact that $\rho(g,g,1)$ acts on $Y=\left(\begin{smallmatrix} -y&x \\ x&z \end{smallmatrix}\right)$ as $Y\cdot\rho(g,g,1)=\det(g)^{-1}{}^t\!gYg$, one finds that $Z_{E,2}(\pi,s)$ equals $$\frac{1}{2} \frac{L(2s-1,\trep)}{L(1,\trep) \, L(2,\trep)^3} \, q^{-2s+1} \, \left( L(1,\eta)+ \sum_{l=1}^\inf \beta_E(l,l) \, q^{(-2s+2)l} \right) \qquad \text{if $d_E\in\fo^\times$},$$ $$\frac{1}{2} \frac{L(2s-1,\trep)}{L(1,\trep) \, L(2,\trep)^3}\, q^{-3s+2} \sum_{l=0}^\inf \beta_E(l,l) \, q^{(-2s+2)l} \qquad \text{if $d_E\in\varpi\fo^\times$}.$$
### Contribution of $x_3\cdot\rho(\sG)$
Any element in $x_3\cdot \rho(\sG)+\varpi V(\fo)$ is reduced to the form $$X_3:=\left( \begin{pmatrix} 1&0 \\ x&z \end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} 0&1 \\ y&-x \end{pmatrix}\right) \quad (x,y,z\in\varpi\fo)$$ by the action of $\sG$, and the integral $Z_{E,3}(\pi,s)$ is $$\#(x_3 \cdot \rho(\sG)) \times q^{-5} \times \int_{(\varpi\fo)^{\oplus 3},\, P(X_3)\in d_E(F^\times)^2} \beta_E(l_1,l_2) \, |P(X_3)|^{s-2} \d x \, \d y \, \d z .$$ In addition, we have $\cF_1(X_3)= (1,0,- x^2- y z)$ and $\cF_2(X_3)= (y,-2x,-z)$. By and the fact that $\rho(1,g,{}^t\!g^{-1})$ acts on $Y=\left(\begin{smallmatrix} -y&x \\ x&z \end{smallmatrix}\right)$ as $Y\cdot \rho(1,g,{}^t\!g^{-1})= \det(g)^{-1}\, {}^t\!gYg$, one finds that $Z_{E,3}(\pi,s)$ equals $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{L(1,\trep) \, L(2,\trep)^3} \, q^{-2s+1} \Big( L(1,\eta)\sum_{l_1=0}^\inf \beta_E(l_1+1,0) q^{(-2s+1)l_1} \\
+ \sum_{l_1=0}^\inf \sum_{l_2=1}^\inf \beta_E(l_1+l_2+1,l_2) \, q^{(-2s+1)l_1} q^{(-2s+2)l_2} \Big) \qquad \text{if $d_E\in\fo^\times$},\end{gathered}$$ $$\frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{L(1,\trep) \, L(2,\trep)^3}\, q^{-3s+2} \sum_{l_1=0}^\inf \sum_{l_2=0}^\inf \beta_E(l_1+l_2+1,l_2) \, q^{(-2s+1)l_1} q^{(-2s+2)l_2} \qquad \text{if $d_E\in\varpi\fo^\times$}.$$
### Contribution of $x_4\cdot \rho(\sG)$
Any element in $x_4\cdot \rho(\sG)+\varpi V(\fo)$ is reduced to the form $$X_4:=\left( \begin{pmatrix} 1&-x \\ 0&y \end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} 0&z \\ 1&x \end{pmatrix} \right) \quad (x,y,z\in\varpi\fo)$$ by the action of $\sG$, and the integral $Z_{E,4}(\pi,s)$ is $$\#(x_4 \cdot \rho(\sG)) \times q^{-5} \times \int_{(\varpi\fo)^{\oplus 3},\, P(X_4)\in d_E(F^\times)^2} \beta_E(l_1,l_2) \, |P(X_4)|^{s-2} \d x \, \d y \, \d z .$$ In addition, we have $\cF_1(X_4)= (z,-2x,-y)$ and $\cF_2(X_4)= (1,0,-x^2- y z)$. By and the fact that $\rho(g,1,g)$ acts on $Y=\left( \begin{smallmatrix} -y&x \\ x&z \end{smallmatrix} \right)$ as $Y\cdot \rho(g,1,g) = \det(g)^{-1} \, {}^t\!gYg$, one finds that $Z_{E,4}(\pi,s)$ equals $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{L(1,\trep) \, L(2,\trep)^3} \, q^{-2s+1} \Big( L(1,\eta)\sum_{l_1=0}^\inf \beta_E(0,l_1+1) q^{(-2s+1)l_1} \\
+ \sum_{l_1=0}^\inf \sum_{l_2=1}^\inf \beta_E(l_2,l_1+l_2+1) \, q^{(-2s+1)l_1} q^{(-2s+2)l_2} \Big) \qquad \text{if $d_E\in\fo^\times$},\end{gathered}$$ $$\frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{L(1,\trep) \, L(2,\trep)^3}\, q^{-3s+2} \sum_{l_1=0}^\inf \sum_{l_2=0}^\inf \beta_E(l_2,l_1+l_2+1) \, q^{(-2s+1)l_1} q^{(-2s+2)l_2} \qquad \text{if $d_E\in\varpi\fo^\times$}.$$
### Contribution of $x_5\cdot \rho(\sG)$
Any element in $x_5\cdot \rho(\sG)+\varpi V(\fo)$ is reduced to $$X_5:=\left( \begin{pmatrix} 1&0 \\ 0&1 \end{pmatrix},\begin{pmatrix} 0&1 \\ y&0 \end{pmatrix} \right) \quad (y\in\varpi\fo)$$ by the action of $\sG$, and the integral $Z_{E,5}(\pi,s)$ is $$\#(x_5 \, \rho(\sG)) \times q^{-7} \times \int_{\varpi\fo,\, P(X_5)\in d_E(F^\times)^2} \beta_{\pi,\delta}(l_1,l_2) \, |P(X_5)|^{s-2} \d y .$$ In addition, we have $\cF_1(X_5)= (1,0,- y)$ and $\cF_2(X_5)= ( y,0,-1)$. Therefore, $Z_{E,5}(\pi,s)$ equals $$\frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{L(1,\trep) \, L(2,\trep)^3}\sum_{l=1}^\inf \beta_E(l,l) \, q^{(-2s+2)l} \qquad \text{if $d_E\in\fo^\times$},$$ $$\frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{L(1,\trep) \, L(2,\trep)^3}\, q^{-s+1} \sum_{l=0}^\inf \beta_E(l,l) \, q^{(-2s+2)l} \qquad \text{if $d_E\in\varpi\fo^\times$}.$$
### Contribution $x_6\cdot \rho(\sG)$
By Lemma \[lem:card\], one finds $$Z_{E,6}(\pi,s) = \frac{1}{2}\frac{L(1,\eta)^2}{L(1,\trep) \, L(2,\trep)^3} \quad \text{if $d_E\in (\fo^\times)^2$,} \quad \text{and $=0$ if otherwise}.$$
### Contribution $x_7\cdot \rho(\sG)$
By Lemma \[lem:card\], one gets $$Z_{E,7}(\pi,s)= \frac{1}{2}\frac{L(1,\eta)^2}{L(1,\trep) \, L(2,\trep)^3} \quad \text{if $d_E\in \fo^\times \setminus (\fo^\times)^2$,} \quad \text{and $=0$ otherwise}.$$
### Summand except $Z_{E,1}(\pi,s)$
It follows from Propositions \[prop:410x\] and \[prop:412x\] and the above mentioned equalities of $Z_{E,j}(\pi,s,\delta)$ $(2\leq j\leq 7)$ that $$\sum_{j=2}^7 Z_{E,j}(\pi,s) = \frac{1}{2} \frac{L(1,\eta)^2 \, L(2s-1,\trep)\,L(2s-1,\pi,\mathrm{Ad}) }{L(1,\trep) \, L(2,\trep)^3 \, N(\ff_\delta)^{s-1}} \times \mathscr{T}_{E,0}(\pi,s),$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
\mathscr{T}_{E,0}(\pi,s)= 1 + q^{-2s+1} - q^{-2s} + 3 q^{-4s+1} - q^{-4s} + 3 q^{-6s+2} + q^{-6s+1} - q^{-8s+3} \\
+ 2 q^{-8s+2} - 2 q^{-2s} \lambda - 2 q^{-4s+1} \lambda + 2 q^{-4s} \lambda - 6 q^{-6s+1} \lambda + q^{-4s} \lambda^2 + q^{-6s+1} \lambda^2 \qquad \text{if $d_E\in(\fo^\times)^2$},\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\mathscr{T}_{E,0}(\pi,s) = 1+q^{-2s+1}+q^{-2s}+q^{-4s+1}-q^{-4s} +q^{-6s+2}+q^{-6s+1} +q^{-8s+3} +2q^{-8s+2} \\
+ 2q^{-2s}\lambda - 2q^{-4s+1}\lambda- 2q^{-4s}\lambda + 2q^{-6s+1}\lambda - q^{-4s}\lambda^2 - q^{-6s+1}\lambda^2 \qquad \text{if $d_E\in\fo^\times\setminus(\fo^\times)^2$},\end{gathered}$$ $$\mathscr{T}_{E,0}(\pi,s) = 1+q^{-2s+1}-q^{-2s}+q^{-4s+1}-2q^{-4s+1}\lambda+2q^{-6s+2} \qquad \text{if $d_E \in \varpi\fo^\times$}.$$ The explicit computation of $Z_{E,1}(\pi,s)$ will be done in the next subsection § \[sec:Zx1\]． We will combine the formula resulting from that computation with the above sum to get Theorem \[thm:localzeta\].
Calculations for the contribution of $x_1\cdot \rho(\sG)$ {#sec:Zx1}
---------------------------------------------------------
In what follows, we prove $$\label{eq:Zx1}
Z_{E,1}(\pi,s)=\frac{1}{2} \frac{L(1,\eta)^2 \, L(2s-1,\trep)\,L(2s-1,\pi,\mathrm{Ad}) }{L(1,\trep) \, L(2,\trep)^3\, N(\ff_\delta)^{s-1}} \times \mathscr{T}_{E,1}(\pi,s),$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
\mathscr{T}_{E,1}(\pi,s)= 2q^{-2s} - 2 q^{-4s+1} - 3 q^{-6s+2} - 2 q^{-6s+1} - q^{-6s} + q^{-8s+3} - 2 q^{-8s+2} - q^{-8s+1}\\
+ 2 q^{-4s+1} \lambda - 2 q^{-4s} \lambda + 6 q^{-6s+1} \lambda + 2 q^{-6s} \lambda - q^{-4s} \lambda^2 - q^{-6s+1} \lambda^2 \qquad \text{if $d_E \in (\fo^\times)^2$},\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\mathscr{T}_{E,1}(\pi,s) = -q^{-6s+2} - 2 q^{-6s+1} - q^{-6s} - q^{-8s+3} - 2 q^{-8s+2} - q^{-8s+1}\\
+ 2 q^{-4s+1}\lambda + 2 q^{-4s} \lambda - 2 q^{-6s+1} \lambda - 2 q^{-6s} \lambda + q^{-4s} \lambda^2 + q^{-6s+1} \lambda^2 \qquad \text{if $d_E \in\fo^\times\setminus (\fo^\times)^2$},\end{gathered}$$ $$\mathscr{T}_{E,1}(\pi,s) = q^{-2s}-q^{-4s+1}-q^{-4s}+2q^{-4s+1}\lambda-2q^{-6s+2}-q^{-6s+1} \qquad \text{if $d_E \in\varpi\fo^\times$}.$$
To prove , we begin with reduction of elements as we did for other terms. Any element in $x_1\cdot\rho(\sG)+\varpi V(\fo)$ can be reduced to the form $$X_1:= \left( \begin{pmatrix} 1&0 \\ 0&x \end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} 0&y \\ z&w \end{pmatrix} \right) \quad (x,y,z,w\in\varpi\fo)$$ by the action of $\sG$, and then the integral $Z_{E,1}(\pi,s)$ equals $$\#(x_1 \cdot \rho(\sG)) \times q^{-4} \times \int_{(\varpi\fo)^{\oplus 4}, \, P(X_1)\in d_E(F^\times)^2} \beta_E(l_1,l_2) \, |P(X_1)|^{s-2} \d x \, \d y \, \d z \, \d w.$$ From the above equality, we deduce $$\label{eq:04091}
Z_{E,1}(\pi,s)=(1+q^{-1})(1-q^{-2})^2\, q^{-2s} \sum_{k=0}^\inf q^{-k} \tZ_E(\pi,s,k),$$ where $$\tZ_E(\pi,s,k):=\int_{\fo^{\oplus 3} , \, x_{12}^2+\varpi^{k+1}x_1x_2\in d_E(F^\times)^2} \beta_E(l_1,l_2) \, |x_{12}^2+\varpi^{k+1}x_1x_2|^{s-2} \, \d x_1\, \d x_{12}\, \d x_2 ,$$ and it follows from Lemma \[lem:param\] that $(l_1, l_2)$ is determined by $$q^{-2l_1}|d_E|=\frac{|x_{12}^2+\varpi^{k+1}x_1x_2|}{\max(|x_1|,|x_{12}|, q^{-k-1}|x_2|)^2},\quad q^{-2l_2}|d_E|=\frac{|x_{12}^2+\varpi^{k+1}x_1x_2|}{\max(|x_2|,|x_{12}|,q^{-k-1}|x_1|)^2}.$$ For $k,j\in\Z_{\geq 0}$, we set $$\Xi_E(\pi,s,k,j):=\int_{\fo\oplus\fo}\beta_E(l_1,l_2) \, |x_{12}^2+\varpi^k x_1|^{s-2} \d x_{12} \, \d x_1$$ where $x_{12}^2+\varpi^k x_1\in d_E(F^\times)^2$ and $(l_1, l_2)$ is determined by $$q^{-2l_1}|d_E|=\frac{ |x_{12}^2+\varpi^k x_1|}{\max(|x_1|,|x_{12}|, q^{-k})^2},\quad q^{-2l_2}|d_E|=q^{-2-2j}|x_{12}^2+\varpi^{k}x_1|.$$ For $k\in\Z_{\geq -1}$, $j,m\in\Z_{\geq 0}$ we set $$\Omega_E(\pi,s,k,j,m):= \int_{\fo^\times}\d x_2 \int_{\fo}\d x_{12} \, \beta_E(l,l+m) \, \, |x_{12}^2+\varpi^k x_2|^{s-2}$$ where $x_{12}^2+\varpi^k x_2\in d_E (F^\times)^2$ and $l$ is determined by $q^{-2l}|d_E|=q^{-2-2j}|x_{12}^2+\varpi^{k}x_2|$. We also set $$\Delta_{E,1}:=\begin{cases} 1 & \text{if $d_E\in (\fo^\times)^2$,} \\ 0 & \text{otherwise,} \end{cases} \quad
\Delta_{E,2}:=\begin{cases} 1 & \text{if $d_E \in \fo^\times\setminus(\fo^\times)^2$,} \\ 0 & \text{otherwise,} \end{cases} \quad \Delta_{E,3}:=\begin{cases} 1 & \text{if $d_E \in \varpi\fo^\times$,} \\ 0 & \text{otherwise.} \end{cases}$$ Dividing the domain of integration into the five cases (i) $x_{12}\in\fo^\times$, $x_1\in\fo$, $x_2\in\fo$, (ii) $x_{12}\in\varpi\fo$, $x_1\in\fo^\times$, $x_2\in\fo^\times$, (iii) $x_{12}\in\varpi\fo$, $x_1\in\fo^\times$, $x_2\in\varpi\fo$, (iv) $x_{12}\in\varpi\fo$, $x_1\in\varpi\fo$, $x_2\in\fo^\times$, (v) $x_{12}\in\varpi\fo$, $x_1\in\varpi\fo$, $x_2\in\varpi\fo$, we have $$\label{eq:04092}
\frac{1-q^{-2s+1}}{1-q^{-1}}\, \tZ_E(\pi,s,k) = \Delta_{E,1} + q^{-2s+3} \Omega_E(\pi,s,k-1,0,0)+2q^{-2s+2}\Xi_E(\pi,s,k,0) .$$
\[lem:04091\] $$\Omega_E(\pi,s,-1,j,m)=\frac{1}{2}q^{s-2}(1-q^{-1})\, \beta_E(j,j+m) \, \Delta_{E,3},$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\Omega_E(\pi,s,0,j,m)=\frac{1}{2}(1-q^{-1})\, \left\{ 1-(1+\eta(\varpi))q^{-1} \right\}\, \beta_E(1+j,1+j+m) \{ \Delta_{E,1}+\Delta_{E,2}\} \\
+(1-q^{-1})\, q^{-s+1} \int_{\varpi x_2\in \varpi \fo\cap d_E(F^\times)^2} \beta_E(l,l+m)\, |x_2|^{s-2} \, \d x_2\end{gathered}$$ where $l$ is determined by $q^{-2l}|\delta|=q^{-3-2j}|x_2|$, and for $k\geq 1$ we have $$\Omega_E(\pi,s,k,j,m)=(1-q^{-1})^2 \beta_E(1+j,1+j+m)\, \Delta_{E,1} + q^{-2s+3}\Omega_E(\pi,s,k-2,j+1,m).$$
\[lem:04092\] For $k\geq 1$ we have $$\begin{gathered}
\Xi_E(\pi,s,k,j)=(1-q^{-1}) \beta_E(0,1+j)\, \Delta_{E,1} \\
+ q^{-2s+3}\Omega_E(\pi,s,k-2,0,j+1) + q^{-2s+2}\Xi_E(\pi,s,k-1,j+1).\end{gathered}$$ In addition, $$\Xi_E(\pi,s,0,j)=\int_{\fo\cap d_E(F^\times)^2} \beta_E(l,l+j+1)\, |x|^{s-2} \, \d x$$ where $q^{-2l}|d_E|=|x|$.
By , , Lemmas \[lem:04091\] and \[lem:04092\], now we can see our way clear to computing $Z_{E,1}(\pi,s)$ explicitly. What remains to be done is just routine computation which we do by dividing into cases.
### The case $d_E\in\varpi\fo^\times$ ($E$ is ramified over $F$)
In this case, means $$\frac{1-q^{-2s+1}}{1-q^{-1}}\, \tZ_E(\pi,s,k) = q^{-2s+3} \Omega_E(\pi,s,k-1,0,0)+2q^{-2s+2}\Xi_E(\pi,s,k,0) .$$ By Lemmas \[lem:04091\] and \[lem:04092\], we have $$\frac{1-q^{-2s+1}}{1-q^{-1}}\, \tZ_E(\pi,s,k) =\mathcal{A}_1(k) + \mathcal{A}_2(k),$$ $$\mathcal{A}_1(k):=q^{-2s+3} \Omega_E(\pi,s,k-1,0,0) + 2q^{-2s+3}\sum_{u=1}^k \Omega_E(\pi,s,k-u-1,0,u) \, q^{u(-2s+2)},$$ $$\mathcal{A}_2(k):= q^{-3s+3}(1-q^{-1})\, q^{k(-2s+2)} \sum_{u=0}^\inf q^{u(-2s+2)}\beta_E(u,u+k+1).$$ It is easy to get $$\label{eq:a21113}
q^{-2s} \sum_{k=0}^\inf q^{-k} \mathcal{A}_2(k)= \frac{L(2s-1,\pi,\mathrm{Ad})}{ L(1,\trep) \, N(\ff_\eta)^{s-1}} \times \{ -q^{-4s+1}+q^{-4s+1}\lambda -q^{-6s+2} \}$$ by Proposition \[prop:412x\]. Hence, our task is to compute the sum $q^{-2s} \sum_{k=0}^\inf q^{-k} \mathcal{A}_1(k)$.
It follows from Lemma \[lem:04091\] that $$\Omega_E(\pi,s,2k-1,0,m)=\frac{1}{2}q^{(-2s+3)k}q^{s-2}(1-q^{-1})\, \beta_E(2k,2k+m),$$ $$\Omega_E(\pi,s,2k,0,m)=\frac{1}{2}q^{(-2s+3)k}q^{-s+1}(1-q^{-1})^2 \sum_{u=0}^\inf q^{-2u(s-1)} \beta_E(2k+u+1,2k+u+1+m).$$ Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}_1(2k)=&\frac{1}{2}q^{-s+1}(1-q^{-1})\, q^{k(-2s+3)} \beta_E(k,k) \\
& + (1-q^{-1})\,q^{-s+1}\sum_{u=0}^{k-1} \beta_E(u , -u+2k) \, q^{u(2s-1)}q^{2k(-2s+2)} \\
& + (1-q^{-1})^2\,q^{-s+2} \sum_{u=0}^{k-1} \sum_{m=0}^\inf q^{u(2s-1)}q^{m(-2s+2)} q^{2k(-2s+2)} \beta_E(u+m+1,-u+2k+m),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{A}_1(2k+1)=\frac{1}{2}q^{(-2s+3)k}q^{-s+2}(1-q^{-1})^2 \sum_{u=1}^\inf q^{u(-2s+2)} \beta_E(k+u,k+u) \\
+ q^{-s+2}(1-q^{-1})^2\sum_{u=0}^{k-1} \sum_{m=0}^\inf q^{(2s-1)u} q^{m(-2s+2)} q^{(2k+1)(-2s+2)}\, \beta_E(u+m+1,-u+2k+m+1) \\
+ q^{-s+1}(1-q^{-1})\sum_{u=0}^{k} q^{u(2s-1)} q^{(2k+1)(-2s+2)}\, \beta_E(u,-u+2k+1) .\end{gathered}$$ Therefore, $$\label{eq:20191115a}
q^{-2s} \sum_{k=0}^\inf q^{-k} \mathcal{A}_1(k)= (1-q^{-1}) \, q^{-3s+1} \times \{ \eqref{eq:a3l1} + \eqref{eq:a3l3} + \eqref{eq:a3l2}+\eqref{eq:a3l4} \} ,$$ $$\label{eq:a3l1}
\frac{1}{2} \sum_{k=0}^\inf q^{k(-2s+1)} \beta_E(k,k)=\frac{1}{2}B_0(q^{-2s+1}) ,$$ $$\label{eq:a3l3}
\sum_{l_1=1}^\inf \sum_{l_2=0}^\inf q^{l_2(-2s+1)}q^{l_1(-2s+1)} \beta_E(l_2 , l_1+l_2)=q^{-2s+1}U_0( q^{-2s+1},q^{-2s+1}),$$ $$\label{eq:a3l2}
\frac{1}{2}(1-q^{-1}) \sum_{k=0}^\inf \sum_{u=1}^\inf q^{k(-2s+1)} q^{u(-2s+2)} \beta_E(k+u,k+u) ,$$ $$\label{eq:a3l4}
(q-1)\sum_{l_1=2}^\inf \sum_{l_2=0}^\inf \sum_{m=0}^\inf q^{l_2(-2s+1)} q^{l_1(-2s+1)} q^{m(-2s+2)} \beta_E(l_2+m+1,l_1+l_2+m).$$ , , can be computed by Proposition \[prop:410x\], Proposition \[prop:412x\], Lemma \[lem:20191230\] respectively. It follows from Lemmas \[lem:relation\], \[lem:20191230\] and \[lem:0409l\] that $$\begin{gathered}
\eqref{eq:a3l4}= - (1+q^{-2s+1})^{-1}\, L(2s-\frac{1}{2},\pi)\, (1-q^{-1})\, q^{-4s+2} \, (1+q^{-2s})^{-1}\Big\{ q^{-1}\lambda B_0(q^{-2s+1}) - q^{-1} \Big\} \\
+ (1+q^{-2s+1})^{-1}\, L(2s-\frac{1}{2},\pi)\, (1-q^{-1})\, q^{-4s+3} (q^{-1}\lambda-q^{-2s}-q^{-4s+1})L(2s-1,\pi,\mathrm{Ad}) \\
\times \Big\{ B_0(q^{-2s+1})(q^{-4s+1}+q^{2s}+q^{2s-1}+1-q^{-1}\lambda^2) -q^{2s}-q^{2s-1} +2q^{-1}\lambda-2\Big\} .\end{gathered}$$ Thus, $$\eqref{eq:20191115a}= \frac{1}{2} \frac{L(2s-1,\pi,\mathrm{Ad}) }{L(1,\trep) \, N(\ff_\eta)^{s-1}} q^{-2s}(1+q^{-2s+1})(1-q^{-2s}).$$ The explicit formula derives from this and $Z_{E,1}(\pi,s)=L(2s-1,\trep)\, L(2,\trep)^{-3}\times \{\eqref{eq:a21113}+\eqref{eq:20191115a}\}$.
### The case $d_E \in\fo^\times\setminus (\fo^\times)^2$ ($E$ is unramified over $F$)
It follows from Lemma \[lem:04091\] that we have $\Omega_E(\pi,s,k,j,m)=0$ when $k$ is odd. Hence, by and Lemma \[lem:04092\] $$\frac{1-q^{-2s+1}}{1-q^{-1}}\, \tZ_E(\pi,s,2k+1) = q^{-2s+3} \Omega_E(\pi,s,2k,0,0)+2(q^{-2s+2})^2 \Xi_E(\pi,s,2k,1) ,$$ $$\frac{1-q^{-2s+1}}{1-q^{-1}}\, \tZ_E(\pi,s,2k) = 2 q^{-2s+2} \Xi_E(\pi,s,2k ,0) .$$ By Lemma \[lem:04091\] we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\Omega_E(\pi,s,2k,0,m)= \frac{1}{2}q^{-1}(1-q^{-1}) q^{(-2s+3)k} \beta_E(k+1, k+1+m) \\
+\frac{1}{2}(1-q^{-1})^2 q^{(-2s+3)k} \sum_{u=0}^\inf q^{-2u(s-1)} \beta_E(k+u+1, k+u+1+m).\end{gathered}$$ From this and Lemma \[lem:20191230\] we deduce $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:20191230e1}
\sum_{k=0}^\inf q^{-2k-1}q^{-2s+3} \Omega_E(\pi,s,2k,0,0)= \frac{1}{2}(1-q^{-1})q^{-2s+1}B_1(q^{-2s+1}) \\
+\frac{1}{2}(1-q^{-1})^2 q^{-2s+2}\times L(2s-1,\pi,\mathrm{Ad}) \\
\times \Big\{ B_0(q^{-2s+1})(q^{-4s+1}+q^{2s}+q^{2s-1}+1-q^{-1}\lambda^2) -q^{2s}-q^{2s-1}-1 +q^{-1}\lambda^2 -q^{-1}\lambda^2(1+q^{-1})^{-2} \Big\} .\end{gathered}$$ Furthermore, by Lemma \[lem:04092\], $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:20191230e2}
\sum_{k=0}^\inf q^{-2k} \cdot 2q^{-2s+2} \Xi_{2k,0}(\pi,s,\delta) + \sum_{k=0}^\inf q^{-2k-1} \cdot 2q^{-4s+4} \Xi_{2k,1}(\pi,s,\delta) \\
= q^{-1}(1-q^{-1}) q^{-2s+2} \sum_{k=1}^\inf \sum_{l=0}^\inf q^{(-2s+1)k} q^{(-2s+1)l} \beta_E(k,k+l+1)\\
+ (1-q^{-1})^2 q^{-2s+2} \sum_{k=1}^\inf \sum_{l=0}^\inf \sum_{u=0}^\inf q^{(-2s+1)k} q^{(-2s+1)l} q^{(-2s+2)u}\beta_E(k+u,k+l+u+1) \\
+ (1-q^{-1}) q^{-2s+2} \sum_{k=0}^\inf \sum_{u=0}^\inf q^{(-2s+1)k} q^{(-2s+2)u}\beta_E(u,u+k+1).\end{gathered}$$ It follows from Lemmas \[lem:20191230\] and \[lem:0409l\] that $$\begin{gathered}
\eqref{eq:20191230e2} = q^{-1}(1-q^{-1}) q^{-2s+2}U_1(q^{-2s+1},q^{-2s+1}) \\
+(1-q^{-1})^2 (1+q^{-2s+1})^{-1} q^{-4s+3} (q^{-1}\lambda-q^{-2s}-q^{-4s+1})\, L(2s-\frac{1}{2},\pi)\, L(2s-1,\pi,\mathrm{Ad}) \\
\times \Big\{ B_0(q^{-2s+1})(q^{-4s+1}+q^{2s}+q^{2s-1}+1-q^{-1}\lambda^2) -q^{2s}-q^{2s-1}-1 +q^{-1}\lambda^2 -q^{-1}\lambda^2(1+q^{-1})^{-2} \Big\} \\
- (1-q^{-1})^2 (1+q^{-2s+1})^{-1}L(2s-\frac{1}{2},\pi)\, q^{-4s+2} C_0(q^{-2s+1}) \\
+ (1-q^{-1}) q^{-2s+2} U_0(q^{-2s+1},q^{-2s+2}).\end{gathered}$$ Thus, we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:2020.1.1}
\frac{1-q^{-2s+1}}{1-q^{-1}} \sum_{k=0}^\inf q^{-k} \tZ_E(\pi,s,k)= \eqref{eq:20191230e1} + \eqref{eq:20191230e2} \\
= \frac{1}{2} q^{-2s+1}(1-q^{-1})(1+q^{-1})^{-2}L(2s-1,\pi,\mathrm{Ad}) \times (-q^{-2s+1} - 2 q^{-2s} - q^{-2s-1} - q^{-4s+2} \\
- 2 q^{-4s+1} - q^{-4s} + 2 \lambda + 2 q^{-1} \lambda - 2 q^{-2s} \lambda - 2 q^{-2s-1} \lambda + q^{-1} \lambda^2 + q^{-2s} \lambda^2),\end{gathered}$$ which implies the assertion.
### The case $d_E\in (\fo^\times)^2$ ($E=F\oplus F$)
In this case, means $$\frac{1-q^{-2s+1}}{1-q^{-1}}\, \tZ_E(\pi,s,k) = 1 + q^{-2s+3} \Omega_E(\pi,s,k-1,0,0)+2q^{-2s+2}\Xi_E(\pi,s,k,0) .$$ By Lemma \[lem:04091\] we have $$\Omega_E(\pi,s,2k-1,0,m)= (1-q^{-1})^2 \sum_{t=1}^{k}q^{(-2s+3)(t-1)} \beta_E(t, t+m) ,$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\Omega_E(\pi,s,2k,0,m)= (1-q^{-1})^2 \sum_{t=1}^{k}q^{(-2s+3)(t-1)} \beta_E(t, t+m) \\
-\frac{1}{2}q^{-1}(1-q^{-1}) q^{(-2s+3)k} \beta_E(k+1, k+1+m) \\
+\frac{1}{2}(1-q^{-1})^2 q^{(-2s+3)k} \sum_{u=0}^\inf q^{-2u(s-1)} \beta_E(k+u+1, k+u+1+m).\end{gathered}$$ From this we have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:20200104e1}
\sum_{m=0}^\inf q^{-m} q^{-2s+3} \Omega_E(\pi,s,m-1,0,0)= \frac{1}{2}(1-q^{-1})q^{-2s+1}\sum_{k=0}^\inf q^{(-2s+1)k} \beta_E(k+1, k+1) \\
+\frac{1}{2}(1-q^{-1})^2 q^{-2s+2}\sum_{k=0}^\inf \sum_{u=0}^\inf q^{(-2s+1)k}q^{(-2s+2)u}\beta_E(k+u+1,k+u+1)\end{gathered}$$ since $\sum_{m=2}^\inf q^{-m} \sum_{t=1}^{[m/2]}q^{(-2s+3)(t-1)} \beta_E(t, t)= (1-q^{-1})^{-1} q^{-2}\sum_{t=0}^{\inf}q^{(-2s+1)t} \beta_E(t+1, t+1)$. By Lemma \[lem:20191230\] we have $$\begin{gathered}
\eqref{eq:20200104e1} = \frac{1}{2}(1-q^{-1})q^{-2s+1}B_1(q^{-2s+1}) +\frac{1}{2}(1-q^{-1})^2 q^{-2s+2}\times L(2s-1,\pi,\mathrm{Ad}) \\
\times \Big\{ B_0(q^{-2s+1})(q^{-4s+1}+q^{2s}+q^{2s-1}+1-q^{-1}\lambda^2) -q^{2s}-q^{2s-1}-1 +q^{-1}\lambda^2 -q^{-1}(\lambda-2)^2(1-q^{-1})^{-2} \Big\} .\end{gathered}$$ It follows from Lemma \[lem:04092\] that $$\Xi_E(\pi,s,0,j)=\frac{1}{2}(1-q^{-1})\sum_{u=0}^\inf q^{u(-2s+2)} \beta_E(u , u+j+1),$$ and we get for $k\geq 1$ $$\begin{gathered}
\Xi_E(\pi,s,k , j)= (1-q^{-1})\sum_{t=1}^{k} q^{(-2s+2)(t-1)} \beta_E(0,j+t) \\
+ q^{-2s+3}\sum_{l=1}^{k} q^{(-2s+2)(l-1)}\Omega_E(\pi,s,k-l-1 , 0, j+l)+ q^{(-2s+2)k} \Xi_E(\pi,s,0, j+k) .\end{gathered}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:20200104e2}
2q^{-2s+2}\sum_{m=0}^\inf q^{-m} \Xi_E(\pi,s,m,0) = 2q^{-2s+1}\sum_{t=0}^\inf q^{(-2s+1)t}\beta_E(t+1) \\
+q^{-1}(1-q^{-1}) q^{-2s+2} \sum_{k=1}^\inf \sum_{l=0}^\inf q^{(-2s+1)k} q^{(-2s+1)l} \beta_E(k,k+l+1)\\
+ (1-q^{-1})^2 q^{-2s+2} \sum_{k=1}^\inf \sum_{l=0}^\inf \sum_{u=0}^\inf q^{(-2s+1)k} q^{(-2s+1)l} q^{(-2s+2)u}\beta_E(k+u,k+l+u+1) \\
+ (1-q^{-1}) q^{-2s+2} \sum_{k=0}^\inf \sum_{u=0}^\inf q^{(-2s+1)k} q^{(-2s+2)u}\beta_E(u,u+k+1).\end{gathered}$$ By Lemmas \[lem:20191230\] and \[lem:0409l\] we have $$\begin{gathered}
\eqref{eq:20200104e2} =2q^{-2s+1} A_1(q^{-2s+1}) + q^{-1}(1-q^{-1}) q^{-2s+2}U_1(q^{-2s+1},q^{-2s+1}) \\
+(1-q^{-1})^2 (1+q^{-2s+1})^{-1} q^{-4s+3} (q^{-1}\lambda-q^{-2s}-q^{-4s+1})\, L(2s-\frac{1}{2},\pi)\, L(2s-1,\pi,\mathrm{Ad}) \\
\times \Big\{ B_0(q^{-2s+1})(q^{-4s+1}+q^{2s}+q^{2s-1}+1-q^{-1}\lambda^2) -q^{2s}-q^{2s-1}-1 +q^{-1}\lambda^2 -q^{-1}(\lambda-2)^2(1-q^{-1})^{-2} \Big\} \\
- (1-q^{-1})^2 (1+q^{-2s+1})^{-1}L(2s-\frac{1}{2},\pi)\, q^{-4s+2} C_0(q^{-2s+1}) \\
+ (1-q^{-1}) q^{-2s+2} U_0(q^{-2s+1},q^{-2s+2}).\end{gathered}$$ Thus, we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{1-q^{-2s+1}}{1-q^{-1}} \sum_{k=0}^\inf q^{-k} \tZ_E(\pi,s,k)= (1-q^{-1})^{-1} +\eqref{eq:20191230e1} + \eqref{eq:20191230e2} \\
= \frac{1}{2} (1-q^{-1})^{-1}L(2s-1,\pi,\mathrm{Ad}) \times (2 - 2 q^{-2s+1} - 3 q^{-4s+2} - 2 q^{-4s+1} - q^{-4s} + q^{-6s+3} - 2 q^{-6s+2} - q^{-6s+1}\\
+ 2 q^{-2s+1} \lambda - 2 q^{-2s} \lambda + 6 q^{-4s+1} \lambda + 2 q^{-4s} \lambda - q^{-2s} \lambda^2 - q^{-4s+1} \lambda^2).\end{gathered}$$ The proof is completed.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'William R. Coulton'
- Jia Liu
- 'Mathew S. Madhavacheril'
- Vanessa Böhm
- 'David N. Spergel'
bibliography:
- 'Mendeley.bib'
- 'project.bib'
title: Constraining Neutrino Mass with the Tomographic Weak Lensing Bispectrum
---
Introduction
============
Methodology {#sec:methods}
===========
The effect of neutrino mass on the power-spectrum {#sec:powerspec}
=================================================
The effect of neutrino mass on the bispectrum {#sec:bispec}
=============================================
Constraints {#sec:constraints}
===========
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
Acknowledgements
================
Power-spectrum robustness tests {#app:powspecTests}
===============================
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, HG G 63.2, Ramistrasse 101, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland'
- 'School of Mathematics, Institute for Advanced Study, Einstein Drive, Fuld Hall, Princeton, NJ 08540'
author:
- Brent Doran
- Jun Yu
title: Algebraic vector bundles on punctured affine spaces and smooth quadrics
---
Introduction
============
Given a smooth affine variety $X$, denote by $\mathscr{V}_{n}(X)$ the isomorphism classes of rank $n$ algebraic vector bundles on $X$. Morel proved that (cf. [@Morel]), $$\mathscr{V}_{n}(X)=[X,BGL_{n}]_{\mathbb{A}^1}.$$ Here , $BGL_{n}$ is the simplicial classifying space of $\GL_{n}$ (cf. [@Morel-Voevodsky]) and $[\cdot,\cdot]_{\mathbb{A}^1}$ denotes the equivalence classes of maps in the $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy category.
The above theorem might make one hope that some form of homotopy invariance holds for the functor $\mathscr{V}_{n}(X)$ beyond the affine case. Indeed, by the Jouanolou-Thomason homotopy lemma (cf. [@Weibel2], Proposition 4.4), given a smooth scheme $X$ admitting an ample family of line bundles (e.g., a quasi-projective variety), there exists a smooth affine scheme $Y$ and a Zariski locally trivial smooth morphism $f: Y \longrightarrow X$ with fibers isomorphic to affine spaces ($f$ is called an affine vector bundle torsor). In particular, this morphism is an $\mathbb{A}^1$-weak equivalence. Thus the above naive hope would reduce the study of vector bundles on such schemes to the case of affine varieties. Unfortunately, Theorem 1.2 in [@Asok-Doran] shows that this is false. In [@Asok-Doran], Asok and Doran constructed continuous families of $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-contractible smooth varieties, which admit continuous moduli of non-trivial algebraic vector bundles.
Given $n\geq 1$, denote by $$Y_{n}=\SL_{n+1}/\SL_{n}$$ and $$X_{n}={\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}\backslash\{0\},$$ where $\SL_{n}=\SL(n,{\mathbb{C}})$. Let $$p: Y_{n}\longrightarrow X_{n}$$ be the projection which maps an $(n+1)\times(n+1)$ matrix to its first row (cf. Section \[S:e\]). Then $p$ is a fiber bundle with fibers isomorphic to ${\mathbb{C}}^{n}$. Namely, $Y_{n}$ is an [*affine vector bundle torsor*]{} over $X_{n}$. From the point of view of the $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy theory, $p$ is an $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy weak equivalence. Since the algebraic $K$-theory is representable in the $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy category (cf. Theorem 2.3.1 in [@Voevodsky]), it follows that $p$ induces an isomorphism of algebraic $K$-groups. In particular, we have $K_{0}(Y_{n})=K_{0}(X_{n})$. Therefore, it is natural to ask the following question:
\[Q:bundle\] Does there exist a pair of non-isomorphic algebraic vector bundles $(E_1,E_2)$ on $X_{n}$ such that their pull-backs to $Y_{n}$ satisfy $p^{\ast}(E_1)\cong p^{\ast}(E_2)$?
In this chapter, we give an affirmative answer to Question \[Q:bundle\]. In fact, given that rank $r\geq n$, we show that there exist non-trivial bundles on $X_{n}$ of rank $r$ satisfying that their pull-backs to $Y_{n}$ are trivial (cf. Theorem \[T:any rank\]). Moreover, we construct continuous families of pairwise non-isomorphic algebraic bundles on $X_{n}$ of rank $n$ of arbitrarily large dimension such that their pull-backs to $Y_{n}$ are trivial (cf. Theorem \[T:family\]). We sketch the proof as follows. First we define an invariant $e$ for algebraic vector bundles on $\mathbb{P}^{n}$. Then we use it to study the pull-backs to $X_{n}$ and $Y_{n}$ of bundles on $\mathbb{P}^{n}$. Given an algebraic vector bundle $E$ on $\mathbb{P}^{n}$, $e(E)$ is a non-negative integer. Most of our studies are about the bundles $E$ with $e(E)=1$. We also note that Asok and Fasel have made progress reducing Morel’s abstract solution to concrete computation of $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy groups of algebraic spheres (cf. [@Asok-Fasel]).
[*Notation and conventions.*]{} Let $$\pi: X_{n}\longrightarrow\mathbb{P}^{n}$$ be the natural projection and let $$\rho=\pi\circ p.$$ Let $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{n}}(k)$ be the line bundle on $\mathbb{P}^{n}$ corresponding to the divisor $kH$, where $H$ is a hyperplane divisor. Given an algebraic vector bundle $E$ on $\mathbb{P}^{n}$, let $E(k)=E\otimes\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{n}}(k)$ and $H^{i}(E)$ denote the $i$-th (sheaf) cohomology group of $E$.
Throughout, we assume that varieties in this chapter are over the complex field. However, all results except Swan-Towber’s and Swan’s theorems and Theorem \[T:e=1\] (2) hold true for varieties over any algebraically closed field.
Vector bundles on affine spaces, projective spaces and punctured affine spaces
==============================================================================
The study of algebraic vector bundles on an affine scheme $\Spec A$ is equivalent to the study of projective $A$-modules. In the 1950s, Serre asked whether algebraic vector bundles on the affine space ${\mathbb{C}}^{n}$ are trivial. This was addressed by Quillen and Suslin independently in 1976. They proved that: over a field $k$, any projective $k[x_1,...,x_{n}]$-module of finite rank is trivial.
In the 1950s Grothendieck showed that, any algebraic vector bundle on the projective line $\mathbb{P}^1$ is a direct sum of line bundles $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1}(k)$. In [@Schwarzenberger2], Schwarzenberger introduced [*almost decomposable bundles*]{}. An algebraic vector bundle on $X=\mathbb{P}^2$ is called almost decomposable if $\dim H^{0}(X,\End E)>1$, where $\End E=E\otimes E^{\ast}$ is the endomorphism bundle of $E$. Schwarzenberger classified all the almost decomposable bundles on $\mathbb{P}^2$ of rank 2 in [@Schwarzenberger]. In [@Schwarzenberger2], Schwarzenberger showed that, any rank 2 bundle $E$ on $X=\mathbb{P}^2$ is of the form $E=f_{\ast}M$ where $M$ is a line bundle on a non-singular $Y$ and $f: Y\longrightarrow X$ is a ramified double covering. In the case that $Y=Q_2=\mathbb{P}^1\times\mathbb{P}^1$ or $Y=V_2$, a blowing-up of $\mathbb{P}^2$ with seven distinct points as base points, Schwarzenberger studied the rank 2 bundles $E=f_{\ast}M$ intensively. Since the 1970s, the study of algebraic vector bundles on projective spaces has focused on stable (and semi-stable) vector bundles and their moduli spaces. In the 1970s Barth and Hulek proved that, the moduli space $M_{\mathbb{P}^{2}}(c_1,c_2)$ of stable vector bundles $E$ on $X=\mathbb{P}^2$ with fixed Chern classes $(c_1(E),c_2(E))=(c_1,c_2)$ is an irreducible, rational and smooth variety (cf. [@Barth] and [@Hulek]). The books [@Okonek-Schneider-Spindler] and [@Huybrechts-Lehn] give an excellent introduction to the study of vector bundles on projective spaces.
In [@Horrocks], Horrocks studied algebraic vector bundles on the punctured spectrum $Y=\Spec A-\{m\}$ for a regular integral ring $A$ and an maximal ideal $m$ of it. He defined $\Phi$-equivalence for algebraic vector bundles on $Y$ and showed that([@Horrocks], Theorem 7.4), a bundle $\mathcal{E}$ on $Y$ is determined up to $\Phi$-equivalence by the cohomology modules $H^{i} (\mathcal{E})$ $(0<i<\dim A-1)$ and the extensions $b^{i}(\mathcal{E})\in\Ext_{A}^2(H^{i+1}(\mathcal{E}),H^{i}(\mathcal{E}))$ ($0<i<\dim A-2$). As an application, Horrocks got the following beautiful criterion:
\[T:Horrocks\] An algebraic vector bundle $E$ of rank $r$ on $\mathbb{P}^{n}$ is a direct sum of line bundles $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^n}(k)$ if and only if $H^{i}(E(k))=0$ for any $0<i<n$ and any $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, where $E(k)=E\otimes\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^n}(k)$.
Unimodular and completable rows
===============================
In this section, we give a brief review of the theory of unimodular rows. The readers could refer [@Lam] for more details. Given a commutative ring $R$, let $\GL_{n}(R)$ be the group of $n\times n$ matrices with entries in $R$. A row vector $\vec{a}=(a_0,a_1,\dots,a_{n})$ is called a [*unimodular*]{} row if $Ra_0+Ra_1+\cdots+Ra_{n}=R$. Two unimodular rows $\vec{a}^1,\vec{a}^{2}$ are called equivalent, if $\vec{a}^2=\vec{a}^1 g$ for some $g\in\GL_{n+1}(R)$. We denote by $\vec{a}^1\sim\vec{a}^{2}$, if $\vec{a}^1$ and $\vec{a}^{2}$ are equivalent. A unimodular row $\vec{a}$ is called [*completable*]{} if $\vec{a}\sim(1,0,\dots,0)$.
Given a unimodular row $\vec{a}$, there is a surjective homomorphism $$R^{n+1}\longrightarrow R,\quad
\sum_{0\leq i\leq n} x_{i}e_{i}\mapsto\sum_{0\leq i\leq n}a_{i}x_{i},$$ where $\{e_0,\dots,e_{n}\}$ is the standard basis of $R^{n+1}$. Let $P_{\vec{a}}$ be the kernel of this surjective homomorphism, which is a projective $R$-module of rank $n$. It is known that $P_{\vec{a}^1}\cong P_{\vec{a}^2}$ if and only if $\vec{a}^1\sim\vec{a}^2$. In particular, $P_{\vec{a}}$ is trivial if and only if $\vec{a}$ is completable.
We define the ring $R={\mathbb{C}}[x_0,x_1,...,x_n,y_0,y_1,...,y_n]/\langle x_0y_0+x_1y_1+\cdots+x_{n}y_{n}-1\rangle$, and a unimodular row of the form $(f_{0},\dots,f_{n})=(x_0^{a_0},\dots,x_{n}^{a_{n}})$, where $a_0,\dots,a_{n}$ are non-negative integers. We restate the celebrated $n!$ Theorem of Suslin and its converse due to Swan-Towber.
\[T:SW-S\] Let $(f_{0},\dots,f_{n})=(x_0^{a_0},\dots,x_{n}^{a_{n}})$, where $a_{i}\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 1}$.
- [(Suslin, [@Lam]) If $n!\mid\prod a_{i}$, then $(f_0,f_1,...,f_{n})\in R^{n+1}$ is completable.]{}
- [(Swan-Towber, [@Swan-Towber]) If $n!\nmid\prod a_{i}$, then $(f_0,f_1,...,f_{n})\in R^{n+1}$ is not completable.]{}
We remark that Suslin’s theorem holds on any field.
Given a unimodular row $(f_{0},\dots,f_{n})$ with $f_{i}$ a homogeneous polynomial of degree $a_{i}$, the following generalization of Theorem \[T:SW-S\] states that:
\[T:Kumar-Swan\] Let $\{f_{0},\dots,f_{n}\}$ be homogeneous polynomials of $x_0,...,x_{n}$ satisfying that $$\rad(f_0,f_1,...,f_{n})=(x_0,x_1,...,x_{n}).$$
- [(Mohan Kumar, [@Kumar]) If $n!\mid\prod\deg f_{i}$, then $(f_0,f_1,...,f_{n})\in R^{n+1}$ is completable.]{}
- [(Swan, [@Swan2]) If $n!\nmid\prod\deg f_{i}$, then $(f_0,f_1,...,f_{n})\in R^{n+1}$ is not completable.]{}
Mohan Kumar’s theorem holds for any algebraic closed field.
Invariant $e$ and some examples {#S:e}
===============================
Let $Y_{n}=\SL_{n+1}/\SL_{n}$ and $X_{n}={\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}\backslash\{0\}$, and let $\mathbb{P}^{n}$ be $n$-dimensional projective space over ${\mathbb{C}}$. Here $\SL_{n}$ is included in $\SL_{n+1}$ in the following way $$\SL_n=\{\diag\{1,B\}\in\SL_{n+1}|B\in\SL_{n}\}.$$ Let $p:Y_{n}\rightarrow X_{n}$ be the map $p([A])=(a_{00},\cdots,a_{0,n})$ (the first row) for any $$A=(a_{i,j})_{0\leq i,j\leq n}\in\SL_{n+1},$$ where $$[A]=\SL_{n}A\in\SL_{n+1}/\SL_{n}=Y_{n}.$$ Let $\pi:X_{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{P}^{n}$ be the natural projection, and $$\rho=\pi\circ p:Y_{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{P}^{n}.$$
For $A=(a_{i,j})_{0\leq i,j\leq n}\in\SL_{n+1}$, let $x_{i}=a_{0,i}$ and $$y_{i}=(-1)^{i}\det A_{i}$$ where $A_{i}$ is the $n\times n$ sub-matrix of $A$ with the first row (indexed by 0) and the $(i+1)$-th column (indexed by $i$) deleted. Then we have the isomorphism $$\SL_{n+1}/\SL_{n}\cong\{(x_0,\cdots,x_{n},y_0,\cdots,y_{n})\in{\mathbb{C}}^{2n+2}:
\sum_{0\leq i\leq n}x_{i}y_{i}=1\}.$$ The last equality implies that $Y_{n}$ is isomorphic to the $(2n+1)$-dimensional smooth quadric.
Let $$R=R[Y_{n}]={\mathbb{C}}[x_0,\cdots,x_{n},y_0,\cdots,y_{n}]/\langle\sum_{0\leq i\leq n}x_{i}y_{i}-1
\rangle$$ and $S=R[X_{n}]={\mathbb{C}}[x_0,x_1,\cdots,x_{n}]$. Let $m=(x_0,x_1,\cdots,x_{n})$ be the maximal ideal corresponding to the point ${0}=\Spec S-X_{n}$.
Given a vector bundle $E$ of rank $r$ on $\mathbb{P}^{n}$ and $i\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, define $$M_{i}(E)=
\bigoplus_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}}H^{i}(E(k)),$$ where $E(k)=E\otimes\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{n}}(k)$. Let $M_{E}=M_0(E)$ and $M'_{E}=M_{E}/mM_{E}$.
\[P:bundle-basic\] Given an algebraic vector bundle $E$ of rank $r$ on $\mathbb{P}^{n}$,
- [if $i<0$ or $i>n$, then $M_{i}(E)=0$.]{}
- [For any $i$ with $0<i<n$, $M_{i}(E)$ is of finite dimension.]{}
- [$M_{E}$ is a finitely generated $S=\bigoplus_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{n}}(k)$ module.]{}
- [$M'_{E}$ is of finite dimension.]{}
For $(1)$, if $i<0$, it is clear that $H^{i}(E(k))=0$ for any integer $k$. Thus $M_{i}(E)=0$. If $i>n$, for any $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, by the Serre duality $H^{i}(E(k))=(H^{n-i}(E(-n-1-k)))^{\ast}=0$. Hence $M_{i}(E)=0$.
For $(2)$, since $\mathcal{O}(1)=\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{n}}(1)$ is very ample, given an $i>0$ there exists a $k_{i}\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $H^{i}(E(k))=0$ for $k\geq k_{i}$ (cf. [@Hartshorne], Theorem 5.2). By the Serre duality, for any $i<n$, $H^{i}(E(k))=(H^{n-i}(E^{\ast}(-n-1-k)))^{\ast}$. Thus there exists a $k'_{i}\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $H^{i}(E(k))=0$ for $k\leq k'_{i}$. Since each $H^{i}(E(k))$ is of finite-dimension, thus $M_{i}(E)$ is of finite dimension.
For $(3)$, it follows from [@Huybrechts-Lehn], Lemma 1.7.2 and [@Hartshorne], Theorem 5.2 that, $M_{E}$ is a finitely generated $S=\bigoplus_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{n}}(k)$ module.
Finally, $(4)$ follows from $(3)$.
\[D:e\] Given an algebraic vector bundle $E$ of rank $r$ on $\mathbb{P}^n$, define $e(E)+r$ to be the minimal number of generators of the $S$-module $M_{E}$.
\[L:3-term resolution\] Given an algebraic vector bundle $E$ of rank $r$ on $\mathbb{P}^n$, we have $e=e(E)=\dim_{{\mathbb{C}}}(M'_{E})-r$. Moreover, there exists an exact sequence $$0\longrightarrow E'\longrightarrow\bigoplus_{1\leq i\leq e+r}\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{n}}(a_{i})
\longrightarrow E\longrightarrow 0$$ for some integers $a_1,\dots,a_{e+r}$ and a vector bundle $E'$ of rank $e$. In particular we have $e(E)\geq 0$.
If the elements $x_1,x_2,\dots,x_{e+r}$ generate the $S$-module $M_{E}$, then they generate the $S/m={\mathbb{C}}$ vector space $M'_{E}=M_{E}/mM_{E}$. Thus $\dim_{{\mathbb{C}}}(M'_{E})\leq e(E)+r$. On the other hand, by Proposition \[P:bundle-basic\], $M_{E}$ is a finitely generated $S$-module. Thus there exists $k_0\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $H^{0}(E(k))=0$ for $k<k_0$. Let $x_1,\dots,x_{t}$ be homogeneous elements of $M_{E}$ such that, $$[x_1]=x_1+mM_{E},\dots,[x_{t}]=x_{t}+mM_{E}$$ is a basis of $M'_{E}$. From the condition of $H^{0}(E(k))=0$ for $k<k_0$, one can show that $x_1,\dots,x_{t}$ generate the $S$-module $M_{E}$. Hence $e(E)+r\leq\dim_{{\mathbb{C}}}(M'_{E})$. Therefore $e(E)=\dim_{{\mathbb{C}}}(M'_{E})-r$.
By the argument above, there exists a system of homogeneous generators $$\{x_i\in H^{0}(E(-a_{i}))|\ 1\leq i\leq e+r\}$$ of the $S$-module $M_{E}$. For each $i$, the element ${x_i\in H^{0}(E(-a_{i}))}$ gives a map $$]\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{n}}(a_{i})\longrightarrow E.$$ Summing them up, we get a map of vector bundles $$\psi: \bigoplus_{1\leq i\leq e+r}\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{n}}(a_{i})
\longrightarrow E.$$ By Theorem 5.17 in [@Hartshorne] , $\psi$ is a surjective map of vector bundles. Let $E'$ be the kernel of $\psi$. Then we get an exact sequence $$0\longrightarrow E'\longrightarrow
\bigoplus_{1\leq i\leq e+r}\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{n}}(a_{i})\longrightarrow E\longrightarrow 0.$$ It is clear that $\rank E'=(e(E)+r)-\rank E=e(E)$. Therefore $e(E)\geq 0$.
\[C:e-additive\] Given an algebraic vector bundle $E$ of rank $r$ on $\mathbb{P}^n$, $e(E)\geq 0$.
Given two algebraic vector bundles $E_1,E_2$ of finite rank on $\mathbb{P}^n$, $e(E_1\oplus E_2)=e(E_1)+e(E_2)$.
The first statement follows from the second statement in Lemma \[L:3-term resolution\]. The second statement follows from the first statement in Lemma \[L:3-term resolution\].
\[P2:e=1\] Given an algebraic vector bundle $E$ on $\mathbb{P}^{n}$ with $e(E)=1$, there exists an exact sequence $$0\longrightarrow\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{n}}(b)\longrightarrow\bigoplus_{1\leq i\leq r+1}
\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{n}}(a_{i})\longrightarrow E\longrightarrow 0$$ for some integers $b,a_1,\dots,a_{r}$.
This follows from Lemma \[L:3-term resolution\]. Note that, since $\rank E'=e(E)=1$, we have $E'\cong\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{n}}(b)$ for some integer $b$.
\[T:pull-back\] Given an algebraic vector bundle $E$ of rank $r$ on $\mathbb{P}^n$, the following conditions are equivalent to each other:
- [$e(E)=0$.]{}
- [$E$ is a direct sum of line bundles.]{}
- [$\pi^{\ast}E$ is a trivial bundle on $X$.]{}
- [$H^{i}(\pi^{\ast}E)=0$ for any $1\leq i\leq n-1$.]{}
- [$H^{i}(E(k))=0$ for any $1\leq i\leq n-1$ and any $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}$,]{}
Lemma \[L:3-term resolution\] implies that $(1)\Leftrightarrow(2)$. It follows from Theorem 2.3.1 in [@Okonek-Schneider-Spindler] that $(5)\Leftrightarrow(2)$. It is obvious that $(2)\Rightarrow(3)$ and $(3)\Rightarrow(4)$.
To show $(4)\Leftrightarrow(5)$, we consider $$\pi: X_{n}={\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}-\{0\}\longrightarrow\mathbb{P}^{n},$$ which is a fibre bundle with fibers all isomorphic to ${\mathbb{C}}^{\ast}={\mathbb{C}}-\{0\}$. A straightforward calculation shows that $\pi_{\ast}(\pi^{\ast}E)\cong\bigoplus_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}}E(k)$. Since $\pi$ is an affine morphism, by the Leray spectral sequence we get $$H^{i}(\pi^{\ast}E)=H^{i}(\pi_{\ast}(\pi^{\ast}E))=
\bigoplus_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}}H^{i}(E(k)).$$ From this equality, we get $(4)\Leftrightarrow(5)$.
\[P:3-term resolution\] Let $E$ be a vector bundle of rank $r$ on $\mathbb{P}^n$ with $M_{i}(E)=0$ for $1\leq i\leq n-2$. Then we have an exact sequence $$0\longrightarrow\bigoplus_{1\leq i\leq e}\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{n}}(b_{i})\longrightarrow
\bigoplus_{1\leq i\leq r+e}\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{n}}(a_{i})\longrightarrow E\longrightarrow 0$$ for some integers $b_1,\dots,b_{e},a_1,\dots,a_{e+r}$.
By Lemma \[L:3-term resolution\], we have an exact sequence $$0\longrightarrow E'\longrightarrow
\bigoplus_{1\leq i\leq e+r}\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{n}}(a_{i})\longrightarrow E\longrightarrow 0$$ for some integers $a_1,\dots,a_{e+r}$ and a vector bundle $E'$ of rank $e$. Let $$E''=\bigoplus_{1\leq i\leq e+r}
\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{n}}(a_{i})$$ and denote by $\psi:E''\longrightarrow E$ the second map. By the proof of Lemma \[L:3-term resolution\], the map $H^{0}(E''(k))\longrightarrow H^{0}(E(k))$ is surjective for $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}$.
From the short exact sequence $0\longrightarrow E'\longrightarrow E''\longrightarrow E\longrightarrow 0$, we get $$H^{i-1}(E''(k))\longrightarrow H^{i-1}(E(k))\longrightarrow H^{i}(E'(k))\longrightarrow
H^{i}(E''(k)).$$ For $2\leq i\leq n-1$, we have $H^{i-1}(E''(k))=H^{i}(E''(k))=0$, since $E''(k)$ is a direct sum of line bundles. By the assumption of $H^{i-1}(E(k))=0$, we get $H^{i}(E'(k))=0$. For $i=1$, $H^{1}(E''(k))=0$, since $E''(k)$ is a direct sum of line bundles and the map $H^{0}(E''(k))
\longrightarrow H^{0}(E(k))$ is surjective by the proof of Lemma \[L:3-term resolution\]. Therefore, $H^{1}(E'(k))=0$.
By these, we get $H^{i}(E(k))=0$ for $1\leq i\leq n-1$ and $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}$. By Theorem \[T:pull-back\], $E'$ is a direct sum of line bundles.
\[T:easy examples\] Let $E$ be a vector bundle of rank $r$ on $\mathbb{P}^n$ with $e(E)>0$. Then,
- [$\pi^{\ast}E\oplus(\mathcal{O}_{X_{n}})^{t}$ is not trivial for $t\geq 0$.]{}
- [If $M_{i}(E)=0$ for $1\leq i\leq n-2$, then $\rho^{\ast}E\oplus(\mathcal{O}_{Y_{n}})^{t}$ is trivial for $t\geq e$.]{}
For (1), note that $\pi^{\ast}E\oplus (\mathcal{O}_{X_{n}})^{t}=\pi^{\ast}(E\oplus
(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{n}})^{t})$ and $e(E\oplus(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{n}})^{t})=e(E)>0$. Hence $\pi^{\ast}E\oplus(\mathcal{O}_{X_{n}})^{t}$ is not trivial by Theorem \[T:pull-back\].
For (2), by Proposition \[P:3-term resolution\] we have the following exact sequence $$0\longrightarrow\bigoplus_{1\leq i\leq e}\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{n}}(b_{i})\longrightarrow
\bigoplus_{1\leq i\leq r+e}\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{n}}(a_{i})\longrightarrow E\longrightarrow 0.$$ Since $\rho: Y_{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{P}^{n}$ is an affine morphism, pulling back to $Y_{n}$, we get an exact sequence $$0\longrightarrow(\mathcal{O}_{Y_{n}})^{e}\longrightarrow(\mathcal{O}_{Y_{n}})^{e+r}
\longrightarrow\rho^{\ast}E\longrightarrow 0.$$ Since $Y_{n}$ is affine, the above short exact sequence of vector bundles splits. Thus $$\rho^{\ast}E\oplus
(\mathcal{O}_{Y_{n}})^{t}\cong(\rho^{\ast}E\oplus(\mathcal{O}_{Y_{n}})^{e})\oplus
(\mathcal{O}_{Y_{n}})^{t-e}\cong(\mathcal{O}_{Y_{n}})^{e+r}\oplus(\mathcal{O}_{Y_{n}})^{t-e}
\cong(\mathcal{O}_{Y_{n}})^{t+r}$$ is trivial, if $t\geq e$.
Note that, the assumption of $M_{i}(E)=0$ for $1\leq i\leq n-2$ holds true if $n=2$.
\[E:first example\] Let $G=\SL_3$, $$P=\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}\lambda&\alpha^{t}\\0_2&B\end{array}\right)|\ B\in\GL_2,\lambda\det B=1,
\alpha\in{\mathbb{C}}^{2}\right\},$$ $$P'=\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}1&\alpha^{t}\\0_2&B\end{array}\right)|\
B\in\SL_2,\alpha\in{\mathbb{C}}^{2}\right\}$$ and $$H=\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}1&0_{2}^{t}\\0_2&B\end{array}
\right)|\ B\in\SL_2\right\}.$$ Let $\mathfrak{g}$, $\mathfrak{p}$, $\mathfrak{p}'$ and $\mathfrak{h}$ be their Lie algebras. We have the following identifications $$Y_{2}=G/H,$$ $$X_{2}=G/P'$$ and $$\mathbb{P}^2=G/P.$$ Let $$E_1=G\times_{P}(\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{p}')$$ and $$E_2=G\times_{P}(\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{p}\oplus\mathfrak{p}/\mathfrak{p}').$$ They are algebraic vector bundles on $\mathbb{P}^2=G/P$ of rank $3$. Then $\pi^{\ast}(E_1)$ and $\pi^{\ast}(E_2)$ are non-isomorphic on $X_2$. However, their pull-backs to $Y_2$ are isomorphic.
$\pi^{\ast}(E_1)=G\times_{P'}(\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{p}')$ is the tangent bundle of $G/P'\cong
{\mathbb{C}}^{3}\backslash\{0\}$. The tangent bundle of ${\mathbb{C}}^{3}\backslash\{0\}$ is clearly trivial, thus $\pi^{\ast}(E_1)\cong(\mathcal{\mathcal{O}}_{X_2})^3$. By the Euler sequence (cf. Page $6$ in[@Okonek-Schneider-Spindler]) $$0\longrightarrow
\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{n}}(-1)\longrightarrow(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{n}})^{n+1}\longrightarrow
T_{\mathbb{P}^{n}}(-1)\longrightarrow 0,$$ we get $e(T_{\mathbb{P}^{n}})=1$. In the case of $n=2$, we get $e(E_2)=e(T_{\mathbb{P}^2})=1$. Hence $\pi^{\ast}(E_2)$ is not trivial. Therefore $\pi^{\ast}(E_1)\not\cong\pi^{\ast}(E_2)$.
Since $H$ is semisimple, $\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{p}'\cong\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{p}\oplus
\mathfrak{p}/\mathfrak{p}'$ as $H$-modules. Hence $\rho^{\ast}(E_1)\cong\rho^{\ast}(E_2)$.
Bundles with $e=1$ and more examples
====================================
Let $E$ be a rank $r$ vector bundle on $\mathbb{P}^n$ with $e(E)=1$. By Proposition \[P2:e=1\], we have an exact sequence $$0\longrightarrow E'=\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{n}}(b)\longrightarrow E''=
\bigoplus_{0\leq i\leq r}\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{n}}(b_i)\longrightarrow E\longrightarrow 0$$ such that the map $H^{0}(E''(k))\longrightarrow H^{0}(E(k))$ is surjective for $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}$. One can show that the bundle $E$ determines the numbers $b,b_0,...,b_r$. Moreover we have $b<\min\{b_0,b_1,...,b_r\}$. The reason is that: if $b=\min\{b_0,b_1,...,b_r\}$, then $E$ is a direct sum of line bundles, which contradicts to the fact that $e(E)=1$. Moreover, the maps $\phi: E'\longrightarrow E''$ and $\psi: E''\longrightarrow E$ are determined by $E$ up to linear changes of bases.
Let $a_{i}=b_{i}-b>0$ and $f_{i}\in H^{0}(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{n}}(a_i))\cong\Hom(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^n}(b),
\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^n}(b_i))$. Then for an algebraic vector bundle $E$ on $\mathbb{P}^{n}$ with rank $r$ and $e(E)=1$, we associate $E$ with the integer $b$, positive integers $a_0,\dots,a_{r}$ and homogeneous polynomials $f_{0},f_1,\dots,f_{r}\in{\mathbb{C}}[x_0,x_1,...,x_{n}]$ of degree $a_{0},a_1,\dots,a_{r}$, respectively.
\[P:e=1\] Given $a_{i}>0$ and $f_{i}\in H^{0}(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{n}}(a_i))$, $0\leq i\leq r$, the following conditions are equivalent to each other:
- [The map $\phi=(f_0,...,f_r): \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^n}\longrightarrow \bigoplus_{0\leq i\leq r}
O_{\mathbb{P}^n}(a_i)$ is an injective map of algebraic vector bundles.]{}
- [The zero locus of $(f_0,...,f_r)$ in $\mathbb{P}^n$ is empty.]{}
- [$\rad(f_0,f_1,...,f_{r})=(x_0,x_1,...,x_{n})$ in ${\mathbb{C}}[x_0,...,x_{n}]$.]{}
In the case that these conditions are satisfied, we have that $r\geq n$ and $E=\Coker\phi$ is a bundle of rank $r$ with $e(E)=1$.
Since the locus of the points in $\mathbb{P}^{n}$ where $\phi$ is not injective is equal to the zero locus of $(f_0,...,f_r)$, $(1)$ is equivalent to $(2)$. It is well-known that $(2)\Leftrightarrow(3)$.
In the case that $(1)-(3)$ hold, $r\geq n$ since the Krull dimension of ${\mathbb{C}}[x_0,...,x_{n}]$ is $n+1$. It is clear that $\Coker\phi$ is an algebraic vector bundle of rank $r$ .
Write $E'=\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^n}$, $E''=\bigoplus_{0\leq i\leq r}\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^n}(a_i)$ and $E=\Coker\phi$. By the short exact sequence $0\longrightarrow E'\longrightarrow E''\longrightarrow
E\longrightarrow 0$ and $H^{1}(E'(k))=0$ for $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, we get a short exact sequence $$0\longrightarrow H^{0}(E'(k))\longrightarrow H^{0}(E''(k))\longrightarrow H^{0}(E(k))
\longrightarrow 0.$$ Since $a_{i}>0$ for $0\leq i\leq r$, $\bigoplus_{k<0}H^{0}(E''(k))$ generates $\bigoplus_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}}H^{0}(E''(k))$ as an $S$-module. Thus $\bigoplus_{k<0}H^{0}(E(k))$ generates $\bigoplus_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}}H^{0}(E(k))$. As $H^{0}(E'(k))=0$ for $k<0$, $H^{0}(E''(k))\longrightarrow
H^{0}(E(k))$ is an isomorphism for $k<0$. Hence $\bigoplus_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}}H^{0}(E(k))$ and $\bigoplus_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}}H^{0}(E''(k))$ have the same minimal number of generators (cf. Lemma \[L:3-term resolution\] and its proof), which is equal to $r+1$. Therefore $e(E)=(r+1)-r=1$.
\[L:Claim1\] If $\rank E=r\geq n+1$ and $e(E)=1$, then there exist $r+1$ homogeneous generators $f_0,f_1,\dots,f_{r}$ of $M_{E}$ such that the zero locus of $$(f_0,f_1,\dots,f_{i_0-1},f_{i_0+1},\dots,f_{r-1},f_{r})$$ is still empty for some $i_0$.
Suppose we can not find a system of $r+1$ generators such that the zero locus of $$](f_0,f_1,\dots,f_{i_0-1},f_{i_0+1},\dots,f_{r-1},f_{r})$$ is still empty for some $i_0$. We prove by induction that, for any system of $r+1$ generators $(f_0,f_1,\dots,f_{r})$ of $M_{E}$, any $1\leq k\leq n+1$ and any subset $I\subset\{0,1,\dots,r\}$ of cardinality $k$, the zero locus of $\{f_{i}|\ i\in\{0,1,\dots,r\}-I\}$ has dimension $k-1$.
For $k=1$, by assumption the zero locus $Z_{i}$ of $(f_0,f_1,\dots,f_{i-1},f_{i+1},\dots,f_{r-1},f_{r})$ is non-empty for each $i$. However, $Z_{i}\cap Z(f_{i})=\emptyset$ by the unimodularity condition. Thus $\dim Z_{i}\leq 0$. Hence $\dim Z_{i}=0$. This proves the assertion in the case of $k=1$.
For $1\leq k\leq n$, suppose the assertion holds for $1,2,\dots,k$. We prove that the zero locus $Z_{0,1,\dots,k}$ of $(f_{k+1},\dots,f_{r})$ has dimension $k$. By the induction hypothesis, $Z_{0,1,\dots,k}\cap Z(f_{k})=Z_{0,1,\dots,k-1}$ has dimension $k-1$. Since $Z(f_{k})$ is a hypersurface, we get $\dim Z_{0,1,\dots,k}\leq k$ by the Projective Dimension Theorem (cf. [@Hartshorne], Theorem 7.2). On the other hand, we have $\dim Z_{0,1,\dots,k}\geq
\dim Z_{0,1,\dots,k-1}=k-1$. Thus $\dim Z_{0,1,\dots,k}=k-1$ or $k$. If $\dim Z_{0,1,\dots,k}\neq k$, then $\dim Z_{0,1,\dots,k}=k-1$. Hence $Z_{0,1,\dots,k}$ is a $(k-1)$-dimensional closed subset of $\mathbb{P}^{n}$. Let $C_1,\dots,C_{s}$ be all $(k-1)$-dimensional irreducible components of $Z_{0,1,\dots,k}$. Without loss of generality we may assume that $\deg f_{k-1}\leq\deg f_{k}$. Let $l=\deg f_{k}-\deg f_{k-1}\geq 0$. Choose a linear function $g$ nonvanishing on each $C_{j}$, $1\leq j\leq s$. Since $Z_{0,1,\dots,k}\cap Z(f_{k})\cap Z(f_{k-1})=Z_{0,1,\dots,k-2}$ has dimension $k-2<k-1$, we have $C_j\not\subset Z(f_{k})$ or $C_j\not\subset Z(f_{k-1})$ for each $1\leq j\leq s$. Thus at least one of $f_{k}$ and $f_{k-1}$ does not vanish on $C_{j}$. Since $g$ does not vanish on $C_{j}$ as well and $C_{j}$ is irreducible, at least one of $f_{k}$ and $g^{l}f_{k-1}$ does not vanish on $C_{j}$. Write $S_{j}$ for the set of points $[\lambda_0,\lambda_1]\in\mathbb{P}^{1}$ such that $\lambda_{0}f_{k}+\lambda_{1}f_{k-1}g^{l}$ vanishes on $C_{j}$. Hence each $S_{j}$ has at most one point. Choose a point $[1,\lambda_1]\in\mathbb{P}^{1}$ not lying in $\cup_{1\leq k\leq s}S_{j}$. Let $$f'_{k}=f_{k}+\lambda_{1}f_{k-1}g^{l}.$$ Then $f'_{k}$ does not vanish on each $C_{j}$, $1\leq j\leq s$. That is to say, $C_{j}\not\subset Z(f'_{k})$. Hence $$\dim (C_{j}\cap Z(f'_{k}))<\dim C_{j}=k-1,$$ since $C_{j}$ is irreducible. Moreover, we get $$\dim(Z_{0,1,\dots,k}\cap Z(f'_{k}))\leq k-2.$$ However, $$f_0,\dots,f_{k-1},f'_{k}=f_{k}+
\lambda_{1}f_{k-1}g^{l},f_{k+1},\dots,f_{r}$$ is also a system of generators of $M_{E}$. Hence $$\dim(Z_{0,1,\dots,k}\cap Z(f'_{k}))\leq k-2$$ contradicts the induction hypothesis. Therefore $Z_{0,1,\dots,k}$ has dimension $k$.
Similarly, we can show that the zero locus $Z_{i_0,i_1,\dots,i_{k}}$ of $$\{f_{i}|\ i\in\{0,1,\dots,r\}-\{i_0,i_1,\dots,i_{k}\}\}$$ has dimension $k$ for each set of indices $0\leq i_0<\cdots<i_{k}\leq r$. In this way we conclude the induction step.
Let $k=n+1\leq r$. Then the zero locus of $f_{0},\dots,f_{r-n-1}$ has dimension $k-1\geq n$. It is impossible as it is a proper closed subset of $\mathbb{P}^{n}$. Therefore we reach the conclusion of the Lemma.
\[T2:e=1\] Let $E$ be an algebraic vector bundle on $\mathbb{P}^n$ with $e(E)=1$. If $\rank E=r\geq n+1$, then $\rho^{\ast}E$ is trivial.
By Propositions \[P2:e=1\] and \[P:e=1\], $E$ is determined by the integer $b$, $r+1$ positive integers $a_0,\dots,a_{r}$ ($a_0\leq a_1\leq\cdots\leq a_{r-1}\leq a_{r}$) and homogeneous polynomials $f_0,\dots,f_{r}$ with $f_{i}$ of degree $a_{i}$, $0\leq i\leq r$. These homogeneous polynomials $f_0,\dots,f_{r}$ arise from a choice of generators of $M_{E}=\bigoplus_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}}H^{0}(E(k))$, and they are not uniquely determined by $E$. For example, if $$f'_{i}=f_i+\sum_{0\leq j\leq i-1}g_{i,j}f_{j},\
0\leq i\leq r,$$ with $g_{i,j}$ a homogeneous polynomial of degree $a_{i}-a_{j}$, then $f'_0,\dots,f'_{r}$ and $f_0,\dots,f_{r}$ define isomorphic vector bundles.
By Lemma \[L:Claim1\], we can choose $f_0,f_1,\dots,f_{r}$ such that the zero locus of $$(f_0,f_1,\dots,f_{i_0-1},f_{i_0+1},\dots,f_{r-1},f_{r})$$ is empty for some $0\leq i_0\leq r$. We have an exact sequence $$0\longrightarrow E'=\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{n}}\stackrel{\phi}
\longrightarrow E''=\bigoplus_{0\leq i\leq r}\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{n}}(a_i)\stackrel{\psi}
\longrightarrow E(-b)\longrightarrow 0.$$ Write $$E_1=\bigoplus_{0\leq i\leq r,i\neq i_0}
\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{n}}(a_i)$$ and $$E_2=\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{n}}(a_{i_0}).$$ Let $p:E''\longrightarrow E_1$ be the natural projection and $\phi'=p\circ\phi$. Since the zero locus of $$](f_0,f_1,\dots,f_{i_0-1},f_{i_0+1},\dots,f_{r-1},f_{r})$$ is empty, $\phi'=p\circ\phi$ is an injective map of vector bundles. Write $E_3=\Coker\phi'$. We have an exact sequence $$0\longrightarrow E_2\longrightarrow E(-b)\longrightarrow E_3\longrightarrow 0.$$ Thus, we get $$\begin{aligned}
&&\rho^{\ast}E\\&\cong&\rho^{\ast}(E_2)\oplus\rho^{\ast}(E_3)\
(\textrm{since } Y \textrm{ is affine})\\&\cong&\mathcal{O}_{Y}\oplus\rho^{\ast}(E_3)\ (\textrm{since }
E_2\textrm{ is a line bundle})\\&\cong&(\mathcal{O}_{Y})^{r}\ (\textrm{since } e(E_3)=1).\end{aligned}$$
\[T:e=1\] Given an algebraic vector bundle $E$ on $P=\mathbb{P}^n$ of rank $n$ and with $e(E)=1$, let $a_0,a_1,\dots,a_{n}$ be the degrees of homogeneous polynomials defining $E$.
- [If $n!\mid a_0a_1\cdots a_{n}$, then $\rho^{\ast}E$ is trivial.]{}
- [If $n!\nmid a_0a_1\cdots a_{n}$, then $\rho^{\ast}E$ is not trivial.]{}
This follows from Proposition \[P2:e=1\], Proposition \[P:e=1\] and Theorem \[T:Kumar-Swan\].
\[T:any rank\] Given an integer $r\geq n$, there exists an algebraic vector bundle $E$ on $P=\mathbb{P}^{n}$ of rank $r$ with $\pi^{\ast}E$ non-trivial and $\rho^{\ast}E$ trivial.
This follows from Theorem \[T:pull-back\], Proposition \[P:e=1\] and Theorem \[T:e=1\].
\[L:indecomposable\] Let $E$ be an algebraic vector bundle on $\mathbb{P}^{n}$ with $e(E)=1$. If $\rank E=n$, then $E$ is indecomposable.
Suppose that $E$ is decomposable, i.e., $E=E_1\oplus E_2$ where $E_1$ and $E_2$ are non-zero algebraic vector bundles on $\mathbb{P}^{n}$. Since $1=e(E)=e(E_1)+e(E_2)$, we have $e(E_1)=1$ or $e(E_2)=1$. We may assume that $e(E_1)=1$. By Proposition \[P:e=1\], we have $\rank E_1\geq n$. Thus $\rank E=\rank E_1+\rank E_2\geq n+1$, which contradicts to the fact that $\rank E=n$.
\[T:Horrocks2\] Let $E_1,E_2$ be two indecomposable algebraic vector bundles on $\mathbb{P}^{n}$ of the same rank. If $\pi^{\ast}(E_1)\cong\pi^{\ast}(E_2)$, then $E_2\cong E_1(k)$ for some $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}$.
\[T:family\] There exist continuous families of arbitrarily large dimension of rank $n$ algebraic vector bundles on $X_{n}$ satisfying that the bundles in each family are pairwise non-isomorphic and their pull-backs to $Y_{n}$ are trivial bundles.
Choose a positive integer $a$ such that $$(\prod_{p\leq n}p)\mid a,$$ where $\prod$ runs over all primes $p\leq n$. Let $a_0=a_1=\cdots=a_{n}=a$. Then $$n!\mid a^{n+1}=a_0a_1\cdots a_{n}.$$
Denote by $V$ the set of homogeneous polynomials of degree $a$. It is a linear vector space. Write $\Gr_{n+1}(V)$ for the Grassmannian variety of $(n+1)$-dimensional subspaces of $V$. Define $$Z=\{\span_{{\mathbb{C}}}\{f_0,\dots,f_{n}\}\in\Gr_{n+1}(V):\rad(f_0,\dots,f_{n})\neq (x_0,\dots,x_{n})\}$$ and $$Z'=\{([W],[(z_0,\dots,z_n)])\in\Gr_{n+1}(V)\times\mathbb{P}^{n}:g(a_0,\dots,a_{n})=0, \forall g\in W\}.$$ Then $Z$ is the image of $Z'$ under the projection of $\Gr_{n+1}(V)\times\mathbb{P}^{n}$ to its first component. Since $Z'$ is Zariski closed and the above projection map is proper, $Z$ is a Zariski closed subset of $\Gr_{n+1}(V)$. On the other hand, it is clear that $Z$ is a proper subset of $\Gr_{n+1}(V)$. Thus its complement is an open dense subset of $\Gr_{n+1}(V)$.
For a sequence $f=(f_0,f_1,\dots,f_{n})$ such that $$\span_{{\mathbb{C}}}\{f_0,\dots,f_{n}\}\in\Gr_{n+1}-Z,$$ let $E_{f}$ be the rank $n$ bundle on $\mathbb{P}^{n}$ defined by $f$ as in Proposition \[P:e=1\]. We know that, $E_{f}\cong E_{f'}$ if and only if $f$ differs from $f'$ by an invertible linear transformation, i.e., they correspond to the same point in $\Gr_{n+1}-Z$. In this way we get a continuous family $\{E_{f}|\ f\in\Gr_{n+1}(V)-Z\}$ of pairwise non-isomorphic rank $n$ algebraic vector bundles on $\mathbb{P}^{n}$. A simple dimension counting shows that the dimension of $\Gr_{n+1}(V)-Z$ tends to infinity as $a$ approches infinity. By Theorem \[T:Horrocks2\] and Lemma \[L:indecomposable\], $\{\pi^{\ast}(E_{f})|\ f\in\Gr_{n+1}(V)-Z\}$ are pairwise non-isomorphic algebraic vector bundles on $X_{n}$. Moreover, by Theorem \[T:e=1\] $(1)$ each $\rho^{\ast}(E_{f})$ is a trivial bundle on $Y_{n}$. Therefore, we finish the proof of the theorem.
\[R:family\] In the proof of Theorem \[T:family\], furthermore one can show that $Z$ is irreducible and $$\dim Z=\Gr_{n+1}(V)-1.$$
A theorem of Swan
=================
In this section, we present a proof for Theorem \[T:Kumar-Swan\](2) communicated to the author by Professor Swan in an email.
Write $$R={\mathbb{C}}[x_0,x_1,...,x_n,y_0,y_1,...,y_n]/\langle x_0y_0+x_1y_1+\cdots+x_{n}y_{n}-1\rangle.$$ Let $\{f_{0},\dots,f_{n}\}$ be homogeneous polynomials of $x_0,...,x_{n}$ with $$\rad(f_0,f_1,...,f_{n})=(x_0,x_1,...,x_{n}).$$ If $n!\nmid\prod \deg f_{i}$, then $(f_0,f_1,...,f_{n})\in R^{n+1}$ is not completable.
Let $i: S^{2n+1}\longrightarrow{\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}-\{0\}$ and $r: {\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}-\{0\}\longrightarrow S^{2n+1}$ be the natural inclusion and projection, respectively. They are homotopy inverse to each other. Let $$f=(f_{0},\dots,f_{n}):{\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}-\{0\}\longrightarrow{\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}-\{0\}$$ and $$g=r\circ f\circ i.$$ By [@Swan-Towber], it suffices to show that the map $g:S^{2n+1}\longrightarrow S^{2n+1}$ has degree $\prod \deg f_{i}$.
One knows that the homology group $H_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}-\{0\},{\mathbb{Z}})$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbb{Z}}$. We define the degree of the map $f$ by the scalar of the multiplication of its induced action on $H_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}-\{0\},{\mathbb{Z}})$. It is clear that the degrees of $f$ and $g$ are equal. For maps from ${\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}-\{0\}$ to itself of the form $f=(f_0,\dots,f_{n})$, it is clear that the degree is multiplicative for the composition of maps. After composing $f$ with a map of the form $(z_{0}^{a_0},...,z_{n}^{a_n})$, we may assume that $f_i$ are of the same degree $d$.
Consider the projective space $\mathbb{P}^{n+1}$ with homogeneous coordinates $[w:z_o:\dots:z_n]$. Let $a\in S^{2n+1}\subset{\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}$ be a regular value of $f$. Define $X$ by the set of points such that $$f_i(z)-a_iw^{d}=0,\ i=0,1,\dots,n.$$ Then $X$ is not empty by the dimension theorem. However the intersection of $X$ with $\{[w:z_o:\dots:z_n]\in{\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}|\ w = 0\}$ is empty by the unimodularity assumption. Therefore we have $\dim X = 0$. This means that $X$ is a finite set. By Bezout’s theorem, $\deg X=\prod \deg f_{i}$. Now $X$ lies in $\{[w:z_o:\dots:z_n]\in{\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}|\ w\neq 0\}$. Making $w=1$, we get that $X$ is equal to $f^{-1}(a)$. As $a$ is a regular value of $f$, all points of $X$ will have multiplicity 1 and therefore $X$ will have $\prod \deg f_{i} = d^{n+1}$ distinct points. It is clear that the radial projection $r$ gives a bijection $f^{-1}(a)\longrightarrow g^{-1}(a)$. Thus $g^{-1}(a)$ also has $d^{n+1}$ distinct points.
\[L:Swan\] If $a\in S^{2n+1}$ is a regular point of $g$, then the Jacobian of $g$ at each point $p\in g^{-1}(a)$ is positive and $a$ is also a regular value of $f$.
Lemma \[L:Swan\] indicates that $f$ has a regular value $a\in S^{2n+1}$. For such an $a$, Lemma \[L:Swan\] indicates that the number of points in $g^{-1}(a)$ is equal to the degree of $g$. By the above argument, the number of points in $g^{-1}(a)$ is equal to $d^{n+1}$. Therefore $\deg g=d^{n+1}$.
Given a point $p\in g^{-1}(a)$, changing $f$ to some $f'(z)=\lambda f(z)$ for some positive real number $\lambda$ if necessary, we may assume that $f(p)=a$ (i.e., $p\in f^{-1}(a)$). The tangent spaces of ${\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}-\{0\}$ at $p$ and $a$ admit decompositions $T_p=N+S$, $T_a=N'+S'$, where $N,N'$ are the $1$-dimensional subspaces of normal vectors, and $S,S'$ are the tangent spaces of $S^{2n+1}$ at $p,a$. The tangent map $i_{\ast,p}$ is an injective map with image $S$, and the tangent map $r_{\ast,a}$ is a surjective map with kernel $N'$. Since $f$ is homogeneous of degree $d$, we have $f_{\ast,p}(N)=N'$ and it is a positive scalar multiplication (here we identify $N,N'$ using a non-zero normal vector field on $S^{2n+1}\subset{\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}-{0}$). Thus $f_{\ast,p}$ is a triangular matrix with $f_{\ast,p}|_{N}$ and $g_{\ast,p}$ the block diagonal parts. The linear map $f_{\ast,p}|_{N}$ is clearly a positive scalar multiplication. Moreover, since $f$ is holomorphic, we have $\det(f_{\ast,p})\geq 0$. Hence $\det(g_{\ast,p})\geq 0$. Therefore $\det(g_{\ast,p})>0$ since $a$ is a regular value of $g$. By this we get $\det(f_{\ast,p})>0$. Similarly, we can show that $\det(f_{\ast,q})>0$ for any other $q\in f^{-1}(a)$. Therefore $a$ is a regular value of $f$.
Some remarks
============
Based on our study of algebraic vector bundles on $\mathbb{P}^{n}$ with $e(E)=1$ and their pull-backs to $X_{n}={\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}\backslash\{0\}$ and $Y_{n}=\SL_{n+1}/\SL_{n}$, we ask the following questions.
\[Q1\] Given an algebraic vector bundle $E$ on $\mathbb{P}^{n}$,
- [is $\rho^{\ast}E$ a trivial bundle on $X_{n}$ whenever $\rank E\geq n+1$?]{}
- [In the case of $e(E)=1$, when is $E$ stable or semi-stable?]{}
- [In the case that $E$ is non-split and has rank at most $n-1$, can it satisfy that $M_{i}(E)=0$ for $2\leq i\leq n-2$?]{}
A theorem of Kumar-Peterson-Rao (cf. [@Kumar-Peterson-Rao]) confirms the non-existence in Question \[Q1\] (3) in the case that $n$ is even. In the case that $n$ is odd, it implies that the rank is at least $n-1$.
\[T:rank\] If $E$ is a non-split algebraic vector bundle on $\mathbb{P}^n$ with $M_{i}(E)=0$ for $2\leq i\leq n-2$, then $\rank E\geq 2[\frac{n}{2}]$.
The 3-term resolution we constructed for bundles $E$ on $\mathbb{P}^{n}$ with $M_{i}(E)=0$ for $1\leq i\leq n-2$ is a special case of a general resolution theorem.
\[P:syzygy\] Given an algebraic vector bundle $E$ of rank $r$ on $P=\mathbb{P}^n$, we have a (canonical) exact sequence of vector bundles $$0\longrightarrow E'\longrightarrow E''=\bigoplus_{1\leq i\leq e+r}
\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^n}(b_{i})\longrightarrow E\rightarrow 0$$ such that $e=e(E)$ and $H^{0}(E''(k))
\longrightarrow H^{0}(E(k))$ is surjective for $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}$. For such an exact sequence, we have $M_{1}(E')=0$ and $H^{i}(E'(k))\cong H^{i-1}(E(k))$ for $2\leq i\leq n-1$ and $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}$.
By Proposition \[P:syzygy\] and Theorem \[T:Horrocks\], we have the following resolution.
\[P2:syzygy\] Given an algebraic vector bundle $E$ of rank $r$ on $P=\mathbb{P}^n$, there is a (canonical) exact sequence of vector bundles $$0\longrightarrow E_{n}\stackrel{\phi_{n}}\longrightarrow \cdots
\longrightarrow E_1\stackrel{\phi_1}\longrightarrow E=E_0\longrightarrow 0$$ such that each $E_{i}$ ($i\geq 1)$ is a direct sum of line bundles, $\rank\ker\phi_{i}=e(\Im\phi_{i})$ for $1\leq i\leq n$, and $H^{0}(E_{i}(k))\longrightarrow H^{0}(\Im\phi_{i}(k))$ is surjective for $1\leq i\leq n$ and $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}$.
We call $$s(E)=\max\{i|E_{i}\neq 0\}-1$$ the [**complexity**]{} of $E$.
By Proposition \[P:syzygy\], the complexity $s(E)$ is equal to $$\min\{i|M_{j}(E)=0,\forall j, 1\leq j\leq n-i\}-1.$$
[999]{} A. Asok; B. Doran, *Vector bundles on contractible smooth schemes.* Duke Math. J. **143** (2008), no. 3, 513-530.
A. Asok; J. Fasel, *Algebraic vector bundles on spheres.* Preprint, arXiv:1204.4538 \[math.AG\].
W. Barth, *Moduli of vector bundles on the projective plane.* Invent. Math. **42** (1977), 63-91.
G. Floystad, *Monads on projective spaces. Special issue in honor of Robin Hartshorne.* Comm. Algebra **28** (2000), no. 12, 5503-5516.
R. Hartshorne, *Algebraic geometry.* Graduate Texts in Mathematics, No. **52**. Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1977.
G. Horrocks, *Vector bundles on the punctured spectrum of a local ring.* Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) **14** (1964), 689-713.
K. Hulek, *Stable rank-$2$ vector bundles on ${\bf P}^{2}$ with $c_{1}$ odd.* Math. Ann. **242** (1979), no. 3, 241-266.
D. Huybrechts; M. Lehn, *The geometry of moduli spaces of sheaves.* Second edition. Cambridge Mathematical Library. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010.
N. Mohan Kumar, *A note on unimodular rows.* J. Algebra **191** (1997), no. 1, 228-234.
N. Mohan Kumar; C. Peterson; P Rao, *Monads on projective spaces.* Manuscripta Math. **112** (2003), no. 2, 183-189.
T. Y. Lam, *Serre’s problem on projective modules.* Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2006.
F. Morel, *$\mathbb{A}^1$-Algebraic topology over a field,* available at\
http://www.mathematik.uni-muenchen.de/$\sim$morel/A1TopologyLNM.pdf.
F. Morel; V. Voevodsky, *$\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy theory of schemes.* Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. No. **90** (1999), 45-143 (2001).
C. Okonek; M. Schneider; H. Spindler, *Vector bundles on complex projective spaces.* Progress in Mathematics, 3. Birkhäuser, Boston, Mass., 1980.
D. Quillen, *Projective modules over polynomial rings.* Invent. Math. **36** (1976), 167-171.
R. L. E. Schwarzenberger, *Vector bundles on algebraic surfaces.* Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) **11** (1961), 601-622.
R. L. E. Schwarzenberger, *Vector bundles on the projective plane.* Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) **11** (1961), 623-640.
J.P. Serre, *Faisceaux algébriques cohérents.* Ann. Math. **61**, 197-278 (1955).
R. G. Swan, *Email communication,* 2011.
R. G. Swan; J. Towber, *A class of projective modules which are nearly free.* J. Algebra **36** (1975), no. 3, 427-434.
V. Voevodsky, *Lectures on Motivic Cohomology (written by P. Deligne),* 2000/2001. Available at http://www.math.ias.edu/[$\sim$]{}vladimir/rear.html.
C. A. Weibel, *Homotopy algebraic $K$-theory.* Algebraic $K$-theory and algebraic number theory (Honolulu, HI, 1987), 461–488, Contemp. Math., **83**, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1989.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Johan P. Bj[ø]{}rgen, Jorrit Leenaarts, Matthias Rempel, Mark C. M. Cheung, Sanja Danilovic, Jaime de la Cruz Rodríguez, and Andrii V. Sukhorukov'
bibliography:
- 'article.bib'
date: 'Received; Accepted '
title: 'Three-dimensional modeling of chromospheric spectral lines in a simulated active region'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
[The chromosphere above active regions exhibits various dynamic phenomena. The most prominent features in quiescent periods of active region evolution are *long fibrils*.]{} [Their existence was revealed already with the early solar observations that sampled [H$\alpha$]{} line center [@1964PhDT........83B; @1976SoPh...50...37M].]{} [Later, with improved spectral and spatial resolution, a similar scene was found in other chromospheric lines such as Ca <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> 8542 Å and [K]{}. ]{} [It is still, however not clear how they come about. Are they visible in chromospheric lines because of the density corrugations [@2012ApJ...749..136L] or do they outline magnetic tangential discontinuities where current sheets are formed [@2011ApJ...730L...4J]?]{} [The most recently proposed scenario is that the long fibrils are actually contrails where hot material shoots up as a consequence of energetic events happening lower down .]{} [It is also unclear if and how well fibrils follow the magnetic field lines ?]{} [Answering this question is crucial for chromospheric seismology [e.g. @2012ApJ...750...51K] as well as techniques to constrain extrapolation of the magnetic field from photospheric magnetograms [e.g. @2016ApJ...826...61A].]{}
[Another prominent feature in the chromosphere during the flaring phase in active regions, are *flare ribbons*.]{} [According to the standard flare model [@2008LRSP....5....1B; @2011SSRv..159...19F], these are locations where energy is deposited in the chromosphere predominantly by beams of energetic electrons precipitating down from the coronal reconnection site.]{} [Strong chromospheric lines typically show broad emission peaks at those locations which models have difficulty to reproduce.]{}
[The main problem in modeling both long fibrils and flare ribbons is that the radiation originating from the solar chromosphere forms under complex non-Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium (non-LTE) conditions.]{} [On the one hand, this makes observations of the chromosphere difficult to interpret; on the other hand, the forward synthesis of chromospheric lines becomes quite complex and computationally expensive if one wants to reproduce the spectral lines in detail. ]{}
[The backbone of theoretical studies of 3D line formation in the solar chromosphere was so far the “enhanced network” run computed with the 3D radiation-MHD code Bifrost .]{} [A simulation including flux emergence performed with the same code has also been used [@2017ApJ...839...22H].]{}
[In case of flares, modeling of chromospheric lines has so far been limited to studies using 1D hydrodynamic models with heating by a prescribed electron beam [e.g. @2005ApJ...630..573A; @2017ApJ...842...82R].]{} [Line profiles from these simulations fail to reproduce the line widths. However they can sometimes be achieved by adding artificial large velocity gradients to the simulation results.]{} [Some observed profiles, typically in [h&k]{}, have a single emission peak with a very wide symmetric base. Such profiles cannot be simulated by velocity gradients or microturbulence only [@2017ApJ...842...82R].]{}
[In this paper, we use a 3D MHD model that self-consistently shows both long fibrils and flare ribbons. It was computed using the radiation-MHD code MURaM . The computational domain spans over]{} an entire active region, and contains a bipolar sunspot pair. The run produces a magnetic reconnection event in the simulated corona resembling observational characteristics of a flare and an eruption of cool chromospheric material [@2018NatAs.tmp..173C].
The radiative transfer computations were performed in full 3D including partially coherent scattering (PRD) as well as charge conservation. [(which is particularly important for hydrogen and has a clear effect in the Ca <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> and Mg <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> intensities).]{} We investigate in detail the formation of the [K]{}/ $8542$ Å, [k]{}, and [H$\alpha$]{} lines, all important diagnostics of the chromosphere. We are motivated to do this because we want to test to what extent the MURaM simulation produces a chromosphere that resemble real observations, specifically, we are interested in whether the large spatial scales lead to long chromospheric fibrils, and how the coronal flare affects the chromosphere, despite the lack of non-thermal electrons in the model.
We compare the synthetic observations with observations taken with the Swedish 1-meter Solar Telescope [@2003SPIE.4853..341S SST;] and the Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph [@2014SoPh..289.2733D]. The paper is structured as follows: the modeling and methods are presented in Section \[sec:modeling\], an overview of the observations in Section \[sec:observation\], the results in Section \[sec:results\], and finally the discussion and conclusions are given in Section \[sec:discussion\].
Modeling {#sec:modeling}
========
Model atmosphere {#sec:model_atmosphere}
----------------
[We ran a simulation with the same setup as in [@2018NatAs.tmp..173C], but with double the spatial resolution.]{} [We use a snapshot from this simulation taken at $71$ seconds before the flare peak, which is defined as the peak of the synthetic soft X-ray flux as it would be measured by the GOES satellite.]{}
The simulation spans in the vertical direction from $-$7.5 Mm below the photosphere to 41.6 Mm above it and includes the top of the convection zone, the photosphere, chromosphere and a part of the corona. The simulation box has $1024 \times 512 \times 1536$ grid points, which correspond to $98.304~\text{Mm} \times 49.152~\text{Mm} \times 49.152~\text{Mm}$ in physical size, with a uniform horizontal grid of 96 km and a uniform vertical grid of 32 km. The simulation setup contains a bipolar active region that was present in the initial state. Near one of the sunspots a strongly twisted small bipolar magnetic structure was emerged by feeding in horizontal flux at the bottom boundary located about 7.5 Mm beneath the photosphere.
The simulation is run with gray LTE radiative transfer in the photosphere and chromosphere, optically thin radiative losses from the transition region and corona and included heat conduction along the magnetic field. The EOS uses a realistic solar composition and assumes local thermodynamic equilibrium.
The primary goal of this numerical experiment was to simulate the evolution of coronal magnetic field self-consistently in 3D in a flare. For this reason, the processes relevant for chromospheric layers were not accounted for in detail. The gray approximation is chosen because it resulted in a chromospheric temperature stratification which agreed with 1D standard semi-empirical models of solar atmosphere much better than the standard LTE multi-group opacity scheme with four frequency bins . Furthermore, the opacity and source function are set to zero at the base of the transition region, or the first grid cell with $T > 20$ kK, in order to avoid contributions from the corona in the downward directed rays.
A slope-limited diffusion scheme was chosen so that overshoots are minimized in locations where the gradients can be significant, like near the flare ribbons. The problem is however not completely removed. For example, it results in cold pockets at the base of the transition region in some areas of the computational domain. Finally, to relax the time-step constraints, the Boris correction and hyperbolic heat conduction are used. For more details about the code, see @2017ApJ...834...10R. Figure \[fig:atmos\_photosphere\] displays the model atmosphere. Panel (a) shows the intensity in the continuum at 5000 Å, with granulation and a pair of sunspot-like structures (but note the lack of penumbra around the spots), separated by 50 Mm. Panel (b) displays the vertical field strength, revealing that the upper sunspot is in fact a $\delta$-spot. In panel (c) we show the lowest height where the temperature is 50 kK, and can be thought of as a map of the height of the onset of the transition region. It shows elongated structures that reach up to 8 Mm and connect the sunspot pair.
In the model atmosphere, there is a long arm of material at chromospheric temperatures that has erupted up to a height of 18 Mm into the corona, reminiscent of a coronal mass ejection. For brevity we refer to this arm as CME.
Since the CME has chromospheric temperatures, it should ideally be included in our radiative transfer calculations. We choose not to do so because this would increase the computation time by a factor of 3, which we could not afford. Fortunately, the CME covers only 2.3% of the surface area of the simulation domain. The surface area of the removed CME arm is shown as red patches in Fig. \[fig:atmos\_photosphere\]c.
We removed the upper part of the CME, so that the model atmosphere size is reduced to $1024 \times 512 \times 290$ grid points, corresponding to heights from $-$1.3 Mm beneath the photosphere up to 8 Mm above it. The zero point of our height scale is defined as the height where the average optical depth at 5000 Å is unity in a patch of the model atmosphere without strong vertical field strength. Due to the Wilson depression, there are columns where the height of optical depth unity at 5000 Å is below the zero point of our height scale. The largest offset is $-$0.9 Mm located in the upper sunspot in Fig. \[fig:atmos\_photosphere\].
For our non-LTE calculations with hydrogen we resampled the vertical resolution of the model from 32 km to 16 km around the transition region to better resolve large gradients. This resulted in a grid size of $1024 \times 512 \times 499$ points. For magnesium and calcium, we kept the original grid spacing because the spectra of these atoms are formed below the transition region.
In the MURaM simulation there exist locations where the temperature is as low as 1100 K. Our background opacities are not correct at such low temperatures, and therefore we set the minimum temperature to 3250 K in the model atmosphere. This has a minimal effect on the resulting spectra.
The simulation used a LTE equation of state. The electron densities in the real chromosphere are however far from LTE, and should ideally be computed using non-equilibrium ionization of at least hydrogen, and ideally also helium . Computing the non-equilibrium ionization balance in post processing is not possible. Therefore, we chose to compute the electron density from non-LTE statistical equilibrium for the contribution from hydrogen, and in LTE from all other elements [since they add a minimal number of electrons to the total in the upper chromosphere]{}. The details for this procedure are given in Section \[sec:linerized\_eqs\].
Radiative transfer computations {#sec:radtrans}
-------------------------------
We numerically solve the non-LTE radiative transfer problem with the Multi3D code [@2009ASPC..415...87L] in a model atmosphere discretized on a Cartesian three-dimensional (3D) grid. The code treats one atom in non-LTE by simultaneously integrating the transfer equation and solving the statistical equilibrium equations for the atomic level populations. This is done iteratively using the multi-level accelerated $\Lambda$-iteration (M-ALI) method with preconditioned radiative rates following . The transfer equation is integrated at spectral points covered by radiative transitions of the atom using a domain-decomposed and parallelized method of short characteristics [e.g., @1987JQSRT..38..325O]. For angle integrations we use a quadrature with 24 rays [set A4 from @carlson1963]. The opacities and the source function are approximated along the characteristics using linear interpolation, which is the most stable but the least accurate method. Our criterion for convergence is when the relative change in the populations is ${\leq}10^{-3}$.
In order to have a more accurate electron density, we first solve the non-LTE problem for hydrogen, where the statistical equilibrium equations are additionally constrained by the charge conservation equation (see Section \[sec:linerized\_eqs\]). The obtained non-LTE electron density is re-used for solving the non-LTE problem for and .
We treat the K and the k lines in partial redistribution following the method by .
Model atoms {#sec:model-atom}
-----------
We used three different model atoms to compute the various spectral lines from the model atmosphere.
To model [H$\alpha$]{} we used a three-level plus continuum model atom of , that was constructed by removing the $n=4$ and $n=5$ levels from the atom used by @2012ApJ...749..136L. Following them, we treated [Ly$\alpha$]{} in complete redistribution (CRD) with a Doppler absorption profile, to avoid the large computational cost of treating this line in partial redistribution (PRD).
First, we experimented with the original five-level plus continuum model atom, which produced population inversions in the Ly$\gamma$ and Ly$\delta$ transitions at several places of the model atmosphere. Such inversions cause negative opacities as well as negative source functions. Although the analytical formal solution of the transfer equation allows this, such inversions often produce numerical instabilities, especially, in the method of short characteristics. Algorithms used for interpolating the source function and the opacity either to facets of grid voxels or along the short characteristic, have inherent numerical errors, which might produce at the same time opposite signs of the source function and optical depth. Such an unphysical situation destroys the convergence of the M-ALI iteration scheme.
We tried the method of , who proposed to branch the integration of the transfer equation in terms of emissivities and opacities instead of source functions and optical depths, but found this to be unstable too. Finally, we simply removed the upper levels of the transitions that had population inversions from the model atom.
For we used a four-level plus continuum model atom of @2013ApJ...772...89L, where we treat only the k line in PRD and h in CRD to lower the computational costs.
Finally, for we used the five-level plus continuum model atom of where we similarly treat only K in PRD and H in CRD.
We tested using the 1D FAL-C model atmosphere [@1993ApJ...406..319F] to see whether the neglection of PRD in one of the doublet’s transitions changes the emergent intensity in the other line. In K only the inner core was marginally affected. In k the core was changed by 1.7% and the emission peaks were changed by less than 8.5%. In each doublet, K and H as well as k and h, both lines share similar formation properties, so in the following we focus on the K and the k lines only.
The emergent intensities as well as the formation heights slightly change owing to all these simplifications in our model atoms. These changes are relatively small. Since we are not concerned about detailed properties, they do not change the overall results and conclusions of the paper.
Charge conservation {#sec:linerized_eqs}
-------------------
A correct electron density is important for non-LTE modeling of chromospheric lines because the collisions with electrons affect the coupling of the source function to the local conditions of the gas. The model atmosphere does not explicitly contain the electron density, but MURaM implicitly assumes LTE electron densities through its equation-of-state. LTE is however a bad approximation of the electron density in the chromosphere and transition region, and the electron density should ideally be computed including non-equilibrium ionization of both hydrogen and helium . Computing non-equilibrium ionization in post-processing is not possible, so instead we derive the non-LTE electron density through solving the non-LTE problem for hydrogen together with the charge conservation equation.
First, we tried an approach similar to what the RH code uses [@2001ApJ...557..389U]. The electron density is updated after every M-ALI iteration to be consistent with the proton density, while the ionization of all other elements is computed in LTE. We found this approach to unstable in our calculations and the NLTE populations for hydrogen did not converge for our problem.
Instead, we decided to solve simultaneously in each M-ALI iteration the equation of charge conservation and the system of statistical equilibrium equations for preconditioned rates. This new system of equations is non-linear with respect to the unknown electron density and hydrogen level populations as some of the rates depend on the electron density. We solve it iteratively using the Newton-Raphson method. A similar technique has been used in other radiative transfer codes . Our implementation is explained in Appendix \[app:charge\_conservation\].
We note that this is a substantial improvement over previous radiative transfer calculations with the Multi3D code for hydrogen, where the proton density could be larger than the electron density [@2012ApJ...749..136L; @2017ApJ...839...22H].
Broadening of H$\alpha$ {#sec:broadening_halpha}
-----------------------
The default Stark broadening mechanism for H$\alpha$ in Multi3D is based on the approximation of @1978JQSRT..20..333S. When the electron density exceeds $10^{13}$ cm$^{-3}$ in the chromosphere, this approximation becomes inaccurate. We tested whether we should include the more accurate unified Stark broadening theory as recently proposed by @2017ApJ...837..125K to model the line profile. We performed 1D tests with several columns from the model atmosphere. For columns with chromospheric electron densities above $10^{13}$ cm$^{-3}$ we indeed found that the line profile computed with the unified theory broadens more. However, most profiles do not show a substantial difference since the typical electron densities are not as high in the line formation region. Since the unified theory is computationally expensive owing to a convolution operation, we decided not to include the unified Stark broadening theory for H$\alpha$.
[H$\alpha$]{} in 1D and 3D {#sec:broadening_halpha}
--------------------------
Previous [H$\alpha$]{} studies using a 3D evaluation of the radiation field were performed using quiet-Sun conditions [@2012ApJ...749..136L]. Under those circumstances, the intensities computed in 1.5D, where the effect of horizontal scattering is neglected, showed a strong imprint of photospheric granulation. A 3D evaluation of the radiation field was needed to obtain chromospheric features in the emerging intensities. In the present study, we are analyzing an active region, and we wanted to assess the importance of horizontal scattering compared to the quiet-Sun case.
Figure \[fig:halpha\_1d\_vs\_3d\] shows the comparison between the vertically emergent intensity in 1D and 3D using our active region snapshot. The 1D computation shows chromospheric structures and traces of the large-scale structures, but much less enhanced than in the 3D case. We note that an imprint of the photosphere is still visible through the fibril-like structures in the 1D case, but not as prominent as in the quiet-Sun case.
The brightest features have a similar morphology in the 1D and 3D computations. Analysis shows that this is caused by the high mass density, and thus strong collisional coupling of the source function to the temperature, in the chromosphere at these locations (see Sec. \[sec:flare\_profiles\]). Therefore, this can potentially open the possibility to include [H$\alpha$]{} in inversions that assume 1D geometry in active regions.
Observations {#sec:observation}
============
We use two different observational datasets to compare with the synthetic data. The first dataset is an observation of active region NOAA 12593, located near to the disk center at $\theta_x= -68$and $\theta_y = -6$(helioprojective-Cartesian coordinates), taken at the Swedish 1-meter Solar Telescope [@2003SPIE.4853..341S SST;] [ on September 19, 2016, at 09:31–09:57 UT.]{}
The data was recorded simultaneously by the CHROMIS and CRISP [@2008ApJ...689L..69S] instruments, which observed Fe <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> 6301 Å, Fe <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> 6032 Å, [H$\alpha$]{}, Ca <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> 8542 Å, and Ca <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> K. We only use the latter three spectral lines. The data were processed with the CRISPRED and CHROMISRED pipelines . For a more detailed description of the SST observation we refer to , here it suffices to mention that we obtained near-simultaneous spectral scans in all three lines.
Unfortunately, there is no co-observation with the Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph [IRIS @2014SoPh..289.2733D]. Therefore, we use IRIS data observed on February 5, 2016, at 08:21–09:12 UT in order to be able to compare our computations of the [k]{} line. The IRIS target is an emerging active region NOAA 12494, observed near the disk center at $\theta_x = -96$and $\theta_y = -98$.
Figure \[fig:observations\] shows the line core images for all four spectral lines. Panels a-c show an active region covered with fibrils and a sunspot in the upper right corner. Panel d shows a slit jaw-image at the nominal line center of k, of an active region with one sunspot located on the left side and a sunspot outside the FOV on the right side. Long elongated fibrils are connected with the sunspots and pores located in the middle of the FOV.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
The effect of non-LTE electron density on the emergent intensity {#sec:ccem}
----------------------------------------------------------------
We compared how different are electron densities computed either using the LTE equation-of-state for all chemical species or by treating hydrogen in non-LTE with imposed conservation of charge. We found severe differences between the LTE and non-LTE values in the middle and upper chromosphere.
On average the [inclusion of]{} charge conservation [in the calculations,]{} leads to higher electron densities [compared to LTE]{} in cold areas of the chromosphere, owing to an increased hydrogen ionization degree through the Balmer continuum. This difference was largest (by a factor $\sim 10^3$) in cold pockets [(3250 K)]{} right below the transition region. [In hot areas in the mid chromosphere we typically find a somewhat lower electron density than in LTE.]{} Figure \[fig:nlte\_lte\_edens\] illustrates how the non-LTE electron densities change the emergent intensity in k. For the spatially-averaged intensity, the maximum relative difference reaches 30% near the line core (Fig. \[fig:nlte\_lte\_edens\]a). Individual profiles show even larger differences depending on which chromospheric structure they are emerging from. In dark fibrils the non-LTE intensity drops below the LTE one (Fig. \[fig:nlte\_lte\_edens\]b), but in flare ribbons it increases significantly near the line core (Fig. \[fig:nlte\_lte\_edens\]c).
Therefore, in the rest of the paper we only present results using the non-LTE electron density.
Formation heights {#sec:formation_height}
-----------------
Calcium and magnesium are both predominantly singly ionized in the chromosphere. ionizes to at slightly higher temperatures owing to the higher ionization potential of (15.0 eV) compared to (11.87 eV). Both the [h&k]{} and [H&K]{} lines have the ground state as their lower level, so their opacity scales approximately with the density as long as and are the dominant ionization stage. As is 18 times more abundant than , the line cores of [h&k]{} are formed a few scale heights higher up in the chromosphere than the line cores of [H&K]{}. In contrast, the lower level of [H$\alpha$]{} is an excited state at 10.2 eV above the ground state. In LTE this makes the line opacity very sensitive to the temperature. In the solar chromosphere, the H$\alpha$ line opacity depends in a complicated way on the temperature, density, and the time history of the atmosphere owing to the non-equilibrium ionization of hydrogen. @2012ApJ...749..136L investigated the formation of [H$\alpha$]{} in a radiation-MHD simulation of the quiet Sun and found that in those circumstances the line can be reasonably accurately modeled assuming statistical equilibrium. In that simulation they also found that the line opacity weakly depended on temperature and mainly depended on mass density. investigated the ionization of , , and , and found that at temperatures above 15 kK, the fraction of is much larger than the fractions of and . and argued similarly, albeit based on LTE, that [H$\alpha$]{} can have an appreciable opacity at temperatures well above 20 kK.
Studies of the formation heights of the line cores based on the quiet-Sun-like simulation of indicate that [H$\alpha$]{} forms 300–1000 km below [K]{} and [k]{} [@2013ApJ...772...90L]. The similarity of the line-core images in Fig. \[fig:observations\]a,b casts doubt on the validity of this result in active regions. We therefore investigated the formation heights in the MURaM simulation.
We measured the formation heights at optical depth unity in the corresponding line cores of [H$\alpha$]{}, [k]{}, [K]{}, and 8542 Å. Figure \[fig:formation\_height\] shows differences between the formation height of [H$\alpha$]{} and the formation heights of the rest of the lines. On average, the core of H$\alpha$, k$_3$, and K$_3$ features are formed at similar heights and [roughly 150 km]{} above the core of 8542 Å throughout the field-of-view.
We note that the distributions have long tails towards positive values meaning that [H$\alpha$]{} [can be formed]{} much higher than the other lines. These points, where the height difference exceeds 1000 km, constitute for the field-of-view ${\sim}$2% for both [k]{} and [K]{}, and $\sim$5% for 8542 Å. Figure \[fig:formation\_height2\] illustrates this case. At 3.22 Mm where the [H$\alpha$]{} core reaches optical depth unity, is only 97.5% ionized and at the same location the metals ( and ) are 99.9% ionized. [H$\alpha$]{} is formed highest in the atmosphere. [It retains opacity where the lines from the metals have none because does not ionize as quickly as and when the temperature increases.]{}
Synthetic images {#sec:synthetic_images}
-----------------
In Fig. \[fig:fig3\_height\] we show the vertically emergent intensity in the line core of 8542 Å, [K]{}, [k]{}, and [H$\alpha$]{}. We first describe what we see at nominal line center (Fig. \[fig:fig3\_height\], top panels). In all four spectral lines we see large elongated structures emanating from the two sunspots (see Fig. \[fig:atmos\_photosphere\]b), similar to large-scale fibrils seen in observations. From now on we call the structures on our synthetic images fibrils too. The fibrils are much more pronounced in [H$\alpha$]{} than in the other lines. The longest fibrils extend up to 35 Mm.
Careful comparison of the panels reveals that the fibrils appear somewhat different in 8542 Å, looking translucent with the background chromosphere shining through. This is especially visible in the upper-right corner. This is consistent with the lower formation height of this line, as discussed in Section \[sec:formation\_height\].
In H$\alpha$, we observe several very bright patches close to the sunspots, which connect with a thinner bright arc. They look similar to flare ribbons. Along these ribbons the [H$\alpha$]{} profiles are in emission and very broad. In [K]{} and [k]{} we see only a weak signature of the ribbon, while in 8542 Å it is only visible as a small brightness enhancement to the right of the upper sunspot.
Now we describe what we see at wavelengths where the intensity in each pixel individually is taken at the wavelength where the formation height is largest. (Fig. \[fig:fig3\_height\], bottom panels). These images thus compensate for Doppler shifts of the line core . The H$\alpha$ image is relatively unchanged, while the other images are more affected. This difference is caused by the large thermal broadening of H$\alpha$ compared to the other lines, which makes it less sensitive to Doppler motions. In the and lines the carpet of fibrils now appears thicker and sharper than in the nominal line-core images. The flare ribbons are now visible in these lines, even in 8542 Å.
The simulated images exhibit features that quite resemble observational features in our Fig. \[fig:observations\] or Fig. 1 by @2011ApJ...742..119R. The observations show that [K]{} and H$\alpha$ trace roughly the same structures. The 8542 Å often shows different fibrils, with more visible patterns of waves and shocks from the lower chromosphere.
The SST/CRISP, SST/CROMIS, and, to a lesser extent, IRIS observations show finer structures than the synthetic images. This is most likely caused by the finite horizontal grid spacing (96 km) of the model atmosphere compared to the resolution of the observations ($\sim$100 km for SST, $\sim$250 km for IRIS). showed for radiation-MHD models of the enhanced network that synthetic fibrils get thinner and closer in appearance to the observed ones if the horizontal grid spacing of the simulation decreases from $48$ km to $31$ km.
@2012ApJ...749..136L [@2013ApJ...772...90L] and computed synthetic images of the chromosphere in [H$\alpha$]{}, [K]{}, and [k]{} from the quiet Sun simulation by . Their line-core images showed ordered fibrils stretching between two opposite magnetic polarities separated by about 8 Mm, which also limited the fibril length to 8 Mm. @2017ApJ...839...22H computed H$\alpha$ and [h]{} for a flux emergence simulation, also computed with the Bifrost code. Their H$\alpha$ line-core image showed some thick unordered fibrils with a maximum length of 12 Mm, while the corresponding [h]{} image does not show a clear fibril structure.
The current MURaM simulation is the first simulation including a chromosphere that contains the spatial scales of an entire active region, and succeeds in reproducing long fibrils connecting the opposite polarities of an active region as seen in observations.
In the following subsection we analyse some of the structures seen in the synthetic intensity images in more detail.
Synthetic fibrils {#sec:synthetic_fibrils}
-----------------
The horizontal domain size of the current MURaM simulation is 98 Mm${}\times{}$49 Mm. This large size allows for $\sim$40 Mm long magnetic loops in the chromosphere that connect the two sunspots. The synthetic images in Fig. \[fig:fig3\_height\] show long fibrils that follow the large-scale structure of the field. We investigated whether the fibrils trace the magnetic field, both the vertical and horizontal components.
Figure \[fig:overview\_azimuth\] shows the line-core intensity of [H$\alpha$]{}, with the horizontal component of the magnetic field at the formation height overplotted. The fibrils follow the horizontal magnetic field direction in most places, but at some locations (such as the arrow at $(X, Y) = (54, 34)$ Mm) they do not.
Figure \[fig:fibrils\] illustrates the magnetic field component in the plane of a model atmosphere slice that follows the blue line in Fig. \[fig:overview\_azimuth\]. [As expected for active regions,]{} the magnetic pressure exceeds the gas pressure at low heights in the atmosphere, as illustrated by the plasma $\beta = 1 = P_\text{gas} / P_\text{B}$ curve, which goes from $-$1 Mm to $0.5$ Mm. The lowest height of $\beta = 1$ curve is located at the sunspot ($X > 69$ Mm), where the magnetic field strength reaches 6 kG in the photosphere. Horizontally the fibril spans from $X = 51$ Mm to $X = 68$ Mm and for $X < 51$ Mm the cut intersects an area of the atmosphere that shows irregular short structures in the H$\alpha$ image of Fig. \[fig:overview\_azimuth\].
In the sunspot, the transition region is very low, 1 Mm above the quiet photosphere [and roughly 2 Mm above the local height of continuum optical depth unity]{}. so that all four spectral lines are formed mostly at the same height. The angle between the field vector and the $\tau=1$ surface is large. In the area where $x < 51$ Mm we see intrusions of high mass density sticking into the low-density corona, and the $\tau=1$ surface follows these mass intrusions. We speculate that these could be Type I spicules as simulated before in 2D [e.g., @2006ApJ...647L..73H], but this is impossible to confirm without analyzing a time series.
Now we turn our attention to the long loop-like structure between $X = 51$ Mm and $X = 68$ Mm [in Figure \[fig:fibrils\].]{} The magnetic field vector and the $\tau=1$ height curve of H$\alpha$ are parallel to each other for a large fraction of the loop. It is not shown in the figure, but this is true to a lesser extent for the other lines, which all exhibit jumps in their formation height. We analyze a number of other fibrils not illustrated here and found that for clearly defined fibrils, H$\alpha$ indeed tends to follow the magnetic field lines. This is in contrast with the results from @2015ApJ...802..136L, who found in a simulation of quiet sun fibrils that H$\alpha$ fibrils typically follow the horizontal component, but not the vertical component, of the magnetic field.
To investigate the magnetic field we traced two fibrils to get a more detailed overview. They are marked by blue and red curves in Fig. \[fig:overview\_azimuth\]. Figure \[fig:fibrils\_magnetic\] shows the offset between the inclination of the $\tau=1$ curve and magnetic field vector, and the offset between the azimuths of the fibril and magnetic field. We only show results for H$\alpha$ and 8542 Å, as they are the lines with the highest and lowest formation heights.
Figure \[fig:fibrils\_magnetic\]a shows the same fibril as in Fig. \[fig:fibrils\] inbetween 51 Mm and 68 Mm. The inclination offset is around $10^\circ$ for both lines. However, the formation height curve of H$\alpha$ is more smooth, while the 8542 Å curve has a number of sudden jumps, which cause spikes in the offset curve. Physically, these jumps mean that depending on where you look along the fibril, you see different field lines, but locally the formation height curve follows the magnetic field inclination. The H$\alpha$ fibril follows the azimuth very well, while the 8542 Å shows offsets up to 10.
Figure \[fig:fibrils\_magnetic\]b shows the offsets of a curved fibril indicated with a red line in Fig. \[fig:overview\_azimuth\]. We see almost the same behavior as the previous fibril shows: in H$\alpha$ it follows both the inclination and the azimuth of the magnetic field vector very well, while in 8542 Å it does it less so owing to large changes in the formation height.
In addition to the fibrils analyzed here we manually investigated a number of other fibrils, and they show similar behavior. We thus conclude that most fibrils in this active region simulation do trace the horizontal magnetic field, especially for spectral lines formed in the upper chromosphere ([H&K]{}, [h&k]{}, and [H$\alpha$]{}). Fibrils seen in 8542 Å mostly, but not always, trace the horizontal component of the magnetic field. This agrees with the observational studies . We note that this simulation does not include ambipolar diffusion. Inclusion of this process allows the magnetic field to be less aligned with density and temperature structures in the chromosphere because it relaxes the frozen-in condition [@2016ApJ...831L...1M]. However, simulations with ambipolar diffusion have only been performed in 2.5D simulations [@2012ApJ...750....6C] or simplified 3D simulations [@2007ApJ...666..541A] or radiative 3D simulation with only photosphere . Therefore, only a full 3D MHD simulation that includes chromosphere with ambipolar diffusion should be used to investigate the possible misalignment properly [see also Sec. 3.8.3 of @2014LRSP...11....3C].
Spatially averaged spectral profiles {#sec:spatially_averaged}
------------------------------------
We compared the spatially-averaged synthetic spectra with observations from SST and IRIS to see [how far the model is from the real Sun. Although the solar features represented in the observed and simulated samples are quite different, the comparison allows us also to place this model in the context of previous studies . ]{} Figure \[fig:average\_spectrum\] shows the spatially-averaged profiles of [ 8542 Å]{}, [K]{}, [k]{}, and [H$\alpha$]{} from the model atmosphere and observations (see Section \[sec:observation\]). Two different averages are shown for the synthetic spectra: the entire model atmosphere (panels a–d), and in a patch with relatively weak magnetic field (panels e–h). We note that the observations are not in any way chosen to represent all active regions, they just illustrate how average line profiles in active regions look like.
The observations of [H$\alpha$]{} and [ 8542 Å]{} show absorption profiles, while [k]{}, and [K]{} show a double-peaked central reversal (marginally visible in [K]{} owing to the spectral resolution of SST/CHROMIS). The synthetic spectra for the atmosphere outside the flare ribbons show qualitatively the same behavior, but substantial differences in a quantitative sense.
The averaged spectra from the model atmosphere gives a peak separation of 16 km s$^{-1}$ (0.15 Å) for [k]{} and 10.5 km s$^{-1}$ (0.14 Å) for [K]{}. These numbers are $\sim$30% larger than those reported for Bifrost simulations of the quiet Sun , but still $\sim$1.5–2 times smaller than observed for the quiet Sun.
The averaged profiles of [K]{} and 8542 Å show that the model atmosphere is colder in the lower chromosphere and photosphere than the observations. The synthetic line wings of [k]{} have a higher intensity than the observations. We also note that the inner wings of the [ 8542 Å]{}, [K]{}, and [H$\alpha$]{} line lie below the observed intensity, while the [k]{} wings lie above it.
Inspection of Fig. \[fig:average\_spectrum\]d shows that the averaged [H$\alpha$]{} profile has a central emission and a weak and blue-shifted central absorption core, in stark contrast to the observations. Figure \[fig:average\_spectrum\]h shows that the core behaves as usual in the less magnetized patch of the simulation. We show in Section \[sec:flare\_profiles\] that the filling of the [H$\alpha$]{} core in the averaged profile is caused by a strong [H$\alpha$]{} emission in the flare ribbons.
Spatially resolved synthetic profiles {#sec:indivdual_synthetic_profiles}
-------------------------------------
In Figs. \[fig:flare\_profiles\]–\[fig:fibril\_profiles\] we explain the formation of line intensity profiles in three different structures in the simulation: flare ribbons (with and without strong velocity gradients), a fibril, and a sunspot umbra. The top row of each figure shows the profiles for each line, while the bottom row shows the temperature and line source functions for [H$\alpha$]{} and [ 8542 Å]{} in the left panel, the two-level photon destruction probability in the middle panel, the height where $\tau_\nu = 1$ for each line together with the vertical velocity in the right panel. The photon destruction probability is defined as $$\epsilon =
\dfrac{ C_{\!ji} }{ C_{\!ji} + A_{\!ji} + B_{\!ji} B_\nu },$$ with the downward collisional rate $C_{\!ji}$, the Einstein coefficients $A_{\!ji}$ for spontaneous deexcitation, $B_{\!ji}$ for induced deexitation, and the Planck function $B_\nu$. We do not display the line source functions for [K]{} and [k]{} because they are frequency-dependent owing to PRD effects. We show $\epsilon$ because it gives an indication of the sensitivity of the line source function to the local temperature using the two-level source function approximation: $S_\nu = (1-\epsilon) \bar{J}_{\nu0} + \epsilon B_\nu$.
### Flare ribbons {#sec:flare_profiles}
We investigated our model atmosphere and line formation in the flare ribbons, and show two columns in Figs. \[fig:flare\_profiles\]–\[fig:flare\_profiles\_2\]. The upper panels of Fig. \[fig:flare\_profiles\] show an example of broad, slightly redshifted emission peaks in all four lines. The chromosphere has a high mass density as evidenced by the large values of $\epsilon$ (which is roughly proportional to the electron density). The transition region lies at a high column mass of $10^{-4.2}$ g cm$^{-2}$, and the chromospheric temperature rise starts deep in the atmosphere at 0.2 g cm$^{-2}$. This partly explains why the ribbons look so similar when the intensities are computed in 1D and 3D (see Fig. \[fig:halpha\_1d\_vs\_3d\]). The strong chromospheric temperature rise leads to a source function increasing with height for all lines, leading to the emission profiles, while the deep location of the onset of the rise causes the wide symmetric base of the emission peaks, especially for [k]{}. The downflow just below the transition region causes the redshift of the emission peak.
These relatively smooth flare ribbon profiles are actually rather rare in our FOV. We often find more complex spectral profiles, such as shown in Fig. \[fig:flare\_profiles\_2\]. They typically show multiple-peaked profiles in [K]{} and [k]{}, with strongly Doppler-shifted emission peaks. The [H$\alpha$]{} profile is very broad and has its strongest emission peak blueshifted by 130 km s$^{-1}$. The temperature in the chromosphere shows multiple peaks, with low temperatures between the peaks. The mass density, and thus the photon destruction probability are again high and the transition region is again located at a high column mass. The atmosphere differs from the one shown in Fig. \[fig:flare\_profiles\] in that the transition region harbors a strong velocity gradient. The cores of [k]{} and [K]{} form completely in the chromosphere in this gradient. The strongest emission peak in [H$\alpha$]{} reaches optical depth unity between the last chromospheric grid point with a temperature of 5.5 kK, and the first transition-region/coronal grid point which has a temperature of 450 kK (i.e., in the temperature gradient indicated by the nearly vertical black line in the lower-left panel of Fig. \[fig:flare\_profiles\_2\].
The finite vertical resolution of the model atmosphere produces the peculiar, multiple-peaked line shapes of [k]{}, and [K]{}. The difference in vertical velocity between adjacent grid points is larger than the Doppler width, and this causes spurious emission peaks, as explained by . This is reflected in the peaks in the $z(\tau_\nu = 1)$ curves in the lower right panel. The formation height is large at the velocities of the grid points (black filled circles), but drops to low values when more than a Doppler width away from the velocities at the grid points.
[The multiple emission peaks are thus artefact produced by the limited spatial resolution in the radiative transfer computation. Had the velocity gradient been properly resolved, then these line profiles would show a broad asymmetric emission peak.]{}
The [H$\alpha$]{} profile does not show such strong emission peaks. The emission peak at $\Delta\varv = -120$ km s$^{-1}$ is, however, badly resolved. The frequency grid is not fine enough to resolve the right flank, and as stated before, the peak forms within a single grid interval, which constitutes the interface between the chromosphere and transition region (compare the brightness temperature of the emission peak of 13 kK to the source function in the lower right panel). In this interval the optical depth increases from $10^{-5}$ to 1.2. The contribution function is thus not properly resolved, and the resulting intensity depends on the chosen solution scheme. We investigated the source function, and exactly in this grid interval its changes from two-level behavior in the chromosphere to recombination-radiation-dominated in the transition region.
### Sunspot
Figure \[fig:sunspot\_profiles\] shows the line formation in a sunspot in the model atmosphere. The [H$\alpha$]{} core is in emission, and the three other spectral lines show double-peaked profiles. This is common in the model atmosphere, we find only a few locations where [H$\alpha$]{} is in absorption and the other lines have single emission peaks.
The temperature stratification as shown in Fig. \[fig:sunspot\_profiles\] is common across the sunspots, from the temperature minimum the gas temperature monotonically increases towards the transition region. The [H$\alpha$]{} line is in emission because the line core is formed in the steep temperature gradient of the transition region, with a high source function. The line cores of the other lines tend to be formed just below the transition region. The chromosphere has a temperature rise that is deep enough to cause emission peaks.
Comparing to many available observations , we see that the simulated sunspot profiles are somewhat unusual: observed [H$\alpha$]{} profiles are typically in absorption; the [K]{} and [k]{} profiles are typically, but not always, single peaked; [ 8542 Å]{} is in absorption and only shows emission when an umbral flash passes through.
### Fibril {#sec:fibril}
Figure \[fig:fibril\_profiles\] shows the typical line formation in a fibril. Here [H$\alpha$]{} is in absorption, [K]{}, [k]{}, and [ 8542 Å]{} each have an asymmetric double-peaked emission core. We find that this situation is common for [H$\alpha$]{}, [K]{}, and [k]{}. The density in the chromosphere is relatively low, and $\epsilon$ is an order of magnitude smaller than in the flare-ribbon columns. The [H$\alpha$]{} line core is formed below the transition region and therefore is not influenced by the increase in the source function there.
The [ 8542 Å]{} line shows much more variation, ranging from pure absorption to wide and asymmetric profiles with three emission peaks. The line is mainly in absorption in fibrils in our data, while we also find some instances of profiles with a double-peaked central reversal as in Fig. \[fig:fibril\_profiles\].
Discussion and conclusions {#sec:discussion}
==========================
@2018NatAs.tmp..173C performed a radiation-MHD simulation of an active region including emergence of a new flux that produced a flare-like reconnection event in the corona. We took a snapshot from a rerun of their simulation with twice the original numerical resolution.
This numerical experiment, aimed only at investigating the corona, produced a unique data set suitable for investigating the chromosphere as well. The simulation domain is geometrically $4\times 2\times 3$ times bigger and models a much more active chromosphere than the commonly-used publicly-available Bifrost simulation ,
The trade-off for getting the large domain size is that the grid spacing, 96 km horizontally and 32 km vertically, is relatively coarse. Radiative energy losses in the photosphere and corona are approximated using the gray LTE transfer. The absorption of coronal radiation in the chromosphere is not included. The equation of state assumes LTE, whereas hydrogen and helium both require non-equilibrium ionization . There are no interactions between ions and neutral species, which significantly structure and heat the chromosphere [@2012ApJ...753..161M; @Martinez-Sykora1269]. [These simplifications have an impact on the structure of the chromosphere, both for the temperature and density in the model atmosphere.]{} However, these simplifications do not affect the large-scale magnetic structure in the chromosphere. Neither do they distort the formation of flare ribbons, chromospheric evaporations through heat conduction, even though the exact location of the transition region changes if more accurate radiative losses are included.
In this paper we have taken one snapshot of this MURaM simulation and have solved numerically the problem of 3D radiative transfer for , , and in non-LTE including partially-coherent line scattering (PRD) in the [k]{} and [K]{} lines. We have corrected the electron density by treating hydrogen in statistical equilibrium together with an equation for charge conservations. On the radiative transfer side, this is a large improvement over the electron density evaluated in LTE. For the sake of numerical stability and computational speed, we have set the minimum temperature in the model atmosphere to 3250 K, we have used a simple approximation for the pressure broadening of [H$\alpha$]{}, and we have limited the size of our model atom.
The finite grid spacing resulted in a poor sampling in both frequency and optical depth that led to artefacts in the line profiles when the line-forming region contains large gradients in temperature, velocity and/or density. While these minor weaknesses should be addressed in future work to allow detailed quantitative comparison with observations, they have no consequences for the qualitative results shown this paper.
We have shown that 3D non-LTE radiative transfer computations including charge conservation and PRD can handle a large variation in all physical quantities, in a different parameter regime (active region) than studied before .
The synthetic line-core images have shown long ($\sim$35 Mm) strands connecting the opposite-polarity sunspots, that resemble fibrils seen in observations. We have established that the strong fibrils seen in [H$\alpha$]{} are mostly aligned with the magnetic field direction. Fibrils seen in the other lines are less aligned, especially those in 8542 Å, which suffer from sudden changes of the height of optical depth unity so. This contrasts with the findings in @2015ApJ...802..136L, who found that in more quiet-Sun circumstances only a fraction of the fibrils seen in [H$\alpha$]{} follow the same field line.
In 3D MHD simulations of quiet Sun, @2012ApJ...749..136L [@2013ApJ...772...90L] found that the cores of k and are both formed in the upper chromosphere in a wide range of heights following the transition region while the cores of H$\alpha$ and 8542 Å are formed at lower heights, in the middle chromosphere.
We have found two important differences with this in the MURaM simulation. Firstly, the H$\alpha$ line is formed in a much larger range of heights. Secondly, the cores of H$\alpha$, k, and K are formed at very similar heights while the core of 8542 Å is formed only some 150 km below them. [This qualitatively agrees with observations of active regions, which show a very similar appearance in the cores of [H$\alpha$]{} and [K]{}. Given that the model used in this paper manages to reproduce overal apparence in all chromospheric observables we synhesized, indicates that the model gives a decent representation of long solar fibrils.]{}
The flare ribbons in this simulation are caused by thermal conduction only. They appear bright in the line cores because the thermal conduction and dense coronal loops above the ribbon cause a hot and dense upper chromosphere, with sufficient electron density to couple the source function to the local temperature. This mechanism is similar to what @2015ApJ...809L..30C proposed for [k]{} in plages. [We find synthetic line profiles that are broad, asymmetric, and with a single emission peak, similar to the profiles observed in flare ribbons.]{}
The flare ribbons are poorly visible in [ 8542 Å]{}, in contrast to observations [e.g., @2012ApJ...748..138K]. This agrees with the standard flare model that requires beams of non-thermal electrons or Alfvénic waves to deposit thermal energy in the middle chromosphere. Nevertheless, the visibility of the flare ribbons hints that the fraction of the flare energy transported down by thermal conduction is enough to significantly alter the structure of the chromosphere.
This study is just a first step to understand the chromosphere in active regions using 3D radiation-MHD simulations. In our study, we have only touched on the formation of the strongest chromospheric lines. Future studies should look into the formation of the lines in more detail.
The Swedish 1-m Solar Telescope is operated on the island of La Palma by the Institute for Solar Physics of Stockholm University in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias. The computations were performed on resources provided by the Swedish National Infrastructure for Computing (SNIC) at the High Performance Computing Center North at Umeå University and the PDC Centre for High Performance Computing (PDC-HPC) at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. JL was supported by a grant (2016.0019) of the Knut och Alice Wallenberg foundation. SD and JdlCR were supported by a grant from the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB). This study has been discussed within the activities of team 399 ‘Studying magnetic-field-regulated heating in the solar chromosphere’ at the International Space Science Institute (ISSI) in Switzerland. JdlCR is supported by grants from the Swedish Research Council (2015-03994), the Swedish National Space Board (128/15). This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (SUNMAG, grant agreement 759548). AVS acknowledges financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) under the 2015 Severo Ochoa Program MINECO SEV-2015-0548. The National Center for Atmospheric Research is sponsored by the National Science Foundation. We would like to thank Adam F. Kowalski and Joel C. Allred for providing us their modified RH code, which includes the unified theory of electric pressure broadening. JPB would thank Gregal J. M. Vissers for the help in calibrating the IRIS data, and Carolina Robustini for discussions.
Charge conservation in non-LTE {#app:charge_conservation}
==============================
In the Multi3D code, the solution of the system of statistical equilibrium equations and the integration of the transfer equation are iterated self-consistently using the multi-level approximate $\Lambda$-operator scheme (M-ALI). In the particular case described in this paper the electron density is neither known a priori nor provided by the MURaM model atmosphere and must be inferred along the solution of the radiative transfer problem. For this purpose, in each M-ALI iteration we sub-iterate a system of non-linear equations, which join statistical equilibrium and charge conservation equations together. So far the code can treat in kinetic equilibrium (non-LTE) only one chemical element of interest while the others are considered in LTE. Hydrogen is treated in non-LTE using a model atom that has three levels of with the principal quantum numbers $n = \{1, 2, 3\}$ and continuum for protons. Here is the numerical implementation of this scheme.
The hydrogen population densities $n_i$ with $i = \{1, 2, 3\}$ and the proton density $n_\text{p}$ satisfy the system of 3[+]{}1 equations of statistical equilibrium for , $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:sse_hydrogen}
F_{\!i}
= \dfrac{ {\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}}n_i }{ {\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}}t }
\equiv
n_\text{p}
\bigl[ R_{\text{p},i}( n_\text{e} ) + C_{\text{p},i}( n_\text{e} ) \bigr]
+
\sum_{ \makebox[0pt]{$\scriptstyle{ j = 1, j \neq i }$} }^3
n_{\!j}
\bigl[ R_{\!j,i} + C_{\!j,i}( n_\text{e} ) \bigr]
\\*[-4pt]
\qquad
- n_i
\Bigl[
R_{i,\text{p}}( n_\text{e} ) + C_{i,\text{p}}( n_\text{e} )
+
\sum_{ \makebox[0pt]{$\scriptstyle{ j = 1, j \neq i }$} }^3
\bigl[ R_{i,j} + C_{i,j}( n_\text{e} ) \bigr]
\Bigr]
= 0
\\*[-4pt]
\quad\mbox{for }i = \{1, 2, 3\},\end{gathered}$$ and for , $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:sse_protons}
F_\text{\!p}
= \dfrac{ {\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}}n_\text{p} }{ {\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}}t }
\equiv
\sum_{j = 1}^3
n_{\!j}
\bigl[ R_{\!j,\text{p}}( n_\text{e} ) + C_{\!j,\text{p}}( n_\text{e} ) \bigr]
\\*[-4pt]
- n_{\text{p}}
\Bigl[
\sum_{j = 1}^3
\bigl[ R_{\text{p},j}( n_\text{e} ) + C_{\text{p},j}( n_\text{e} ) \bigr]
\Bigr]
= 0,\end{gathered}$$ where $R_{a,b}$ and $C_{\!a,b}$ correspondingly denote preconditioned radiative and collisional rates for a transition $a {\rightarrow} b$ . Except for the bound-bound radiative rates, $R_{i,j}$, all other rates explicitly depend on the electron density. We indicated this by the parentheses, $( n_\text{e} )$, and emphasized by separating the bound-free rates having one proton subscript $\text{p}$ from the remaining bound-bound rates having both numerical subscripts $i, j = \{1, 2, 3\}$.
As this homogeneous system has a trivial (zero) solution, one of the equations must be replaced with the condition of particle conservation for the total number density of hydrogen, $$\label{eq:particle_conservation}
n_\text{H}^\text{tot}
= n_1 + n_2 + n_3 + n_\text{p}.$$ We substitute the equation for the level having the largest population. This makes the matrix of rates well conditioned.
If the electron density $n_\text{e}$ is known and fixed then Eqs. (\[eq:sse\_hydrogen\]–\[eq:particle\_conservation\]) are linear with respect to the unknown populations and can be solved with any appropriate numerical method for algebraic linear systems.
If the electron density is not known then all rates explicitly dependent on $n_\text{e}$ are unknown and the system (\[eq:sse\_hydrogen\]–\[eq:particle\_conservation\]) is non-linear with respect to the unknowns $n_i$, $n_\text{p}$, and $n_\text{e}$. We add one more equation to constrain $n_\text{e}$ by stipulating charge neutrality, that is, the net negative and positive charges must be equal, $$\label{eq:charge_equality}
n_\text{e}
= n_\text{p} + (\mbox{charge of all positive ions but hydrogen}),$$ which we express as $$\label{eq:charge_conservation}
F_\text{\!e}
= \dfrac{ {\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}}n_\text{e} }{ {\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}}t }
\equiv
n_\text{e}
-
\!\!\!\underbrace{ n_\text{p} }_\text{non-LTE}\!\!\!
-
\,n_\text{H}^\text{tot}
\underbrace{ \biggl[
\sum_{s = 2}^\text{species}
\!\!\alpha_{\!s}\!
\sum_{i = 2}^\text{ions}
f_{\!s,i}( n_\text{e}, T )
\biggr] }_\text{LTE}
= 0,$$ where for the atomic species $s$, $\alpha_{\!s}$ is the element-to-hydrogen relative abundance, and $f_{\!s,i}$ is the corresponding ion fraction in LTE at the ionization stage $i > 1$ relative to the neutral stage $i = 1$, which is obtained from the Saha-Boltzmann law depending on the electron density $n_\text{e}$ and temperature $T$.
We use the multi-dimensional Newton-Raphson method [see @press2007numerical Sect 9.6] to solve this non-linear system of joined statistical equilibrium, particle, and charge conservation equations by linearizing it to $
\vec{\hat J} \delta \vec{n} = -\vec{F}
$ or, in expanded form, $$\label{eq:newton_raphson}
\newcommand*{\dfdnstrut}{\ensuremath{\vphantom{\frac{ \partial F_1 }{ \partial_p }}}}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{ \partial F_{\!1} }{ \partial n_1 } &
\frac{ \partial F_{\!1} }{ \partial n_2 } &
\frac{ \partial F_{\!1} }{ \partial n_3 } &
\frac{ \partial F_{\!1} }{ \partial n_\text{p} } &
\frac{ \partial F_{\!1} }{ \partial n_\text{e} }
\\
\frac{ \partial F_{\!2} }{ \partial n_1 } &
\frac{ \partial F_{\!2} }{ \partial n_2 } &
\frac{ \partial F_{\!2} }{ \partial n_3 } &
\frac{ \partial F_{\!2} }{ \partial n_\text{p} } &
\frac{ \partial F_{\!2} }{ \partial n_\text{e} }
\\
\frac{ \partial F_{\!3} }{ \partial n_1 } &
\frac{ \partial F_{\!3} }{ \partial n_2 } &
\frac{ \partial F_{\!3} }{ \partial n_3 } &
\frac{ \partial F_{\!3} }{ \partial n_\text{p} } &
\frac{ \partial F_{\!3} }{ \partial n_\text{e} }
\\
\frac{ \partial F_\text{\!p} }{ \partial n_1 } &
\frac{ \partial F_\text{\!p} }{ \partial n_2 } &
\frac{ \partial F_\text{\!p} }{ \partial n_3 } &
\frac{ \partial F_\text{\!p} }{ \partial n_\text{p} } &
\frac{ \partial F_\text{\!p} }{ \partial n_\text{e} }
\\
\frac{ \partial F_\text{\!e} }{ \partial n_1 } &
\frac{ \partial F_\text{\!e} }{ \partial n_2 } &
\frac{ \partial F_\text{\!e} }{ \partial n_3 } &
\frac{ \partial F_\text{\!e} }{ \partial n_\text{p} } &
\frac{ \partial F_\text{\!e} }{ \partial n_\text{e} } \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\delta n_1 \dfdnstrut \\
\delta n_2 \dfdnstrut \\
\delta n_3 \dfdnstrut \\
\delta n_\text{p} \dfdnstrut \\
\delta n_\text{e} \dfdnstrut
\end{pmatrix}
=
- \begin{pmatrix}
F_{\!1} \dfdnstrut \\
F_{\!2} \dfdnstrut \\
F_{\!3} \dfdnstrut \\
F_\text{\!p} \dfdnstrut \\
F_\text{\!e} \dfdnstrut
\end{pmatrix},$$ where $
\delta\vec{n} =
( \delta n_1, \delta n_2, \delta n_3, \delta n_\text{p}, \delta n_\text{e} )^\top
$ is the column vector of corrections to unknowns, $
\vec{F} =
( F_\text{\!1}, F_\text{\!2}, F_\text{\!3}, F_\text{\!p}, F_\text{\!e} )^\top
$ is the column vector of free terms given by Eqs. , , and , and $
J_{i,j} = \partial F_{\!i}/\partial n_{\!j}
$ is the Jacobian matrix with corresponding partial derivatives. As we already explained, one of the $F_{\!1}$, $F_{\!2}$, $F_{\!3}$, or $F_\text{\!p}$ equations is replaced by Eq. . We analytically computed the partial derivatives in a fashion similar to . This linear algebraic system of five equations with five unknowns is solved for the corrections $\delta \vec{n}$ using a standard Gaussian elimination scheme and the unknowns are updated to $\vec{n} + \delta \vec{n}$. The initial values of $\vec{n}$ are taken from the previous M-ALI iteration and are used to initialize $\vec{F}$ and $\vec{\hat J}$. The process is sub-iterated until the relative change in $\max|\delta \vec{n}|$ reaches the desired tolerance of $10^{-4}$. At each sub-iteration, only the radiative bound-bound rates $R_{i,j}$ are kept fixed, the remaining rates and the ionization fractions, which depend on $n_\text{e}$, are updated accordingly. Algorithm \[alg:nested\_iterations\] outlines the entire scheme.
Initialize $\vec{n}$ using the LTE approximation. ()[converged $\vec{n}$]{}[ Get background opacities, emisivities, and absorption profiles from $n_\text{e}$ as well as foreground opacities and emisivities from $n_i$ and $n_\text{p}$. Integrate the transfer equation for the radiation field. Re-evaluate and fix radiative bound-bound rates $R_{i,j}$. () [$\max|\delta\vec{n}| / |\vec{n}| < 10^{-4}$]{}[ Re-evaluate radiative and colllisional rates dependend on $n_\text{e}$: bound-free, $R_{i,p}(n_\text{e})$, $R_{p,i}(n_\text{e})$, $C_{i,p}(n_\text{e})$, $C_{p,i}(n_\text{e})$, and bound-bound $C_{i,j}(n_\text{e})$. Get the ionization fractions $f_{\!s,i}(n_\text{e}, T)$. Compute $\vec{F}$ and $\vec{\hat J}$ from $\vec{n}$ and the rates. Solve the system for $\delta \vec{n}$. $\vec{n} \leftarrow \vec{n} + \delta \vec{n}$ ]{} ]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'With the help of a power-domain non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) scheme, satellite networks can simultaneously serve multiple users within limited time/spectrum resource block. However, the existence of channel estimation errors inevitably degrade the judgment on users’ channel state information (CSI) accuracy, thus affecting the user pairing processing and suppressing the superiority of the NOMA scheme. Inspired by the advantages of machine learning (ML) algorithms, we propose an improved support vector machine (SVM) scheme to reduce the inappropriate user pairing risks and enhance the performance of NOMA based satellite networks with imperfect CSI. Particularly, a genetic algorithm (GA) is employed to optimize the regularization and kernel parameters of the SVM, which effectively improves the classification accuracy of the proposed scheme. Simulations are provided to demonstrate that the performance of the proposed method is better than that with random user paring strategy, especially in the scenario with a large number of users.'
address: |
$^1$\
$^2$\
$^3$\
$^4$\
$^5$\
\
Corresponding Author: Cheng-Xiang Wang.
bibliography:
- 'strings.bib'
- 'refs.bib'
title: 'Genetic Algorithm Optimized Support Vector Machine in NOMA-based Satellite Networks with Imperfect CSI'
---
Power-domain non-orthogonal multiple access, satellite networks, genetic algorithm, support vector machine, user paring.
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Benefiting from the ubiquitous coverage and emergency broadcast provision, satellite networks are expected to not only effectively offload traffic for terrestrial networks, but also provide satisfactory services for rural/harsh areas where deployments of terrestrial components are economically unfavorable in the upcoming 5G era [@Lamp1], [@Lamp2]. However, conventional orthogonal multiple access (OMA) scheme, such as time/frequency/code-division multiple access, largely limit the improvements in spectrum utilization efficiency and the number of served users[@Lamp3]. In this regard, research efforts have been devoted to the investigation of power domain non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) scheme, which can simultaneously serve multiple users by superposing signals in power domain at transmitter and using successive interference cancellation (SIC) strategy at receiver [@C1]. Until now, several works have been found in various satellite architectures. In GEO/MEO/LEO satellite networks from the perspective of resource utilization efficiency and transmission rate \[4\],[@Lamp5]. In hybrid satellite terrestrial networks to enhance the transmission reliability of users [@Lamp6] and [@Lamp7]. In unmanned aerial vehicles with min-max outage probability of vehicles [@Lamp8]. Although the aforementioned works \[3-8\] have verified the superiority and feasibility of the NOMA scheme in satellite networks, they are restricted to the scenarios with perfect knowledge of channel state information (CSI) and proper user pairing to ensure significant differences in NOMA users’ link conditions. In practice, however, perfect CSI may be unavailable due to delay, path loss, and user mobility for satellite networks [@Lamp9]. As a result, inevitable imperfect CSI can make the judgment on users’ order inaccurate, disrupt decoding order, and degrade the NOMA scheme [@C10],[@C11]. Under this condition, it is vital to geer towards practical NOMA based satellite networks where imperfect CSI is taken into account, to meet the urgent requirement of improving the resource utilization efficiency of satellite networks in the 5G era [@Lamp12].
Recently, machine learning (ML) algorithms, which can exploit prior knowledge from given scenarios and further function to identify unknown or similar cases, have been incorporated in various fields for the purpose of design and performance evaluation of telemetry, detection, and communication paradigms [@Lamp13],[@Lamp14],[@Lamp15]. Motivated by these benefits, here we resort to ML algorithms to effectively classify users into different categories, which can achieve an efficient and reliable user pairing and ensure a proper decoding order. Particularly, in the considered NOMA-based downlink satellite networks with imperfect CSI, we use a genetic algorithm (GA) to optimize the penalty and kernel parameters of a support vector machine (SVM) scheme, to effectively improve the classification accuracy of the SVM and ensure the link difference in different categories. Simulations are finally provided to show that the superior performance of the proposed method as compared to that with random user paring strategy, especially in the scenario with a large number of users.
System Model {#sec:format}
============
Consider a downlink NOMA–based satellite system, that is designed to serve $M$ ($M\ge2$) users with the help of the NOMA scheme. These $M$ users are randomly deployed in area A with different channel statistical prosperities and channel estimation errors. Before introducing the proposed user pairing strategy, the link model and spatial distribution model of those $M$ users, and the signal model using the NOMA scheme are first introduced as follows:
Link model {#ssec:subhead}
----------
Although different fading channel models, i.e., Loo and Karasawa, have been proposed for satellite links, the Shadowed-Rician (SR) model has been widely used in various fixed/mobile scenarios for a variety of frequency bands[@Lamp16], such as S-band, L-band and Ka-band, due to its nice mathematical properties [@Lamp17],[@Lamp18]. In the SR fading model, the channel coefficient for the link of satellite$\to$User ${I }$ is described as[@Lamp19] $
h_I = \bar h_I + \tilde h_I,
$ where $\bar h_I$ and $\tilde h_I$ represent the amplitudes of the line of sight (LOS) component and scatter component, respectively. As proposed in \[16\], $\bar h_I$ follows a Nakagami distribution with an average power ${\Omega _I}$ and a fading parameter ${{m_I}}$ $\left( {{m_I }> 0} \right)$, while $\tilde h_I$ follows a Rayleigh distribution with an average power of $2{b_I}$. Moreover, the authors in \[16\] have also associated parameters $b _I$, $m _I$, and $\Omega _I$ to elevation angle $\theta _I $, within the range $20^0\le \theta _I \le 80^0$, as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq13}
b_I \left( {\theta _I } \right) &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!= - 4.7943 \times 10^{ - 8} \theta _I^3 + 5.5784 \times 10^{ - 6} \theta _I^2\nonumber\\&& - 2.1344 \times 10^{ - 4} \theta _I^{} + 3.271 \times 10^{ - 2},\nonumber\\
m_I \left( {\theta _I } \right) &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!= 6.3739 \times 10^{ - 5} \theta _I^3 + 5.8533 \times 10^{ - 4} \theta _I^2 \nonumber\\&& - 1.5973 \times 10^{ - 1} \theta _I^{} + 3.5156,\nonumber\\
\Omega _I \left( {\theta _I } \right) &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!= 1.4428 \times 10^{ - 5} \theta _I^3 - 2.3798 \times 10^{ - 3} \theta _I^2 \nonumber\\&& + 1.2702 \times 10^{ - 1} \theta _I^{} - 1.4864.\end{aligned}$$
Spatial distribution model
--------------------------
By approximating network nodes as spatial point processes, various mathematical models, have been proposed to model the locations of wireless nodes. Among those models, binomial and Poisson point process (PPP) is the most popular model due to its well-studied and highly tractable nature [@Lamp20]. The probability of $M$ nodes with PPP in the region area $A$ of node density $\lambda$ can be expressed as $P\left( M \right) = \frac{{\lambda A}}{{M!}}e^{ - \lambda A}$.
Signal model {#ssec:subhead}
------------
Using the NOMA scheme, the satellite transmits a superposed signal $x$, i.e., $x = \sqrt {\alpha P_s } x_n + \sqrt {\left( {1 - \alpha } \right)P_s } x_f$, where $x_n$ and $x_f$ denote the unit signals of User ${n }$ and User $f$, which are selected either with a random strategy as proposed in [@Lamp6] and [@Lamp7] or a new strategy that we will propose in this paper, and $\alpha$ is the split factor of transmission power $P_s$ to User ${n }$. At the receiver side of User ${f } $, which is assumed to experience bad link quality, the received signal is $$\label{4}
y_f= h _f x+n_f,$$ where $n_m$ $(m\in (n,f ))$ is the noise at at User ${m } $ with zero mean and $\delta_{m}^2$ variance. However, due to the effect of delay, path loss, and mobility, the CSI estimated at User $m$ using maximum likelihood or least square estimator [@Lamp21],[@Lamp22] would be imperfect and can be given by $
\hat h _m = h_m + e_m,
$ where $\hat h _m$ and $e_m$ denoting the estimated channel coefficient and estimated channel error with $e_m~{\mathcal {CN}}(0,\delta_{m}^2/L)$, respectively [@Lamp22], with $L$ being the number of training symbols. Since that $\hat h _m$ and $e_m$ are orthogonal, and according to the principle of downlink NOMA, user with the worst channel quality decodes its own information directly. Thus, the signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) at User ${f } $ is $$\label{eq4}
\gamma _f^{\rm{}} = \frac{{\left( {1 - \alpha } \right)P_s h _f^2}}{{\alpha P_s h _f^2+ \delta_{f}^2/L+\delta_{f}^2 }},$$\[eq4\]At the same time, User ${n} $, which is assumed to experience good link quality, decodes and subtracts $x_f$ firstly by using the SIC strategy, and then, detects its own information, $x_n$. Thus, with imperfect CSI, the decoding and the received SINR at User ${n } $ can be, respectively, obtained as $$\label{eq6}
\gamma _{n \to f}^{\rm{}} = \frac{{\left( {1 - \alpha } \right)P_s h _n^2}}{{\alpha P_s h_n^2+ \delta_{n}^2/L+\delta_{n}^2 }},$$\[eq6\] $$\label{eq7}
\gamma _n^{\rm{}} = \frac{{{\alpha } P_s h_n^2}}{{ \delta_{n}^2/L+\delta_{n}^2 }}.$$\[eq7\]
In light of the above discussions, we see that imperfect CSI inevitably introduces extra interference, and even worse, it may make the judgment on users’ CSI inaccurate, disrupt the decoding order, and degrade the superiority of the NOMA scheme. Under this consideration, the aim of this paper is to use the GA optimized SVM strategy to classify the users into certain types properly and achieve an efficient and reliable user pairing for proper decoding order.
GA optimized SVM for user pairing {#sec:pagestyle}
=================================
In this section, we propose a user pairing strategy based on the GA optimized SVM.
SVM {#ssec:subhead}
---
As an optimization algorithm based on the principle of structural risk minimization, SVM is able to learn the characteristics of different categories from training users and function a classifier or regressor to identify unknown or similar testing users [@Lamp23],[@Lamp24]. In this paper, the SVM strategy is used to classify a satellite user into far users or near users. Specially, we assume that $N$ $(N\le M-2)$ satellite users are randomly selected from those $M$ users to form the set of training examples and others form the testing set. Then, with the help of the SVM, these training examples can be reasonably separated by a hyperplane $g({\bf{x}})$, which has the largest distance to the nearest training–data point of any class, and this kind of optimization problem can be written as
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathop {\min }\limits_{{\bf{w}},\zeta _i ,C}~~~~&C \sum\limits_{i = 1}^N {{ \zeta _i } } + \frac{1}{2}\left\| {\bf{w}} \right\|^2,\\
s.~t.,~~~~&y_i\left( {\left\langle {{\bf{w}},\Phi \left( {{\bf{x}}_{{i}} } \right)} \right\rangle + b} \right) \ge1- \zeta _i^{},\\
&\zeta _i^ {} \ge 0, i = 1,2, \cdots ,N,\end{aligned}$$
\[eq7\]where regularization parameter $C$ represents the tradeoff between increasing the margin-size and ensuring that the ${{\bf{x}}_{{i}} }$ lies on the correct side of the margin, the slack variable $\zeta _i$ controls how far a point lies on the wrong side of $g({\bf{x}})$, ${\bf{w}}$ is the normal vector of $g({\bf{x}})$, ${{\bf{x}}_{{i}} }$ is the two-dimensional link budget of User $i$, $\Phi {\left( \cdot \right)}$ is the transformation function (mapping ${{\bf{x}}_{{i}} }$ to a feature space), $\left\langle{\cdot}\right\rangle$ represents the dot product, $y_i$ is the $i$th label (i.e., $-1$ stands for far users and $+1$ for near users). With the help of the Lagrangian function, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq13}
L\left( {{\bf{w}},b,\zeta _i ,a,r} \right)\!\!\!\!&=&\!\!\!\!\!\!\frac{1}{2}\left\| {\bf{w}} \right\|^2 + C\sum\limits_{i = 1}^N {\zeta _i } - \sum\limits_{i = 1}^N {r_i } \zeta _i^{} \nonumber\\\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&-& \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\sum\limits_{i = 1}^N {a_i } \left( {y_i \left( {\left\langle {{\bf{w}},\Phi \left( {{\bf{x}}_{{i}} } \right)} \right\rangle \!+ \!b} \right)\! - \!1 \!+\! \zeta _i^{} } \right).\end{aligned}$$\[eq13\]After differentiating the above equation with respect to ${\bf{w}}$, $b$, and $\zeta _i $, the dual problem of (6) then becomes
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathop {\max }\limits_a ~~~~&\sum\limits_{i = 1}^N {a_i } - \frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i,j = 1}^N {a_i a_j } y_i y_j {\rm K} \left( {{\bf{x}}_i ,{\bf{x}}_j } \right),\\ s.~t.,~~~~&0 \le a_i \le C, i = 1,2, \cdots ,N, \\&\sum\limits_{i = 1}^N {a_i } y_i = 0,\end{aligned}$$
where ${\rm K} \left( {{\bf{x}}_i,{\bf{x}}_j } \right)=\Phi \left( {{\bf{x}}_i }\right)^T\Phi \left( {{\bf{x}}_j }\right)$ denotes a kernel function. Here, we adopt a widely used Gaussian kernels ${\rm K}\left( {x,z} \right) = \exp ^{} \left( { - \frac{{\left\| {x - z} \right\|^2 }}{{2\delta ^2 }}} \right)$ with $\delta$ being the width parameter. By using the quadratic programming algorithms, the optimal $a_{}^ * $ in (8) can be written as $
a_{}^ * = \left( {a_1^ * ,a_2^ * , \cdots ,a_N^ * } \right)^T,
a_{i}^ *\ge 0.
$ Then, we have $
{\bf{w}}^ * = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^N {a_i^ * y_i } {\bf{x}}_i,
$ and $
b^ * = y_j - \sum\limits_{i = 1}^N {a_i^ * y_i } {\rm K}\left( {{\bf{x}}_i ,{\bf{x}}_j } \right).
$ Finally, the hyperplane $g({\bf{x}})$ can be given by $
g\left( {\bf{x}} \right) = {\bf{w}}^ * {\bf{x}} + b^ * .
$
GA optimized SVM {#ssec:subhead}
----------------
From above analysis, we can find that the value of $a_{}^ * $, which has a direct impact on the hyperplane $g({\bf{x}})$, is closely related to the values of $C$ and $\delta$. This is because a small $C$ value allows $\zeta _i$ to be a large data and means a wide margin, while a large $C$ value means a narrow margin. Furthermore, if $\delta$ is overestimated, the Gaussian kernel will behave almost linearly and lose its non-linear property. If underestimated, on the other hand, Gaussian kernel will lack regularization and sensitivity to noise in training data.
Initialize the population size, crossover probability, mutation probability, and max number of iterations as: $Z=20$, $p_x=0.6$, $p_f=0.1$, and $g_{max}=300$;\
Generate $Z$ initial $pop$s randomly and set $z=g=1$;\
return $pop$ with the best MSE
Despite the advantages of the SVM scheme, these above discussions have shown that parameters $C$ and $\delta$ can largely influence the accuracy of the SVM scheme. To choose parameters $C$ and $\delta$ smartly, in this paper, we introduce the GA algorithm to get a better combination of these two parameters in SVM. Since that the optimal solution of the GA algorithm is achieved by a series of iterative computations, here, we use a population, $pop$, which is binary encoded with length $2\times10$, to jointly represent the values of these two parameters. The main steps of GA optimized SVM training algorithm is given in ${\textbf{Algorithm 1}}$, in which fitness function is given by $fitness=\frac{N_t}{N_t+N_f}\times 100\%,$ where $N_t$ and $N_f$ respectively denote the number of true and false classifications.
User pairing strategy {#ssec:subhead}
---------------------
With the optimized parameters $C$, $\delta$, and the hyperplane $g(\bf{x})$ obtained through ${\textbf{Algorithm 1}}$, the users in training set can be well classified. Using that hyperplane $g(\bf{x})$, users in testing set will be classified into the category of far users or near users to ensure the link difference in different categories. Then, one from each of these two categories are chosen to form a NOMA group, and thus, reducing the risk of inappropriate user pairing stemmed from random selection strategy, i.e., users with similar channel qualities are chosen.
Simulation Results and Analysis {#sec:typestyle}
===============================
In this section, simulation results are provided to evaluate the performance of the proposed strategy. Specially, we set $L=7$, and $\delta_{n}^2=\delta_{f}^2=1$. Moreover, we assume that 50 users with various $\theta $, which randomly distribute within the area $[20^{\rm{o}}, 80^{\rm{o}}]$, are deployed within a beam spot with radius of 100 $\rm{Km}$. Besides, $N=40$ users are randomly selected to form the training set, and other users form the testing set.
=6.8cm
To show the effects of $C$ and $\delta$ on the hyperplane $g(\bf{x})$ of SVM classifier, we firstly plot the classification accuracy of SVM classifier with various parameter configurations for testing users in Fig. 1(a). As observed, the classification performance achieved by a small penalty parameter $C$ or a small kernel parameter $\delta$, i.e., $C=2$ or $\delta=8$, is always not worse than those achieved by a large $C$ or $\delta$ in all cases. This is because small values of $C$ and $\delta$ allow a large margin size and non-linear, respectively, for the hyperplane $g(\bf{x})$, which is built according to the link vectors of training users. Moreover, we observe that the classification accuracy varies for different numbers of testing users. Even so, the performance of SVM classifier with $C=2$ and $\delta=8$ is optimal in all cases. Fig. 1(b) plots the comparison of classification accuracy with the SVM and the GA optimized SVM schemes. As can be seen, the classification accuracy with the GA optimized SVM is all superior to those with the SVM. This performance improvement is achieved by using the benefit of GA strategy to select proper parameters $C$ and $\delta$, whose searching areas are correspondingly set as $[0.1, 15]$ and $[0.1,30]$. Finally, we compare the achievable sum rate between the proposed GA optimized SVM approach and the random selection strategy proposed in \[6\] and \[7\]. Specifically, we consider the number of testing users is $9$ and power allocation factor $\alpha=0.2$. Moreover, scenario A here means that NOMA users are selected with the random selection strategy suggested in \[6\], \[7\] with correct decoding order, while scenario B means the corresponding scenario with incorrect decoding order. As shown in Fig. 2, the sum rate performance with the NOMA scheme outperforms that with the TDMA scheme in the case of correct decoding order. Moreover, we can clearly find the superiority of the proposed strategy obviously overs scenario A. This is because with the proposed strategy, the link difference of users can be ensured, while there is marginal link difference between users in scenario A. Meanwhile, as shown in scenario B, the disrupt decoding order caused by imperfect CSI significantly degrades the NOMA scheme. This phenomenon also proves the applicability of NOMA scheme with the proposed method.
Conclusions {#sec:majhead}
===========
In this paper, we have studied the application of a GA optimized SVM scheme in NOMA-based downlink satellite networks. Specifically, we selected NOMA users according to the result of a SVM classifier, whose key parameters have been optimized by using the GA. Simulation results have shown that the proposed GA optimized SVM scheme provides an effective user classification in NOMA based satellite systems. In addition, our results have also revealed the superiority and applicability of the NOMA scheme using our proposed classification strategy over the existing NOMA systems with random selection strategy.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address:
- '$^1$ INRIA, MOKAPLAN'
- '$^2$ CNRS and CEREMADE, Université Paris Dauphine'
author:
- 'Vincent Duval$^1$, Gabriel Peyr[é]{}$^2$'
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: Sparse Spikes Deconvolution on Thin Grids
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Recently it has been argued that infrared singularities of the quark-gluon vertex of Landau gauge QCD can confine static quarks via a linear potential. It is demonstrated that the same mechanism also may confine fundamental scalar fields. This opens the possibility that within functional approaches static confinement is an universal property of the gauge sector even though it is formally represented in the functional equations of the matter sector. The colour structure of Dyson-Schwinger equations for fundamental and adjoint scalar fields is determined for the gauge groups SU(N) and G(2) exhibiting interesting cancelations purely due to colour algebra.'
author:
- Reinhard Alkofer
- Leonard Fister
- Axel Maas
- Veronika Macher
title: 'On the Infrared Behaviour of Landau Gauge Yang-Mills Theory with Differently Charged Scalar Fields'
---
[ address=[Institut für Physik, Universität Graz, Universitätsplatz 5, 8010 Graz, Austria]{} ]{}
[ address=[Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität Heidelberg, Philosophenweg 16, D-69120 Heidelberg;\
ExtreMe Matter Institute EMMI, GSI. Planckstr. 1, D-64291 Darmstadt;\
Institut für Kernphysik, TU Darmstadt, Schlossgartenstraße 9, D-64289 Darmstadt, Germany]{} ]{}
[ address=[Institut für Physik, Universität Graz, Universitätsplatz 5, 8010 Graz, Austria]{} ]{}
[ address=[Institut für Physik, Universität Graz, Universitätsplatz 5, 8010 Graz, Austria]{} ]{}
Motivation
==========
QCD Green’s functions are unique in the sense that they may provide a look onto the detailed relation between hadron phenomenology and fundamental properties of QCD. On the one hand, they can be used to describe hadrons in terms of glue and quarks. To this end one employs either the Bethe-Salpeter equations for mesons [@Fischer:2010] or the Poincar[é]{} covariant Faddeev equation for baryons [@Eichmann:2010]. On the other hand, they provide insight into the non-perturbative structure of QCD, and hereby most noticeably into Dynamical Breaking of Chiral Symmetry (D$\chi$SB), the U$_A$(1) anomaly, and confinement. Hereby it is interesting to note that D$\chi$SB does not only imply the dynamical generation of quark masses but also of Lorentz-scalar couplings between quarks and gluons, see [@Alkofer:2008tt; @Alkofer:2006gz] and references therein. The U$_A$(1) anomaly can be related to the infrared behaviour of Green’s function [@Kogut:1973ab; @Alkofer:2008et] and thus to confinement.
As for the infrared behaviour of Landau gauge QCD Green’s functions it has become evident that both, Functional Renormalization Group and Dyson-Schwinger equations, display two different types of solutions. There is exactly one unique solution with powerlaw infrared behaviour which is called scaling solution [@Fischer:2009tn]. On the other hand, there is an one-parameter family of solutions with an infrared constant gluon propagator and infrared-trivial vertex functions, for a discussion see [@Fischer:2008uz] and references therein. A similar situation is known since quite some time in Coulomb gauge where it occurs when one applies variational methods [@Szczepaniak:2001rg]. In Landau gauge, however, this has been noticed only recently, see [*e.g.*]{} [@Fischer:2008uz; @Aguilar:2008xm; @Boucaud:2008ky]. A possible resolution of this apparent ambiguity might be that even the minimal Landau gauge needs some additional input to be fixed also non-perturbatively [@Maas:2009se]. In the following we will assume that at least one gauge exists which also allows for the scaling solution.
Landau Gauge Yang-Mills Green’s functions
=========================================
The derivation and main characteristics of the scaling solution is summarized in a contribution to the Proceedings of the Confinement Conference 2008 [@Alkofer:2008bs] to which the reader is refered for more details. The following general infrared behaviour for one-particle irreducible Green functions with $2n$ external ghost legs and $m$ external gluon legs is in the scaling solution given as [@Alkofer:2004it; @Huber:2007kc]: $$\Gamma^{n,m}(p^2) \sim (p^2)^{(n-m)\kappa + (1-n)(d/2-2)} \label{IRsolution}$$ where $d$ is the space-time dimension and $\kappa$ is one yet undetermined parameter. It fulfills some very general inequalities [@Watson:2001yv; @Eichhorn:2010zc] which can be summarized as $0.5\le \kappa
<23/38$. With some assumptions on the ghost-gluon vertex its value can be determined to be $\kappa=0.595$ [@Lerche:2002ep]. A further important property is that there are additional divergences when only some of the momenta of the $n$-point functions are vanishing [@Alkofer:2008jy].
Eq. (\[IRsolution\]) especially entails that the ghost propagator and the three- and four-point gluon vertex functions are infrared divergent. As we will see below this has then profound consequences for the quark-gluon vertex as well as for vertices involving fundamentally charged matter.
Quark-Gluon Vertex
==================
Due to the infrared suppression of the gluon propagator, present in the scaling and in the decoupling solutions, quark confinement cannot be generated by any type of gluon exchange together with an infrared-bounded quark-gluon vertex. To proceed it turns out to be necessary to study the Dyson-Schwinger equation for the quark propagator together with the one for the quark-gluon vertex in a self-consistent way [@Alkofer:2008tt]. Hereby a drastic difference of the quarks as compared to Yang-Mills fields has to be taken into account: As they possess a mass, and as D$\chi$SB does occur, the quark propagator will always approach a constant in the infrared.
The fully dressed quark-gluon vertex can be expanded in twelve linearly independent Dirac tensors. Half of the coefficient functions would vanish if chiral symmetry were realized in the Wigner-Weyl mode. From a solution of the Dyson-Schwinger equations we infer that these [*“scalar”*]{} structures are, in the chiral limit, generated non-perturbatively together with the dynamical quark mass function in a self-consistent fashion. Thus dynamical chiral symmetry breaking manifests itself not only in the propagator but also in the quark-gluon vertex.
From an infrared analysis one obtains an infrared divergent solution for the quark-gluon vertex such that Dirac vector and [“scalar”]{} components of this vertex are infrared divergent with exponent $-\kappa - \frac 1 2$ if either all momenta or the gluon momentum vanish [@Alkofer:2008tt]. A numerical solution of a truncated set of Dyson-Schwinger equations confirms this infrared behaviour. The essential components to obtain this solution are the scalar Dirac amplitudes of the quark-gluon vertex and the scalar part of the quark propagator. Both are only present when chiral symmetry is broken, either explicitely or dynamically.
To investigate how this self-consistent quark propagator and quark-gluon vertex solution relates to quark confinement the anomalous infrared exponent of the four-quark function is determined. The static quark potential can be obtained from this four-quark one-particle irreducible Green function, which behaves like $(p^2)^{-2}$ for $p^2\to0$ due to the infrared enhancement of the quark-gluon vertex for vanishing gluon momentum. Using the well-known relation for a function $F\propto (p^2)^{-2}$ one gets $$V({\bf r}) = \int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3} F(p^0=0,{\bf p}) e^{i {\bf p r}}
\ \ \sim \ \ |{\bf r} |$$ for the static quark-antiquark potential $V({\bf r})$. Therefore the infrared divergence of the quark-gluon vertex, as found in the scaling solution of the coupled system of Dyson-Schwinger equations, the vertex overcompensates the infared suppression of the gluon propagator such that one obtains a linearly rising potential.
Dependence on Lorentz transformation properties
===============================================
The above described mechanism which directly links chiral symmetry breaking with quark confinement raises the question about the role of the Dirac structure in quark confinement. As one expects that fundamental charges are confined by a linear potential a next logical step is to investigate the infrared behaviour of the propagator and the vertex of a fundamentally charged scalar [@Fister:2010yw; @Fister:2010ah].
In contrast to quark Green’s functions the tensor structure of the scalar ones is strongly simplified. Compared to two components in the fermionic propagator, the scalar propagator features only a single structure. Similarly the vertex depending on two independent momenta can be decomposed into two tensors (instead of twelve).
However, a scalar theory has renormalizable self-interactions and therefore the number of terms in the Dyson-Schwinger and Functional Renormalization Group equations are significantly increased. (NB: For the derivation of the Dyson-Schwinger equations one may employ the MATHEMATICA package DoDSE [@Alkofer:2008nt]. A package for Functional Renormalization Group equations will be published [@Huber:2011].) First, the uniform scaling limit is studied. Applying the additional constraints on the infrared exponents that arise from the comparison of the inequivalent towers of Dyson-Schwinger and Functional Renormalization Group equations [@Fischer:2009tn; @Huber:2009wh], the system of equations for the anomalous exponents simplifies. One finds the scaling and the decoupling solutions with an unaltered Yang-Mills sector. In the case of the scaling solution for a massive scalar the scalar-gluon vertex can show either of two behaviors [@Fister:2010yw; @Fister:2010ah]. In one case, which will be discussed here further, it exhibits the same infrared exponent as the quark-gluon vertex.
However, the uniform scaling displays only part of the potential infrared enhancements. Vertex functions may also become divergent when only a subset of the external momenta vanish. Such kinematic divergences provide a mechanism for the long-range interaction of quarks as described in the section above. To this end it is gratifying to realize that the kinematic divergences of the scalar-gluon vertex are identical to those of the quark-gluon vertex. These singularities induce a confining interaction in the four-scalar vertex function as they did in the case of the four-quark vertex function in the case of scalar QCD. Corresponding infrared leading diagrams are shown in Fig. 1. Their Fourier transform according to eq. (\[IRsolution\]) leads to a linearly rising static potential.
This result provides the possibility that within functional approaches static confinement is an universal property of the gauge sector even though it is formally represented in the functional equations of the matter sector.
{width=".48\textwidth"}
Dependence on the representation / group
========================================
As adjoint charges will not be subject to a linearly rising potential, and as the deviations from the scaling laws are only possible in case of cancellations we have investigated whether such cancellations for different representations and groups occur [@Macher:2010].
Hereby the main difference of course is the color prefactor in the vertex functions: A matter-gluon-vertex of a fundamentally charged field is proportional to a Gell-Mann matrix whereas for an adjoint charge the structure constant appears. Correspondingly, the color algebra changes. [*E.g.*]{} the so-called sword-fish diagram is proportional to the Gell-Mann matrix for fundamental scalars but vanishes (due to the antisymmetry of the structure constants) for an adjoint scalar. Thus, for some would-be infrared leading diagrams there are vanishing color prefactors in the adjoint representation.
Noting that the exceptional Lie group $G_2$ has a trivial center one expects for this group the absence of an (asymptotically) linearly rising potential already for the fundamental representation. And as a matter of fact, we find some systematic cancelations and thus vanishing diagrams for the fundamental representation of $G_2$. In the comparison of $SU(N)$ and $G_2$ this occurs for infrared leading and non-leading diagrams.
In addition, there are significant differences when comparing the unquenched to the quenched scalar-gluon vertex Dyson-Schwinger equation.
Summary
=======
Based on the scaling solution of Functional Equations we have pointed out the possibility that confinement of fundamental charges is related to an infrared divergent matter-gluon vertex. This in turn leads then to a $1/k^4$ singularity in the four-point function and thus to a linearly rising static potential. In addition, for the adjoint representation and for the gauge group $G_2$ there are systematic cancelations. Whether these will influence the conclusion on the static potential still has to be investigated.
RA thanks the organizers for their outstanding achievement which made this extraordinarily interesting conference possible.
RA acknlowledges support by the FWF under grant number P20592-N16, LF by the ExtreMe Matter Institute EMMI, and AM by the FWF under grant number M1099-N16.
[9]{}
C. S. Fischer, these proceedings.
G. Eichmann, these proceedings.
R. Alkofer [*et al.,*]{} Annals Phys. [**324**]{} (2009) 106 \[arXiv:0804.3042 \[hep-ph\]\]. R. Alkofer, C. S. Fischer and F. J. Llanes-Estrada, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**23**]{} (2008) 1105 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0607293\]. J. B. Kogut and L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D [**10**]{} (1974) 3468.
R. Alkofer, C. S. Fischer and R. Williams, Eur. Phys. J. A [**38**]{} (2008) 53 \[arXiv:0804.3478 \[hep-ph\]\].
C. S. Fischer, J. M. Pawlowski, Phys. Rev. [**D80** ]{} (2009) 025023 \[arXiv:0903.2193 \[hep-th\]\]; Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{} (2007) 025012 \[arXiv:hep-th/0609009\].
C. S. Fischer, A. Maas and J. M. Pawlowski, Annals Phys. [**324**]{} (2009) 2408 \[arXiv:0810.1987 \[hep-ph\]\].
A. P. Szczepaniak and E. S. Swanson, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{} (2002) 025012 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0107078\]. A. C. Aguilar, D. Binosi and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{} (2008) 025010 \[arXiv:0802.1870 \[hep-ph\]\]. P. Boucaud [*et al.,*]{} JHEP [**0806**]{} (2008) 099 \[arXiv:0803.2161 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. Maas, Phys. Lett. B [**689**]{} (2010) 107 \[arXiv:0907.5185 \[hep-lat\]\]; arXiv:1010.5718 \[hep-lat\].
R. Alkofer [*et al.,*]{} PoS C [**ONFINEMENT8**]{} (2008) 019 \[arXiv:0812.2896 \[hep-ph\]\]. R. Alkofer, C. S. Fischer and F. J. Llanes-Estrada, Phys. Lett. B [**611**]{} (2005) 279 \[arXiv:hep-th/0412330\].
M. Q. Huber [*et al.,*]{} Phys. Lett. B [**659**]{} (2008) 434 \[arXiv:0705.3809 \[hep-ph\]\]. P. Watson and R. Alkofer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{} (2001) 5239 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0102332\]. A. Eichhorn, H. Gies and J. M. Pawlowski, arXiv:1010.2153 \[hep-ph\]. C. Lerche and L. von Smekal, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{} (2002) 125006 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0202194\].
R. Alkofer, M. Q. Huber and K. Schwenzer, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{} (2010) 105010 \[arXiv:0801.2762 \[hep-th\]\]. M. Q. Huber, K. Schwenzer and R. Alkofer, Eur. Phys. J. [**C68** ]{} (2010) 581 \[arXiv:0904.1873 \[hep-th\]\].
L. Fister, R. Alkofer and K. Schwenzer, Phys. Lett. B [**688**]{} (2010) 237 \[arXiv:1003.1668 \[hep-th\]\]. L. Fister, Diploma thesis, University Graz, 2009 \[arXiv:1002.1649 \[hep-th\]\]. R. Alkofer, M. Q. Huber and K. Schwenzer, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**180**]{} (2009) 965 \[arXiv:0808.2939 \[hep-th\]\]. M. Q. Huber, private communication.
V. Macher, Diploma thesis, University Graz, 2010. V. Macher, A. Maas and R. Alkofer, in preparation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '[HeH$^+$]{} is found to be the dominant positive ion over a wide range of temperatures and densities relevant to helium rich white dwarfs. The inclusion of [HeH$^+$]{} in ionization equilibrium computations increases the abundance of free electrons by a significant factor. For temperatures below 8000 K, He$^-$ free-free absorption is increased by up to a factor of 5, by the inclusion of [HeH$^+$]{}. Illustrative model atmospheres and spectral energy distributions are computed, which show that [HeH$^+$]{} has a strong effect upon the density and pressure structure of helium rich white dwarfs with [$T_{eff}$]{}$<$8000 K. The inclusion of [HeH$^+$]{} significantly reddens spectral energy distributions and broad band color indices for models with [$T_{eff}$]{}$<$5500 K. This has serious implications for existing model atmospheres, synthetic spectra and cooling curves for helium rich white dwarfs.'
author:
- 'G. J. Harris, A. E. Lynas-Gray, S. Miller and J. Tennyson.'
title: 'The role of [HeH$^+$]{} in cool helium rich white dwarfs.'
---
Introduction
============
@Bergeron02 analyzed the recently discovered white dwarfs SDSS J133739 +000142 and LHS 3250 [@HHarris99; @HHarris01], identifying both objects as extreme helium rich cool white dwarfs. However they encountered significant problems when attempting to fit the spectral energy distributions (SEDs). @Bergeron02 concluded that the discrepancy between their SEDs and the observed fluxes, is due to the physics used to calculate their model atmospheres. Here we investigate the molecular ion [HeH$^+$]{} as part of the missing physics of helium rich white dwarfs. We demonstrate that the opacity of a helium rich white dwarfs photosphere is significantly affected by [HeH$^+$]{}. From the discussion of @Fontaine, it follows that increased opacity arising from [HeH$^+$]{}, will lengthen the cooling time for helium rich white dwarfs with [$T_{eff}$]{}$<$ 8000 K.
The only attempts to study [HeH$^+$]{} in helium rich white dwarfs known to us was made by @Gaur88 [@Gaur91]. They showed that [HeH$^+$]{} exists in significant quantities in helium rich white dwarfs and suggested a search for the infrared lines of [HeH$^+$]{}.
Equation of state {#sec:EoS}
=================
The equation of state (EoS) is a vital component of any model atmosphere, it links the state parameters such as temperature, pressure, density, and internal energy. It also calculates the relative abundance of each species within the gas, which are essential to obtain accurate radiative opacities. The photospheres of cool extremely helium rich white dwarfs have densities which can reach upward of 1 [g cm$^{-3}$]{}, under such conditions the use of a non-ideal EoS is required.
We have adapted the non-ideal H/He EoS of @Luo. This EoS accounts for the non-ideal effects of electron degeneracy, Coulomb coupling and pressure ionization, but lacks an accurate treatment of pressure dissociation. The abundance of [H$_2$]{} is estimated using an equilibrium constant for the reaction: H$_2 \rightleftharpoons$ 2H, so that [H$_2$]{} pressure dissociates as hydrogen pressure ionizes.
To account for the pressure ionization of H$^-$ we have added a term to the hydrogen ionization equilibrium, given by eq. (22) and (23) in @Luo, so that $$\begin{aligned}
y_{H^-} & = & L_{H^-}/L_{H} \nonumber \\
L_H & = & L_{H I} + L_{H {\small II}} + L_{H^-} \label{eq:ionfrac}\end{aligned}$$ where $y_{H^-}$ is the ionization fraction of atomic and ionic hydrogen in the form of H$^-$, $L_{\rm H I}$ and $L_{\rm H II}$ are the grand partition functions of atomic hydrogen and a proton (see @Luo eq. 23). The grand partition function of H$^-$ is given by $$L_{H^-} = W_{H^-} \exp(2\lambda-E_{H^-}/kT) \label{eq:grandz}$$ where $\lambda$ is the electron degeneracy, $E_{H^-}$ is the sum of the ionization potential of hydrogen and H$^-$ (14.352 eV), and $W_{H^-}$ is given by eq. (11)-(16) in @Luo using a characteristic radius for H$^-$ of 1.15 Å [@LenzuniSaumon].
Under certain conditions, the trace ionic molecules [H$_2^-$]{}, [H$_2^+$]{}, [H$_3^+$]{}, [HeH$^+$]{}, and [He$_2^+$]{} are responsible for nearly all the free electrons in a H/He gas. We calculate equilibrium constants for the formation of [H$_2$]{}, [H$_2^-$]{}, [H$_2^+$]{}, [H$_3^+$]{}, [HeH$^+$]{}, and [He$_2^+$]{} from atomic H and He, H$^-$, and free electrons with the Saha equation. Subject to conservation of charge, and of H and He nuclei, the equilibrium constants and ionization fractions are used to construct 3 non-linear simultaneous equations. These 3 equations are solved using a multi-variable Newton-Raphson technique. In this way the number densities for each species can be calculated for any given temperature, pressure, hydrogen fraction and value of $\lambda$. The internal partition functions we use are detailed in @Harris04, for [HeH$^+$]{} we use the partition function of @Engel. A converged value of $\lambda$ is found by iterating over a further conservation of charge equation: $$\begin{aligned}
C_eT^{3/2}F_{1/2}(\lambda-\epsilon_{CC}/kT) & = & N_{{\rm H {\small II}}} + N_{{\rm He {\small II}}} + 2N_{{\rm He {\small III}}} - N_{\rm H^-} + N_{\rm H_2^+} - N_{\rm H_2^-} \nonumber \\
& & +N_{\rm H_3^+}+ N_{\rm HeH^+} + N_{\rm He_2^+} \label{eq:coneq}\end{aligned}$$ where N$_x$ is the number density of species $x$, $\epsilon_{CC}$ is the free electron Coulomb coupling energy [@Luo], $F_{1/2}$ is a Fermi-Dirac integral, T is temperature and a constant $C_e=(2^{1/2}/\pi^2)(km_e/\hbar^2)^{3/2}$. The left hand side of eq \[eq:coneq\] is the number density of free electrons (see @Luo1994 [@Luo]) and the right hand side counts the charge on all ions.
Figure \[fig:eos\] shows the number fraction of the species within our EoS, as a function of H to He number ratio, density, and temperature. At 5000 K and density of 0.2 [g cm$^{-3}$]{} [H$_3^+$]{} is the dominant positive ion for the hydrogen rich case. [HeH$^+$]{} is the dominant positive ion for the helium rich range $-10 < \log_{10}(N_H/N_{He}) < -2.5$ and [He$_2^+$]{} becomes the dominant positive ion for $\log_{10}(N_H/N_{He}) < -10$. Figure \[fig:eos\] indicates that [HeH$^+$]{} continues to be the dominant positive ion over a range of densities and temperatures. @Lenzuni91 present an EoS and mean opacities for a H/He gas of 72% hydrogen by mass, they correctly state that the opacity coefficent of [HeH$^+$]{} is wholely irrelevant. However, as illustrated below, for a helium rich mix [HeH$^+$]{} strongly affects the opacity and cannot be neglected.
Opacity function {#sec:opacity}
================
The opacity of a gas under the extreme pressures found in the photospheres of helium rich white dwarfs remains in question [@Iglesias; @Bergeron02]. The opacity of a cool helium rich atmosphere is dominated by [H$_2$]{}-He collision induced and He$^-$ free-free absorption, and [He [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">I</span>]{}]{} Rayleigh scattering [@Malo; @Iglesias; @Rohrmann]. As such the opacity is strongly dependent upon the abundance of free electrons and [H$_2$]{}. The sources of opacity data that we use is discussed in @Harris04.
The monochromatic absorption coefficient at $\rho=0.5$ [g cm$^{-3}$]{}, [$\log_{10}(N_{\rm H}/N_{\rm He})$]{}$=$–5, over a range of temperatures, computed both including and neglecting [HeH$^+$]{} from our EoS, is shown in figure \[fig:opa-t\]. It is evident that if [HeH$^+$]{} is neglected the gas opacity can be underestimated by as much as a factor of 5, over a significant range of temperatures. The dominant opacity, across the frequency range shown in figure \[fig:opa-t\] and for temperatures upward of 5000 K, is He$^-$ free-free absorption. At lower temperatures collision induced absorption, in the infrared, and [He [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">I</span>]{}]{} Rayleigh scattering, in the visible/ultra-violet, become important and eventually take over from He$^-$ free-free.
To determine if [HeH$^+$]{} rotation-vibration lines would be observable in a helium rich white dwarf we have employed the recent publicly available [HeH$^+$]{} linelist of @Engel. We find that the absorption lines of [HeH$^+$]{} are too weak to overcome the continuous opacity, under the temperatures and densities found in helium rich white dwarfs. Therefore [HeH$^+$]{} lines will not be visible in the spectra of helium rich white dwarfs. For a discussion of [HeH$^+$]{} line opacity and some of the temperatures densities in which it is important see @Engel.
Model atmospheres & spectral energy distributions. {#sec:model}
==================================================
We use the plane parallel model atmosphere code [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">marcs</span>]{} [@Gustafsson], modified for the new non-ideal EoS subroutines, discussed in section \[sec:EoS\], and the new continuous opacity subroutines, discussed in section \[sec:opacity\]. The new EoS and opacity function subroutines are fast enough to be run in real time.
As discussed in @Saumon94 and @Bergeron, in the optically thin regions, the unusual opacity function of a metal free H/He gas results in multiple roots in the equation of radiative equilibrium. The high temperature solution to radiative equilibrium in the optically thin regions is preferentially found in our models. Such a solution is not physically realistic, rendering our models of [$T_{eff}$]{}$\leq$5000 K below $\log \tau_R=-2$ unreliable. However, as this only occurs at very small optical depths the emergent flux is unaffected.
We also experienced a problem with convergence of the convective flux at temperatures of 5000 K and below. The pressure-temperature gradient ($\nabla$) is very close to the adiabatic gradient ($\nabla_{ad}$), so that $(\nabla-\nabla_{ad})/\nabla \sim 10^{-3}$ in the convective zone. In the cool highly non-ideal regions, numerical noise in the value of $\nabla_{ad}$ calculated within our EoS is of this order, resulting in convergence problems with the convective flux. We have therefore not been able to obtain converged models below [$T_{eff}$]{}$=$4500 K.
We have computed a set of model atmospheres for $\log g = 8$, [$\log_{10}(N_{\rm H}/N_{\rm He})$]{}$=10^{-5}$, and between effective temperatures of 4500 and 8000 K, including and neglecting [HeH$^+$]{}. Figure \[fig:atm\] shows optical depth verses temperature and density for model atmospheres of 4500, 5000, 6000, 7000 and 8000 K. Although the temperatures remain relatively unperturbed by the inclusion of [HeH$^+$]{}, there is a very strong affect upon the density and pressure. If [HeH$^+$]{} is neglected then the density and pressure can be overestimated by up to a factor 5, similarly the electron pressure significantly underestimated. For [$T_{eff}$]{} of $\geq$ 8000 K there are significant electrons released from [H [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">II</span>]{}]{} and [He [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">II</span>]{}]{}, which reduces the importance of [HeH$^+$]{}.
Figure \[fig:SEDS\] shows the SEDs of our 4500, 5000 and 6000 K models, with and without [HeH$^+$]{}. The 4500 and 5000 K SEDs show a significant changes if [HeH$^+$]{} is included in the ionization equilibrium, but the effect is only small for the 6000 K model. The reason for this is that above $\sim$5000 K He$^-$ free-free is the only significant source of opacity, so although the total opacity is increased the shape of the absorption function and hence SED is unchanged. For temperatures below 5500 K, He Rayleigh scattering and He-H$_2$ collision induced absorption contribute to opacity. As these opacity sources are unaffected by the increased abundance of electrons from [HeH$^+$]{}, the increase in He$^-$ free-free opacity changes the shape of the total opacity function and SED. These differences are reflected in the broadband color indexes given in tables \[tab:1\] and \[tab:2\]. These colors were computed by using the bandpasses given by @Bessell88 [@Bessell90] and calibrating using a spectrum of Vega. There are significant differences, at [$T_{eff}$]{}$=$5500 K and below, between colors computed whilst including and neglecting [HeH$^+$]{}. The large increase in the V–K magnitude, and most of the other color indices indicates that the models calculated with [HeH$^+$]{} are significantly redder than the models calculated without [HeH$^+$]{}, this is also apparent in the SEDs. In general all our colors are redder than the colors of @Bergeron02.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
A non-ideal H/He equation of state (EoS) which includes the molecular ion [HeH$^+$]{} within the ionization equilibrium, has been presented. It has been demonstrated, that under helium rich conditions and over a range of temperatures and densities relevant to helium rich white dwarfs, [HeH$^+$]{} is the dominant positive ion. Using the EoS, we have computed a set of continuous opacities which illustrate that [HeH$^+$]{} can indirectly increase the opacity of a helium rich gas by up to a factor of 5. Using the recent [HeH$^+$]{} linelist of @Engel, we have found that [HeH$^+$]{} line opacity does not significantly contribute to the opacity at the densities found in helium rich white dwarfs.
From a physical point of view one of the most interesting reasons for studying helium rich white dwarfs is that the densities of their photospheres access regions in which the gas is strongly non-ideal. [@Saumon91; @Saumon95] have studied the pressure dissociation of [H$_2$]{} in a pure hydrogen environment. However, one of the shortcomings of our, and all other equations of state known to us is that there has been no study of the pressure dissociation of the important molecular ions, [H$_3^+$]{}. [HeH$^+$]{}, and [He$_2^+$]{}. Before we can fully understand helium rich white dwarfs, our understanding of the physics of cool dense H/He plasmas must be improved.
Our EoS and opacity function have been incorporated into a version of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">marcs</span>]{} [@Gustafsson]. Using this code we have computed model atmospheres, spectral energy distributions and broad band color indices for an illustrative range of helium rich white dwarfs. We find that in all models below 8000 K the pressure and density of the model atmospheres is reduced by up to a factor of five by the inclusion of [HeH$^+$]{}. Furthermore, [HeH$^+$]{} significantly reddens the SEDs and color indices, for models below [$T_{eff}$]{}$=$ 5500 K. The importance of [HeH$^+$]{} should prompt a review of all current model atmospheres, synthetic spectra and cooling curves for cool helium rich white dwarfs.
We thank Prof. Bengt Gustafsson for providing us with a version of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">marcs</span>]{}, Prof. Hugh Jones for providing a spectrum of Vega, and the UK Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC) for support.
Bergeron, P., Saumon, D., and Wesemael, F., 1995, , 443, 764 Bergeron, P., Leggett, S. K., , 2002, 580, 1070 Bessel, M. S., Brett, J. M., 1988, Pub. Astron. Soc. Pacific, 100, 1134. Bessel, M. S., 1990, Pub. Astron. Soc. Pacific, 102, 1181. Engel, E. A., Doss, N., Harris, G. J., Tennyson, J., 2005, [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.]{}, SUBMITTED Fontaine, G., Brassard, P., Bergeron, P., 2001, PASP 113, 409 Gaur, V. P., Tripathi, G. C., Joshi, G. C., Pande, M. C., 1988, Astrophysics & Space Science, 147, 107 Gaur, V. P., Joshi, G. C., Pande, M. C., 1991, Astrophysics & Space Science, 197, 57 Harris, G. J., Lynas-Gray, A. E., Miller, S., Tennyson, J., 2004, , 600, 1025 Harris, H. C., Dahn, C. C., Vrba, F. J, Henden, A. A., Liebert, J., Schmidt, G. D., Reid, I. N. 1999, , 524, 1000 Harris, H. C., [[*et al.*]{}]{}, 2001, , 549, L109 Gustafsson, B., Bell, R. A., Eriksson, K., Nordlund, Å., 1975, [A&A]{}, 42, 407 Iglesias, C. A., Rogers, F. J., Saumon, D., 2002, , 569, L111 Lenzuni, P., Chernoff, D. F, Salpeter, E. E., 1991, , 76, 759 Lenzuni, P., Saumon, D., 1992, Rev. Mex. A. A., 23, 223 Luo, G. Q. 1994, [A&A]{}, 281, 460 Luo, G. Q. 1997, , 491, 366 Malo, A., Wesemael, F., Bergeron, P., 1999, , 517, 901 Saumon, D., Chabrier, G., 1991, Physical Review A, 44, 5122 Saumon, D., Bergeron, B., Lunine, J. I, Hubbard, W. B., Burrows, A., 1994, , 424, 333 Saumon, D., Chabrier, G., Van Horn, H. M, 1995, , 99, 713 Rohrmann, R. D., Serenelli, A. M., Althaus, L. G., Benvenuto, O. G., 1991, [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.]{}, 335, 499
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------- -------
4500 0.85 0.52 0.58 0.48 0.30 –0.54 –0.17
5000 0.72 0.44 0.81 0.42 0.35 –0.18 –0.22
5500 0.60 0.38 1.14 0.36 0.32 0.12 –0.04
6000 0.50 0.32 0.98 0.30 0.24 0.12 –0.01
6500 0.42 0.27 0.77 0.25 0.18 0.09 –0.03
7000 0.36 0.23 0.59 0.21 0.12 0.07 –0.05
7500 0.30 0.20 0.43 0.17 0.07 0.05 –0.06
8000 0.25 0.17 0.30 0.14 0.03 0.03 –0.08
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------- -------
: Color indices for models calculated whilst neglecting [HeH$^+$]{}. $\log g=8$ and [$\log_{10}(N_{\rm H}/N_{\rm He})$]{}=$10^{-5}$. \[tab:1\]
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------- -------
4500 0.84 0.52 1.32 0.51 0.49 –0.03 –0.18
5000 0.70 0.44 1.44 0.43 0.42 0.16 –0.01
5500 0.59 0.37 1.23 0.36 0.32 0.16 0.02
6000 0.50 0.32 0.98 0.30 0.24 0.13 0.00
6500 0.42 0.27 0.80 0.25 0.18 0.10 –0.03
7000 0.35 0.23 0.59 0.21 0.12 0.07 –0.04
7500 0.30 0.20 0.43 0.17 0.07 0.05 –0.06
8000 0.25 0.17 0.29 0.14 0.03 0.03 –0.08
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------- -------
: Color indices, for models calculated with [HeH$^+$]{}. $\log g=8$ and [$\log_{10}(N_{\rm H}/N_{\rm He})$]{}=$10^{-5}$. \[tab:2\]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'It was recently pointed out (and demonstrated experimentally) by Lundeen *et al.* that the wave function of a particle (more precisely, the wave function possessed by each member of an ensemble of identically-prepared particles) can be “directly measured” using weak measurement. Here it is shown that if this same technique is applied, with appropriate post-selection, to one particle from a (perhaps entangled) multi-particle system, the result is precisely the so-called “conditional wave function” of Bohmian mechanics. Thus, a plausibly operationalist method for defining the wave function of a quantum mechanical sub-system corresponds to the natural definition of a sub-system wave function which Bohmian mechanics (uniquely) makes possible. Similarly, a weak-measurement-based procedure for directly measuring a sub-system’s density matrix should yield, under appropriate circumstances, the Bohmian “conditional density matrix” as opposed to the standard reduced density matrix. Experimental arrangements to demonstrate this behavior – and also thereby reveal the non-local dependence of sub-system state functions on distant interventions – are suggested and discussed.'
author:
- Travis Norsen
- Ward Struyve
title: 'Weak Measurement and (Bohmian) Conditional Wave Functions'
---
Introduction {#sec1}
============
The notion of “weak measurement”, first introduced in [@aav] and recently reviewed in [@boyd], has become an important tool for exploring foundational questions in quantum mechanics. For example, the recent theorem of Pusey, Barrett, and Rudolph [@pbr] – according to which the quantum state or wave function must be understood as having an ontological (as opposed to merely epistemic) character – is nicely supported and supplemented by the rather different recent work of Lundeen *et al.* [@lundeen] showing that the quantum wave function can be “directly measured” using weak measurement techniques. (This is “direct” in contrast to the indirect or reconstructive approaches involved in quantum state tomography – but see also [@haap]).
The procedure goes as follows. In a weak measurement, one lets a system in state ${| {\psi} \rangle}$ couple weakly to a pointer whose position, if the coupling were stronger, would unambiguously register the value associated with observable $\hat{A}$. With the weak coupling, however, the pointer’s registration remains quite ambiguous; but this can be made up for by repeating the process many times (on identically-prepared systems) and averaging. After the system couples weakly to the pointer, one may also make a (normal, strong) measurement of some other observable $\hat{B}$ and post-select on the outcome. In the weak-coupling limit, the average value of the pointer’s reading (when the final measurement has outcome $b$) is the real part of the (here, complex) “weak value” $$\langle \hat{A} \rangle_W^b = \frac{ {\langle {b} |} \hat{A} {| {\psi} \rangle}
}{{\langle {b} | {\psi} \rangle}}
\label{eq-wv}$$ whose imaginary part is also accessible via measurements of the pointer’s conjugate momentum.
In the scheme introduced by Lundeen *et al.*, one lets $\hat{A} =
\hat{\pi}_x = {| {x} \rangle}{\langle {x} |}$ and $\hat{B} = \hat{p}_x$. We then have that $$\langle \hat{\pi}_x \rangle^{p_x}_W = \frac{ {\langle {p_x} | {x} \rangle} {\langle {x} | {\psi} \rangle}
}{{\langle {p_x} | {\psi} \rangle}} = \frac{e^{-i p_x x / \hbar} \psi(x)}{\tilde{\psi}(p_x)}.
\label{wf1}$$ For the particular case $p_x = 0$ we thus have that the weak value is proportional to the particle’s wave function: $$\langle \hat{\pi}_x \rangle_W^{p_x = 0} \sim \psi(x).$$ Lundeen *et al.* [@lundeen] used this technique to directly measure the transverse wave function of a(n ensemble of identically prepared) photon(s).
Another recent example of the use of weak measurements to probe foundational questions involves Bohmian mechanics. Wiseman [@wiseman] pointed out that a certain naively plausible operational approach to experimentally determining the trajectory of a quantum particle – namely, defining the velocity of a particle at a certain position in terms of the difference between the weak value of its position at time $t$ and the strong value at $t+dt$ – yields precisely the Bohmian expression for the particle’s velocity (see also [@durr; @oriols]). Steinberg *et al.* [@steinberg] implemented this scheme to reconstruct the average trajectories for photons in the 2-slit experiment. The beautiful experimentally-reconstructed trajectories are indeed congruent with the iconic images of 2-slit Bohmian trajectories [@dewdney]. And it was recently pointed out by Braverman and Simon [@braverman] that such measurements, if performed on one particle from an entangled pair, should allow an empirical demonstration of the non-local character of the Bohmian trajectories.
Following Braverman and Simon, the goal of the present work is to address the following seemingly natural question: what happens if the Lundeen *et al.* technique, for “directly measuring” the wave function of a particle, is applied to a particle which does not, according to ordinary quantum theory, *have* a wave function of its own, because it is entangled with some other particle(s)? The answer turns out to be that, under suitable conditions, the “directly measured” one-particle wave function corresponds exactly to the so-called “conditional wave function” of Bohmian mechanics [@dgz] . Since this is undoubtedly an unfamiliar concept to most physicists, we review it in Section \[sec2\] before explaining, in Section \[sec3\], this central claim and suggesting an experimental setup in which it should be demonstrable. Section \[sec4\] then outlines a parallel result, regarding density matrices, especially appropriate for the (spin) states of particles with discrete degrees of freedom. Section \[sec5\] offers conclusions, focusing especially on questions surrounding the claimed observability of non-locality.
Bohmian Conditional Wave Functions {#sec2}
==================================
Consider for simplicity a system of two spin-0 particles (masses $m_1$ and $m_2$, coordinates $x$ and $y$) each moving in one spatial dimension. According to ordinary quantum mechanics (OQM) the wave function $\Psi(x,y,t)$, obeying an appropriate two-particle Schrödinger equation, provides a complete description of the state of the system. According to Bohmian mechanics (BM), however, the description provided by the wave function alone is decidedly incomplete; a complete description requires specifying in addition the actual particle positions $X(t)$ and $Y(t)$. For BM the wave function $\Psi(x,y,t)$ obeys the usual Schrödinger equation, while $X(t)$ evolves according to $$\frac{d X(t)}{dt} = \left. \frac{\hbar}{2 m_1 i}\frac{ \Psi^*
\frac{\partial}{\partial x} \Psi - \Psi \frac{\partial}{\partial x}
\Psi^*}{\Psi^* \Psi} \right|_{x=X(t), \, y=Y(t)}
\label{dXdt}$$ and similarly for $Y(t)$. It is a joint property of the time-evolution laws for the wave and particles that, if the particle positions $X$ and $Y$ are random and $|\psi|^2$-distributed at some initial time (this is the so-called quantum equilibrium hypothesis, QEH), they will remain $|\psi|^2$ distributed for all times. This so-called “equivariance” property is crucial for understanding how BM reproduces the statistical predictions of OQM [@dgz].
The Bohmian “conditional wave function” (CWF) – for, say, the first particle – is simply the (“universal”) wave function $\Psi(x,y,t)$ evaluated at $y = Y(t)$: $$\chi_1(x,t) = \left. \Psi(x,y,t) \right|_{y=Y(t)}.$$ This is the obvious and natural way to construct a “single particle wave function” given the resources that BM provides. (OQM, with fewer resources at hand, provides no such natural – or even an unnatural – construction.) What makes this definition natural is that the evolution law for the position $X(t)$ of particle 1, Equation , can be re-written in terms of particle 1’s CWF as follows: $$\frac{d X(t)}{dt} = \left. \frac{\hbar}{2 m_1 i} \frac{ \chi_1^*
\frac{\partial}{\partial x} \chi_1 - \chi_1 \frac{\partial}{\partial
x} \chi_1^* }{\chi_1^* \chi_1} \right|_{x=X(t)}.
\label{guidance2}$$ It is thus appropriate to think of $\chi_1(x,t)$ as the guiding- or pilot-wave that directly influences the motion of particle 1.
It is important to appreciate that $\chi_1(x,t)$ depends on time in two different ways – through the $t$-dependence of $\Psi$ and also through the $t$-dependence of $Y$. Thus, in general, $\chi_1(x,t)$ does not obey a simple one-particle Schrödinger equation, but obeys instead a more complicated pseudo-Schrödinger equation [@dgz; @telb]. In particular, it is easy to see that, under the appropriate measurement-like circumstances, $\chi_1(x,t)$ will *collapse*. Suppose for example that particle 1 has initial wave function $$\psi(x) = \sum_n c_n \psi_n(x)$$ where the $\psi_n(x)$ are eigenstates of some observable $\hat{A}$ with eigenvalues $a_n$. And suppose that particle 2 is the pointer on an $\hat{A}$-measuring device, initially in the state $$\phi_0(y) \sim e^{-y^2/2w^2}.$$ Now suppose the particles experience a (for simplicity, impulsive) interaction $$\hat{H}_{int} = \lambda \, \delta(t) \, \hat{A} \, \hat{p}_y.$$ The usual unitary Schrödinger evolution of the initial wave function $\Psi(x,y,0^-) = \psi(x) \phi_0(y)$ then takes it into $$\Psi(x,y,0^+) = \sum_n c_n \psi_n(x) \phi_0(y - \lambda a_n).
\label{wff}$$ That is, the two-particle wave function after the interaction can be understood as an entangled superposition of terms, each of which has particle 1 in an eigenstate of $\hat{A}$ and particle 2 in a new position that registers the corresponding value $a_n$. (Note that we assume here that $\lambda$ is sufficiently large that the separation between adjacent values of $\lambda a_n$ is large compared to the width $w$ of the pointer packet. This is thus a “strong” measurement.) From the point of view of OQM, Equation exhibits the standard problem of Schrödinger’s cat: instead of resolving the superposition of distinct $a$-values, the measuring device itself gets infected with the superposition. In OQM (where there is nothing but the wave function at hand) one thus needs to introduce additional dynamical (“collapse”) postulates to account for the observed (apparently non-superposed) behavior of real laboratory equipment.
In BM, however, there is no such problem. The observable outcome of the measurement is not to be found in the wave function, but instead in the actual position $Y(0^+)$ of the pointer after the interaction. It is easy to see that (with appropriate random initial conditions) this will, with probability $|c_n|^2$, lie near the value $\lambda a_n$ which indicates that the result of the measurement was $a_n$. Furthermore, it is easy to see that if $Y(0^+)$ is near the value $\lambda a_n$, then the CWF of particle 1 will be (up to a multiplicative constant) the appropriate eigenfunction: $$\chi_1(x,0^+) \sim \psi_n(x).$$ That is, the CWF of particle 1 *collapses* (from a superposition of several $\psi_n$s to the particular $\psi_n$ which corresponds to the actually-realized outcome of the measurement) as a result of the interaction with the measuring device, even though the dynamics for the “universal” wave function $\Psi$ is completely unitary. See Figure \[fig1\] and its caption for an illustration.
We have here explained the idea of (and one important and perhaps surprising property of the dynamical evolution of) Bohmian CWFs as if the particle of interest were interacting with the particle or particles constituting a *measuring device*. That is of course the crucial kind of situation if one is worrying about the so-called quantum measurement problem. But more important for our purposes here is the fact that the Bohmian CWF (for a single particle) is perfectly well-defined at all times for any particle that is part of a larger (multi-particle) quantum system. Indeed, BM only really provides a solution of the measurement problem because it treats “measurements” as just ordinary physical interactions, obeying the same universal dynamical laws as all interactions. It should thus be clear that, according to BM, collapses (like the one we just described happening as a result of an interaction with a measuring device) will actually be happening all the time, as particles interact with each other. It is the goal of the following analysis to show how this feature of the Bohmian theory can be experimentally manifested using weak measurement.
Direct Measurement of Single Particle Wave Functions {#sec3}
====================================================
Let us then turn to the main result of the present paper. Suppose we carry out the Lundeen-type “direct measurement of the wave function” procedure on one particle of a two-particle system. As a reality check, suppose to begin with that the two-particle system has a factorizable quantum state $${| {\Psi} \rangle} = {| {\psi} \rangle} {| {\phi} \rangle}$$ where the first and second factors on the right refer to particles 1 and 2 respectively. The Lundeen-type procedure involves post-selecting on the final momentum $p_x$ of the particle whose wave function we are trying to measure (here, particle 1). Let us also post-select on the final position $Y$ of particle 2 [@other]. It is then straightforward to calculate that $$\langle \hat{\pi}_x \rangle_W^{p_x,y=Y} = \frac{ {\langle {Y} | {\phi} \rangle} {\langle {p_x} | {x} \rangle}
{\langle {x} | {\psi} \rangle} }{{\langle {Y} | {\phi} \rangle} {\langle {p_x} | {\psi} \rangle}} =
\frac{e^{-i p_x x / \hbar} \, \psi(x)}{\tilde{\psi}(p_x)}$$ which is, as expected, identical to Equation .
If, however, particle 1 is in a general, entangled state with particle 2, as in $${| {\Psi} \rangle} = \int dx' dy' \Psi(x',y') {| {x'} \rangle} {| {y'} \rangle}$$ then the operational determination of particle 1’s wave function (post-selected on the final strongly-measured position $Y$ of particle 2) yields $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \hat{\pi}_x \rangle^{p_x,y=Y}_W &=& \frac{ {\langle {p_x} | {x} \rangle}
{\langle {x,Y} | {\Psi} \rangle}}{ {\langle {p_x,Y} | {\Psi} \rangle}} \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{e^{-i p_x x / \hbar} \, \Psi(x,Y)}{\int dx' \Psi(x',Y)\, e^{-i
p_x x' / \hbar} } \end{aligned}$$ Restricting, as before, our attention to the cases in which the final measured momentum $p_x$ is zero, we have that $$\langle \hat{\pi}_x \rangle_W^{p_x = 0, y=Y} \sim \Psi(x,Y) = \chi_1(x)$$ where the right hand side is precisely the Bohmian CWF for particle 1. Note that we have tacitly relied on the fact that, for Bohmian mechanics, position is a *non-contextual* (“hidden”) variable. Thus the final position measurement on particle 2 simply reveals, for Bohmian mechanics, the actual pre-existing location $Y$ of that particle. In short, the two $Y$s in the analysis – the one representing the outcome of the final position measurement of particle 2, and the one, used in the definition of the Bohmian CWF, representing the actual position of particle 2 – are, for Bohmian mechanics, the same.
So far we have basically ignored the issue of the exact timing of the various measurements on the two-particle system. Let us then examine this in the context of a somewhat concrete example. Consider two photons prepared in some kind of entangled state (to be specified shortly) and propagating in roughly opposite directions. Let the variable $x$ refer to the transverse spatial degree of freedom of photon 1 (propagating, say, to the right) and the variable $y$ refer to the transverse spatial degree of freedom of photon 2 (propagating to the left). We imagine a setup like that reported in [@lundeen] in which the weak measurement is effected using an extremely narrow half-wave plate (“$\lambda/2$ sliver”) and the $p_x = 0$ post-selection is effected by accepting only those photons which pass a narrow slit downstream from and along the axis of a Fourier Transform lens. The remaining photons are then passed through an appropriate quarter (or half) wave plate; the imbalance between the two polarization states then yields the real (or, respectively, imaginary) part of the transverse wave function at the location of the $\lambda/2$ sliver. See [@lundeen] for details.
We now consider the possibility that each photon that enters the device is entangled with a second photon: $${| {\Psi} \rangle} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( {| {\psi_1} \rangle} {| {\phi_1} \rangle} +
{| {\psi_2} \rangle} {| {\phi_2} \rangle} \right).
\label{state}$$ It is important (for the proper functioning of the wave function measurement) that ${| {\psi_1} \rangle}$ and ${| {\psi_2} \rangle}$ have the same (say, linear) polarization. But let them have distinct (transverse) spatial profiles – for example, and most simply, suppose that ${| {\psi_1} \rangle}$ has transverse spatial support just *above* the $z$-axis (i.e., for $x>0$) while ${| {\psi_2} \rangle}$ has transverse spatial support just *below* the $z$-axis ($x<0$). See Figure \[fig2\](a).
As to photon 2, suppose that (at least initially) ${| {\phi_1} \rangle}$ and ${| {\phi_2} \rangle}$ have identical transverse profiles and completely overlap spatially, but are distinct in some way (for example, they could be orthogonally polarized, or could have different energies) that allows the two parts of the beam to be separated by some type of beam splitter (BS). See Figure \[fig2\](b).
Let us now consider several different spatial locations for, and time-orderings involving, the final measurement of the position $Y$ of photon 2.
To begin with, let us first imagine that the measurement/post-selection on photon 2’s transverse coordinate $y$ occurs (in, say, the lab frame) *before* the weak measurement on photon 1 and at a plane like A in Figure \[fig2\] (i.e., before photon 2 has passed any beam splitter). According to OQM, this measurement of $Y$ will collapse the 2-particle wave function and leave photon 1 with a definite (non-entangled) wave function of its own. Because ${| {\phi_1} \rangle}$ and ${| {\phi_2} \rangle}$ overlap at A, however, the position measurement gives no information about ${| {\phi_1} \rangle}$ vs. ${| {\phi_2} \rangle}$ and so leaves photon 1 in the state $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( {| {\psi_1} \rangle} + {| {\psi_2} \rangle}
\right)$. And this of course coincides with the predicted result of the direct measurement protocol: for measurement/post-selection at A $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \hat{\pi}_x \rangle_W^{p_x = 0,y=Y} &=& \frac{ \psi_1(x)
{\langle {Y} | {\phi_1} \rangle} + \psi_2(x)
{\langle {Y} | {\phi_2} \rangle}}{\tilde{\psi}_1(0) {\langle {Y} | {\phi_1} \rangle} +
\tilde{\psi}_2(0) {\langle {Y} | {\phi_2} \rangle} } \nonumber \\
&\sim& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( \psi_1(x) + \psi_2(x) \right)\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the fact that, for detection at the A plane, ${\langle {Y} | {\phi_1} \rangle} = {\langle {Y} | {\phi_2} \rangle}$.
On the other hand, if the measurement/post-selection on photon 2 is performed at plane B (after photon 2 has passed the beam splitter, but still *before* the measurement protocol has been carried out on photon 1) then according to OQM the wave function of photon 1 will collapse to *either* ${| {\psi_1} \rangle}$ (if $Y$ is found in the support of ${\langle {y} | {\phi_1} \rangle}$) *or* ${| {\psi_2} \rangle}$ (if $Y$ is found in the support of ${\langle {y} | {\phi_2} \rangle}$). This again coincides with the expected results of the direct measurement: for detection at the B plane, one or the other of ${\langle {Y} | {\phi_1} \rangle}$ and ${\langle {Y} | {\phi_2} \rangle}$ will be zero. We will thus find that $$\langle \hat{\pi}_x \rangle_W^{p_x = 0, y=Y} \sim \psi_m(x)
\label{collapse}$$ for $Y \in \text{supp}({\langle {y} | {\phi_m} \rangle})$.
For both of those two scenarios, ordinary QM attributes a one-particle wave function to particle 1 at the time in question; this wave function coincides with the Bohmian CWF and the expected results of the weak measurement technique. In short, there is nothing surprising or interesting here from the point of view of OQM.
Consider, however, a scenario involving measurement/post-selection of photon 2’s position at plane C (such that this measurement takes place *well after* the weak measurement on photon 1 has already gone fully to completion). It is trivial to see that the results of the weak measurement will again be given by Equation – that is, dramatically different (“collapsed”) wave functions for photon 1 will be found depending on whether particle 2 is (later!) found in the support of ${| {\phi_1} \rangle}$ or ${| {\phi_2} \rangle}$. From the point of view of OQM, however, it is rather difficult to understand why, prior to any actual measurement (meaning here an interaction involving macroscopic amplification) that would trigger a collapse, one should find collapsed one-particle wave functions. On the other hand, this is perfectly natural from a Bohmian point of view: as sketched in Figure \[fig3\] the conditional wave function (CWF) for particle 1 collapses as soon as the packets separate in the two-dimensional configuration space. This happens when the components ${| {\phi_1} \rangle}$ and ${| {\phi_2} \rangle}$ are split at the BS; no actual position *measurement* is required. (Note that the claim here is *not* that OQM makes the wrong predictions. Undoubtedly it makes the right predictions – indeed we have used nothing but orthodox quantum ideas to calculate what should be observed in the experiment. The point is rather only that, from the OQM perspective, it is at best obscure what one ought to expect the operationalist determination of photon 1’s “one-particle wave function” to yield at times when photon 1 remains entangled with photon 2. Whereas, from the Bohmian point of view, the results are the obvious, natural thing.)
The proposed experiment, then, should involve a fixed detection plane, like plane C in the Figure, at a greater optical distance from the two-particle source than that of the measuring apparatus for particle 1. The removable beam splitter BS should, on the other hand, ideally be slightly closer to the two-particle source than the particle 1 apparatus. With the BS in place, the arrangement would be like that shown in the Figure and the “direct measurement” on photon 1 would yield (after appropriate post-selection on $Y$) collapsed photon 1 wave functions (even though the actual position measurement on photon 2 would occur well after photon 1 was already measured). On the other hand, with the BS removed, the situation would be equivalent to detecting photon 2 at plane A (except that this too would only occur later, after the measurements on photon 1 had occured) and the measurement of photon 1 would reveal the uncollapsed wave function. One could thus in some sense observe the collapse of the Bohmian CWF of photon 1 as a direct result of the insertion (perhaps at space-like separation) of the BS into the path of photon 2.
This proposed setup should be realizable in practice along the following lines. Type II spontaneous parametric down-conversion yields a pair of photons in an entangled polarization state $\left( {| {H} \rangle} {| {H} \rangle}
+ {| {V} \rangle} {| {V} \rangle} \right) / \sqrt{2}$ with the individual photons being coupled into single-mode optical fibres. The first photon should then be split by a polarizing beam splitter (PBS), with, say, the ${| {H} \rangle}$ component being shunted into the $+z$ direction with $x > 0$ and the ${| {V} \rangle}$ component passed through a $\lambda/2$ plate (rotating its polarization to ${| {H} \rangle}$) before being shunted into the $+z$ direction with $x<0$. This prepares photon 1 as suggested in Figure \[fig2\](a) and the subsequent measurements may then be carried out exactly as in [@lundeen]. The second photon can be directly shunted into the $-z$ direction so that the two orthogonal polarization components have identical and perfectly overlapping transverse spatial profiles, as in Figure \[fig2\](b). The overall (transverse spatial and polarization) two-photon state after such preparation can thus be written $${| {\Psi} \rangle} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( {| {+H} \rangle} {| {\emptyset H} \rangle} +
{| {-H} \rangle} {| {\emptyset V} \rangle} \right)
\label{eq20}$$ where $+$ indicates that the transverse state has support for $x>0$, $-$ indicates that the support lies in $x<0$, and $\emptyset$ indicates that the support is centered at $x=0$. (It is also of course understood that photon 1 is moving in the $+z$ direction and photon 2 in the $-z$ direction.) The perfect correspondence between Equations and should be clear. Note that for this type of implementation, the (generic) “BS” in Figure \[fig2\](b) can be a standard PBS.
Density Matrices {#sec4}
================
In the Lundeen *et al.* procedure for measuring the wave function, it is the particles’ spatial degree of freedom that is probed, with the polarization serving as the pointer. But the polarization state of a particle can also be measured using weak measurement techniques, with the position degree of freedom (or in principle some other extrinsic degree of freedom) playing the role of the pointer. For example, in a scheme recently proposed and demonstrated by Lundeen and Bamber [@lb; @bl] (see also [@boyd2]) the polarization density matrix of a particle can be measured as follows. For a photon in a mixed state described by density operator $\hat{\rho}$, the weak value of an observable $\hat{A}$ is given by $$\langle \hat{A} \rangle^b_W = \frac{ \langle b | \hat{A} \hat{\rho} | b
\rangle}{\langle b | \hat{\rho} | b \rangle}
\label{eq-wvmixed}$$ where ${| {b} \rangle}$ is the final post-selected state, as in Equation . In the case of a pure state, $\hat{\rho} =
{| {\psi} \rangle}{\langle {\psi} |}$, Equation reduces to , whereas for a genuinely mixed state, is the appropriate weighted average. In the event of no post-selection, a further averaging gives $$\langle \hat{A} \rangle_W = \text{Tr} \left[ \hat{A} \hat{\rho} \right].
\label{wv-mixed}$$ The Lundeen/Bamber procedure can then be most simply understood as follows. Defining operators $$\hat{\pi}_{ij} = {| {i} \rangle} {\langle {j} |}
\label{eq-pi}$$ (with $i,j \in \{ H, V \}$) on the two-dimensional polarization Hilbert space for a photon, one sees that their weak values correspond to the entries in the polarization density matrix: $$\langle \hat{\pi}_{ij} \rangle_W = \text{Tr}\left[ \hat{\pi}_{ij} \hat{\rho}
\right] = {\langle {j} |} \hat{\rho} {| {i} \rangle}.$$ Of course, for $i \ne j$, $\hat{\pi}_{ij}$ is not a Hermitian operator, so measuring it – even weakly – raises some questions. But the worrisome matrix elements can be re-expressed in terms of weak values of perfectly reputable operators by introducing post-selection, e.g., $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\, V \! H} &=& {\langle {H} |} \hat{\rho} {| {V} \rangle} \nonumber \\
&=& P(D) \, \langle \hat{\pi}_{HH}\rangle_W^{D} - P(A) \, \langle \hat{\pi}_{HH}
\rangle_W^{A}\end{aligned}$$ where ${| {D} \rangle} = ({| {H} \rangle}+{| {V} \rangle})/\sqrt{2}$ and ${| {A} \rangle} = ({| {H} \rangle} -
{| {V} \rangle})/\sqrt{2}$, and $P(D) = \langle D | \hat{\rho} | D \rangle$ and $P(A) =\langle A | \hat{\rho} | A \rangle$ are respectively the rates of successful post-selection on the ${| {D} \rangle}$ and ${| {A} \rangle}$ states. See [@lb] for further details.
Consider now a two-particle system in state $${| {\psi_o} \rangle} = \int dy \sum_{i,j} \psi_{i,j}(y) {| {i} \rangle}_1 {| {j} \rangle}_2 {| {y} \rangle}_2$$ where, as before, $i,j \in \{ H, V\}$ are one-particle polarization eigenstates, and ${| {y} \rangle}_2$ is a position eigenstate of particle 2. (We suppress, for simplicity, the position degree of freedom of particle 1; recall that it may be used as the pointer variable to weakly measure the polarization density matrix.) The two-particle state thus has density operator $$\hat{\rho} = {| {\psi_0} \rangle} {\langle {\psi_0} |}$$ in terms of which one can define the reduced density matrix (RDM) of particle 1 by tracing over the degrees of freedom associated with particle 2: $$\hat{\rho}_1^{\,\text{red}} = \int d y \; \text{Tr}_2 \left[
{\langle {y} |} \hat{\rho} {| {y} \rangle} \right] =
\int dy \sum_{j} \, {\langle {y, j} |} \hat{\rho} {| {y,j} \rangle}.$$ The RDM is of course the standard way of defining the “state” of a (perhaps-entangled) subsystem.
As discussed above, for systems with complex-valued wave functions, Bohmian mechanics allows one to define the conditional wave function of a sub-system, in terms of which the guidance law for the particles comprising the sub-system can be re-expressed. For systems with discrete (spin, polarization) degrees of freedom, however, the Bohmian CWF for each one-particle sub-system would carry the discrete indices for *all* particles in the system. It thus cannot really be regarded as a “wave function for a single particle”. In such situations, Bohmian mechanics thus follows ordinary quantum mechanics in defining the state of the sub-system in terms of an appropriate density matrix. But as was first pointed out by Bell [@bell], the correct Bohmian particle trajectories (needed to reproduce the statistical predictions of ordinary QM) cannot be expressed in terms of the usual reduced density matrix. Instead, one needs to introduce the “conditional density matrix” (CDM), which involves tracing over the discrete indices associated with particles outside the sub-system in question, but then evaluating the spatial variables (again, associated with particles outside the sub-system in question) at the actual locations of the Bohmian particles. (See [@dm] for a detailed discussion.) Thus, for the system introduced just above, we would have $$\hat{\rho}^{\, \text{cond}}_1 = \text{Tr}_2 \left[ {\langle {Y} |} \hat{\rho}
{| {Y} \rangle} \right].
\label{bcdm}$$ Note that a sub-system will in general possess both a RDM and a CDM, but that these will not in general be equal: the RDM can be understood as the *average* of all possible CDMs. (If we had normalized the CDM, then the RDM would be given by the average of all possible CDMs, weighted by the usual quantum probability for $y=Y$.)
Now, what should happen if one performs the Lundeen/Bamber procedure for directly measuring the polarization density matrix of one photon from an entangled pair, also – as in the previous section – post-selecting on the final position $Y$ of the second particle? It is easy to see that under such conditions the weak value of an operator $\hat{A}$ (acting just on the particle 1 Hilbert space) is $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \hat{A} \rangle^Y_W &=& \text{Tr}_{1,2} \! \left[ {\langle {Y} |} \, \hat{A} \,
\hat{\rho} \, {| {Y} \rangle} \right] \nonumber \\
&=& \text{Tr}_1 \left[ \hat{A} \; \text{Tr}_2 \! \left[ {\langle {Y} |}\, \hat{\rho}
\, {| {Y} \rangle} \right] \right] \nonumber \\
&=& \text{Tr}_1 \! \left[ \hat{A} \, \hat{\rho}^{\text{cond}}_1 \right].\end{aligned}$$ The last line is identical to Equation except that the (one-particle) density matrix $\hat{\rho}$ is replaced by the Bohmian CDM from Equation . One thus expects that the operational procedure sketched above – in which $\hat{A} =
\hat{\pi}_{ij}$ from Equation – should yield the Bohmian conditional density matrix (and not the usual reduced density matrix) as the directly-measured one-particle density matrix.
Of course, just as with the setup discussed in the previous section, this result is not very interesting or surprising if the post-selection-basing measurement of particle 2’s position $Y$ occurs prior to the weak measurement procedure on particle 1. For then, the measurement of $Y$ will have collapsed the two-particle state such that the ordinary RDM and the Bohmian CDM coincide.
On the other hand, if one arranges for the measurement of $Y$ to occur only *after* the procedure on particle 1 has gone to completion, it is quite interesting indeed that the procedure should yield the Bohmian CDM as opposed to the ordinary RDM. Consider for example the following setup, very much in the spirit of the one proposed in the previous section. A two-photon system is prepared in the state $${| {\psi_1} \rangle} = {| {\phi^0} \rangle} \left( {| {H} \rangle}_1 {| {H} \rangle}_2 + {| {V} \rangle}_1
{| {V} \rangle}_2 \right)/\sqrt{2}$$ where ${| {\phi^0} \rangle}$, referring to the transverse spatial degree of freedom of particle 2, is (say) a Gaussian centered at $y=0$. (The spatial degrees of freedom of particle 1, and the non-transverse spatial degrees of freedom of particle 2, are suppressed for simplicity.) By means of a polarizing beam splitter that can be inserted (or not) in the path of particle 2, the two-particle state may (or may not) be transformed into $${| {\psi_2} \rangle} = \left( {| {\phi^+} \rangle} {| {H} \rangle}_1 {| {H} \rangle}_2 +
{| {\phi^-} \rangle} {| {V} \rangle}_1 {| {V} \rangle}_2 \right) / \sqrt{2}$$ where ${| {\phi^\pm} \rangle}$ is (say) a Gaussian displaced in the $\pm$ y-direction by an amount that is larger than its width.
The crucial point is then that, for both ${| {\psi_1} \rangle}$ and ${| {\psi_2} \rangle}$, the RDM for particle 1 is $$\hat{\rho}^{\, \text{red}}_1 \xrightarrow[{| {H} \rangle},{| {V} \rangle} \,
\text{basis}]{} \left( \begin{array}{cc}
\sfrac{1}{2} & 0 \\
0 & \sfrac{1}{2} \end{array} \right).$$ The Bohmian CDM for particle 1 will be (proportional to) this same matrix if the state is ${| {\psi_1} \rangle}$. But if the beam splitter is inserted such that the state is ${| {\psi_2} \rangle}$, the CDM will have “collapsed”, being now proportional to either $$\hat{\rho}^{\, \text{cond}}_1 \xrightarrow[{| {H} \rangle},{| {V} \rangle} \,
\text{basis}]{} \left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array}
\right) \; \text{OR} \; \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \\ 0 &
1 \end{array} \right)$$ depending on whether $Y \in \text{supp}({\langle {y} | {\phi^+} \rangle})$ or $Y \in
\text{supp}({\langle {y} | {\phi^-} \rangle})$.
According to Bohmian mechanics, one of these two possibilities is realized – and the particle 1 CDM collapses accordingly – as soon as particle 2 traverses the polarizing beam splitter (should it be inserted). Furthermore, once the ${| {H} \rangle}$ and ${| {V} \rangle}$ components of the particle 2 beam are split apart, the actual particle position $Y$ will not, according to the theory, change. So the actual measurement of $Y$ (for the purpose of post-selection) can wait as long as is desired – for example, until after the weak measurement procedure on particle 1 has been carried out. Still, when the dust settles and all the data is properly binned up, OQM predicts that it is a collapsed density matrix corresponding precisely to the Bohmian CDM, that should be revealed by the direct measurement of particle 1’s state.
Discussion {#sec5}
==========
If the procedure of [@lundeen] for making a “direct measurement of the quantum wave function” is applied to one particle from an entangled pair (and regarded as a plausible operationalist definition of the “single particle wave function” for such a particle) the result, with suitable post-selection on the other particle, is precisely the “conditional wave function” (CWF) of Bohmian mechanics – that is, the natural theoretical concept of a “single particle wave function” that Bohmian mechanics (uniquely) makes possible. Similarly, the results of applying a related procedure – for directly measuring the density matrix associated with a single particle – to one particle from an entangled two-particle system, should yield the Bohmian “conditional density matrix” (CDM) as opposed to the more standard reduced density matrix (RDM). These results are particularly interesting when the weak measurement (that reveals the state of particle 1) is carried out prior to the strong position measurement on particle 2 on which post-selection will be based. Thus, in the same way that Braverman and Simon [@braverman] have suggested that one can “observe the nonlocality of Bohmian trajectories with entangled photons” one should also be able to observe the nonlocal dependence of Bohmian single-particle states (wave functions and density matrices) on distant interventions such as the insertion (or not) of the BS in Figure \[fig2\].
Indeed, from the perspective suggested earlier, in which each particle’s CWF (or CDM) is regarded as the object which directly guides or pilots the Bohmian particle, the present work can be seen as digging yet one level deeper beyond Braverman/Simon: instead of merely observing how the particle trajectories change as a result of some distant interventions, one may also observe how the “field” *responsible* for those changes itself changes. A successful experimental demonstration of this effect would thus in some sense reveal the non-local character of Bohmian mechanics in an unprecedentedly fundamental way.
But to formulate things in these ways is to invite several possible misunderstandings, so let us clarify a couple of points.
First, as Einstein [@einstein] famously remarked: “Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed.” In particular, the claims above should only be understood to mean that *from the point of view of Bohmian mechanics*, the experimental procedures outlined here can be understood as *observations* of (for example) the interesting dynamical behavior of single particle CWFs. From the point of view of orthodox QM, on the other hand, the same procedures would evidently *not* be regarded as genuine observations of anything. The situation is thus completely parallel to that surrounding the reconstructed particle trajectories in [@steinberg]. The result of the empirical procedure coincides with certain things that are posited to actually exist by one candidate theory, Bohmian mechanics. But another candidate theory, which does not posit those things, also has no trouble accounting for the results. Indeed, insofar as the two theories are empirically equivalent, the results cannot really count as evidence for or against either theory. Nevertheless, the expected results remain somehow more natural from the Bohmian point of view! The situation can perhaps be summed up like this: *if* one accepts, from the outset, that empirically measured weak values correspond to some physically real features of the system in question, then the predicted results would be trivial to reconcile with Bohmian mechanics but difficult to reconcile with ordinary QM. But of course, whether one should accept such a premise is, to put it mildly, highly controversial.
And then, second: It would be easy to get the impression from the way things were put above that by inserting (or refraining from inserting) the BS in the path of photon 2, one can instantaneously affect the observable CWF/CDM of the distant particle 1. That is, it would be easy to get the impression that one could (in principle, if impractically) send a superluminal signal by running many copies of the experiment in parallel (so that the many trials required to build up sufficient data all occur simultaneously). But this, of course, should be impossible (whether one believes in BM or OQM or any other such empirically-equivalent theory).
There are two points to be understood here, one rather obvious and one more subtle. The obvious point is that Alice (on the right) must learn the outcome of Bob’s position measurement (on the left) before she can know how to properly bin her data. And this information will have to be sent to her through a “classical” (i.e., here, sub-luminal) communication channel. So it is already clear that no actual superluminal signalling will be possible.
The more subtle, and more interesting, point is that the statistical relationship between Alice’s and Bob’s measurement results is actually independent of the exact temporal sequence of the measurements. This is certainly not surprising from the point of view of relativity, given that Alice’s and Bob’s measurements may well occur at spacelike separation. But it is somewhat surprising from the point of view of Bohmian mechanics, which involves a hidden (but dynamically relevant) privileged reference frame.
Essentially for reasons of drama, we have described the setup above, in the allegedly interesting cases, so that the temporal sequence is as follows: first Bob (or his assistant) decides whether to insert or not insert the BS into the path of particle 2; then Alice’s measurement protocol on particle 1 occurs; and then finally Bob measures the final transverse position $Y$ of particle 2. From the point of view of Bohmian mechanics, then, we may say the following. If this is the true temporal sequence – in the dynamically privileged reference frame posited by the theory – then things develop causally in the way we have suggested: the insertion of the BS (if and only if it is inserted) causes the two-particle wave function to divide in the configuration space as shown in Figure \[fig3\] and thus causes the CWF (or CDM) for photon 1 to collapse; the (here, subsequent) measurement protocol by Alice then simply reveals the true CWF/CDM of photon 1 at the time of that measurement; the final measurement/post-selection by Bob then plays the (dynamically) purely passive role of revealing, to Bob, what was already physically definite, in order that the already-acquired data can be properly binned.
But since the privileged frame is, for Bohmian mechanics, hidden, it is entirely possible that the “true” temporal sequence (i.e., the temporal sequence in the privileged frame) is instead as follows: Alice’s measurement protocol on photon 1 occurs *first*; *then* comes Bob’s (assistant’s) decision to insert the BS or not, followed by measurement of the transverse position $Y$. If this is the “true” temporal sequence, the *statistics* will be unchanged, but the causal story will be somewhat different. To wit: instead of the passage (or not) of photon 2 through the BS affecting the CWF/CDM of photon 1, now it will be the measurement protocol on photon 1 which (at least sometimes) affects the CWF/CDM of photon 2 *and thus influences where, for a given $Y$, it will go, should it encounter the BS*. Concretely, there will exist possible initial conditions for the 2-particle system which have the following property: had the measurement protocol on particle 1 not been carried out, particle 2 would definitely have gone “up” at the BS (and would hence have been found with $Y>0$), but given that the measurement protocol on particle 1 *was* carried out, particle 2 instead went “down” at the BS (and was hence found with $Y<0$). With this second possible “true” temporal sequence, it is no longer really the case that the weak measurement protocol on particle 1 is simply revealing the structure of particle 1’s CWF at the time of the measurement. Instead, the measurement on particle 1 may actively affect the state (in particular, the CWF or CDM) of particle 2, making the subsequent post-selection on particle 2’s position rather less benign, less passive. And this makes clear in principle why, despite the presence in the theory of a dynamically privileged reference frame in which instantaneous action-at-a-distance occurs, one is not only prevented from sending signals faster than light, but also prevented from putting any experimental limits on the speed of the laboratory with respect to the presumed underlying privileged reference frame. The statistical patterns in the data will – presumably – remain the same as the “true” temporal sequence is varied between the two possibilities discussed here, even as the Bohmian causal story changes rather dramatically.
It does, however, remain absolutely valid to say that – provided one adopts the Bohmian point of view – the experimental setup suggested here would allow for a direct empirical observation of the non-local dependence of a single particle’s (Bohmian) CWF/CDM on distant interventions. It’s just that – compared to the way we initially explained things – it is rather ambiguous whether one is observing the effect, on particle 1’s CWF/CDM, of inserting or not inserting the BS in front of particle 2 ... or instead observing the effect, on particle 2’s CWF/CDM, of carrying out the weak measurement protocol on particle 1. It thus remains appropriate to conclude that a realization of the proposed type of experiment would be quite interesting and would in particular help bring the Bohmian CWF/CDM into the light of experimental reality.
W.S. acknowledges support of a grant from the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.
[99]{}
Y. Aharonov, D.Z. Albert, and L. Vaidman, “How the Result of a Measurement of a Component of the Spin of a Spin-$1/2$ Particle Can Turn Out to be 100”, *Physical Review Letters* 60, pp. 1351-1354 (1988).
J. Dressel, M. Malik, F. Miatto, A. Jordan, and R. Boyd, “Understanding Quantum Weak Values: Basics and Applications”, arxiv:1305.7154.
M. Pusey, J. Barrett, and T. Rudolph, “On the Reality of the Quantum State”, *Nature Physics* 8, 476 (2012)
J.S. Lundeen, B. Sutherland, A. Patel, C. Stewart, and C. Bamber, “Direct measurement of the quantum wave function”, *Nature* 474 (9 June 2011) pp. 188-191; see also J.S. Lundeen and C. Bamber, “Procedure for Direct Measurement of General Quantum States Using Weak Measurement”, *Physical Review Letters* 108, 070402 (2012).
E. Haapasalo, P. Lahti, and J. Schultz, “Weak vs. approximate values in quantum state determination”, *Physical Review A* 84, 052107 (2011).
H.M. Wiseman, “Grounding Bohmian mechanics in weak values and bayesianism”, *New Journal of Physics* 9, 165 (2007).
D. Dürr, S. Goldstein, and N. Zanghì, “On the Weak Measurement of Velocity in Bohmian Mechanics”, *Journal of Statistical Physics* 134, pp. 1023-1032 (2009).
F.L. Traversa, G. Albareda, M. Di Ventra, and X. Oriols, “Robust weak-measurement protocol for Bohmian velocities”, *Physical Review A* 87, 052124 (2013).
S. Kocsis, B. Braverman, S. Ravets, M.J. Stevens, R.P. Mirin, L.K. Shalm, and A.M. Steinberg, “Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer”, *Science* 332 (3 June 2011) pp. 1170-1173.
C. Philippidis, C. Dewdney, and B.J. Hiley, “Quantum Interference and the Quantum Potential”, *Il Nuovo Cimento* 52B, pp. 15-28 (1979).
B. Braverman and C. Simon, “Proposal to Observe the Nonlocality of Bohmian Trajectories with Entangled Photons”, *Physical Review Letters* 110, 060406 (2013).
D. Dürr, S. Goldstein, and N. Zanghì, “Quantum Equilibrium and the Origin of Absolute Uncertainty”, *Journal of Statistical Physics* 67, pp. 843-907 (1992).
T. Norsen, “The Theory of (Exclusively) Local Beables”, *Foundations of Physics* 40, 1858 (2010).
Post-selection on other properties of particle 2 will evidently yield, for particle 1, the generalized sorts of CWFs defined in S. Goldstein, J.L. Lebowitz, R. Tumulka, and N. Zanghì, “On the distribution of the wave function for systems in thermal equilibrium”, *Journal of Statistical Physics* 125, pp. 1197-1225 (2006).
J.S. Lundeen and C. Bamber, “Procedure for Direct Measurement of General Quantum States using Weak Measurement”, *Physical Review Letters* 108, 070402 (2012).
C. Bamber and J.S. Lundeen, “Observing Dirac’s classical phase space analog to the quantum state”, arxiv:1309.1491.
J. Salvail, M. Agnew, A. Johnson, E. Bolduc, J. Leach, and R. Boyd, “Full characterization of polarization states of light via direct measurement”, *Nature Photonics* 7, 316-321 (2013).
J.S. Bell, “de Broglie - Bohm, delayed-choice double-slit experiment, and density matrix”, *International Journal of Quantum Chemistry*: Quantum Chemistry Symposium 14, 155-9 (1980); reprinted in J.S. Bell, *Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics*, 2nd Ed., Cambridge University Press, 2004, 111-6.
D. Dürr, S. Goldstein, R. Tumulka, and N. Zanghì, “On the role of density matrices in Bohmian mechanics”, *Foundations of Physics* [**[35]{}**]{}, 449-467 (2005).
A. Einstein, remark made during a 1926 lecture by W. Heisenberg, reported in A. Salam and J. Taylor, *Unification of Fundamental Forces*, 1990.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
**Curved dilatonic brane-worlds and**
**the cosmological constant problem**
[**Natxo Alonso-Alberca**]{}[^1], [**Bert Janssen**]{}[^2] [**and**]{} [**Pedro J. Silva**]{}[^3]
[*Instituto de F[í]{}sica Te[ó]{}rica, C-XVI,*]{}
[*Universidad Aut[ó]{}noma de Madrid*]{}
[*E-28006 Madrid, Spain*]{}
**ABSTRACT**
We construct a model for dilatonic brane worlds with constant curvature on the brane, i.e. a non-zero four-dimensional cosmological constant, given in function of the dilaton coupling and the cosmological constant of the bulk. We compare this family of solutions to other known dilatonic domain wall solutions and apply a self-tuning mechanism to check the stability of our solutions under quantum fluctuations living on the brane.
Recently the idea of brane worlds has received a lot of attention. In this picture our space-time has one (or more) extra non-compact spacial dimensions. In the scenario of Randall and Sundrum [@RS; @RS2], a three-brane in a five-dimensional AdS-space was constructed, confining a Standard Model-like gauge theory on the brane. Due to the warped form of the metric of the solution, a different approach to the hierarchy problem was presented. But it also turns out that in this picture, perturbations of the metric on the brane have a five-dimensional profile which is normalisable and localised to the brane as if it were four-dimensional. Hence, an observer living in this brane world would see both gauge as gravity physics in the same way as an observer in a four-dimensional space-time.
Different generalisations of this picture including a dilaton field were given in [@Youm]-[@KSS2] while on the other hand, generalizations to non-flat brane worlds (without dilaton) appeared in [@AMO], where a four-dimensional cosmological constant was introduced via constant curvature branes. Here it was shown that, in the brane world scenario, the four-dimensional cosmological constant is a geometrical property of the three-brane (namely its internal curvature), which in principle can be independent of the five-dimensional one.
This shed new light on an old problem, namely why the observed cosmological constant in our universe is so small. One would expect that the non-zero vacuum expectation value of Standard Model fields would generate a non-zero vacuum energy, which would result in an effective non-zero cosmological constant.[^4] Now that it turns out that in the brane world picture the four-dimensional cosmological constant is a geometrical property of the brane, one should ask how this property is affected by quantum fluctuations of the field theory living on this brane.
In [@KSS; @DR; @KSS2] it was observed that fluctuations of the brane tension, due to quantum corrections of the field theory living on a (flat) dilatonic brane, do not generate a four-dimensional cosmological constant. Via a self-tuning mechanism, the fluctuations in the brane tension can be absorbed into shifts of the dilaton, such that the quantum corrections do not curve the brane itself or the extra dimension. Thus, starting with flat brane worlds, no extra curvature, and hence no four-dimensional cosmological constant, is generated.
Recent astronomical observations, however, point in the direction of a small positive, but non-zero cosmological constant. It is therefore interesting to look at brane-world models of non-zero curvature and see if there is a self-tuning mechanism working in these cases, which could protect this curvature from quantum corrections. The aim of this letter is to combine the results of [@Youm]-[@KSS2] and [@AMO], constructing dilatonic brane-worlds with a non-zero four-dimensional cosmological constant and test the self-tuning mechanism on these solutions. The organisation of this letter is as follows: we start with the construction of the curved dilatonic brane-world solutions and then give a small discussion of these solutions, comparing the obtained solutions with a class of domain wall solutions given in [@CR]. Finally we will analyse the self-tuning mechanism in the case of curved dilatonic branes.
As a starting point let us consider the action of five-dimensional dilatonic gravity coupled to a brane source in the presence of a (five-dimensional) cosmological constant: S&=&d\^4 x dy && - d\^4 x e\^ V\_0 , \[action\] where $V_0$ is the tension of the brane source and $\bar{g}_{mn}=\hg_{\mu\nu} \delta^\mu_m\delta^\nu_n$ the induced metric on the brane. To solve the equations of motion, we propose the following curved brane-world Ansatz: ds\^2 &=& a(y)\^2 \_[mn]{} dx\^m dx\^n - dy\^2 &=& q a(y) + \_0 , \[ansatz\] with $q$ and $\phi_0$ arbitrary constants. The internal brane metric $\tg_{mn}$ depends only on the internal coordinates $x^m$. Plugging this Ansatz in the equations of motion of the action (\[action\]) gives the following set of differential equations: && \_[mn]{} - \_[mn]{} = + V\_0 a\^[ +2]{} e\^[\_0]{} \_[mn]{} (y) ,&& 4 a\^[-1]{} + q\^2 a\^[-2]{} \^2 + a\^ e\^[\_0]{} = - V\_0 a\^ e\^[\_0]{} (y) , \[eqns\]\
&& q a\^[-1]{} + 3 q a\^[-2]{} \^2 - a\^ e\^[\_0]{} = + V\_0 a\^ e\^[\_0]{} (y) , where $\tR_{mn}$ is the Ricci tensor of the internal metric $\tg_{mn}$ and a dot denotes derivative with respect to $y$. Analogous as in [@AMO], the first equation of (\[eqns\]) can only be satisfied if the $y$-dependence vanishes: a + 3 \^2 + a\^[ +2]{} e\^[\_0]{} + V\_0 a\^[ +2]{} e\^[\_0]{} (y) = , \[tLambda\] with $\tLambda$ an abritrary integration constant which we interpret as the four-dimensional cosmological constant in the brane-world, since the first equation of (\[eqns\]) now translates into $\tR_{mn} = \tLambda \ \tg_{mn}$. The solution to the equations (\[eqns\])-(\[tLambda\]) is given by ds\^2 &=& \^2 e\^[\_0]{} \_[mn]{} dx\^m dx\^n - dy\^2 ,&=& - , \[holografic\] where the coordinate $y$ runs from 0 to $\tfrac{12}{\alpha{\sqrt{-\Lambda}}}$ and the four-dimensional metric and cosmological constant satisfy \_[mn]{} = \_[mn]{} , = e\^[\_0]{} . \[eq:lambdas\] In the conformal frame, the above solution takes the form ds\^2 &=& ( |z| ) ,&=& - |z| . \[conformal\] The brane tension and dilaton coupling in the source term are given in terms of $\alpha$ and $\Lambda$ by the jump equations: V\_0 = , = . \[jump\] We thus see that the brane world are surfaces of positive (dS) or negative (AdS) constant curvature, depending on the dilaton coupling $\alpha$. It is remarkable that in the limit $\tLambda \rightarrow 0$ ($\Lambda\neq 0$), we do not recover the general “flat” dilatonic RS theory [@Youm; @KSS; @GJS], but only a particular case $\alpha=\pm4$.[^5] Therefore, in contrast to “flat” dilatonic RS theory, it is no longer possible to make contact with the original RS scenario [@RS; @RS2]. Nor is it possible, in the limit $\alpha \rightarrow 0$ ($\phi$ trivial), to make contact with the solutions of [@AMO], as can clearly seen in the conformal frame (\[conformal\]). The solution for $\Lambda = 0$ ($\tLambda\neq 0$) was given in [@KSS2].
It is interesting to compare the solution (\[holografic\]) with the dilatonic domain wall solutions found in [@CR]. It is clear that (\[holografic\]) can not be identified as one of the solutions given in [@CR]. This is due to the fact that the Ansatz used in [@CR] is different as our Ansatz (\[ansatz\]). The main difference lays in the fact that the Ansatz of [@CR] considers branes with constant spatial curvature, while the Ansatz (\[ansatz\]) constructs branes with constant world volume (space-time) curvature. Still, there exists a particular solution that belongs to both classes, i.e. that can be obtained from each class as a special limit. For this case, the domain wall has to be flat, which implies $\alpha = \pm 4$ in equation (\[holografic\]) and $M=k=0$ in the Type II solutions of [@CR]. Furthermore, in the Ansatz of [@CR] the metric components $g_{tt}$ and $g_{ij}$ (the radial function in front of the spatial part of the brane world volume) should be identified. This particular solution is (in our notation, for $\alpha = 4$ e.g.): ds\^2 &=& ( 1 - |y| )\^2 e\^[\_0]{} - dy\^2 , e\^&=& ( 1 - |y| )\^[-3/2]{} . \[particular\] An analysis, similar as the one done in [@CR] reveals that this solution is a static domain wall, due to the fact that for this case the potential is constant. This particular solution (\[particular\]) was first given in [@LPSS].
A straightforward analysis of the perturbations of the metric (\[holografic\]) gives the following profile for the four-dimensional graviton $$\psi (y) = \left[ 1-\tfrac{\alpha}{12}\sqrt{-\Lambda}\ |y| \right]^{2}\, ,$$ which is normalizable in the interval $[0, \frac{12}{\alpha\sqrt{-\Lambda}}]$ and localized around $|y|=0$. Note that the dependence on dilaton coupling $\alpha$ is much weaker than in the “flat” dilatonic RS scenario, where we had an exponential dependence on the coupling.
Finally, note that, similar to other dilatonic brane world models, the solution (\[holografic\])-(\[jump\]) has a time-like naked singularity in $y=\frac{12}{\alpha\sqrt{-\Lambda}}$ ($z=\infty$).
In the brane world picture, the four-dimensional cosmological constant $\tLambda$ is, rather than a input parameter of the Lagrangian, a geometrical quantity, related to the curvature of the domain wall. In [@KSS; @DR; @KSS2] it was argued that for flat domain walls (i.e. $\tLambda = 0$), the quantum fluctuations of the gauge theory living on the brane can be absorbed in shifts of the dilaton, which turns out to be a symmetry of the solutions. This mechanism, called self-tuning, makes that no extra curvature is generated and that the four-dimensional cosmological constant remains zero, even after quantum corrections.
Since recent astronomical observations seem to indicate that the cosmological constant might be very small, but non-zero and positive, a natural question to ask is how far this self-tuning mechanism can be extended, in particular to branes with non-zero curvature (i.e. solutions with non-zero four-dimensional cosmological constant). It turns out that no self-tuning mechanism is possible for the solutions we have constructed, due to the fact that the jump equation (\[jump\]) does not depend explicitly on $\phi_{0}$. In fact, $V_{0}$ only depends on the bulk parameters and an arbitrary integration constant (which, without lost of generality, we set equal to $\frac{12}{\alpha\sqrt{-\Lambda}}$), indicating the position of the naked singularity. Changes of $V_{0}$ due to quantum fluctuations could only be absorbed by this integration constant, but this would mean that the positions of the singularities should change, which seems to have no sense. This seems to indicate that the self-tuning mechanism of [@KSS; @DR; @KSS2] is only valid for the case of flat branes and does not provide a satisfying explanation of the cosmological constant problem in the light of the recent astronomical observations.
The family of solutions we have constructed does not include the $\alpha=0$ case, as can be seen from (\[holografic\]) and (\[jump\]). With the Ansatz $\phi=\phi(y)$, the equations of motion for $\alpha =0$ read: $$\label{eq:EOMa=0}
\begin{array}{rcl}
&& \ddot{\phi} + 4\, a^{-1}\dot{a}\dot{\phi} = 0 ,\\
&& a^{-1}\ddot{a} + \tfrac{1}{3}\, \dot{\phi}^{2}
+ \tfrac{1}{12}\Lambda = 0 ,\\
&& a^{-1}\ddot{a} + 3\, a^{-2}\dot{a}^{2} + \tfrac{1}{3}\Lambda
= \tilde{\Lambda} a^{-2} . \,
\end{array}$$ The first of these equations gives $$\label{eq:dilgamma}
\dot{\phi} = \gamma a^4\, ,$$ where $\gamma$ is an arbitrary integration constant. Substituting (\[eq:dilgamma\]) in (\[eq:EOMa=0\]), the last two equations reduce to a single one, given by: $$\label{eq:sqrt}
\dot{a} = \epsilon\ \sqrt{\frac{\gamma^2}{9}\, a^{-6}
-\frac{\Lambda}{12}\, a^{2} + \frac{\tilde{\Lambda}}{3}}\, ,$$ where $\epsilon=\pm 1$ determines the branch of the square root chosen in the solution. The sign of the argument of the square root in (\[eq:sqrt\]) will depend on the values of $\Lambda$ and $\tilde{\Lambda}$. Both $\Lambda$ and $\tilde{\Lambda}$ are arbitrary and independent. The solution only makes sense when this argument is positive. Integrating (\[eq:sqrt\]) we obtain: $$\label{eq:int}
\int^{a}{\frac{\epsilon\, da'}{\sqrt{\frac{\gamma^2}{9}\, {a'}^{-6}
-\frac{\Lambda}{12}\, {a'}^{2} + \frac{\tilde{\Lambda}}{3}}}} = y+y_{0}\, .$$ The l.h.s. of (\[eq:int\]) cannot be expressed in terms of any elementary function, so it is hard to see whether a self-tuning mechanism could work. As in [@KSS2], it could be possible to study the bounds on the brane cosmological constant depending on the signs and values of $\Lambda$ and $\tilde{\Lambda}$. We leave this question open for future research.
[**Acknowledgments**]{}\
We would like to thank César Gómez, Patrick Meessen and Tomás for useful discussions. We also thank Jim Cline and Christophe Grojean for pointing out some problems in a previous version. The work of N.A.A. and B.J. has been supported by the TMR program FMRX-CT96-0012 on [*Integrability, non-perturbative effects, and symmetry in quantum field theory*]{}.
[99]{} L. Randall, R. Sundrum, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**83**]{} (1999) 3370, [hep-ph/9905221]{}.
L. Randall, R. Sundrum, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**83**]{} (1999) 4690, [hep-th/9906064]{}.
D. Youm, Nucl. Phys. [**B576**]{} (2000) 106, [hep-th/9911218]{}.
S. Kachru, M. Schulz, E. Silverstein, Phys.Rev. D62 (2000) 045021, [hep-th/0001206]{}.
N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, N. Kaloper, R. Sundrum, Phys. Lett. [**B480**]{} (2000) 193, [hep-th/0001197]{}.
C. Gómez, B. Janssen, P. J. Silva, JHEP [**04**]{} (2000) 024, [hep-th/0002042]{}.
S. Kachru, M. Schulz, E. Silverstein, Phys.Rev. D62 (2000) 085003, [hep-th/0002121]{}.
N. Alonso-Alberca, P. Meessen, T. Ort[í]{}n, Phys. Lett. [**B482**]{} (2000) 400, [hep-th/0003248]{}.
E. Witten, [*The Cosmological Constant From The Viewpoint Of String Theory*]{}, [hep-ph/0002297]{}.
H.A. Chamblin, H.S. Reall, Nucl.Phys. [**B562**]{} (1999) 133, [hep-th/9903225]{}.
H. Lü, C.N. Pope, E. Sezgin, K.S. Stelle, Phys.Lett. [**B371**]{} (1996) 46, [hep-th/9511203]{}.
[^1]: E-mail address: [[email protected]]{}
[^2]: E-mail address: [[email protected]]{}
[^3]: E-mail address: [[email protected]]{}
[^4]: For a more general discussion on the cosmological constant problem, see [@Witt] and references therein.
[^5]: In [@GJS] the case $\alpha=4$ was erroneously identified with the case $\Lambda =0$ due to a coordinate singularity in the conformal frame. The holographic frame solution however is completely regular and can be seen as the limit of (\[holografic\]) for $\tLambda =0$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the uplink of a multiuser massive MIMO system wherein a base station (BS) having $M$ antennas communicates coherently with $K$ single antenna user terminals (UTs). We study the energy efficiency of this system while taking the transceiver power consumption at the UTs and the BS into consideration. For a given spectral efficiency $R$ and fixed transceiver power consumption parameters, we propose and analyze the problem of maximizing the energy efficiency as a function of $(M,K)$. For the maximum ratio combining (MRC) detector at the BS we show that with increasing $R$, $(M,K)$ can be adaptively increased in such a way that the energy efficiency converges to a positive constant as $R \rightarrow \infty$ ($(M,K)$ is increased in such a way that a constant per-user spectral efficiency $R/K$ is maintained). This is in contrast to the fixed $(M,K)$ scenario where the energy efficiency is known to converge to zero as $R \rightarrow \infty$. We also observe that for large $R$, the optimal $(M,K)$ maximizing the energy efficiency is such that, the total power consumed by the power amplifiers (PA) in all the $K$ UTs is a small fraction of the total system power consumption.'
author:
-
title: 'On the Energy-Spectral Efficiency Trade-off of the MRC Receiver in Massive MIMO Systems with Transceiver Power Consumption'
---
Introduction
============
[^1]
Massive MIMO Systems/Large MIMO Systems/Large Scale Antenna Systems collectively refer to a communication system where a base station (BS) (having several tens to hundred antennas) communicates coherently with a few tens of users on the same time-frequency resource [@SPM-paper], [@ELLM]. Recently massive MIMO Systems have been shown to achieve very high spectral efficiency[^2] and energy efficiency[^3] [@TM], [@HNQ]. Currently there is also a lot of emphasis on energy efficient communication systems [@Li].
In the previous work done on studying the energy versus spectral efficiency trade-off (uplink) of low complexity receivers in massive MIMO systems, it has been assumed that the only power consumed in the system is due to the power radiated by the user terminals (UTs) [@HNQ]. In [@HNQ], it has been shown that with perfect channel state information (CSI), for a given spectral efficiency the energy efficiency can be increased in an unbounded manner by increasing the number of BS antennas ($M$) and the number of users ($K$). Increasing $M$ will increase the array gain at the BS, and therefore to achieve a fixed spectral efficiency the required power to be radiated from the UTs will reduce. Similarly, increasing $K$ will reduce the per-user information rate, which then reduces the required power to be radiated by each UT. However in practice, the transceiver circuits in the UTs and at the BS consume power, which will increase with increasing $M$ and $K$. Therefore, if transceiver power consumption is also taken into account, it is clear that for a given spectral efficiency the energy efficiency will not increase in an unbounded manner with increasing $M$ and $K$. Motivated by the arguments above, in our recent paper [@prev_work], we had studied the energy-spectral efficiency trade-off of the Zero-Forcing (ZF) receiver while taking transceiver power consumption into consideration.
In this paper, we extend our work in [@prev_work] to the study of the energy-spectral efficiency trade-off for the Maximum Ratio Combining (MRC) receiver, which is known to have an even lower complexity than the ZF receiver (since MRC does not require channel inversion) and also achieves near-optimal performance in massive MIMO systems [@TM], [@HNQ]. In Section \[Sysmodel\], we explain the system model, define the power consumption parameters taken into consideration, and also state the optimization problem of maximizing the energy efficiency with respect to (w.r.t.) $(M,K)$ for a given spectral efficiency $R$. The optimized energy efficiency is hereby referred to as the “optimal energy efficiency” for the given $R$. In this paper we focus our study to the regime where the desired spectral efficiency $R$ is large.[^4]
The optimal energy efficiency is analyzed in Section \[largeR\_sec\]. Analysis in Section \[largeR\_sec\] reveals that, i) for the MRC receiver it is possible to increase $(M,K)$ with increasing $R$ so that the energy efficiency converges to a positive constant as $R \rightarrow \infty$ (while maintaining a constant per-user spectral efficiency $R/K$) (see Corollary \[cor\_largeRR\] and Remark \[remark\_77\]), ii) for sufficiently large $R$ the ZF receiver has a higher optimal energy efficiency than the MRC receiver, iii) for a given finite $R$ the optimal $(M,K)$ which maximize the energy efficiency are finite, and iv) for a given $R$ the optimal energy efficiency reduces with increasing values of the power consumption parameters. Numerical simulation is used to confirm the analysis in Section \[largeR\_sec\]. Simulation results are discussed in Section \[sec\_sim\]. We also observe that for large $R$, the optimal $(M,K)$ maximizing the energy efficiency of the MRC receiver is such that, the total power consumed by the power amplifiers (PA) in all the $K$ UTs is a small fraction of the total system power consumption.
Few other works studying the maximization of energy efficiency of massive MIMO systems with transceiver power consumption have recently appeared in [@DHa], [@Emil]. However, in both [@DHa] and [@Emil], the authors have not studied the maximization of the energy efficiency jointly w.r.t. $(M,K)$ for a [*given spectral efficiency*]{} and therefore the optimal energy-spectral efficiency curve is not known, and hence its large $R$ behaviour is also not clear. Addressing this issue, in this paper we analyze the optimal energy-spectral efficiency trade-off curve of the MRC receiver in the large $R$ regime.
System model {#Sysmodel}
============
Consider the uplink of a multi-user massive MIMO system where a BS having $M$ antennas communicates with $K$ single antenna user terminals (UTs). Let $x_k$ be the complex information symbol transmitted from the $k$-th user.[^5] The signal received at the $m$-th BS antenna is then given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sysmodel}
y_m & = & \sum_{k=1}^K \, h_{k,m} x_k \, + \, n_m \,\,\,,\,\,\, m=1,2,\cdots,M\end{aligned}$$ where $n_m$ is the additive white complex circular symmetric Gaussian noise (AWGN) at the $m$-th receiver, having zero mean and variance $\sigma^2 = N_0 B$. Here $B$ is the channel bandwidth (Hz), and $N_0$ Watts/Hz is the power spectral density of the AWGN. Here $h_{k,m} = \sqrt{G_c} g_{k,m} \in {\mathbb C}$ denotes the complex channel gain between the $k$-th UT and the $m$-th BS antenna. Also, $g_{k,m}, k=1,2,\cdots,K, m =1,2,\cdots,M$ are i.i.d. ${\mathcal C}{\mathcal N}(0,1)$ (circular symmetric complex Gaussian having zero mean and unit variance). Further, $\sqrt{G_c} > 0 $ models the geometric attenuation and shadow fading, and is assumed to be constant over many coherence intervals and known a priori to the BS.[^6] The model in (\[sysmodel\]) is also applicable to wide-band channels where OFDM is used. Let the average power radiated from each UT be $p_u$ Watts. The average power consumed by each user’s transmitter can then be modeled as $p_{tx} = \alpha p_u \, + \, p_t$ where $\alpha > 1$ models the efficiency of the power amplifier (PA) and $p_t$ is the power consumed by the other signal processing circuits (except the PA) inside the transmitter (e.g., oscillator, digital-to-analog converter, filters) [@cmos_design; @e_eff_tx]. The power consumed by the PA in each UT is $\alpha p_u$. Further, let $p_r$ (in Watts) be the average power consumed for signal processing in each BS receiver antenna unit (e.g., per-antenna RF and baseband hardware). The average power consumed at the BS for per-user processing is modeled as $p_{dec}$ (e.g., signal processing of each user’s coded information stream, decoding the channel code for each user). Let $p_s$ model any other residual power consumption at the BS which is independent of the number of BS antennas and the number of users.[^7] Then the total system power consumed is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{P_eqn0}
P & = & K p_{tx} \, + \, \overbrace{(K p_{dec} + M p_{r} + p_s)}^{\mbox{\small{Power consumed at BS}}} \nonumber \\
& = & K (\alpha p_u + p_t + p_{dec}) \, + \, M p_r \, + \, p_s.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $p_t$ and $p_{dec}$ contribute to $P$ only through their sum and therefore for brevity of notation, let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{P_eqn}
p_d & {\stackrel {\Delta} {=} }& p_t \, + \, p_{dec} \,\,\,,\,\,\, \mbox{and therefore} \nonumber \\
P & = & K ( \alpha p_u + p_d ) + M p_{r} + p_s.\end{aligned}$$ The energy efficiency (bits/Joule) is given by[^8] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e_eqn}
\eta & = & \frac{ R B }{P},\end{aligned}$$ where $R$ is the spectral efficiency in bits/s/Hz. Multiplying (\[P\_eqn\]) on both sides by $G_c/N_0 B$ and then using (\[e\_eqn\]) on the left hand side (L.H.S.) we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn_2}
\frac{G_c R}{ N_0 \eta} & = & \alpha K \, \frac{G_c p_u }{N_0 B} \, + \, K \frac{G_c p_d }{N_0 B} \, + \, M \frac{ G_c p_r }{ N_0 B} \, + \, \frac{ G_c p_s }{ N_0 B}.\end{aligned}$$ For brevity of notation, we make the following definitions[^9] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{defs_eqn}
\zeta {\stackrel {\Delta} {=} }\frac{\eta N_0 } {G_c} \,\,\,,\,\,\,
\rho_r {\stackrel {\Delta} {=} }\frac{G_c p_r }{N_0 B} \,\,\,,\,\,\, \rho_d {\stackrel {\Delta} {=} }\frac{G_c p_d }{N_0 B } \nonumber \\
\rho_s {\stackrel {\Delta} {=} }\frac{G_c p_s }{N_0 B } \,\,\,,\,\,\, \gamma {\stackrel {\Delta} {=} }\frac{G_c p_u }{N_0 B}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\zeta$ depends on the system parameters $\Theta {\stackrel {\Delta} {=} }(R, \alpha, \rho_r, \rho_d, \rho_s)$ and $(M,K)$, we subsequently use the notation $\zeta(M, K,\Theta)$ to highlight this dependence. Using (\[defs\_eqn\]) in (\[eqn\_2\]) we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn_12}
\frac{R}{\zeta(M, K , \Theta)}
& \hspace{-3mm} = & {\Big (} \alpha K \gamma + ( K \rho_d + M \rho_r + \rho_s) {\Big )}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that on the right hand side (R.H.S.) of (\[eqn\_12\]), the first term corresponds to power consumed by the PAs in the $K$ UTs, whereas the second term $(M \rho_r + K \rho_d + \rho_s)$ corresponds to the power consumed at the BS and the transmitter circuitry in the UTs.
In a massive MIMO MRC receiver with perfect CSI, an achievable spectral efficiency is given by [@HNQ] $$\begin{aligned}
R & = & K \, \log_2{\Big ( } 1 \, + \, \frac{G_c p_u (M - 1)}{G_c p_u (K -1) \, + \, N_0 B} {\Big )} \nonumber \\
& = & K \, \log_2 {\Big (} 1 \, + \, \frac{\gamma_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}} (M - 1)}{\gamma_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}} (K -1) \, + \, 1} {\Big )} \nonumber \\
\gamma_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}} & {\stackrel {\Delta} {=} }& \frac{G_c p_u }{N_0 B}\end{aligned}$$ from which it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gamma_expr_mrc}
\gamma_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}} & = & \frac{2^{\frac{R}{K}} - 1}{ (M - 1) \, - \, (K - 1) (2^{\frac{R}{K}} - 1)}\end{aligned}$$ Since $p_u > 0$, $\gamma_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}} > 0$ and therefore for a given $R$, $(M,K)$ must belong to the set $$\begin{aligned}
\label{zrset_def}
{\mathcal Z}_{_R} & = & {\Big \{ } (M , K) \,|\, M, K \in {\mathbb Z} \,,\, K \geq 1 \,,\, \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{10mm} (M - 1) > (K - 1) (2^{R/K} - 1) {\Big \}}.\end{aligned}$$ In a massive MIMO ZF receiver with perfect CSI, an achievable spectral efficiency is given by [@HNQ] $$\begin{aligned}
R & = & K \, \log_2{\Big ( } 1 \, + \, \frac{G_c p_u (M - K)}{N_0 B} {\Big )} \nonumber \\
& = & K \, \log_2 {\Big (} 1 \, + \, (M - K) \gamma_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize zf}}}{\Big )}\end{aligned}$$ from where it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gamma_expr_zf}
\gamma_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize zf}}} & = & \frac{2^{\frac{R}{K}} - 1}{ M - K}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\gamma_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize zf}}} > 0$ it follows that $(M,K)$ must satisfy $M > K$. Using the expressions of $\gamma$ for the MRC and the ZF receivers from (\[gamma\_expr\_mrc\]) and (\[gamma\_expr\_zf\]) in (\[eqn\_12\]), the energy efficiency with these two different receivers (denoted by $\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}(M, K , \Theta)$ and $\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize zf}}}(M, K , \Theta)$) are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn_12_mrc}
\frac{R}{\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}(M, K , \Theta)}
& \hspace{-3mm} = & {\Big (} \alpha K \gamma_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}} + ( K \rho_d + M \rho_r + \rho_s) {\Big )} \nonumber \\
& \hspace{-3mm} = & M \rho_r + K \rho_d + \rho_s \nonumber \\
& & + \, \frac{ \alpha K {\Big (} 2^{\frac{R}{K}} - 1 {\Big )}}{ (M - 1) \, - \, (K - 1) (2^{\frac{R}{K}} - 1)}
$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn_12_zf}
\frac{R}{\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize zf}}}(M, K , \Theta)}
& \hspace{-3mm} = & {\Big (} \alpha K \gamma_{\mbox{\footnotesize zf}} + ( K \rho_d + M \rho_r + \rho_s) {\Big )} \nonumber \\
& \hspace{-8mm} = & \hspace{-4mm} \frac{\alpha K (2^{\frac{R}{K}} - 1)}{(M - K)} + (M \rho_r + K \rho_d + \rho_s).
$$ For a given $\Theta = (R, \alpha, \rho_r, \rho_d, \rho_s)$ the optimal energy efficiency $\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\star}(\Theta)$ and $\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize zf}}}^{\star}(\Theta)$ are therefore given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{zeta_opt_zf_mrc}
\frac{R}{\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\star}(\Theta)} & = & \min_{(M,K) \, \in \, {\mathcal Z}_{_R} } \, \frac{R}{\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}(M, K , \Theta)} \nonumber \\
\frac{R}{\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize zf}}}^{\star}(\Theta)} & = & \min_{ \substack{ (M,K) \, | \, M, K \, \in {\mathbb Z} \\ M > K \geq 1 }} \, \frac{R}{\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize zf}}}(M, K , \Theta)}.\end{aligned}$$
Energy-Spectral efficiency trade-off of the MRC receiver for large $R$ {#largeR_sec}
======================================================================
In [@prev_work], for the ZF receiver we had shown that with a fixed $(\alpha, \rho_r, \rho_d)$, the optimal number of UTs and BS antennas increases with increasing $R$.[^10] In the regime where $R$ is sufficiently large (i.e., when the optimal number of UTs and BS antennas is much larger than one and two respectively), a tight approximation to the optimal energy efficiency of the ZF receiver was then derived analytically by relaxing the optimization variables $(M,K)$ in (\[zeta\_opt\_zf\_mrc\]) to be real valued. This approximation denoted by $\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize zf}}}^{\prime\prime}(\Theta)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{zeta_zf_svar}
\frac{R}{\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize zf}}}^{\prime\prime}(\Theta)} & = & \hspace{-2mm} \min_{\substack{M, K \, \in {\mathbb R} \\ M > K \,,\, K \geq 1 }} \, \frac{R}{\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize zf}}}(M, K , \Theta)} \nonumber \\
& \hspace{-8mm} = & \min_{\substack{ K \, \in {\mathbb R} \\ K \geq 1 }} {\Bigg [} \, {\Bigg \{} \min_{\substack{ M \, \in {\mathbb R} \\ M > K }} \frac{\alpha K (2^{\frac{R}{K}} - 1)}{(M - K)} + (M - K) \rho_r {\Bigg \}} \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{13mm} \rho_s + K (\rho_r + \rho_d) {\Bigg ]}.\nonumber \\
& \hspace{-8mm} = & \min_{\substack{ K \, \in {\mathbb R} \\ K \geq 1 }} {\Bigg [} \, {\Bigg \{} \min_{\substack{ t \, \in {\mathbb R} \\ t > 0}} \frac{\alpha K (2^{\frac{R}{K}} - 1)}{t} + t \rho_r {\Bigg \}} \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{13mm} \rho_s + K (\rho_r + \rho_d) {\Bigg ]}.\nonumber \\
& \hspace{-19mm} = & \hspace{-12mm} \rho_s + {\Big (} \min_{\substack{ K \, \in {\mathbb R} \\ K \geq 1 }} \,2 \sqrt{\alpha \rho_r K (2^{R/K} - 1)} + K (\rho_r + \rho_d) {\Big )}.\end{aligned}$$ In [@prev_work] we had considered the special case where $\rho_s = 0$ to understand only the impact of $(\rho_r, \rho_d)$ alone on the optimal energy-spectral efficiency trade-off curve. However, results in [@prev_work] can be very simply generalized to the $\rho_s > 0$ case. This is because, the problem of jointly optimizing the energy efficiency w.r.t. $(M,K)$ is independent of $\rho_s$ since $\rho_s$ is a constant which does not depend on $(M,K)$. The following result from [@prev_work] is useful later in this paper to show that the ZF receiver has a strictly better optimal energy efficiency than the MRC receiver in the large $R$ regime.
\[result6\_gcom14\] \[Theorem $7$ in [@prev_work]\]
For[^11] $R > f(R_c)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{zeta_large_R_eqn_f2}
( \rho_r + \rho_d ) < & \frac{\log_2{\Big (} 1 + \frac{R}{R_c} (2^{R_c} - 1) {\Big )}}{ \zeta_{zf}^{\prime}(\Theta)} \, & < 4 ( \rho_r + \rho_d)\end{aligned}$$ where $\zeta_{zf}^{\prime}(\Theta)$ is the optimal energy efficiency of the ZF receiver when $\rho_s = 0$.
Since $\rho_s$ does not depend on $(M,K)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rel_dprime}
\frac{R}{\zeta_{zf}^{\prime\prime}(\Theta)} & = & \frac{R}{\zeta_{zf}^{\prime}(\Theta)} + \rho_s.\end{aligned}$$ Using (\[rel\_dprime\]) in (\[zeta\_large\_R\_eqn\_f2\]) we get for all $R > f(R_c)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{result123_1}
\frac{\log_2{\Big (} 1 + \frac{R}{R_c} (2^{R_c} - 1) {\Big )}}{(\rho_r + \rho_d) \, \zeta_{zf}^{\prime\prime}(\Theta)} & \hspace{-3mm} > & \hspace{-3mm} 1 + \rho_s \frac{\log_2{\Big (} 1 + \frac{R}{R_c} (2^{R_c} - 1) {\Big )}}{R (\rho_r + \rho_d)} \nonumber \\
\frac{\log_2{\Big (} 1 + \frac{R}{R_c} (2^{R_c} - 1) {\Big )}}{(\rho_r + \rho_d) \, \zeta_{zf}^{\prime\prime}(\Theta)} & \hspace{-3mm} < & \hspace{-3mm} 4 + \rho_s \frac{\log_2{\Big (} 1 + \frac{R}{R_c} (2^{R_c} - 1) {\Big )}}{R (\rho_r + \rho_d)}. \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ In the large $R$ regime, ${\Big [} \log_2{\Big (} 1 + \frac{R}{R_c} (2^{R_c} - 1) {\Big )} {\Big ]} /R$ decreases with increasing $R$. Let $R_0 > 0$ be defined as the smallest positive number such that for all $R > R_0$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{result123_2}
\frac{\rho_s}{\rho_r + \rho_d} \, \frac{\log_2{\Big (} 1 + \frac{R}{R_c} (2^{R_c} - 1) {\Big )}}{R} & \hspace{-2mm} < & \hspace{-2mm} 1 \,\,\,,\,\,\, \forall \, R > R_0.\end{aligned}$$ Combining (\[result123\_1\]) and (\[result123\_2\]) it follows that for all $R > \max(f(R_c), R_0)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{zeta_large_R_eqn_f}
( \rho_r + \rho_d ) < & \frac{\log_2{\Big (} 1 + \frac{R}{R_c} (2^{R_c} - 1) {\Big )}}{ \zeta_{zf}^{\prime\prime}(\Theta)} \, & < 5 ( \rho_r + \rho_d).\end{aligned}$$ In this paper, for the MRC receiver we propose a similar approximation to the optimal energy efficiency (as is done for the ZF receiver in [@prev_work], see (\[zeta\_zf\_svar\])) which is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mrc_zeta_prime_eqn}
\frac{R}{\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\prime\prime}(\Theta)} & = & \min_{(M,K) \in {\mathcal A}_{_R}} \, \frac{R}{\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}(M, K , \Theta)}.\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{arset_def}
{\mathcal A}_{_R} & {\stackrel {\Delta} {=} }& {\Big \{ } (M , K) \,|\, M, K \in {\mathbb R} \,,\, K \geq 1 \,,\, \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{12mm} (M - 1) > (K - 1) (2^{R/K} - 1) {\Big \}}.\end{aligned}$$ Clearly $\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\prime\prime}(\Theta) > \zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\star}(\Theta)$. Exhaustive simulations reveal that $\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\prime\prime}(\Theta) \approx \zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\star}(\Theta)$ for sufficiently large $R$ (see Fig. \[fig\_0\] in Section \[sec\_sim\]). Let the optimal number of UTs and BS antennas be defined by $$\begin{aligned}
{\Big (} M_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\star}(\Theta) \,,\, K_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\star}(\Theta) {\Big )} & {\stackrel {\Delta} {=} }& \arg \min_{(M,K) \, \in \, {\mathcal Z}_{_R} } \, \frac{R}{\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}(M, K , \Theta)} \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathcal Z}_{_R}$ is defined in (\[zrset\_def\]). Through simulations we have observed that both $M_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\star}(\Theta)$ and $K_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\star}(\Theta)$ increase with increasing $R$. It is also observed that $\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\prime\prime}(\Theta) \approx \zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\star}(\Theta)$ when $M_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\star}(\Theta) \gg 1$ and $K_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\star}(\Theta) \gg 1$, which happens when $R$ is large (see Fig. \[fig\_19\] in Section \[sec\_sim\]). For this reason, subsequently in this paper we refer to both $\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\star}(\Theta)$ and $\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\prime\prime}(\Theta)$ as the optimal energy efficiency when $R$ is large. The following theorem reduces (\[mrc\_zeta\_prime\_eqn\]) to a single variable optimization problem.
\[thmthm\_gcom\] For any given $\Theta$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mrc_prime_single_var}
\frac{R}{\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\prime\prime}(\Theta) } & = & \min_{\substack{K \in {\mathbb R} \\ K \geq 1 }} \, g_{_R}(K) \,\,\,\,,\,\,\,\, \mbox{where} \nonumber \\
g_{_R}(K) & {\stackrel {\Delta} {=} }&{\Bigg (} 2 \sqrt{\alpha \rho_r K (2^{R/K} - 1)} + \rho_r + \rho_s \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{2mm} + K \rho_d + (K - 1) \rho_r (2^{R/K} - 1) {\Bigg )}.\end{aligned}$$
[*Proof:*]{} Using (\[eqn\_12\_mrc\]) for the expression of $R/\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}(M, K , \Theta)$ in (\[mrc\_zeta\_prime\_eqn\]) we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{step_a_b_1}
\min_{(M,K) \in {\mathcal A}_{_R}} \frac{R}{\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}(M, K, \Theta)} & & \nonumber \\
& \hspace{-55mm} = & \hspace{-31mm} \min_{(M,K) \in {\mathcal A}_{_R} } \, {\Bigg [} {\Big (} (M - 1) \, - \, (K - 1) (2^{\frac{R}{K}} - 1) {\Big )}\rho_r \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{-20mm} \,\, + \, \frac{ \alpha K {\Big (} 2^{\frac{R}{K}} - 1 {\Big )}}{ (M - 1) \, - \, (K - 1) (2^{\frac{R}{K}} - 1)} \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{-20mm} \,\, + \rho_s + \rho_r + K \rho_d + (K - 1) \rho_r (2^{\frac{R}{K}} - 1) {\Bigg ] }\nonumber \\
& \hspace{-55mm} { (a) \atop = } & \hspace{-30mm} \min_{\{ K \in {\mathbb R} \, | \, K \geq 1 \}} \, {\Bigg [} \,\, h(K) + \rho_r + K \rho_d + \rho_s \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{-7mm} + (K - 1) \rho_r (2^{\frac{R}{K}} - 1) {\Bigg ]} \end{aligned}$$ where $h(K)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{step_a_b_hk}
h(K) & \hspace{-5mm} {\stackrel {\Delta} {=} }& \hspace{-16mm} \min_{\substack{ M \in {\mathbb R} \\ (M - 1) > (K - 1) (2^{R/K} - 1) } } \hspace{-3mm} {\Bigg (} {\Big (} (M - 1) \, - \, (K - 1) (2^{\frac{R}{K}} - 1) {\Big )}\rho_r \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{15mm} \, + \, \frac{ \alpha K {\Big (} 2^{\frac{R}{K}} - 1 {\Big )}}{ (M - 1) \, - \, (K - 1) (2^{\frac{R}{K}} - 1)} \, {\Bigg )}\nonumber \\
& = & \min_{\substack{ t \in {\mathbb R} \,,\, t > 0 }} \, {\Bigg [} t \rho_r \, + \, \frac{\alpha K {\Big (} 2^{\frac{R}{K}} - 1 {\Big )}}{t} \, {\Bigg ]} \nonumber \\
& { (a) \atop = } & 2 \sqrt{\alpha \rho_r K {\Big (} 2^{\frac{R}{K}} - 1 {\Big )}}.\end{aligned}$$ Using the expression of $h(K)$ in step (a) of (\[step\_a\_b\_hk\]) into step (a) of (\[step\_a\_b\_1\]) we get (\[mrc\_prime\_single\_var\]). $\hfill\blacksquare$
\[finiteMK\_remark\] In (\[mrc\_prime\_single\_var\]) $g_{_R}(K)$ corresponds to the total system power consumed for a given $R$ and $K$ ($M$ being chosen optimally for the given $(R,K)$, see (\[step\_a\_b\_hk\])). In the R.H.S. of the expression for $g_{_R}(K)$ in (\[mrc\_prime\_single\_var\]), the term $K \rho_d$ corresponds to the power consumed by the multiuser signal processing at the BS and by the transmitter circuitry (except PA) in the UTs. With fixed $\Theta$ and increasing $K$, it is clear that this term increases. At the same time, with increasing $K$ the per-user information rate $R/K$ decreases (since $\Theta$ and therefore $R$ is fixed) which results in a decrease in the required power to be radiated by each UT. Therefore, with increasing $K$ the power consumed by the PAs in all the UTs decreases (corresponds to the term $2 \sqrt{\alpha \rho_r K (2^{R/K} - 1)}$ in (\[mrc\_prime\_single\_var\])). Hence, there is a trade-off involved in choosing the optimal $K$ which minimizes the total system power consumed. Therefore for a fixed $\Theta$, the optimal $K$ which maximizes the energy efficiency is finite.
Further from the minimization in (\[step\_a\_b\_hk\]), it is clear that for a given $(\Theta,K)$, the optimal number of BS antennas is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mtheta_def}
M_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\prime\prime}(\Theta, K) & {\stackrel {\Delta} {=} }& \arg \hspace{-3mm} \min_{ \{ M \, | \, (M,K) \in {\mathcal A}_{_R} \}} \, \frac{R}{\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}(M,K,\Theta)} \nonumber \\
& \hspace{-29mm} = & \hspace{-16mm} 1 + (K - 1) {\Big (} 2^{\frac{R}{K}} - 1 {\Big )} \, + \, \sqrt{\frac{\alpha K {\Big (} 2^{\frac{R}{K}} - 1 {\Big )}}{\rho_r}}\end{aligned}$$ which implies that the optimal number of BS antennas is also finite (since the optimal $K$ is finite). This result on the finiteness of the optimal $(M,K)$ is in contrast to the scenario where transceiver power consumption is not taken into consideration (i.e., $\rho_r = \rho_d = \rho_s = 0$), due to which the energy efficiency grows unbounded with increasing $(M,K)$, and hence the optimal $(M,K)$ is not finite [@HNQ].
\[rhor\_remark\] From the expression of $g_{_R}(K)$ in (\[mrc\_prime\_single\_var\]) it is clear that for a fixed $(R,K)$, $g_{_R}(K)$ increases with increasing $\rho_r$, $\rho_d$ and $\rho_s$. This therefore implies that for a fixed $(\alpha,R)$, $\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\prime\prime}(\Theta)$ decreases with increasing $\rho_r$, $\rho_d$ and $\rho_s$. This conclusion is also intuitive since any increase in $\rho_r$, $\rho_d$ and $\rho_s$ will increase the total system power consumed, thereby decreasing the energy efficiency (since $R$ is fixed).
In [@HNQ], for the scenario $\rho_r = \rho_d = \rho_s = 0$ it has been shown that for a fixed $(M,K)$ and sufficiently large $R$, the energy efficiency of both the ZF and the MRC receiver decreases with increasing $R$ and are asymptotically zero as $R \rightarrow \infty$. For the scenario ($\rho_r \ne 0 \,,\, \rho_d \ne 0 \,,\, \rho_s \ne 0$) considered in this paper, the following corollary to Theorem \[thmthm\_gcom\] shows that for the MRC receiver, by increasing $(M,K)$ appropriately with increasing $R$, the energy efficiency will asymptotically converge to a [*positive constant*]{} as $R \rightarrow \infty$.
\[cor\_largeRR\] For a fixed $(\alpha, \rho_r, \rho_d, \rho_s)$ and increasing $R$, let $({\Tilde M(R)}, {\Tilde K(R) })$ be given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tildeMK_def}
{\Tilde K(R)} & {\stackrel {\Delta} {=} }& \frac{R}{c} \,\,,\,\,
{\Tilde M(R)} \, {\stackrel {\Delta} {=} }\, M_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\prime\prime}(\Theta, {\Tilde K(R)}) \end{aligned}$$ where the function $M_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\prime\prime}(\cdot, \cdot)$ is defined in (\[mtheta\_def\]), and $c > 0$ is a constant. Then for $R > c$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{prf_trv}
\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}({\Tilde M(R)}, {\Tilde K(R)}, \Theta) & \leq & \zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\prime\prime}(\Theta)\end{aligned}$$ where $\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}(\cdot, \cdot, \cdot)$ is defined in (\[eqn\_12\_mrc\]). Also for any $c > 0$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{prf_diffc}
\lim_{R \rightarrow \infty} \, \zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\prime\prime}(\Theta) & \geq & \frac{c}{\rho_d + \rho_r (2^c - 1) } \, > \, 0.\end{aligned}$$
[*Proof*]{}: For $R > c$, ${\Tilde K(R)} = (R/c) > 1$ and hence $({\Tilde M(R)}, {\Tilde K(R)}) \in {\mathcal A}_{_R}$.[^12] Therefore the inequality in (\[prf\_trv\]) now follows clearly from the definition of $\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\prime\prime}(\Theta)$ in (\[mrc\_zeta\_prime\_eqn\]). Using (\[eqn\_12\_mrc\]) with $(M,K) = ({\Tilde M(R)}, {\Tilde K(R)})$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{RR_eqn}
\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}({\Tilde M(R)}, {\Tilde K(R)}, \Theta) & = & \nonumber \\
& \hspace{-68mm} & \hspace{-38mm } \frac{1}{ {\Bigg (} 2 \sqrt{\frac{\alpha \rho_r}{R} \frac{(2^c - 1)}{c} } + \frac{\rho_r}{R} + \frac{\rho_s}{R} + \frac{\rho_d}{c} + \rho_r {\Big (} \frac{1}{c} - \frac{1}{R} {\Big )} (2^c - 1) {\Bigg )} }. \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ Taking the limit $R \rightarrow \infty$ on both sides of (\[RR\_eqn\]) we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Rvar_eff}
\lim_{R \rightarrow \infty} \, \zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}({\Tilde M(R)}, {\Tilde K(R)}, \Theta) & = & \frac{c}{\rho_d + \rho_r (2^c - 1) }.\end{aligned}$$ Using (\[Rvar\_eff\]) and (\[prf\_trv\]) we finally get (\[prf\_diffc\]). $\hfill\blacksquare$
\[remark\_77\] From (\[tildeMK\_def\]) and (\[mtheta\_def\]) it can be seen that both $ {\Tilde M(R)}$ and ${\Tilde K(R)}$ increase with increasing $R$. Since ${\Tilde K(R)}$ increases linearly with $R$, it follows that with increasing $R$ the per-user spectral efficiency is constant (i.e., $R/{\Tilde K(R)} = c$). Therefore, (\[Rvar\_eff\]) in Corollary \[cor\_largeRR\] shows that with increasing $R$, it is possible to increase $(M,K) = ({\Tilde M(R)}, {\Tilde K(R)})$ in such a way that the energy efficiency converges to a positive constant as $R \rightarrow \infty$ (while maintaining a constant per-user spectral efficiency). From the denominator of the R.H.S. of (\[RR\_eqn\]) it is clear that by choosing $(M,K) = ({\Tilde M(R)}, {\Tilde K(R)})$, as $R \rightarrow \infty$ the total system power consumption is dominated by the power consumed by the transmitter circuitry at the UTs/multiuser processing at the BS (corresponding to the term $\rho_d/c$) and the power consumed by the RF circuits/baseband hardware in the BS (corresponding to the term $\rho_r (2^c - 1)/c$).[^13]
Corollary \[cor\_largeRR\] however does not tell us about the behaviour of the optimal energy efficiency $\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\star}(\Theta)$ with increasing $R$. It does not tell us whether the optimal energy efficiency also converges to a constant just like $\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}({\Tilde M(R)}, {\Tilde K(R)}, \Theta) $ or does it increase unbounded with increasing $R$ (as is the case in ZF receivers). Nevertheless, through exhaustive simulations we have seen that the optimal energy efficiency of the MRC receiver also [*converges to a constant*]{} with increasing $R$ (see Fig. \[fig\_0\] in Section \[sec\_sim\]). As conjectured in Remark \[remark\_77\], exhaustive simulations have also revealed that with the optimal choice of UTs and BS antennas, i.e., $(M,K) = (M_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\star}(\Theta), K_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\star}(\Theta))$ most of the total system power consumption is attributed to the power consumed by the transmitter circuitry in the UTs (except the PA) and by the BS (see Fig. \[fig\_13\] in Section \[sec\_sim\]).
The following theorem will be used later to show that the ZF receiver is more energy efficient than the MRC receiver when $R$ is sufficiently large.
\[theorem3\_gcom14\] For any given $\Theta$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\label{theorem_conditions}
R & > & \max(R_1 \,,\, R_2) \,\,\,\,,\,\,\, \mbox{where} \nonumber \\
R_1 & {\stackrel {\Delta} {=} }& \max{\Bigg (}4 \,,\, 4 \log_2{\Big (} 1 + \frac{\alpha}{\rho_r}{\Big )} {\Bigg )} \,\,\,\mbox{and} \nonumber \\
R_2 & {\stackrel {\Delta} {=} }& \max{\Bigg (} \log_2 {\Big (} 1 + \frac{9 \rho_d^2}{\alpha \rho_r} {\Big )} \,,\, 2 \log_2{\Big (} \frac{49 \rho_r}{\alpha} {\Big )} {\Bigg )}\end{aligned}$$ i.e., sufficiently large $R$, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ref_thm222}
\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\prime\prime}(\Theta) & < & \frac{1}{\min{\Bigg (} \frac{1}{\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize zf}}}^{\prime\prime}(\Theta) } \,,\, \rho_d + \frac{\rho_r}{R} + \frac{\rho_s}{R} {\Bigg )}}.\end{aligned}$$
[*Proof:*]{} In (\[mrc\_prime\_single\_var\]) separating the range of the optimization variable $K$ into intervals[^14] $[ 1 \,,\, R)$ and $[R \,,\, \infty)$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{prf_2_eqn_1}
\frac{R}{\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\prime\prime}(\Theta) }
& = & \min{\Bigg (} \, {\Big (} \, \min_{\substack{K \in {\mathbb R} \\ R > K \geq 1 }} \, g_{_R}(K) {\Big )} \,,\, {\Big (} \, \min_{\substack{K \in {\mathbb R} \\ K \geq R }} \, g_{_R}(K) {\Big )} \, {\Bigg )}. \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ From (\[mrc\_prime\_single\_var\]) we note that $g_{_R}(K) > ( \rho_r + \rho_s + K \rho_d)$ for any $K > 1$. If $K \geq R$, it follows that $K > 1$ also, since $R > 1$ (see (\[theorem\_conditions\])). Using these facts we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ineq_1_prf}
\min_{\substack{K \in {\mathbb R} \\ K \geq R }} g_{_R}(K) & > & \min_{\substack{K \in {\mathbb R} \\ K \geq R }} (\rho_r + \rho_s + K \rho_d ) \nonumber \\
& = & \rho_r + \rho_s + R \rho_d.\end{aligned}$$ From the expression of $g_{_R}(K)$ in (\[mrc\_prime\_single\_var\]) we also have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{grk_new}
g_{_R}(K) & = & {\Bigg (} 2 \sqrt{\alpha \rho_r K (2^{R/K} - 1)} + K (\rho_r + \rho_d) + \rho_s \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{6mm} + (K - 1) \rho_r (2^{R/K} - 2) {\Bigg )}.\end{aligned}$$ For any $R$ satisfying the conditions in (\[theorem\_conditions\]), simple algebraic manipulations show that $g_{_R}(1) > g_{_R}(4)$.[^15] From (\[theorem\_conditions\]) we have $R > 4$ and therefore $4 \in [1 \,,\, R)$. Since $g_{_R}(1) > g_{_R}(4)$, $K=1$ is not a minimum of $g_{_R}(K)$ when $K \in [1 \,,\, R)$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{step_1_2_pr}
\min_{\substack{K \in {\mathbb R} \\ R > K \geq 1 }} \, g_{_R}(K) & = & \min_{\substack{K \in {\mathbb R} \\ R > K > 1 }} \, g_{_R}(K).\end{aligned}$$ From (\[step\_1\_2\_pr\]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ineq_2_prf}
\min_{\substack{K \in {\mathbb R} \\ R > K \geq 1 }} \, g_{_R}(K) & { = } & \min_{\substack{K \in {\mathbb R} \\ R > K > 1 }} \, g_{_R}(K) \nonumber \\
& \hspace{-26mm } {(a) \atop = } & \hspace{-14mm} \min_{\substack{K \in {\mathbb R} \\ R > K > 1 }} {\Bigg (} 2 \sqrt{\alpha \rho_r K (2^{R/K} - 1)} + K (\rho_r + \rho_d) \nonumber \\
& & + \, \rho_s + (K - 1) \rho_r (2^{R/K} - 2) {\Bigg )} \nonumber \\
& \hspace{-26mm } {(b) \atop > } & \hspace{-14mm} \min_{\substack{K \in {\mathbb R} \\ R > K > 1 }} \,\, 2 \sqrt{\alpha \rho_r K (2^{R/K} - 1)} + K (\rho_r + \rho_d) + \rho_s \nonumber \\
& \hspace{-26mm } \geq & \hspace{-14mm} \min_{\substack{K \in {\mathbb R} \\ K \geq 1 }} \,\, 2 \sqrt{\alpha \rho_r K (2^{R/K} - 1)} + K (\rho_r + \rho_d) + \rho_s \nonumber \\
& \hspace{-26mm } {(c) \atop = } & \hspace{-14mm} \frac{R}{\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize zf}}}^{\prime\prime}(\Theta) }\end{aligned}$$ where step (a) follows from (\[grk\_new\]) and step (b) follows from the fact that for $1 < K < R$, $(K - 1) (2^{R/K} - 2) > 0$. Step (c) follows from (\[zeta\_zf\_svar\]). Using (\[ineq\_1\_prf\]) and (\[ineq\_2\_prf\]) in (\[prf\_2\_eqn\_1\]) we get (\[ref\_thm222\]). $\hfill\blacksquare$
From (\[zeta\_large\_R\_eqn\_f\]) we know that $\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize zf}}}^{\prime\prime}(\Theta) \propto O(\log(R))$ for sufficiently large $R$. Hence $(1/\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize zf}}}^{\prime\prime}(\Theta) ) < \rho_d + (\rho_r/R) + (\rho_s/R)$ for sufficiently large $R$. Using this fact in (\[ref\_thm222\]) leads us to the following Corollary.
\[cor\_22\] For any given $\Theta$ with $R$ sufficiently large $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cor_conds}
R & \hspace{-3mm } > & \hspace{-3mm} \max {\Bigg (} R_0, R_1, R_2, f(R_c) \,,\, \frac{R_c \, {\Big (} 32^{\frac{(\rho_r + \rho_d)}{\rho_d}} - 1 {\Big )}}{(2^{R_c} - 1)} {\Bigg )}\end{aligned}$$ it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cor_ineq}
\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\prime\prime}(\Theta) & < & \zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize zf}}}^{\prime\prime}(\Theta)\end{aligned}$$ where $R_1,R_2$ are defined in (\[theorem\_conditions\]), $R_0$ is defined in (\[result123\_2\]) and $f(\cdot), R_c$ are defined in Result \[result6\_gcom14\].
[*Proof*]{}: Since $R > \max(R_0 ,f(R_c))$, from (\[zeta\_large\_R\_eqn\_f\]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cor4_1}
\frac{1}{\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize zf}}}^{\prime\prime}(\Theta)} & < & \frac{5 (\rho_r + \rho_d) }{\log_2{\Big (} 1 + \frac{R}{R_c} (2^{R_c} - 1) {\Big )}}.\end{aligned}$$ Further since $R > \frac{R_c \, {\Big (} 32^{\frac{(\rho_r + \rho_d)}{\rho_d}} - 1 {\Big )}}{(2^{R_c} - 1)}$ (see (\[cor\_conds\])), using simple algebraic manipulations we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cor4_2}
\frac{5 (\rho_r + \rho_d) }{\log_2{\Big (} 1 + \frac{R}{R_c} (2^{R_c} - 1) {\Big )}} & < & \rho_d
\ < \rho_d + \frac{\rho_r}{R} + \frac{\rho_s}{R}.\end{aligned}$$ Combining (\[cor4\_1\]) and (\[cor4\_2\]) we get $(1/\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize zf}}}^{\prime\prime}(\Theta)) < \rho_d + \frac{\rho_r}{R} + \frac{\rho_s}{R}$ for all $R$ satisfying (\[cor\_conds\]). Using this fact along with Theorem \[theorem3\_gcom14\] completes the proof. $\hfill\blacksquare$
\[remark\_23\] In the following we explain the observation made in Corollary \[cor\_22\]. Comparing (\[eqn\_12\_mrc\]) and (\[eqn\_12\_zf\]) for the same $(M,K,\Theta)$ we see that the only difference in the energy efficiency of the ZF and the MRC receivers is due to the difference in the power consumed by the PAs in the UTs. In the large $R$ regime, for a fixed $(R,M,K)$ the power required to be radiated by each UT is higher in the case of the MRC receiver, since unlike the ZF receiver, the MRC receiver does not cancel multiuser interference (which reduces its post-combining signal-to-noise-and-interference ratio). Comparing (\[eqn\_12\_mrc\]) and (\[eqn\_12\_zf\]) it is clear that for the same $(R,M,K)$ the ZF receiver has an array gain higher than that of the MRC receiver by $(K - 1)(2^{R/K} - 2)$. For the MRC receiver to have the same array gain as that of the ZF receiver, one possibility is to increase $M$ by $(K - 1)(2^{R/K} - 2)$ in the case of the MRC receiver. However this will lead to an increase in the power consumed by the BS hardware (i.e., see the $M \rho_r$ term in (\[eqn\_12\_mrc\])).
With sufficiently large $R$, this extra increase of $(K - 1)(2^{R/K} - 2) \rho_r$ in the power consumed by the BS hardware can be seen as the last term in the expression for the total system power consumed in the R.H.S. of (\[grk\_new\]). From (\[zeta\_zf\_svar\]) it is clear that the sum of the first three terms in the R.H.S. of (\[grk\_new\]) corresponds to the total system power consumed when a ZF receiver is used at the BS.
Numerical results {#sec_sim}
=================
In Fig. \[fig\_0\] we numerically compute and plot the energy efficiency as a function of increasing spectral efficiency for fixed $\alpha=2$ and $\rho_r = \rho_d = \rho_s = 10^3$. The energy efficiency of both the MRC and the ZF receivers is plotted. We plot both the optimal energy efficiency ($\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\star}(\Theta) , \zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize zf}}}^{\star}(\Theta)$) and its approximation ($\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\prime\prime}(\Theta) , \zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize zf}}}^{\prime\prime}(\Theta)$). As stated earlier, it is observed that the approximation to the optimal energy efficiency is tight at sufficiently large $R$ for both the MRC and the ZF receivers. It is also observed that the optimal energy efficiency of the MRC receiver is strictly less than that of the ZF receiver for large $R$. This confirms the conclusion made in Corollary \[cor\_22\] (see (\[cor\_ineq\])) and Remark \[remark\_23\]. From Fig. \[fig\_0\] we also observe that for a fixed $(\alpha, \rho_r, \rho_d, \rho_s)$ the optimal energy efficiency of the MRC receiver converges to a constant value as $R \rightarrow \infty$ (see the paragraph after Remark \[remark\_77\] in Section \[largeR\_sec\]).
In Fig. \[fig\_13\] we plot the fraction of the total system power consumed by the PAs in the UTs as a function of increasing $R$ for a fixed $\rho_r = \rho_d = \rho_s$ and $\alpha = 2$. For each $R$, we numerically compute the optimal energy efficiency $\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\star}(\Theta)$ and the corresponding optimal $(M,K)$. With this optimal $(M,K) = (M_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\star}(\Theta) \,,\, K_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\star}(\Theta))$, the fraction of the total system power consumed by the PAs in the UTs is given by $\frac {K \alpha \gamma_{mrc}}{ K \alpha \gamma_{mrc} + M \rho_r + K \rho_d + \rho_s}$ (follows from (\[eqn\_12\_mrc\])). In Fig. \[fig\_13\] it is seen that with increasing $R$ most of the total system power is consumed by the transmitter circuitry in the UTs and the BS. This shows that in the large $R$ regime, the optimal energy efficiency is [*limited*]{} by the power consumed in the BS and the transmitter circuitry in the UTs (except the PAs). This observation is also conjectured in Remark \[remark\_77\] in Section \[largeR\_sec\].
In Fig. \[fig\_19\] we plot the optimal number of UTs $K_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\star}(\Theta)$ and the optimal number of BS antennas $M_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\star}(\Theta)$ as a function of increasing $R$ for a fixed $\rho_r = \rho_d = \rho_s = 10^3$ and a fixed $\alpha = 2$. It is observed that the optimal number of UTs and BS antennas increases with $R$. We also plot the ratio between the optimal energy efficiency and its approximation (i.e., $\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\star}(\Theta)/\zeta_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\prime\prime}(\Theta)$). It is observed that the approximation to the optimal energy efficiency is tight when $K_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\star}(\Theta) \gg 1$ and $M_{_{\mbox{\footnotesize mrc}}}^{\star}(\Theta) \gg 1$.
[1]{} F. Rusek, D. Persson, B. K. Lau, E. G. Larsson, O. Edfors, F. Tufvesson and T. L. Marzetta, “Scaling up MIMO: opportunities and challenges with very large arrays,” [*IEEE Signal Processing Magazine*]{}, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 40-46, Jan. 2013. E. G. Larsson, F. Tufvesson, O. Edfors and T. L. Marzetta, “Massive MIMO for next generation wireless systems,” [*IEEE Communications Magazine*]{}, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 186-195, Feb. 2014. T. L. Marzetta, “Noncooperative cellular wireless with unlimited number of base station antennas,” [*IEEE Trans. on Wireless Communications*]{}, vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 3590-3600, Nov. 2010. H. Q. Ngo, E. G. Larsson and T. L. Marzetta, “Energy and spectral efficiency of very large multiuser MIMO systems,” [*IEEE Trans. on Communications*]{}, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 1436-1449, April 2013. Y. Chen, S. Zhang, S. Xu and G. Li, “Fundamental trade-offs on green wireless networks,” [*IEEE Communications Magazine*]{}, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 30-37, 2011. S. K. Mohammed, “Impact of transceiver power consumption on the energy efficiency spectral efficiency trade-off of Zero-Forcing detector in massive MIMO Systems,” [submitted to IEEE Transactions on Communications]{}, Jan. 2014. arXiv:1401.4907 \[cs.IT\] D. Ha, K. Lee and J. Kang, “Energy efficiency analysis with circuit power consumption in massive MIMO systems,” [*Proc. of the 24th IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC’ 2013)*]{}. E. Bj[ö]{}rnson, L. Sanguinetti, J. Hoydis and M. Debbah, “Designing multiuser MIMO for energy efficiency: When is massive MIMO the answer ?,” [*IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC’ 2014)*]{}. T. H. Lee, [*The Design of CMOS Radio-Frequency Integrated Circuits*]{}, Cambridge University Press, second edition, 2003. A. Y. Wang and C. G. Sodini, “On the energy efficiency of wireless transceivers,” [*in Proc. IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC’06)*]{}, pp. 3783-3788, June 2006. A. Mezghani and J. A. Nossek, “Modeling and minimization of transceiver power consumption in wireless networks,” [in Proc. International Workshop on Smart Antennas (WSA’ 2011)]{}, Feb. 2011. A-J. Annema, et. al., “Analog circuits in ultra-deep submicron CMOS,” [*IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits*]{}, vol. 40, no. 1, Jan. 2005.
[^1]: Saif Khan Mohammed is also associated with the Bharti School of Telecommunication Technology and Management (BSTTM), I.I.T. Delhi. This work was supported by the Extra-Mural Research Grant from the Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB), Department of Science and Technology (DST), Government of India.
[^2]:
[^3]:
[^4]:
[^5]:
[^6]:
[^7]:
[^8]:
[^9]:
[^10]:
[^11]:
[^12]:
[^13]:
[^14]:
[^15]:
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '[ The rotational Doppler shift of a photon with orbital angular momentum $\pm \ell \hbar$ is shown to be an even multiple of the angular frequency $\Omega$ of the reference frame rotation when photon is reflected from the phase-conjugating mirror. The one-arm phase-conjugating interferometer is considered. It contains $N$ Dove prisms or other angular momentum altering elements rotating in opposite directions. When such interferometer is placed in the rotating vehicle the $\delta \omega=4 (N+1/2) \ell \cdot \Omega$ rotational Doppler shift appears and rotation of the helical interference pattern with angular frequency $\delta \omega /{2 \ell}$ occurs. The accumulation of angular Doppler shift via successive passages through the $N$ image-inverting prisms is due to the phase conjugation, for conventional parabolic retroreflector the accumulation is absent. The features of such a vortex phase conjugating interferometry at the single photon level are discussed.]{}'
author:
- 'A.Yu.Okulov'
date: ' April 12, 2011'
title: 'Rotational Doppler shift of the phase-conjugated photon.'
---
Introduction.
=============
Single photon interferometry utilizes the superposition of a mutually coherent (phase-locked) quantum states $\Psi_j$ [@Scully:1997] to whom photon belongs simultaneously. The interference pattern depends on a method of $\Psi_j$ preparation. The double-slit Young interferometer creates two free-space wavefunctions $\Psi_1$,$\Psi_2$, whose interference pattern produced by detection of the individual photons is recorded by an array of detectors or a photographic plate located in the near or far field. In Mach-Zehnder configuration [@Barnett:2002; @Soskin:2008] two wavefunctions separated by entrance beamsplitter recombine at the output beamsplitter. The Michelson interferometer recombines at the input beamsplitter two $retroflected$ quantum states provided these states are phase-locked and their path difference $\delta L$ is smaller than the coherence length $L_{c}$. Thus interference pattern is simply $\sim [1+{\it V(\delta L)}\cdot \cos(2 k \cdot \delta L)]$, where $V(\delta L)$ is a visibility or second-order correlation function and $k=2 \pi / \lambda$. When retroflection is accompanied by wavefront reversal (PC) realized with phase-conjugating mirrors (PCM) [@Boyd:2007] based upon Stimulated Brillouin scattering [@Zeldovich:1985; @Basov:1980], photorefractivity [@Woerdemann:2009; @Mamaev:1996] or holographic PCM’s, the optical path $\delta L$ difference is almost entirely compensated due to PC. Noteworthy the small phase lag due to the relatively small frequency shift $\delta \omega =\omega_f - \omega_b$ arising due to the excitation of internal waves inside PCM volume [@Okulov:2008], where $\omega_f$ and $\omega_b$ are the carrier frequencies of incident and PC-reflected photon respectively. This leads to the interference term $1+{\it V}(\delta L)\cdot \cos(\delta k \cdot \delta L)$, where $\delta k=\delta \omega /c$ [@Basov:1980].
We study the photon in the optical vortex quantum state [@Barnett:2002; @Soskin:2008] with topological charge $\ell$, where the angular momentum $L_z=\pm \ell \cdot \hbar$ is due to the phase singularity located at propagation axis $Z$ (hereafter the spin component of angular momentum [@Beth:1936] is supposed to be zero due to the linear polarization). It is convinient to use the single-photon wavefunctions which coincide with the positive frequency component of the electric field envelope $ {\bf |\Psi}>= {\sqrt {2\epsilon_0}} \cdot { E(t,\vec r)}$ [@Sipe:1995]. The square modulus of $\Psi$ is proportional to the energy density of the $continuous$ $wave$ laser beams (CW) and to the photons count rate in a different fringes of the interference pattern for the single-photon experiments [@Kapon:2004]. We will assume $\Psi$ to have the form of the Laguerre-Gaussian beam (LG) with $\ell \hbar$ orbital angular momentum (OAM) per photon [@Okulov:2008] but any other isolated vortex solutions, e.g. Bessel vortices [@Eberly:1987; @Sepulveda:2009] will demonstrate the same final results: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pump1}
{{\bf \Psi}_{(f,b)}(z,r,\theta,t)}
\sim \sqrt{2\epsilon_0} \cdot
{\frac { \exp [ i( -\omega_{(f,b)}t
\pm k_{(f,b)} z) \pm i{\ell}\theta ]}
{ {(1{+}iz/z_R)}} }
&& \nonumber \\
{{\ E}_{(f,b)}}{({r}/{D_0})^{|\ell|}}
\exp [ -
{\frac {r^2}{{D_0}^2(1{+}iz/z_R)}} ],
z_R=k_{(f,b)} {D_0}^2{\:} {\:} \end{aligned}$$ where the cylindrical coordinates $(z,r,\theta)$ are used, $D_0$ is the vortex radius, $z_R$ is Rayleigh range, $\Psi_f, E_f$ stands for the forward wave, propagating in positive Z-direction, $\Psi_b, E_b$ stands for the wave, propagating in the negative one. Of special interest is the sub-$Hz$ - order angular frequency splitting $\delta \omega=c (k_f - k_b) $ which appears due to the slow mechanical rotation of the setup [@Soskin:2008; @Dholakia:2002]. It was already shown that rotation of the $\lambda/2$ waveplate with angular frequency $\Omega \sim 2\pi (1-100) rad/s$ in a one arm of the Mach-Zehnder interferometer induces the rotational Doppler shift (RDS) $\delta \omega=2 \Omega \ell$ for circularily polarized broadband CW with linewidth $\Delta \omega /2 \pi \simeq 10^{10} Hz$. In this configuration the broadband spectrum was shifted $as$ $a$ $whole$ via mechanical rotation (by angular Doppler effect) at $\delta \omega / 2 \pi=\pm 2 \cdot 7 Hz$ and the beats at the output mirror induced an appropriate rotation of the interference pattern [@Dholakia:2002D].
Phase-conjugating mirror in a rest frame.
=========================================
Let us consider first the single-arm phase-conjugating vortex interferometer (PCVI) when PC-mirror is in the rest frame. Due to the reflection from PCM the helical photon with a $linear$ polarization proves to be in a superposition of the two counter propagating quantum states $\Psi_{f,b}$ (fig.\[fig.1\]). Currently the best candidate for the $ideal$ single-photon PCM is a thick hologram written with sufficiently high diffraction efficiency ($R \sim 0.9$) for the $\ell$ - charged optical vortex [@Soskin:2008; @Volostnikov:1989; @Felde:2008]. In such a case the amplitudes of forward and backward fields are close to each other and visibility of the interference pattern $V(\delta L)$ is close to 1, provided that coherence length $L_c \sim 2\pi c/ \Delta \omega$ is bigger than the doubled length of PCVI.
[![(Color online)Additivity of RDS for the PCM-reflected photon in the $rest$ $frame$. Rotation of the Dove prism (positive $\Omega$) decreases frequency to $-2 \ell \cdot \Omega$ of the co-rotating incident photon with $L_z=+ \ell \hbar$. Reflection from PCM alters $L_z$ projection to the opposite one and clockwise rotation of Dove prism (as seen to backward photon) again decreases the frequency of co-rotating photon to $-2 \ell \cdot \Omega$. Helical interference pattern is static between prism and PCM (where $\delta \omega = 0$) and rotates $before$ prism with angular velocity $\delta \omega =-2 \Omega$.[]{data-label="fig.1"}](fig1_RDS_PCM_okulov.eps "fig:"){width="0.99\linewidth"}]{}
The $ideal$ PCM ensures the perfect coincidence of the helical phase surfaces of the counter propagating optical vortices $\Psi_{f,b}$ and zeros of their electric field amplitudes on $Z$ axis. In contrast to the speckle fields whose interference pattern is composed of intertwined Archimedean screws [@Okulov:2009] in PCVI the isolated Archimedean screw pattern appears both for the $single$ photon with LG wavefunction and for CW resulting in the intensity profile $I_{tw}$ composed of $2 \ell$ twisted $fringes$ [@Woerdemann:2009; @Bhattacharya:2007; @Okulov:2010josa]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Archimedean_inter_patt}
z'=z-z_{pc},{|\Psi |^2}={|\Psi_f + \Psi_b |^2}\sim
{I_{_{tw}}}{(z',r,\theta,t )} =
{\:}{\:}{\:}{\:}{\:}{\:}{\:}{\:}{\:}{\:}
&& \nonumber \\
{\frac {2 {\epsilon_{_0} c}|{{E}_{(f,b)}}|^2
{2^{(|\ell| +1)}}{({r}/{D_0})^{2|\ell|}}}
{\pi {\ell !}{D_0}^2 { (1+{z'}^2/{z_R}^2) }}}\cdot
{\exp[-{\frac {2 r^2}{{D_0}^2(1+{z'}^2/{z_R}^2)}}]}
&& \nonumber \\
{[ 1 +R^2+ {\:}2R \cdot
\cos[\delta \omega \cdot t - (k_f+k_b) z' +
{2\ell}{\:}\theta ]]}, {\:}{\:}{\:}{\:}{\:}{\:}\end{aligned}$$ where $z_{pc}$ is location of PCM entrance window. The angular speed of pattern rotation $\dot \theta=\delta \omega /2 \ell$ is given by the differentiation of the self similar argument $2 \theta(t) \cdot \ell +
\delta \omega \cdot t - (k_f + k_b)z'{\:}{\:}$[@Dholakia:2002D] vs time $t$. Consider the origin of RDS $\delta \omega $ [@Garetz:1981; @Birula:1997; @Soskin:2008; @Padgett:1998] for the photon with topological charge $\ell$ after the double passage through a Dove prism rotating with angular velocity $\vec \Omega$ and reflection from PCM. OAM projection on propagation axis $Z$ is $<\Psi_{f,b}|\hat L_z|\Psi_{f,b}>=\pm \ell \hbar$, where $\hat L_z= - i\hbar \cdot \partial / \partial \theta$.
The RDS occurs because the optical torque on a slowly rotating element changes the angular momentum of the prism [@Okulov:2008; @Beth:1936]. In its turn this changes the prism’s angular velocity $\vec \Omega$ and such a change requires the energy supply. Because typical optical elements including prisms are macroscopic classical objects having the $continuous$ $spectrum$ of energies, in such case the energy $\hbar \omega_{f,b}$ hence the frequency of the photon may be changed continuously [@Dholakia:2002D].
Noteworthy that without PCM the rotation of Dove prism with respect to the other components of the optical setup would be highly sensitive to misalignments and this would require a very accurate tuning [@Soskin:2008]. The phase conjugation facilitates the adjustments and provides interference pattern with good visibility [@Basov:1980].
[![(Color online)Mutual cancellation of RDS for retroreflected photon. Rotation of the Dove prism again decreases frequency of the co-rotating forward photon with $L_z=+ \ell \hbar$ by $-2 \ell \cdot \Omega$. In backward propagation the Dove prism is counter rotating with respect to photon. Backward RDS is positive thus resulting $\delta \omega$ is zero hence toroidal interference pattern is static for all $Z$.[]{data-label="fig.2"}](fig2_RDS_PCM_okulov.eps "fig:"){width="0.99\linewidth"}]{}
In the following phase-conjugating optical interferometer the photon’s OAM direction is altered as well [@Pepper:1980; @Okulov:2008] (fig.\[fig.1\]). Let the optical vortex $E_{f}(t,\vec r)$ of charge $\ell$ to pass through a rotating Dove prism and to be reflected with $E_{b}(t,\vec r)$ from a some $ideal$ (PCM). The non-rotating PCM is supposed to produce $no$ frequency shift as it happens in some cases in photorefractive crystals [@Woerdemann:2009; @Mamaev:1996], degenerate four-wave mixing [@Pepper:1980; @Zeldovich:1985], and holographic PC couplers [@Soskin:2008; @Volostnikov:1989]. Noteworthy that a small $10^{-1}-10 Hz$ frequency shifts in $BaTiO_3$ photorefractive PCM may mask the RDS. These additional frequency shifts due to slow internal charge waves and filamentation effects were reported in early 1980’s yet [@Fisher:1988; @Fischer:1986].
Because space is homogeneous and isotropic the conservation of energy, momentum and angular momentum is expected [@Pitaevskii:1982]. Reproducing the Dholakia’s symmetry arguments [@Dholakia:2002D] adapted to the current case we have the following conservation laws for the angular momenta $L_z$ with respect to $z-axis$ and the energies of the incident photons and those transmitted through the Dove prism, when the latter rotates with the angular velocity $\vec \Omega$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label {ang_moment_conserv_photon}
I_{zz} \cdot \Omega + L_z =
I_{zz} \cdot {\Omega}^{'} + L_z^{'}
&& \nonumber \\
\hbar \omega_f + \frac {I_{zz}\Omega^2}{2}=
\hbar \omega^{'} + \frac {I_{zz}{\Omega^{'}}^2}{2},\end{aligned}$$ where $I_{zz}$ is the moment of inertia around $Z$-axis, left hand sides of this system correspond to the incident photon and the right hand sides correspond to the transmitted one. The co-rotation of the prism and the photon corresponds to the same sign of projections ($\Omega, \Omega^{'}$) of $\vec \Omega$ and $L_z$ on z-axis before and after the photon’s passage. For the incident $L_z=+\ell \hbar$ and passed $L_z^{'}=-\ell \hbar$ the eq. (\[ang\_moment\_conserv\_photon\]) gives the difference of the angular velocities of the prism before and after the photon passage: $$\label {ang_velocity_change}
\Omega - {\Omega}^{'} =- \frac {2 \ell \cdot \hbar}{I_{zz}}.$$
This means that co-rotation increases the angular velocity of prism, because the energy is transmitted to prism by a virtue of the optical torque $|\vec T|=2 \ell \cdot P/{\omega_f}$, where $P$ is total power carried by LG [@Soskin:2008] hence Doppler frequency shift for the photon $\omega^{'}- \omega_f$ is negative: $$\label {freq_shift_photon}
\delta \omega = \omega^{'}- \omega_f = \frac {I_{zz}}{2 \hbar}
(\Omega-\Omega^{'})(\Omega^{'}+\Omega)=
-2 \ell \cdot \Omega - \frac{2\ell \cdot \hbar}{I_{zz}}.$$ Obviously in the counter rotating case, when projections of $\vec \Omega$ and $L_z$ are in the opposite directions, the rotational Doppler shift is positive. The net RDS during total forward-backward passage is additive due to PCM and this results in the net OAM change $\delta \omega = \pm 4 \ell \cdot \Omega$. The interference pattern and RDS will be the same for all PC-mirrors close to an ideal one, including just proposed $linear$ $loop$ PCM, which uses flat optical surfaces without any holographic element [@Okulov:2010josa]. The frequency shift $\delta \omega$ is zero in between Dove prism and PCM and helical pattern is static there. In the region before Dove prism, the frequency shift causes the clockwise ($\delta \omega= - 4 \ell \cdot \Omega$) or counterclockwise ($\delta \omega= + 4 \ell \cdot \Omega$) rotation of optical helix pattern [@Okulov:2008]. As stated before (\[Archimedean\_inter\_patt\]) the angular speed of the optical helix rotation $\dot \theta = \pm 2 \Omega$ is smaller than $\delta \omega$.
Because of the angular momentum conservation the PCM feels the $rotational$ $recoil$ which is proportional to topological charge $\ell$: $|\vec T_{pc}|= \ell \cdot P(\omega_f^{-1}+\omega_b^{-1})$. The Dove prism feels doubled torque : $|\vec T_{Dove}|= 2\ell \cdot P(\omega_f^{-1}+\omega_b^{-1})$. Note that Lebedev radiation pressure force is always directed in positive $Z$ direction and $|\vec F_{pc}|=2\cdot P/c$ is independent of $\ell$ [@Lebedev:1901].
In the absence of the truly phase-conjugating mirror when the forward beam is retroreflected by spherical mirror (fig.\[fig.2\]) without altering the angular momentum the interference pattern is a toroidal one $I_{tor}$ [@Rempe:2007; @Okulov:2008; @Woerdemann:2009; @Sepulveda:2009]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{inter_patt4}
{|\Psi |^2}={|\Psi_f + \Psi_b |^2}\sim
{I_{_{tor}}}{(z',r,\theta,t )}=
{\:}{\:}{\:}{\:}{\:}{\:}{\:}{\:}{\:}{\:}
&& \nonumber \\
{\frac {2 {\epsilon_{_0} c}|{{E}_{(f,b)}}|^2
{2^{(|\ell| +1)}}{({r}/{D_0})^{2|\ell|}}}
{\pi {\ell !}{D_0}^2 { (1+{z'}^2/{z_R}^2) }}}\cdot
{\exp[-{\frac {2 r^2}{{D_0}^2(1+{z'}^2/{z_R}^2)}}]}
&& \nonumber \\
{[ 1 +R^2+ {\:}2R \cdot
\cos[\delta \omega \cdot t-(k_f+k_b) z']]}
{\:}.{\:}{\:}{\:}{\:}\end{aligned}$$ The RDS is not accumulated here (the Doppler shifts for the forward and backward photons cancel each other $\delta \omega=0$) because the truly phase-conjugation is absent hence toroidal interference pattern is static. The mechanical torques on prism $\vec T$ induced by OAM alternation will cancel each other too: $|\vec T|=2 \ell\cdot P(\omega_f^{-1}-\omega_b^{-1})\cong 0$.
Phase-conjugating mirror in a rotating frame.
=============================================
The more fundamental case is a rotation of the all setup as a whole around a some axis and this general case is relevant to the detection of the slow rotations of the reference frame [@Scully:1997]. In contrast to Sagnac interferometer where frequency splitting and running interference pattern appears in active loop only the PCVI produces frequency splitting $\delta \omega$ even in the passive configuration (fig.\[fig.3\]). Apparently the RDS $\delta \omega$ will be the same when CW laser is placed in both inertial (rest) frame and in the noninertial frame associated with rotating vehicle. For the simplest case when the sole PCM rotates around propagation axis $Z$ of a twisted photon with charge $\ell$ the RDS appears due to the alternation of the photon’s OAM. The eqs. (\[ang\_moment\_conserv\_photon\]) give again the frequency shift $\delta \omega = \omega_b - \omega_f$ due to the reflection from rotating PCM:
[![(Color online)Additivity of RDS in PCVI inside rotating vehicle. PC-mirror counter rotating around $Z$-axis changes the carrier frequency of reflected photon to $\delta \omega=\pm 2 \ell \cdot \Omega$. The sign of $\delta \omega$ is positive when optical torque $\vec T$ produced by a bunch of the rotating photons upon mirror has the opposite direction compared to the rotation frequency of PCM $\vec \Omega$. When Dove prism rotates in opposite direction vs PCM the net RDS reaches six-fold value $\delta \omega=\pm 6 \ell \cdot \Omega$ due to the additional OAM alternation. The sequence of $N$ counter rotating OAM altering elements (including helical waveplates and cylindrical lenses) will produce net RDS of $\delta \omega=4\ell\cdot \Omega (N+1/2)$ value. $|\Psi_{1,2,3,4}>$ designates antibunching of photons, which belongs to the $two$ (for $\ell=1$) helical wavefunctions, separated by $\lambda/2$ interval, deflected by entrance beamsplitter BS [@Woerdemann:2009].[]{data-label="fig.3"}](fig3_RDS_PCM_okulov.eps "fig:"){width="1.0\linewidth"}]{}
$$\label {freq_shift_photon_PC_rot}
\delta \omega = \omega_b - \omega_f = \pm
2 \ell \cdot \Omega + \frac{2 \ell \cdot \hbar}{(I_{zz})_{PCM}}.$$
The second term in the right-hand side of (\[freq\_shift\_photon\_PC\_rot\]) is negligible for typical masses ($m \sim g$) and sizes ($r \sim cm$) of a prisms and mirrors $\hbar /I_{zz} \sim \hbar / (m \cdot r^{-2}) \cong 10^{-27} Hz$. as in Beth’s [@Beth:1936] and Dholakia’s [@Dholakia:2002D] experiments for the interaction of circularily polarized photons with the macroscopic object (half-wavelength plate).
The angular speed of rotation of the interference pattern proves to be $\dot \theta = \delta \omega / 2 \ell= \Omega $ thus the pattern rotates synchronously with the reference frame. Consequently the sole PCM cannot detect frame rotation. The helical interference pattern outside PCM will be dragged by helical diffraction grating [@Okulov:2008] within the phase-conjugating mirror. No atomic coherence [@Boyd:2011] is required in our case.
Nevertheless there exists a possibility to accumulate the RDS by means of a chain of OAM alternating elements. To achieve the accumulation of RDS the adjacent components of PCVI must rotate in opposite directions $\vec \Omega_n=(-1)^n \vec \Omega$, where $n=0$ stands for PCM, $n=1$ for the adjacent Dove prism to PCM, $n=N$ for the last Dove prism(DP) near BS. This is necessary because OAM is altered after the passage of the Dove prism and the mutual orientation of the angular momenta of the photon and the next prism should be maintained throughout the chain. When $even$ elements (the PCM itself and N/2 Dove prisms) of PCVI are fixed in $\vec \Omega$ rotating frame and the rest N/2 $odd$ elements ought to rotate there with angular velocity $- 2 \vec \Omega$. The chain of the $N$ rotating OAM-alternating elements will produce the net rotational Doppler shift amounting to $\delta \omega=4\ell\cdot \Omega (N+1/2)$. Thus PCVI interference pattern (fig.\[fig.3\]) will revolve with enhanced angular speed $\dot \theta$ of the frame rotation by the factor $\dot \theta = \pm 2 \cdot (N+1/2) \cdot \Omega $.
For example PCVI (fig.\[fig.3\]) may be used for demonstration of the possibility of detection of the sub-Hertzian rotation of the reference frame with the Earth $(\Omega_{\oplus} \sim 2\pi/{86400})$. The helical interference pattern will rotate much faster than Earth itself. Namely the equation $4 \ell \cdot (N+1/2)=24$ [@Dholakia:2002D] have the only one solution for integer $\ell, N$ ($\ell=4,N=1$). Hence the optical vortex with charge $\ell=4$ passed through single Dove prism rotating with $\vec \Omega_{\oplus}$ and PCM rotating in opposite direction $-\vec \Omega_{\oplus}$ will produce the $2 \cdot \ell$ spots of interference pattern. The reflection from entrance beamsplitter BS will cause one pass per hour of the spot of interference pattern across the detector window, despite the Earth rotates once in 24 hours only.
The further accumulation of RDS in PCVI might be achieved due to installing the $N=60$ counter rotating image-inverting elements and $\ell=6$ optical vortex. In such configuration the $2 \cdot \ell$ helices of interference pattern eq.(\[Archimedean\_inter\_patt\]) will produce $2 \ell$ spots at the PCVI output (entrance beamsplitter BS) with a one pass through detector window within approximately each 60 seconds. For this purpose the even components (PCM and N/2 Dove prisms) may be fixed at setup rotating with velocity $\vec \Omega_{\oplus}$ while the others N/2 prism should rotate with “bias” angular velocity $-2 \vec \Omega_{\oplus}$ with respect to rotating setup (rotating table). This enhancement will model the detection Earth rotation, and this will alter the $ \ell \hbar$ OAM of the $each$ photon 121 times during one passage through PCVI. Noteworthy the Dove prism is not the sole element capable to alter the photon’s OAM. This can be done as well with helical waveplates and cylindrical lenses [@Volostnikov:1989; @Allen:1992]. The helical interference pattern within PCVI might also be written by means of atomic coherence effects in a solid-state resonant medium [@Boyd:2011].
Single-photon operation of the phase-conjugating vortex interferometer.
=======================================================================
The single-photon operation [@Kapon:2004] is based upon the superposition of the forward and backward quantum states with $\ell \hbar$ OAM: $$\label {wavefunction}
|\Psi>_{helix} = {\frac {1}{\sqrt {2}}}
( |\Psi_{\pm \ell \hbar}>_f+|\Psi_{\mp \ell \hbar}>_b)=
{\frac {1}{\sqrt {2 \ell}}}{\sum_{j_{h}}}{|\Psi_{j_{h}}>}.$$ The detection of this superposition is not a trivial two-detector procedure, because the interference pattern is composed of $2\ell$ twisted helices $|\Psi_{j_{h}}>$. The entrance beamsplitter BS will reflect both upward and downward the interference pattern [@Woerdemann:2009; @Okulov:2008] composed of the $2 \ell$ spots located on an ellipse, rather than independent forward $|\Psi_{\pm \ell \hbar}>_f$ and backward $|\Psi_{\mp \ell \hbar}>_b$ photon states. For the simplest case $\ell=1$ the photon will be in the superposition state of the two $helical$ wavefunctions designated by appropriate colors at fig.(\[fig.3\]): $$\label {wavefunction_helix}
|\Psi>_{helix} = {\frac {1}{\sqrt {2}}}( |\Psi_{Blue}> +|\Psi_{Yellow}>).$$ This means that two detectors (for $|\Psi_{1}>$ and $|\Psi_{2}>$) placed above the entrance beamsplitter BS [@Woerdemann:2009] and two detectors located below BS (for $|\Psi_{3}>$ and $|\Psi_{4}>$) can indicate the $antibunching$ of the photons [@Scully:1997], belonging to either of the two helices composing the interference pattern. As in a double-slit Young interference experiment the crude attempt of the eavesdropping the $which$ $way$ photon moves (the forward or backward one) will destroy the helical interference pattern. On the other hand when single-photon quantum state is prepared as a toroidal pattern (fig.\[fig.2\]) the photon belongs to the sequence of the equidistantly spaced toroidal Wannier wavefunctions $|\Psi_{j_{tor}}>$ separated by $\lambda /2$ intervals: $$\label {wavefunction_toroidal}
|\Psi>_{tor} =
{\frac {1}{\sqrt {2}}}
( |\Psi_{\pm \ell \hbar}>_f+|\Psi_{\pm \ell \hbar}>_b)=
{\frac {1}{\sqrt {N_{tor}}}}{\sum_{j_{tor}}}{ \Psi_{j_{tor}}}.$$
Conclusion.
===========
In summary we analyzed the phase conjugating vortex interferometer for the both single photon [@Kapon:2004] and the $cw$ laser output. Because of the alignment of the all optical components along photon $Z$ propagation axis PCVI looks promising from the point of view of rotation sensing [@Scully:1997].
In PCVI the RDS $\delta \omega$ enhances the noninertial frame rotation $\vec \Omega$ by a factor of the even multiple of the photon’s topological charge $\ell$ and of the number of angular momentum inverting elements $N$ in PCVI chain. Noteworthy that in the proposed measurement of the Earth rotation $\delta \omega=\pm 4\ell\cdot (N+1/2) \Omega_{\oplus} \cos(\phi)$ will show dependence on geographical latitude $\phi$ as it known for the Foucault pendulum [@Foucault:1852]: on the poles $\delta \omega$ will be equal to the maximum value when the angle $\phi$ between normal and PCVI axis is $0$ or $\pi$, while at equator $\delta \omega$ might reach maximum value when PCVI axis is parallel to the Earth rotation axis. The preliminary analysis have shown that the laser linewidth of the order $\Delta \omega / 2 \pi \sim 10^3 Hz$ might be sufficient for Earth rotation detection by PCVI (fig.\[fig.3\]). We hope to consider the above issues including $entanglement$ of the helical photons in PCVI due to mixing counter propagating photon vortex states via entrance beamspliter in a more details in the subsequent work [@Haus:1990].
[99]{}
,[*“Quantum optics”*]{}, Ch.4, (Cambridge University Press) (1997).
, “Measuring the Orbital Angular Momentum of a Single Photon,” [Phys.Rev.Lett.]{} [**88**]{}, 257901 (2002).
, [*“Paraxial Light Beams with Angular Momentum”,*]{} [Nova Science]{}(2008).
, [*“Nonlinear Optics”*]{}, [Academic Press]{} (2003).
, [*“Principles of Phase Conjugation”*]{}, (Berlin:Springer-Verlag)(1985).
, “Laser interferometer with wavefront reversing mirrors”, JETP, [**52**]{}, 847 (1980) .
“Self-pumped phase conjugation of light beams carrying orbital angular momentum,” [Opt. Express]{}, [**17**]{}, 22791 (2009).
A.V.Mamaev, M.Saffman and A.A.Zozulya, “Time dependent evolution of an optical vortex in photorefractive media,”[Phys.Rev.A,]{} [**56**]{}, R1713 (1997).
“Angular momentum of photons and phase conjugation,” J.Phys.B., [**41**]{}, 101001 (2008).
,“Mechanical detection and measurement of the angular momentum of light,” [Phys.Rev.]{}, [**50**]{}, 115(1936).
,“Photon wave functions,” [Phys.Rev.A]{}, [**52**]{}, 1875 (1995).
, “Single-Photon Emission from Site-Controlled Pyramidal Quantum Dots,” [Appl. Phys. Lett.]{} [**84**]{}, 648-650 (2004).
, “All-optical 3D atomic loops generated with Bessel light fields,” J.Phys.B., [**42**]{}, 085303 (2009).
“Diffraction-free beams,” [Phys.Rev.Lett.]{},[**58**]{}, 1499 (1987).
M. P. MacDonald, K. Volke-Sepulveda, L. Paterson, J. Arlt, W. Sibbett and K. Dholakia. [“Revolving interference patterns for the rotation of optically trapped particles”,]{} Opt.Comm.,[**201**]{}(1-3),21-28 (2002).
J. Arlt, M. MacDonald, L. Paterson, W. Sibbett,K. Volke-Sepulveda and K. Dholakia,[“Moving interference patterns created using the angular Doppler-effect,”]{} Opt. Express, [**10**]{}(19),844(2002).
, [“Spiral light beams,”]{} Phys.Usp., [**47**]{}, 1177(2004).
, “Comparative analysis of techniques for diagnostics of phase singularities,” [Ukr. J. Phys. Opt. ]{}, [**9**]{}, 82–90 (2008).
M.Bhattacharya,“Lattice with a twist: Helical waveguides for ultracold matter”, Opt.Commun. [**279**]{} (1), 219-222 (2007).
“Phase-conjugation of the isolated optical vortex using a flat surfaces,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B , [**27**]{},2424-2427 (2010).
“Twisted speckle entities inside wavefront reversal mirrors,”[Phys.Rev.A ]{}, [**80**]{}, 163907 (2009).
“Angular Doppler effect,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. [**71**]{},609(1981).
, “Rotational Frequency Shift,” [Phys.Rev.Lett.]{} [**78**]{}, 2539 (1997).
“Rotational Frequency Shift of a Light Beam,” [Phys.Rev.Lett.]{}, [**81**]{},4828(1998).
, “Analysis of orbital angular momentum of a misaligned optical beam,” New.J.Phys.,[**7**]{}, 46 (2005).
,[*“Phase conjugate optics”*]{}, Ph.D. Thesis, Caltech, p.37 (1980). (http:// thesis.library.caltech.edu/4044/1/ Pepper /dm/1980.pdf)
, “Observations of internal beam production in barium titanate phase conjugators” [JOSA B]{}, [**5**]{}, 1864 (1988).
, “Tunable frequency shift of photorefractive oscillators,” Opt. Lett., [**11**]{}, 165 (1986).
, *“Quantum Electrodynamics”*,[( Butterworth-Heineman, Oxford) [$\mathcal{x}$]{} 6,8]{} [(1982)]{}.
,“Experimental examination of the light pressure”, [Annalen der Physik]{}, [**6**]{}, 433(1901).
“Trapping and Observing Single Atoms in a Blue-Detuned Intracavity Dipole Trap,” [Phys.Rev.Lett.]{}, [**99**]{}, 013002 (2007).
“Rotary Photon Drag Enhanced by a Slow-Light Medium”,Science [**333**]{}, 6038 (2011).
“Orbital angular momentum of light and the transformation of Laguerre-Gaussian laser modes,” [Phys.Rev. A]{} [**45**]{},8185-8189 (1992).
L. Foucault, “D’emonstration physique du mouvent de rotation de la Terre, au moyen d’un pendule”, Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des seances de l’Academie des Sciences (Paris), vol. 35, p. 135-138 (1851).
“Quantum theory of the nonlinear interferometer,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B , [**6**]{},82-88 (1989).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In the framework of metric-free electrodynamics, we start with a [*linear*]{} spacetime relation between the excitation 2-form $H = ({\cal D},
{\cal H})$ and the field strength 2-form $F = ({E,B})$. This linear relation is constrained by the so-called closure relation. We solve this system algebraically and extend a previous analysis such as to include also singular solutions. Using the recently derived fourth order [*Fresnel*]{} equation describing the propagation of electromagnetic waves in a general [*linear*]{} medium, we find that for all solutions the fourth order surface reduces to a light cone. Therefrom we derive the corresponding metric up to a conformal factor.
author:
- |
Andreas Gross[^1] and Guillermo F. Rubilar[^2]\
\
Institute for Theoretical Physics\
University of Cologne\
D-50923 K[ö]{}ln, Germany
title: On the derivation of the spacetime metric from linear electrodynamics
---
PACS no.: *04.20.Cv, 03.50.De, 04.40.Nr*\
Keywords: *Electrodynamics, spacetime, metric-free, foundations, gravity, closure relation*
Introduction
============
Recently, a metric-free formulation of the classical electromagnetic theory and its axiomatics has been discussed by Hehl and Obukhov, see refs. [@metric1; @book]. The basic quantities in this formalism are the electromagnetic excitation 2-form $H$, directly related to the sources of the field, and the field strength 2-form $F$, describing the effects of the electromagnetic field on electrically charged test currents. The Lorentz force density $f_\alpha=(e_\alpha \rfloor F)\wedge J$ acts on test currents, were $J$ is the electric current 3-form. The $2$-forms $H$ and $F$ satisfy Maxwell’s equations, ${\rm d}H=J$, ${\rm d}F=0$. Field strength and excitations are not independent, but related by the so-called spacetime relation $H=H(F)$; see refs. [@book; @foundem; @post] for details.
The spacetime relation, expressing the properties of the underlying spacetime, will in particular determine the dynamical properties of the electromagnetic field. In this way, it is the analogous of the constitutive law, determining the the dynamical properties of the electromagnetic field *in material media*. The correspondence between electrodynamics in a gravitational field and in material media have been studied before, see for instance refs. [@gordon; @leonhardt].
Here we consider the case of a [*linear spacetime relation*]{}, where $H$ is proportional[^3] to $F$. In terms of coordinate components, the field strength will be denoted as $F=(1/2)\,F_{ij}\, {\rm d}x^i\wedge {\rm d}x^j$ and the excitation 2-form as $H=(1/2) \, H_{ij} \, {\rm d}x^i\wedge {\rm d}x^j$. Then, the most general linear spacetime relation can be written in terms of the [*electromagnetic spacetime tensor density*]{} $\chi^{ijkl}$ (of weight $+1$), as[^4] $$\label{dual}
H_{ij}=\frac{f}{4}\,\epsilon_{ijkl}\,\chi^{klmn}\,F_{mn},
\qquad i,j=0,1,2,3 \, ,\label{linear}$$ where $f$ is a dimensionfull scalar such that $\chi^{ijkl}$ is dimensionless. The spacetime tensor density has the following symmetries: $$\chi^{ijkl}=-\chi^{jikl}=-\chi^{ijlk}=\chi^{klij} \, .\label{symmchi}$$
Note that the above formalism is metric-independent. As a particular example, however, one can recall the case of the coupling of the electromagnetic field to gravity in Einstein’s theory, i.e. minimal coupling to the metric tensor $g_{ij}$. This corresponds to the following particular electromagnetic spacetime tensor density [@post], $$\label{chig}
\stackrel{\rm g}\chi{}^{ijkl}:=\sqrt{-g}\left( g^{ik}g^{jl}-
g^{jk}g^{il}\right) \, ,$$ which we do *not* assume to hold. Rather, we want to derive this equation from the linear ansatz (\[linear\]).
Closure relation
================
With the spacetime tensor available, we may define a duality operator $^\#$ acting on 2-forms by extending (\[dual\]) to any 2-form $\Theta=\frac{1}{2}\Theta_{ij} \, {\rm d}x^i\wedge{\rm d}x^j$ such that $$^{\#}\Theta:=\frac{1}{4}\, \epsilon_{ijkl} \, \chi^{klnm} \,
\Theta_{mn} \, {\rm d}x^i\wedge{\rm d}x^j \,.$$
In refs. [@metric1; @book; @metric] spacetime tensors satisfying a so-called [*closure relation*]{} have been studied, namely those with $$\label{cr1}
^{\#\#}=-1\, .$$ This additional condition can be motivated by considering the electric-magnetic reciprocity of the energy-momentum current[^5]. Indeed, the closure relation results from assuming (\[linear\]) to be electric-magnetic reciprocal, provided we choose $f$ such that $f^2\phi^2=1$. Note also that in the particular case (\[chig\]) this condition is only fulfilled for metrics with Lorentzian signature.
In order to find the solutions of (\[cr1\]), it is convenient to adopt a more compact [*bivector*]{} notation by defining the indices $I,J,\dots = 01, 02, 03, 23, 31, 12$. In this notation, $\chi^{ijkl}$ corresponds to a symmetric $6\times6$ matrix $\chi^{IJ}$ and the totally antisymmetric $\epsilon$-tensor density becomes $$\epsilon^{IJ}=\epsilon_{IJ}=
\left(\begin{array}{rr}
0_3&1_3\\
1_3&0_3
\end{array}\right)\,.$$ We define a new matrix $\kappa$ by $$\kappa_I{}^J:=\epsilon_{IK}\, \chi^{KJ}\,.\label{kappa}$$ As $\epsilon^{IK}\, \kappa_K{}^J=\chi^{IJ}$, any solution of the closure relation is given by a real $6\times 6$ matrix $\kappa$ fulfilling $$\label{cr2}
\kappa_I{}^K\, \kappa_K{}^J=-\delta_I^J \label{kappa2}\,,$$ provided $\epsilon^{IK} \kappa_K{}^J$ is symmetric.
We decompose the matrices $\chi^{IJ}$ and $\kappa_I{}^J$ into $3\times3$ block-matrices, $$\chi^{IJ}=\left(\begin{array}{rr}
A&C\\
C^T&B
\end{array}\right)\label{block}\,,\quad\qquad
\kappa_I{}^J=
\left(\begin{array}{rr}
C^T&B\\
A&C
\end{array}\right)\,,$$ with symmetric matrices $A$ and $B$, and $^T$ denotes matrix transposition.
Then the closure relation, (\[cr1\]) or (\[kappa2\]), translates into $$\begin{aligned}
C^2+AB&=&-1_3\,,\label{eins}\\
BC+C^TB&=&0_3\,,\label{zwei}\\
CA+AC^T&=&0_3\,.\label{drei}\end{aligned}$$
A consideration of the following disjoint subcases will provide the general solution of the closure relation: 1) $B$ regular, 2) $B$ singular, but $A$ regular, and 3) $A$ and $B$ singular.
Solutions of the closure relation
=================================
$B$ regular
-----------
We construct the general solution of (\[eins\])-(\[drei\]) for the case in which $\det B\neq 0$. Under these conditions (\[zwei\]) is solved by $$C=B^{-1}K\,, \quad K^T=-K \, ,\label{c1}$$ with an arbitrary antisymmetric matrix $K$. Using this solution for $C$, we rewrite (\[eins\]) as $$(B^{-1}K)^{2}+AB=-1_3 \, ,$$ so that the solution for $A$ is given by $$\label{a1}
A=-B^{-1}\left[1+(KB^{-1})^{2}\right] \, .$$ The symmetry of $A$, as assumed in (\[block\]), may easily be seen in eq. (\[symma\]) below.
A short calculation shows that the solutions (\[c1\]) and (\[a1\]) satisfy also (\[drei\]) identically: $$\begin{aligned}
CA+AC^T&=&(B^{-1}K)\left[-B^{-1}(1+(KB^{-1})^2)\right]\nonumber\\
&&+\left[-B^{-1}(1+(KB^{-1})^2)\right](-KB^{-1})\nonumber\\
&=&-B^{-1}KB^{-1}-B^{-1}KB^{-1}(KB^{-1})^2\nonumber\\
&&+B^{-1}KB^{-1}+B^{-1}(KB^{-1})^2KB^{-1}\nonumber\\
&=&0\,.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the solution of the closure relation can be written as $$\label{s1}
\chi^{IJ}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
-B^{-1}\left[1+(KB^{-1})^{2}\right]&B^{-1}K\\
-KB^{-1}&B
\end{array}
\right)\,,$$ provided $\det B \neq 0$. This solution consists of 9 independent parameters: 3 from the antisymmetric matrix $K$ and 6 from the nonsingular symmetric matrix $B$.
The solution previously found in ref. [@metric], eq. (14), is equivalent to ours, as a simple calculation using computer algebra shows $$\label{symm}
A=-B^{-1}(1+(KB^{-1})^{2})=pB^{-1}+qN \, ,\label{symma}$$ with $K=(K_{ab})=(\epsilon_{abc}k^c)$, $N=(N^{ab})=(k^ak^b)$, $q=-1/\det{B}$, and $p=-1+{\rm tr}(NB)/\det{B}$.
$B$ singular, $A$ regular
-------------------------
In this case (\[s1\]) is not valid, but one can find a solution following a similar procedure, now starting with an arbitrary non-singular matrix $A$. We solve (\[drei\]) with respect to $C$ and then use that result to solve (\[eins\]) with respect to $B$. In this way the solution can be found to be $$\chi^{IJ}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
A & L A^{-1}\\
-A^{-1}L & -A^{-1}\left[1+(LA^{-1})^{2}\right]
\end{array}
\right)\,.\label{s2}$$ Here $L$ is again an arbitrary antisymmetric matrix, with components $L=(L^{ab})$, $L^{ab}=: \epsilon^{abc} l_c$.
This solution has $8$ independent parameters: $3$ from the antisymmetric matrix $L$ and 6 from the nonsingular symmetric matrix $A$, fulfilling the constraint[^6] $\det{B}=0$. The constraint reads explicitly $$\det{B}=-\det{\left(A^{-1}\left[1+(LA^{-1})^{2}\right]
\right)}=0
\,,$$ or, equivalently, $\det (A) -A^{ab}l_a l_b=0$, as one finds after some algebra.
$A$ and $B$ singular
--------------------
Finally, we analyse the case in which both $\det B=0$ *and* $\det{A}=0$. For simplicity, we will work in the basis in which the symmetric matrix $B$ is diagonal. Since $B$ is singular, we can choose the basis such that $B_0={\rm diag} (0,b_{22},b_{33})$. After inserting this ansatz into equations (\[eins\])-(\[drei\]), one finds that at least one of the two eigenvalues of $B$ must vanish, otherwise there is no real solution. Furthermore, at least one of the eigenvalues of $B$ must be different from zero. Otherwise, if $B=0$, eq. (\[eins\]) would imply $C^2=-1_3$ which has no solution with a real $3\times 3$ matrix. Then, we choose the basis such that $B_0={\rm diag}
(0,0,b_{33})$, with $b_{33}\neq 0$. We denote the solution in this particular basis as $A_0,B_0$ and $C_0$. Using this form of the matrix $B$, one is able to find, after some algebra, that the equations (\[eins\])-(\[drei\]) admit the following [*four parameter*]{} solution: $$\label{a3}
A_0= \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
-c_{23}^2c_{12}^2b_{33}^{-1} & c_{13}c_{23}b_{33}^{-1} &
-c_{12}c_{23}b_{33}^{-1} \\
c_{13}c_{23}b_{33}^{-1} & - c_{13}^2 c_{12}^{-2}b_{33}^{-1}
& c_{13}c_{12}^{-1} b_{33}^{-1} \\
-c_{12}c_{23}b_{33}^{-1} & c_{13}c_{12}^{-1} b_{33}^{-1} & -b_{33}^{-1}
\end{array} \right) \, ,$$ $$\label{b3}
B_0= \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & b_{33}
\end{array} \right) \, ,$$ $$\label{c3}
C_0= \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & c_{12} & c_{13} \\
-c_{12}^{-1} & 0 & c_{23} \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{array} \right) \,.$$ No real solution exists if $c_{12}=0$. The general solution can thus be found from this special one by a similarity transformation: $$\label{simi}
A=SA_0S^{-1} \qquad B=SB_0S^{-1} \qquad C=SC_0S^{-1}\,.$$ Here $S$ is an arbitrary regular matrix which keeps $A$ and $B$ symmetric. This means that $S$ has to be orthogonal (see for instance ref. [@fischer], p. 297). Therefore, the general solution has 7 independent components, due to the 3 additional parameters corresponding to the orthogonal transformation. These 7 independent components are thus in agreement with the 9 independent components of the regular solution, provided one takes into account the two conditions $\det{A}=\det{B}=0$.
The orthogonal group $O(3)$ is given by the direct product of parity transformations $P$ and the special orthogonal subgroup $SO(3)$. We just have to consider $SO(3)$ transformations as parity transformations leave the solution invariant. We consider the parametrization of $SO(3)$ based on the generators of rotations with respect to the Cartesian axes, $$J_1=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0&0&0\\0&0&-i\\0&i&0
\end{array}
\right)\,, \quad
J_2=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0&0&i\\0&0&0\\-i&0&0
\end{array}
\right)\,\mbox{ and }\,
J_3=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0&-i&0\\i&0&0\\0&0&0
\end{array}
\right)\,.$$ Any matrix $S \in SO(3)$ is given by $$S(\theta^a)=\exp{(i J_a \theta^a)}\,.$$ Hence, the general solution for this case is given by $$\begin{aligned}
A&=&\exp{(i J_a \theta^a)}\, A_0 \, \exp{(-i J_a \theta^a)}\label{a4}\,,\\
B&=&\exp{(i J_a \theta^a)}\, B_0 \, \exp{(-i J_a \theta^a)}\label{b4}\,,\\
C&=&\exp{(i J_a \theta^a)}\, C_0 \, \exp{(-i J_a \theta^a)}\,.\label{c4}\end{aligned}$$
The extraction of the metric
============================
The regular solution of the closure relation
--------------------------------------------
For a regular matrix $B$, the metric has been extracted in two independent ways up to a conformal factor. The first method [@metric1; @metric] makes use of two formulas by Urbantke, see refs. [@Urban1; @Urban2]. On the other hand, Obukhov et al. [@wavemetric] have studied the propagation of electromagnetic waves for the most general case of a linear constitutive relation, see (\[dual\]). They found that the wave covector, $q_i$, describing the propagation of wave fronts, fulfills a fourth order equation $$\label{4metric}
G^{ijkl}\,q_iq_jq_kq_l=0 \, ,$$ with $$\label{gijkl}
G^{ijkl}:=\frac{1}{4!}\chi^{mnp(i}\,\chi^{j|qr|k}\,\chi^{l)stu}\,
\epsilon_{mnrs}\,\epsilon_{pqtu} \, .$$ This fourth order Fresnel equation is found to reduce to an equation of second order in the case of the regular solution (\[s1\]) of the closure relation (\[cr1\]), i.e. $$\label{lightcone}
G^{ijkl}\,q_iq_jq_kq_l=\sqrt{|g|}\,(g^{ij}q_iq_j)^2\, .$$ The factor $\sqrt{|g|}$, with $g:=\det (g_{ij})$, is necessary since $\chi^{ijkl}$ is a tensor density of weight $+1$ so that $G^{ijkl}$ is also a tensor density of weight $+1$.
As $g^{ij}\,q_iq_j=0$ defines the lightcone at each event, one can read off the metric coefficients from (\[lightcone\]), up to a conformal factor. In this case, the resulting metric, obtained by the two different methods, reads $$g^{ij}= \frac{1}{\sqrt{\det B}}\left(\begin{array}{c|c}
1- (\det B)^{-1} k_c k^c & -k^b\\ \hline
-k^a & -(\det B)(B^{-1})^{ab}\end{array} \right)\, ,$$ with $k_a:=B_{ab}\,k^b$. It can be shown that $g^{ij}$ has Lorentzian signature. For details see refs. [@metric1; @metric].
Solution for regular $A$ and singular $B$
-----------------------------------------
After evaluating (\[4metric\]) and (\[gijkl\]) for the solution (\[s2\]), we find that the Fresnel equation (\[4metric\]) also separates. From it, we read off the components of the metric up to a conformal factor. We find $$g^{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{c|c}
\det A & l^b\\ \hline
l^a & (\det A)^{-1}\,l^al^b- A^{ab}\end{array}
\right)\, ,$$ where we have defined $l^c:=A^{ac}l_a$. Again, this metric has Lorentzian signature, since $g:=\det{(g_{ij})}=-\det{A}^{-2}<0$.
The degenerated case
--------------------
Finally, for our special solution (\[a3\])-(\[c3\]), we find that (\[4metric\]) also separates. The corresponding metric, up to a conformal factor, is found to be $$g_0^{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & c_{23}c_{12}^2 & -c_{13} & c_{12}\\
c_{23}c_{12}^2 & b_{33}c_{12}^2 & 0 & 0 \\
-c_{13} & 0 & b_{33} & 0\\
c_{12}& 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right)\,.\label{gspec}$$ The determinant in this case is $g=-b_{33}^{-2}c_{12}^{-4}<0$, so that the metric has Lorentzian signature, as in the previous cases.
In order to study the case of solution (\[simi\]), we look how the quantities, in particular $G^{ijkl}$ as defined in (\[4metric\]), change under the orthogonal transformation[^7] $S$.
From (\[block\]) and (\[simi\]) one can write the corresponding transformed spacetime tensor density as $$\chi^{ijkl}=\Lambda^i_{\ p}\Lambda^j_{\ q}\Lambda^k_{\ r}\Lambda^l_{\ s}\,
\chi^{pqrs}_0 \, ,$$ where we have defined $$\Lambda^i_{\ j}:=\left(
\begin{array}{c|c}
1 & 0 \\
\hline
0 & S
\end{array}\right) \, . \label{simi4}$$ From (\[gijkl\]) we find the corresponding expression for the transformed tensor density $G^{ijkl}$. Since $\det (\Lambda^i_{\ j})=1$, it takes the simple form $$\label{transG}
G^{ijkl}=\Lambda^i_{\ p}\Lambda^j_{\ q}\Lambda^k_{\ r}\Lambda^l_{\ s}\,
G^{pqrs}_0 \, .$$ Using this transformation law, one can easily prove the following: For orthogonal transformations (\[simi\]) and (\[simi4\]), the tensor density $G^{ijkl}$ reduces the forth order Fresnel equation to the light cone equation, see (\[lightcone\]), provided the tensor density $G_0^{ijkl}$ does. Thus, we find that the resulting transformed metric can be written in terms of the initial one in the form: $$g^{ij}=\Lambda^i_{\ k}\Lambda^j_{\ l}\,g^{kl}_0 \, .$$
We do not give here the explicit expression for this metric. We observe however that it has 7 independent components, and a Lorentzian signature.
Conclusions
===========
By completing a recent analysis, we found a $1$-to-$1$ correspondence between spacetime tensors fulfilling the closure relation and the conformally invariant part of metric tensors with Lorentzian signature. A new, more instructive proof for the regular solution (\[s1\]) is given.
In all cases, we checked the following important property: We took the conventional Hodge dual of a $2$-form with respect to the metric we derived. This coincides with the action of the duality operator $^\#$, defined in terms of the spacetime relation, fulfilling the closure relation. In other words, we have derived (\[chig\]) from our linear ansatz (\[linear\]), the latter of which is constrained by the closure relation (\[cr1\]).
This result, previously found only for regular sub-matrices $A$ and $B$, is then valid for all solutions.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
We are grateful to Friedrich W. Hehl for useful comments and discussion of the results, and to Yuri N. Obukhov for some critical and helpful remarks. AG thanks C. Heinicke for some help concerning computer algebra. GFR would like to thank the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) for a graduate fellowship (Kennziffer A/98/00829).
Y. N. Obukhov, F. W. Hehl, [*Space-time metric from linear electrodynamics*]{}, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 458**]{} (1999) 466-470. Los Alamos Eprint Archive: gr-qc/9904067.
F. W. Hehl, Y. N. Obukhov, [*Foundations of classical electrodynamics*]{}. Birkhäuser, Boston, MA (2001/02).
F. W. Hehl, Y. N. Obukhov, G. F. Rubilar, [ *Classical Electrodynamics: A Tutorial on its Foundations*]{}, in [*Quo vadis geodesia...?, Festschrift für E. Grafarend*]{}. F. Krumm, V. S. Schwarze (Eds.), Stuttgart (1999). Los Alamos Eprint Archive: physics/9907046.
E. J. Post, [*Formal Structure of Electromagnetics*]{} – General Covariance and Electromagnetics. North Holland, Amsterdam (1962) and Dover, Mineola, New York (1997).
W. Gordon, [*Zur Lichtfortpflanzung nach der Relativitätstheorie*]{}, [*Annalen der Physik*]{} [**72**]{} (1923) 421-456.
U. Leonhardt, P. Piwnicki, [*Relativistic effects of light in moving media with extremely low group velocity*]{}, [*Phys. Rev.Lett.*]{} [**84**]{} (2000) 822; [**85**]{} (2000) 5253; M. Visser, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**85**]{} (2000) 5252.
V. A. De Lorenci, M. A. Souza, [*Electromagnetic wave propagation inside a material medium: an effective geometry interpretation*]{}, Los Alamos Eprint Archive: gr-qc/0102022 (2001).
V. A. De Lorenci, R. Klippert, M. Novello, J. M. Salim, [*Light propagation in non-linear electrodynamics*]{}, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 482**]{} (2000) 134-140. Los Alamos Eprint Archive: gr-qc/0005049.
F. W. Hehl, Y. N. Obukhov, G. F. Rubilar, [ *Spacetime metric from linear eletrodynamics II*]{}, [*Annalen der Physik*]{} [**11**]{} (2000) Spec. Iss. SI 71 - SI 78. Los Alamos Eprint Archive: gr-qc/9911096.
F. W. Hehl, Y. N. Obukhov, [*On the energy-momentum current of the electromagnetic field in a pre-metric axiomatic approach*]{}, Los Alamos Eprint Archive: gr-qc/0103020.
E. Mielke, [*Geometrodynamics of gauge fields*]{}, Akademie-Verl., Berlin (1981).
G. Fischer, [*Lineare Algebra*]{}, Vieweg, Braunschweig (1997) (11$^{\rm th}$ Ed.).
H. Urbantke, [*A quasi-metric associated with $SU(2)$ Yang-Mills field*]{}, [*Acta Phys. Austriaca Suppl.*]{} [**29**]{} (1978) 875.
H. Urbantke, [*On integrability properties of $SU(2)$ Yang-Mills fields. I. Infinitesimal part*]{}, [*J. Math.Phys.*]{} [**25**]{} (1984) 2321-2324.
Y. N. Obukhov, T. Fukui, G. F. Rubilar, [*Wave propagation in linear electrodynamics*]{}, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 62**]{} (2000) 044050. Los Alamos Eprint Archive: gr-qc/0005018.
Y. N. Obukhov, private communication (2001).
[^1]: Email address: [email protected]
[^2]: Email address: [email protected]
[^3]: Recently, some nonlinear models have been discussed in a similar formalism by Lorenci et al. [@lorenci; @lorenci2].
[^4]: We denote by $\epsilon_{ijkl}$ the completely antisymmetric tensor density of weight $-1$ with $\epsilon_{0123}:=1$.
[^5]: The energy-momentum 3-form of electrodynamics, $\Sigma_\alpha=(1/2)\,[ F\wedge\left(e_\alpha\rfloor
H\right)-H\wedge\left(e_\alpha\rfloor F\right)]$, is explicitly symmetric under a transformation $F\rightarrow \phi H$, $H \rightarrow -(1/\phi) F$, for an arbitrary pseudo scalar $\phi$; see also refs. [@book; @energy-momentum; @mielke] for a detailed discussion.
[^6]: Note, this solution is also valid for the case $\det{A}\neq 0$ *and* $\det B \neq 0$. But in this case, (\[s2\]) is just a reparametrization of (\[s1\]).
[^7]: Alternatively, one can consider transformations of the coframe basis, as pointed out by Obukhov [@book; @obuk].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study entanglement and other correlation properties of random states in high-dimensional bipartite systems. These correlations are quantified by parameters that are subject to the “concentration of measure” phenomenon, meaning that on a large-probability set these parameters are close to their expectation. For the entropy of entanglement, this has the counterintuitive consequence that there exist large subspaces in which all pure states are close to maximally entangled. This, in turn, implies the existence of mixed states with entanglement of formation near that of a maximally entangled state, but with negligible quantum mutual information and, therefore, negligible distillable entanglement, secret key, and common randomness. It also implies a very strong locking effect for the entanglement of formation: its value can jump from maximal to near zero by tracing over a number of qubits negligible compared to the size of total system. Furthermore, such properties are generic. Similar phenomena are observed for random multiparty states, leading us to speculate on the possibility that the theory of entanglement is much simplified when restricted to asymptotically generic states. Further consequences of our results include a complete derandomization of the protocol for universal superdense coding of quantum states.'
author:
- Patrick Hayden
- 'Debbie W. Leung'
- Andreas Winter
bibliography:
- 'subspace.bib'
date: 10th June 2004
title: '[Aspects of generic entanglement]{}'
---
.75ex
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The subject of correlations between quantum systems can be bewildering. Beyond the simplest example, manipulation of pure bipartite states, very little is known. Exotic examples have implied that the rules governing interconversion of quantum states are often counterintuitive. The complexity of the subject is also manifested in the difficulties one encounters when attempting to quantify entanglement. Even in the bipartite, [*asymptotic*]{} case, there are many different mixed-state “entanglement measures,” most of which are poorly understood, both individually and in relation to each other; see [@BDSW96; @VPRK97; @HHT00; @MH01; @DHO01; @CW03] and references therein.
One of the most striking features of asymptotic entanglement manipulations is irreversibility. Even in the limit of large number of copies, some states cost more EPR pairs to create than can be distilled from them. The corresponding entanglement measures, known as the entanglement cost ($E_c$) [@HHT00] and the entanglement of distillation ($E_d$) [@BDSW96], are therefore different. In particular, for some “bound entangled” states [@HHH98], it has been shown that $E_d$ is zero while $E_c$ is not [@VC01; @VDC02].
Another intriguing issue in the study of entanglement is whether the entanglement cost of a state is equal to a much simpler measure, the entanglement of formation ($E_f$) [@BDSW96]. If equality holds, the study of entanglement can be simplified significantly, while inequality implies the advantage of more collective strategies in the asymptotic preparation of quantum states. This problem has recently been connected to other important additivity conjectures in quantum information theory. (See, for example, [@S04].)
While the general theory of entanglement appears to be very complicated, a much simplified theory may exist for generic quantum states if, in some appropriate regime, most states behave similarly. In particular, irreversibility has only been demonstrated for some carefully constructed states and it is natural to wonder whether it is the exception or the rule. Here, we investigate possible simplifications of the entanglement properties of quantum states in large systems.
Considerable effort has been devoted to understanding the average properties of quantum states. For example, the expected entropy [@LP88; @P93; @FK94; @S-R95; @S96] and purity [@L78; @ZZF00; @ZS01] of reduced states for random pure quantum states have been calculated. In the case of mixed states, various distributions have been proposed (see [@ZS01] and references therein) and the likelihood of separable (i.e., $E_f=0$) and bound entangled states have been studied [@ZHSL98; @Z99; @KZM02; @S03].
The present paper is a further step in the direction of a simplified theory of entanglement for generic states. We draw random pure states from the uniform (unitarily invariant) distribution and mixed states by tracing over part of a random pure state on an extended system. (Note that the induced distribution depends on the dimension of the system that was traced out.) We find that random pure states are extremely likely to have near-maximal entanglement, in fact, so likely that, with high probability, a random subspace of dimension close to the total dimension contains only near-maximally entangled states. These findings imply that random mixed states of up to almost full rank can have entanglement of formation close to maximal; at the same time distillable entanglement, secret key and common randomness can all be bounded by much smaller quantities. In fact, for a wide range of parameters, these random mixed states will not be one-copy pseudo-distillable, and will have arbitrarily small one-way distillable entanglement, secret key, and common randomness. Thus, near-maximal irreversibility is generic, unless our states turn out to be counterexamples to the additivity conjecture with near-maximal violation.
By building on the results for the bipartite case, we can make similar high-probability statements about many properties of random multiparty states as well. We find, for example, that a typical such state has near-maximal distillable entanglement between any two parties, provided the other parties are allowed to participate in the distillation protocol.
Finally, the existence of large subspaces containing only near-maximally entangled states has applications to the study of quantum communication, not just the study of correlations. In particular, it implies that the protocol for superdense coding of arbitrary $2l$-qubit states using $l$ ebits and $l+o(l)$ qubits of communication [@HHL03] can be completely derandomized. The original construction consumed $l+o(l)$ shared random bits in addition to the other resources.
[**Guide to the paper**]{}In Section \[sec:distributions\], we introduce the pure and mixed state distributions we will be investigating. We discuss our basic techniques in Section \[sec:concentration\]. These consist of an elementary discretization procedure, which “counts” the number of points in a geometrical manifold (of states, subspaces, etc), and explicit inequalities for the concentration of measure phenomenon in functions on high-dimensional spheres. Our main result, proving that random subspaces are likely to contain only near-maximally entangled states, appears in Section \[sec:subspace\]. We then study various entanglement, secret key and other correlation quantities in Section \[sec:measures\]. Some preliminary results on generic multiparty entanglement appear in Section \[sec:multiparty\]. Finally, we show how our results derandomize superdense coding in Section \[sec:superdense\].
[**Notation**]{}We use the following conventions throughout the paper. $\log$ and $\exp$ are always taken base two. Unless otherwise stated, a “state” can be pure or mixed. The symbol for a state (such as $\ph$ or $\rho$) also denotes its density matrix. We will make an explicit indication when referring to a [*pure*]{} state. The density matrix $\proj{\ph}$ of the pure state $\ket{\ph}$ will frequently be written simply as $\ph$. $\cB(\CC^d)$ will be used to denote the set of linear transformations from $\CC^d$ to itself and $\UU(d) \subset \cB(\CC^d)$ the unitary group on $\CC^d$. $\EE X$ refers to the expectation value of the random variable $X$ and $m(X)$ a median for $X$. Quantum systems under consideration will be denoted $A$, $B$, $\ldots$ and are freely associated with their Hilbert spaces, whose (finite) dimensions are denoted $d_A$, $d_B$, etc. In a bipartite system, when speaking of a “maximally entangled state”, we refer to a pure state whose nonzero Schmidt coefficients [@Nielsen00bk] are all equal to the inverse of the smaller of the two dimensions. We use $S(\r) =
-\Tr \r \log \r$ to refer to the von Neumann entropy [@vN27] of a density matrix $\r$, $S(A:B)_\r = S(\r_A) + S(\r_B) - S(\r_{AB})$ to denote the quantum mutual information of a bipartite state $\r_{AB}$ and $D(\r\|\s) = \Tr \r (\log \r - \log \s)$ the relative entropy of the states $\r$ and $\s$ [@U62]. The function $F(\r,\s) = (\Tr\sqrt{\r^{1/2} \s
\r^{1/2}})^2$ is the Uhlmann fidelity [@Uhlmann76], again between two states $\r$ and $\s$.
Random states and subspaces {#sec:distributions}
===========================
We are going to consider the state of large bipartite (and later multipartite) quantum systems under a random selection. We think of the pure or mixed state as being drawn at random from an ensemble. For pure states, there is a unique “uniform” distribution that is unitarily invariant. It is induced by the Haar measure [@DP99] on the unitary group by acting on an arbitrarily chosen generating vector.
\[def:randomvector\] A *random pure state* $\ph$ is any random variable distributed according to the unitarily invariant probability measure on the pure states $\cP(A)$ of the system $A$. We formally express this by writing $\ph\in_R \cP(A)$. (It is frequently convenient to choose a vector representative in $A$ for the state $\ph$. When doing so, we will indicate this by using the notation $\ket{\ph}$.)
Similarly, there is also a unique, uniform distribution for subspaces that is unitarily invariant.
\[def:randomspace\] A *random subspace $S$ of dimension $s$* is any random variable distributed according to the unitarily invariant measure on the $s$-dimensional subspaces of $A$, the *Grassmannian* $\cG_s(A)$ (see, for example, [@Harris92]). We express this using the notation $S\in_R \cG_s(A)$. Note that $\cG_1(A)$ is naturally isomorphic to $\cP(A)$.
For mixed states, unitary invariance does not uniquely specify a probability measure. Instead, we follow an old proposal to induce probability measures on mixed states [@Braunstein96; @Hall98; @ZS01] by partial tracing.
\[def:randommixed\] For a system $A$ and an integer $s \geq 1$, consider the distribution on the mixed states $\cS(A)$ of $A$ induced by the partial trace over the second factor from the uniform distribution on pure states of $A
\ox \CC^s$. Any random variable $\rho$ distributed as such will be called a *rank-$s$ random state*; formally, $\rho \in_R \cS_s(A)$. Note that the rank of $\rho$ is equal to $\min(s,d_A)$ with probability $1$. Also, $\cP(A) = \cS_1(A)$.
These distributions on states have previously received considerable interest; so much indeed that the expectation values of several quantities of interest are known either exactly or to good approximations. It is clear that the average of any random rank-$s$ state is the maximally mixed state, $\frac{1}{d_A}\1$. We will also make explicit use of the average entropy of a subsystem, which was conjectured in [@P93] and proved in [@FK94; @S-R95; @S96]:
\[lem:entropySubsystem\] Let $\ket{\ph}$ be chosen according to the unitarily invariant measure on a bipartite system $A \ox B$ with local dimensions $d_A \leq
d_B$, i.e. $\ph \in_R \cP(A \ox B)$. Then $$\EE S(\ph_A)
= \frac{1}{\ln 2}\left(
\sum_{j = d_B + 1}^{d_A d_B} \frac{1}{j} - \frac{d_A - 1}{2d_B}
\right)
> \log d_A - \smfrac{1}{2} \b \,,$$ where $\b = \frac{1}{\ln 2}\frac{d_A}{d_B}$.
The inequality can be demonstrated by making use of the estimate [@Y91] $$\frac{1}{2(d+1)} < \sum_{j=1}^d \frac{1}{j} - \ln d - \g < \frac{1}{2d} \,,$$ where $\g \approx 0.577$ is Euler’s constant.
In the following, we will identify the large probability behavior of functions such as $S(\ph_A)$. It turns out that the probability in question is often exponentially close to $1$ in some parameter $k$; that is, for sufficiently large $k$, the probability is at least $1 - \exp[ - k/ \polylog(k) ]$. We shall in this case adopt the expression that the behavior in question *is $k$-likely*. In some cases we won’t specify $k$ and will simply speak of *likely* behavior.
Concentration of measure {#sec:concentration}
========================
It is a striking yet elementary fact that the uniform measure on the $k$-sphere, $\SS^k$, concentrates very strongly about any equator as $k$ gets large; indeed, any polar cap strictly smaller than a hemisphere has relative volume exponentially small in $k$. This simple observation implies a similar result for the value of any slowly varying function on the sphere, which we can understand as a random variable induced by the sphere’s uniform measure: namely, it will take values close to the average except for a set of volume exponentially small in $k$. Levy’s Lemma (Lemma \[lem:Levy\] below) rigorously formalizes this idea: “slow variation” is encoded as a bound on the Lipschitz constant of the function (essentially the maximum gradient), and “close to the average” is modelled as a small but finite deviation. Given only these data, Levy’s Lemma gives an explicit exponential probability bound on the set of “large deviation”. Since pure quantum states in $d$ dimensions can be represented as $2d$-dimensional real unit vectors, the above observations on spheres ensure that as the dimension of a quantum system becomes large it comes to make sense to discuss typical behavior of random states, in the sense that for many properties of interest, almost all quantum states behave in essentially the same way.
The analysis leading to the various results in this paper will revolve around the concentration of the spectrum of the reduced density matrix of a bipartite system when both subsystems are large. This in turns implies many important concentration effects. One example is the concentration of the entropy of the reduced density matrix (or the entanglement between the two systems). Concentration effects for the maximum and minimum eigenvalues also imply tight bounds on the reduced density matrix itself and the values of various projections.
Our method of demonstrating generic properties is always to prove that the opposite is an unlikely event. We then rewrite the “bad event” as a union of “elementary bad events” on a net of states; the cardinality of the net is then bounded. In most cases, the cardinality of the net is exponentially large in the dimension parameter, while the “elementary bad event” has an exponentially small probability, due to some measure concentration. The probability of the bad event is thus bounded by the product of these exponentially large and exponentially small quantities and our goal is to make it (exponentially) less than $1$.
Because we strive for explicit probability and dimension bounds, the expressions in our theorems and some of the estimates may appear clumsy at first sight. It is in the nature of the problem (and partly of our method), however, that the crucial quantities are always composed of (a) a dimension parameter, which dominates, (b) a logarithmic factor, (c) a factor quantifying the allowable size of deviations from the average and (d) an absolute constant. Our obsession with explicit exponents throughout the paper is needed, since the exponentially large net size usually allows little optimization, and everything depends on the achievable strength of measure concentration.
In the rest of this section, we list a number of basic tools including concentration effects and net constructions. Readers who are specifically interested in the correlation properties of random states could read the statements (without the proofs) of Levy’s Lemma, the concentration of entropy and the existence of small nets, and move directly to the next section, referring back to the rest of the tools as necessary rather than trying to absorb them all beforehand.
\[lem:Levy\] Let $f : \SS^{k} \rar \RR$ be a function with Lipschitz constant $\h$ (with respect to the Euclidean norm) and a point $X
\in \SS^{k}$ be chosen uniformly at random. Then $$\begin{array}{crcrr}
1.~~ &
\Pr\left\{ f(X) - \EE f ~ \glneq ~ \pm\a \right\}
&\leq& 2\exp\left( -C_1 (k+1) \a^2 / \h^2 \right) &
~~\mbox{and} \\
2.~~ &
\Pr\left\{ f(X) - m(f) ~ \glneq ~ \pm\a \right\}
&\leq& \exp\left( -C_2 (k-1) \a^2 / \h^2 \right)
\end{array}$$ for absolute constants $C_i>0$ that may be chosen as $C_1 = (9\pi^3 \ln 2)^{-1}$ and $C_2 = (2 \pi^2 \ln 2)^{-1}$. ($\EE f$ is the mean value of $f$, $m(f)$ a median for $f$.)
We are going to apply Levy’s Lemma to the entropy of the reduced state of a randomly chosen pure state $\ph$ in a bipartite system $A \ox B$, i.e., $f(\ket{\ph}) = S(\ph_A)$. Note that $k=2d_Ad_B-1$, and all that remains is to bound the Lipschitz constant.
\[lem:E-Lipschitz\] The Lipschitz constant $\eta$ of $S(\ph_A)$ is upper bounded by $\sqrt{8}\log d_A$, for $d_A\geq 3$.
We first consider the Lipschitz constant of the function $g(\ph) =
H(M(\ph_A))$, where $M$ is any fixed complete von Neumann measurement and $H$ is the Shannon entropy. Let $\ket{\ph} = \sum_{jk} \ph_{jk}
\ket{e_j}_A \ket{f_k}_B$ in terms of some orthonormal bases $\{ \ket{e_j}_A
\}$ for $A$ and $\{ \ket{f_k}_B \}$ for $B$. By unitary invariance, we may assume that $M_j = \proj{e_j}_A$. Therefore, if we define $$p(j|\ph) = \: {_A \bra{e_j}} \ph_A \ket{e_j}_A = \sum_k |\ph_{jk}|^2 \,,$$ then $$g(\ph) = H(M(\ph_A)) = - \sum_j p(j|\ph) \log p(j|\ph) \,.$$ An elementary calculation yields $$\begin{aligned}
\h^2
= \sup_{\braket{\ph}{\ph} \leq 1} \nabla g \cdot \nabla g
&=& \sum_{jk} \frac{4 |\ph_{jk}|^2}{(\ln 2)^2} [ 1 + \ln p(j|\ph) ]^2
\label{eqn:entropySigma} \\
&\leq& \frac{4}{(\ln 2)^2} [ 1 + \sum_{j} p(j|\ph)
(\ln p(j|\ph))^2 ] \\
&\leq& \frac{4}{(\ln 2)^2} [ 1 + (\ln d_A)^2 ] \leq 8 (\log d_A)^2,\end{aligned}$$ where the second inequality can be shown to hold for $d_A \geq 3$ using Lagrange multipliers.
Using the above bound, the Lipschitz constant for the von Neumann entropy $S(\ph_A)$ can be controlled as follows. Consider any two unit vectors $\ket{\ph}$ and $\ket{\psi}$, and without loss of generality assume $S(\ph_A) \leq S(\psi_A)$. If we choose the measurement $M$ to be along the eigenbasis of $\ph_A$, $H(M(\ph_A))=S(\ph_A)$ and we have [@vN27] $$S(\psi_A) - S(\ph_A) \leq H(M(\psi_A)) - H(M(\ph_A))
\leq \h \; \| \, \ket{\psi}-\ket{\ph} \, \|_2 \,.$$ Thus, the Lipschitz constant for $S(\ph_A)$ is bounded by that of $H(M(\ph_A))$ and we are done.
\[thm:subsystemConvergence\] Let $\ph \in_R \cP(A \ox B)$ be a random state on $A \ox B$, with $d_B\geq d_A\geq 3$. Then $$\Pr\left\{ S(\ph_A) < \log d_A - \a - \b \right\}
\leq \exp\Big( {-} \frac{(d_Ad_B-1)C_3\a^2}{(\log d_A)^2} \Big) \,,$$ where $\b=\frac{1}{\ln 2}\frac{d_A}{d_B}$ is as in Lemma \[lem:entropySubsystem\] and $C_3 = (8 \pi^2 \ln 2)^{-1}$.
As suggested earlier, we choose $f(\ph) = S(\ph_A)$. We could use Lemma \[lem:Levy\].1 directly but will get better constants with a bit more work. We need to relate the median of $f$ to the mean, which is known. Choose a subset $X$ of the unit ball of $A\ox B$ having relative volume $1/2$ and such that $\ket{\ph} \in X$ implies that $S(\ph_A) \leq m(f)$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\log d_A - \smfrac{1}{2}\b \leq \EE f
&=& \int_{X} S(\ph_A) d\ph + \int_{\bar{X}} S(\ph_A) d\ph \\
&\leq& \smfrac{1}{2} m(f) + \smfrac{1}{2} \log d_A.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $m(f) \geq \log d_A - \b$ and the result follows by combining Lemmas \[lem:Levy\].2 and \[lem:E-Lipschitz\].
This statement ensures that with overwhelming probability, a random pure state is almost maximally entangled. The exceptional set has measure exponentially small in a quantity essentially proportional to the total dimension. We will see in the next section that the strength of this concentration gives a whole [*large subspace*]{} of such states.
Whenever the reduced density matrix $\ph_A$ has near-maximal entropy, it is also close to the maximally mixed state $\frac{1}{d_A}\1$. Sometimes, however, we want an even stronger estimate. The following bound is from Appendix A of [@HHL03]:
\[lem:concentrationEig\] For $\ph \in_R \cP(A\ox B)$, and $0 < \e \leq 1$, $$\Pr\left\{ \lambda_{\max}(\ph_A) > \frac{1}{d_A}+\frac{\e}{d_A} \right\}
\leq \left(\frac{10d_A}{\e}\right)^{2d_A}
\exp\left( -d_B\frac{\e^2}{14\ln 2} \right),$$ and $$\Pr\left\{ \lambda_{\min}(\ph_A) < \frac{1}{d_A}-\frac{\e}{d_A} \right\}
\leq \left(\frac{10d_A}{\e}\right)^{2d_A}
\exp\left( -d_B\frac{\e^2}{14\ln 2} \right),$$ where $\lambda_{\max}$ and $\lambda_{\min}$ denote the maximal and minimal nonzero eigenvalues of $\ph_A$, respectively.
This lemma says that the reduced state on $A$ of a random state in a bipartite system will be close to maximally mixed in the sense that all its eigenvalues cluster around $1/d_A$, if $d_B$ is a large enough multiple of $d_A\log d_A / \e^2$. In fact, when $\ph_A$ is not in the exceptional set in Lemma \[lem:concentrationEig\], (1-) \_A (1+) . \[eq:opnormbdd\] The reduced state on $B$, $\ph_B$, has the same spectrum as $\ph_A$, and therefore $\ph_B$ will also be close to maximally mixed on its (uniformly random) supporting subspace in a similar way.
Note that Eq. (\[eq:opnormbdd\]) is a statement of the concentration of the density matrix $\ph_A$ itself, and is generally stronger than just a bound on the von Neumann entropy as in Theorem \[thm:subsystemConvergence\]. The price paid in Lemma \[lem:concentrationEig\] is a lesser degree of concentration. The main tools in proving Lemma \[lem:concentrationEig\] also differ from that of Theorem \[thm:subsystemConvergence\]. We now state these tools, and we will use them later in the paper. There are two essential ingredients. The first is the following concentration bound, which is a slight strengthening of Lemma II.3 from [@HLSW03], which is in turn based on Cramér’s Theorem (see e.g. [@DZ93]):
\[lem:concentrationTr\] For $S \in_R \cG_s(A)$, $P$ the projector onto $S$, $Q$ a fixed projector of rank $q$ in $A$, and $0\leq \e \leq 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr\left\{ \Tr P Q > (1+\e)\frac{qs}{d_A} \right\}
&\leq& \exp\left( -qs\frac{\e-\ln(1+\e)}{\ln 2} \right)
\leq \exp\left( -qs\frac{\e^2}{6\ln 2} \right), \label{eq:proj1} \\
\Pr\left\{ \Tr P Q < (1-\e)\frac{qs}{d_A} \right\}
&\leq& \exp\left( -qs\frac{-\e-\ln(1-\e)}{\ln 2} \right)
\leq \exp\left( -qs\frac{\e^2}{6\ln 2} \right). \label{eq:proj2}\end{aligned}$$
The case $s=1$ is, in fact, a special case of [@HLSW03]’s Lemma II.3. To extend to $s > 1$, let $\ket{\ph_{AB}} \in_R \cP(A\ox B)$, where $\dim B = s$. Writing $\ph_A = \sum_i \l_i \proj{e_i}$ in its eigenbasis, averages over $\ph_A$ can be replaced by averaging over the independent random variables $\{ \l_i \}$ and $\{ \ket{e_i} \}$. We can then use the convexity of the exponential function to develop an inequality of moment generating functions. If $t\geq 0$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\EE_{\ph_{AB}} \exp [ t s \Tr \ph_{AB} (Q \ox \1_B) ]
&=& \EE_{\ph_A} \exp [ t s \Tr \ph_A Q ] \label{eq:moment1} \\
&=& \EE_{ \{ \ket{e_j} \} } \EE_{ \{ \l_j \} }
\exp\left[ t s \Tr \left( \sum_i \l_i \proj{e_i} Q \right) \right] \nonumber
\\
&\geq& \EE_{ \{ \ket{e_j} \} }
\exp\left[ t s \Tr \left(
\sum_i \EE_{ \{ \l_j \} } \l_i \proj{e_i} Q \right) \right]
\nonumber \\
&=& \EE_{ \{ \ket{e_j} \} } \exp\left[ t \Tr \left( \sum_i \proj{e_i} Q \right)
\right] \nonumber \\
&=& \EE_{S} \exp [ t \Tr P Q ]. \label{eq:moment2}\end{aligned}$$ Here we have used that $\EE_{ \{ \a_j \} } \l_i = 1/s$, which follows from the permutation invariance of the eigenvalue distribution. Recall next from the proof of Lemma II.3 in [@HLSW03] that the inequalities (\[eq:proj1\]) and (\[eq:proj2\]) for $s=1$ themselves come from exploiting the moment generating function, in particular, applying the general upper bound $$\Pr\left\{ R > a \right\} \leq \EE_R \exp( t R )\exp(-t a)$$ for a random variable $R$ and $t \geq 0$. Since the left hand side of Eq. (\[eq:moment1\]) is the moment generating function when $s=1$ for the larger system $AB$ with a projector of rank $qs$, up to normalization, and Eq. (\[eq:moment2\]) the moment generating function for $\Tr PQ$, the inequality reduces the proof for $s>1$ to the $s=1$ case.
The second tool is the existence of “small” fine nets in state space, Lemma II.4 of [@HLSW03].
\[lem:net\] For $0<\e<1$ and $\dim{\cH}=d$ there exists a set $\cN$ of pure states in $\cH$ with $|\cN|\leq (5/\e)^{2d}$, such that for every pure state $\ket{\ph}\in\cH$ there exists $\ket{\tilde{\ph}}\in\cN$ with $\big\| \ket{\ph} - \ket{\tilde{\ph}} \big\|_2 \leq \e/2$ and $\| \ph-\tilde{\ph} \|_1\leq\epsilon$. (We call such a set an *$\epsilon$-net*.)
The following is a useful generalization of Lemma \[lem:net\] to bipartite pure states with bounded Schmidt rank.
\[lem:netk\] For $0<\e<1$, the set of pure states of Schmidt rank $k$ in $A \ox B$ (with dimensions $d_A$ and $d_B$) has an $\e$-net $\cN$ of size $|\cN| \leq (10/\e)^{2k (d_A + d_B)}$.
For any Schmidt rank $k$ state $\ket{\ph}$, there exists $U \in \UU(d)$ such that $\ket{\ph_u} := (\1 \ox U) \ket{\ph} \in A \ox \CC^k$. Consider an $\e/4$-net for the Hilbert space norm $\| \cdot \|_{2}$ on $A \ox \CC^k$, and let $\ket{\tilde{\ph}_u}$ be a net point for $\ket{\ph_u}$, with Schmidt decomposition $\ket{\tilde{\ph}_u} = \sum_i \sqrt{\lambda_i} \ket{e_i} \ox \ket{f_i}$. Then, $(\1 \ox U^\dag) \ket{\tilde{\ph}_u}
= \sum_i \sqrt{\lambda_i} \ket{e_i} \ox (U^\dag \ket{f_i})$ is within a distance $\e/4$ of $\ket{\ph}$ in $\|\cdot \|_2$. Now, take an $\e/4$-net for $\| \cdot \|_2$ on $B$ and let $\ket{\tilde{f}_i}$ be the net point for $U^\dag \ket{f_i}$. It is straightforward to check that $\ket{\tilde{\tilde{\ph}}} := \sum_i
\sqrt{\lambda_i} \ket{e_i} \ox \ket{\tilde{f}_i}$ is within $\e/4$ of $(\1 \ox U^\dag) \ket{\tilde{\ph}}$ in $\|\cdot\|_2$. By the triangle inequality, $\ket{\tilde{\tilde{\ph}}}$ is within $\e/2$ of $\ket{\ph}$ in $\| \cdot \|_2$, and within $\e$ in the trace norm $\| \cdot \|_1$. Altogether, the total number of net points is $(10/\e)^{2 k d_A} (10/\e)^{(2 d_B) k}$, as claimed.
We end the section with another Lipschitz constant estimate that will be useful when studying the separability of random states.
\[lem:Lip2\] Let $\ket{\ph} \in A\ox B$. Then the Lipschitz constant of the function $f(\ph) = \sqrt{\Tr\ph_A^2}$ is upper bounded by $2$.
Choose a basis $\{\ket{e_i}\ket{f_j} \}$ of $A \ox B$, and let $\ket{\ph} = \sum_{ij} \ph_{ij}\ket{e_i}\ket{f_j}$. Since $\Tr \ph_A^2$ is nonincreasing under dephasing, $$f(\ph)^2 = \Tr\r^2 \geq \sum_i \bra{e_i} \ph_A \ket{e_i}^2 =
\sum_i \Bigl( \sum_j |\ph_{ij}|^2 \Bigr)^2 =: \tilde{f}(\ph)^2$$ with equality if $\{\ket{e_i}\}$ are the eigenvectors of $\ph_A$. The Lipschitz constant of $\tilde{f}(\ph)$ is easily seen to be bounded by $2$: simply calculate the length of the gradient and use standard inequalities. We now apply the trick that proves Lemma \[lem:E-Lipschitz\]. For any two pure states $\ph$ and $\psi$ with $f(\ph) \geq f(\psi)$, choose $\{\ket{e_i}\}$ to be the eigenbasis of $\ph$. Then, $\tilde{f}(\ph)=f(\ph)$, $\tilde{f}(\psi) \leq f(\psi)$, and $$f(\ph) - f(\psi)
\leq \tilde{f}(\ph) - \tilde{f}(\psi)
\leq 2\bigl\| \,\ket{\ph}-\ket{\psi}\, \bigr\|_2.$$
The following sections will demonstrate the power of the above basic concentration statements and net construction for the understanding of generic entanglement.
Maximally entangled subspaces {#sec:subspace}
=============================
In this section, we put together the insights from the previous section to show, that a large subspace of appropriate dimension, chosen at random, will with high probability contain only near-maximally entangled states. The relationship between concentration of measure and statements about large subspaces play an important role in [@MS86]. The reader is also encouraged to compare our result with Theorem 3.19 of [@L01].
\[thm:subspace\] Let $A$ and $B$ be quantum systems of dimension $d_A$ and $d_B$, respectively, for $d_B \geq d_A \geq 3$. Let $0<\a<\log d_A$. Then there exists a subspace $S \subset A \ox B$ of dimension $$\label{eqn:sizeSubspace}
s = \left\lfloor d_A d_B \frac{\G\a^{2.5}}{(\log d_A)^{2.5}} \right\rfloor$$ such that all states $\ket{\ph} \in S$ have entanglement at least $$E(\ph) = S(\ph_A) \geq \log d_A - \a - \b,
\label{eqn:entanglementbound}$$ where $\b = \frac{1}{\ln 2}\frac{d_A}{d_B}$ is as in Lemma \[lem:entropySubsystem\] and $\G$ is an absolute constant which may be chosen to be $1/1753$. In fact, the probability that a random subspace of dimension $s$ will not have this property is bounded above by $$\left(\frac{15 \log d_A}{\a}\right)^{\! \! 2s}
\exp\left( - \frac{(d_A \, d_B \, - 1) \, \a^2}
{32 \pi^2 \ln 2 \, (\log d_A)^2} \right).
\label{eq:subspaceexcept}$$
Let $S$ be a random subspace of $A\ox B$ of dimension $s$. Let $\cN_S$ be an $\e$-net for states on $S$, for $\e=\a/(\sqrt{8}\log d_A)$. In fact, since we may think of $S$ as $U S_0$, with a *fixed* subspace $S_0$ and a Haar-distributed unitary $U$, we can fix the net $\cN_{S_0}$ on $S_0$ and let $\cN_S=U \cN_{S_0}$, where $\cN_{S_0}$ is chosen using Lemma \[lem:net\]. Given $\ket{\ph} \in S$, we can choose $\ket{\tilde{\ph}} \in \cN_S$ such that $\big\| \ket{\ph} - \ket{\tilde\ph} \big\|_2 \leq \e/2$. By the Lipschitz estimate, Lemma \[lem:E-Lipschitz\], this implies that $|S(\ph_A) - S(\tilde{\ph}_A)| \leq \a/2$. We can then estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr\Big\{ \inf_{\ket{\ph} \in S} S(\ph_A)
< \log d_A - \a - \b \Big\} \label{eqn:subspaceProb}
&\leq& \Pr\Big\{ \min_{\ket{\tilde{\ph}}\in\cN_S}
S(\tilde{\ph}_A) < \log d_A - \a/2 - \b \Big\} \\[0.5ex]
&\leq& |\cN_S| \; \Pr\big\{ S(\ph_A) < \log d_A - \a/2 - \b \big\} \nonumber
\\[0.5ex]
&\leq& \left(\frac{15 \log d_A}{\a}\right)^{\! \! 2s}
\exp\left( - \frac{(d_A \, d_B \, - 1) \, \a^2}{32 \pi^2 \ln 2 \, (\log
d_A)^2} \right). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ This proves the upper bound on the probability that the randomly selected subspace $S$ will not satisfy the large entanglement requirement. If this is smaller than $1$, a subspace with the stated properties exists; this can be secured by requiring $$s < \frac{(d_A d_B - 1)\a^2}
{438(\log d_A)^2 \log(15 \log d_A/\a)} \,.
\label{eq:dumbound}$$ A less tight but simpler expression can be obtained. By using $\log x \leq \sqrt{\frac{16}{15}x}$ for $x\geq 15$, we get $\log(15\log d_A/\a) \leq 4 \sqrt{\frac{\log d_A}{\a}}$, because $\a < \log d_A$. Now, if we are to replace the denominator in Eq. (\[eq:dumbound\]) by this new expression and still aim to make a non-vacuous statement (i.e. that $s\geq 2$), then, keeping in mind that $\a < \log d_A$, we find that $d_A d_B \geq 3505$, so that $d_A d_B - 1 \geq \smfrac{3504}{3505} d_A d_B$, leading to Eq. (\[eqn:sizeSubspace\]).
If $\a+\b$ is small, we can obtain another useful characterization of all the states in $S$: that they are all close to maximally entangled states.
\[cor:subspace-fidelity\] Every pure state $\ket{\ph}\in S$ constructed in Theorem \[thm:subspace\] is close to a maximally entangled state $\ket{\Phi}
\in A \ox B$: $$F(\ph,\Phi) \geq 1-\sqrt{2(\a+\b)} \, , \qquad
\| \ph-\Phi \|_1 \leq \sqrt[4]{16(\a+\b)} \, .$$
The relative entropy between $\ph_A$ and the maximally mixed state is given by $$D\left(\ph_A \left\|\smfrac{\1}{d_A} \right.\right)
= \log d_A - E(\ph) \leq \a+\b \,.$$ Hence, by Pinsker’s inequality (see [@OhyaP93; @SW01]), $\| \ph_A - \1/d_A \|_1 \leq \sqrt{2(\a+\b)}$. Using a well-known relation between trace distance and fidelity [@Fuchsv99], we obtain $F( \ph_A, \1/d_A) \geq 1-\sqrt{2(\a+\b)}$. By Uhlmann’s Theorem [@Uhlmann76; @Jozsa94] this means that $\ph$ is indeed close to a purification of the maximally mixed state, i.e., a maximally entangled state: there exists a maximally entangled state $\Phi$ such that $F(\ph,\Phi) \geq 1-\sqrt{2(\a+\b)}$, and hence, invoking [@Fuchsv99] once more, $\| \ph - \Phi \|_1 \leq \sqrt[4]{16(\a+\b)}$.
Correlation measures for random states {#sec:measures}
======================================
In this section, we consider correlation properties of rank-$s$ random states with distributions induced by partial tracing (see Definition \[def:randommixed\]). Our study was motivated by some surprising properties of the maximally mixed states on the random subspaces discussed in the previous section. Since the spectrum of a rank-$s$ random state is likely to be almost flat, the two types of mixed states are very similar asymptotically, at least for the purposes of our investigation. Thus, after a full discussion on the asymptotic correlation properties of rank-$s$ random states, we derive, as corollaries, asymptotic correlation properties of maximally mixed states on random subspaces.
Some measures of correlation for quantum states
-----------------------------------------------
Consider interconversions between copies of some state $\s_{AB}$ and EPR pairs by local operations and (two-way) classical communications (LOCC) in the limit of many copies. The number of EPR pairs needed per copy of $\s$ created is defined to be the entanglement cost [@HHT00], $E_c(\s_{AB}) = \lim_{n\rar\infty} \frac{1}{n} E_f(\s_{AB}^{\ox n})$, where $$E_f(\s_{AB})
= \min_{\sum_i p_i \proj{\ph^{i}}
= \s_{AB}} \sum_i p_i S(\ph_A^i)
\label{eq:ef}$$ is the entanglement of formation [@BDSW96]. $\s_{AB}$ is said to be [*separable*]{} if $E_f(\s_{AB}) = 0$. It is proved in [@GB03] that any $d$-dimensional state $\s$ is separable if \^2 1/(d-1) . \[eq:separable\] The number of EPR pairs that can be extracted per copy of $\s_{AB}$ is given by the entanglement of distillation, $E_d$ [@BDSW96]. One can also quantify the amount of secret key $K(\s)$ distillable against an eavesdropper holding the purification of the state (see [@D03; @DW03b; @DW03c] and references therein), and the distillable “common randomness” ${\rm CR}(\s)$ [@AC98; @DW03a] (discounting at the end of the protocol the amount of communication used). When the communication is restricted to one direction, say, from $A$ to $B$, we can define the corresponding distillable correlations $E_d^\rar(\s)$, $K^\rar(\s)$, and ${\rm CR}^\rar(\s)$. In particular, it is proved in [@DW03a] that $$\label{eq:crinfo}
{\rm CR}^\rar(\s) = \lim_{n\rar\infty} \frac{1}{n} I^\rar(\s^{\ox n}),$$ where $I^\rar(\s)$ is the [*maximum Holevo quantity*]{} [@H73] of the reduced ensemble of states in $B$ induced by a local measurement in $A$, if the initial state is $\s$. One can also formally define quantum mutual information $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sab}
S(A:B)_\s = S(\s_A) + S(\s_B) - S(\s_{AB}) \,,\end{aligned}$$ by analogy to Shannon’s classical quantity. The various measures are related by many known inequalities: E\_d() & & E\_c() E\_f() , \[eq:irrev-add\]\
E\_d() & & S(A:B)\_, \[eq:squash\]\
E\_d() & & K() () S(A:B)\_, \[eq:trivial2way\]\
E\_d\^() & & K\^() \^() , \[eq:trivial1way\] as well as the trivial bounds $E_d^\rar(\s) \leq E_d(\s)$ etc. Most of these inequalities follow directly from the operational definitions. Equation (\[eq:squash\]) was proved in [@CW03], exploiting the fact that the right hand side is an upper bound on the “squashed entanglement.” The rightmost inequality in Eq. (\[eq:trivial2way\]) can easily be proved by generalizing the classical case [@AC98].
As alluded to earlier, our investigation of correlation for random states was motivated by thinking about states on a maximally entangled subspace $S$ produced by Theorem \[thm:subspace\]. Any state on $S$, pure or mixed, has entanglement of formation at least $\log d_A - \a -\b$. Meanwhile, for the maximally mixed state $\r_{AB} = \int_S \proj{\ph} \; d\ph$ on $S$, $S(\r_{AB}) = \log s$ can be very high. Taking $\a \leq 1$ and $s$ equal to the value given by leads to a strong upper bound on the mutual information: $$\begin{aligned}
S(A:B)_\r \leq 2.5 \log\log d_A - \log(\G\a^{2.5}) +1 \,.
\label{eqn:mutualBound}\end{aligned}$$ It follows from Eqs. (\[eq:squash\])–(\[eq:trivial1way\]) that all of $E_d(\r)$, $K(\r), {\rm CR}(\r)$ are small. In particular, $E_f(\r) \gg E_d(\r)$, so that either $E_f(\r) \gg
E_c(\r)$ or $E_c(\r) \gg E_d(\r)$. In the first case, $\r_{AB}$ is a (rather drastic) counter-example to the additivity conjecture for the entanglement of formation: $\forall \s \; E_f(\s_{AB}^{\ox n}) = n E_f(\s_{AB})$ (see, for example, [@S04]). In the second case, the preparation of $\r_{AB}$ is near-maximally irreversible, making it a kind of entanglement black hole; preparing $\r_{AB}$ requires nearly as much entanglement as the most highly entangled state even though no useful entanglement can be extracted from it. Moreover, for most values of $s$, the gap $E_f(\r) \gg
E_d(\r)$ is generic.
Each of these states $\r_{AB}$ also provides an example of a quantum state that is more “entangled” than it is “correlated” — a hitherto unseen effect. At the very least, this reveals that “dividing” the correlations of a quantum state into entanglement and classical parts is problematic, since here we find a measure of entanglement that can exceed the combined quantum and classical correlations. It is interesting to note, however, that if one replaces the entanglement of formation by operational measures related to the entanglement of distillation, this decomposition of correlation into quantum and classical parts becomes possible, as demonstrated in [@OHHHH03].
Analysis of correlation measures for rank-$s$ random states
-----------------------------------------------------------
Throughout this section we select random states according to the prescription $\r \in_R \cS_s(A \ox B)$, with $d_B \geq d_A \geq 3$. Since the statements of the theorems are rather technical, we will begin by sketching a rough outline of the results to come. We will frequently need to make statements conditioned on the additivity conjecture for $E_f$ or, equivalently, $I^\rar$ (see [@KW04] for the equivalence). To simplify the discussion, from now on we will indicate that a statement is true conditioned on the conjecture by marking it with the symbol $*$, either as a superscript at the end of a sentence or above a mathematical symbol: $\stackrel{*}{=}$, for example. As a start, we confirm the gap between $E_f(\r)$ and $S(A:B)_\r$ that was discussed earlier for random maximally mixed states. Our findings are summarized in the Table \[table:high-rank\].
[|c|l|c|]{}\
\
Correlation Measure & Value & Likelihood\
$E_f \; (\stackrel{*}{=} E_c)$ & $\geq \log d - \e$ & $d^2$-likely\
$S(A:B) \; (\geq {\rm CR} \geq K, \, \geq 2 E_d)$ & $\leq 7 \log \log d$ & $d^4$-likely\
$I^\rar \; (\stackrel{*}{=} {\rm CR}^\rar \geq K^\rar \geq E_d^\rar)$ & $\leq \e$ & $d^2$-likely\
In fact, we are able to determine much more. Other than when $s$ is almost exactly equal to $d_A d_B$, we can compute excellent approximations to both $E_f$ and $I^\rar$. Assuming the additivity conjecture, that is sufficient to calculate the entanglement cost and one-way distillable entanglement of rank-$s$ random quantum states. Figure \[fig:asymptotics\] illustrates the situation when $d_B = d_A = d$ becomes large; it plots the normalized entanglement of formation, squashed entanglement and coherent information (see [@DW03b; @DW03c] for the relevant lower bound) against the normalized entropy, which is essentially the rank, of the likely random states from $\cS_s(A\ox B)$.
\[thm:random-EoF\] Let $\rho \in_R \cS_s(A\ox B)$, with $d_B \geq d_A \geq 3$, and $0 < \a < \log d_A$. Then:
1. If $s< d_A d_B (\log d_A)^{-2.5} \; \G\a^{2.5}$, then it is $d_A d_B$-likely that $E_f(\r_{AB}) \geq \log d_A - \a -\b$.\
The parameters $\a,\b,\G$ are the same as in Theorem \[thm:subspace\].
2. If $s > d_A d_B (\log d_A)^2 (6 \log d_B - 4 \log \e)
\frac{14 \ln 2}{\e^2}$, then it is $s$-likely that $E_f(\rho) \leq \e$.
3. If $s > 6(d_A d_B)^2$, then it is $\smfrac{s}{(d_A d_B)^2}$-likely that $\rho$ is separable.
4. If $s < d_A d_B$, it is $s d_A d_B$-likely that $S(A:B)_\r \leq \log d_A + \log d_B - \log s + \a + \b_1$ for $\b_1 = \smfrac{1}{\ln 2}\smfrac{s}{d_A d_B}$.\
If $s > d_A d_B$, it is $s d_A d_B$-likely that $S(A:B)_\r \leq \a + \b_2$ for $\b_2 = \smfrac{1}{\ln 2}\smfrac{d_A d_B}{s}$.
5. $E_d^{\rar}(\r)$, $K^{\rar}(\r)$, ${\rm CR}^{\rar}(\r)$ $E_d(\r)$, $K(\r)$, ${\rm CR}(\r)$ share the same upper bound as $S(A:B)_\r$, due to Eqs. (\[eq:squash\])–(\[eq:trivial1way\]).
Bounds on the probabilities $P_E$ of the various exceptional sets are given in the proof.
1. By the uniqueness of the unitarily invariant measure on the Grassmannian, the support of $\r$ [*is*]{} a random $s$-dimensional subspace $S$. Since $s$ satisfies the condition of in Theorem \[thm:subspace\], the claim follows from Eq. (\[eq:ef\]), with $P_E$ given in .
2. We apply Lemma \[lem:concentrationEig\] to $(A\ox B) \ox
\CC^{s}$ and choose $\e'$ so that $(1-\e') \smfrac{\1}{d_A d_B} \leq
\r \leq (1+\e') \smfrac{\1}{d_A d_B}$ is $s$-likely, in which case $\r =
(1-\e') \smfrac{\1}{d_A d_B} + \e' \r'$, for some state $\rho'$.\
If we choose $\e' = \e/\log d_A$, then by the convexity of $E_f$, $E_f(\r) \leq \e' E_f(\r') \leq \e$, and $P_E \leq 2 \bigl(10 d_A d_B (\log d_A)^2 /\e^2 \bigr)^{2 d_A d_B}
\exp\bigl(-\smfrac{s}{(\log d_A)^2} \smfrac{\e^2}{14 \ln 2} \bigr)$.
3. Setting $d=d_A d_B$, we shall bound $\Tr \r^2$ by $\frac{1}{d}+\frac{1}{d^2}$ and use Levy’s Lemma to estimate the probability that this occurs; then by we are done. This requires Lemma \[lem:Lip2\] for the upper bound of $2$ on the Lipschitz constant of $f(\rho) = \sqrt{\Tr \r^2}$, and a result from [@L78] which says $\EE\Tr\r^2 = \frac{d+s}{ds+1}$. Noting that $\Tr\r^2 \geq 1/d$, an argument as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:subsystemConvergence\] then implies that the median $m(\Tr\r^2) \leq {1}/{d} + {2}/{s}$. Then, by the definition of the median, $m(f) = \sqrt{m(\Tr\r^2)} \leq \sqrt{1/d+2/s} \leq
1/\sqrt{d} + \sqrt{d}/s$. Since, on the other hand, $\sqrt{1/d+1/d^2} \geq \sqrt{1/d}+1/(3d^{3/2})$, and, assuming $s \geq 6d^2 $, Lemma \[lem:Levy\] yields $$P_E \leq \Pr\left\{ f > \sqrt{\frac{1}{d}+\frac{1}{d^2}} \right\}
\leq \Pr\left\{ f > m(f) + \frac{1}{6d^{3/2}} \right\}
\leq \exp\left( -\frac{ds-1}{493d^3} \right),$$ which is less than one.
4. Using $S(\r_A) \leq \log d_A$ and $S(\r_B) \leq \log d_B$, it will be sufficient to lower bound $S(\r_{AB})$. If $s < d_A d_B$, apply Theorem \[thm:subsystemConvergence\] to the bipartite system $\CC^s \ox A \ox B$, $S(\r) \geq \log s - \a - \b_1$ with $P_E \leq \exp \bigl( -(s d_A d_B - 1) C_3 \a^2 / (\log s)^2
\bigr)$. If $s > d_A d_B$, the same theorem gives $S(\r) \geq \log(d_A d_B) -
\a - \b_2$, this time with $P_E \leq \exp \bigl( -(sd_A d_B -1) C_3 \a^2 / (\log d_A d_B)^2 \bigr)$. Note that the concentration effect is achieved via a large $d_A d_B$, and very little is required of $s$.
As a particular consequence of Theorem \[thm:random-EoF\], Parts 1 and 2, note that $E_f$ drops rapidly from near-maximal to near-minimal when the rank $s$ of the random state under consideration increases over the threshold $s \sim d_A d_B$. This very rapid drop, a prominent feature in Figure \[fig:asymptotics\], can be interpreted as another instance of the “locking effect” for $E_f$ pointed out in [@HHHO04]: let Alice and Bob each hold systems of $n$ qubits each, and provide them with a random state $\rho$ of rank $s = 2^{2n}/\poly(n)$ according to Theorem \[thm:random-EoF\], Part 1, so that $E_f(\rho) \geq n-1$ is likely. Then let Alice (and/or Bob) trace out $O(\log n)$ of their qubits such that the resulting random state $\rho'$ satisfies the criteria of Part 2 of the theorem. Since it is likely that $E_f(\rho') \leq \e$ for arbitrarily small $\e$, we conclude that tossing away only $O(\log n)$ qubits can change the entanglement of formation of a $2n$-qubit state by almost $n$. What is more, we have identified a regime where this effect is the overwhelmingly likely rule.
The upper bounds on the various correlation measures in Parts 4 and 5 of Theorem \[thm:random-EoF\] are negligible compared to $E_f(\rho)$ for $s \sim d_A d_B / \polylog(d_A)$, but still growing as $O(\log\log d_A)$. We now prove a [*vanishing*]{} upper bound for the quantity $I^{\rar}(\r)$ and random states of rank larger than $d_B$. The demonstration is closely related to the proof that random encodings can be used for quantum data hiding [@HLSW03; @HLS04].
\[thm:oneway-bounds\] Let $\rho \in_R \cS_s(A\ox B)$ be a random state of rank $s$. Then, for $\e \leq 1/3$ and $d_B \geq d_A$, $$\Pr\left\{ I^\rar(\rho) > 5\e \right\}
\leq 2 \left( \frac{20 d_B^2}{\e} \right)^{4d_B}
\exp\left( -s\e^2/17 \right).$$ Thus it is likely that $I^{\rar}(\r)$ is asymptotically vanishing as long as the rank $s$ of $\rho$ is sufficiently bigger than $d_B
\log d_B$. therefore imply the same vanishing upper bound on $E_d^{\rar}(\r)$, $K^{\rar}(\r)$ and ${\rm CR}^{\rar}(\r)$.$^*$
On the other hand, for $s/\e \leq d_B \leq \e s d_A$, we have $$\Pr\left\{ \bigl| I^{\rar}(\r) - (\log d_B-\log s) \bigr| > 2\e \right\}
\leq 2 \left( \frac{15 \log s}{\e} \right)^{2 d_A}
\exp\left( -\frac{(sd_B-1)\e^2}{32 \pi^2 \ln 2(\log s)^2}\right).$$ In other words, as long as the above constraints and $d_A < s d_B \frac{\G\e^{2.5}}{(\log s)^{2.5}}$ hold, it is $sd_B$-likely that $I^{\rar}(\r) = \log d_B - \log s \pm 2\e$.
We start with the explicit expression for $I^\rar(\rho)$ proved in [@DW03a]: $$\label{eq:I-rar}
I^\rar(\rho) := S(\rho_B) - \min_{M\text{ POVM on }A}
\sum_i \Tr(\rho_A M_i) \;
S \biggl( \frac
{\Tr_A \bigl(\rho\,(M_i \hspace{-0.3ex} \ox \hspace{-0.3ex} \1)\bigr)}
{\Tr(\rho_A M_i)} \biggr)$$ where the right hand side is the Holevo quantity [@H73] on Bob’s reduced ensemble of states labeled by the measurement outcome. Without loss of generality, all $M_i$ are of rank one. For the first part of the theorem, we will show that it is likely that for every rank-one projector $P$ acting on $A$, the corresponding projected state on $B$, = \[eq:sig\] is close to maximally mixed, so that for every POVM on $A$, the difference in Eq. (\[eq:I-rar\]) is small.
Since $\rho=\Tr_{\CC^s} \ph$ for $\ph\in_R A\ox B\ox \CC^s$, we have, for rank-one projectors $P$ and $Q$, $\Tr\bigl( \rho(P\ox Q) \bigr) = \Tr\bigl( \ph(P\ox Q\ox \1) \bigr)$, so Lemma \[lem:concentrationTr\] gives us $$\Pr\left\{
\left| \Tr\bigl(\r \, (P\ox Q)\bigr)-\frac{1}{d_Ad_B} \right|
> \frac{\e/2}{d_A d_B} \right\}
\leq 2\exp\left( -s\e^2/17 \right) .
\label{eq:expBoundI}$$ Now, Lemma \[lem:net\] gives us $\frac{\e}{4 \, d_A d_B}$-nets for the pure states (rank one projectors) on $A$ and $B$, of cardinality $({20 \, d_A d_B}/{\e})^{\!2d_A}$ and $({20 \, d_A d_B}/{\e})^{\!2d_B}$, respectively. Hence, by the union bound and triangle inequality, $$\Pr\left\{ \exists P,Q \
\left| \Tr\bigl(\r \, (P\ox Q)\bigr)-\frac{1}{d_Ad_B} \right|
> \frac{\e}{d_Ad_B} \right\}
\leq 2 \left(\frac{20 d_A d_B}{\e}\right)^{2(d_A+d_B)}
\exp\left(-s\e^2/17 \right).$$ If this event does not occur, then for every rank-one projector $P$, $$(1-\e)\frac{1}{d_B}\1 \leq \Tr_A \bigl( \r \, (P\ox\1) \bigr) \leq
(1+\e)\frac{1}{d_B}\1 \,,$$ and the post-measurement state $\s$ as defined in satisfies $$(1-3\e)\frac{1}{d_B}\1 \leq \sigma \leq (1+3\e)\frac{1}{d_B}\1,$$ which in turn easily implies $$S(\sigma) \geq \log d_B - \frac{3\e}{\ln 2} \geq \log d_B - 5\e,$$ by the operator monotonicity of $\log$. Putting this, using $d_B \geq d_A$ and substituting $S(\rho_B) \leq \log d_B$ into completes the argument.
For the second statement, we will use an alternative argument based on the entangled subspaces of Theorem \[thm:subspace\]. To begin with, there exists a $\ph\in_R {\cal P}(A\ox B\ox \CC^s)$ such that $\rho = \Tr_{\CC^s}\ph$. Hence, Theorem \[thm:subsystemConvergence\] informs us that $$\Pr\left\{ S(\rho_B) < \log d_B - \e - \frac{1}{\ln 2}\frac{d_B}{s d_A} \right\}
\leq \exp\left( -\frac{(sd_Ad_B-1)C_3\e^2}{(\log d_B)^2} \right).
\label{eq:theentropy}$$ On the other hand, consider the post-measurement state $\sigma$ on $B$ as in — it can clearly be written as the corresponding post-measurement (pure) state $\psi$ on $B\ox\CC^s$, reduced to $B$: $\sigma = \psi_B$, and $S(\sigma) = E(\psi)$. But $\ket{\psi}$ lies in the supporting subspace of $\Tr_A\ph$, which is a random subspace of dimension $d_A$ in $B\ox\CC^s$. Hence we can apply Theorem \[thm:subspace\], telling us $$\Pr\left\{ \exists \text{post-meas. state }\sigma,\ S(\sigma)
< \log s - \e -\frac{1}{\ln 2}\frac{s}{d_B} \right\}
\leq \left( \frac{15 \log s}{\e} \right)^{2 d_A}
\exp\left( -\frac{(sd_B-1)\e^2}{32\pi^2\ln 2(\log s)^2}\right).$$ Since this dominates the bound in , we will be done if we just insert our entropy bounds, $\log d_B -\e - \smfrac{1}{\ln 2}\smfrac{d_B}{s d_A}
\leq S(\rho_B) \leq \log d_B$ and $\log s -\e - \smfrac{1}{\ln 2}\smfrac{s}{d_B}
\leq S(\sigma) \leq \log s$, into and respect the dimension constraints we inherit.
We finish this subsection by considering a more qualitative aspect of entanglement of a state $\rho$ on $A\ox B$, *one-copy (pseudo-)distillability*, meaning that there exist two-dimensional projectors $P$ and $Q$ on $A$ and $B$ respectively such that = \[eq:sig2\] has [*partial transpose*]{} that is not positive semidefinite [@P96] (NPT). The motivation is that in this case $\sigma$ is effectively a two-qubit state, and $\s$ is distillable if it is NPT, and separable if it is not (PPT) [@HHH97]. Furthermore, $\rho$ is distillable if and only if $\rho^{\ox n}$ is one-copy distillable for some $n$ [@HHH98].
\[thm:one-copy-undistillable\] Let $\rho \in_R \cS_s(A\ox B)$ be a random state of rank $s$ with $d_B \geq d_A$. Then, $$\Pr\left\{ \rho \text{ one-copy distillable} \right\}
\leq 2 (10d_B)^{16d_B} \exp\left( -s/600\ln 2 \right)$$ In particular, once $s > 7000 d_B\log(10d_B)$, $\rho$ is likely to be one-copy undistillable.
We will show that $\forall P \ox Q$, $\sigma$ in is likely to be separable, using a characterization from [@GB03] that $\sigma$ is separable if $\| \sigma-\frac{1}{4}\1 \|_\infty \leq
\frac{1}{8}$.
To show the above, fix any Schmidt-rank two state $\ket{\ps}$ on $A \ox B$. Since $\Tr(\r \ps) = \Tr_{\CC^s} (\ph) (\ps \ox \1)$ for $\ph \in_R \cP(A \ox B \ox \CC^s)$, Lemma \[lem:concentrationTr\] yields $$\Pr\left\{ \left| \Tr\rho\ps - \frac{1}{d_Ad_B} \right| >
\frac{\d}{d_Ad_B} \right\}
\leq 2 \exp\left( -s\frac{\d^2}{6\ln 2} \right) \,.
\label{eq:expBoundDistill}$$ By the triangle inequality and the union bound over a $\frac{\d}{d_Ad_B}$-net $\cN$ for Schmidt-rank two states in $A\ox B$ (Lemma \[lem:netk\]), with $|\cN| \leq \left({10 d_A d_B}/{\d}\right)^{4(d_A+d_B)}$, we obtain, putting $\d=1/10$ and using $d_B \geq d_A$, $$\Pr\left\{ \exists\ps\text{ of Schmidt-rank }2\
\left| \Tr\rho\ps - \frac{1}{d_Ad_B} \right| > \frac{2\d}{d_Ad_B} \right\}
\leq 2\left(\frac{10d_B^2}{\d}\right)^{8d_B}
\exp\left( -s\frac{\d^2}{6\ln 2} \right).$$
If for all Schmidt-rank two states $\ph$, $\left| \Tr\rho\ps -
\frac{1}{d_Ad_B} \right| \leq \frac{2\d}{d_Ad_B}$, then for all rank two projectors $P,Q$ and for any state $|\xi\>$ in the support of $P \ox Q$, $$\smfrac{1{-}2\d}{d_Ad_B} \; \<\xi| (P \ox Q) |\xi\> \leq
\<\xi| (P \ox Q) \rho (P \ox Q) |\xi\>
\leq \smfrac{1{+}2\d}{d_Ad_B} \; \<\xi| (P \ox Q) |\xi\> \,,$$ and therefore $$\smfrac{1{-}2\d}{d_Ad_B} \; P \ox Q \leq (P \ox Q) \rho (P \ox Q)
\leq \smfrac{1{+}2\d}{d_Ad_B} \; P \ox Q \,.$$ and $\smfrac{4(1{-}2\d)}{d_Ad_B} \leq \Tr\bigl( (P \ox Q) \rho \bigr)
\leq \smfrac{4(1{+}2\d)}{d_Ad_B}$. Thus, for $\sigma$ defined in $$\frac{1-2\d}{1+2\d}\cdot\frac{1}{4} P \ox Q \leq \s
\leq \frac{1+2\d}{1-2\d}\cdot\frac{1}{4}P \ox Q.$$ The choice $\d \leq 1/10$ will secure that $\|\s-\frac{1}{4}P \ox Q\|_\infty
\leq 1/8$ and we are done.
We began our study of correlation by considering the entanglement of formation and mutual information for the maximally mixed state $\r_{AB}$ on a random subspace $S$ of dimension $s$, before moving on to study mixed states with the measure induced by tracing over part of a random pure state. To end, we note that both Theorems \[thm:oneway-bounds\] and \[thm:one-copy-undistillable\] apply unaltered if $\r_{AB}$ is chosen as a random maximally mixed state instead of according to $\cS_s(A\ox B)$. Not even the proofs need to change: the crucial applications of Lemma \[lem:concentrationTr\] in Eqs. (\[eq:expBoundI\]) and (\[eq:expBoundDistill\]) give exactly the same estimates for the new distribution.
Multiparty entanglement {#sec:multiparty}
=======================
With a little more work, and building upon the results obtained so far, we can learn a good deal about the entanglement properties of generic random multipartite states. To that end, let $\ph \in_R {\cal P}\left( (\CC^d)^{\ox n} \right)$; we could easily allow for different local dimensions but that would only result in more cumbersome notation. Also, let us label the $n$ subsystems by numbers $1,\ldots,n$. A subset of the parties is given the name $X\subset\{1,\ldots,n\}$, and its complement $\overline{X}=\{1,\ldots,n\}\setminus X$. Each $X$ thus defines a bipartite cut, and we will freely call the cut $X$ as well. Let $\ph_X = \Tr_{\overline{X}} \ph$ denote the state reduced to the systems in $X$.
The questions we address here are the following:
1. Entropy of entanglement across any bipartite cut.
2. Entanglement of formation and separability of reduced states on an arbitrary set of $k<n$ parties.
3. Distillability of maximal entanglement between arbitrary pairs of parties by LOCC between all parties.
For the first two questions, either the local dimension $d$ or the number of parties $n$ can be treated as the asymptotic parameter; the important thing, in fact, is that the combination $d^n$ become large. For the distillability question, however, our results will only be valid for large $d$.
\[cor:multi-entanglement\] Let $\ph \in_R {\cal P}\left( (\CC^d)^{\ox n} \right)$ be a random state, and $\a>0$. Then $$\Pr\bigl\{ \exists X\ E(\ph_{X,\overline{X}}) = S(\ph_X)
< x\log d - \a - \b_X \bigr\}
\leq 2^{n-1} \exp\left( -\frac{(d^n-1)C_3\a^2}{n^2(\log d)^2} \right),
\label{eq:allcuts}$$ where $x = \min(|X|,|\bar{X}|)$, $C_3=(8\pi^2\ln 2)^{-1}$ is the same as in Theorem \[thm:subsystemConvergence\] and $\b_X=\frac{1}{\ln 2}d^{2x-n}$.
In other words, it is $d^n$-likely that $\ph$ is highly entangled across any bipartite cut and almost maximally entangled across any cut such that $|X|\neq n/2$.
This follows immediately from Theorem \[thm:subsystemConvergence\] and the union bound on all $2^{n-1}$ cuts $X$ with $x\leq n/2$. The parameter $\beta_X$ is just $\beta$ in Theorem \[thm:subsystemConvergence\] with the proper dimensions.
Note that we cover the case $d=2$, too, since there the Lipschitz constant can be bounded by $\sqrt{8}\log 3$ and in Eq. (\[eq:allcuts\]) we have substituted the much larger $\sqrt{8}n\log d$.
\[cor:multi-EoF\] Let $\ph \in_R {\cal P}\left( (\CC^d)^{\ox n} \right)$ be a random state, and consider arbitrary $X\subset\{1,\ldots,n\}$ of cardinality $x$ and arbitrary cuts within $X$ into disjoint subsets, $X_{1},X_{2}$ of sizes $x_1 \leq x_2$. Then there exist absolute numerical constants $M_1$ and $M_2$ such that
1. If $x > n/2 + M_1 \frac{1}{\log d}\log\frac{n\log d}{\a}$, $0<\a<1$ and $\b=\frac{1}{2\ln 2}\,d^{x_1-x_2}$, it is $d^x$-likely that for all $X_1$, $E_f(\ph_{X}) \geq x_1 \log d - \a - \b$.
2. If $x < n/2 - M_2 \frac{1}{\log d}\log\frac{n\log d}{\e^2}$ and $\e>0$, it is $d^{n-x}$-likely that for all $X_1$, $E_f(\ph_X) \leq \e$.
3. If $x < n/3 - \frac{1}{\log d}$, it is $d^{n-3x}$-likely that $\ph_X$ is separable (as a multiparty state of $x$ parties).
For each $X$, the claims are simply Parts 1-3 of Theorem \[thm:random-EoF\] applied to $\r$ with total dimension $d^x$ and with rank $d^{\,n-x}$. The worst case $X$ is taken care of by a union bound over all $X$ and all possible cuts, of which there are at most $3^n$ in total.
Note that our proof of Part 3 in Theorem \[thm:random-EoF\] actually shows separability for every decomposition of the system into arbitrary subsystems, because it uses only the bound on the purity and the result of [@GB03] to that effect.
Observe that the thresholds for the group sizes become, for fixed $n$ and $d\rightarrow\infty$, $n/2$, $n/2$ and $n/3$. The findings of Corollary \[cor:multi-EoF\] should be compared to numerical investigations reported in [@KZM02]: there the threshold $n/3$ was argued heuristically based on the knowledge of the expectation of $\Tr\rho^2$ and the postulate that it would exhibit measure concentration. Interestingly, the numerical studies indicate that the reduced state already becomes PPT at $x \sim n/2$.
\[cor:multi-dist\] With $n$ fixed, consider the following one-shot protocol for distilling entanglement between an arbitrary pair chosen from among $n$ $d$-dimensional systems:
Then it is likely that $\forall X,J$, $E (\ph_{X,J}) \geq \log d -
\frac{1}{\ln 2} - \a$. In other words, there is *one* protocol which allows any pair of parties to distill almost $\log d$ ebits between them.
Note that $\ph_{X,J} \in_R \cP(X)$. The claim then follows from Theorem \[thm:subsystemConvergence\] and the union bound.
The yield of the above distillation protocol is a nearly maximally entangled state between the members of the pair. This feature of generic multiparty entanglement is also shared by the cluster state of Briegel and Raussendorf [@BR01]; in the language of their paper, random multiparty pure states are likely to have maximally persistent entanglement and to be maximally connected, modulo the fact that the state distilled in Corollary \[cor:multi-dist\] is not *exactly* a maximally entangled state. Along the same lines, when $n$ is fixed and $d$ is large, the protocol presented here can be used to distill arbitrary pairwise entanglement, which in turn allows any arbitrary pure state between the $n$ parties to be prepared. The efficiency, however, could be very poor.
It is clear that there are innumerable other entanglement parameters one could investigate for $\ph \in_R {\cal P}\left( (\CC^d)^{\ox n} \right)$. The question of identifying the maximal yield for states other than bipartite maximally entangled states seems to be particularly interesting given the difficulty inherent in studying such questions for non-generic states.
Derandomization of superdense coding {#sec:superdense}
====================================
Superdense coding of quantum states was introduced in [@HHL03]: there it was shown that, in the large-dimensional asymptotics, the state of two qubits can be communicated exactly with high probability using one ebit of entanglement and one transmitted qubit provided the sender has full knowledge of the communicated state. (This is known as the *visible* scenario.) However, the protocol in [@HHL03] also requires one shared bit of randomness per two qubits communicated.
Theorem \[thm:subspace\] suggests an alternative protocol that does not require shared randomness: Let the sender and receiver possess systems $B$ and $A$ initially. (Note that this convention is opposite to common usage, but has the advantage that $d_B \geq d_A$ in accord with the rest of this paper.) Let $\a$, $\b$, and $\G$ be as defined in Theorem \[thm:subspace\], $d_B = d_A (\log d_A)^{2.5} \; \G^{-1} \a^{-2.5}$, so that a subspace $S$ as described in Corollary \[cor:subspace-fidelity\]) can be chosen with $s = d_A^2$. Here, $\b<\a$, so that for every $\ket{\ph}\in S$ there exists a maximally entangled state $\ket{\Phi}\in A\ox B$ with $|\braket{\ph}{\Phi}|^2 \geq 1 - 2\sqrt{\a}$. Starting from a fixed maximally entangled state $\Phi_0$ on $A\ox B$, the sender can prepare any quantum state $\ket{\ph} \in S$ of $\log s = 2 \log d_A$ qubits in the receiver’s laboratory by applying a unitary transformation $U$ to $B$ such that $\ket{\Phi} = (\1\ox U)\ket{\Phi_0}$ and sends his system to the receiver, who projects the state into the subspace $S$ (and substitutes an arbitrary state if the projection fails). It is evident that this protocol achieves what we aimed for.
\[thm:superdense\] Asymptotically, $2 \log d_A$ qubits can be communicated visibly by using $\log d_A$ ebits and $\log d_B = \log d_A + 2.5 \log \log d_A -
\log (\G \a^{2.5})$ qubits of communication. The fidelity is $\geq 1 - 2\sqrt{\a}$.
Note a technical point, however: we pay a certain price for not having to spend shared randomness. The protocol of [@HHL03] produces an *exact* copy of the target state when it succeeds, which occurs with high probability. The protocol we propose here always succeeds, but is not guaranteed to be exact. While the distinction is unimportant in practice because the fidelity in our protocol can be made arbitrarily high, the probabilistic-exact formulation is nonetheless the stronger criterion from a theoretical point of view. We do not know if the small sacrifice of fidelity is essential for the derandomization or if, instead, a derandomized probabilistic-exact protocol exists.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
We have seen that exponentially tight measure concentration, along with careful attention to the achievable exponents, leads to many interesting statements about the ubiquity, in composite systems, of subspaces and states with rather extreme properties. Specifically, many natural entanglement quantities are amenable to techniques from the theory; we found that there abound large subspaces containing only almost maximally entangled states, whereas states supported on such subspaces can be shown to yield almost no distillable correlation in the form of entanglement, secret key or common randomness. In fact, in sharp contrast to the difficulty one encounters for specific examples, our techniques yield very good approximations to the values of these correlation quantities for generic random states.
Figure \[fig:asymptotics\] collects many of our results on correlation measures. Perhaps its most striking feature is the gap between a random state’s entanglement of formation and its distillable correlation as the rank of the random state approaches the total dimension. In that regime, the gap is as large as it would be between a maximally entangled state and a product state. Thus, strong irreversibility of entanglement, quantified as a gap between preparation cost and distillability, seems to be generic in large systems. While the conclusion relies on the assumption that the entanglement of formation is additive, the only way to evade it would be for additivity to fail very drastically for random states.
We have also begun exploring the effects of measure concentration in multipartite systems: once again, the states seem to behave in quite unexpected, even counterintuitive, but ultimately rather uniform ways. Random pure states, for example, almost always have near-maximal distillable entanglement between any pair of parties, provided all other parties are allowed to participate in the distillation protocol. For an $n$-party state, we can also identify $x=n/2$ as the point at which the state of a subset of $x$ parties transitions from having near maximal entanglement of formation to near-zero entanglement of formation. Also, below $x=n/3$, the state becomes separable, confirming numerical evidence and heuristic reasoning from [@KZM02].
The large subspace of almost maximally entangled states mentioned earlier also has a constructive consequence: it allows us to get rid of the shared randomness in previous protocols for “superdense coding of quantum states”. The result presented here, moreover, can be considerably strengthened: optimal protocols for superdense coding of entangled quantum states are presented in [@AHSW04].
Our work leaves open a number of questions, many of which we’ve mentioned in the course of our presentation. We collect here some of those we find most interesting:
1. There are some precedents in the literature for our results on entangled subspaces. If one relaxes the condition on the subspace, asking only that it contain no product states, as opposed to exclusively maximally entangled states, then the dimension of $S$ can be improved; Parthasarathy recently demonstrated that $S$ could be taken to be of dimension $d_A d_B - d_A - d_B + 1$, and that this is maximal [@P04]. For the sake of comparison, by taking $\a = \smfrac{1}{2} \log d_A$ in Theorem \[thm:subspace\], we find that there exists a subspace $S$ of dimension $\lfloor \smfrac{d_A d_B}{9917} \rfloor$, all of whose states have entanglement at least $\smfrac{1}{2}\log d_A - \b$. While the gap between the two results is small if measured in qubits, it is still significant in absolute terms. It is, therefore, natural to ask how entangled the states of $S$ can be while still attaining Parthasarathy’s bound.
2. The techniques used here are inadequate for exploring the transition from near-maximal to near-zero entanglement of formation in rank-$s$ random states. What is the behavior of $E_f$ in the transition region?
3. How much can be said about the additivity conjecture for random quantum states? The results in this paper, for example, can be used to show that a random pure state of a sufficiently high-dimensional four-party system will not violate the superadditivity conjecture for the entanglement of formation. That, however, is insufficient to rescue us from the conditional nature of our conclusions about $E_c$ and $E_d^\rar$ based on results for $E_f$ and $I^\rar$.
4. Theorems \[thm:oneway-bounds\] and \[thm:one-copy-undistillable\] can be interpreted as evidence that, when $s \gg d_B \log d_B$, rank-$s$ random states on $A\ox B$ are actually undistillable. This would be very interesting to decide, as these same random states are likely to have near-maximal entanglement of formation, so being simultaneously undistillable would make them extreme examples of bound entanglement.
5. While we have studied the mixed-state measures induced by taking the partial trace over a larger system, there are other proposals for measures on the set of mixed states. Are our results still true, for example, if one substitutes the Bures measure [@Hall98; @SZ04] for our choice?
6. How does one construct random states? Are there physical processes that will naturally produce states of the type we have studied here? One possibility for engineering them would be to use the pseudorandom unitaries of [@EWSLC03]. To what extent will the deviation from the true Haar measure affect our conclusions [@WH04]?
There is no question that *random* entangled states are far easier to understand than *all* entangled states. While here we have focussed primarily on entanglement measures, it could even be the case that the theory of interconversions undergoes a similar drastic simplification. Perhaps equivalence via LOCC for random states can be completely resolved, up to the inevitable exceptional sets, a speculative note on which we would like to end this paper.
Thanks to Noah Linden for interesting conversations on multiparty entangled states and for comments on an earlier version of our manuscript. A large part of this work was done during a visit of AW’s to the Institute for Quantum Information in spring 2004. AW gratefully acknowledges the hospitality of IQI during this time; he furthermore acknowledges support from the EU under European Commission project RESQ, contract No. IST-2001-37559. DL and PH are supported by National Science Foundation Grant No. EIA-0086038. PH acknowledges support from the Sherman Fairchild Foundation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We introduce the concept of Non-Local RoI (NL-RoI) Block as a generic and flexible module that can be seamlessly adapted into different Mask R-CNN heads for various tasks. Mask R-CNN treats RoIs (Regions of Interest) independently and performs the prediction based on individual object bounding boxes. However, the correlation between objects may provide useful information for detection and segmentation. The proposed NL-RoI Block enables each RoI to refer to all other RoIs’ information, and results in a simple, low-cost but effective module. Our experimental results show that generalizations with NL-RoI Blocks can improve the performance of Mask R-CNN for instance segmentation on the Robust Vision Challenge benchmarks.'
author:
- |
Shou-Yao Roy Tseng\
National Tsing Hua University\
[[email protected]]{}
- |
Hwann-Tzong Chen\
National Tsing Hua University\
[[email protected]]{}
- |
Shao-Heng Tai\
Umbo Computer Vision\
[[email protected]]{}
- |
Tyng-Luh Liu\
Academia Sinica\
[[email protected]]{}
title: 'Non-local RoIs for Instance Segmentation'
---
Introduction
============
The current trend of deep network architectures for object detection can be categorized into two main streams: one-stage detectors and two-stage detectors. One-stage detectors perform the task of object detection in an end-to-end single-pass manner, YOLO [@Joseph2016YOLO; @Joseph2017YOLOv2; @Redmon2018YOLOv3] and SSD [@Liu2016SSD; @Fu2017DSSD]. On the other hand, two-stage detectors divide the task into two sub-problems that respectively focus on extracting object region proposals and classifying each of the candidate regions. Detectors such as Faster R-CNN [@Ren2015Faster] and Light-Head R-CNN [@Li2017lighthead] are both of this kind.
Mask R-CNN [@He2017MaskRCNN] extends Faster R-CNN by adding a branch for predicting segmentation masks on each Region of Interest (RoI) in parallel with the existing branch for classification and bounding box regression. This showcases the architecture flexibility of two-stage detectors for multitasking over the one-stage counterparts. Different branches in Mask R-CNN share the same set of high-level features extracted by a deep CNN backbone network, such as ResNet [@He2016ResNet]. Then, each branch attends to specific RoI via *RoIAlign*, a simple and quantization-free layer that faithfully preserves spatial preciseness. Further, the proposed [*Non-Local RoI (NL-RoI) Block*]{} can be incorporated into Mask R-CNN to achieve better performance.
The ability to capture long-range and non-local information is a key success factor of deeper CNNs. For vanilla Mask R-CNN, the only means to acquire non-local information for each RoI is to explore the high-level features extracted by the deep backbone network. However, the high-level features are shared among all RoIs of different spatial locations, semantic categories, and branches for different tasks. Such high-level features are assumed to be general rather than specific for individual RoIs so that they are applicable to all the above varieties. Therefore, it is difficult for the same set of features to also contain the RoI-specific information. Besides, RoI features are rectangularly extracted based on their corresponding bounding box proposed by the *Region Proposal Network (RPN)*. It is very likely to have multiple instances in a single bounding box when the scene is crowded. Moreover, if the instances are of the same category, it is harder for the branch network to tell apart the boundary by only referring to the local feature within an RoI. Especially for non-rigid objects, such as persons, the target object will deform in shape, and the bounding box has a higher chance to include other objects interlacing in a more complicated way.
To tackle the above concern, we introduce the idea of NL-RoI Block to better address the problem, and argue that RoI-specific non-local information can be helpful in discriminating the target instance from the others. For example, due to object co-occurrence prior in the real world, it is more probable to see cars along with pedestrians instead of refrigerators in a street scene. Besides, mutual information between instances may also be useful. Consider a scene of group dancing: People are usually posing in similar ways, and hence we can more confidently predict the pose for a dancer under partial occlusion, by referring to other dancers’ poses.
Our NL-RoI Block module is inspired by the non-local operations proposed by Wang [@Wang2018Nonlocal]. They present the non-local operations as a family of generic building blocks for capturing long-range dependencies in different locations of data domain. The location can sit in a pixel or an audio sample for visual and acoustic data respectively. For visual data domain, the dependencies may come across space for tasks using a single static image, or space-time for tasks involving an extra time dimension such as video classification. In contrast, NL-RoIs are focusing on the long-range dependencies at **a higher level between instances** instead of just the pixel level. Specifically, our method explicitly empowers the network to model correlations and attentions between RoIs. By taking into account all pairs of RoIs of a scene in an efficient way, the NL-RoI Block benefits from not only neighboring RoIs but also spatially separated ones.
Non-local RoI
=============
We first introduce the general definition of non-local RoI operation by following the notations in [@Wang2018Nonlocal]. We then go on to provide a detailed implementation about the NL-RoI Block used in Robust Vision Challenge 2018. Fig. \[fig:NLB\] shows the basic idea about how we apply the NL-RoI Block to augment the original RoI feature blobs.
Formulation
-----------
Inspired by the non-local operation in [@Wang2018Nonlocal], we define a generic non-local RoI operation for the use in conjunction with R-CNN based models [@Ross2014RCNN]: $$\begin{aligned} {{\mathbf{y}}}_{i} = \frac{1}{\bm{C}(X)_i} \sum_{j=1}^{N}{ f(\mathbf{x}_{i}, {{\mathbf{x}}}_{j}) g({{\mathbf{x}}}_{j})} \,,
\end{aligned}
\label{equation:nonlocal_roi}$$ where $i$ is the index of a target RoI whose non-local information is to be computed and $j$ enumerates all the $N$ RoIs, including the target one. The input feature blob is denoted as $X=[{{\mathbf{x}}}_1,\cdots,{{\mathbf{x}}}_N]$ and the output feature containing non-local information is denoted by $Y=[{{\mathbf{y}}}_1,\cdots,{{\mathbf{y}}}_N]$. A pairwise function $f$ computes a scalar that reflects the correlation between the $i$th target RoI and each of the RoIs ($\forall{j} \in \{1..N\}$). The unary function $g$ maps the input feature from the $j$th RoI to another representation, which gives the operation the capacity to convert the input feature to be more specialized for non-local information. Finally, the response is normalized by a factor $\bm{C}(X)_i$.
The non-local RoI property in Eq. (\[equation:nonlocal\_roi\]) originates from the fact that all RoIs are associated with each other in the operation. For each RoI, the non-local RoI operation computes responses based on correlations between different RoIs. Theoretically, each RoI should gradually learn to characterize a meaningful instance during training. That is, Eq. (\[equation:nonlocal\_roi\]) enables the attention mechanism between instances. Moreover, this kind of non-local operation supports a variable input number $N$ of RoIs.
![Using an NL-RoI Block to extract augmented RoI-specific features. []{data-label="fig:NLB"}](NLB.pdf){width="0.985\linewidth"}
Implementation of NL-RoI Block
------------------------------
While different possible instantiations for $f$ can be chosen, Wang [@Wang2018Nonlocal] show, by experiments, that the non-local operations are not sensitive to specific choices. For simplicity, we just adopt the *Embedded Gaussian* version of $f$: $$\begin{aligned} f({{\mathbf{x}}}_{i},{{\mathbf{x}}}_{j}) = e^{\phi({{{\mathbf{x}}}_{i}})^{T} \psi({{{\mathbf{x}}}_{j}})} \,,
\end{aligned}
\label{equation:f_embedded_gaussian}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \bm{C}(X)_i = \sum_{j=1}^N{f({{\mathbf{x}}}_{i}, {{\mathbf{x}}}_{j})} \,.
\end{aligned}
\label{equation:f_normalization_factor}$$ Assume that we have $N$ RoIs and $D$ channels of input features, and the aligned RoI spatial size is $H \times W$. Hence, the input feature blob $X$ has the shape of $(N, D, H, W)$. The two embedding functions $\phi$ and $\psi$ are both chosen to be a 1-by-1 2D convolution that reduces the channel dimension of the input blob. The purpose of $f$ is to calculate the correlations between $N$ RoIs, so the output of $f$ being applied to the whole input blob $X$ should be an $N$-by-$N$ matrix. The output blobs from $\phi$ and $\psi$ are reshaped to $(N, D_f \times H \times W)$. Afterward, a matrix multiplication on the reshaped outputs is performed to obtain the correlation matrix. Exponential and normalization terms are implemented by taking *softmax* to the rows of the correlation matrix. It is worth noting that this form of $f$ is essentially the same as the *Self-Attention Module* in [@Vaswani2017Attention] for machine translation. For a given $i$, $\frac{1}{\bm{C}(X)_i} f({{\mathbf{x}}}_{i},{{\mathbf{x}}}_{j})$ becomes a *softmax* computation along the dimension $j$. Eq. (\[equation:nonlocal\_roi\]) results in the self-attention form $Y =\textit{softmax}(X^{T}W_{\phi}^{T}W_{\psi}X)$ in [@Vaswani2017Attention].
The remaining part in non-local RoI operation $g$ is responsible for extracting useful non-local information from the input feature. Following the bottleneck design of [@He2016ResNet], we first use a 1-by-1 convolution to reduce the channel dimension and then a 3-by-3 convolution to take in the spatial information. To further cut down memory cost, a global 2D average pooling is applied. Finally, the pooled feature blob of shape $(N, D_g, 1, 1)$ is tiled around $H, W$ spatial dimensions and is appended to the end of input blob, as showed in Fig. \[fig:NLB\_detail\]. A ReLU activation function [@Nair2010ReLU] is used between the two convolution layers.
![The detailed operations of a NL-RoI Block.[]{data-label="fig:NLB_detail"}](NLB_detail.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
Instance Segmentation Model
===========================
Our NL-RoI Block is plugged into Mask R-CNN to perform instance segmentation. The backbone network for image feature extraction is ResNet-50 with FPN [@Lin2017FPN]. We replace batch normalization [@Ioffe2015batchnorm] by group normalization [@Wu2018groupnorm] for better training stability and convergence with a smaller batch size.
#### Training.
The core training datasets for our method include Cityscapes [@Cordts2016Cityscapes], Kitti Instance Segmentation [@Alhaija2017BMVC], WildDash [@ZendelMHH2017WildDash], and ScanNet [@Dai2017ScanNet]. In addition, we use ADE20K [@Zhou2017scene] to provide more furniture samples for training. There are 76[,]{}528 valid training images in total. We train for 136K iterations, starting from a learning rate of $0.02$ and reducing it to $0.01$, $1e{-3}$, $1e{-4}$ on 56K^th^, 76K^th^, 116K^th^ iteration respectively. We use a weight decay of 0.0001 and a momentum of 0.9. Pre-trained weights for corresponding Mask R-CNN architecture from Detectron [@Detectron2018] are loaded during initialization.
#### Inference.
At inference time, the input image is resized to 800 pixels on the shorter side. If the length of the longer side of resized image exceeds 1[,]{}333 pixels, we further resize the image to make sure the length of the longer side is 1[,]{}333 pixels. Soft-NMS [@Bodla2017softnms] and box-voting [@GidarisK2015] are also used during inference.
All implementations of the proposed NL-RoI Block and the related modifications are based on PyTorch deep learning framework [@paszke2017automatic] and the *Detectron.pytorch* GitHub Repo [@Detectron.pytorch2018] of the first author, Roy Tseng.
Benchmark Results
=================
Table \[rob2018\_bench\] summarizes the instance segmentation benchmark results of NL-RoI on the four datasets involved in Robust Vision Challenge 2018. Fig. \[figs:kitti\_instance\_results\] shows two sample results on the Kitti test set.
\[rob2018\_bench\]
Dataset AP50:95 AP50 AP100m AP50m Neg AP
--------- --------- ------- -------- ------- --------
16.37% 34.5% - - -
24.0% 45.8% 36.1% 40.8% -
19.4% 34.0% - - 19.7%
11% - - - -
: ROB2018 Instance Segmentation Benchmarks. AP: average of average precision ranging from overlap 0.5 to 0.95 in steps 0.05. AP50: average precision at overlap 0.5. AP100m/50m: average precision on objects within 100m/50m distance. Neg AP: average precision on images with visual hazards of blur, distortion, overexposure, etc.
![Instance segmentation sample results on Kitti test set.[]{data-label="figs:kitti_instance_results"}](kitti_test_image_1.png "fig:"){width="45.50000%"} ![Instance segmentation sample results on Kitti test set.[]{data-label="figs:kitti_instance_results"}](kitti_test_image_4.png "fig:"){width="45.50000%"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Studies show that the representations learned by deep neural networks can be transferred to similar prediction tasks in other domains for which we do not have enough labeled data. However, as we transition to higher layers in the model, the representations become more task-specific and less generalizable. Recent research on deep domain adaptation proposed to mitigate this problem by forcing the deep model to learn more transferable feature representations across domains. This is achieved by incorporating domain adaptation methods into deep learning pipeline. The majority of existing models learn the transferable feature representations which are highly correlated with the outcome. However, correlations are not always transferable. In this paper, we propose a novel deep causal representation learning framework for unsupervised domain adaptation, in which we propose to learn domain-invariant causal representations of the input from the source domain. We simulate a virtual target domain using reweighted samples from the source domain and estimate the causal effect of features on the outcomes. The extensive comparative study demonstrates the strengths of the proposed model for unsupervised domain adaptation via causal representations.'
author:
- |
Raha Moraffah\
Department of Computer Science\
Arizona State University\
Tempe, AZ 85281\
`[email protected]`\
Kai Shu\
Department of Computer Science\
Arizona State University\
Tempe, AZ 85281\
`[email protected]`\
Adrienne Raglin\
Army Research Lab\
2800 Powder Mill Rd\
Adelphi, MD 20783\
`[email protected] `\
Huan Liu\
Department of Computer Science\
Arizona State University\
Tempe, AZ 85281\
`[email protected]`\
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: |
Deep Causal Representation Learning for\
Unsupervised Domain Adaptation
---
Introduction
============
Deep neural networks have had great achievements in different areas such as image classification [@Krizhevsky:2012:ICD:2999134.2999257] and object detection [@Girshick:2014:RFH:2679600.2679851]. These models usually require huge amounts of training data. However, collecting and annotating datasets are usually labor-intensive. Luckily, there are huge amounts of labeled data available from other domains that can be leveraged. However, distributions of the source (i.e., the learning model is trained on) and target (i.e., the dataset we wish to apply the trained model on) are usually different, which leads to the failure of those models that transfer the knowledge from source to target domain directly.
Even though deep neural nets can learn transferable representations, studies show that differences between distributions of source and target domains (domain shift) can affect the performance of these models and the representations become less transferable in higher layers of the network [@donahue2014decaf][@DBLP:journals/corr/YosinskiCBL14]. Moreover, in many real-world cases where no or few labeled data is available in the target domain, overfitting to the source distribution ensues if the model is trained in a supervised manner on data in both source and target domains [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1802-03601]. Various unsupervised deep domain adaptation methods are proposed to utilize labeled samples from source domain and unlabeled samples from the target domain, and learn a classifier which minimizes the prediction error in the target domain by embedding shallow domain adaptation methods into deep learning pipeline and learning representations that are both predictive and domain invariant [@DBLP:journals/corr/Long0J16] [@Tzeng:2015:SDT:2919332.2919970] [@tzeng2014deep] [@long2015learning]. However, these methods learn feature representations correlated with the outcome.
Since some correlations can be spurious and therefore not transferable, we propose to learn the *causal* feature representations for unsupervised domain adaptation. Causal feature representations of the data are those used to define the structure of the outcome variable rather than the context. For instance, consider a picture of a cat. Features such as eyes, ears and shape of the face which are related to the structure of a cat and thus are referred to as causal feature representations, and features such as background of the image are called context feature representations. Figure \[example\] illustrates one possible causal graph of the extracted features such as eyes, ears, background and the outcome variable (i.e., an indicator of whether the image is a cat or not). Causal features such as eyes and ears (i.e., $c$) have direct causal effect on the outcome whereas context features (i.e., $s$) are spurious features, i.e. the correlations between them and the outcome variable are due to the existence of $z$, a confounder. The correlations due to confounding variables in the data are misleading and may not be transferable across different target domains. The causal mechanism that maps the cause to the effect should not depend on the distribution of the cause [@Scholkopf:2012:CAL:3042573.3042635] and causal features are naturally transferable across different domains [@Rojas-Carulla:2018:IMC:3291125.3291161]. For instance, in our example, if the model learns the features related to the structure of cats such as eyes, ears, whiskers and etc., instead of learning the context features, these causal features are more transferable across domains. This can be achieved by learning causal relationships between features and the outcome instead of their correlations.
In order to capture the causal relationships of the learned representations on the outcome, followng [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1806-06270], our framework in Figure \[example\] simulates a virtual target domain on top of the representations learned from the source data by re-weighting the samples from the source domain. We show that in this simulated target domain, only representations that are the causes of the outcome variable ($c$) are extracted and all other correlations such as those between $s$ and $y$) are removed. Therefore, the model can learn the representations with highest causal effect on the outcome by measuring the correlations between the outcome and representations of the virtual domain. These representations are then used along with the causal mechanism to perform prediction in a target domain. Learning these weights are embedded into the pipeline of the deep neural net and occurs jointly with parameters of the deep model. This way, the model can learn the representations which are both predictive and invariant across different domains.
Our major contributions are summarized as follows:
- We study a novel problem of learning causal representations for unsupervised domain adaptation;
- We propose a general framework [[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{} to learn causal feature representations and causal mechanisms to make prediction in target domains and show that the learned representations are indeed those with highest causal effects on the target variables; and
- We conduct experiments to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed framework for unsupervised domain adaptation by learning causal feature representations.
Related Work
============
We review research on deep visual domain adaptation and causal inference in domain adaptation and feature learning. **Deep visual domain adaptation.** Despite the achievements of deep neural networks in feature learning, [@DBLP:journals/corr/YosinskiCBL14] and [@donahue2014decaf] show that the transferability of the features learned decreases by the last layer of the network. Deep domain adaptation addresses the issue by embedding domain adaptation into the pipeline of deep models and learning representations that are both predictive and domain invariant. This is achieved by using several different criteria. For example, [@Tzeng:2015:SDT:2919332.2919970], [@Peng2016FinetocoarseKT] and [@DBLP:journals/corr/Long0J16] leverage class labels as a guide for transferring knowledge across different domains. [@DBLP:journals/corr/Long0J16a], [@DBLP:journals/corr/Long0J16] and [@long2015learning] approach the problem by aligning the statistical distribution shifts between source and target domains. To compare the distributions of source and target domains, criteria such as maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) [@DBLP:journals/corr/Long0J16a], [@DBLP:journals/corr/Long0J16], [@tzeng2014deep], [@long2015learning], Kullback-Leibler(KL) divergence [@Zhuang:2017:SRL:3154791.3108257], and correlation alignment (CORAL) [@DBLP:journals/corr/SunS16a], [@DBLP:journals/corr/SunFS15] have been used. Another line of work focuses on adversarial-based domain adaptation which minimizes the distance between source and target domains through an adversarial objective of the domain discriminator, aiming to encourage domain confusion, including [@Tzeng:2015:SDT:2919332.2919970], [@Ganin:2015:UDA:3045118.3045244], and [@DBLP:journals/corr/0001T16] on visual deep domain adaptation.
**Causal inference in domain adaptation.** Recent work on shallow domain adaptation proposes to learn invariant features for domain adaptation over agnostic target domains. For instance, [@Rojas-Carulla:2018:IMC:3291125.3291161] propose a causal framework to identify the invariant features across different datasets and use them for prediction. [@PetBuhMei15] propose to find the causal features by exploring the invariance of conditional distribution of the target variable across different domains. [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1806-06270] propose a causal approach to select domain invariant predictors among all predictors and use them to perform domain adaptation across unknown environments. However, they are all designed for shallow domain adaptation and choose useful predictors rather than learning them from the data.
Causal inference has been also utilized for learning visual features from the data. [@Chalupka:2015:VCF:3020847.3020867] proposes a visual causal feature learning framework which constructs causal variables from micro variables in observational data with minimum experimental effort.However, this work requires performing experiments.
Preliminaries of Domain Adaptation
==================================
In this work, given a source domain $D_s = \left\{ (x_i^s, y_i^s) \right\}_{i=1}^{n_s}$ with ${n_s}$ labeled samples, we predict the labels for an unlabeled target domain $D_t = \left\{x_i^t \right\}_{i=1}^{n_t}$ by leveraging samples from the source domain to minimize prediction errors. Let *P* and *Q* denote the distributions of the source and target domains, respectively. *P(X, Y)* and *Q(X, Y)* are the joint distributions of the inputs and outcomes for source and target domains. In general, these two joint distributions are different, i.e., $\textit{P(X, Y)} \neq \textit{Q(X, Y)}$. Following the traditional setting [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1802-03601], we have two basic assumptions: (i) $P(Y_S|X_S) = P(Y_T|X_T)$, which means the conditional distribution of the outcome given the data remains the same across different environments; and (ii) $\textit{P(X)} \neq \textit{Q(X)}$, indicating that the difference between the joint distribution of the inputs and outcomes originates from the difference between the marginal distributions of the inputs. Moreover, we assume that the difference between marginal distributions of the inputs comes from a drift in the feature space of the problem (or covariate shift). Specifically, we study the problem of constructing a deep neural network that learns transferable representations, Z, for which the conditional probability of the outcomes remains the same across different domains and learns a classifier ($\theta$ (.)) such that $\theta$ maps the learned representations to the outcome and the target loss $\epsilon (\theta) = \Pr_{(x, y)\sim Q} [\theta(x) \neq y]$ is minimized.
Proposed Framework - [[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{}
======================================
We propose a Deep Causal Representation learning framework for unsupervised Domain Adaptation [([[DCDAN]{}]{})]{} to learn transferable feature representations for target domain prediction. A deep neural network combines feature extraction and a classifier which learns the highly correlated feature representations with the outcome. However, some of these correlations could be due to biases in the data, e.g., confounding bias. We aim to remove spurious correlations learned by the model by measuring the causal effects of the representations on the outcome. [[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{} consists of a regularization term which learns the balancing weights for the source data by balancing the distribution with respect to feature representations learned from the data. These weights are designed in a way to help the model capture the causal effects of the features on the target variable instead of their correlations. Moreover, our model includes a weighted loss function of deep neural net, where the weight of each sample comes from the regularization term and the loss function is in charge of learning predictive domain invariant features as well as a classifier which maps the learned representations to the output, or a causal mechanism. By embedding the sample weights of the learning component into the pipeline of the model and jointly learning these weights with the representations, we can benefit from the deep model to learn causal features that are both transferable and good predictors for the target. The framework is shown in Figure \[fig:framework\].
![An overview of [[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{} that learns causal representation of the data for prediction.[]{data-label="fig:framework"}](framework15.pdf){width="100mm"}
Balancing Sample Weights Regularizer
------------------------------------
As discussed in the previous section, in order to learn the representations with causal effect on the outcome (i.e. causal feature representations) and reduce the confounding bias, we need to force the deep neural net to learn the causal relationships instead of the correlations. To do so, following [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1806-06270], we reweight samples in the source domain with sample weights which enable us to capture the causal effect of each learned feature on the outcome variable by controlling the effect of all other features in the learned representation. Variable balancing techniques are often used in causal effect estimation from observational data where the distributions of the covariates are different between treatment and control groups due to the non-random assignment of the treatments to the units. In order to get an unbiased estimation of the causal effect of the treatment variables, one approach is to balance distributions of the treatment and control groups by applying balancing weights on the samples. One way to learn these weights is to characterize the distributions of the treatment and control groups by their moments and learn the weights W as following:
$$\begin{split}
& W = \underset{W}{\text{argmin}}
\Vert \frac{\sum_{i:T_i = 1}w_i\cdot x_i}{\sum_{i:T_i = 1} w_i} - \frac{\sum_{i:T_i = 0}w_i\cdot x_i}{\sum_{i:T_i = 0} w_i}\Vert_{2}^{2} \\
\end{split}$$
where T is the treatment variable and T = 1 and T = 0 represent the treatment and control groups respectively.
It is shown that by considering each feature learned in the set of feature representations as a treatment variable and learning weights to balance the distribution of the source data with respect to every learned feature representation, we can learn a new domain, in which only causal feature representations are correlated with the outcome. These new representations then can be used to estimate the causal contributions of source representations on the outcome. The sample weights can be learned by minimizing the below function: $$\begin{split}
\small
G=\sum_{i=1}^{\vert Z \vert} \Vert \frac{Z^T_{.,-i} \cdot (W \circ I(Z_{.,i}))}{W^T \cdot I(Z_{.,i})}
- \frac{Z^T_{.,-i} \cdot (W \circ (1 - (I(Z_{.,i}))))}{W^T \cdot (1 - I(Z_{.,i}))}\Vert_{2}^{2}
\normalsize
\end{split}$$ where $W \in \mathbb{R}^{n_s \times 1}$ denotes a vector of sample weights, Z = h(X) represents the feature representations extracted from the deep model, $Z_{.,i}$ is a vector of i-th feature representation of all samples, $Z_{.,-i}$ is the set of all features representations except the i-th ones, $\circ$ refers to the Hadamard product and I is and indicator matrix that indicates whether the feature exists in data samples (i.e. the entry is equal to one, which means the samples belong to the treatment group) or does not exist (the entry is equal to zero and, which means data samples belong to the control group). In order to create the Indicator matrix, we binarize the representations by leveraging the methods proposed in [@DBLP:journals/corr/CourbariauxBD15] for binarizing neural networks. In order to binarize the representations, two different possible approaches can be used. The first function is deterministic:
$$x^b = {\operatorname{Sign}}(x)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
+1 & x \geq 0, \\
0 & \text{otherwise,}\\
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $x^b$ is the binarizaed version of the real-valued variable x. This function is easy to implement and is shown to work well in practice. The second function is stochastic: $$x^b = {\operatorname{Sign}}(x)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
+1 & \text{with probability $p = \sigma(x) $,}\\
0 & \text{with probability $1-p $,}\\
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $\sigma$ is the *“hard-sigmoid”* function defined as:
$$\begin{aligned}
\sigma(x) = \operatorname{clip}(\frac{x+1}{2}, 0 , 1) = \max(0, \min(1, \frac{x+1}{2}))
\end{aligned}$$
This stochastic function makes the overlap assumption (\[overlap\]) more plausible than a deterministic function. Since the derivative of both binarization functions are almost zero everywhere during the back-propagation, following Hinton 2012’s lectures and [@DBLP:journals/corr/CourbariauxBD15], we use “straight-through estimator" for back propagation.
Deep Causal Domain Adaptation
-----------------------------
We explore the idea of using a sample reweighting regularizer for learning transferable features in deep networks. Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) are widely used deep frameworks in computer vision [@Krizhevsky:2012:ICD:2999134.2999257] and achieved great performance in a variety of tasks. However, as discussed earlier, transferring these models to new domains, layers of the CNN model become less transferable at more task-specific layers. Therefore, it requires vast amounts of labeled data in the target domain to fine-tune the model and avoid over-fitting. Unsupervised domain adaptation frameworks such as [@long2015learning] and [@tzeng2014deep] leverage unlabeled data in the target domain and learn the more transferable representations in the source domain to the target domain. They learn transferable feature representations highly correlated with the outcome. Relying on correlations limits their performance since correlations do not necessarily exist in other domains, thus, may not be transferable. If we find only transferable feature representations, the performance on the target domain can be further improved. We propose to learn causal representations of the input for which conditional distributions of the outcomes (a.k.a. causal mechanisms) remain the same across different domains even if the distributions of the inputs change [@Scholkopf:2012:CAL:3042573.3042635]. this can be achieved by reweighting the learned representations with sample weights learned by a balancing sample regularizer. Reweighted samples play the role of a virtual target domain in which only representations with causal contributions on the outcome are correlated with the target and spurious correlations between two variables that do not truly exist and are due to the confounders are removed. By doing so, we force the model to learn features with highest causal contributions on the outcome.
We implement [[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{} on the Resnet-50 architecture [@he2016deep] which can be easily replaced with any other convolutional neural network framework. Resnet-50 is used as a backbone for a variety of tasks in computer vision such as deep transfer learning. It consists of 5 stages with convolutions and identity blocks. Each convolution and identity block consist of 3 convolution layers. Resnet-50 leverages the concept of skipping connections, which proposes to add the original input to the output of the convolution block while stacking the convolution layers together, to reduce the risk of vanishing the gradients during back-propagation. The empirical risk of CNN can be written as:
$$\label{eq:2.1}
\min_{\Theta} \frac{1}{n_s} \sum_{i = 1}^{n_s} J(\Theta(x_i^s), y_i^s)$$
where *J* is the cross-entropy loss function, $\Theta$ parameters of CNN, and $\Theta(x_i^s)$ the conditional probability that CNN assigns $x_i^s$ to label $y_i^s$.
To learn invariant causal feature representations among different domains by using a balancing sample reweighting regularizer, we propose to jointly learn the sample weights from the data, reweight the representations by these these weights and minimize the loss of prediction for the the reweighted samples. This can be done by reweighting the loss of each sample with its corresponding weight and minimizing the weighted empirical loss of CNN and the balancing regularizer G simultaneously. This way, we can reduce the bias in the correlations learned by the model and learn the features with highest causal effect on the output that are also informative for prediction. Therefore, we embed the balancing sample reweighting regularizer into the CNN framework as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EQ:main1}
& \underset{\Theta , W}{\text{min}}
\frac{1}{n_s} \sum_{i = 1}^{n_s} w_i J(\Theta(x_i^s), y_i^s) +
\lambda_1 G \\
& \text{subject to}~ W \geq 0, \; \Vert W\Vert_2^2 \leq \lambda_2 , \sum_j^{\vert h(X) \vert}w_j-1)^2 \leq \lambda_3
\end{aligned}$$ where $\sum_{i = 1}^{n_s} w_i J(\Theta(x_i^s), y_i^s)$ is the weighted cross-entropy loss function, representing the weighted empirical loss of CNN model, G the balancing sample reweighting regularizer, $W \in \mathbb{R}^{n_s \times 1}$ a vector of sample weights, $W \geq 0$ ensures all the weights are non-negative, $\Vert W\Vert_2^2 \leq \lambda_2$ tries to reduce the sample variance and $(\sum w_j-1)^2 \leq \lambda_3$ avoids all sample weights from being zero.
To optimize [[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{}, we update $\theta$ and W iteratively using mini-batch SGD. A detailed algorithm of the optimization framework can be found in the supplementary material.
Theoretical analysis
--------------------
In this section, we explain the key assumption of our proposed method and provide some analysis on the reasons why the method learns the causal features (i.e. the features with highest causal contributions on the target variable). In order for our method to work, we need to make the overlap assumption, which is a common assumption in causal inference literature [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1806-06270]. Overlap assumption ensures that for each data instance in the treatment group, a counterpart from control group can be found.
\[overlap\] \[Overlap\] For any variable $T_{i}$, where $T_{i}$ is the treatment variable for i-th sample in the data, $0<\Pr(T_i = 1|X = x_i)<1$ for any $x_i$ in the dataset.
\[prop1\] Feature representations learned by [[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{} have highest causal contributions on the outcome.
Proof of this proposition is in the supplementary material.
\[Independence of mechanism and input\]\[pos1\]
Following [@Scholkopf:2012:CAL:3042573.3042635], we assume that the causal mechanism is “independent” of the distribution of the cause. In other words, $P(E|C)$ contains no information about $P(C)$ where E is the effect (i.e. outcome) and C is the cause. This indicates that changes in $P(C)$ has no influence on the mechanism after it is learned.
Postulate \[pos1\] implies that once the causal mechanism (i.e. $P(E|C)$) is learned, we can assume that it remains the same even when the distribution of the input (i.e. $P(x)$) and therefore distribution of causes (i.e. $P(C)$) changes. Therefore, we can address the covariate shift problem [@Sugiyama:2012:MLN:2209761], where $P(Y|X)$ remains the same across different environment while $P(X)$ changes, by learning the causal features from the input and a functions that maps those feature to the outcome.
Experiments
===========
\
Our experiments are designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed [[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{} with the following questions:
- **EQ1**: How is [[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{} compared to existing unsupervised deep domain adaptation frameworks?
- **EQ2**: Are the feature representations learned by [[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{}, causal features for predicting outcomes?
- **EQ3**: How does varying the causal regularizer and other hyperparameters affect the classification performance of [[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{}?
We introduce the datasets and representative state-of-the-art deep domain adaptation frameworks, then compare the performance of [[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{} for an object recognition task to answer **EQ1**. For **EQ2**, we investigate the ability of [[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{} to learn and extract causal features from the data. For **EQ3**, we perform experiments by varying all hyperparametes of the model and report their performance.
Datasets {#dataset}
--------
To answer **EQ1**, following the convention for domain adaptation study, we use *Office-31* and *Office-10*+*Caltech-10*, two of the widely-adopted, publicly available benchmark datasets. Office-31 consists of 4,652 images within 31 categories collected from three distinct domains: Amazon ($A$), which contains images downloaded from amazon.com, Webcam ($W$) and DSLR ($D$), which are images taken by web camera and digital SLR camera in an office with different environment variation. For a comprehensive comparison, following [@long2015learning], we evaluate the performance of all models by considering all possible pairs among the three domains: $A\rightarrow W$, $D\rightarrow W$, $W\rightarrow D$, $A\rightarrow D$, $D\rightarrow A$, and $W\rightarrow A$. Office-10 + Caltech-10 dataset consists of 10 common categories shared by the Office31 and Caltech-256 ($C$). Thus, for all 4 domains ($A$, $W$, $D$, and $C$), we conduct evaluations on all remaining possible pairs involving $C$: $A\rightarrow C$, $W\rightarrow C$, $D\rightarrow C$, $C\rightarrow A$, $C\rightarrow W$, and $C\rightarrow D$.
\[htbp!\]
Method $A\rightarrow W$ $D\rightarrow W$ $W\rightarrow D$ $A\rightarrow D$ $D\rightarrow A$ $W\rightarrow A$ Average
------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------
ResNet-50 69.685 97.610 99.405 71.485 63.080 61.448 77.118
DDC 77.987 96.981 100.000 81.526 65.246 64.004 80.957
DAN 82.000 97.000 100.000 83.000 66.000 65.000 82.166
DeepCoral 77.800 97.700 99.700 81.500 64.600 64.000 80.883
DANN 82.000 96.900 99.100 79.700 68.200 67.400 82.216
HAFN **82.900** 98.100 99.600 83.700 **69.700** 68.100 83.683
[[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{} 81.000 **99.000** **100.000** **86.000** 69.000 **70.000** **84.166**
\[tab:performance\]
\[htbp!\]
Method $A\rightarrow C$ $W\rightarrow C$ $D\rightarrow C$ $C\rightarrow A$ $C\rightarrow W $ $C\rightarrow D$ Average
------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------- ------------------ ------------
ResNet-50 86.375 89.671 87.978 93.423 93.559 93.631 90.772
DDC 91.184 89.670 89.586 94.989 95.932 **96.815** 93.029
DAN 91.000 89.000 87.000 95.000 96.000 96.000 92.333
DeepCoral 90.293 88.691 87.529 **95.198** 95.593 96.178 92.247
DANN 91.451 87.000 84.862 94.000 94.000 92.000 90.552
HAFN 90.115 **91.629** **95.302** 91.718 95.254 92.356 92.729
[[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{} **92.000** 90.000 91.000 94.000 **96.000** 96.000 **93.166**
\[tab:performance1\]
To answer **EQ2**, a dataset with causal features ground truths is needed. However, obtaining ground truths for causal features of objects is a difficult task since existing datasets for object recognition do not include the causal features of the targets and only contain the ground truths for the labels of the images in the datasets. Therefore, to answer **EQ2**, we construct a dataset with reliable ground truth for causal features corresponding to target variables by utilizing a subset of Visual Question Answering Explanation (VQA-X) dataset proposed in [@huk2018multimodal], where a set of images extracted from MSCOCO dataset[^1] along with a set of questions, answers, visual and textual explanations for questions are provided by human annotators. To construct the dataset for our study, we extract a subset of VQA-X dataset that contains only single objects with their corresponding labels from MSCOCO dataset. Our dataset consists of actual images, their labels and the visual explanations of the target variable which represents the causal feature representations of the target. These visual explanations are given by heatmaps provided by human experts. Figures \[pic1\] and \[pic2\] show one example of the data.
Compared Baseline Methods {#sec:baseline}
-------------------------
In this section, we briefly introduce the representative state-of-the-art baseline methods for deep domain adaptation:
- ResNet-50 [@he2016deep]: It is a state-of-the-art convolution neural network model for image classification. It utilizes a deep residual neural network structure which introduces the identity shortcut connect to skip layers automatically to avoid overfitting for deep neural networks.
- DDC [@tzeng2014deep]: DDC is a deep domain confusion model that aims to maximize the domain invariance by adding an adaptation layer in convolution neural networks with a single-kernel maximum mean discrepancies (MMD) regularization proposed in [@Scholkopf2012].
- DAN [@long2015learning]: DAN is a deep adaptive neural network model for unsupervised domain adaptation. It reduces the domain discrepancy via optimal multi-kernel selection for mean embedding matching.
- Deep CORAL [@DBLP:journals/corr/SunS16a]: Deep CORAL is an unsupervised deep domain adaptation framework, which learns a non-linear transformation that aligns the second-order statistics between the source and target feature activations in deep neural networks.
- DANN [@Ganin:2015:UDA:3045118.3045244]: DANN is an adversarial representation learning framework in which one classifier aims to distinguish the learn source/target features while the another feature extractor tries to confuse the domain classifier. The minimax optimization is then solved through a gradient reversal layer.
- HAFN [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1811-07456]: Hard Adaptive Feature Norm is a variantl of AFN, a non-parametric Adaptive Feature Norm framework for unsupervised domain adaptation, based on adapting feature norms of source and target domains to achieve symmetry over a large number of values.
Classification Performance Comparison
-------------------------------------
To answer **EQ1**, we compare [[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{} with aforementioned representative methods. Following existing works on deep domain adaptation, we utilize accuracy as the evaluation metric. For baseline methods, we follow standard evaluation mechanism for unsupervised domain adaptation and use all source instances with labels and all target instances without labels [@long2015learning]. We implement all the baselines using PyTorch [^2]. In addition, we evaluate all compared approaches through grid search on the hyperparameter space, and report the best results. For MMD-based methods (i.e. DDC and DAN), we use Gaussian kernels. The experimental results are shown in Table \[tab:performance\] and Table \[tab:performance1\]. From the tables, we make the following observations:
\
- Without access to data in the target domain, [[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{} still outperform the baselines in many cases for both datasets, which validates that causal feature representations are helpful for learning transferable features across domains.
- [[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{} significantly outperforms Resnet-50, the only baseline that does not use any information from the target domain, which suggests that [[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{} can perform unsupervised domain adaptation.
\
Causal Feature Evaluation
-------------------------
In this subsection, to answer **EQ2**, we evaluate the performance of [[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{} for discovering causal features automatically from the data. It is worth mentioning that all of the baselines used in our first experiment are designed for improving the performance of image classification in the target domain and none of them are initially proposed to discover interpretable causal features. However, due to the nature of our approach, it is expected to be able to learn more interpretable features from the data by looking for the features that belong to the structure of the object rather than the context. In order to show the effectiveness of our model in learning causal features, we propose to run [[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{} and a pretrained Resnet-50 on a subset of VQA-X dataset [@huk2018multimodal] as described in “Datasets” section, extract their feature representations heatmaps and compare them to the visual ground truths provided in VQA-X.
In order to make a fair comparison, we fine-tune our model on a small subset of single-object images in Imagenet dataset [@DBLP:journals/corr/RussakovskyDSKSMHKKBBF14] and extract the feature representation heatmaps from the fine-tuned [[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{} and pre-trained Resnet-50 using the method proposed in [@selvaraju2017grad]. Figure \[fig:images3.3\] shows an example generated heatmap by [[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{}. To compare the generated heatmaps, Following traditional settings, we use Rank correlarion as our evaluation metric. Following [@das2017human], to calculate the Rank Correlation, we first scale both the ground truths and heatmaps generated by the models to 14x14, rank the pixels according to their spatial attention and compute the correlation between two ranked lists. Our experiment shows that the rank correlation for [[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{} is **0.4501** whereas the rank correlation for the pre-trained Resnet-50 is **0.4077**, which demonstrates the effectiveness of [[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{} on learning causal representations. Figure \[fig:images\] shows an example of the generated heatmaps by [[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{} and pre-trained Resnet-50. As seen in Figure \[pic2\], the feature representation heatmaps generated by [[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{} are more focused on the causal features of the object, whereas the features learned by Resnet-50 can contain both causal and context features.
Parameter Analysis
------------------
To answer **(EQ3)**, we investigate the effect of hyperparameters of the model on the performance (i.e. accuracy of the model) and report the results in Figure \[fig:images2\]. The performance is reported on tasks **$A \rightarrow W$** and **$C \rightarrow W$**. To be more specific, Figure \[fig2\] illustrates the performance of the balancing sample weights regularizer ($\lambda_1$) on classification performance of [[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{} as it varies in the $\lambda_1 \in \{ 0.005, 0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2 , 0.5, 1\}$. We observe that the accuracy of [[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{} first increases and then decreases as $\lambda_1$ varies in the mentioned range. This further confirms that a good trade-off between causal loss and classification loss can result in learning more transferable features. Figure \[fig3\] shows the effect of $\lambda_2 \in \{ 0.0001, 0.0005,0.001,0.002, 0.01, 0.1\}$ the hyperparameter which controls the sample variance, on the accuracy of [[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{}. We also report the effect of $\lambda_3 \in \{ 0.0005,0.001, 0.002, 0.01,0.1,0.2\}$ which is designed to prevent all sample weights from being zero in Figure \[fig4\]. To measure the effect of $\lambda_3$ on the performance.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we propose [[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{}, a novel Deep Causal Representation learning framework for unsupervised domain adaptation to generate more transferable feature representations by extracting causal feature representations instead of only considering the correlations. In order to learn the causal representations a virtual target domain consists of reweighted samples is generated. These sample weights are learned concurrently with the feature representations and in the pipeline of the deep model. Experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of our model for both classification performance and learning causal feature representations.
Proof of Proposition 1
======================
*Feature representations learned by [[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{} are the features with highest causal contributions on the outcome.*
Following [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1806-06270], it can be proved that 1) reweighted feature representations in the simulated target domain are independent of each other and 2) In the new target domain, only causal feature representations are correlated with the outcome and the possible spurious correlations between the context features and outcome vanish. To be more specific, we have: $$\begin{split}
&\Pr(Y_T = y | S_T = s) \\
= &{\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}}_{C_T}(\Pr(Y_T = y | C_t, S_T = s) | S_T = s)\\
= &{\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}}_{C_T}(\Pr(Y_T = y | C_t) | S_T = s) \\
= &\Pr(Y_T = y)
\end{split}
$$ where T denotes the target domain, C represents all causal features, S denotes all spurious variables and Y is the outcome variable.
This shows that by simulating a target domain using the balancing sample weights, correlation between the simulated representations for virtual target domain and the outcome variable can be measured to estimate the unbiased causal contribution of representations on the target and using these virtual representations in the pipeline of the deep model, we can learn the feature representations with highest causal contributions on the data instead of the using correaltions. In other words, features with high spurious correlations are not learned.
Optimization of [[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{}
=================================
Algorithm \[algo1\] explains the optimization procedure of the proposed framework. [[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{} utilizes an alternating optimization approach to solve the optimization problem defined in Eq (2). To be more specific, [[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{} updates $\theta$ and W iteratively using mini-batch stochastic gradient descent.
\
Matrix of input images X and ground truth labels Y Updated parameters of the model W and $\theta$ Initialize the iteration variable $t \leftarrow 0$ Initialize parameters $W^{(0)}$ and $~\theta^{(0)}$ Calculate the loss function with ($W^{(0)}$, $~\theta^{(0)}$) as stated in Eq (2) in the paper . $t \leftarrow t + 1$ $\theta^t \leftarrow$ update $\theta$ using Stochastic Gradient Descent while W is fixed $W^t \leftarrow$ update W using Stochastic Gradient Descent while $\theta$ is fixed Calculate loss function with $(W^t, \theta^t)$
W, $\theta$
Additional Case Studies for Learnig Causal Feature Representations
==================================================================
In this section, we provide more case studies for “Causal Feature Evaluation” section of the paper. Both [[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{} and Resnet-50 are trained according to the settings explained in “Causal Feature Evaluation” section on a subset of VQA-X dataset [@huk2018multimodal] as described in “Datasets” section. Figure \[fig:images\] shows some examples of the heatmaps generated by both our proposed framework and Resnet-50. Heatmaps generated by [[[DCDAN]{}]{}]{} are more focused on the regions which blong to the structure of the outcome (i.e. causal features), whereas the features learned by Resnet-50 belong to both the structure as well as the context.
[^1]: http://cocodataset.org
[^2]: https://pytorch.org/
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate the time evolution of a generic and finite isolated quantum many-body system starting from a pure quantum state. We find the kinematical general canonical principle proposed by Popescu-Short-Winter for statistical mechanics can be built in a more solid ground by studying the thermalization, i.e. comparing the density matrices themselves rather than the measures of distances. In particular, this allows us to explicitly identify that, from any instantaneous pure state after thermalization, the state of subsystem is like from a microcanonical ensemble or a generalized Gibbs ensemble, but neither a canonical nor a thermal ones due to finite-size effect. Our results are expected to bring the task of characterizing the state after thermalization to completion. In addition, thermalization of coupled systems with different temperatures corresponding to mixed initial states is studied.'
author:
- 'Shuai Cui$^{1,2}$, Jun-Peng Cao$^2$, Hui Jing$^1$, Heng Fan$^2$[^1] and Wu-Ming Liu$^2$'
title: Thermalization from a general canonical principle
---
Introduction
============
Recently, studies of the foundation of statistical mechanics are enjoying a renaissance. Concerning about the canonical ensemble, it was pointed out that the equal a priori probability postulate of statistical mechanics [@Landau], which is applied to the microcanonical ensemble constituted by all pure states satisfying the energy constraint, is not necessary. Instead, it should be replaced by the general canonical principle [@winter] or canonical typicality [@Goldstein]. It states that the state of a subsystem can be obtained from a single pure state rather than a mixture of microcanonical ensemble. Explicitly, suppose we have a weakly coupled system constituting by system ‘S’ and the heat bath ‘B’, in case that the heat bath ‘B’ is large enough, starting from almost every pure state of the coupled system ‘SB’, the state of the system ‘S’ is approximately the canonical density matrix. The interest in these fundamental questions is also due to the fact that those postulates can be directly realized in recent experiments of ultracold quantum gases [@Blochreview; @Kinoshita; @Hofferberth]. Some related conclusions are obtained from different points of view [@RigolNature; @Srednicki; @Tasaki; @sun; @Rigol2007; @Altman; @Noack; @Lee; @wigner; @cirac; @Rigol2011; @plenio; @BKL; @Jens; @book].
The general canonical principle is of kinematic rather than dynamic [@winter; @Goldstein] since it does not involve any time evolution of the state. Also the canonical density matrix from a pure state is because of the entanglement between system and the heat bath, otherwise the system will also be a pure state which cannot equal to a canonical ensemble. Dynamically, to result in a pure state between the coupled ‘SB’ system, the system as a whole should be an isolated system and also the initial state should be pure. And more importantly, all processes are of quantum mechanics such as the involvement of entanglement and Schrödinger equation for time evolution. Recently remarkable progress has been made in understanding the temporal evolution of the isolated many-body quantum system. In Ref.[@RigolNature], Rigol *et al.* show that in a generic isolated system, non-equilibrium dynamics is expected to result in thermalization: any pure states will relax to pure states in which the values of macroscopic quantities are stationary and universal. In particular, the thermalization can happen at the level of individual eigenstates. However, the characteristic of the state after thermalization seems not clear, in particular about the relationship between the general canonical principle and the process of thermalization.
In this paper, we will study a generic isolated quantum many-body system from the view points of both kinematics and dynamics. By using a generic thermalization model, we prove the general canonical principle numerically by showing that the state of ‘S’ from instantaneous pure state after thermalization is similar as from a microcanonical ensemble. Our main method is based on comparing the exact form of density matrices, rather than the measure of distance or the one-dimensional marginal momentum distribution, thus the results are more explicit and more precise. We then can clarify a crucial question that the state of a subsystem in dynamical equilibrium is like from a microcanonical ensemble or a generalized Gibbs ensemble, but neither a canonical nor a thermal ones. Our conclusions are based on numerical results of a real physical system, so it is a numerical experiment to confirm the theoretical expectation.
This paper is organized as follows: In Sect.II, we introduce the model. In Sect.III, we present definitions of several ensembles of states. In Sect.IV, we obtain our main conclusions from numerical results. In Sect.V and Sect.VI, we show that our conclusions do not depend on specific lattice configuration and initial state. In Sect.VII, we study the thermalization of two coupled systems with different temperatures. In Sect.VIII we study the entanglement properties of the states in thermalization. Finally a summary of conclusions is presented in Sect.IX.
Model
=====
Let us first present some fundamental concepts. Consider a generic quantum many-body system constituted by weakly coupled system ‘S’ and a large heat bath ‘B’, in thermodynamic equilibrium, the state of system is in a canonical form. In statistical mechanics [@Landau], to obtain this canonical state of ‘S’, the composite system is described by the microcanonical density matrix in which each pure state satisfying the constraints of suitable total energy has equal probability. The state of the quantum system ‘S’, $\rho ^{(S)}$, can then be obtained by tracing out the freedoms of the heat bath from the microcanonical ensemble. By this process, the quantum state of the system in thermodynamic equilibrium, $\rho ^{(S)}$, can be found to take the form of the canonical density matrix which is the thermal state defined as, $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega ^{(S)}=e^{-\beta \hat {H}^{(S)}}/Z,
\label{canonical}\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta $ is inverse temperature, $\hat {H}^{(S)}$ is the Hamiltonian of the system ‘S’, and the partition function is, $Z={\rm tr}e^{-\beta \hat {H}^{(S)}}$.
The Hamiltonian of the system takes the form: $$\label{H}
\hat{H}=-J\sum_{\langle i,j\rangle}(\hat{b}_i^{\dagger}\hat{b}_j+
h.c.)+U\sum_{\langle i,j\rangle}\hat{n}_i\hat{n}_j,$$ where $\langle i,j\rangle$ indicates all pairs of nearest-neighbor sites on, a 21-site, two-dimensional lattice, see Fig.\[fig1\](a) for its configuration, $J$ is the hopping parameter, $U$ is the nearest-neighbor repulsion parameter and we set it as, $U=0.1J$. In Fig\[fig1\](a), we consider a portion of the lattice, sites 1 to 8 (lower-right corner) as the system ‘S’, other parts of the lattice, sites 9 to 21 (upper-left corner) are considered as the heat bath ‘B’. In order to show that our results are general and do not depend on specific lattice configurations, we also extend the sites of heat bath ‘B’ from site 21 up to sites 25, see Fig.\[fig1\](a). The coupling between ‘S’ and ‘B’ is through the interaction between sites 5 and 12, $\hat{H}^{(I)}$, which can be turned on and off. So Hamiltonian (\[H\]) can be rewritten as, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{H}=
\hat{H}^{(S)}+\hat{H}^{(B)}+\hat{H}^{(I)}.\end{aligned}$$ As a whole, the coupled system ‘SB’ is an isolated quantum many-body system. In this paper, we consider that five hard-core bosons propagate in time on this lattice.
The model (\[H\]) is in general non-integrable since the peculiar structure of the lattice in Fig.\[fig1\](a) has broken any spatial symmetry. By diagonalizing the Hamiltonian (\[H\]) with 21 sites (also up to 25 sites), we find that its energy level spacing distribution is exactly a Wigner distribution [@wigner], $P_{Wigner}(s)=\frac{\pi}{2}s\exp(-\frac{\pi s^2}{4})$, see Fig.\[fig1\](b), which corresponds to nonintegrable system (or chaotic system). So thermalization is generally expected to happen.
![(a) Two-dimensional lattice on which five hard-core bosons propagate in time, the number of lattice sites can be selectively extended from 21 sites as in Ref.[@RigolNature] to 25 sites. (b) Level spacing distribution of the energy spectrum of the Hamiltonian (\[H\]). The superimposed curves show a Poissonian (dashed green) and Wigner (solid red) distribution, characterizing integrable and non-integrable (chaotic) systems, respectively.[]{data-label="fig1"}](Figure1.eps){height="4.2cm" width="8cm"}
Time evolution and ensembles
============================
We consider the initial state as $|\psi (0)\rangle $ which is the ground state of $\hat {H}^{(S)}$ with all five hard-core bosons confined in eight sites of ‘S’, the interaction $H^{(I)}$ is in off position initially. We can expand the initial-state wavefunction by the eigenstate basis of the whole Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ as, $|\psi(0)\rangle=\sum_{\alpha}C_{\alpha}|\Psi_{\alpha}\rangle $, where $C_{\alpha}=\langle \Psi_{\alpha}| \psi(0)\rangle$ are the overlaps between the initial pure state and the eigenstates $|\Psi_{\alpha}\rangle$, the corresponding eigenvalues are $E_{\alpha}$.
Before proceed the dynamical relaxation, we consider different sets of ensembles. The energy of the system which is conserved in the evolution can be found to be, $E_0=\langle \psi(0)|\hat {H}|\psi(0)\rangle=-5.06J$. In statistical mechanics with the equal a priori probability postulate, the microcanonical ensemble can be defined as, $$\label{micro}
\rho_{\mathrm{micro}}=\frac{1}{{\cal N}}\sum_{\alpha,
|E_0-E_{\alpha}|<\Delta
E}|\Psi_{\alpha}\rangle\langle\Psi_{\alpha}|.$$ where ${\cal N}$ is the number of $E_{\alpha}$ in the energy window, $|E_0-E_{\alpha}|<\Delta E$, and $\Delta E=0.1J$ is relatively small. The canonical ensemble, which is the thermal state corresponding to $\hat {H}$, is defined as, $$\label{cano}
\rho_{\mathrm{cano}}=\sum_{\alpha}P_{\alpha}
|\Psi_{\alpha}\rangle\langle\Psi_{\alpha}|,$$ with the probability distribution, $P_{\alpha}=e^{-\beta E_{\alpha}}/Z$, $Z=\sum_{\alpha}e^{-\beta E_{\alpha}}$, $\beta=1/k_B T=1/1.87J$, the inverse temperature $\beta$ is consistently obtained from the equation, $\mathrm{tr} (\rho _{\mathrm{cano}}\hat {H})=\sum_{\alpha}e^{-\beta E_{\alpha}}E_{\alpha}/Z
=E_0$. We can also consider the generalized Gibbs matrix [@Rigol2007; @RigolNature], $$\begin{aligned}
\rho _{\mathrm{gibbs}}=\sum_{\alpha}|C_{\alpha}|^2|\Psi_{\alpha}\rangle
\langle\Psi_{\alpha}|.
\label{gibbs}\end{aligned}$$
We will mainly study the state of the quantum system ‘S’. Corresponding to those ensembles, the density matrices of ‘S’ can be obtained by tracing out the freedoms of the heat bath ‘B’, $\rho ^{(S)}_{X}={\mathrm{tr_{B}}}\rho _{X}$, where $X$ denotes the cases of microcanonical, canonical and Gibbs, respectively. Together with thermal state $\Omega ^{(S)}$ defined in (\[canonical\]), these four density matrices are schematically presented in Fig.\[fig2\]. From the statistical mechanics, in thermodynamical limit with infinite large heat bath, as we mentioned, $\rho ^{(S)}_{\mathrm{micro}}$ should take the form of thermal state $\Omega ^{(S)}$. However, from Fig.\[fig2\], it seems those two states are not like each other. On the other hand, we may find that $\rho ^{(S)}_{\mathrm{micro}}$ is more like $\rho ^{(S)}_{\mathrm{gibbs}}$, there seems no other apparent similarities. Quantitatively, we can use a Hilbert-Schmidt norm to quantify the distance between two density operators, $||O||^2\equiv {\rm tr}O^{\dagger }O$, $O$ is the difference of two matrices. We find, $$\begin{aligned}
||\rho ^{(S)}_{\mathrm{gibbs}}
-\rho ^{(S)}_{\mathrm{micro}}||^2\approx 10^{-4},\end{aligned}$$ this confirms our observation from Figure \[fig2\], $$\begin{aligned}
\rho ^{(S)}_{\mathrm{micro}}\approx \rho ^{(S)}_{\mathrm{gibbs}}.
\label{gibbsmicro}\end{aligned}$$ Other distances are relatively larger ranging from $10^{-3}$ to $10^{-2}$.
![Four density matrices of ‘S’ from different ensembles are presented. With Eq.(\[cano\]) as an example, the horizontal axes is $E_\alpha $, the vertical axes is $P_{\alpha }$ in logarithmic scale, the results are almost linear, so slope corresponds to minus of inverse temperature.[]{data-label="fig2"}](Figure2.eps){height="5cm" width="7cm"}
Now let’s consider the dynamical relaxation. The time evolution begins with a sudden turning on the the interaction $\hat {H}^{(I)}$ between sites 5 and 12. The initially confined five hard-core bosons begin to propagate on the whole lattice. The wavefunction then evolves, $|\psi(t)\rangle=e^{-i\hat{H}t}|\psi(0)\rangle $, we have, $$\begin{aligned}
|\psi(t)\rangle=\sum_{\alpha}C_{\alpha}e^{-iE_{\alpha}t}
|\Psi_{\alpha}\rangle .
\label{evolve}\end{aligned}$$ Our numerical experiment is to study the dynamical properties of wavefunction $|\psi (t)\rangle $, in particular the time dependent reduced density operator of system ‘S’ compared with that of the states from various ensembles. In thermodynamic equilibrium, we can also compare our result with that of the general canonical principle [@winter].
Thermalization and general canonical principle
==============================================
As mentioned in introduction, thermalization means that any pure states will relax to pure states in which the values of macroscopic quantities are stationary and universal. By general canonical principle [@winter], it means that in thermodynamic equilibrium, from instantaneous pure state (wavefunction) $|\psi (t)\rangle $, the state of ‘S’, $\rho ^{(S)}(t)$ equals approximately to thermal state $\Omega ^{(S)}$ defined in (\[canonical\]). Numerically, we plot in Fig.\[norm\](a) the time evolution of distance between two matrices, $D(t)=||\rho ^{(S)}(t)-\Omega ^{(S)}||^2$. For comparison, we also present the distances of $\rho ^{(S)}_{micro}$ and $\rho ^{(S)}_{cano}$ with $\Omega ^{(S)}$. As expected, the time dependent distance quickly drops to almost zero. We confirm this result with different measures of distance, the same conclusion can be made. Thus by thermalization, roughly, we confirm the general canonical principle by that any instantaneous pure state of ‘SB’ after thermalization leads approximately to the thermal state of ‘S’.
![(a) The time evolution of trace norm $D(t)$ between $\rho ^{(S)}(t)$ and thermal state $\Omega ^{(S)}$. The distances between thermal state with that of microcanonical and canonical ensembles are presented for comparison. (b) Time average of reduced density matrices $\overline{\rho ^{(S)}(t)}$ for different scales of time period. All density matrices are almost the same.[]{data-label="norm"}](Figure3.eps){height="5cm" width="8cm"}
However, the following two important questions need be analyzed carefully by our numerical experiment:(i) Which state should be our goal state for comparing in time evolution, thermal state $\Omega ^{(S)}$ or $\rho _{\rm micro}^{(S)}$? (ii) What is the state of time average? Also we need to check what is the case for different initial states. As we already found that $\rho _{\rm micro}^{(S)}$ is different from thermal state $\Omega ^{(S)}$ in our system. Of course, it can be expected that those two states are the same if the freedoms of the heat bath ‘B’ are large enough. However for our finite two-dimensional lattice, the 13-site heat bath ‘B’ is not large enough compared with 8-site system ‘S’, so the first question arises. In the proof of general canonical principle in Ref.[@winter], both ensemble and time average is not necessary, only the distance between reduced density operator of a typical pure state and the thermal state is used. Then in our system, what is the role of time average, thus the second question arises. We will clarify those questions by numerical results.
From the time evolution of distance in Fig.\[norm\](a), we can guarantee that thermalization happens and the state is stationary after $t=100$. Obviously, we can find that the density matrices of time average for different scales of time period are almost the same, see Fig.\[norm\](b). Then it is reasonable to expect that after thermalization, the time average density matrix is approximately equal to the instantaneous density matrix from a single pure state, $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{\rho ^{(S)}(t)}\approx \rho ^{(S)}(t).\end{aligned}$$ From the view point of distance, this can be confirmed in Fig.\[norm\](a). The comparison between time average density matrix with the instantaneous reduced density matrix is, to some extent, obvious and agrees well this result, see Fig.\[avinst\](a).
![(a) The time average density matrix agrees with the instantaneous density matrix. (b) The time average density matrix agrees well with the density matrix from generalized Gibbs ensemble.[]{data-label="avinst"}](Figure4.eps){height="4cm" width="8cm"}
With the time evolution wavefunction (\[evolve\]), the density matrix is simply, $\rho(t)=\sum_{\alpha,\beta}
C_{\alpha}^{*} C_{\beta} e^{i(E_{\alpha}-E_{\beta})t}
|\Psi_{\alpha}\rangle \langle\Psi_{\beta}| $. Considering thermalization happens which possesses a stationary state, a long-time average of density matrix of ‘SB’ is expected to be, $$\label{rhot}
\overline{\rho (t)}=\sum_{\alpha}|C_{\alpha}|^2|\Psi_{\alpha}\rangle
\langle\Psi_{\alpha}|.$$ This is the generalized Gibbs ensemble (\[gibbs\]). And the equivalence is confirmed by directly comparing those two density matrices, see Fig. \[avinst\](b).
Remarkably, bear in mind that microcanonical ensemble is the same as the generalized Gibbs ensemble as shown in (\[gibbsmicro\]), we now reach a chain of equations from our numerical experiment step by step, $$\begin{aligned}
\rho ^{(S)}(t)\approx \overline{\rho ^{(S)}(t)}\approx
\rho ^{(S)}_{\mathrm{gibbs}}
\approx \rho ^{(S)}_{\mathrm{micro}}.\end{aligned}$$ Here we emphasize that this equation chain is not only based on the measure of distances, but rather based on the exact form of those density matrices which is, of course, more explicit and more precise. While for distance as in Fig.\[norm\](a), we can not even distinguish the cases of canonical ensemble and the microcanonical ensemble.
As in Ref.[@winter], next we should follow the standard statistical mechanics to obtain the thermal state from the state of microcanonical ensemble. The difference between $\rho ^{(S)}_{\rm micro}$ and thermal state $\Omega ^{(S)}$ should be a finite-size effect for our system. In this paper, we show that the equal a priori probability postulate can be replaced by a numerical experiment which confirms the general canonical principle. In addition, dynamically, our result is from a process of thermalization. We show any pure states relax to pure states corresponding to microcanonical ensemble with stationary and universal macroscopic values. To show the results are independent of a wide range of initial states, we next will set the initial state differently, we will show that the conclusion still holds. Also we can consider different lattice configurations.
Thermalization with different lattice configurations
====================================================
We expect that our results do not depend on specific lattice configurations. So we cast the heat bath ‘B’ with changeable number of freedoms, i.e. the sites 22-25 can be selectively added as part of the heat bath ‘B’, see Fig\[fig1\](a). Our main conclusions expressed as a chain of equations always hold, $$\begin{aligned}
\rho ^{(S)}(t)\approx \overline{\rho ^{(S)}(t)}\approx
\rho ^{(S)}_{\mathrm{gibbs}}
\approx \rho ^{(S)}_{\mathrm{micro}}.
\label{supchain}\end{aligned}$$ Fig.(\[supfig1\]) is for case of 25-site lattice, all results are similar for cases with 21, 23, 24, 25 sites, respectively.
![Results with 25-site lattice. Four density matrices of ‘S’ from instantaneous pure state after thermalization, time average after thermalization, the generalized Gibbs ensemble and the microcanonical ensemble are presented. They almost overlap with each other which confirms our conclusion.[]{data-label="supfig1"}](Figure5.eps){height="5cm" width="7.5cm"}
Next we present the states of ‘S’ for different lattice configurations, in particular, with number of lattice site of heat bath ‘B’ changing, see Figure (\[supfig2\]). Still thermal state and the case of microcanonical ensemble themselves are different, it seems that our system is not large enough. In principle, this difference is due to finite-size effect, in particular, our system is a general physical system with thermalization, the interaction between ‘S’ and ‘B’ is weak. So thermodynamical limit can be obtained when heat bath takes the limit to have infinite degrees of freedom.
![Results for 21-site lattice and 25-site lattice. Three density matrices of ‘S’ are presented: time average after thermalization, the generalized Gibbs ensemble and the microcanonical ensemble.[]{data-label="supfig2"}](Figure6.eps){height="5cm" width="7.5cm"}
The state of ‘S’ from the instantaneous pure state is almost stable and is approximately like from the the generalized Gibbs ensemble, the quantum fluctuation is almost negligible. One can find in Figure (\[supfig3\]), states from instantaneous pure state in different time after thermalization are almost the same.
So by those results, we find that our conclusions do not depend on specific lattice configurations, after thermalization, the state of ‘S’ is stable with negligible quantum fluctuation.
![Results of 25-site lattice: density matrices of ‘S’ from instantaneous pure state at different time.[]{data-label="supfig3"}](Figure7.eps){height="10cm" width="8cm"}
Thermalization with different initial states
============================================
Our conclusion is that from any instantaneous pure state after thermalization, the state of system ‘S’ is like from a microcanonical ensemble. By definition, we know that the microcanonical ensemble depends only on the energy of the initial state with a narrow energy window. So, we should expect that a wide range of initial states with fixed energy should relax to pure states with similar properties as the microcanonical ensemble. On the other hand, the state of time average is equivalent with the generalized Gibbs ensemble which depends on the distribution of $C_{\alpha }$ of eigenstates $|\Psi _{\alpha }\rangle $ for the initial state. It is thus initial state dependent. So it is necessary for numerical experiment to confirm our conclusion for different initial states.
We consider the following six different initial states with approximately equal energy $E_0$. Still five hard-core bosons are on the lattice, however, initially the number of hard-core bosons in ‘S’ are: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 and 0, and other hard-core bosons are confined in lattice sites of heat bath ‘B’, respectively. There is no interaction between ‘S’ and ‘B’ before time evolution, $\hat {H}^{(I)}$ , and we set the initial states as product (separable) pure states, $|\psi ^{(S)}(0)\rangle \otimes |\psi ^{(B)}(0)\rangle $. The energies of ‘S’ and ‘B’ are, $\langle \psi ^{(S)}(0)| \hat {H}^{(S)}|\psi ^{(S)}(0)\rangle \equiv E_0^{(S)}$, and $\langle \psi ^{(B)}(0)| \hat {H}^{(B)}|\psi ^{(B)}(0)\rangle \equiv E_0^{(B)}$, respectively. However, the total energy is $\langle \psi ^{(S)}(0)|\otimes \langle \psi ^{(B)}(0)|
\hat {H}|\psi ^{(S)}(0)\rangle \otimes |\psi ^{(B)}(0)\rangle \equiv E\approx E_0$, which is slightly different from the summation of energies of system ‘S’ and heat bath ‘B’. This is because of the interaction $\hat {H}^{(I)}$, which should be nonzero but must be weak in the thermalization. Explicitly, for our finite-size system, we have, 1truecm
$S$ $E_0^{(S)}$ $E_0^{(B)}$ $E_0^{(S)}$+$E_0^{(B)}$ $E$
----- ------------- ------------- ------------------------- ---------
5 -5.0595 0 -5.0595 -5.0595
4 -5.4262 0.3843 -5.0419 -5.0406
3 -5.2228 0.1943 -5.0286 -5.0202
2 -4.2627 -0.8044 -5.0672 -5.0619
1 -2.5231 -2.5355 -5.0586 -5.0560
0 0 -5.0692 -5.0692 -5.0691
, 1truecm where $S$ in table is the number of bosons initially in ‘S’. We find the interaction between system ‘S’ and heat bath ‘B’ is weak, and so we have, $$\begin{aligned}
E_0\approx E\approx E_0^{(S)}+E_0^{(B)}.\end{aligned}$$
The generalized Gibbs ensemble is defined by the distribution of $C_{\alpha }$ which is the overlap between initial state and the eigenvectors $|\Psi _{\alpha }\rangle $ of the total Hamiltonian. Figure (\[supfig4\]) shows the distribution of $C_{\alpha }$ for different initial states, so the generalized Gibbs ensembles for different initial states are almost the same, see Figure (\[supfig5\]).
![The distributions of $C_{\alpha }$ for different initial states, where initially the number of hard-core bosons on ‘S’ are 5,4,3,2,1 and 0, respectively[]{data-label="supfig4"}](Figure8.eps){height="11cm" width="8cm"}
![The generalized Gibbs ensembles are almost the same for different initial states, the number of hard-core bosons on ‘S’ are 5,4,3,2,1 and 0, respectively.[]{data-label="supfig5"}](Figure9.eps){height="5cm" width="7cm"}
To analyze our numerical data, we should confirm that our conclusion for different initial states should always hold. The numerical results are presented in Figure (\[supfig6\]), here the time average is for short period of time so that it is approximately the instantaneous pure state. Since the microcanonical ensemble with fixed energy is independent of the specific initial state, the main point need be checked carefully is whether the case of microcanonical overlaps with the case of generalized Gibbs ensemble or the case of time average. We find that they all are almost the same. Thus we conclude that for a wide range of initially states, the state of ‘S’ is always like from a microcanonical ensemble.
![Three density matrices of ‘S’, which are time average after thermalization, the generalized Gibbs ensemble and the microcanonical ensemble, are presented. They agree well with each.[]{data-label="supfig6"}](Figure10.eps){height="11cm" width="8cm"}
Figure (\[supfig7\]) shows that with energy fixed, the microcanonical ensembles are almost the same, this is in accordance with the definition.
![With energies being almost the same, states from the microcanonical ensembles overlap with each other. []{data-label="supfig7"}](Figure11.eps){height="5cm" width="7cm"}
thermalization of two coupled systems with different temperatures
=================================================================
In order to study the thermalization from different points of view, we next consider that the coupled systems ‘S’ and ‘B’ initially are in different temperatures and the corresponding initial states are mixed states, this is in comparison that of previous sections, where the state of the whole system ‘SB’ is always pure. Since thermalization can happen in this coupled system, a dynamical equilibrium can be reached and the whole system ‘SB’ should have a same temperature. Note that thermalization is closely related with quench where the Hamiltonian of the system changes quickly and the state of the system then evolves under the new Hamiltonian.
In numerical calculations, we assume that, $\beta ^{(S)}=1$, $\beta ^{(B)}=2$, which are inverse temperatures of systems ‘S’ and ‘B’, respectively. We still restrict us to the case of five hard-core bosons, two of them are confined initially in ‘S’ and the remained three are in ‘B’ system. The initial state of ‘S’ is the thermal state as presented in (\[canonical\]) with $\beta =1$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\Omega '}^{(S)}=e^{-\hat {H}^{(S)}},\end{aligned}$$ where the normalization of partition function is omitted without confusion. Similarly initial state of ‘B’ is also a thermal state, $$\begin{aligned}
{\Omega '}^{(B)}=e^{-2\hat {H}^{(B)}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta ^{(B)}=2$. It is clear that both states are mixed. The thermalization begins with the turning on the interaction between systems ‘S’ and ‘B’ by term $\hat {H}^{(I)}$.
Figure (\[mixed1\]) shows that the state of ‘S’ is initially a thermal state at time $t=0$, then thermalization happens, the state changes at points $t=1,2,3$. The dynamical equilibrium quickly reaches, we find that the state of ‘S’ at $t=7,8,9,10$ is almost stable, which is shown in Figure (\[mixed2\]).
![State of the system ‘S’ at time points $t=0,1,2,3$ starting from a thermal state.[]{data-label="mixed1"}](Figure12.eps){height="6cm" width="8cm"}
![State of the system ‘S’ at time points $t=7,8,9,10$ starting from a thermal state. Thermalization happens and the instantaneous states of ‘S’ are almost the same which shows the equilibrium reaches.[]{data-label="mixed2"}](Figure13.eps){height="6cm" width="8cm"}
If we study the whole system ‘SB’, corresponding to different temperatures of ‘S’ and ‘B’ systems, the average temperature can be calculated as $\beta =1.4540$. After thermalization, the state of ‘S’ is still different from a thermal state. Figure (\[mixed3\]) shows that the state of ‘S’ at time $t=10$ is different from a thermal state though it starts from a thermal state. Here we argue that this is a finite-size effect, in case the heat bath ‘B’ is large enough, it will be like a thermal state.
![State of the system ‘S’ at time points $t=10$ and the reduced density operator of ‘S’ (black) from a thermal state with $\beta =1.4540$.[]{data-label="mixed3"}](Figure14.eps){height="5cm" width="7cm"}
The involved states in this section are mixed states. Here we show that a dynamical equilibrium can be reached and thermalization can happen under different conditions.
Thermalization and decoherence
==============================
In a generic isolated quantum system, thermalization of state ‘S’ which is initially a pure state, is induced by the interaction between the system ‘S’ and the heat bath ‘B’ which will destroy the coherence of the initial state. Thus entanglement in the initial pure state, in general, will decrease since of the decoherence from the heat bath. Still many aspects of entanglement are of interest in the time evolution in ‘S’ and ‘B’. We use concurrence, one measure of entanglement [@wootters], to quantify the entanglement between different pairs of sites on the lattice, each is a qubit-qubit state. The results are shown in Fig.\[con1\]. Here we would like to point out several interesting facts: (a) As expected, entanglement between nearest-neighbor sites, $C_{4,7}$, is relatively larger, while in time evolution, it does not decrease monotonically which indicates a non-Markovian dynamics. (b) With thermalization, all pair-type entanglement converge to almost zero including the sites in heat bath ‘B’ and the coupling states of (5,12), though the whole system is always a 21-partite pure state. This may indicate a property of thermal state which can be described classically so without entanglement. (c) The entanglement of pairs in ‘B’, is relatively large for a period in the beginning of thermalization while decrease finally to zero. This indicates the quantum aspects of the thermalization for an isolated quantum system, it also indicates that entanglement may be necessary in the process to relax to a stationary state.
![The time evolution of entanglement measured by concurrence $C$ for pairs of sites. For example, $C_{4,6}$ is the concurrence between sites 4 and 6.[]{data-label="con1"}](Figure15.eps){height="6cm" width="9cm"}
Besides pair-wise entanglement, it is also of interest to study the local von Neumann entropy as measure of entanglement between coupled systems. Since initially the state of ‘S’ is a pure state, when the interaction between ‘S’ and ‘B’ is turned on, the von Neumann entropy of ‘S’ increases quickly and reaches almost a constant. This is also an indication of thermalization, i.e. thermalization can be measured by chaotic of system ‘S’ quantified by local von Neumann entropy. We remark that since the overall state is pure, this von Neumann entropy is a measure of entanglement between systems ‘S’ and ‘B’.
Conclusions and discussions
===========================
In conclusion, by numerical experiment, we prove a chain of equations and reach a conclusion that after thermalization, the instantaneous density operator of ‘S’ is equivalent to the state from a microcanonical ensemble. Thus dynamically, we prove the general canonical principle which can replace the equal a priori probability postulate for microcanonical ensemble in statistical mechanics. We use the density matrix itself rather than distance to analyze our results thus their derivations are more explicit and precise, we identify that the difference between state from the microcanonical ensemble and the thermal state is a finite-size effect. In the generic isolated quantum system, we systematically present various ensembles and clarify their relations numerically. In addition, we show in the thermalization, though the state of ‘SB’ is always a pure state, its pair-type entanglement of system ‘S’ is almost zero like a classical state, but it jumps from zero in the beginning of thermalization to finite value and drops again to zero when thermal equilibrium is finally reached. This shows that entanglement may be useful for thermalization.
The main method in this paper is to compare density matrices schematically, however, the result agrees well with method of calculating the distances evaluated by such as Hilbert-Schmidt norm as used in Ref.[@winter]. It is already shown in Ref.[@RigolNature] that the one-dimension momentum distributions are close to that of microcanonical ensemble. Since expectation values of observables are based on measurement operators applied on density matrix, the method by comparing directly density matrices seems more complete and explicit.
The main conclusion of this paper is based on a real physical system in which thermalization happens. The process of thermalization is realized by a numerical experiment so that the result does not depend on any assumptions. Considering that the system is generic, our conclusion should be general.
We would like to thank useful discussions with C. P. Sun and H. Dong. This work is supported by NSFC and “973” program (2010CB922904, 2011CB921500).
[99]{} L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Statistical Physics (Pergamon, London, 1958).
S. Popescu, A. J. Short, and A. Winter, Nature Phys. [**2**]{}, 754 (2006). S. Goldstein, J. L. Lebowitz, R. Tumulka, N. Zanghi. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 050403 (2006).
I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**80**]{}, 885 (2008).
T. Kinoshita, T. Wenger, and D. S. Weiss. Nature [**440**]{}, 900 (2006).
S. Hofferberth, I. Lesanovsky, B. Fischer, T. Schumm, and J. Schmiedmayer. Nature [**449**]{}, 324 (2007).
M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, and M. Olshanii, Nature (London) [**452**]{}, 854 (2008).
J. M. Deutsch, Phys. Rev. A [**43**]{}, 2046 (1991); M. Srednicki, Phys. Rev. E [**50**]{}, 888 (1994).
H. Tasaki. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 1373 (1998).
H. Dong, S. Yang, X. F. Liu, and C. P. Sun, Phys. Rev. A [**76**]{}, 044104 (2007).
M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, V. Yurovsky, and M. Olshanii. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 050405 (2007).
C. Kollath, A. Läuchli, and E. Altman. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 180601 (2007).
S. R. Manmana, S. Wessel, R. M. Noack, and A. Muramatsu. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 210405 (2007).
S. Genway, A. F. Ho, and D. K. K. Lee. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 260402 (2010).
L. F. Santos and M. Rigol, Phys. Rev. E [**81**]{}, 036206 (2010).
M. C. Banuls, J. I. Cirac, and M. B. Hastings, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 050405 (2011).
A. C. Cassidy, C. W. Clark,and M. Rigol. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 140405 (2011)
J. Eisert, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**82**]{}, 277 (2010).
G. Biroli, C. Kollath, and A. M. Läuchli, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 250401 (2010).
C. Gogolin, M. P. Müller, and J. Eisert, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 040401.
J. Gemmer, M. Michel, and G. Mahler, Quantum Thermodynamics: Emergence of Thermodynamic Behavior Within Composite Quantum Systems, Lect. Notes Phys. [**784**]{} (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg 2009).
W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 2245 (1998).
[^1]: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This note is a brief review of the analysis of long transients in dynamical systems. The problem of long transients arose in many disciplines, from physical and chemical kinetic to biology and even social sciences. Detailed analysis of singularities of various ‘relaxation times’ associated long transients with bifurcations of $\omega$-limit sets, homoclinic structures (intersections of $\alpha$- and $\omega$-limit sets) and other peculiarities of dynamics. This review was stimulated by the analysis of anomalously long transients in ecology published recently by A. Morozov and S. Petrovskii with co-authors.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK'
author:
- 'A.N. Gorban'
title: Singularities of transient processes in dynamics and beyond
---
relaxation time, topological dynamics, limit set, bifurcation, attractor, noise, singularity, kinetics
From an absolutely rigorous (pedantic) point of view, all the states in life or social sciences (and, possibly, far beyond their borders) are transient. All the steady states, running waves, beautiful limit cycles or attractors are just [*intermediate asymptotics*]{} and nothing is stationary or ergodic.
However, the idea of [*separation of time scales*]{} allows the creation of autonomous dynamic models at some scales. In these ideal models, we assume that processes that are much faster than the selected time scale are completely relaxed and the values of fast variables (or average values in fast dynamics) follow the dynamics at the selected scale. The processes proceeding much more slowly than the selected time can be considered stationary or presented as a slow drift of the parameters of our models. This clear and transparent picture is true if the system is globally stable and far from a critical transition. Such a system relaxes to the limit regime without significant delays, and all long transients are due to a slow drift of parameters. When the qualitative picture of dynamics is not so trivial, then various dynamic causes of slow relaxations and critical delay effects, well-known in physics and beyond, may appear (we refer here to a recent review of [*critical transitions*]{} [@AnticipatingScience]). Critical transitions can [*mix time scales*]{} and violate the standard separation of time logics. Even violation of global stability can cause long delay near unstable attractors.
If we observe a long transition period for a real system, a conundrum arises:
- [*is this delay caused by the drift of “external” conditions (parameters),*]{}
- [*or does it have an internal dynamic cause,*]{}
- [*or does it appear just due to the inaccuracy of the model, because we incorrectly determine the limit behaviour and transients?*]{}
This problem can be very non-trivial when the barrier between reality and models is large enough, as in ecology (and, more broadly, in life science), in heterogeneous catalysis, the dynamics of complex solids and liquids, etc., where we do not expect very high precision models.
Recently published papers [@MorozovScience; @MorozovPLRV] met this challenge for mathematical modelling in ecology. I liked this study and review with a clear presentation of the main ideas and results important for ecological research. In this comment, I would like to enrich the discussion with a similar but different story from chemical kinetics and the introduction of general mathematical concepts developed some time ago for the analysis of long transients in kinetics and dynamical systems.
Transients have been used in experimental chemistry to measure reaction rate constants, especially for fast reactions (M. Eigen, Nobel prize 1967 [@EIgenNobel]). The study of transients attracted much attention, and slow transients were observed in the kinetics of heterogeneous catalytic reactions, which were immediately interpreted as a drift of ‘external’ conditions [@Temkin1; @Temkin2; @Wainwright]. In the same period of time, chemical kinetics mastered the achievements of non-linear dynamics with dramatic discoveries and rediscoveries of chemical oscillations, stochastic self-oscillations, auto-waves, etc. [*When the problem of long transients met with the theory of dynamical systems, it immediately became clear that it is not always necessary to look for ‘external’ causes of slow relaxations, first of all it is necessary to investigate whether there are slow relaxations of dynamic origin in the system*]{} [@GorbanDiss; @GorbanDAN] (a slightly abridged version of the thesis [@GorbanDiss] is published in English [@GorbanSingularities]; detailed discussion of long transients in chemical kinetics and the theory of their possible dynamic causes is presented in Chapter 7, ‘Critical retardation effects and slow relaxations’, of [@YBGE1991]).
Before mathematical analysis of long transients, two questions should be answered: what we call the [*limiting behaviour*]{} for the time $ t \to \infty $ and how we define the [*relaxation time*]{}. For asymptotically stable linear systems $\dot{x}=Ax$, relaxation time is traditionally defined as $ \tau_l = -1/\max {\rm Re} \lambda$ where $\lambda$ runs through all the eigenvalues of the matrix $A$ (all $ {\rm Re} \lambda <0$). For non-linear systems, this definition makes sense only for transients in small neighbourhoods of asymptotically stable equilibria, but not for global dynamics far from such equilibria.
Non-linear dynamics gives a nice formalisation of limit behaviour, the [*$\omega$-limit set*]{}. For a motion $x(t)$ the $\omega$-limit set consists of all limit points of $x(t)$ when $t\to \infty$. For theory of $\alpha$- (when $t \to \infty$) and $\omega$-limit sets we refer to [@GorbanSingularities] or to Chapter VII, ‘General theory of dynamical system’, of the classical monograph [@Birkhoff1927]. If a system depends on parameters $k$ then the $\omega$-limit set can be considered as a set-valued function of parameters $k$ and initial state of the motion $x$: $\omega(x,k)$. If a motion goes to an equilibrium then its $\omega$-limit set consists of this equilibrium. If it goes to a periodic orbit then the $\omega$-limit set consists of the points of this orbit. Of course, $\omega(x,k)$ includes point of more complex attractors if the motion tends to them.
[*Transient is the process of relaxation from the initial state to the small $\varepsilon$-vicinity of $\omega(x,k)$*]{}. The relaxation time depends on $x$, $k$, and $\varepsilon>0$. The value of $\varepsilon$, ‘accuracy of relaxation’, is to be fixed because for smaller $\varepsilon$ relaxation will go longer, and for unlimited accuracy, when $\varepsilon \to 0$, the relaxation time goes to infinity. Therefore, we consider relaxation time as a function of $x$ and $k$ for a given $\varepsilon$. If we go deeper then we notice that, after the first entrance into the $\varepsilon$-vicinity of $\omega(x,k)$, the motion can leave this vicinity, then return back, then, possibly leave it again, etc., and the time of the final entrance into $\varepsilon$-vicinity of $\omega(x,k)$ could be much larger than the time of the first entrance. Therefore, we can define [*several relaxation times*]{}:
1. time of the first entrance into the $\varepsilon$-vicinity of $\omega(x,k)$;
2. time of the motion outside it;
3. time of the final entrance there.
There are several other types of relaxation time [@GorbanSingularities]. Therefore, a large number of different slow relaxations arise, not reducible to each other. To interpret the long-term transient observed experimentally, it is important to understand which of the relaxation times is long.
Long transients in experiments and computational experiments are usually [*‘limited slow’*]{}, the relaxation time is large (larger than one would expect from the coefficients of equations and of characteristic times of elementary processes), but nevertheless limited (for given $\varepsilon$). How can ‘long transients’ be separated from the ‘normal’ ones? To find singularities of relaxation time, the following method is useful, which goes back to the works of A.A. Andronov: the system in question is included in an appropriate family of dynamical systems for which relaxation times already have singularities (are not bounded). These singularities of transients appear when the function $\omega(x,k)$ looses its continuity. More precisely, singularities of relaxation time are caused by the ‘$\omega(x,k)$ explosions’, that are the discontinuities, where new $\omega$-limit points or whole $\omega$-limit sets appear [@GorbanDiss; @GorbanDAN; @GorbanSingularities]. The second common reason of anomalously long transients is appearance of homoclinic structures, that are intersections between $\omega$- ($t\to \infty$) and $\alpha$- ($t\to -\infty$) limit sets.
The surface of singularities of relaxation time in the $(x,k)$ space includes the sets of attraction of unstable invariant sets. Examples of such piece-wise differentiable sets were calculated for some chemical systems [@BykGorPush1982] (see also [@YBGE1991]).
In Fig. \[Fig:SingSurf\], we present the surface of singularities of relaxation time for the catalytic trigger, a simplest catalytic reaction without autocatalysis that allows multiplicity of steady states. $$\begin{aligned}
&{A_2}+2Z \leftrightarrow 2AZ; \\
&{B}+Z \leftrightarrow BZ;\\
&{AZ}+BZ \to {AB}+2Z.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $A_2$, $B$ and $AB$ are gases (for example, O$_2$, CO and CO$_2$), $Z$ is the “adsorption place” on the surface of the solid catalyst (for example, Pt), $AZ$ and $BZ$ are the intermediates on the surface. Dynamics of the intermediates on the surface was studied for constant gas pressures [@YBGE1991; @BykGorPush1982]. For different parameters (gas pressures and temperature), the system has either one steady state (a stable node), three steady states (two stable nodes and a saddle point) or two steady states at the bifurcations between one and three states: one stable node and and one saddle-node. The surface of singularities of relaxation time is drawn (Fig. \[Fig:SingSurf\]) in the 3D space with coordinates: $x$ – surface concentration of $AZ$, $y$ – surface concentration of $BZ$ and $T$ – temperature. The rate constants and their dependence on temperature correspond to the oxidation of CO on platinum at low pressure. The saddle-node bifurcation occurs at two values of the parameter $T=T_{1,2}$ [@YBGE1991; @BykGorPush1982]. For these values, the singularity surface consists of the basins of attractors of the saddle-node point, and for $T$ between the bifurcation values, this surface is the union of the separatrices of the saddles. At a critical value $T=T_{1,2}$, the separatrix $S_{1,2}$ separates the basin of attraction of the saddle-node from the basin of attraction of the stable node.
![[*Singularities of relaxation time for catalytic trigger.*]{} The surface of singularities of relaxation time is drawn in 3D space: dynamical variables $x$, $y$ and parameter $T$. Relaxation time depends on the initial conditions $x^0$, $y^0$ and on the value of parameter $T$. For the critical values $T=T_{1,2}$ the system has the saddle-node bifurcations. The basins of attraction of the saddle-nodes belong to the surface of singularities (highlighted in red). In between the critical values, the surface of singularities is formed by separatrices of saddles (highlighted in blue). Separatrices $S_{1,2}$ separate in phase space basins of attractors of saddle-nodes from the basins of attractors of stable nodes.[]{data-label="Fig:SingSurf"}](RelaxTimeSing.png){width="30.00000%"}
It could be curious to note that the theory of slow transients and bifurcations of $\omega$-limit sets [@GorbanDiss; @GorbanDAN] (see also [@GorbanSingularities]) was created in topological dynamics (1978-1981) even before Milnor’s introduction (1985) of the concept of ‘attractor’ [@Milnor1985].
Despite some differences at the level of formalism, at the [*qualitative level*]{}, the conclusions of the theory of dynamical systems on critical delays [@GorbanDiss; @GorbanDAN; @GorbanSingularities], the results of the analysis of chemical kinetics [@YBGE1991] and the analysis of long-term transients in ecology [@MorozovScience; @MorozovPLRV] [*led to very similar conclusions*]{}. For example:
- [It is not always necessary to search for ‘external’ reasons of slow relaxations, in the first place one should investigate if there are slow relaxations of dynamical origin in the system.]{}
- [One of possible reasons for slow relaxations is the existence of bifurcations (explosions) of $\omega$-limit sets $\omega(x,k)$ [@GorbanDiss; @GorbanDAN; @GorbanSingularities]. Particular cases are delays near unstable invariant sets and ‘ghost’ attractors that will approach the real phase space with changing parameters (for example, impact of non-physical steady states on transients was demonstrated for chemical kinetic systems in [@GorbanNonPhys]).]{}
- [The measure (volume, probability) of the set of the initial conditions with large relaxation time can be asymptotically estimated using the spectrum of Lyapunov exponents of unstable invariant sets and ghost attractors. ]{}
- [The complicated dynamics can be ‘coarsed’ by perturbations. The useful model of perturbations in topological dynamics provide the $\varepsilon$-motions ($\varepsilon$-orbits or pseudo-orbits [@GorbanSingularities; @Corless1995; @GorbanCoarseGrain]). For $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$ we obtain the coarse structure of sources and drains similar to the Morse-Smale systems (possibly, with a totally disconnected compact instead of the finite set of attractors).]{}
- [The interrelations between the singularities of relaxation times and other peculiarities of dynamics for general dynamical system under small perturbations are the same as for the Morse-Smale systems, and, in particular, the same as for rough (structurally stable) two-dimensional systems [@GorbanDiss; @GorbanSingularities].]{}
This convergence of knowledge convinces us that the truth is not far away. Let us study singularities of transients! They make much sense and help us to anticipate critical effects.
[99]{}
Scheffer M, Carpenter SR, Lenton TM, Bascompte J, Brock W, Dakos V, Van de Koppel J, Van de Leemput IA, Levin SA, Van Nes EH, Pascual M. Anticipating critical transitions. Science. 2012 Oct 19;338(6105):344-348. <https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1225244>
Hastings A, Abbott KC, Cuddington K, Francis T, Gellner G, Lai YC, Morozov A, Petrovskii S, Scranton K, Zeeman ML. Transient phenomena in ecology. Science 2018;361(6406):eaat6412. <https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat6412>
Morozov A, Abbott K, Cuddington K, Francis T, Gellner G, Hastings A, Lai YC, Petrovskii S, Scranton K, Zeeman ML. Long transients in ecology: theory and applications. Phys. Life Rev. 2019 <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2019.09.004>
Eigen M. Immeasurably fast reactions. Nobel Lecture. 1967;11:1963-79. <https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/1967/eigen/lecture/>
Temkin MI, Relaxation of the reaction rate in the case of a two-stage catalytic reaction, Kinet. Katal. 1976;17(5):1095.
Levchenko LP, Kul’kova NV, Temkin MI. Transient Processes under ethylene oxidation over silver. Kinet. Katal. 1976;17(6):1542.
Wainwright MS, Hoffman TW. The oxidation of ortho‐xylene on vanadium pentoxide catalysts. I. Transient kinetic measurements. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 1977;55:552–556. <https://doi.org/doi:10.1002/cjce.5450550512>
Gorban A.N., Slow relaxations and bifurcations of omega-limit sets of dynamical systems, PhD Thesis in Physics & Math (Differential Equations & Math.Phys), Kuibyshev, Russia, 1980.
Gorban’ AN, Cheresiz VM. Slow relaxations of dynamical systems and bifurcations of $\omega$-limit sets. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 1981;261(5)1050–1053, communicated by S.L. Sobolev \[English Translation: Soviet Math. Dokl. 1981;24(3):645–649\].
Gorban AN. Singularities of transition processes in dynamical systems: Qualitative theory of critical delays. Electr. J. Diff. Eqns., Monograph 05, 2004. <https://ejde.math.txstate.edu/Monographs/05/gorban.pdf>; <https://arxiv.org/abs/chao-dyn/9703010>
Yablonskii GS, Bykov VI, Gorban AN, Elohin VI. Kinetic Models of Catalytic Reactions, Elsevier, Series ‘Comprehensive Chemical Kinetics’, Volume 32, 1991.
Birkhoff, GD. Dynamical systems, American Mathematical Soc., Colloquim publications, Volume 9, Providence, Rhode Island, 1927.
Elokhin VI, Yablonskii GS, Gorban AN, Cheresiz VM. Dynamics of chemical reactions and nonphysical steady states. React. Kinet. Catal. Lett. 1980;15(2):245–250 <https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02062440>
Corless RM, Pilyugin SY. Approximate and real trajectories for generic dynamical systems. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1995;189(2):409-23. <https://doi.org/10.1006/jmaa.1995.1027>
Gorban AN. Basic types of coarse-graining. In Gorban AN, Kevrekidis IG, Theodoropoulos C, Kazantzis NK, Öttinger H.C. (eds) Model Reduction and Coarse-Graining Approaches for Multiscale Phenomena. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006, 117–176. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-35888-9_7>
Bykov VI, Gorban AN, Pushkareva TP. Singularities of relaxation times in oxidation reaction of CO on Pt. Teor. i exp. khimija 1982;18(4):431–439. \[English translation: Theor. Exp. Chem. 1983;18(4):383–391. <https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00516986>\]
Milnor J. On the concept of attractor. Comm. Math. Phys. 1985;99:177–195. <https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01212280>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We construct the finite dimensional simple integral modules for the (degenerate) affine Hecke-Clifford algebra (AHCA), ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$. Our construction includes an analogue of Zelevinsky’s segment representations, a complete combinatorial description of the simple calibrated ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-modules, and a classification of the simple integral ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-modules. Our main tool is an analogue of the Arakawa-Suzuki functor for the Lie superalgebra ${{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$.'
address:
- |
Department of Mathematics\
University of California, Berkeley\
Berkeley, CA 94720-3840
- |
Department of Mathematics\
University of Oklahoma\
Norman, OK 73019
- |
Department of Mathematics\
University of California, Berkeley\
Berkeley, CA 94720-3840
author:
- David Hill
- 'Jonathan R. Kujawa'
- Joshua Sussan
title: 'Degenerate Affine Hecke-Clifford Algebras and Type $Q$ Lie Superalgebras'
---
[^1]
Introduction {#S:Intro}
============
Throughout this paper, we will work over the ground field ${{\mathbb{C}}}$. As is well known, the symmetric group, $S_d$, has a non-trivial *central extension*: $$\xymatrix{1\ar[r]&{{\mathbb{Z}}}/2{{\mathbb{Z}}}\ar[r]&\widehat{S}_d\ar[r]&S_d\ar[r]&1}.$$ The double cover $\widehat{S}_d$ is generated by elements ${\zeta},\hat{s}_1,\ldots,\hat{s}_{d-1}$, where ${\zeta}$ is central, ${\zeta}^2=1$, and the $\hat{s}_i$ satisfy the relations $\hat{s}_i\hat{s}_{i+1}\hat{s}_i=\hat{s}_{i+1}\hat{s}_i\hat{s}_{i+1}$ and $\hat{s}_j\hat{s}_i={\zeta}\hat{s}_i\hat{s}_j$ for admissible $i$ and $j$ satisfying $|i-j|>1$. The *projective* or $\emph{spin}$ representations of $S_d$ are the linear representations of $\widehat{S}_d$ which factor through ${{\mathbb{C}}}\widehat{S}_d/({\zeta}+1)$. This paper is a study of some structures arising from the projective representation theory of symmetric groups.
The double cover $\widehat{S}_d$ suffers a defect: it is difficult to define parabolic induction, see [@stem Section 4]. Since the inductive approach to the study of linear representations of the symmetric group is so effective, it is preferable to study the *Sergeev algebra* ${{\mathcal{S}}}(d)$ introduced in [@s; @n], which provides a natural fix to this problem. As a vector space, ${{\mathcal{S}}}(d)={{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d)\otimes{{\mathbb{C}}}S_d$, where ${{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d)$ is the $2^d$-dimensional Clifford algebra with generators $c_1,\ldots,c_d$ subject to the relations $c_i^2=-1$ and $c_ic_j=-c_jc_i$ for $i\neq j$, and ${{\mathbb{C}}}S_d$ is the group algebra of $S_d$. Let $s_i=(i,i+1)\in S_d$ be the $i$th basic transposition, and identify ${{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d)$ and ${{\mathbb{C}}}S_d$ with the subspaces ${{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d)\otimes 1$ and $1\otimes{{\mathbb{C}}}S_d$ respectively. Multiplication is defined so that ${{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d)$ and ${{\mathbb{C}}}S_d$ are subalgebras, and $wc_i=c_{w(i)}w$ for all $1\leq i\leq d$ and $w\in S_d$. The Sergeev algebra admits a natural definition of parabolic induction and the projective representation theory of the symmetric group can be recovered from that of ${{\mathcal{S}}}(d)$, [@bk1 Theorem 3.4].
Additionally, the Sergeev algebra is a *superalgebra*, and plays the role of the symmetric group for a super version of Schur-Weyl duality known as Sergeev duality in honor of A. N. Sergeev who extended the classical theorem of Schur and Weyl [@s]. If $V={{\mathbb{C}}}^{n|n}$ is the standard representation of the Lie superalgebra ${{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$, then both ${{\mathcal{S}}}(d)$ and ${{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$ act on the tensor product $V^{\otimes d}$ and each algebra is the commutant algebra of the other. In particular, there exists an isomorphism of superalgebras $${{\mathcal{S}}}(d)\rightarrow{\operatorname{End}}_{{{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)}(V^{\otimes d}).$$
The algebra ${{\mathcal{S}}}(d)$ admits an affinization, ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$, called the (degenerate) affine Hecke-Clifford algebra (AHCA). The affine Hecke-Clifford algebra was introduced by Nazarov in [@n] and studied in [@n; @bk2; @kl; @w]. As a vector space, ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)={{\mathcal{P}}}_d[x]\otimes{{\mathcal{S}}}(d)$, where ${{\mathcal{P}}}_d[x]={{\mathbb{C}}}[x_1,\ldots,x_d]$. We identify ${{\mathcal{P}}}_d[x]$ and ${{\mathcal{S}}}(d)$ with the subspaces ${{\mathcal{P}}}_d[x]\otimes 1$ and $1\otimes{{\mathcal{S}}}(d)$. Multiplication is defined so that these are subalgebras, $c_ix_j=x_jc_i$ if $j\neq i$, $c_ix_i=-x_ic_i$, $s_ix_j=x_js_i$ if $j\neq i,i+1$, and $$s_ix_i=x_{i+1}s_i-1+c_ic_{i+1}.$$ In addition to ${{\mathcal{S}}}(d)$ being a subalgebra of ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$, there also exists a natural surjection ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)\twoheadrightarrow{{\mathcal{S}}}(d)$ obtained by mapping $x_1\mapsto
0$, $c_i\mapsto c_i$ and $s_i\mapsto s_i$. Therefore, the representation theory of the AHCA contains that of the Sergeev algebra.
Surprisingly little is explicitly known about the representation theory of ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$, in contrast with its linear counterpart, the *(degenerate) affine Hecke algebra* ${{\mathcal{H}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$. The most significant contribution to the projective theory is from [@bk2; @kl], which describe the Grothendieck group of the full subcategory of *integral* ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-modules in terms of the crystal graph associated to a maximal nilpotent subalgebra of ${{\mathfrak{b}}}_\infty$ (or, more generally, $A_{2\ell}^{(2)}$ if working over a field of odd prime characteristic $2\ell-1$). We will return to this important topic later on.
The algebra ${{\mathcal{H}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ has been studied for many years. Of particular interest are those modules for ${{\mathcal{H}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ which admit a generalized weight space decomposition with respect to the polynomial generators. It is known that among these modules it is enough to consider those for which the generalized eigenvalues of the polynomial generators are integers, cf. [@kl $\S7.1$]. These are known as *integral modules*. As discovered in [@n], the appropriate analogue of integral modules for ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ are those which admit a generalized weight space decomposition with respect to the $x_i^2$, and the generalized eigenvalues of the $x_i^2$ are of the form $q(a):=a(a+1)$, $a\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}$.
The finite dimensional, irreducible, integral modules for ${{\mathcal{H}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ were classified by Zelevinsky in [@z] via combinatorial objects known as multisegments. A segment is an interval $[a,b]\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}$. To each segment $[a,b]$ with $d=b-a+1$, Zelevinsky associates a 1-dimensional ${{\mathcal{H}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-module ${{\mathbb{C}}}_{[a,b]}$ defined from the trivial representation of ${{\mathbb{C}}}S_d$ by letting $x_1$ act by the scalar $a$. A multisegment may be regarded as a pair of compositions $({\beta},{\alpha})=((b_1,\ldots,b_n),(a_1,\ldots,a_n))\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^n\times{{\mathbb{Z}}}^n$, with $d_i=b_i-a_i\geq 0$. If $d=d_1+\cdots+d_n$, Zelevinsky associates to the multisegment $({\beta},{\alpha})$ a *standard cyclic* ${{\mathcal{H}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-module $${{\mathcal{M}}}({\beta},{\alpha}) ={\operatorname{Ind}}_{{{\mathcal{H}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d_1)\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal{H}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d_n)}^{{{\mathcal{H}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)}
{{\mathbb{C}}}_{[a_1,b_1-1]}
\boxtimes\cdots\boxtimes{{\mathbb{C}}}_{[a_n,b_n-1]}.$$ To explain the classification, let $P={{\mathbb{Z}}}^n$ be the weight lattice associated to ${{\mathfrak{gl}}}_n({{\mathbb{C}}})$, $P^+$ the dominant weights, and $\rho=(n-1,\ldots,1,0)$. Additionally, define the weights $${{P_{\geq0}}}(d)=\{\mu\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^n_{\geq0}\mid \mu_1+\cdots+\mu_n=d\}{\,\,\,\,\,\, {\mbox{and}} \,\,\,\,\,\,}P^+[{\lambda}]=\{\mu\in P\mid \mu_i\geq\mu_j\mbox{ whenever }{\lambda}_i={\lambda}_j\}.$$ Given ${\lambda}\in P^+$, let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:Bsubd}
\mathcal{B}_d[{\lambda}]=\{\mu\in P^+[{\lambda}]\mid {\lambda}-\mu\in{{P_{\geq0}}}(d)\},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\mathcal{A}_d=\{({\lambda},\mu)\mid {\lambda}\in P^+,\mbox{ and
}\mu\in\mathcal{B}_d[{\lambda}+\rho]\}.$$ Then, the set $\{{{\mathcal{L}}}({\beta},{\alpha})\mid ({\beta},{\alpha})\in{{\mathcal{A}}}_d\}$ is a complete list of irreducible integral ${{\mathcal{H}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-modules.
In the case of ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$, the situation is more subtle. To describe this, fix a segment $[a,b]$. The obvious analogue of the trivial representation of ${{\mathbb{C}}}S_d$ is the $2^d$-dimensional basic spin representation ${{\mathcal{C}\ell}}_d={{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d).1$ of ${{\mathcal{S}}}(d)$. If $a=0$, the action of ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ factors through ${{\mathcal{S}}}(d)$ and it can be checked that ${{\mathcal{C}\ell}}_d$ is the desired segment representation. If $a\neq 0$, it is not immediately obvious how to proceed. Inspiration comes from a *rank 1* application of the functor described below. We define a module structure on the *double* of ${{\mathcal{C}\ell}}_d$: $\hat{{\Phi}}_{[a,b]}={\Phi}_a\otimes{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}_d$, where ${\Phi}_a$ is a 2-dimensional Clifford algebra. The module $\hat{{\Phi}}_{[a,b]}$ is not irreducible, but decomposes as a direct sum of irreducibles ${\Phi}_{[a,b]}^+\oplus{\Phi}_{[a,b]}^-$, where ${\Phi}_{[a,b]}^+$ and ${\Phi}_{[a,b]}^-$ are isomorphic via an *odd* isomorphism. Let ${\Phi}_{[a,b]}$ denote one of these simple summands. Now, given a multisegment $({\lambda},\mu)$, with ${\lambda}_i-\mu_i=d_i$ and $d=d_1+\cdots+d_n$, we define the standard cyclic module $${{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu)={\operatorname{Ind}}_{{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d_1)\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d_n)}^{{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)}
{\Phi}_{[\mu_1,{\lambda}_1-1]}\circledast\cdots\circledast{\Phi}_{[\mu_n,{\lambda}_n-1]},$$ where $\circledast$ is an analogue of the outer tensor product adapted for superalgebras, see section \[S:Prelim\] below.
A weight ${\lambda}\in P$ is called typical if ${\lambda}_i+{\lambda}_j\neq0$ for all $i\neq j$. Let $${{P^{++}}}=\{{\lambda}\in P^+\mid \lambda_{1}\geq \dotsb \geq \lambda_{n}, \text{ and } {\lambda}_i+{\lambda}_j\neq 0\mbox{ for all }i\neq j\}$$ be the set of dominant typical weights. We prove
Assume that ${\lambda}\in{{P^{++}}}$ and $\mu\in\mathcal{B}_d[{\lambda}]$. Then, ${{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu)$ has a unique simple quotient, denoted ${{\mathcal{L}}}({\lambda},\mu)$.
In the special case where the multisegment $(\lambda,\mu)$ corresponds to skew shapes (i.e. $\lambda,\mu \in P^+$), the associated ${{\mathcal{H}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-modules are called calibrated. The calibrated representations may also be characterized as those modules on which the polynomial generators act semisimply, and were originally classified by Cherednik in [@ch0]. In [@ram], Ram gives a complete combinatorial description of the calibrated representations of ${{\mathcal{H}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ in terms of skew shape tableaux and provides a complete classification (see also [@kr] for another combinatorial model).
The projective analogue of the skew shapes are the shifted skew shapes which have appeared already in [@s2; @stem] and correspond to when ${\lambda}$ and $\mu$ are *strict* partitions. As in the linear case, these are the modules for which the $x_i$ act semisimply. In the spirit of [@ram], we prove that
For each shifted skew shape $\lambda/\mu$, where $\lambda$ and $\mu$ are strict partitions such that $ \lambda $ contains $ \mu, $ there is an irreducible ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-module $H^{\lambda/\mu}$. Every irreducible, calibrated ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-module is isomorphic to exactly one such $H^{\lambda/\mu}$.
The $H^{{\lambda}/\mu}$ are constructed directly using the combinatorics of shifted skew shapes. Furthermore, we show that $H^{{\lambda}/\mu}\cong{{\mathcal{L}}}({\lambda},\mu)$. We would also like to point out that Wan, [@wan], has recently obtained a classification of the calibrated representations for ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ over any arbitrary algebraically closed field of characteristic not equal to 2.
The appearance of the weight lattice for ${{\mathfrak{gl}}}_n({{\mathbb{C}}})$ in the representation theory of ${{\mathcal{H}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ is explained by a work of Arakawa and Suzuki who introduced in [@as] a functor from the BGG category $ \mathcal{O}(\mathfrak{gl}_n) $ to the category of finite dimensional representations of ${{\mathcal{H}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$. The authors proved that the functor maps Verma modules to the standard modules or zero. Using the Kazdhan-Lusztig conjecture together with the results of [@ginz], they proved that simple objects in $\mathcal{O}(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$ are mapped by the functor to simple modules or zero. In [@su1], Suzuki avoided the Kazdhan-Lusztig conjecture, and proved that the functor maps simples to simples using Zelevinsky’s classification together with the existence of a nonzero ${{\mathcal{H}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-contravariant form on certain standard modules, see [@r]. In [@su2], Suzuki was able to avoid the results of Zelevinsky and independently reproduce the classification via a careful analysis of the standard modules. For a complete explanation of the functor in type $A$, we refer the reader to [@or].
The functor and related constructions have had numerous applications in various areas of representation theory. This includes the study of affine Braid groups and Hecke algebras [@or], Yangians [@KN], the centers of parabolic category $\mathcal{O}$ for $\mathfrak{gl}_{n}$ [@b2], finite W-algebras [@bk4], and the proof of Broué’s abelian defect conjecture for symmetric groups by Chuang and Rouquier via $\mathfrak{sl}_{2}$ categorification [@CR].
We define an analogous functor from the category $\mathcal{O}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))$ to the category of finite dimensional modules for ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$. The contruction of this functor relies on the following key result:
Let $M$ be a ${{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$-supermodule. Then, there exists a homomorphism $${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)\rightarrow{\operatorname{End}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)}(M\otimes V^{\otimes d}).$$
To define the functor, let ${{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)={{\mathfrak{n}}}^+\oplus{{\mathfrak{h}}}\oplus{{\mathfrak{n}}}^-$ be the triangular decomposition of ${{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$. For each ${\lambda}\in P$, the functor $$F_{\lambda}:\mathcal{O}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))\rightarrow{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)\mbox{-mod}$$ is defined by $$F_{\lambda}M=\{\,m\in M \mid {{\mathfrak{n}}}^+.m=0 \text{ and } hv =\lambda(h)v \text{ for all } h\in {{\mathfrak{h}}}\}.$$ The functor $F_{\lambda}$ is exact when ${\lambda}\in{{P^{++}}}$.
The dimension of the highest weight space of a Verma module in $\mathcal{O}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))$ is generally greater than one. A consequence of this is that the functor maps a Verma module to a direct sum of the same standard module. A simple object in $ \mathcal{O}(\mathfrak{q}(n)) $ is mapped to a direct sum of the same simple module or else zero. Determining when a simple object is mapped to something non-zero is a more difficult question than in the non-super case and we have only partial results in this direction. The main difficulty is a lack of information about the category $\mathcal{O}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))$. The category of finite dimensional representations of ${{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$ has been studied by Penkov and Serganova [@p; @ps; @ps2]; they give a character formula for all finite dimension simple ${{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$-modules. Using other methods, Brundan [@b] has also studied this category, and has even obtained some (conjectural) information about the whole category $\mathcal{O}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))$ via the theory of crystals. The most useful information, however, comes from Gorelik [@g], who defines the Shapovalov form for Verma modules and calculates the linear factorization of its determinant.
In various works by Ariki, Grojnowski, Vazirani, and Kleshchev [@ar; @gr; @v; @kl] it was shown that there is an action of $U({{\mathfrak{gl}}}_\infty)$ on the direct sum of Grothendieck groups of the categories of integral ${{\mathcal{H}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-modules, for all $d$. This gives another type of classification of the simple integral modules as nodes on the crystal graph associated to a maximal nilpotent subalgebra of ${{\mathfrak{gl}}}_\infty$. In [@bk1], Brundan and Kleshchev show there is a classification of the simple integral modules for ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ parameterized by the nodes of the crystal graph associated to a maximal nilpotent subalgebra of ${{\mathfrak{b}}}_\infty$, see also [@kl].
In [@lec], Leclerc studied dual canonical bases of the quantum group ${{\mathcal{U}}}_q({{\mathfrak{g}}})$ for various finite dimensional simple Lie algebras ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$ via embeddings of the quantized enveloping algebra ${{\mathcal{U}}}_q({{\mathfrak{n}}})$ of a maximal nilpotent subalgebra ${{\mathfrak{n}}}\subseteq{{\mathfrak{g}}}$ in the *quantum shuffle algebra*. To describe the quantum shuffle algebra associated to ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$ of rank $r$, let $\mathcal{F}$ be the free associative algebra on the letters $[0],\ldots,[r-1]$, and let $[i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_k]:=[i_1]\cdot[i_2]\cdots[i_k]$. Then, the quantum shuffle algebra is the algebra $(\mathcal{F},*)$, where $$[i_1,\ldots,i_k]*[i_{k+1},\ldots,i_{k+\ell}]=\sum_{\sigma}q^{-e({\sigma})}[i_{\sigma}(1),\ldots,i_{{\sigma}(k+\ell)}],$$ where the sum is over all minimal length coset representatives in $S_{k+\ell}/(S_k\times S_\ell)$, and $e({\sigma})$ is some explicit function of ${\sigma}$. There exists an *injective* homomorphism $\Psi:{{\mathcal{U}}}_q({{\mathfrak{n}}})\hookrightarrow{{\mathcal{F}}}$ satisfying $\Psi(xy)=\Psi(x)*\Psi(y)$ for all $x,y\in{{\mathcal{U}}}_q({{\mathfrak{n}}})$. Let $\mathcal{W}=\Psi({{\mathcal{U}}}_q({{\mathfrak{n}}}))$.
The ordering $[0]<[1]<\cdots<[r-1]$ yields two total ordering on words in ${{\mathcal{F}}}$: One the standard lexicographic ordering reading from *left to right*, and the other the *costandard* lexicographic ordering reading from *right to left*. These orderings give rise to special words in ${{\mathcal{F}}}$ called Lyndon words, and every word has a canonical factorization as a non-increasing product of Lyndon words. In [@lec], Leclerc uses the standard ordering, while we use the costandard ordering. It is easy to translate between results using one ordering as opposed to the other. However, in our situation, choosing the costandard ordering leads to some significant differences in the *shape* of Lyndon words. We will explain this shortly.
Bases for ${{\mathcal{W}}}$ are parameterized by certain words called *good words*. A *good word* is a nonincreasing product of *good Lyndon word* which have been studied in [@lr; @ro1; @ro2; @ro3]. The good Lyndon words are in 1-1 correspondence with the positive roots, ${\Delta}^+$, of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$, and the (standard or costandard) lexicographic ordering on good Lyndon words gives rise to a convex ordering on ${\Delta}^+$. The convex ordering on ${\Delta}^+$ gives rise to a PBW basis for ${{\mathcal{U}}}_q({{\mathfrak{n}}})$, which in turn gives a multiplicative basis $\{E^*_g=(E^*_{l_k})*\cdots*(E_{l_1}^*)\}$ for ${{\mathcal{W}}}$ labeled by good words $g=l_1\cdots l_k$, where $l_1\geq\cdots \geq l_k$ are good Lyndon words. Additionally, the bar involution on ${{\mathcal{U}}}_q({{\mathfrak{n}}})$ gives rise to a bar involution on ${{\mathcal{W}}}$, and hence, a *dual canonical basis* $\{b^*_g\}$ labeled by good words. The transition matrix between the basis $\{E^*_g\}$ and $\{b^*_g\}$ is triangular and, in particular, $b^*_l=E^*_l$ for each good Lyndon word $l$. In what follows, let $\underline{w}$ denote the specialization at $q=1$ of an element $w\in{{\mathcal{W}}}$.
For ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$ of type $A_\infty=\underrightarrow{\lim}A_r$, good Lyndon words are labelled by segments $[a,b]$, and there is no difference between the standard and costandard ordering. In this case, for a good Lyndon word $l$, $\underline{E^*_l}=l$. The Mackey theorem for ${{\mathcal{H}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ (see section \[SS:Mackey\]) implies that the formal character of a standard module ${{\mathcal{M}}}({\beta},{\alpha})$ is given by $\underline{E^*_g}$, where $g$ is the good word $[{\alpha}_1,\ldots,{\beta}_1-1,\ldots,{\alpha}_n,\ldots,{\beta}_n-1]$. A much deeper fact, proved by Ariki in [@ar], is that the character of the simple module ${{\mathcal{L}}}({\beta},{\alpha})$ is given by the dual canonical basis element $\underline{b^*_g}$.
Leclerc also studied the Lie algebra ${{\mathfrak{b}}}_r$ of type $B_r$, and hence that of type $B_\infty=\underrightarrow{\lim}B_r$. The good Lyndon words for ${{\mathfrak{b}}}_r$ with respect to the standard ordering are segments $[i,\ldots,j]$, $0\leq i\leq
j<r$, and *double segments* $[0,\ldots,j,0,\ldots,k]$, $0\leq j<k<r$ (cf. [@lec $\S8.2$]). In this case, when $l=[i,\ldots,j]$ is a segment, $\underline{b_l^*}=[i,\ldots,j]={\operatorname{ch}}{\Phi}_{[i,j]}$. However, when $l=[0,\ldots,j,0,\ldots,k]$ is a double segment $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:StdDblSeg}
\underline{b^*_l}=2[0]\cdot([0,\ldots,j]*[1,\ldots,k]).\end{aligned}$$ When we adopt the costandard ordering, the picture becomes much more familiar. Indeed, the good Lyndon words are of the form $[i,\ldots,j]$ $0\leq i<j<r$ and $[j,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,k]$, $0\leq j<k<r$! In particular, they correspond to weights of the segment representations $\Phi_{[i,j]}$ and $\Phi_{[-j-1,k]}$ respectively. Moreover, for $l=[j,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,k]$ $$\underline{b^*_{l}}=2[j,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,k]={\operatorname{ch}}\Phi_{[-j-1,k]}.$$
Leclerc conjectures [@lec Conjecture 52] that for each good word $g$ of *principal degree* $d$, there exists a simple ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-module with character given by $b^*_g$. We are not yet able to confirm the conjecture for general good words. However, the combinatorial construction of $H^{{\lambda}/\mu}$ immediately implies Leclerc’s conjecture for calibrated representations (cf. [@lec Proposition 51] and Corollary \[C:characters\]). Additionally, for each good Lyndon word $l$ (with respect to the costandard ordering), there is a simple module with character $b^*_l$.
Also, an application of the functor $F_{\lambda}$ gives a representation theoretic interpretation of above. Indeed, let ${\lambda}=(k+1,j+1)$ and ${\alpha}=(1,-1)$. Then, $${\operatorname{ch}}{{\mathcal{L}}}({\lambda},-{\alpha})=2[0]\cdot([0,\ldots,j]*[1,\ldots,k]).$$
Finally, the analysis of good Lyndon words leads to a classification of simple integral modules for ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$. Indeed, recall the set , and let $$\mathcal{B}_d=\{({\lambda},\mu)\mid {\lambda}\in{{P^{++}}},\mbox{ and }\mu\in\mathcal{B}_d({\lambda})\}.$$ Then,
The following is a complete list of pairwise non-isomorphic simple modules for ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$: $$\{\,{{\mathcal{L}}}({\lambda},\mu) \mid ({\lambda},\mu)\in \mathcal{B}_d\,\}.$$
We believe this paper may serve as a starting point for future investigations into categorification theories associated to non-simply laced Dynkin diagrams. In particular, we hope that the functor introduced here will play a role in showing that the 2-category for $\mathfrak{b}_\infty$, introduced by Khovanov-Lauda and independently by Rouquier, acts on $\mathcal{O}(\mathfrak{q}(n))$, see [@khl1; @khl2; @khl3; @rq]. Additionally, in [@wz], Wang and Zhao initiated a study of super analogues of $W$-algebras. This functor should be useful for studying these $W$-superalgebras along the lines of [@bk3; @bk4].
In [@b], Brundan studied the category of finite dimensional modules for ${{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$ via Kazhdan-Lusztig theory. Among the finite dimensional ${{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$-modules are the polynomial representations, which correspond under our functor to calibrated representations. Other modules in this category are those associated to *rational* weights, i.e. strict partitions with negative parts allowed. The functor should map these modules to interesting ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-modules. These should be investigated. It would also be interesting to compare the Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomials in [@b] to those appearing in [@lec].
We now briefly outline the paper. In section \[S:Prelim\], we review some basic notion of super representation theory. In section \[S:ASA\] we define the degenerate AHCA and review some of its properties which may also be found in [@kl]. The standard modules and their irreducible quotients are introduced in section \[S:standardreps\]. The classification of the calibrated representations are given in section \[S:Calibrated\]. In section \[S:Lie algebras\] we review some basic notions about category $
\mathcal{O}(\mathfrak{q}(n)) $ which may be found in [@b; @g]. Next, in section \[S:LieTheoreticConstr\] the functor is developed along with its properties. Finally, in section \[S:Classification\] a classification of simple modules is obtained.
Acknowlegments {#SS:acknowlegements}
--------------
The work presented in this paper was begun while the second author visited the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute in Berkeley, CA. He would like to thank the administration and staff of MSRI for their hospitality and especially the organizers of the “Combinatorial Representation Theory” and “Representation Theory of Finite Groups and Related Topics” programs for providing an exceptionally stimulating semester.
We would like to thank Mikhail Khovanov for suggesting we consider a super analogue of the Arakawa-Suzuki functor. We would also like to thank Bernard Leclerc for pointing out [@lec], as well as Monica Vazirani and Weiqiang Wang for some useful comments.
(Associative) Superalgebras and Their Modules {#S:Prelim}
=============================================
We now review some basics of the theory of superalgebras, following [@bk1; @bk2; @kl]. The objects in this theory are ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$-graded. Throughout the exposition, we will make definitions for homogeneous elements in this grading. These definitions should always be extended by linearity. Also, we often choose to not write the prefix *super*. As the paper progresses this term may be dropped; however, we will always point out when we are explicitly ignoring the ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$-grading.
A vector superspace is a ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$-graded ${{\mathbb{C}}}$-vector space $V=V_{{{\bar{0}}}}\oplus
V_{{{\bar{1}}}}$. Given a nonzero homogeneous vector $v\in V_{{{\bar{i}}}}$, let $p(v) = {{\bar{i}}}\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$ be its *parity*. Given a superspace $V$, let $\Pi V$ be the superspace obtained by reversing the parity. That is, $\Pi V_{{\bar{i}}}=V_{{{\bar{i}}}+1}$. A supersubspace of $V$ is a *graded* subspace $U\subseteq V$. That is, $U=(U\cap V_{{{\bar{0}}}})\oplus(U\cap V_{{{\bar{1}}}})$. Observe that $U$ is a supersubspace if, and only if, $U$ is stable under the map $v\mapsto(-1)^{p(v)}v$ for homogeneous vectors $v\in V$.
Given two superspaces $V,W$, the direct sum $V\oplus W$ and tensor product $V\otimes W$ satisfy $(V\oplus
W)_{{{\bar{i}}}}=V_{{\bar{i}}}\oplus W_{{\bar{i}}}$ and $$(V\otimes W)_{{\bar{i}}}=\bigoplus_{{{\bar{j}}}+{{\bar{k}}}={{\bar{i}}}}V_{{\bar{j}}}\otimes W_{{\bar{k}}}.$$ We may regard ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}(V,W)$ as a superspace by setting ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}(V,W)_{{\bar{i}}}$ to be the set of all homogeneous linear maps of degree ${{\bar{i}}}$. That is, linear maps ${\varphi}:V\rightarrow W$ such that ${\varphi}(V_{{\bar{j}}})\subseteq W_{{{\bar{j}}}+{{\bar{i}}}}$. Finally, $V^*={\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}(V,{{\mathbb{C}}})$ is a superspace, where ${{\mathbb{C}}}={{\mathbb{C}}}_{{\bar{0}}}$.
Now, a superalgebra is a vector superspace $A$ that has the structure of an associative, unital algebra such that $A_{{\bar{i}}}A_{{\bar{j}}}\subseteq A_{{{\bar{i}}}+{{\bar{j}}}}$. A superideal of $A$ is a two sided ideal of $A$ that is also a supersubspace of $A$. A superalgebra homomorphism ${\varphi}:A\rightarrow B$ is an even (i.e. grading preserving) linear map which is also an algebra homomorphism. Observe that since ${\varphi}$ is even, its kernel, $\ker{\varphi}$, is a superideal of $A$. Finally, given superalgebras $A$ and $B$, their tensor product $A\otimes B$ is a superalgebra with product given by $$\label{tensor product rule-algebra}
(a\otimes b)(a'\otimes b')=(-1)^{p(a')p(b)}(aa'\otimes bb').$$
We now turn our attention to supermodules. Given a superalgebra $A$, let $A$-smod denote the category of all finite dimensional $A$-supermodules, and $A$-mod be the category of $A$-modules in the usual ungraded sense. An object in $A$-smod is a ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$-graded left $A$-module $M=M_{{\bar{0}}}\oplus M_{{\bar{1}}}$ such that $A_{{\bar{i}}}M_{{\bar{j}}}\subseteq M_{{{\bar{i}}}+{{\bar{j}}}}$. A homomorphism of $A$-supermodules $M$ and $N$ is a map of vector superspaces $f:M\rightarrow N$ satisfying $f(am)=(-1)^{p(a)p(f)}af(m)$ when $f$ is homogeneous. A submodule of an $A$-supermodule $M$ will always be a supersubspace of $M$. An $A$-supermodule $M$ is called irreducible if it contains no proper nontrivial subsupermodules.
The supermodule $M$ may or may not remain irreducible when regarded as an object in $A$-mod. If $M$ remains irreducible as an $A$-module, it is called *absolutely irreducible*, and if it decomposes, it is called *self associate*. Alternatively, absolutely irreducible supermodules are said to be irreducible of type `M`, while self associate supermodules are irreducible of type `Q`. When $M\in A$-smod is self associate, there exists an odd $A$-smod homomorphism ${\theta}_M$ which interchanges the two irreducible components of $M$ as an object in $A$-mod.
Now, let $A$ and $B$ be superalgebras, $M\in A$-smod and $N\in
B$-smod. The vector superspace $M\otimes N$ has the structure of an $A\otimes B$-supermodule via the action is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tensor product rule-module}
(a\otimes b)(m\otimes n)=(-1)^{p(b)p(m)}(am\otimes bn)\end{aligned}$$ for homogeneous $b\in B$ and $m\in M$. This is called the outer tensor product of $M$ and $N$ and is denoted $M\boxtimes N$.
Unlike the classical situation, it may happen that the outer tensor product of irreducible supermodules is no longer irreducible. This only happens when both modules are self associate. To see this, let $M\in A$-smod and $N\in B$-smod be self associate, and recall the odd homomorphisms ${\theta}_M$ and ${\theta}_N$. Then, ${\theta}_M\otimes{\theta}_N:M\boxtimes N\rightarrow M\boxtimes N$, is an even automorphism of $M\boxtimes N$ that squares to $-1$. Hence $M\boxtimes N$ decomposes as direct sum of two $A\otimes B$-supermodules, namely the $(\pm\sqrt{-1})$-eigenspaces. These two summands are absolutely irreducible and isomorphic under the odd isomorphism $\Theta_{M,N}:={\theta}_M\otimes\mathrm{id}_N$, see [@bk1 Lemma 2.9] and [@bk2 Section 2-b]. When $M$ and $N$ are irreducible, define the (irreducible) $A\otimes B$-module $M\circledast N$ by the formula $$\label{E:startensor}
M\boxtimes N
= \begin{cases} M\circledast N, & \text{if either $M$ or $N$ is of type \texttt{M};}\\
(M\circledast N)\oplus\Theta_{M,N}(M\circledast N),& \text{if both $M$ and $N$ are of type \texttt{Q}.}
\end{cases}$$ When $M=M'\oplus M''$, define $M\circledast N=(M'\circledast
N)\oplus(M''\circledast N)$.
Finally, let $A-\mbox{smod}_{\mbox{ev}}$ be the abelian subcategory of $A-\mbox{smod}$ with the same objects, but only *even* morphisms. Then, the Grothendieck group $K(A-\mbox{smod})$ is the quotient of the Grothendieck group $K(A-\mbox{smod}_{\mbox{ev}})$ modulo the relation $M-\Pi M$ for every $A$-supermodule $M$. We would like to emphasize again that we allow odd morphisms and, therefore, $M\cong\Pi M$ in the original category.
The Degenerate Affine Hecke-Clifford Algebra {#S:ASA}
============================================
In this section we define the algebra which is the principle object of study in this paper and summarize the results we will require in what follows. Many of the results may be found in [@kl], however, we include them here in an effort to make this paper self contained and readable to a wider audience.
The Algebra {#SS:Saffdef}
-----------
Let ${{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d)$ denote the Clifford algebra over ${{\mathbb{C}}}$ with generators $c_1,\ldots,c_d$, and relations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{c}
c_i^2=-1,\;\;\; c_ic_j=-c_jc_i\;\;\; 1\leq i\neq j\leq d.\end{aligned}$$ Then ${{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d)$ is a superalgebra by declaring the generators $c_{1}, \dotsc , c_{d}$ to all be of degree ${\ensuremath{\bar{1}}}$.
Let $S_d$ be the symmetric group on $d$ letters with Coxeter generators $s_1,\ldots, s_{d-1}$ and relations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{s}
s_i^2=1\;\;\; s_is_{i+1}s_i=s_{i+1}s_is_{i+1}\;\;\;s_is_j=s_js_i\end{aligned}$$ for all admissible $i$ and $j$ such that $|i-j|>1$. The group algebra of the symmetric group, ${{\mathbb{C}}}S_{d}$, is a superalgebra by viewing it as concentrated in degree ${\ensuremath{\bar{0}}}$; that is, $({{\mathbb{C}}}S_{d})_{{\ensuremath{\bar{0}}}}= {{\mathbb{C}}}S_{d}$.
The *Sergeev algebra* is given by setting $${{\mathcal{S}}}(d)= {{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d)\otimes {{\mathbb{C}}}S_d$$ as a vector superspace and declaring ${{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d) \cong {{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d)\otimes 1$ and ${{\mathbb{C}}}S_d \cong 1\otimes{{\mathbb{C}}}S_d$ to be subsuperalgebras. The Clifford generators $c_1,\ldots,c_d$ and Coxeter generators $s_1,\ldots,s_{d-1}$ are subject to the mixed relation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{c&s}
s_ic_i=c_{i+1}s_i,\;\;\;s_ic_{i+1}=c_is_i,\;\;\; s_ic_j=c_js_i,\end{aligned}$$ for all admissible $i$ and $j$ such that $j\neq i,i+1$.
The algebra of primary interest in this paper is the *(degenerate) affine Hecke-Clifford algebra*, AHCA. It is given as $${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d) = {{\mathcal{P}}}_d[x]\otimes{{\mathcal{S}}}(d)$$ as a vector superspace, where ${{\mathcal{P}}}_d[x]:={{\mathbb{C}}}[x_1,\ldots,x_d]$ is the polynomial ring in $d$ variables and is viewed as a superalgebra concentrated in degree ${\ensuremath{\bar{0}}}$. Multiplication is defined so that ${{\mathcal{S}}}(d) \cong 1\otimes{{\mathcal{S}}}(d) $ and ${{\mathcal{P}}}_{d}[x] \cong {{\mathcal{P}}}_{d}[x]
\otimes 1$ are subsuperalgebras. The generators of these two subalgebras are subject to the mixed relations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{c&x}
c_ix_i=-x_ic_i,\;\;\;c_jx_i=x_ic_j,\;\;\;1\leq i\neq j\leq d,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{s&x}
s_ix_i=x_{i+1}s_i-1+c_ic_{i+1},\;\;\;s_ix_j=x_js_i\end{aligned}$$ for $1\leq i\leq d-1$, $1\leq j\leq d$, $j\neq i,i+1$.
Note that relation differs from the corresponding relation in [@bk2; @kl]. This is because in we choose $c_{i}^{2}=-1$, following [@o; @s; @s2], whereas in *loc. cit.* the authors take $c_{i}^{2}=1$. The resulting algebras are isomorphic and the only effect of this convention is that this change of sign has to be taken into account when comparing formulae.
It will be useful to consider another decomposition $$\label{E:AlternateDecomp}
{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d) \cong{{\mathcal{A}}}(d)\otimes{{\mathbb{C}}}S_d,$$ where $A(d)$ is the subalgebra generated by ${{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d)$ and ${{\mathcal{P}}}_{d}[x]$. As a superspace $$\label{E:Adef}
A(d) \cong {{\mathcal{P}}}_d[x]\otimes{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d).$$
We have the following PBW-type theorem for ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$. Given ${\alpha}=({\alpha}_1,\ldots,{\alpha}_d)\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}_{\geq0}^d$ and ${\varepsilon}=({\varepsilon}_1,\ldots,{\varepsilon}_d)\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}_2^d$, set $x^{\alpha}=x_1^{{\alpha}_1}\cdots x_d^{{\alpha}_d}$ and $c^{\varepsilon}=c_1^{{\varepsilon}_1}\cdots c_d^{{\varepsilon}_d}$. Then,
[@kl Theorem 14.2.2] The set $\{\,x^{\alpha}c^{\varepsilon}w\,|\,{\alpha}\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}_{\geq0}^d,\,{\varepsilon}\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}_2^d,\,w\in S_d\}$ forms a basis for ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$.
Some (Anti)Automorphisms {#SS:alghomoms}
------------------------
The superalgebra ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ admits an automorphism ${\sigma}:{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)\rightarrow{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ given by $$\label{E:sigmadef}
{\sigma}(s_i)=-s_{d-i}, \hspace{.25in} {\sigma}(c_i)=c_{d+1-i}, \hspace{.25in}
{\sigma}(x_i)=x_{n+1-i}.$$
It also admits an antiautomorphism $\tau:{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)\rightarrow{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ given by $$\tau(s_i)=s_i, \hspace{.25in} \tau(c_i)=-c_i, \hspace{.25in} \tau(x_i)=x_i.$$ Note that, for superalgebras, antiautomorphism means that, for any homogeneous $x,y \in {{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$, $$\label{E:taudef}
\tau(xy) = (-1)^{p(x)p(y)}\tau(y) \tau(x).$$
Weights and Integral Modules {#SS:weights}
----------------------------
We now introduce the class of integral ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-modules. It is these modules which are the main focus of the paper. To this end, for each $a\in{{\mathbb{C}}}$, define $$\label{E:qdef}
q(a)=a(a+1).$$ By [@kl Theorem 14.3.1], the center of ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ consists of symmetric polynomials in $x_1^2,\ldots,x_d^2$. Let ${{\mathcal{P}}}_{d}[x^{2}]={{\mathbb{C}}}[x_1^2,\ldots,x_d^2]\subset{{\mathcal{P}}}_d[x]$. A *weight* is an algebra homomorphism $${\zeta}:{{\mathcal{P}}}_d[x^2]\rightarrow{{\mathbb{C}}}.$$ It is often convenient to identify a weight ${\zeta}$ with the $d$-tuple of complex numbers ${\zeta}=({\zeta}(x_1^2),\ldots,{\zeta}(x_d^2))\in{{\mathbb{C}}}^d$.
Given an ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-supermodule $M$ and a weight ${\zeta}$, define the *$\zeta$ weight space*, $$M_\zeta=\left\{ m\in{{\mathcal{M}}}\mid x_i^2m =q\left(\zeta\left( x_i^2\right)\right)m
\text{ for all $i=1,\ldots,d$} \right\},$$ and the *generalized $\zeta$ weight space*, $$M_\zeta^{\mathrm{gen}} =\left\{ m\in{{\mathcal{M}}}\mid \left( x_i^2-q(\zeta\left(x_i^2
\right)\right)^km=0 \text{ for $k\gg 0$ and all $i=1,\ldots,d$} \right\}.$$ Observe that if $M_{\zeta}^{\text{gen}}\neq 0$, then $M_{\zeta}\neq0$.
Following [@bk2], say that an ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-module $M$ is *integral* if $$M=\bigoplus_{\zeta}M_{\zeta}^{\text{gen}}$$ and $M^{\text{gen}}_{\zeta}\neq0$ implies ${\zeta}\left( x_i^2\right)\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}$ for $i=1,\ldots,d$.
Let ${\operatorname{Rep}}{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ denote the full subcategory of ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-smod of finite dimensional *integral* modules for the degenerate AHCA. Unless stated otherwise, all ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-modules will be integral by assumption.
The Mackey Theorem {#SS:Mackey}
------------------
In this section we review the Mackey Theorem for integral ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}$-modules. Refer to [@kl] for details.
Let $\mu=(\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_k)$ be a composition of $d$. Define the parabolic subgroup $S_\mu=S_{\mu_1}\times\cdots\times S_{\mu_k}\subseteq S_d$, and parabolic subalgebra ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(\mu):={{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(\mu_1)\otimes\cdots \otimes {{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(\mu_k)\subseteq{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$. Define the functor $${\operatorname{Ind}}_\mu^d:{\operatorname{Rep}}{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(\mu)\rightarrow{\operatorname{Rep}}{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d),\;\;\;
{\operatorname{Ind}}_\mu^dM={{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)\otimes_{{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(\mu)}M.$$ This functor is left adjoint to ${\operatorname{Res}}_\mu^d:{\operatorname{Rep}}{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)\rightarrow{\operatorname{Rep}}{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(\mu)$. Also, given a composition $\nu=(\nu_1,\ldots,\nu_\ell)$ of $d$, which is a refinement of $\mu$ (i.e.there exist $0=i_1\leq\ldots\leq i_{k+1}=\ell$ such that $\nu_{i_j}+\ldots+\nu_{i_{j+1}-1}=\mu_j$), define ${\operatorname{Ind}}_\nu^\mu$ and ${\operatorname{Res}}_\nu^\mu$ in the obvious way.
Now, let $\mu$ and $\nu$ be compositions of $d$, and let $D_{\mu,\nu}$ denote the set of minimal length $S_\mu\backslash S_d/S_\nu$-double coset representatives and $D_\nu=D_{(1^d),\nu}$. Let $w\in D_{\mu,\nu}$. The following lemma is standard.
\[L:MinCosetReps\] Let $\nu=(\nu_1,\ldots,\nu_n)$ be a composition of $d$, and set $a_i=\nu_1+\cdots+\nu_{i-1}+1$ and $b_i=\nu_1+\cdots+\nu_i$. If $w\in D_\nu$ and $a_i\leq k<k'\leq b_i$ for some $i$, then $w(k)<w(k')$.
It is known that $S_\mu\cap wS_\nu w^{-1}$ and $w^{-1}S_\mu w\cap S_\nu$ are parabolic subgroups of $S_d$. Hence we may define compositions $\mu\cap w\nu$ and $w^{-1}\mu\cap\nu$ by the formulae $$S_\mu\cap w^{-1}S_\nu w=S_{\mu\cap w\nu}{\,\,\,\,\,\, {\mbox{and}} \,\,\,\,\,\,}w^{-1}S_\mu w\cap
S_\nu=S_{w^{-1}\mu\cap\nu}.$$ Moreover, the map ${\sigma}\mapsto w{\sigma}w^{-1}$ induces a length preserving isomorphism $S_{\mu\cap w\nu}\rightarrow S_{w^{-1}\mu\cap\nu}$.
Using this last fact, it can be proved that for each $w\in D_{\mu,\nu}$ there exists an algebra isomorphism $${\varphi}_{w^{-1}}:{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(\mu\cap w\nu)\rightarrow{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(w^{-1}\mu\cap\nu)$$ given by ${\varphi}_{w^{-1}}({\sigma})=w^{-1}{\sigma}w$, ${\varphi}_{w^{-1}}(c_i)=c_{w^{-1}(i)}$ and ${\varphi}_{w^{-1}}(x_i)=x_{w^{-1}(i)}$ for $1\leq i\leq d$ and ${\sigma}\in S_{\mu\cap
w\nu}$. If $M$ is a left ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(\mu\cap w\nu)$-supermodule, let $^wM$ denote the ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(w^{-1}\mu\cap\nu)$-supermodule obtained by twisting the action with the isomorphism ${\varphi}_{w^{-1}}$. We have the following “Mackey Theorem”:
\[Mackey\][@kl Theorem 14.2.5] Let $M$ be an ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(\nu)$-supermodule. Then ${\operatorname{Res}}_\mu^d{\operatorname{Ind}}_\nu^dM$ admits a filtration with subquotients isomorphic to $${\operatorname{Ind}}_{\mu\cap w\nu}^\mu{}^w({\operatorname{Res}}_{w^{-1}\mu\cap\nu}^\nu M),$$ one for each $w\in D_{\mu,\nu}$. Moreover the subquotients can be taken in any order refining the Bruhat order on $D_{\mu,\nu}$. In particular, ${\operatorname{Ind}}_{\mu\cap\nu}^\mu{\operatorname{Res}}_{\mu\cap\nu}^\nu M$ appears as a subsupermodule.
Characters {#SS:characters}
----------
Following [@kl Chapter 16], we now describe the notion of characters for integral ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-supermodules.
Recall the subsuperalgebra ${{\mathcal{A}}}(d)\subseteq{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ defined in . When $d=1$ and $a\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}$ there exists a $2$-dimensional simple ${{\mathcal{A}}}(1)$-module $${{\mathcal{L}}}(a)={{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(1)1_a={{\mathbb{C}}}1_a\oplus{{\mathbb{C}}}c_1.1_a,$$ which is free as a ${{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(1)$-module satisfying $$x_1.1_a=\sqrt{q(a)}1_a.$$ The ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_{2}$-grading on ${{\mathcal{L}}}(a)$ is given by setting $p(1_{a})={\ensuremath{\bar{0}}}$.
Observe that ${{\mathcal{L}}}(a)\cong{{\mathcal{L}}}(-a-1)$ and that by replacing $\sqrt{q(a)}$ with $-\sqrt{q(a)}$ in the action of $x_1$ yields an isomorphic supermodule under the odd isomorphism $1_a\mapsto c_1.1_a$. A direct calculation verifies that this module is of type `M` if $a\neq 0$ and of type `Q` if $a=0$.
Now, ${{\mathcal{A}}}(d) \cong {{\mathcal{A}}}(1)\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal{A}}}(1)$. Hence, applying we obtain a simple ${{\mathcal{A}}}(d)$-module ${{\mathcal{L}}}(a_1)\circledast\cdots\circledast{{\mathcal{L}}}(a_d)$. Given $(a_{1}, \dotsc ,
a_{d})\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^d_{\geq0}$, let $$\label{E:gammazerodef}
\gamma_{0}(a_{1}, \dotsc, a_{d})=|\{ i \mid a_i=0 \}|.$$ We have
\[A(d) irreducibles\][@kl Lemma 16.1.1] The set $$\left\{{{\mathcal{L}}}(a_1)\circledast\cdots\circledast {{\mathcal{L}}}(a_d) \mid
(a_1,\ldots,a_d)\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}_{\geq0}^d \right\}$$ is a complete set of pairwise non-isomorphic irreducible integral ${{\mathcal{A}}}(d)$-modules.
The module ${{\mathcal{L}}}(a_1)\circledast\cdots\circledast{{\mathcal{L}}}(a_d)$ is of type `M` if ${\gamma}_0$ is even and of type `Q` if ${\gamma}_0$ is odd. Moreover, $$\dim{{\mathcal{L}}}(a_1)\circledast\cdots\circledast{{\mathcal{L}}}(a_d)=2^{n-\lfloor{\gamma}_0/2\rfloor}$$ where ${\gamma}_0={\gamma}_0(a_1,\ldots,a_d)$ as above.
Restriction to the subalgebra $A(d)={{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}((1^d))\subseteq{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ defines a functor from ${\operatorname{Rep}}{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ to ${{\mathcal{A}}}(d)$-mod. The map obtained by applying this functor and passing to the Grothendieck group of the category ${{\mathcal{A}}}(d)$-mod yields a map $${\operatorname{ch}}:{\operatorname{Rep}}{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)\rightarrow K({{\mathcal{A}}}(d)\mbox{-mod})$$ defined by $${\operatorname{ch}}M=\left[ {\operatorname{Res}}^{d}_{1^d}M \right]$$ where $[X]$ is the image of an ${{\mathcal{A}}}(d)$-module, $X$, in $K({{\mathcal{A}}}(d)\mbox{-mod})$. The image ${\operatorname{ch}}M$ is called the *formal character* of the ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-module $M$.
The following fundamental result is given in [@kl Theorem 17.3.1].
\[L:independenceofcharacters\] The induced map on Grothendeick rings $${\operatorname{ch}}: K({\operatorname{Rep}}{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)) \to K({{\mathcal{A}}}(d)\text{-mod})$$ is injective.
For convenience of notation, set $$[a_1,\ldots,a_d]=[{{\mathcal{L}}}(a_1)\circledast\cdots\circledast {{\mathcal{L}}}(a_d)].$$ The following lemma describes how to calculate the character of $M \circledast
N$ in terms of the characters of $M$ and $N$, and is a special case of the Mackey Theorem:
\[L:ShuffleLemma\][@kl Shuffle Lemma] Let $K\in{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(k)$ and $M\in{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(m)$ be simple, and assume that $${\operatorname{ch}}K=\sum_{{{\underline{i}}}\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}_{\geq0}^k}r_{{{\underline{i}}}}[i_1,\ldots,i_k]{\,\,\,\,\,\, {\mbox{and}} \,\,\,\,\,\,}{\operatorname{ch}}M=\sum_{{{\underline{j}}}\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}_{\geq0}^m}s_{{{\underline{j}}}}[j_1,\ldots,j_m].$$ Then, $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{ch}}{\operatorname{Ind}}_{m,k}^{m+k}K\circledast M
=\sum_{{{\underline{i}}},{{\underline{j}}}}r_{{{\underline{i}}}}s_{{{\underline{j}}}}[i_1,\ldots,i_k]*[j_1,\ldots,j_m]\end{aligned}$$ where $$[i_1,\ldots,i_k]*[i_{k+1},\ldots,i_{k+m}] =\sum_{w\in
D_{(m,k)}}[w(i_1),\ldots,w(i_{k+m})].$$
Duality {#SS:duality}
-------
Now, given an ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-module $M$, we obtain a new module $M^{\sigma}$ by twisting the action of ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ by ${\sigma}$. That is, define a new action, $*$, on $M$ by $x*m={\sigma}(x).m$ for all $x\in{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$. We have
\[sm twisted action\][@kl Lemma 14.6.1] If $M$ is an ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(k)$-module and $N$ is an ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(\ell)$-module, then $$({\operatorname{Ind}}_{k,\ell}^{k+\ell}M\circledast N)^{\sigma}\cong{\operatorname{Ind}}_{k,\ell}^{k+\ell}M^{\sigma}\circledast N^{\sigma}.$$
If $M$ is an ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-module, with character $${\operatorname{ch}}M=\sum_{{{\underline{i}}}\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}_{\geq0}^d}r_{{{\underline{i}}}}[i_1,\ldots,i_d],$$ then Lemma \[sm twisted action\] implies that $${\operatorname{ch}}M^{{\sigma}}=\sum_{{{\underline{i}}}\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}_{\geq0}^d}r_{{{\underline{i}}}}[i_d,\ldots,i_1].$$
Contravariant Forms {#SS:contravariantforms}
-------------------
Let $M$ be in ${\operatorname{Rep}}{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$. A bilinear form $(\cdot,\cdot):M\otimes
M\rightarrow{{\mathbb{C}}}$ is called a contravariant form if $$(x.v,v')=(v,\tau(x).v')$$ for all $x\in{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ and $v,v'\in M$.
\[L:ASeContraForm\] Let $M$ be in ${\operatorname{Rep}}{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ equipped with a contravariant form $(\cdot,\cdot)$. Then $$M_\eta\perp M_{\zeta}^{\mathrm{gen}}\;\;\;\mbox{unless}\;\;\;\eta={\zeta}.$$
Assume $\eta\neq{\zeta}$, and let $v\in M_\eta$ and $v'\in M^{\mathrm{gen}}_{\zeta}$. Choose $i$ such that $q(\eta(x_i^2))\neq q({\zeta}(x_i^2))$, and $N\gg0$ such that $$(x_i^2-q({\zeta}(x_i^2))^N.v'=0.$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
(q(\eta(x_i^2))-q({\zeta}(x_i^2))^N(v,v')
=&((x_i^2-q({\zeta}(x_i^2)))^N.v,v')\\
=&(v,\tau((x_i^2-q({\zeta}(x_i^2)))^N).v')\\
=&(v,(x_i^2-q({\zeta}(x_i^2)))^N.v')=0\end{aligned}$$ showing that $(v,v')=0$.
Intertwiners
------------
Define the intertwiner $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:intertwiner}
\phi_i=s_i(x_i^2-x_{i+1}^2)+(x_i+x_{i+1})-c_ic_{i+1}(x_i-x_{i+1}).\end{aligned}$$ Given an ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-supermodule $M$, we understand that $\phi_i{{\mathcal{M}}}_{\zeta}^{\mathrm{gen}}\subseteq{{\mathcal{M}}}_{s_i(\zeta)}^{\mathrm{gen}}$. Moreover, a straightforward calculation gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:intertwinersquared}
\phi_i^2=2x_i^2+2x_{i+1}^2-(x_i^2-x_{i+1}^2)^2.\end{aligned}$$ The following lemma now directly follows (see also [@kl]).
\[L:InvertibleIntertwiner\] Assume that $Y$ is in ${\operatorname{Rep}}{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$, and $v\in Y$ satisfies $x_i.v=\sqrt{q(a)}v$ and $x_{i+1}.v=\sqrt{q(b)}v$ for some $a,b\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}$. Then, $\phi_i^2.v\neq 0$ unless $q(a)=q(b+1)$ or $q(a)=q(b-1)$.
Standard Modules {#S:standardreps}
================
We construct a family of standard modules which are an analogue of Zelevinsky’s construction for the degenerate affine Hecke algebra. The key ingredient is to define certain irreducible supermodules for a parabolic subalgebra of ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$; the so-called segment representations. The standard modules are then obtained by inducing from the outer tensor product of these modules.
Segment Representations {#subsection irred modules}
-----------------------
We begin by constructing a family of irreducible ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-supermodules that are analogues of Zelevinsky’s segment representations for the degenerate affine Hecke algebra. To begin, define the $2^d$-dimensional ${{\mathcal{S}}}(d)$-supermodule $$\label{E:Cldef}
{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}_{d}={\operatorname{Ind}}_{S_d}^{{{\mathcal{S}}}(d)}{{\mathbb{C}}}{{\mathbf{1}}},$$ where ${{\mathbb{C}}}{{\mathbf{1}}}$ is the trivial representation of $S_d$. That is, ${{\mathcal{C}\ell}}_{d}={{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d).{{\mathbf{1}}}$, where the cyclic vector ${{\mathbf{1}}}$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
w.{{\mathbf{1}}}={{\mathbf{1}}},\;\;\;w\in S_d.\end{aligned}$$ This is often referred to as the *basic spin representation* of ${{\mathcal{S}}}(d)$.
Introduce algebra involutions $\epsilon_i:{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d)\rightarrow{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d)$ by $\epsilon_i(c_j)=(-1)^{{\delta}_{ij}}c_j$ for $1\leq i,j\leq d$. The elements $
\epsilon_i $ act on ${{\mathcal{C}\ell}}_{d}$ by $\epsilon_i.{{\mathbf{1}}}={{\mathbf{1}}}$ for $1\leq i\leq d$ and, more generally, $\epsilon_i.s{{\mathbf{1}}}=\epsilon_{i}(s){{\mathbf{1}}}$ for $1\leq i\leq d$. Also, note that the operators $ \epsilon_i $ commute with each other.
For each $a\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}$, define the Clifford algebra
$$\label{Pha}
{\Phi}_a= \begin{cases} {{\mathbb{C}}}\langle {\varphi}\rangle / ({\varphi}^2-a),
&\text{if $a \neq 0$}; \\
{{\mathbb{C}}}\langle {\varphi}\rangle / ({\varphi}),
& \text{if $a=0$}.\end{cases}$$
The ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_{2}$-grading on ${\Phi}_{a}$ is given by declaring $p({\varphi})={{\bar{1}}}$.
Given a pair of integers $a\leq b$ define the *segment* $$[a,b]=\{a,a+1,\ldots,b\}.$$ Given a segment $[a,b]$ with $b-a+1=d\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}_{\geq0}$, define the ${\Phi}_a\otimes {{{\mathcal{S}}}}(d)$-module $$\label{E:segment}
\hat{{\Phi}}_{[a,b]}={\Phi}_a\boxtimes{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}_{d}.$$ Of course, when $d=0$ the segment $[a,a-1]=\emptyset$, and $\hat{{\Phi}}_{\emptyset}={\Phi}_a\otimes{{\mathbb{C}}}$.
For $i=1, \dotsc ,d$ let $s_{ij}$ denote the transposition $(ij)$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:JMelt}
{{\mathcal{L}}}_i=\sum_{j<i}(1-c_jc_i)s_{ij}\end{aligned}$$ be the *$i$th Jucys-Murphy element* (cf. [@kl (13.22)]).
\[segment representation\] Let $[a,b]$ be a segment with $b-a+1=d.$ Then,
1. The vector space $\hat{{\Phi}}_{[a,b]}$ is an ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-module with $s_i.v=(1\otimes s_i).v$, $c_i.v=(1\otimes c_i).v$ and $$\begin{aligned}
x_i.v &= \left(a\otimes \epsilon_i+1\otimes {{\mathcal{L}}}_{i}-{\varphi}\otimes c_i\right).v \\
&=\left(a\otimes \epsilon_i+\sum_{k<i}1\otimes(1-c_kc_i)s_{ki}-{\varphi}\otimes
c_i\right).v,\end{aligned}$$ for all $v\in\hat{{\Phi}}_{[a,b]}$.
2. The action of ${{\mathcal{P}}}_d[x^2]$ on $\hat{{\Phi}}_{[a,b]}$ is determined by $$x_i^2.({\varphi}^{{\delta}}\otimes {{\mathbf{1}}})=q(a+i-1){\varphi}^{\delta}\otimes{{\mathbf{1}}},\;\;\;{\delta}\in\{0,1\},
\;\;\;i=1,\ldots,d.$$
\(i) The fact that this is an ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-module is an easy check which we leave to the reader.
\(ii) To check the action of $x_i^2$, observe that $$x_i.1\otimes{{\mathbf{1}}}=\left(a+i-1-\sum_{j<i}c_jc_i\right).1\otimes{{\mathbf{1}}}+c_i.{\varphi}\otimes{{\mathbf{1}}}$$ and $$x_i.{\varphi}\otimes{{\mathbf{1}}}=\left(a+i-1-\sum_{j<i}c_jc_i\right).{\varphi}\otimes{{\mathbf{1}}}+ac_i.1\otimes{{\mathbf{1}}}.$$ Now, the result follows using the commutation relations for ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$.
\[R:Duality\] In fact, we need not consider all $a,b\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}$. Given any segment $[a,b]$, consider the module $\hat{{\Phi}}_{[a,b]}^{\sigma}$ obtained by twisting the action of ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ by the automorphism ${\sigma}$ as described in Section \[SS:duality\]. Note that when $b\neq-1$, $$\hat{{\Phi}}_{[a,b]}^{\sigma}\cong\hat{{\Phi}}_{[-b-1,-a-1]}.$$ When $b=-1$, $\hat{{\Phi}}_{[a,-1]}^{\sigma}\cong\hat{{\Phi}}_{[0,-a-1]}^{\oplus2}$. In particular, for $b\neq0$, $\hat{{\Phi}}_{[-(b+1),b-1]}^{\sigma}\cong\hat{{\Phi}}_{[-b,b]}$, and $\hat{{\Phi}}_{[-1,-1]}^{\sigma}\cong\hat{{\Phi}}_{[0,0]}^{\oplus2}$. Therefore, it is enough to describe the modules
1. $\hat{{\Phi}}_{[a,b]}$, $0\leq a\leq b$, and
2. $\hat{{\Phi}}_{[-a,b]}$, $0<a\leq b$.
The following result describes $\hat{{\Phi}}_{[a,b]}$ at the level of characters.
\[character formula\] Let $[a,b]$ be a segment with $a,b \geq 0.$ Then,
1. if $0\leq a\leq b$, then $${\operatorname{ch}}\hat{{\Phi}}_{[a,b]}=\begin{cases}[a,\ldots,b],
&\text{if $a=0$};\\ 2[a,\ldots,b], &\text{if $a \neq 0$};\end{cases}$$
2. if $0<a\leq b$, then $${\operatorname{ch}}\hat{{\Phi}}_{[-a,b]}=4[a-1,\ldots,1,0,0,1,\ldots,b]$$
The action of $x_i^2$ commutes with ${{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d)$ and $\hat{{\Phi}}_{[a,b]}={{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d).(1\otimes{{\mathbf{1}}})+{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d).({\varphi}\otimes{{\mathbf{1}}})$. Therefore, applying Proposition \[segment representation\](2), we deduce in both cases that the $x_i^2$ act by the prescribed eigenvalues. The result now follows from the dimension formula in Lemma \[A(d) irreducibles\].
Let ${\varphi}\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}_{[a,b]}={\varphi}\otimes{{\mathbf{1}}}$ and $\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}_{[a,b]}=1\otimes{{\mathbf{1}}}$. Also, in what follows, we omit the tensor symbols. For example, we write $$a\epsilon_i+{{\mathcal{L}}}_i-{\varphi}c_i:=a\otimes \epsilon_i+1\otimes {{\mathcal{L}}}_{i}-{\varphi}\otimes c_i.$$
\[X\] Let $a\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}$ and ${\kappa}_1,\ldots,{\kappa}_d\in{{\mathbb{R}}}$ satisfy ${\kappa}_i^2=q(a+i-1)$ where $d=b-a+1$. Given a subset $S\subseteq\{1,\ldots,d\}$ define the element $X_{S} \in {{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ by $$X_S=\prod_{i\notin S}(x_i+{\kappa}_i).$$ Observe that $X_S$ is only defined up to the choices of sign for ${\kappa}_1,\ldots,{\kappa}_d$.
\[nonzero\] Let $[a,b]$ be a segment with $d=b-a+1$. Assume that either $-a\notin\{1,\ldots,d\}$ and $S$ is arbitrary, or assume that $-a\in\{1,\ldots,d\}$ and either $-a+1\in S$ or $-a\in S$. Then $X_S.\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}_{[a,b]}\neq0$.
Let $\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}=\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}_{[a,b]}$. By Proposition \[segment representation\](i), $$x_k.v=(a\epsilon_k+{{\mathcal{L}}}_k-{\varphi}c_k).v.$$ Let $\{d_1>d_2>\ldots>d_\ell\}=\{1,\ldots,d\}\backslash S$. Since the $x_i$ mutually commute, $$\begin{aligned}
X_S.\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}&=&(x_{d_1}+{\kappa}_{d_1})\cdots(x_{d_\ell}+{\kappa}_{d_\ell}).\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}\\
&=&(a\epsilon_{d_1}+{\kappa}_{d_1}+{{\mathcal{L}}}_{d_1}-{\varphi}c_{d_1})\cdots
(a\epsilon_{d_\ell}+{\kappa}_{d_\ell}+{{\mathcal{L}}}_{d_\ell}-{\varphi}c_{d_\ell}).\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}\\
&=&((a+{\kappa}_{d_1})+{{\mathcal{L}}}_{d_1}-{\varphi}c_{d_1})\cdots
((a+{\kappa}_{d_\ell})+{{\mathcal{L}}}_{d_\ell}-{\varphi}c_{d_\ell}).\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}.\end{aligned}$$ The last equality follows since $\epsilon_k{{\mathcal{L}}}_j={{\mathcal{L}}}_j\epsilon_k$ if $k>j$. Now, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w 1}
X_S.\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}} &=&\bigg(\bigg(a+{\kappa}_{d_1}+\sum_{j<d_1}s_{jd_1}\bigg)+
\bigg(\sum_{j<d_1}s_{jd_1}c_j-{\varphi}\bigg)c_{d_1}\bigg)\cdots\\\nonumber&&\hspace{1.5in}\cdots
\bigg(\bigg(a+{\kappa}_{d_\ell}+\sum_{j<d_\ell}s_{jd_\ell}\bigg)
+\bigg(\sum_{j<d_\ell}s_{jd_\ell}c_j-{\varphi}\bigg)c_{d_\ell}\bigg).\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}\\\nonumber
&=&\prod_{i\notin S}(a+i-1+{\kappa}_i).\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}+(\bigstar).\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}\end{aligned}$$ where $(\bigstar)=p'(c)-{\varphi}p''(c)$, where $p'(c)\in{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d)_{{\bar{0}}}$, $p''(c)\in{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d)_{{\bar{1}}}$, and $p'(c)$ has no constant term. Therefore, if either $a\geq 0$, or $-a+1\in S$, $X_S.{{\mathbf{1}}}\neq 0$.
Now, assume $-a+1\in\{1,\ldots,d\}$, and $-a+1\notin S$, but $a\in S$. Observe that ${\kappa}_{-a+1}={\kappa}_{-a}=0$. Now, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{nonzero 2}
x_{-a}.\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}=\left(-1-\sum_{j<-a}c_jc_{-a}-{\varphi}c_{-a}\right).\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}=-c_{-a}c_{-a+1}x_{-a+1}.\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}.\end{aligned}$$ Let $R=S\cup\{-a+1\}$ and $T=R\backslash\{-a\}$. Then, $$X_S.\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}=X_{R}x_{-a+1}.\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}=c_{-a}c_{-a+1}X_{R}x_{-a}.\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}
=c_{-a}c_{-a+1}X_T.\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}\neq0.$$
Finally, if $d=-a$, then in , $d_1=-a$ and it is clear that the coefficient of $c_{-a-1}c_{-a}$ is nonzero.
\[A submodule\] If $i\notin S$, then $x_iX_S.\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}={\kappa}_iX_S.\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}$.
Since $x_{i}^{2}.\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}} = q(a-i+1)\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}= {\kappa}_{i}^{2}\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
x_i(x_i+{\kappa}_i).\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}=(x_i^2+{\kappa}_ix_i)\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}={\kappa}_i({\kappa}_i+x_i)\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}},\end{aligned}$$ so the result follows because the $x_i$ commute.
\[s\_i action\] If $i,i+1\notin S$ and $i\neq-a$, then $$s_iX_S.\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}=\left(\frac{{\kappa}_{i+1}+{\kappa}_i}{2(a+i)}+
\frac{{\kappa}_{i+1}-{\kappa}_i}{2(a+i)}c_ic_{i+1}\right)X_S.\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}.$$
Let $w:=X_S.\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}$, and recall the intertwining element $\phi_i$. By character considerations $\phi_i.\hat{{\Phi}}_{[a,b]}=\{0\}$. In particular, $$\begin{aligned}
0&=&\phi_i.w\\
&=&(s_i(x_i^2-x_{i+1}^2)+(x_i+x_{i+1})-c_ic_{i+1}(x_i-x_{i+1})).w\\
&=&-2(a+i)s_i.w+(({\kappa}_{i+1}+{\kappa}_i)+({\kappa}_{i+1}-{\kappa}_i)c_ic_{i+1}).w.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the result.
We can now describe the irreducible segment representations of ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d).$
\[module decomposition\] The following holds:
1. The module $\hat{{\Phi}}_{[0,d-1]}$ is an irreducible ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-module of type `Q`.
2. Assume $0<a\leq b$. The module $\hat{{\Phi}}_{[a,b]}$, has a submodule $\hat{{\Phi}}_{[a,b]}^+={{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d).w$, where $w=X_\emptyset.\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}$. Moreover, if $w'=(x_1-{\kappa}_1)X_{\{1\}}.\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}$, and $\hat{{\Phi}}_{[a,b]}^-={{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d).w'$, then $$\hat{{\Phi}}_{[a,b]}=\hat{{\Phi}}_{[a,b]}^+ \oplus \hat{{\Phi}}_{[a,b]}^-.$$ The submodules $\hat{{\Phi}}_{[a,b]}^\pm$ are simple modules of type `M`.
3. If $0<a\leq b$, the $\hat{{\Phi}}_{[-a,b]}$ has a submodule $\hat{{\Phi}}_{[-a,b]}^+={{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d)w\oplus{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d)\overline{w}$, where $$w=-(1+\sqrt{-1}c_ac_{a+1})X_{\{a+1\}}.\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}{\,\,\,\,\,\, {\mbox{and}} \,\,\,\,\,\,}\overline{w}=s_aw.$$ Moreover, if $$w'=-(1-\sqrt{-1}c_ac_{a+1})X_{\{a+1\}}.\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}},\;\;\;\overline{w}'=s_aw',$$ and $\hat{{\Phi}}_{[-a,b]}^-={{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d)w'\oplus{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d)\overline{w}'$, then $$\hat{{\Phi}}_{[-a,b]}=\hat{{\Phi}}_{[a,b]}^+\oplus \hat{{\Phi}}_{[-a,b]}^-.$$ The submodules $\hat{{\Phi}}_{[-a,b]}^\pm$ are simple of type `M`.
\(i) First, we deduce that $\hat{{\Phi}}_{[0,d-1]}$ is irreducible by character considerations. It has two *non-homogeneous* submodules: $${{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d)(\sqrt{-d}+(c_1+\cdots+c_d)).\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}_{[0,d-1]}{\,\,\,\,\,\, {\mbox{and}} \,\,\,\,\,\,}{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d)(\sqrt{-d}-(c_1+\cdots+c_d)).\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}_{[0,d-1]}.$$ These vector spaces are clearly stable under the action of ${{\mathcal{S}}}(d)$. Since $
x_1 $ acts by zero on these vector spaces, the action of ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ factors through ${{\mathcal{S}}}(d)$ and thus these vector spaces are ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-submodules. Therefore $\hat{{\Phi}}_{[0,d-1]}$ is of type `Q` (cf. Section \[S:Prelim\]).
\(ii) Let $\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}=\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}_{[a,b]}$, $w=X_\emptyset.\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}$ and $\hat{{\Phi}}_{[a,b]}^+={{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d).w$. By Lemma \[nonzero\], $w\neq 0$. Now, Lemmas \[A submodule\] and \[s\_i action\] together imply that $\hat{{\Phi}}_{[a,b]}^+$ is a submodule.
It now remains to show that $\hat{{\Phi}}_{[a,b]}=\hat{{\Phi}}_{[a,b]}^+\oplus
\hat{{\Phi}}_{[a,b]}^-$, where $\hat{{\Phi}}_{[a,b]}^-$ is as in the statement of the proposition. To this end, assume that $w'\in \hat{{\Phi}}_{[a,b]}^+$. That is, there exists $p(c)\in{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d)$ such that $p(c).w=w'$. Write $$p(c)=\sum_{{\varepsilon}}a_{\varepsilon}c^{\varepsilon},$$ where the sum is over ${\varepsilon}=({\varepsilon}_1,\ldots,{\varepsilon}_d)\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}_2^d$. Then, for $1\leq
i\leq d$, $$\begin{aligned}
(-1)^{{\delta}_{1i}}w'&=&\frac{1}{{\kappa}_i}x_i.w'
=\frac{1}{{\kappa}_i}x_i\left(\sum_{{\varepsilon}}a_{\varepsilon}c^{\varepsilon}\right).w
=\left(\sum_{{\varepsilon}}(-1)^{{\varepsilon}_i}a_{\varepsilon}c^{\varepsilon}\right).w,\end{aligned}$$ where (of course) the ${\delta}$ on the left of the equal sign is the Kronecker delta. This forces $ p(c)=r c_1 + s $ for complex numbers $ r $ and $ s$. Since $ w' $ is even, $ r=0 $ implying that $ w'=s w $ which is impossible.
\(iii) We deal with $\hat{{\Phi}}_{[-a,b]}^+$, the proposed submodule ${\Phi}_{[-a,b]}^-$ being similar. Let $w=-(1+\sqrt{-1}c_ac_{a+1})X_{\{a+1\}}.\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}$, $\overline{w}=s_a.w$, and $\hat{{\Phi}}_{[a,b]}^+={{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d).w+{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d).\overline{w}$. The proof of Lemma \[nonzero\] shows that $$X_{\{a+1\}}.\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}=\prod_{\substack{1\leq i\leq d\\i\neq
a+1}}(a+i-1+{\kappa}_i).\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}+(\bigstar).\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}$$ where $(\bigstar)=p'(c)-{\varphi}p''(c)$ where $p'(c)\in{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d)_{{\bar{0}}}$, $p''(c)\in{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d)_{{\bar{1}}}$, and $p'(c)$ has no constant term. It is also easy to see that $p'(c)$ and $p''(c)$ have coefficients in ${{\mathbb{R}}}$. We conclude from this that $w\neq 0$. Note that by definition, $c_ac_{a+1}.w=-\sqrt{-1}w$.
Lemma \[A submodule\] shows that for $i\neq a,a+1$, $x_i.w={\kappa}_iw$. Moreover, $$x_a.w=-(1-\sqrt{-1}c_ac_{a+1})x_aX_{\{a+1\}}.\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}=0.$$ Also, $x_a.\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}=-c_ac_{a+1}x_{a+1}.\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}$ (see the computation for details). Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{alternate w}
w=-\sqrt{-1}(1+\sqrt{-1}c_ac_{a+1})X_{\{a\}}.\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}\end{aligned}$$ so $x_{a+1}.w=0$. As for $\overline{w}=s_aw$, $x_i.\overline{w}={\kappa}_i\overline{w}$ for $i\neq a,a+1$. Using commutation relations, we compute $$\begin{aligned}
\label{x_a}
x_a\overline{w}=x_as_a.w=(s_ax_{a+1}-1-c_ac_{a+1}).w=-(1+\sqrt{-1})w.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{x_{a+1}}
x_{a+1}.\overline{w}=(1+\sqrt{-1})w.\end{aligned}$$
We now turn to the action of the symmetric group. First, for $i\neq a-1,a+1$, Lemma \[s\_i action\] shows that $s_i.w\in\hat{{\Phi}}_{[a,b]}^+$. Also by Lemma \[s\_i action\], $$s_{a-1}X_{\{a+1\}}.\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}=\frac{{\kappa}_{a-1}}{2}(c_{a-1}c_a-1)X_{\{a+1\}}.\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}.$$ Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
s_{a-1}.w&=&-\frac{{\kappa}_{a-1}}{2}(1+\sqrt{-1}c_{a-1}c_{a+1})
(c_{a-1}c_a-1)X_{\{a+1\}}.\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}\\
&=&-\frac{{\kappa}_{a-1}}{2}(1+c_{a-1}c_a+\sqrt{-1}c_{a-1}c_{a+1}
-\sqrt{-1}c_ac_{a+1})X_{\{a+1\}}.\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}\\
&=&\frac{{\kappa}_{a-1}}{2}(c_{a-1}c_a-1).w.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, by and Lemma \[s\_i action\], $$s_{a+1}.w=\frac{{\kappa}_{a+2}}{2}(1+c_{a+1}c_{a+2}).w.$$ Now, for $i\neq a-1,a+1$, $s_is_a=s_as_i$. Hence, by Lemma \[s\_i action\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{s_i.overline{w}}
s_i.\overline{w}=\left(\frac{{\kappa}_{i+1}+{\kappa}_i}{2(a+i)}
+\frac{{\kappa}_{i+1}-{\kappa}_i}{2(a+i)}c_ic_{i+1}\right).\overline{w}.\end{aligned}$$ To deduce the action of $s_{a-1}$ and $s_a$ on $\overline{w}$, we proceed as in the proof of Lemma \[s\_i action\]. Recall again the intertwining elements $\phi_{a-1}$ and $\phi_{a+1}$. By character considerations, we deduce that $\phi_{a-1}.\overline{w}=0=\phi_{a+1}.\overline{w}$. Unlike in lemma \[A submodule\], in this case the action of $x_a$ (resp. $x_{a+1}$) is given by (resp. ). Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{s_{a-1}.overline{w}}
s_{a-1}.\overline{w}=\frac{(1+\sqrt{-1})}{2}(1+c_{a-1}c_a).w
-\frac{{\kappa}_{a-1}}{2}(1-c_{a-1}c_a).\overline{w}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{s_a.overline{w}}
s_{a+1}.\overline{w}=\frac{(1-\sqrt{-1})}{2}(1-c_{a+1}c_{a+2}).w
+\frac{{\kappa}_{a+2}}{2}(1+c_{a+1}c_{a+2}).\overline{w}.\end{aligned}$$
It is easy to see that $\hat{{\Phi}}_{[-a,b]}=\hat{{\Phi}}_{[-a,b]}^+ + \hat{{\Phi}}_{[-a,b]}^-$ since $\frac{1}{2}(w+w')=X_{\{a\}}.\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}$ is a cyclic vector for $\hat{{\Phi}}_{[-a,b]}$. As in part (ii), it is easy to see that if $ w' = p(c)w+r(c)s_a w $ where $ p(c) $ and $ r(c) $ are polynomials in the Clifford generators, that $ p(c) = \lambda_1 + \lambda_2 c_a c_{a+1} $ and $ r(c) = \lambda_3 + \lambda_4 c_a c_{a+1} $ for some complex numbers $ \lambda_1, \lambda_2, \lambda_3, \lambda_4$. Noting that $ c_a c_{a+1} w = -\sqrt{-1} w $ gives that all the coefficients are zero.
Therefore, we are left to show that $\hat{{\Phi}}_{[-a,b]}^+$ is simple. Indeed, assume $V\subseteq\hat{{\Phi}}_{[-a,b]}^+$ is a submodule. Then, $${\operatorname{ch}}V=[a-1,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,b].$$ Let $v=p_1(c).w+p_2(c).\overline{w}\in V$ be a vector satisfying $x_i.v={\kappa}_iv$ for all $i$, where $p_1(c),p_2(c)\in{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d)$. For $i=1,2$, define $p_i'(c)$ by the formulae $x_ap_i(c)=p_i'(c)x_a$. Then, $$0=x_a.v=-(1+\sqrt{-1})p_2'(c).w$$ showing that $p_2'(c)=0$ (hence, $p_2(c)=0$). Now, arguing as above with the vector $s_a.v$ shows that $p_1(c)=0$.
We can now define the irreducible segment representations which are the key to defining the standard ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-modules.
\[segments\] Let $a,b \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}_{\geq 0}$.
1. Let ${\Phi}_{[0,d-1]}=\hat{{\Phi}}_{[0,d-1]}$, ${{\mathbf{1}}}:=X_{\{1\}}.\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}$, where ${\kappa}_i=\sqrt{q(i-1)}$.
2. If $0 < a\leq b$, let ${\Phi}_{[a,b]}=\hat{{\Phi}}_{[a,b]}^+$ in Proposition \[module decomposition\](ii), with ${\kappa}_i=+\sqrt{q(a+i-1)}$ for all $i$, and let ${{\mathbf{1}}}:=w$.
3. If $0<a\leq b$, let ${\Phi}_{[-a,b]}=\hat{{\Phi}}_{[-a,b]}^+$ with ${\kappa}_i=+\sqrt{q(-a+i-1)}$, ${{\mathbf{1}}}:=w$ and $\overline{{{\mathbf{1}}}}:=\overline{w}$.
4. If $0\leq a$, let ${\Phi}_{[a,a-1]}={\Phi}_\emptyset={{\mathbb{C}}}$.
Some Lie Theoretic Notation {#SS:LieThy}
---------------------------
It is convenient in this section to introduce some Lie theoretic notation. This section differs from [@kl] in that the notation defined here is associated to the Lie superalgebra ${{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$ (as opposed to the Kac-Moody algebra ${{\mathfrak{b}}}_\infty$).
Define the sets $P={{\mathbb{Z}}}^n$, $P_{\geq0}={{\mathbb{Z}}}^n_{\geq0}$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dom wt}P^+&=&\{\,{\lambda}=({\lambda}_1,\ldots,{\lambda}_n)\in
P\,|\,{\lambda}_i\geq{\lambda}_{i+1}\mbox{ for all
}1\leq i\leq n\,\}\\
\label{dom typ wt}{{P^{++}}}&=&\{\,{\lambda}\in P^+\,|\,{\lambda}_i+{\lambda}_j\neq0\mbox{ for all }
1\leq i,j\leq n\,\}\\
\label{rat wt}{{P^+_{\mathrm{rat}}}}&=&\{\,{\lambda}\in P^+\,|\,{\lambda}_i={\lambda}_{i+1}\mbox{ implies }{\lambda}_i=0\,\}\\
\label{poly wt}{{P_{\mathrm{poly}}^+}}&=&\{\,{\lambda}\in{{P^+_{\mathrm{rat}}}}\,|\,{\lambda}_n\geq 0\,\}\\
\label{pos wt}{{P_{\geq0}}}&=&\{{\lambda}\in P\,|\,{\lambda}_i\geq0\mbox{ for all }i\,\},\end{aligned}$$ The weights are called dominant, and are called dominant typical. A weight ${\lambda}\in P$ is simply *typical* if ${\lambda}_i+{\lambda}_j\neq0$ for all $i,j$. The weights are called rational, are polynomial, and the set \[pos wt\] are simply compositions. For each of the sets $X=P^+,P^{++},{{P^+_{\mathrm{rat}}}},{{P_{\mathrm{poly}}^+}},{{P_{\geq0}}}$ above, define $$X(d)=\{{\lambda}\in X|{\lambda}_1+\cdots+{\lambda}_n=d\}.$$ Let $R\subset P$ be the root system of type $A_{n-1}$. That is, $R=\{{\alpha}_{ij}\mid 1\leq i\neq j\leq n\}$ where ${\alpha}_{ij}$ is the $n$-tuple with 1 in the $i$th coordinate and $-1$ in the $j$th coordinate. The positive roots are $R^+=\{{\alpha}_{ij}\in R \mid i<j\}$, the root lattice $Q$ is the ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$-span of $R$, and $Q^+$ is the ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_{\geq 0}$-span of $R^+$. The symmetric group, $S_n$, acts on $P$ by place permutation. Define the length function $\ell:S_n\rightarrow{{\mathbb{Z}}}_{\geq0}$ in the usual way: $$\ell(w)=|\{{\alpha}\in R^+\mid w({\alpha})\in-R^+\}|.$$ Equivalently, $\ell(w)$ is the number of simple transpositions occurring in a reduced expression for $w$. Write $w\rightarrow y$ if $y=s_{\alpha}w$ for some ${\alpha}\in R^+$ and $\ell(w)<\ell(y)$. Define the *Bruhat* order on $S_n$ by $w<_by$ if there exists a sequence $w\rightarrow
w_1\rightarrow\cdots\rightarrow y$. Also, for ${\lambda}\in P$, define $$S_n[{\lambda}]=\{\,w\in S_n \mid w({\lambda})={\lambda}\,\},{\,\,\,\,\,\, {\mbox{and}} \,\,\,\,\,\,}R[{\lambda}]=\{\,{\alpha}_{ij}\in
R|\,s_{ij}({\lambda})={\lambda}\,\},$$ and define $$P^+[{\lambda}]=\{\,\mu\in P\,|\,\mu_i\geq\mu_j\mbox{ if }s_{ij}\in
S_n[{\lambda}]\,\},{\,\,\,\,\,\, {\mbox{and}} \,\,\,\,\,\,}P^-[{\lambda}]=\{\,\mu\in P\,|\,\mu_i\leq\mu_j\mbox{ if
}s_{ij}\in S_n[{\lambda}]\,\}$$ where $s_{ij}\in S_n$ denotes the transposition $(ij)$.
Induced Modules {#SS:inducedmodules}
---------------
Using the irreducible segment representations defined above we now define standard representations. Let ${\lambda},\mu\in P$ satisfy ${\lambda}-\mu\in{{P_{\geq0}}}(d)$. Define $$\widehat{{\Phi}}({\lambda},\mu)
=\hat{{\Phi}}_{[\mu_1,{\lambda}_1-1]}\boxtimes\cdots\boxtimes\hat{{\Phi}}_{[\mu_n,{\lambda}_n-1]}$$ and $${\Phi}({\lambda},\mu)={\Phi}_{[\mu_1,{\lambda}_1-1]}\circledast\cdots\circledast{\Phi}_{[\mu_n,{\lambda}_n-1]},$$ and define *standard (cyclic) modules* for ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ by $$\label{E:Mhatdef}
\widehat{{{\mathcal{M}}}}({\lambda},\mu)={\operatorname{Ind}}_{d_1,\ldots,d_n}^d\widehat{{\Phi}}({\lambda},\mu)$$ and $$\label{E:Mdef}
{{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu)={\operatorname{Ind}}_{d_1,\ldots,d_n}^d{\Phi}({\lambda},\mu).$$ We call the standard modules $\widehat{{{\mathcal{M}}}}({\lambda},\mu)$ and ${{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu)$ *big* and *little*, respectively.
Both the big and little standard modules are cyclic. Let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:hatcyclicvector}
\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}_{{\lambda},\mu}=1\otimes(\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}\otimes\cdots\otimes{\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}})
\in\widehat{{{\mathcal{M}}}}({\lambda},\mu)\end{aligned}$$ be the distinguished cyclic generator of $\widehat{{{\mathcal{M}}}}({\lambda},\mu)$. Fix the following choice of distinguished cyclic generator ${{\mathbf{1}}}_{{\lambda},\mu}\in{{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu)$. Let $i_1<\cdots<i_k$ be such that $\mu_{i_j}=0$ for all $j$ and ${\gamma}_0(\mu)=k$. Choose $${{\mathbf{1}}}_{{\lambda},\mu}=\prod_{j=1}^{\lfloor k/2\rfloor} (1-\sqrt{-1}c_{i_{2j-1}}c_{i_{2j}})1\otimes({{\mathbf{1}}}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathbf{1}}}).$$
\[L:standard cyclic dim\] Let $\lambda, \mu \in P$ so that $\lambda - \mu \in P_{\geq 0}(d).$ Then,
1. $\dim\widehat{{{\mathcal{M}}}}({\lambda},\mu)
=\frac{d!}{d_1!\cdots d_n!}2^{d+n-{\gamma}_0(\mu)}$
2. $\dim{{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu)
=\frac{d!}{d_1!\cdots d_n!}2^{d-\lfloor\frac{{\gamma}_0(\mu)}{2}\rfloor}$
3. $\widehat{M}({\lambda},\mu)\cong{{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu)^{\oplus 2^{n-\lfloor\frac{{\gamma}_0(\mu)+1}{2}\rfloor}}$.
\(i) The dimension of $\widehat{{{\mathcal{M}}}}({\lambda},\mu)$ follows from the definition.
\(ii) Use Proposition \[module decomposition\].
\(iii) Since induction commutes with direct sums we have that $\widehat{{{\mathcal{M}}}}({\lambda},\mu)$ is a direct sum of copies ${{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu)$. A count using (i) and (ii) yields (iii).
We end this section by recording certain data about the weight spaces and generalized weight spaces of ${{\mathcal{M}}}(\lambda, \mu)$ which will be useful later. Define the weight ${\zeta}_{{\lambda},\mu}:{{\mathcal{P}}}_d[x^2]\rightarrow{{\mathbb{C}}}$ by $f.{{\mathbf{1}}}_{{\lambda},\mu}={\zeta}_{{\lambda},\mu}(f){{\mathbf{1}}}_{{\lambda},\mu}$ for all $f\in{{\mathcal{P}}}_d[x]$. As in $\S$\[SS:LieThy\], the symmetric group, $S_d$, acts on an integral weight ${\zeta}:{{\mathcal{P}}}_d[x^2]\rightarrow{{\mathbb{C}}}$ by $w({\zeta})(x_i^2)={\zeta}(x_{w(i)}^2)$. Let $$S_d[{\zeta}]=\{\,w\in S_d\,|\,w({\zeta})={\zeta}\,\}.$$ Define $\ell(w)$ to be the length of $w$ (i.e. the number of simple transpositions occurring in a reduced expression of $w$) and recall the definition of the Bruhat order given in section \[SS:LieThy\].
\[L:weights of M\] Given ${\lambda},\mu\in P$ with ${\lambda}-\mu\in{{P_{\geq0}}}(d)$,
1. $P({{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu))=\{\,w({\zeta}_{{\lambda},\mu})\,|\,w\in D_{{\lambda}-\mu}\,\}$,
2. For any ${\zeta}\in P({{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu))$, $$\dim{{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu)_{\zeta}^{\mathrm{gen}}=2^{d-\lfloor\frac{{\gamma}_0(\mu)}{2}\rfloor}
|\{\,w\in D_{{\lambda}-\mu}\,|\,w({\zeta})={\zeta}\,\}|.$$
In particular, $$\dim{{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu)_{{\zeta}_{{\lambda},\mu}}^{\mathrm{gen}}=
2^{d-\lfloor\frac{{\gamma}_0(\mu)}{2}\rfloor}\big|D_{{\lambda}-\mu}\cap
S_d[{\zeta}_{{\lambda},\mu}]\big|.$$
\(i) This follows directly upon applying the Mackey Theorem to the character map.
\(ii) Given $f\in{{\mathcal{P}}}_d[x^2]$ and $w\in S_d$, we have the relation $$fw=w\cdot w^{-1}(f)+\sum_{u<_{b}w}uC_uf_u$$ where the sum is over $u<_{b}w$ in the Bruhat order, $C_u\in{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d)$, $f_u\in{{\mathcal{P}}}_d[x]$ and $\deg f_u<\deg f$, see [@kl Lemma 14.2.1]. Therefore, if $f\in{{\mathcal{P}}}_d[x^2]$, $C\in{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d)$ and $w\in
D_{{\lambda}-\mu}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:lowerTriangular}
f(wC.{{\mathbf{1}}}_{{\lambda},\mu})=w({\zeta}_{{\lambda},\mu})(f)wC.{{\mathbf{1}}}_{{\lambda},\mu}+\sum_{u<_{b}w}uC_uf_u.{{\mathbf{1}}}_{{\lambda},\mu}\end{aligned}$$ where the sum is over $u\in D_{{\lambda}-\mu}$. In particular, $wC.{{\mathbf{1}}}_{{\lambda}-\mu}\in{{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu)_{{\zeta}_{{\lambda},\mu}}^{\mathrm{gen}}$ only if $w\in D_{{\lambda}-\mu}\cap S_d[{\zeta}_{{\lambda},\mu}]$. Conversely, if $w\in D_{{\lambda}-\mu}\cap S_d[{\zeta}_{{\lambda},\mu}]$, it is straightforward to see that all $u$ occurring on the right hand side of also belong to $D_{{\lambda}-\mu}\cap S_d[{\zeta}_{{\lambda},\mu}]$. This gives the result.
Unique Simple Quotients {#unique simple quotient}
-----------------------
In general, the standard cyclic module ${{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu)$ may not have a unique simple head. However, in this subsection, we determine sufficient conditions for this to hold. Throughout this section, keep in mind that $q(a)=q(-a-1)$ for all $a\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}$. We follow closely the strategy in [@su2]. We begin with some preparatory lemmas.
\[L:x weights\] Let $M$ be an ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-module, and ${\zeta}$ a weight of $M$, then there exists $v\in{{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu)_{{\zeta}}$ such that $$x_i.v=\sqrt{q({\zeta}(x_i^2))}\;v$$ for all $i=1,\ldots,d$.
Choose $0\neq v_0\in M_{\zeta}$. Recall the definition \[X\]. We adapt this to our current situation by setting ${\kappa}_i=\sqrt{q({\zeta}(x_i^2))}$ and $S=\{i \mid x_iv=-{\kappa}_iv \}$. Then, $v_1:=X_S.v_0\in{{\mathcal{M}}}_{\zeta}$ is nonzero and $x_i.v_1=\pm{\kappa}_iv_1$ for all $i$. Now, set $$v=\left(\prod_{i\in S}c_i\right)v_1.$$ Then, $v$ is nonzero and has the desired properties.
Therefore, we may define the non-zero subspace $$M_{\sqrt{{\zeta}}}= \left\{\,m\in M_{\zeta}\mid x_i.m=\sqrt{q({\zeta}(x_i^2))}\;m\mbox{ for
}i=1,\ldots,d\,\right\}.$$
We will use the following key lemma repeatedly in this section.
\[techlemma\] Let $ Y $ be in ${\operatorname{Rep}}{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ and $v \in Y_{\sqrt{{\zeta}}}$ for some weight ${\zeta}$. Assume that for some $1\leq i<d-1$, $x_i.v=\sqrt{q(a)}$, $x_{i+1}=\sqrt{q(b)}$ where $a,b\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}$ and either $q(a)\neq0$ or $q(b)\neq 0$. Further, if $q(a)=q(b\pm1)$, assume that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:techlemma}
s_{i+1}.v =({\kappa}_1+{\kappa}_2c_{i+1}c_{i+2}).v\end{aligned}$$ for some constants ${\kappa}_1,{\kappa}_2\in{{\mathbb{C}}}$, not both 0. Then, $v\in{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d).\phi_i.v$.
First, if $q(a)=q(b)\neq0$, then using and Lemma 14.8.1 of [@kl] we deduce that $$\phi_i.v=2q(a)v\neq0,$$ so the result is trivial. If $q(a)\neq q(b\pm1)$, then using we deduce that $$\phi_i^2.v=(2q(a)-2q(b)-(q(a)-q(b))^2)v\neq0$$ and again the result is trivial.
Now, let ${\kappa}_3=q(a)-q(b)\neq0$, ${\kappa}_4=\sqrt{q(a)}-\sqrt{q(b)}\neq0$ and ${\kappa}_5=\sqrt{q(a)}+\sqrt{q(b)}>0$. Then, appealing again to we have that $$\phi_{i} v = ({\kappa}_3 s_{i} - {\kappa}_4 c_{i} c_{i+1} + {\kappa}_5)v$$
Let $ \mathbf{c'}$ and $ \mathbf{c''} $ be two elements of the Clifford algebra. Consider an expression of the form $$\begin{aligned}
(1+ \mathbf{c'} s_{i+1}- \mathbf{c''} s_{i}s_{i+1})\phi_i v =&({\kappa}_3 s_{i} -
{\kappa}_4 c_{i}c_{i+1} + {\kappa}_5 + {\kappa}_3 \mathbf{c'}
s_{i+1}s_{i}\\
&- {\kappa}_4 \mathbf{c'} c_{i}c_{i+2}s_{i+1}+
{\kappa}_5 \mathbf{c'} s_{i+1}- {\kappa}_3 \mathbf{c''} s_{i+1}s_{i}s_{i+1}\\
&+ {\kappa}_4 \mathbf{c''} c_{i+1}c_{i+2}s_{i}s_{i+1}-{\kappa}_5 \mathbf{c''}
s_{i}s_{i+1}) v.\end{aligned}$$ By , this equals $$\begin{aligned}
({\kappa}_3& s_{i}-{\kappa}_4 c_{i}c_{i+1}+{\kappa}_5+{\kappa}_3 \mathbf{c'} s_{i+1}s_{i}
- {\kappa}_1 {\kappa}_4 \mathbf{c'} c_{i}c_{i+2}\\
&-{\kappa}_2{\kappa}_4 \mathbf{c'} c_{i}c_{i+1}+ {\kappa}_1 {\kappa}_5 \mathbf{c'} + {\kappa}_2
{\kappa}_5 \mathbf{c'} c_{i+1}c_{i+2} - {\kappa}_1{\kappa}_3 \mathbf{c''} s_{i+1}s_{i}\\
&-{\kappa}_2{\kappa}_3 \mathbf{c''} c_{i}c_{i+1} s_{i+1}s_{i} + {\kappa}_1 {\kappa}_4 \mathbf{c''}
c_{i+1}c_{i+2}s_{i} - {\kappa}_2 {\kappa}_4 \mathbf{c''}
c_{i}c_{i+1} s_{i}\\
&-{\kappa}_1{\kappa}_5 \mathbf{c''} s_{i} -{\kappa}_2{\kappa}_5 \mathbf{c''} c_{i}c_{i+2}s_{i})v.\end{aligned}$$
The coefficient of $ s_i v $ is $${\kappa}_3 + {\kappa}_1 {\kappa}_4 \mathbf{c''} c_{i+1}c_{i+2}
- {\kappa}_2 {\kappa}_4 \mathbf{c''} c_{i}c_{i+1}
- {\kappa}_1 {\kappa}_5 \mathbf{c''}
- {\kappa}_2 {\kappa}_5 \mathbf{c''} c_{i}c_{i+2}.$$ The coefficient of $ s_{i+1}s_{i}v $ is $${\kappa}_3 \mathbf{c'} - {\kappa}_1 {\kappa}_3 \mathbf{c''}
- {\kappa}_2 {\kappa}_3 \mathbf{c''} c_{i}c_{i+1}.$$ In order to make both of these coefficients zero, set $ \mathbf{c'} =
\mathbf{c''}({\kappa}_1+{\kappa}_2c_{i}c_{i+1}) $ and $$\mathbf{c''} = \gamma({\kappa}_1 {\kappa}_5 +{\kappa}_1 {\kappa}_4 c_{i+1}c_{i+2}
-{\kappa}_2 {\kappa}_4 c_{i}c_{i+1} -{\kappa}_2 {\kappa}_5 c_{i}c_{i+2}),$$ where $$\gamma = \frac{-{\kappa}_3}{({\kappa}_1^2+{\kappa}_2^2)({\kappa}_4^2+{\kappa}_5^2)}.$$
The coefficient of $ v $ is $$\begin{aligned}
-{\kappa}_4 c_{i}c_{i+1}&+{\kappa}_5-{\kappa}_1{\kappa}_4 \mathbf{c'} c_{i}c_{i+2}
- {\kappa}_2 {\kappa}_4 \mathbf{c'} c_{i}c_{i+1} + {\kappa}_1 {\kappa}_5 \mathbf{c'}
+ {\kappa}_2 {\kappa}_5 \mathbf{c'} c_{i+1} c_{i+2}\\
=& -{\kappa}_4 c_{i}c_{i+1} + {\kappa}_5 -{\kappa}_1 {\kappa}_4 \mathbf{c''}({\kappa}_1c_{i}c_{i+2} +
{\kappa}_2 c_{i+1}c_{i+2})
-{\kappa}_2{\kappa}_4 \mathbf{c''}({\kappa}_1 c_{i}c_{i+1} - {\kappa}_2)\\
&+ {\kappa}_1{\kappa}_5 \mathbf{c''}({\kappa}_1+{\kappa}_2c_{i}c_{i+1})
+ {\kappa}_2 {\kappa}_4 \mathbf{c''}({\kappa}_1 c_{i+1}c_{i+2}
- {\kappa}_2 c_{i}c_{i+2}).\end{aligned}$$
This is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
{\kappa}_5 - {\kappa}_4& c_{i}c_{i+1} + (-{\kappa}_1{\kappa}_2{\kappa}_4 + {\kappa}_1 {\kappa}_2 {\kappa}_5)
\mathbf{c''} c_{i}c_{i+1}
+ (-{\kappa}_1^2{\kappa}_4 - {\kappa}_2^2{\kappa}_5)\mathbf{c''} c_{i}c_{i+2}\\
&+(-{\kappa}_1 {\kappa}_2 {\kappa}_4 + {\kappa}_1 {\kappa}_2 {\kappa}_5)\mathbf{c''} c_{i+1}c_{i+2} +
({\kappa}_2^2 {\kappa}_4 + {\kappa}_1^2 {\kappa}_5) \mathbf{c''}\\
= &{\kappa}_5 - {\kappa}_4 c_{i}c_{i+1}+({\kappa}_1 {\kappa}_2 {\kappa}_5 - {\kappa}_1 {\kappa}_2 {\kappa}_4)
\gamma(-{\kappa}_1 {\kappa}_5 c_{i}c_{r+p}
- {\kappa}_1 {\kappa}_4 c_{i}c_{i+2} - {\kappa}_2 {\kappa}_4
- {\kappa}_2 {\kappa}_5 c_{i+1}c_{i+2})\\
&+(-{\kappa}_1^2 {\kappa}_4 - {\kappa}_2^2 {\kappa}_5) \gamma(-{\kappa}_1 {\kappa}_5 c_{i}c_{i+2}
+ {\kappa}_1 {\kappa}_4 c_{i}c_{i+1} - {\kappa}_2 {\kappa}_5
+ {\kappa}_2 {\kappa}_4 c_{i+1}c_{i+2})\\
&+(-{\kappa}_1 {\kappa}_2 {\kappa}_4 + {\kappa}_1 {\kappa}_2 {\kappa}_5) \gamma(-{\kappa}_1 {\kappa}_5 c_{i+1}c_{i+2}
- {\kappa}_2 {\kappa}_4c_{i}c_{i+2} + {\kappa}_1 {\kappa}_4
+ {\kappa}_2 {\kappa}_5 c_{i}c_{i+1})\\
&+({\kappa}_2^2 {\kappa}_4 + {\kappa}_1^2 {\kappa}_5) \gamma(-{\kappa}_1 {\kappa}_4 c_{i+1}c_{i+2}
+ {\kappa}_2 {\kappa}_4 c_{i}c_{i+1} - {\kappa}_1 {\kappa}_5
+ {\kappa}_2 {\kappa}_5 c_{i}c_{i+2})\\
=& {\kappa}_5 + {\delta}_1 c_{i}c_{i+1} + {\delta}_2 c_{i+1}c_{i+2} + {\delta}_3 c_{i}c_{i+2}\end{aligned}$$ for some constants $ {\delta}_1, {\delta}_2, {\delta}_3\in{{\mathbb{R}}}. $
Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
({\kappa}_5 -{\delta}_1 c_{i}c_{i+1}-{\delta}_2 c_{i+1} c_{i+2}
-{\delta}_3 c_{i}c_{i+2})&(1 + \mathbf{c'} s_{i+1}
- \mathbf{c''} s_{i}s_{i+1})\phi_i v\\
=& ({\kappa}_5+{\delta}_1^2+{\delta}_2^2+{\delta}_3^2) v.\end{aligned}$$ Since $ {\delta}_1^2, {\delta}_2^2, {\delta}_3^2 \in {{\mathbb{R}}}_{\geq 0} $ and $ {\kappa}_5 > 0, $ the result follows.
\[dominant wt space\] Assume that ${\lambda}\in{{P^{++}}}$, $\mu\in P^+[{\lambda}]$, and ${\lambda}-\mu\in{{P_{\geq0}}}(d)$. Then, $${{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu)_{\sqrt{{\zeta}_{{\lambda},\mu}}}={{\mathbb{C}}}{{\mathbf{1}}}_{{\lambda},\mu}.$$
We begin by proving a special case of the Proposition. Suppose $ n $ divides $
d $, and $d/n=b-a$ for some $a,b\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}$, $b>0$. Let $ \lambda = (b, \ldots, b) $ and $ \mu = (a, \ldots, a) $ be weights of $ {{\mathfrak{q}}}(n). $ Set $ {{\mathcal{M}}}_{a,b,n} =
{{\mathcal{M}}}(\lambda, \mu), $ and set ${{\mathbf{1}}}_{a,b,n}={{\mathbf{1}}}_{{\lambda},\mu}$. Let $${\zeta}_{a,b,n} = (a,a+1, \ldots, b-1, \ldots, a, a+1, \ldots, b-1)$$ be a weight for $ {{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d) $ where the sequence $ a, a+1, \ldots, b-1 $ appears $ n $ times.
The first goal is to compute the weight space $({{\mathcal{M}}}_{a,b,n})_{\sqrt{{\zeta}_{a,b,n}}}$.
Set $n=d$ in the definition above so that $b=a+1$. The resulting module is the Kato module $K(a, \ldots, a)=K_a$, where all the $ x_i^2 $ act by $q(a)$ on the vector ${{\mathbf{1}}}_{a,b,n}$.
The following is [@kl Lemma 16.3.2, Theorem 16.3.3].
\[katolemma\]
1. If $a\neq-1$ or $0$, the weight space of $ K(a, \ldots, a) $ corresponding to $ (a, \ldots, a) $ with respect to the operators $ x_1^2, \ldots, x_n^2 $ has dimension $ 2^n. $ If $a=-1$ or $0$, then the weight space of $K(a,\ldots,a)$ corresponding to $(a,\ldots,a)$ with respect to the operators $ x_1, \ldots, x_n $ has dimension $2^{\lfloor\frac{n+1}{2}\rfloor}$.
2. The module $ K(a, \ldots, a) $ is equal to its generalized weight space for the weight $ (a, \ldots, a). $
3. The module $ K(a, \ldots, a) $ is simple of type `Q` if $ a=0 $ and $ d $ is odd, and is of type `M` otherwise.
Set $m=d/n$. In the set of weights of $ {{\mathcal{M}}}_{a,b,n}, $ there exists a unique anti-dominant weight $ {\zeta}_{a,b,n}^{\circ} $ that is given by $${\zeta}_{a,b,n}^{\circ}
= (\underbrace{a, \ldots, a,}_n \underbrace{a+1,
\ldots, a+1,}_n \ldots, \underbrace{b-1,
\ldots, b-1}_n).$$
Take an element $ \tau\in D_{\lambda-\mu} $ such that $ \tau({\zeta}_{a,b,n}) =
{\zeta}_{a,b,n}^{\circ}. $ If $a\geq 0$, it is given by $ \tau = {\omega}^1 \cdots
{\omega}^{m-1}, $ where $ {\omega}^p=\rho_{n-1}^p \rho_{n-2}^p \cdots \rho_1^p $, $$\rho_k^p = \xi_{k(p+1)-(k-1)}^p \cdots \xi_{(k(p+1)-1)}^p \xi_{k(p+1)}^p,$$ and, for $1 \leq r \leq d-1, $ and $1 \leq p \leq d-r$, $\xi_r^p = s_{r+p-1}
\cdots s_{r+1}s_r$.
If $b\leq0$, then $\tau={\sigma}({\omega}^1\cdots{\omega}^{m-1})$, where ${\sigma}$ is the automorphism of ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$. Finally, if $a<0$ and $b>0$, $\tau={\sigma}_{(-a+1)n}({\omega}^2\cdots{\omega}^{-a}){\omega}^{-a+1}\cdots{\omega}^{m-1}$, where ${\sigma}_{-a}$ is the automorphism of ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(-a)\subseteq{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ embedded on the left.
\[cyclicvectorlemma\] The vector $ \phi_{\tau} {{\mathbf{1}}}_{a,b,n} $ is a cyclic vector of $ {{\mathcal{M}}}_{a,b,n}. $
This follows from iterated applications of lemma \[techlemma\].
The proof of the following lemma is similar to [@su2 Lemma A.7], substituting Lemmas \[katolemma\] and \[L:weights of M\] appropriately into Suzuki’s argument.
\[antidominantlemma\] $({{\mathcal{M}}}_{a,b,n})_{\sqrt{{\zeta}_{a,b,n}^{\circ}}} \subseteq
\phi_{\tau} {{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d) {{\mathbf{1}}}_{a,b,n}. $
By an argument similar to the proof of [@su2 Lemma A.7], we deduce that $$({{\mathcal{M}}}_{a,b,n})_{{\zeta}_{a,b,n}^{\circ}} \cong (K_a)_{a^{(n)}} \circledast
(K_{a+1})_{(a+1)^{(n)}} \circledast \cdots \circledast
(K_{b-1})_{(b-1)^{(n)}}$$ if $a\geq 0$, and $$({{\mathcal{M}}}_{a,b,n})_{{\zeta}_{a,b,n}^{\circ}} \cong (K_{-a-1})_{(-a-1)^{(n)}}
\circledast \cdots
(K_1)_{1^{(n)}}\circledast(K_0)_{0^{(2n)}}\circledast(K_1)_{1^{(n)}}\cdots
\circledast (K_{b-1})_{(b-1)^{(n)}}$$ if $a<0$. Here, $ (K_j)_{j^{(n)}} $ is the weight space $ K(j, \ldots,
j)_{(j, \ldots, j)} $ of a Kato module. Since $$({{\mathcal{M}}}_{a,b,n})_{\sqrt{{\zeta}_{a,b,n}^{\circ}}} \subseteq
({{\mathcal{M}}}_{a,b,n})_{{\zeta}_{a,b,n}^{\circ}},$$ we deduce that if $a\geq 0$ $$({{\mathcal{M}}}_{a,b,n})_{\sqrt{{\zeta}_{a,b,n}^{\circ}}} = (K_a)_{\sqrt{a^{(n)}}} \circledast
(K_{a+1})_{\sqrt{(a+1)^{(n)}}} \circledast \cdots
\circledast(K_{b-1})_{\sqrt{(b-1)^{(n)}}} \subseteq {{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d) \phi_{\tau}
{{\mathbf{1}}}_{a,b,n}.$$ Similarly, if $a<0$, $({{\mathcal{M}}}_{a,b,n})_{\sqrt{{\zeta}_{a,b,n}^{\circ}}}\subseteq{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d)
\phi_{\tau} {{\mathbf{1}}}_{a,b,n}$.
\[mainprop1\] For the special standard module defined above, $
({{\mathcal{M}}}_{a,b,n})_{\sqrt{{\zeta}_{a,b,n}}} \subseteq {{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d) {{\mathbf{1}}}_{a,b,n}. $
For $ i = 1, \ldots, d, $ let $ i = jm+r $ where $ 0 \leq j <n $ and $ 0 < r <
m. $ Take any $v \in ({{{\mathcal{M}}}}_{a,b,n})_{\sqrt{{\zeta}_{a,b,n}}}$. Lemma \[antidominantlemma\] implies that $ \phi_{\tau} v = \phi_{\tau} z{{\mathbf{1}}}$ for some $ z \in {{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d). $ Put $ v_0 = v- z 1. $ Then $ \phi_{\tau} v_0 = 0$. Note that since $ r \neq m, $ $ \phi_i v_0 = 0$ since $s_i({\zeta}_{a,b,n})$ is not a weight of ${{{\mathcal{M}}}}_{a,b,n}$.
If $r\neq -a$, we can solve for $s_iv_0$ in the equation $\phi_i.v_0=0$ to get $$s_i.v_0=\left(\frac{{\kappa}_r-{\kappa}_{r-1}}{-2(a+r)}
+\frac{{\kappa}_r+{\kappa}_{r-1}}{-2(a+r)}c_ic_{i+1}\right)v_0$$ where ${\kappa}_r=\sqrt{q(a+r-1)}$.
Similarly, if $ r \neq -a,$ $$s_i.{{{\mathbf{1}}}}_{a,b,n}=\left(\frac{{\kappa}_r-{\kappa}_{r-1}}{-2(a+r)}
+\frac{{\kappa}_r+{\kappa}_{r-1}}{-2(a+r)}c_ic_{i+1}\right){{{\mathbf{1}}}}_{a,b,n}.$$
If $r=-a$, then routine calculations from earlier gives that $$c_i c_{i+1} {{{\mathbf{1}}}}_{a,b,n} = - \sqrt{-1} {{{\mathbf{1}}}}_{a,b,n}.$$
Hence there exists an ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-homomorphism $ \psi:{{{\mathcal{M}}}}_{a,b,n}
\rightarrow {{{\mathcal{M}}}}_{a,b,n} $ such that $ \psi({{{\mathbf{1}}}}_{a,b,n})=v_0 $ if $ a \geq 0 $ or $ b \leq 0. $ If $ a < 0 < b, $ then there is an ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-homomorphism $ \psi:{{{\mathcal{M}}}}_{a,b,n}
\rightarrow {{{\mathcal{M}}}}_{a,b,n} $ such that $ \psi({{{\mathbf{1}}}}_{a,b,n})=\prod_{0 \leq j <n} (1+ \sqrt{-1} c_{jm-a} c_{jm-a+1} )v_0 $
Thus by lemma \[antidominantlemma\], the kernel of $ \psi $ is equal to $
{{\mathcal{M}}}_{a,b,n}. $ Therefore $ v_0 =0. $ Thus $ v \in {{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d) {{{\mathbf{1}}}}_{a,b,n}. $
We now reduce the general case to the special case above. To this end, fix ${\lambda}\in{{P^{++}}}$, $\mu\in P^+[{\lambda}]$, and ${\lambda}-\mu\in{{P_{\geq0}}}(d)$. Set $d_i={\lambda}_i-\mu_i$, and let $a_i=d_1+\cdots+d_{i-1}+1$, $b_i=d_1+\cdots+d_i$. Observe that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:Step2Formulae}
{\zeta}_{{\lambda},\mu}(x^2_{a_i})=\mu_i
{\,\,\,\,\,\, {\mbox{and}} \,\,\,\,\,\,}{\zeta}_{{\lambda},\mu}(x^2_{b_i})={\lambda}_i-1.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, observe that if $a_i\leq c\leq b_i$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:Step2Formulae2}
{\zeta}_{{\lambda},\mu}(x^2_{c})={\zeta}_{{\lambda},\mu}(x^2_{b_i})-(b_i-c)
{\,\,\,\,\,\, {\mbox{and}} \,\,\,\,\,\,}{\zeta}_{{\lambda},\mu}(x^2_{c})={\zeta}_{{\lambda},\mu}(x^2_{a_i})+(c-a_i).\end{aligned}$$
Since ${\lambda}\in{{P^{++}}}$ and $\mu\in P^+[{\lambda}]$, we can find integers $ 0 = n'_0 < n'_1
< \cdots < n'_r = n $, and $ 0 = n_0 < n_1
< \cdots < n_s = n $ such that $$R[{\lambda}] = R \cap \sum_{i \neq n'_0, \ldots, n'_r} \mathbb{Z} {\alpha}_i{\,\,\,\,\,\, {\mbox{and}} \,\,\,\,\,\,}R[{\lambda}]\cap R[\mu] = R \cap \sum_{i \neq n_0, \ldots, n_s} \mathbb{Z} {\alpha}_i.$$ Let $$I'_p = \{\, a_{n'_{p-1}+1}, a_{n'_{p-1}+1}+1, \ldots, b_{n'_p}-1\,\} \;\;\;
(p=1, \ldots, r),\;\;\;
I' = I'_1 \cup \ldots \cup I'_r,$$ and $$I_p = \{\, a_{n_{p-1}+1}, a_{n_{p-1}+1}+1, \ldots, b_{n_p}-1\,\} \;\;\;
(p=1, \ldots, s),\;\;\;
I = I_1 \cup \ldots \cup I_s.$$ Then, $S_{{\lambda}-\mu}\subseteq S_I\subseteq S_{I'}$ and $$S_{I'}/S_{{\lambda}-\mu}\cong D_{{\lambda}-\mu}\cap S_{I'}{\,\,\,\,\,\, {\mbox{and}} \,\,\,\,\,\,}S_I/S_{{\lambda}-\mu}\cong D_{{\lambda}-\mu}\cap S_I,\;\;\;\mbox{(cf. $\S$\ref{SS:Mackey}).}$$
[@su2 Lemma A.9] There is a containment of sets $ D_{\lambda - \mu}\cap S_d[{\zeta}_{\lambda, \mu}]
\subset D_{\lambda - \mu}\cap S_I. $
Let $ v \in {{\mathcal{M}}}(\lambda, \mu)_{\sqrt{{\zeta}_{\lambda, \mu}}}. $ For each $ p \in
\lbrace 1, \ldots, s \rbrace, $ we can write $ v = \sum_j x_j^{(p)} z_j^{(p)}
v_j $ where $ v_j \in \Phi(\lambda, \mu), $ $ \lbrace x_j^{(p)} \rbrace_j $ are linearly independent elements of $ {{\mathbb{C}}}[D_{\lambda - \mu} \cap S_{I - I_p}] $ and $z_j^{(p)} \in {{\mathbb{C}}}[D_{\lambda - \mu} \cap S_{I_p}]$. Let ${{\mathcal{P}}}_d[x^2]_{I_p}={{\mathbb{C}}}[x_i^2|i\in I_p]$.
[@su2 Lemma A.10] For $ f \in {{\mathcal{P}}}_d[x^2]_{I_p}, $ $ f z_k^{(p)} v_j =
{\zeta}_{\lambda, \mu}(f) z_k^{(p)} v_j. $
Observe $$0=(f-{\zeta}_{{\lambda},\mu}(f))v
=\sum_jx_j^{(p)}(f-{\zeta}_{{\lambda},\mu}(f))z_j^{(p)}{{\mathbf{1}}}_{{\lambda},\mu}.$$ Since $S_{I_p}\subset S_d$ is closed with respect to the Bruhat order we have $f z_j^{(p)}{{\mathbf{1}}}_{{\lambda},\mu}\in{{\mathbb{C}}}[D_{{\lambda}-\mu}\cap S_{I_p}]$. Since $\{x_j^{(p)}\}_j$ are linearly independent, each $(f-{\zeta}_{{\lambda},\mu}(f))z_j^{(p)}{{\mathbf{1}}}_{{\lambda},\mu}$ must be 0.
*Proof of Proposition \[dominant wt space\].* Let $ {{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(I_p) $ be the subalgebra corresponding to $ I_p. $ Note that $ {{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(I_p) \cong {{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(|I_p|). $ First note that $
{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(I_p) v_j \cong {{\mathcal{M}}}_{a,b,n_p-n_{p-1}} $ for some $a,b$. Thus by Proposition \[mainprop1\], $z_k^{(p)} v_j \in {{\mathbb{C}}}{{\mathbf{1}}}_{\lambda, \mu}$. Thus, $ v \in
{{\mathbb{C}}}[D_{\lambda - \mu} \cap S_{I - I_p}] $ for any $ p. $ It now follows that $
v \in \mathbb{C} {{\mathbf{1}}}_{\lambda, \mu}. $
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[thm:unique irred quotient\] Assume that ${\lambda}\in{{P^{++}}}$, $\mu\in P^+[{\lambda}]$, and ${\lambda}-\mu\in{{P_{\geq0}}}(d)$. Then ${{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu)$ has a unique simple quotient module, denoted ${{\mathcal{L}}}({\lambda},\mu)$.
Assume $N$ is a submodule of ${{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu)$. If $N_{{\zeta}_{{\lambda},\mu}}^{\mathrm{gen}}\neq0$, then $N_{\sqrt{{\zeta}_{{\lambda},\mu}}}\neq0$. By the previous lemma, $N\cap{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d){{\mathbf{1}}}_{{\lambda},\mu}\neq\{0\}$, so ${{\mathbf{1}}}_{{\lambda},\mu}\in N$ because ${{\mathcal{C}\ell}}(d){{\mathbf{1}}}_{{\lambda},\mu}$ is an irreducible ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}({\lambda}-\mu)$-module. Hence, $N={{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu)$. It follows that $$N\subseteq\bigoplus_{\eta\neq{\zeta}_{{\lambda},\mu}}{{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu)^{\mathrm{gen}}_\eta.$$ The sum of all proper submodules satisfies this property. Therefore, ${{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu)$ has a unique maximal proper submodule and a unique simple quotient.
Let $\mathcal{R}({\lambda},\mu)$ denote the unique maximal submodule, and define ${{\mathcal{L}}}({\lambda},\mu)={{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu)/\mathcal{R}({\lambda},\mu)$.
Classification of Calibrated Representations {#S:Calibrated}
============================================
A representation $ M $ of the AHCA is called *calibrated* if the polynomial subalgebra ${{\mathcal{P}}}_d[x]\subseteq{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ acts semisimply. The main combinatorial object associated to such a representation is the shifted skew shape. Calibrated representations of the affine Hecke algebra were studied and classified in [@ram]. The main combinatorial object in that case were pairs of skew shapes and content functions. That construction along with [@lec Conjecture 52] motivated the construction given here. A proof of a slightly modified version of that conjecture is given here. Leclerc defined a calibrated representation to be one in which ${{\mathcal{P}}}_d[x^2]$ acts semisimply. For example, the module $ \Phi_{[-1,0]} $ is calibrated in the sense of [@lec] but $ x_1, x_2 $ do not act diagonally in any basis.
Construction of Calibrated Representations {#SS:Calibrated}
------------------------------------------
Let $ \lambda = (\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_r) $ and $ \mu = (\mu_1, \ldots, \mu_r) $ be two partitions with $ \lambda_1 > \cdots > \lambda_r >0 $ and $ \mu_1 \geq \cdots \geq \mu_r $ such that $ \mu_i = \mu_{i+1} $ implies $ \mu_i = 0$ and $ \lambda_i \geq \mu_i $ for all $ i. $ To such data, associate a shifted skew shape of boxes where row $ i $ has $ \lambda_i - \mu_i $ boxes and the leftmost box occurs in position $ i. $ Figure \[ex1\] illustrates a skew shape for $ \lambda = (5,2,1) $ and $ \mu = (3,1,0). $
(420,85)
(0,70)[${\lambda}=$]{}
(35,70)[$0$]{}(60,70)[$1$]{}(85,70)[2]{}(110,71)[3]{} (135,70)[4]{} (60,45)[0]{}(85,45)[1]{} (85,20)[0]{}
(25,85)[(1,0)[125]{}]{} (25,85)[(0,-1)[25]{}]{}(50,85)[(0,-1)[50]{}]{} (75,85)[(0,-1)[75]{}]{}(100,85)[(0,-1)[75]{}]{} (125,85)[(0,-1)[25]{}]{}(150,85)[(0,-1)[25]{}]{} (25,60)[(1,0)[125]{}]{} (50,35)[(1,0)[50]{}]{} (75,10)[(1,0)[25]{}]{}
(175,70)[$\mu=$]{}
(210,70)[$0$]{}(235,70)[$1$]{}(260,70)[2]{} (235,45)[0]{}
(200,85)[(1,0)[75]{}]{} (200,85)[(0,-1)[25]{}]{}(225,85)[(0,-1)[50]{}]{} (250,85)[(0,-1)[50]{}]{}(275,85)[(0,-1)[25]{}]{} (200,60)[(1,0)[75]{}]{} (225,35)[(1,0)[25]{}]{}
(310,70)[${\lambda}/\mu=$]{}
(385,70)[3]{} (410,71)[4]{} (360,45)[1]{} (360,20)[0]{}
(375,85)[(1,0)[50]{}]{} (375,85)[(0,-1)[75]{}]{}(400,85)[(0,-1)[25]{}]{} (425,85)[(0,-1)[25]{}]{} (350,60)[(1,0)[75]{}]{} (350,60)[(0,-1)[50]{}]{} (350,35)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (350,10)[(1,0)[25]{}]{}
A standard filling of a skew shape $ \lambda / \mu $ with a total of $ d $ boxes is an insertion of the set $ \{ 1, \ldots, d \}$ into the boxes of the skew shape such that each box gets exactly one element, each element is used exactly once and the rows are increasing from left to right and the columns are increasing from top to bottom. In a shifted shape, ${\lambda}$, all the boxes will lie above one main diagonal running from northwest to southeast. Each box in this main diagonal will be assigned content 0. The contents of the other boxes will be constant along the diagonals where the contents of the diagonal northeast of its immediate neighbor will be one more than the contents of its immediate neighbor. In a shifted skew shape, ${\lambda}/\mu$, the contents are defined as in figure \[ex1\].
Given a standard tableaux $ L $ for a shifted skew shape $ \lambda / \mu, $ let $ c(L_i) $ be the contents of the box labeled by $ i. $ Thus $ L $ gives rise to a $ d$-tuple $ c(L) = (c(L_1), \ldots, c(L_d)) $ called the content reading of $ \lambda / \mu $ with respect to $ L. $
Let $ \lambda / \mu $ be a shifted skew shape such that $ \lambda / \mu $ has $
d $ boxes. Set $ {\kappa}_{i,L} = \sqrt{q(c(L_{i}))} $ and $$\mathcal{Y}_{i,L} = \sqrt{1-\frac{1}{({{\kappa}_{i+1,L}-{\kappa}_{i,L}})^2}
-\frac{1}{({{\kappa}_{i+1,L}+{\kappa}_{i,L}})^2}}.$$
Now to a skew shape $ \lambda/\mu, $ associate a vector space $
\widehat{H}^{\lambda / \mu} = \oplus_L Cl(d) v_L $ where $ L $ ranges over all standard tableaux of shape $ \lambda/\mu $ and $ d $ is the number of boxes in the shifted skew shape. Define $ x_i v_L = {\kappa}_{i,L} v_L. $ Define $$s_i v_L = \frac{1}{{\kappa}_{i+1,L}-{\kappa}_{i,L}} v_L
+ \frac{1}{{\kappa}_{i+1,L}+{\kappa}_{i,L}} c_i c_{i+1} v_L + \mathcal{Y}_{i,L} v_{s_i L}$$ where $ v_{s_i L} = 0 $ if $ s_i L $ is not a standard tableaux.
The action of the $ x_i $ and $s_{i}$ given above endow $ \widehat{H}^{\lambda / \mu} $ with the structure of a $ {{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-module.
We have $$\begin{aligned}
s_i^2 v_L &= \frac{1}{{\kappa}_{i+1,L}-{\kappa}_{i,L}} s_i v_L - \frac{1}{{\kappa}_{i+1,L}+{\kappa}_{i,L}} c_i c_{i+1} s_i v_L + \mathcal{Y}_{i,L} s_i v_{s_i L}\\
&= \frac{1}{{\kappa}_{i+1,L}-{\kappa}_{i,L}}\left(\frac{1}{{\kappa}_{i+1,L}-{\kappa}_{i,L}} v_L + \frac{1}{{\kappa}_{i+1,L}+{\kappa}_{i,L}} c_i c_{i+1} v_L + \mathcal{Y}_{i,L} v_{s_i L}\right)\\ &-\frac{c_i c_{i+1}}{{\kappa}_{i+1,L}+{\kappa}_{i,L}}\left(\frac{1}{{\kappa}_{i+1,L}-{\kappa}_{i,L}} v_L
+ \frac{1}{{\kappa}_{i+1,L}+{\kappa}_{i,L}} c_i c_{i+1} v_L + \mathcal{Y}_{i,L} v_{s_i L}\right)\\
&+ \mathcal{Y}_{i,L}\left(\frac{1}{{\kappa}_{i,L}-{\kappa}_{i+1,L}} v_{s_i L} + \frac{1}{{\kappa}_{i+1,L}+{\kappa}_{i,L}} c_i c_{i+1} v_{s_i L} + \mathcal{Y}_{i,L} v_{L}\right)\\
&= \left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_{i+1,L}-{\kappa}_{i,L})^2}+\frac{1}{({\kappa}_{i+1,L}+{\kappa}_{i,L})^2} + \mathcal{Y}_{i,L} \mathcal{Y}_{i,L}\right) v_L = v_L.\end{aligned}$$ Note that if $ v_{s_i L} = 0, $ then $ \frac{1}{({\kappa}_{i+1,L}-{\kappa}_{i,L})^2} + \frac{1}{({\kappa}_{i+1,L}+{\kappa}_{i,L})^2}=1. $
Next, $$s_i x_i v_L = \frac{{\kappa}_{i,L}}{{\kappa}_{i+1,L}-{\kappa}_{i,L}} v_L + \frac{{\kappa}_{i,L}}{{\kappa}_{i+1,L}+{\kappa}_{i,L}} c_i c_{i+1} v_L + \mathcal{Y}_{i,L} v_{s_i L}.$$ On the other hand, $$x_{i+1} s_i v_L - v_L + c_i c_{i+1} v_L =
\frac{{\kappa}_{i+1,L}}{{\kappa}_{i+1,L}-{\kappa}_{i,L}} v_L - \frac{{\kappa}_{i+1,L}}{{\kappa}_{i+1,L}+{\kappa}_{i,L}} c_i c_{i+1} v_L +\mathcal{Y}_{i,L} v_{s_i L} - v_L + c_i c_{i+1} v_L.$$ Thus it is easily seen that $$s_i x_i v_L = x_{i+1} s_i v_L - v_L + c_i c_{i+1} v_L.$$
We now check the braid relations. To this end, fix $j\in\mathbb{N}$ and set ${\kappa}_i=\sqrt{j+i}$ for $i\geq0$.
(340,40)
(115,14)[$L\;\;=$]{} (160,14)[$i$]{}(178,14)[$i+1$]{}(203,14)[$i+2$]{}
(150,5)[(1,0)[75]{}]{} (150,5)[(0,1)[25]{}]{}(175,5)[(0,1)[25]{}]{} (200,5)[(0,1)[25]{}]{}(225,5)[(0,1)[25]{}]{} (150,30)[(1,0)[75]{}]{}
Case 1: Let $ L $ be the standard tableaux given in Figure \[F:Case 1\]. A calculation gives [$$\begin{aligned}
s_i s_{i+1} s_i v_L = s_{i+1} s_i s_{i+1} v_L
=&\left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_3-{\kappa}_2)^2({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_1)}
-\frac{1}{({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_3)^2({\kappa}_1+{\kappa}_2)}\right)v_L\\
&+\left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_3^2-{\kappa}_2^2)({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_1)}
+\frac{1}{({\kappa}_3^2-{\kappa}_2^2)^2({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_1)}\right)c_ic_{i+1}v_L\\
&+\left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_3^2-{\kappa}_2^2)({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_1)}
+\frac{1}{({\kappa}_3^2-{\kappa}_2^2)^2({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_1)}\right)c_{i+1}c_{i+2}v_L\\
&+\left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_3-{\kappa}_2)^2({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_1)}
-\frac{1}{({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_3)^2({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_1)}\right)c_ic_{i+2}v_L.\end{aligned}$$ ]{}
(340,70)
(50,27)[$L_1=$]{} (78,14)[$i+2$]{}(85,39)[$i$]{}(103,39)[$i+1$]{}
(75,5)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (75,5)[(0,1)[50]{}]{}(100,5)[(0,1)[50]{}]{} (75,30)[(1,0)[50]{}]{} (100,30)[(0,1)[25]{}]{}(125,30)[(0,1)[25]{}]{} (75,55)[(1,0)[50]{}]{}
(200,27)[$L_2=$]{} (228,14)[$i+1$]{}(235,39)[$i$]{}(253,39)[$i+2$]{}
(225,5)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (225,5)[(0,1)[50]{}]{}(250,5)[(0,1)[50]{}]{} (225,30)[(1,0)[50]{}]{} (250,30)[(0,1)[25]{}]{}(275,30)[(0,1)[25]{}]{} (225,55)[(1,0)[50]{}]{}
Case 2: Let $ L_1 $ and $ L_2 $ be the standard tableaux given in Figure \[F:Case 2\]. A calculation gives [$$\begin{aligned}
s_i s_{i+1} s_i v_{L_1} = s_{i+1} s_i s_{i+1}v_{L_1} =&\left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_3-{\kappa}_2)^2({\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_3)}
+\frac{1}{({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_3)^2({\kappa}_1+{\kappa}_3)}\right)v_{L_1}\\
&+\left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_3^2-{\kappa}_2^2)({\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_3)}
-\frac{1}{({\kappa}_3^2-{\kappa}_2^2)^2({\kappa}_1+{\kappa}_3)}\right)c_ic_{i+1}v_{L_1}\\
&+\left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_2^2-{\kappa}_3^2)({\kappa}_1+{\kappa}_3)}
+\frac{1}{({\kappa}_3^2-{\kappa}_2^2)^2({\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_3)}\right)c_{i+1}c_{i+2}v_{L_1}\\
&+\left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_3-{\kappa}_2)^2({\kappa}_1+{\kappa}_3)}
-\frac{1}{({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_3)^2({\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_3)}\right)c_ic_{i+2}v_{L_1}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_1}}{({\kappa}_3-{\kappa}_2)({\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_2)}\right)v_{L_2}
+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_1}}{({\kappa}_3-{\kappa}_2)({\kappa}_1+{\kappa}_2)}\right)
c_ic_{i+1}v_{L_2}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_1}}{({\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_2)({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_3)}\right)
c_{i+1}c_{i+2}v_{L_2}
+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_1}}{({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_3)({\kappa}_1+{\kappa}_2)}\right)
c_ic_{i+2}v_{L_2}.\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
s_i s_{i+1} s_i v_{L_2} = s_{i+1} s_i s_{i+1}v_{L_2} =&
\left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_2)^2({\kappa}_3-{\kappa}_1)}
+\frac{1}{({\kappa}_1+{\kappa}_2)^2({\kappa}_1+{\kappa}_3)}\right)v_{L_2}\\
&+\left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_1^2-{\kappa}_2^2)({\kappa}_3-{\kappa}_1)}
-\frac{1}{({\kappa}_1^2-{\kappa}_2^2)^2({\kappa}_1+{\kappa}_3)}\right)c_ic_{i+1}v_{L_2}\\
&+\left(\frac{-1}{({\kappa}_1^2-{\kappa}_2^2)({\kappa}_1+{\kappa}_3)}
+\frac{1}{({\kappa}_1^2-{\kappa}_2^2)^2({\kappa}_3-{\kappa}_1)}\right)c_{i+1}c_{i+2}v_{L_2}\\
&+\left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_2)^2({\kappa}_1+{\kappa}_3)}
+\frac{1}{({\kappa}_1+{\kappa}_2)^2({\kappa}_3-{\kappa}_1)}\right)c_ic_{i+2}v_{L_2}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_2}}{({\kappa}_3-{\kappa}_2)({\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_2)}\right)v_{L_1}
+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_2}}{({\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_2)({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_3)}\right)
c_ic_{i+1}v_{L_1}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_2}}{({\kappa}_3-{\kappa}_2)({\kappa}_1+{\kappa}_2)}\right)
c_{i+1}c_{i+2}v_{L_1}
+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_1}}{({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_3)({\kappa}_1+{\kappa}_2)}\right)c_ic_{i+2}v_{L_1}.\end{aligned}$$ ]{}
(340,70)
(50,27)[$L_1=$]{} (80,14)[$i$]{}(103,39)[$i+1$]{}(103,14)[$i+2$]{}
(75,5)[(1,0)[50]{}]{} (75,5)[(0,1)[25]{}]{}(100,5)[(0,1)[50]{}]{}(125,5)[(0,1)[50]{}]{} (75,30)[(1,0)[50]{}]{} (100,55)[(1,0)[25]{}]{}
(200,27)[$L_2=$]{} (228,14)[$i+1$]{}(252,14)[$i+2$]{}(258,39)[$i$]{}
(225,5)[(1,0)[50]{}]{} (225,5)[(0,1)[25]{}]{}(250,5)[(0,1)[50]{}]{}(275,5)[(0,1)[50]{}]{} (225,30)[(1,0)[50]{}]{} (250,55)[(1,0)[25]{}]{}
Case 3: Let $L_1$ and $L_2$ be as in figure \[F:Case 3\]. Then, a calculation analogous to case 2 shows that $s_is_{i+1}s_iv_{L_1}=s_{i+1}s_is_{i+2}v_{L_1}$ and $s_is_{i+1}s_iv_{L_2}=s_{i+1}s_is_{i+2}v_{L_2}$.
(420,60)
(0,27)[$L_1=$]{} (37,14)[$i$]{}(53,14)[$i+1$]{}(78,39)[$i+2$]{}
(25,5)[(1,0)[50]{}]{} (25,5)[(0,1)[25]{}]{}(50,5)[(0,1)[25]{}]{} (75,5)[(0,1)[50]{}]{} (25,30)[(1,0)[75]{}]{} (100,30)[(0,1)[25]{}]{} (75,55)[(1,0)[25]{}]{}
(150,27)[$L_2=$]{} (187,14)[$i$]{}(203,14)[$i+2$]{}(228,39)[$i+1$]{}
(175,5)[(1,0)[50]{}]{} (175,5)[(0,1)[25]{}]{}(200,5)[(0,1)[25]{}]{} (225,5)[(0,1)[50]{}]{} (175,30)[(1,0)[75]{}]{} (250,30)[(0,1)[25]{}]{} (225,55)[(1,0)[25]{}]{}
(300,27)[$L_3=$]{} (328,14)[$i+1$]{}(353,14)[$i+2$]{}(385,39)[$i$]{}
(325,5)[(1,0)[50]{}]{} (325,5)[(0,1)[25]{}]{}(350,5)[(0,1)[25]{}]{} (375,5)[(0,1)[50]{}]{} (325,30)[(1,0)[75]{}]{} (400,30)[(0,1)[25]{}]{} (375,55)[(1,0)[25]{}]{}
Case 4: Let $ L_1, L_2, $ and $ L_3 $ be the standard tableaux given in Figure \[F:Case 3\]. [$$\begin{aligned}
s_i s_{i+1} s_i v_{L_1} = s_{i+1} s_i s_{i+1}v_{L_1} =&
\left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_0)^2({\kappa}_3-{\kappa}_1)}
+\frac{1}{({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_1)^2({\kappa}_1+{\kappa}_3)}\right)v_{L_1}\\
&+\left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_1^2-{\kappa}_0^2)({\kappa}_3-{\kappa}_1)}
-\frac{1}{({\kappa}_1^2-{\kappa}_0^2)({\kappa}_1+{\kappa}_3)}\right)c_ic_{i+1}v_{L_1}\\
&+\left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_0^2-{\kappa}_1^2)({\kappa}_1+{\kappa}_3)}
-\frac{1}{({\kappa}_0^2-{\kappa}_1^2)({\kappa}_3-{\kappa}_1)}\right)c_{i+1}c_{i+2}v_{L_1}\\
&+\left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_0)^2({\kappa}_1+{\kappa}_3)}
-\frac{1}{({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_1)^2({\kappa}_3-{\kappa}_1)}\right)c_ic_{i+2}v_{L_1}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_1}}{({\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_3-{\kappa}_0)}\right)v_{L_2}
+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_1}}{({\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_3)}\right)
c_ic_{i+1}v_{L_2}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_1}}{({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_1)({\kappa}_3-{\kappa}_0)}\right)
c_{i+1}c_{i+2}v_{L_2}
+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_1}}{({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_1)({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_3)}\right) c_ic_{i+2}v_{L_2}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_1}\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_2}}{{\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_0}\right)v_{L_3}
+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_1}\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_2}}{{\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_1}\right) c_{i+1}c_{i+2}v_{L_3}.\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
s_i s_{i+1} s_i v_{L_2} = s_{i+1} s_i s_{i+1}v_{L_2} =&
\left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_3-{\kappa}_0)^2({\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_3)}
+\frac{1}{({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_3)^2({\kappa}_1+{\kappa}_3)}+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_2} \mathcal{Y}_{i,L_3}}{{\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_0}\right)v_{L_2}\\
&+\left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_3^2-{\kappa}_0^2)({\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_3)}
-\frac{1}{({\kappa}_3^2-{\kappa}_0^2)({\kappa}_1+{\kappa}_3)}\right)c_ic_{i+1}v_{L_2}\\
&+\left(\frac{-1}{({\kappa}_3^2-{\kappa}_0^2)({\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_3)}
-\frac{1}{({\kappa}_3^2-{\kappa}_0^2)({\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_3)}\right)c_{i+1}c_{i+2}v_{L_2}\\
&+\left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_3-{\kappa}_0)^2({\kappa}_1+{\kappa}_3)}
-\frac{1}{({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_3)^2({\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_3)}
+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_2}\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_3}}{{\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_1}\right)
c_ic_{i+2}v_{L_2}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_2}}{({\kappa}_3-{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_3)}
+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_2}}{({\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_3)}\right)v_{L_3}\\
&+\left(\frac{-\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_2}}{({\kappa}_3+{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_1+{\kappa}_3)}
+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_2}}{({\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_3)}\right)
c_ic_{i+1}v_{L_3}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_2}}{({\kappa}_3+{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_3)}
-\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_2}}{({\kappa}_1+{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_3)}\right)
c_{i+1}c_{i+2}v_{L_3}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_2}}{({\kappa}_3-{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_1+{\kappa}_3)}
+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_2}}{({\kappa}_1+{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_3)}\right)
c_ic_{i+2}v_{L_3}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_2}}{({\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_3-{\kappa}_0)}\right)v_{L_1}
+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_2}}{({\kappa}_1+{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_3-{\kappa}_0)}\right)
c_ic_{i+1}v_{L_1}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_2}}{({\kappa}_3+{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_0)}\right)
c_{i+1}c_{i+2}v_{L_1}
+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_2}}{({\kappa}_3+{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_1+{\kappa}_0)}\right)
c_ic_{i+2}v_{L_1}.\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
s_i s_{i+1} s_i v_{L_3} = s_{i+1} s_i s_{i+1}v_{L_3} =&
\left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_3-{\kappa}_0)^2({\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_0)}
+\frac{1}{({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_3)^2({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_1)}+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_2} \mathcal{Y}_{i,L_3}}{{\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_3}\right) v_{L_3} \\
&+\left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_0^2-{\kappa}_3^2)({\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_0)}
-\frac{1}{({\kappa}_0^2-{\kappa}_3^2)({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_1)}\right)c_ic_{i+1}v_{L_3}\\
&+\left(\frac{-1}{({\kappa}_0^2-{\kappa}_3^2)({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_1)}
+\frac{1}{({\kappa}_0^2-{\kappa}_3^2)({\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_0)}\right)c_{i+1}c_{i+2}v_{L_3}\\
&+\left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_3-{\kappa}_0)^2({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_1)}
+\frac{1}{({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_3)^2({\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_0)}
+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_2}\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_3}}{{\kappa}_1+{\kappa}_3}\right)
c_ic_{i+2}v_{L_3}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_3}}{({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_3)({\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_0)}
+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_3}}{({\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_3)({\kappa}_3-{\kappa}_0)}\right)v_{L_2}\\
&+\left(\frac{-\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_3}}{({\kappa}_3+{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_1)}
+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_3}}{({\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_3)({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_3)}\right)
c_ic_{i+1}v_{L_2}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_3}}{({\kappa}_3+{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_0)}
-\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_3}}{({\kappa}_1+{\kappa}_3)({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_3)}\right)
c_{i+1}c_{i+2}v_{L_2}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_3}}{({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_3)({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_1)}
+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_3}}{({\kappa}_1+{\kappa}_3)({\kappa}_3-{\kappa}_0)}\right)
c_ic_{i+2}v_{L_2}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_3}\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_2}}{{\kappa}_1-{\kappa}_0}\right)v_{L_1}
+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_3}\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_2}}{{\kappa}_1+{\kappa}_0}\right)
c_ic_{i+1}v_{L_1}.\end{aligned}$$ ]{}
(420,185)
(0,148)[$L_1=$]{} (37,114)[$i$]{}(53,139)[$i+1$]{}(78,164)[$i+2$]{}
(25,105)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (25,105)[(0,1)[25]{}]{}(50,105)[(0,1)[50]{}]{} (25,130)[(1,0)[50]{}]{} (75,130)[(0,1)[50]{}]{} (50,155)[(1,0)[50]{}]{} (100,155)[(0,1)[25]{}]{} (75,180)[(1,0)[25]{}]{}
(150,148)[$L_2=$]{} (178,114)[$i+1$]{}(212,139)[$i$]{}(228,164)[$i+2$]{}
(175,105)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (175,105)[(0,1)[25]{}]{}(200,105)[(0,1)[50]{}]{} (175,130)[(1,0)[50]{}]{} (225,130)[(0,1)[50]{}]{} (200,155)[(1,0)[50]{}]{} (250,155)[(0,1)[25]{}]{} (225,180)[(1,0)[25]{}]{}
(300,148)[$L_3=$]{} (337,114)[$i$]{}(353,139)[$i+2$]{}(378,164)[$i+1$]{}
(325,105)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (325,105)[(0,1)[25]{}]{}(350,105)[(0,1)[50]{}]{} (325,130)[(1,0)[50]{}]{} (375,130)[(0,1)[50]{}]{} (350,155)[(1,0)[50]{}]{} (400,155)[(0,1)[25]{}]{} (375,180)[(1,0)[25]{}]{}
(0,48)[$L_4=$]{} (28,14)[$i+2$]{}(62,39)[$i$]{}(78,64)[$i+1$]{}
(25,5)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (25,5)[(0,1)[25]{}]{}(50,5)[(0,1)[50]{}]{} (25,30)[(1,0)[50]{}]{} (75,30)[(0,1)[50]{}]{} (50,55)[(1,0)[50]{}]{} (100,55)[(0,1)[25]{}]{} (75,80)[(1,0)[25]{}]{}
(150,48)[$L_5=$]{} (178,14)[$i+2$]{}(203,39)[$i+1$]{}(237,64)[$i$]{}
(175,5)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (175,5)[(0,1)[25]{}]{}(200,5)[(0,1)[50]{}]{} (175,30)[(1,0)[50]{}]{} (225,30)[(0,1)[50]{}]{} (200,55)[(1,0)[50]{}]{} (250,55)[(0,1)[25]{}]{} (225,80)[(1,0)[25]{}]{}
(300,48)[$L_6=$]{} (328,14)[$i+1$]{}(353,39)[$i+2$]{}(387,64)[$i$]{}
(325,5)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (325,5)[(0,1)[25]{}]{}(350,5)[(0,1)[50]{}]{} (325,30)[(1,0)[50]{}]{} (375,30)[(0,1)[50]{}]{} (350,55)[(1,0)[50]{}]{} (400,55)[(0,1)[25]{}]{} (375,80)[(1,0)[25]{}]{}
Case 5: Let $ L_1, L_2, L_3, L_4, L_5, $ and $ L_6 $ be given as in Figure \[F:Case 5\].
[$$\begin{aligned}
s_i s_{i+1} s_i v_{L_1} = s_{i+1} s_i s_{i+1}v_{L_1} =&
\left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_0)^2({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_2)}
+\frac{1}{({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_0)^2({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_2)}+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_1} \mathcal{Y}_{i, L_2}}{{\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_0}\right)v_{L_1}\\
&+\left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_2^2-{\kappa}_0^2)({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_2)}
-\frac{1}{({\kappa}_2^2-{\kappa}_0^2)({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_2)}\right)c_ic_{i+1}v_{L_1}\\
&+\left(\frac{-1}{({\kappa}_2^2-{\kappa}_0^2)({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_2)}
+\frac{1}{({\kappa}_2^2-{\kappa}_0^2)({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_2)}\right)c_{i+1}c_{i+2}v_{L_1}\\
&+\left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_0)^2({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_2)}
+\frac{1}{({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_0)^2({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_2)}+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_1} \mathcal{Y}_{i, L_2}}{{\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_0}\right)c_ic_{i+2}v_{L_1}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_1}}{({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_2)}
+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_1}}{({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_2)}\right)v_{L_2}\\
&+\left(\frac{-\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_1}}{({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_2)}
+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_1}}{({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_2)}\right)c_ic_{i+1}v_{L_2}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_1}}{({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_2)}
-\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_1}}{({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_2)}\right)
c_{i+1}c_{i+2}v_{L_2}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_1}}{({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_2)}
+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_1}}{({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_2)}\right)c_{i}c_{i+2}v_{L_2}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_1}}{({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_0)}\right)v_{L_3}+
\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_1}}{({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_0)}\right)
c_ic_{i+1}v_{L_3}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_1}}{({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_0)}\right)
c_{i+1}c_{i+2}v_{L_3}
+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_1}}{({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_0)}\right) c_ic_{i+2}v_{L_3}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_1})\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_3}}{{\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_0}\right)v_{L_6}
+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_1}\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_3}}{{\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_0}\right) c_{i+1}c_{i+2}v_{L_6}\\
&+\left(\frac{(\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_1})(\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_2})}{{\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_2}\right)v_{L_4}
+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_1}\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_2}}{{\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_2}\right)
c_ic_{i+1}v_{L_4}+(\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_1}\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_2}\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_4})v_{L_5}.\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
s_i s_{i+1} s_i v_{L_2} = s_{i+1} s_i s_{i+1}v_{L_2} =& \left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_0)^2({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_0)}
+\frac{1}{({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_0)^2({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_0)}+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_1} \mathcal{Y}_{i,L_2}}{{\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_2}\right)v_{L_2}\\
&+\left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_0^2-{\kappa}_2^2)({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_0)}
-\frac{1}{({\kappa}_0^2-{\kappa}_2^2)({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_0)}\right)c_ic_{i+1}v_{L_2}\\
&+\left(\frac{-1}{({\kappa}_0^2-{\kappa}_2^2)({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_0)}
+\frac{1}{({\kappa}_0^2-{\kappa}_2^2)({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_0)}\right)c_{i+1}c_{i+2}v_{L_2}\\
&+\left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_2)^2({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_0)}
+\frac{1}{({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_0)^2({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_0)}+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_1} \mathcal{Y}_{i, L_2}}{{\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_2}\right)c_ic_{i+2}v_{L_2}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_2}}{({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_2)({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_0)}
+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_2}}{({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_2)({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_0)}\right)v_{L_1}\\
&+\left(\frac{-\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_2}}{({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_0)}
+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_2}}{({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_2)({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_2)}\right)c_ic_{i+1}v_{L_1}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_2}}{({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_0)}
-\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_2}}{({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_2)({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_2)}\right)
c_{i+1}c_{i+2}v_{L_1}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_2}}{({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_2)({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_4)}
+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_2}}{({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_2)({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_2)}\right)c_{i}c_{i+2}v_{L_1}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_2}}{({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_2)({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_2)}\right)v_{L_4}
+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_2}}{({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_2)({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_2)}\right) c_ic_{i+1}v_{L_4}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_2}}{({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_2)}\right)
c_{i+1}c_{i+2}v_{L_4}
+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_2}}{({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_2)}\right) c_ic_{i+2}v_{L_4}+\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_1}\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_4}}{{\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_2}\right)v_{L_5}
+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_1}\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_4}}{{\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_0}\right) c_{i+1}c_{i+2}v_{L_5}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_2}\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_1}}{{\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_0}\right)v_{L_3}
+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_2}\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_1}}{{\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_0}\right) c_ic_{i+1}v_{L_3}
+\left(\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_2} \mathcal{Y}_{i+1, L_1} \mathcal{Y}_{i, L_3}\right)v_{L_6}.\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
s_i s_{i+1} s_i v_{L_3} = s_{i+1} s_i s_{i+1}v_{L_3} =& \left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_0)^2({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_4)}
+\frac{1}{({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_0)^2({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_2)}+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_3} \mathcal{Y}_{i, L_6}}{{\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_0}\right)v_{L_3}\\
&+\left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_4^2-{\kappa}_0^2)({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_4)}
-\frac{1}{({\kappa}_4^2-{\kappa}_0^2)({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_2)}\right)c_ic_{i+1}v_{L_3}\\
&+\left(\frac{-1}{({\kappa}_4^2-{\kappa}_0^2)({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_2)}
+\frac{1}{({\kappa}_4^2-{\kappa}_0^2)({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_4)}\right)c_{i+1}c_{i+2}v_{L_3}\\
&+\left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_0)^2({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_2)}
+\frac{1}{({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_0)^2({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_4)}+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_3} \mathcal{Y}_{i, L_6}}{{\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_2}\right)c_i c_{i+2}v_{L_3}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_3}}{({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_4)}
+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_3}}{({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_4)}\right)v_{L_6}\\
&+\left(\frac{-\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_3}}{({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_2)}
+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_3}}{({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_4)}\right) c_i c_{i+1}v_{L_6}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_3}}{({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_4)}
-\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_3}}{({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_2)({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_4)}\right) c_{i+1} c_{i+2}v_{L_6}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_3}}{({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_4)}
+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_3}}{({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_2)({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_4)}\right)c_{i}c_{i+2}v_{L_6}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_3}}{({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_0)}\right)v_{L_1}
+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_3}}{({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_2)}\right) c_i c_{i+1}v_{L_1}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_3}}{({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_0)}\right)
c_{i+1}c_{i+2}v_{L_1}+
\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_3}}{({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_2)}\right) c_i c_{i+2}v_{L_1}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_3}\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_1}}{{\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_0}\right)v_{L_2}
+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_3}\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_1}}{{\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_0}\right) c_{i+1}c_{i+2}v_{L_2}\\
&\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_3}\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_6}}{{\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_4}\right)v_{L_5}
+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_3}\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_6}}{{\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_2}\right) c_ic_{i+1}v_{L_5}
+(\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_3}\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_6}\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_3})v_{L_4}.\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
s_i s_{i+1} s_i v_{L_4} = s_{i+1} s_i s_{i+1}v_{L_4} =& \left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_2)^2({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_4)}+\frac{1}{({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_2)^2({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_0)}
+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_4}\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_5}}{{\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_2}\right)v_{L_4}\\
&+\left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_4^2-{\kappa}_2^2)({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_4)}
-\frac{1}{({\kappa}_4^2-{\kappa}_2^2)({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_0)}\right)c_ic_{i+1}v_{L_4}\\
&+\left(\frac{-1}{({\kappa}_4^2-{\kappa}_2^2)({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_0)}
+\frac{1}{({\kappa}_4^2-{\kappa}_2^2)({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_4)}\right)c_{i+1}c_{i+2}v_{L_4}\\
&+\left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_2)^2({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_0)}
+\frac{1}{({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_2)^2({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_4)}
+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_4}\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_5}}{{\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_2}\right)
c_ic_{i+2}v_{L_4}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_4}}{({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_2)({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_4)}
+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_4}}{({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_2)({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_4)}\right)v_{L_5}\\
&+\left(\frac{-\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_4}}{({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_2)({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_0)}
+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_4}}{({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_2)({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_4)}\right)c_ic_{i+1}v_{L_5}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_4}}{({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_2)({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_4)}
-\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_4}}{({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_2)({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_4)}\right) c_{i+1} c_{i+2}v_{L_5}\\
&\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_4}}{({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_2)({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_4)}
+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_4}}{({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_2)({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_4)}\right) c_{i} c_{i+2}v_{L_5}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_4}}{({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_2)({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_2)}\right)v_{L_2}
+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_4}}{({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_2)({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_2)}\right) c_i c_{i+1}v_{L_2}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_4}}{({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_2)({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_2)}\right)
c_{i+1}c_{i+2}v_{L_2}
+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_4}}{({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_2)({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_2)}\right) c_i c_{i+2}v_{L_2}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_4}\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_2}}{{\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_2}\right)v_{L_1}
+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_4}\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_2}}{{\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_2}\right) c_{i+1} c_{i+2}v_{L_1}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_4}\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_5}}{{\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_4}\right)v_{L_6}
+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_4}\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_5}}{{\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_0}\right) c_i c_{i+1}v_{L_6}
+(\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_4} \mathcal{Y}_{i+1, L_5} \mathcal{Y}_{i, L_4})v_{L_3}.\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
s_i s_{i+1} s_i v_{L_5} = s_{i+1} s_i s_{i+1} v_{L_5} =& \left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_2)^2({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_2)}
+\frac{1}{({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_2)^2({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_0)}+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_5} \mathcal{Y}_{i, L_4}}{{\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_4}\right)v_{L_5} \\
&+\left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_2^2-{\kappa}_4^2)({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_2)}
-\frac{1}{({\kappa}_2^2-{\kappa}_4^2)({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_0)}\right)c_ic_{i+1}v_{L_5}\\
&+\left(\frac{-1}{({\kappa}_2^2-{\kappa}_4^2)({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_0)}
+\frac{1}{({\kappa}_2^2-{\kappa}_4^2)({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_2)}\right)c_{i+1}c_{i+2}v_{L_5}\\
&+\left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_2)^2({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_0)}
+\frac{1}{({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_2)^2({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_2)}+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_5} \mathcal{Y}_{i, L_4}}{{\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_4}\right)c_ic_{i+2}v_{L_5}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_5}}{({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_4)({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_2)}
+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_5}}{({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_4)({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_2)}\right)v_{L_4}\\
&+\left(\frac{-\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_5}}{({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_2)({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_0)}
+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_5}}{({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_4)({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_4)}\right)c_ic_{i+1}v_{L_4}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_5}}{({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_2)({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_2)}
-\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_5}}{({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_4)({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_4)}\right)
c_{i+1}c_{i+2}v_{L_4}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_5}}{({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_4)({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_2)}
+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_5}}{({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_4)({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_2)}\right) c_{i} c_{i+2}v_{L_4}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_5}}{({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_4)({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_4)}\right)v_{L_6}
+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_5}}{({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_2)({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_2)}\right)
c_ic_{i+1}v_{L_6}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_5}}{({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_2)({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_4)}\right)
c_{i+1}c_{i+2}v_{L_6}
+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_5}}{({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_2)({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_4)}\right) c_i c_{i+2}v_{L_6}\\
&+\left(\frac{(\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_5})(\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_6})}{{\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_4}\right)v_{L_3}
+\left(\frac{(\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_5})(\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_6})}{{\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_2}\right) c_{i+1} c_{i+2}v_{L_3}\\
&+\left(\frac{(\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_5})(\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_4})}{{\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_2}\right)v_{L_2}
+\left(\frac{(\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_5})(\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_4})}{{\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_0}\right) c_i c_{i+1}v_{L_6}
+\left(\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_5}\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_4}\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_2}\right)v_{L_1}.\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
s_i s_{i+1} s_i v_{L_6} = s_{i+1} s_i s_{i+1} v_{L_6} =& \left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_4)^2({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_0)}
+\frac{1}{({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_4)^2({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_0)}+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_6} \mathcal{Y}_{i, L_3}}{{\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_4}\right) v_{L_6} \\
&+\left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_0^2-{\kappa}_4^2)({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_0)}
-\frac{1}{({\kappa}_0^2-{\kappa}_4^2)({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_0)}\right)c_ic_{i+1}v_{L_6}\\
&+\left(\frac{-1}{({\kappa}_0^2-{\kappa}_4^2)({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_0)}
+\frac{1}{({\kappa}_0^2-{\kappa}_4^2)({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_0)}\right)c_{i+1}c_{i+2}v_{L_6}\\
&+\left(\frac{1}{({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_4)^2({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_0)}
+\frac{1}{({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_0)^2({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_0)}
+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_6}\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_3}}{{\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_4}\right)
c_ic_{i+2}v_{L_6}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_6}}{({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_4)({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_0)}
+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_6}}{({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_4)({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_0)}\right)v_{L_3}\\
&+\left(\frac{-\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_6}}{({\kappa}_4+{\kappa}_0)({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_0)}
+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_6}}{({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_4)({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_4)}\right)c_ic_{i+1}v_{L_3}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_6}}{({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_4)({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_0)}
-\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_6}}{({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_4)({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_4)}\right)
c_{i+1}c_{i+2}v_{L_3}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_6}}{({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_4)({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_2)}
+\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_6}}{({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_4)({\kappa}_4-{\kappa}_0)}\right) c_{i} c_{i+2}v_{L_3}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_6}}{({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_4)({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_4)}\right)v_{L_5}
+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_6}}{({\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_4)({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_4)}\right) c_i c_{i+1} v_{L_5}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_6}}{({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_4)({\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_4)}\right)
c_{i+1}c_{i+2}v_{L_5}
+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_6}}{({\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_4)({\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_4)}\right)
c_ic_{i+2}v_{L_5}\\
&+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_6}\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_5}}{{\kappa}_0-{\kappa}_4}\right)v_{L_4}
+\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_6}\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_5}}{{\kappa}_0+{\kappa}_4}\right) c_{i+1} c_{i+2}v_{L_4}\\
&\left(\frac{\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_6}\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_3}}{{\kappa}_2-{\kappa}_0}\right)v_{L_1}
+\left(\frac{(\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_6})(\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_3})}{{\kappa}_2+{\kappa}_0}\right) c_i c_{i+1}v_{L_1}
+\left(\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_6}\mathcal{Y}_{i+1,L_3}\mathcal{Y}_{i,L_6}\right)v_{L_2}.\end{aligned}$$ ]{}
(340,60)
(125,27)[$L=$]{} (162,39)[$i$]{}(178,39)[$i+1$]{}(178,14)[$i+2$]{}
(175,5)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (175,5)[(0,1)[50]{}]{}(200,5)[(0,1)[50]{}]{} (150,30)[(1,0)[50]{}]{} (150,30)[(0,1)[25]{}]{} (150,55)[(1,0)[50]{}]{}
Case 6: Let $ L $ be as in Figure \[F:Case 6\]. Then $$s_i s_{i+1} s_i v_L = s_{i+1} s_i s_{i+1} v_L
=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(-c_i c_{i+1} v_L + c_i c_{i+2} v_L).$$
Now define an $ {{\mathcal{A}}}(d)$-module $ H^{\lambda / \mu} $ to be $ \sum_{w\in S_n}
\phi_w{{\mathcal{L}}}(c(L)) $ where $ L $ is a fixed standard filling of the shifted skew shape $ \lambda/ \mu $ and $ \mathcal{L}(c(L))={{\mathcal{L}}}(c(L_1))\circledast\cdots\circledast{{\mathcal{L}}}(c(L_d)) $ is an irreducible $ {{\mathcal{A}}}(d)$ submodule of $ Cl(d) v_L $ introduced in section \[SS:characters\].
The $ \mathcal{A}(d)$-module $ H^{\lambda / \mu} $ is a $ {{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-module.
Let $ c v_L \in H^{\lambda / \mu}. $ Then $ (\phi_i - s_i(x_i^2-x_{i+1}^2)) c
v_L \in H^{\lambda / \mu}. $ Note that $ \phi_i c v_L = {}^{s_i}c \phi_i v_L =
k {}^{s_i}c v_{s_i L} $ where $ {}^{s_i}c=s_ics_i$ denotes the Clifford element twisted by $ s_i. $ This element is in $ H^{\lambda / \mu} $ because the twisting of the Clifford element $ c $ by $ s_i $ is compatible with the permutation of the zero eigenvalues of the $ x_j's $ by $ s_i. $ Thus $
s_i(x_i^2-x_{i+1}^2) c v_L = k' s_i c v_L \in H^{\lambda / \mu}. $ Since by construction $ (x_i^2-x_{i+1}^2) v_L \neq 0 $ by construction, $ s_i c v_L \in
H^{\lambda / \mu}. $
For each shifted skew shape $ \lambda/\mu, $ $ H^{\lambda/\mu} $ is an irreducible $ {{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-module. Every irreducible, calibrated $ {{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-module is isomorphic to exactly one such $ H^{\lambda/\mu}. $
First to show that $ H^{(\lambda, \mu)} $ is irreducible. Let $ L $ be a standard tableaux of shape $ \lambda / \mu. $ Let $ N $ be a non-zero submodule of $ H^{\lambda / \mu} $ and let $ v = \Sigma_Q C_Q v_Q \in N $ be non-zero where $ C_Q \in Cl(d). $ Let $ L $ be a standard tableaux such that $
\mathcal{Y}_L \neq 0. $ If $ P \neq L $ then there exists an $ i $ such that $
x_i v_P \neq x_i v_L. $ Suppose $ \mathcal{Y}_P \neq 0. $ Then $
\frac{x_i-{\kappa}_{i,P}}{{\kappa}_{i,L}-{\kappa}_{i,P}} v $ no longer has a $ v_P $ term but still has a $ v_L $ term. This element is also in $ N. $ Iterating this process it is clear that $ v_L \in N. $ The set of tableaux is identified with an interval of $ S_n $ under the Bruhat order. The minimal element is the column reading $ C. $ Thus there exists a chain $ C < s_{i_1} C < \cdots <
s_{i_p} \cdots s_{i_1} C = L. $ Therefore $ \tau_{i_1} \cdots \tau_{i_p} v_L =
\kappa v_C $ for some non-zero complex number $ \kappa. $ This implies $ v_C
\in N. $ Now let $ Q $ be an arbitrary standard tableaux of $ \lambda / \mu. $ There is a chain $ C < s_{j_1} C < \cdots < s_{j_p} \cdots s_{j_1} C = Q. $ Then $ \tau_{j_p} \cdots \tau_{j_1} v_C = \kappa' v_Q $ for some non-zero complex number $ \kappa'. $ Thus $ v_Q \in N $ so $ N = H^{\lambda/ \mu}. $
It is clear by looking at the eigenvalues that if $ \lambda / \mu \neq \lambda'
/ \mu', $ then $ H^{\lambda / \mu} \neq H^{\lambda' / \mu'}. $
Next to show that the weight of a calibrated module $ M $ is obtained by reading the contents of a shifted skew shape via a standard filling. That is, if $ (t_1, \ldots, t_d) $ be such a weight, then it is necessary to show that it is equal to $ (c(L_1), \ldots, c(L_d)) $ for some standard tableaux $ L. $ It will be shown that if $ t_i = t_j $ for some $ i<j, $ then there exists $
k,l $ such that $ i<k<l<j $ such that $ t_k = t_i \pm 1 $ and $ t_l = t_i \mp 1
$ unless $ t_i =t_j= 0 $ in which case there is a $ k $ with $ i < k < j $ such that $ t_k =1. $
Let $ j>i $ be such that $ t_j=t_i $ and $ j-i $ is minimal, let $m_t\in M$ be anonzero vector of weight $t=(t_1,\ldots,t_d)$, and let $\varrho_i=\sqrt{q(t_i)}$. The proof will be by induction on $ j-i. $
**Case 1:** Suppose $ j-i=1. $
First the case that $ t_i = 0. $ If $ t_i =0, $ then $ t_{i+1}=0 $ by assumption and then $ x_i s_i m_t = -m_t -c_i c_{i+1} m_t. $ It is clear that $ -m_t - c_i c_{i+1} m_t \neq 0. $ Otherwise, $ m_t = -c_i c_{i+1} m_t $ which implies after multiplying both sides by $ c_i c_{i+1} $ that $ m_t = -m_t $ giving $ m_t =0. $ Thus $ x_i^2 s_i m_t = 0 $ but $ x_i s_i m_t \neq 0. $ Similarly, $ x_{i+1}^2 s_i m_t = 0, $ but $ x_{i+1} s_i m_t \neq 0. $ Clearly $
(x_j - \varrho_j) s_i m_t = 0 $ for $ j \neq i, i+1. $ Thus if $ t_i = 0, $ then $ s_i m_t \in M^{\text{gen}}_t, $ but not in $ M_t $contradicting the assumption that $ M $ is calibrated.
Now assume $ t_i \neq 0. $ Then, $ s_i m_t - \frac{1}{2t_i} c_i c_{i+1} m_t
\in M^{\text{gen}}_t $ but not in $ M_t. $ To see this, calculate: $$x_i(s_i m_t - \frac{1}{2\varrho_i}c_i c_{i+1} m_t) = t_i s_i m_t - \frac{1}{2} c_i c_{i+1} m_t - m_t.$$ This implies $ (x_i - \varrho_i)(s_i m_t - \frac{1}{2\varrho_i} c_i c_{i+1}
m_t) = -m_t \neq 0 $ and $ (x_i - \varrho_i)^2(s_i m_t - \frac{1}{2\varrho_i}
c_i c_{i+1} m_t) = 0. $ Similarly, $ (x_{i+1} - \varrho_{i+1})(s_i m_t -
\frac{1}{2\varrho_i} c_i c_{i+1} m_t) = m_t \neq 0 $ and $ (x_{i+1} -
\varrho_{i+1})^2(s_i m_t - \frac{1}{2\varrho_i} c_i c_{i+1} m_t) = 0. $ If $ j
\neq i, i+1, $ then $ (x_j -\varrho_j)(s_i m_t - \frac{1}{2\varrho_i} c_i
c_{i+1} m_t) = 0. $ Thus $ s_i m_t - \frac{1}{2\varrho_i} c_i c_{i+1} m_t \in
M^{\text{gen}}_t $ but not in $ M_t $ verifying case 1.
**Case 2:** Suppose $ j-i =2. $
Since $ m_t $ is a weight vector, the vector $$m_{s_i t}=\phi_i m_t =(\varrho_i - \varrho_{i+1}) s_i m_t
-(\varrho_i-\varrho_{i+1})c_i c_{i+1} m_t + (\varrho_i + \varrho_{i+1}) m_t$$ is a weight vector of weight $ t' = s_i t. $ Then $ t_{i+1}' = t_{i+2}'. $ By case 1, this is impossible so $ m_{s_i t}=0. $ Note that $ \varrho_i +
\varrho_{i+1} \neq 0. $ If it did, then $ m_{s_i t} = 0 $ which would imply $
c_i c_{i+1} m_t = 0 $ which would imply $ m_t = 0. $ Thus, $ s_i m_t =
\frac{m_t}{\varrho_{i+1}-\varrho_i} + \frac{c_i c_{i+1}
m_t}{\varrho_{i+1}+\varrho_i}. $ Since $ s_i^2 m_t = m_t, $ it follows that $
m_t = (\frac{2(\varrho_i+\varrho_{i+1})}{(\varrho_i-\varrho_{i+1})^2}) m_t. $ This implies $ 2(\varrho_i + \varrho_{i+1}) = (\varrho_i-\varrho_{i+1})^2. $ The solutions of this equation are $$\varrho_{i+1} \in \lbrace \pm \sqrt{(t_i+1)(t_i+2)},\pm \sqrt{(t_i-1)(t_i)} \rbrace.$$ Since it is assumed that the positive square root is taken, there are only two subcases to investigate. For the first subcase, assume $
\varrho_{i+1}=\sqrt{q(t_i+1)}. $ A routine calculation gives $$s_i s_{i+1} s_i m_t = \frac{-s_i m_t}{(\varrho_i-\varrho_{i+1})^2}
+ \frac{c_i c_{i+2} s_i m_t}{\varrho_{i+1}-\varrho_i} + \frac{c_{i+1}c_{i+2}
s_i m_t}{\varrho_i-\varrho_{i+1}} - \frac{c_i c_{i+1} s_i
m_t}{(\varrho_i+\varrho_{i+1})^2}.$$ From this it follows that the coefficient of $ m_t $ is $
\frac{1}{(\varrho_i-\varrho_{i+1})^3}+\frac{1}{(\varrho_i+\varrho_{i+1})^3}. $ Similarly, from $$s_{i+1} s_{i} s_{i+1} m_t = \frac{-s_{i+1} m_t}{(\varrho_i-\varrho_{i+1})^2}
+ \frac{c_i c_{i+2} s_{i+1} m_t}{\varrho_i-\varrho_{i+1}}
+ \frac{c_{i}c_{i+1} s_{i+1} m_t}{\varrho_{i+1}-\varrho_i}
- \frac{c_{i+1} c_{i+2} s_{i+1} m_t}{(\varrho_i+\varrho_{i+1})^2}$$ it follows that the coefficient of $ m_t $ is $
\frac{-1}{(\varrho_i-\varrho_{i+1})^3}+\frac{-1}{(\varrho_i+\varrho_{i+1})^3}.
$ Therefore $ (\varrho_i-\varrho_{i+1})^3 + (\varrho_i+\varrho_{i+1})^3 =0. $ Recalling that $ \varrho_{i+1}=\sqrt{q(t_i+1)} $ in this subcase, it is clear that $ t_i = t_{i+2}=0 $ and $ t_{i+1} = 1. $ The other subcase is similar.
Now for the induction step. Assume $j-i>2$. If $ t_{j-1} \neq t_j \pm 1, $ then the vector $ \phi_{j-1} m_t $ is a non-zero weight vector of weight $ t' =
s_{j-1} t $ by [@kl Lemma 14.8.1]. Since $ t_i' = t_i = t_j = t_{j-1}', $ the induction hypothesis may be applied to conclude that there exists $ k $ and $ l $ with $ i < k < l < j-1 $ such that $ t_k' = t_j \pm 1 $ and $ t_l' = t_j
\mp 1. $ (In the case $ t_i = t_j = 0, $ then there exists $ t_k' =1. $) This implies $ t_k = t_j \pm 1 $ and $ t_l = t_j \mp 1. $ (In the case $ t_i = t_j
=0, $ there exists $ t_k = 1. $) Similarly, if $ t_{i+1} \neq t_i \pm 1, $ consider $ \phi_i m_t $ and proceed by induction. Otherwise, $ t_{i+1} = t_i
\pm 1 $ and $ t_{j-1} = t_i \pm 1. $ Since $ i $ and $ j $ are chosen such that $ t_i = t_j $ and $ j-i $ is minimal, $ t_{i+1} \neq t_{j-1}. $ This then gives the conclusion. (If $ t_i = t_j = 0, $ then $ t_{i+1} = 1 $ or $ t_{j-1}
= 1. $
Suppose $ M $ is an irreducible, calibrated $ {{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-module such that $ m_t $ is a weight vector with weight $ t = (t_1,\ldots,t_d) $ such that $ t_{i+1} =
t_i \pm 1. $ Then $ \phi_i m_t = 0. $ This follows exactly as in step 5 of [@ram Theorem 4.1].
Finally, let $ m_t $ be a non-zero weight vector of an irreducible, calibrated module $ M. $ By the above, $ t = (c(L_1), \ldots, c(L_d)) $ for $ L $ some standard tableaux of shifted skew shape $ \lambda / \mu. $ The rest of the proof follows as in step 6 of [@ram Theorem 4.1]. Choose a word $ w =
s_{i_p} \cdots s_{i_1} $ such that $ w $ applied to the column reading tableaux of $ \lambda / \mu $ gives the tableaux $ L. $ Then $ m_C = \phi_{i_1} \cdots
\phi_{i_p} m_t $ is non-zero. Now to any other standard tableaux $ Q $ of $
\lambda / \mu $ there is a non-zero weight vector obtained by applying a sequence of intertwiners to $ m_C. $ By the above, $ \phi_i m_Q = 0 $ if $ s_i
Q $ is not standard. Thus the span of vectors $ \lbrace m_Q \rbrace $ over all the standard tableaux of shape $ \lambda /\mu $ is a submodule of $ M. $ Since $ M $ is irreducible, this span must be the entire module. Thus there is an isomorphism $ M \cong H^{\lambda / \mu} $ defined by sending $ \phi_w m_C $ to $ \phi_w v_C. $
\[C:CalibratedSimples\] Let ${\lambda}/\mu$ be a shifted skew shape. Then, ${{\mathcal{L}}}({\lambda},\mu)\cong H^{{\lambda}/\mu}$.
Let $T$ be the standard tableaux obtained by filling in the numbers $1,\ldots,d$ along rows from top to bottom and left to right. Note that if $s_i\in S_{{\lambda}-\mu}$, then $v_{s_iT}=0$ because $s_iT$ is not standard. By Frobenius reciprocity, it follows that there exists a surjective ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-homomorphism $f:{{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu)\rightarrow H^{{\lambda}/\mu}$ given by $f({{\mathbf{1}}}_{{\lambda}-\mu})=v_T$.
Furthermore, by construction we have the following result. Note that this agrees with Leclerc’s conjectural formula for the calibrated simple modules of ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ [@lec Proposition 51].
\[C:characters\] Let $\lambda/\mu$ be a shifted skew shape. Then, $${\operatorname{ch}}{{\mathcal{L}}}(\lambda, \mu)= \sum_{L} \left[c(L_1),\ldots,c(L_d) \right],$$ where the sum is over all standard fillings of the shape $\lambda / \mu$.
The Lie Superalgebras ${{\mathfrak{gl}}}(n|n)$ and ${{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$ {#S:Lie algebras}
========================================================================
The Algebras {#SS:qndfn}
------------
Let $I=\{-n,\ldots,-1,1,\ldots,n\}$, and $I^+=\{1,\ldots,n\}$. Let $V={{\mathbb{C}}}^{n|n}$ be the $2n$-dimensional vector superspace with standard basis $\{v_i\}_{i\in I}$. The standard basis for the superalgebra ${\operatorname{End}}(V)$ is the set of matrix units $\{E_{ij}\}_{i,j\in I}$, and the ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$-grading for ${\operatorname{End}}(V)$ and $V$ are given by $$p(v_k)={{\bar{0}}},\;\;\;p(v_{-k})={{\bar{1}}},{\,\,\,\,\,\, {\mbox{and}} \,\,\,\,\,\,}p(E_{ij})=p(v_i)+p(v_j)$$ for $k\in I^+$ and $i,j\in I$.
Let $C=\sum_{i,j\in I^+}(E_{-i,j}-E_{i,-j})$, and let $Q(V)\subset{\operatorname{End}}(V)$ be the supercentralizer of $C$. Then, $Q(V)$ has basis given by elements $$e_{ij}=E_{ij}+E_{-i,-j},{\,\,\,\,\,\, {\mbox{and}} \,\,\,\,\,\,}f_{ij}=E_{-i,j}+E_{i,-j}\;\;\;i,j\in I^+.$$ When $Q(V)$ and ${\operatorname{End}}(V)$ are viewed as Lie superalgebras relative to the superbracket: $$[x,y]=xy-(-1)^{p(x)p(y)}yx,$$ for homogeneous $x,y\in{\operatorname{End}}(V)$, we denote them ${{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$ and ${{\mathfrak{gl}}}(n|n)$ respectively.
We end this section by introducing important elements of ${{\mathfrak{gl}}}(n|n)$ that will be needed later. Set $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bar-e/f}
{{\bar{e}}}_{ij}=E_{ij}-E_{-i,-j},{\,\,\,\,\,\, {\mbox{and}} \,\,\,\,\,\,}{{\bar{f}}}_{ij}=E_{-i,j}-E_{i,-j},\;\;\;i,j\in I^+.\end{aligned}$$
Root Data, Category $\mathcal{O}$, and Verma Modules {#SS:RootData}
----------------------------------------------------
Fix the triangular decomposition $${{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)={{\mathfrak{n}}}^-\oplus{{\mathfrak{h}}}\oplus{{\mathfrak{n}}}^+,$$ where ${{\mathfrak{n}}}^+_{\bar{0}}$ (resp. ${{\mathfrak{n}}}^-_{\bar{0}}$) is the subalgebra spanned by the $e_{ij}$ for $1\leq i<j\leq n$ (resp. $i>j$), ${{\mathfrak{h}}}_{{\bar{0}}}$ is spanned by the $e_{ii}$, $1\leq i\leq n$, ${{\mathfrak{n}}}^+_{{\bar{1}}}$ (resp. ${{\mathfrak{n}}}^-_{{\bar{1}}}$) is the subalgebra spanned by the $f_{ij}$ for $1\leq i<j\leq n$ (resp. $i>j$) and ${{\mathfrak{h}}}_{{\bar{1}}}$ is spanned by the $f_{ii}$, $1\leq i\leq n$. Let ${{\mathfrak{b}}}^+={{\mathfrak{h}}}\oplus{{\mathfrak{n}}}^+$ and let ${{\mathfrak{b}}}^-={{\mathfrak{h}}}\oplus{{\mathfrak{n}}}^-$.
The isomorphism ${{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)_{{\bar{0}}}\rightarrow{{\mathfrak{gl}}}(n)$, $e_{ij}\mapsto E_{ij}$, identifies ${{\mathfrak{h}}}_{{\bar{0}}}$ with the standard torus for ${{\mathfrak{gl}}}(n)$. Let ${\varepsilon}_i\in{{\mathfrak{h}}}_{{\bar{0}}}^*$ denote the $i$th coordinate function. For $i\neq j$, define ${\alpha}_{ij}={\varepsilon}_i-{\varepsilon}_j$, and fix the choice of simple roots ${\Delta}=\{{\alpha}_i={\alpha}_{i,i+1}|1\leq i<n\}$. The corresponding root system is $R=\{{\alpha}_{ij}|1\leq i\neq j\leq n\}$, and the positive roots are $R^+=\{{\alpha}_{ij}|1\leq i<j\leq n\}$. The root lattice is $Q=\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}{{\mathbb{Z}}}{\alpha}_i$ and weight lattice $P=\sum_{i=1}^n{{\mathbb{Z}}}{\varepsilon}_i$. We can, and will, identify $P={{\mathbb{Z}}}^n$, and $Q=\{{\lambda}\in P|{\lambda}_1+\cdots+{\lambda}_n=0\}$. Define the sets of weights $P^+$, ${{P^{++}}}$, ${{P^+_{\mathrm{rat}}}}$, ${{P_{\mathrm{poly}}^+}}$ and ${{P_{\geq0}}}$ as in $\S$\[SS:LieThy\]. We call these sets dominant, dominant-typical, rational, polynomial, and positive, respectively. Finally, let ${{P^{++}_{\mathrm{rat}}}}= {{P^+_{\mathrm{rat}}}}\cap {{P^{++}}}$, and ${{P^{++}_{\mathrm{poly}}}}={{P_{\mathrm{poly}}^+}}\cap {{P^{++}}}$.
To begin, let $\mathcal{O}:=\mathcal{O}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))$ denote the category of all finitely generated ${{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$-supermodules $M$ that are locally finite dimensional over ${{\mathfrak{b}}}$ and satisfy $$M=\bigoplus_{{\lambda}\in P}M_{\lambda}$$ where $M_{\lambda}=\{\,v\in M \mid h.v={\lambda}(h)v\mbox{ for all }h\in{{\mathfrak{h}}}_{{\bar{0}}}\,\}$ is the ${\lambda}$-weight space of $M$.
We now define two classes of *Verma modules*. To this end, given ${\lambda}\in P$, let ${{\mathbb{C}}}_{\lambda}$ be the 1-dimensional ${{\mathfrak{h}}}_{{\bar{0}}}$-module associated to the weight ${\lambda}$. Let ${\theta}_{\lambda}:{{\mathfrak{h}}}_{{\bar{1}}}\rightarrow{{\mathbb{C}}}$ be given by ${\theta}_{\lambda}(k)={\lambda}([k,k])$ for all $k\in{{\mathfrak{h}}}_{{\bar{1}}}$. Let ${{\mathfrak{h}}}_{{\bar{1}}}'=\ker{\theta}$. Let $\overline{{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{h}}})}={{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{h}}})/\mathfrak{i}$, where $\mathfrak{i}$ is the left ideal of $U({{\mathfrak{h}}})$ generated by $\{\,h-{\lambda}(h) \mid h\in{{\mathfrak{h}}}_{{\bar{0}}}\,\}\cup{{\mathfrak{h}}}_{{\bar{1}}}'$. Recall, ${\gamma}_0({\lambda})=|\{\,i \mid {\lambda}_i=0\,\}|$. Since $\overline{{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{h}}})} $ is isomorphic to a Clifford algebra of rank $
n-{\gamma}_0({\lambda}), $ we can define the $\overline{{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{h}}})}$-modules $ C({\lambda}) $ and $
E({\lambda}) $ where $ C({\lambda}) $ is the regular representation of the resulting Clifford algebra and $ E({\lambda}) $ is its unique irreducible quotient. Both $ C({\lambda}) $ and $ E({\lambda}) $ become modules for ${{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{h}}})$ via inflation through the canonical projection ${{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{h}}})\to \overline{{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{h}}})}$. Note that as a $ {{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{h}}})$-module, $ C({\lambda}) \cong
{\operatorname{Ind}}_{{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{h}}}_{{\bar{0}}}+{{\mathfrak{h}}}_{{\bar{1}}}')}^{{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{h}}})}{{\mathbb{C}}}_{\lambda}. $ Extend $C({\lambda})$ and $E({\lambda})$ to representations of ${{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{b}}}^+)$ by inflation, and define the *Big Verma* $\widehat{M}({\lambda})$ and *Little Verma* $M({\lambda})$ by $$\widehat{M}({\lambda})={\operatorname{Ind}}_{{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{b}}}^+)}^{{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))}C({\lambda}){\,\,\,\,\,\, {\mbox{and}} \,\,\,\,\,\,}M({\lambda})={\operatorname{Ind}}_{{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{b}}}^+)}^{{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))}E({\lambda}).$$ The following lemma is obtained from the standard decomposition of the Clifford algebra into irreducible modules:
\[L:little verma in big verma\] We have $\widehat{M}({\lambda}) \cong M({\lambda})^{\oplus 2^{\lfloor
\frac{n-{\gamma}_0({\lambda})}{2} \rfloor}}. $
It is known that $M({\lambda})$ has a unique irreducible quotient $L({\lambda})$ (see, for example, [@g]). Moreover, it is known $L({\lambda})$ is finite dimensional if, and only if, ${\lambda}\in{{P^+_{\mathrm{rat}}}}$ (see [@p]).
The following lemma seems standard, but we cannot find it stated in the literature. See [@g Corollary 7.1, 11.6] for related statements. If $M$ is a ${{\mathcal{U}}}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{q}}})$-module, then recall that a vector $m \in M$ is called *primitive* if ${{\mathfrak{n}}}^{+}v=0$.
\[L:InjHom\] Let ${\lambda}\in P$, and assume that for some ${\alpha}\in R^+$, there exists $r>0$ such that $s_{\alpha}{\lambda}={\lambda}-r{\alpha}$. Then, there exists an injective homomorphism $$M(s_{\alpha}{\lambda})\rightarrow M({\lambda}).$$
Let ${\alpha}={\alpha}_{ij}$, and let $v_{\lambda}\in M({\lambda})_{\lambda}$ be an odd primitive vector. Then, direct calculation verifies that $$v_{{\lambda}-r{\alpha}}:=(e_{ji}^{r-1}(rf_{ji}-e_{ji}(f_{ii}-f_{jj})).v_{\lambda}$$ is a primitive vector of weight ${\lambda}-r{\alpha}$ (see, for example [@g Corollary 7.1]). This implies that there is an injective ${{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{b}}}^+)$-homomorphism $$E(s_{\alpha}{\lambda})\to{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{h}}}).v_{{\lambda}-r{\alpha}}.$$ Indeed, clearly every vector in ${{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{h}}}).v_{{\lambda}-r{\alpha}}$ has weight ${\lambda}-r{\alpha}$. Moreover, if $N\in{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{n}}}^+)$ and $H\in{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{h}}})$, then $[N,H]\in{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{n}}}^+)$, so $$N.(H.v_{{\lambda}-r{\alpha}})=(HN+[N,H]).v_{{\lambda}-r{\alpha}}=0.$$ The result follows because, by our choice of primitive vector, a standard argument using the filtration of ${{\mathcal{U}}}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{q}}}(n) )$ by total degree and a calculation in $U({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{q}}}(2)$ shows that ${{\mathcal{U}}}(b^-).v_{{\lambda}-r{\alpha}}$ is a free ${{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{n}}}^-)$-module.
The Shapovalov Form {#SS:ShapovalovForm}
-------------------
The Shapovalov map for ${{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$ was constructed in [@g]. We review this construction briefly.
Let $\mathcal{D}$ be the category of $Q^-=-Q^+$-graded ${{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$-modules with degree 0 with respect to this grading. We regard the big and little Verma’s as objects in this category by declaring $\deg
M({\lambda})_{{\lambda}-\nu}=-\nu$ for all $\nu\in Q^+$. Let $\mathcal{C}$ be the category of left ${{\mathfrak{h}}}$-modules.
Let $\Psi_0:\mathcal{D}\rightarrow\mathcal{C}$ be the functor $\Psi_0(N)=N_0$ (i.e. the degree 0 component). The functor $\Psi_0$ has a left adjoint ${\operatorname{Ind}}:\mathcal{C}\rightarrow\mathcal{D}$ given by ${\operatorname{Ind}}A={\operatorname{Ind}}_{{{\mathfrak{b}}}^+}^{{{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)}
A$, where we regard the ${{\mathfrak{h}}}$-module $A$ as a ${{\mathfrak{b}}}^+$-module by inflation. The functor $\Psi_0$ also has an exact right adjoint ${\operatorname{Coind}}$ (see [@g Proposition 4.3]).
As in [@g], let $\Theta(A):{\operatorname{Ind}}A\rightarrow{\operatorname{Coind}}A$ be the morphism corresponding to the identity map $\mathrm{id}_A:A\rightarrow A$. This induces a morphism of functors $\Theta:{\operatorname{Ind}}\rightarrow{\operatorname{Coind}}$. The main property we will use is
[@g Proposition 4.4] We have $\ker\Theta(A)$ is the maximal graded submodule of ${\operatorname{Ind}}A$ which avoids $A$.
Define the Shapovalov map $S:=\Theta({{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{h}}})):{\operatorname{Ind}}({{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{h}}})) \rightarrow
{\operatorname{Coind}}({{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{h}}}))$. Given an object $A$ in $\mathcal{C}$, proposition 4.3 of [@g] shows there is a canonical isomorphism ${\operatorname{Ind}}A\cong
{\operatorname{Ind}}{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{h}}})\otimes_{{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{h}}})}A$ and ${\operatorname{Coind}}A\cong{\operatorname{Coind}}{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{h}}})\otimes_{{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{h}}})}A$. In this way, we may identify $\Theta(A)$ with $\Theta({{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{h}}}))\otimes_{{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{h}}})}\mathrm{id}_A$. It follows that the map $\Theta(A)$ is completely determined by the Shapovalov map.
In order to describe $S$ in more detail, we introduce some auxiliary data. Let $\varsigma:{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))\rightarrow{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))$ be the antiautomorphism defined by $\varsigma(x)=-x$ for all $x\in{{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$ and extended to ${{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))$ by the rule $\varsigma(xy)=(-1)^{p(x)p(y)}\varsigma(y)\varsigma(x)$ for $x,y\in{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))$. Also, define the Harish-Chandra projection $HC:{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))\rightarrow{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{h}}})$ along the decomposition $${{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))={{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{h}}})\oplus({{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)){{\mathfrak{n}}}^++{{\mathfrak{n}}}^-{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))).$$
Now, we may naturally identify ${\operatorname{Ind}}{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{h}}})\cong{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{b}}}^-)$ as $ ({{\mathfrak{b}}}^-,{{\mathfrak{h}}}) $-bimodules. The $Q^-$-grading on ${{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{b}}}^-)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:Q grading of bminus}
{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{b}}}^-)_{-\nu}=\{\,x\in{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{b}}}^-) \mid [h,x]=-\nu(h)x\mbox{ for all
}h\in{{\mathfrak{h}}}_{{\bar{0}}}\,\}\end{aligned}$$ for all $\nu\in Q^+$.
To describe ${\operatorname{Coind}}{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{h}}})$, let $\mathcal{D}_+$ be the category of $Q^+$ graded submodules and ${\operatorname{Ind}}_+$ be the left adjoint to the functor $\Psi_0^+:\mathcal{C}\rightarrow\mathcal{D}_+$. We may naturally identify ${\operatorname{Ind}}_+{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{h}}})\cong{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{b}}}^+)$ as $ ({{\mathfrak{b}}}^+,{{\mathfrak{h}}}) $-bimodules and ${{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{b}}}^+)$ has a $Q^+$-grading analogous to . Now, let ${{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{h}}})^\varsigma$ be the $({{\mathfrak{h}}}, {{\mathfrak{h}}})$-bimodule obtained by twisting the action of ${{\mathfrak{h}}}$ with $\varsigma$. That is, $h.x=(-1)^{p(h)p(x)} \varsigma(h)x$ and $ x.h = (-1)^{p(h)p(x)} x \varsigma(h)$ for all $x\in{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{h}}})^\varsigma$ and $h\in{{\mathfrak{h}}}$. Then, there is a natural identification of ${\operatorname{Coind}}{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{h}}})$ with the graded dual of ${{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{b}}}^+)$ as $ ({{\mathcal{U}}}{{\mathfrak{g}}}, {{\mathcal{U}}}{{\mathfrak{h}}}) $ -bimodules: $${\operatorname{Coind}}{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{h}}})\cong{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{b}}}^+)^{\#} :=\bigoplus_{\nu\in
Q^+}{\operatorname{Hom}}_{\mathcal{C}}({{\mathcal{U}}}(b^+)_\nu,{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{h}}})^\varsigma),$$ see [@g Proposition 4.3(iii)]. Observe that ${{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{b}}}^+)^{\#}$ has a $Q^-$ grading given by ${{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{b}}}^+)^{\#}_{-\nu}={\operatorname{Hom}}_{\mathcal{C}}({{\mathcal{U}}}(b^+)_\nu,{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{h}}})^\varsigma)$.
Using these identifications, we realize the Shapovalov map via the formula: $$S(x)(y)=(-1)^{p(x)p(y)}HC(\varsigma(y)x),$$ for $x\in{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))$ and $y\in{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))$, [@g $\S$4.2.4, Claim 3].
The Shapovalov map is homogeneous of degree 0. Therefore, $S=\sum_{\nu\in
Q^+}S_\nu$, where $S_\nu:{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{b}}}^-)_{-\nu}\rightarrow{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{b}}}^+)^{\#}_{-\nu}$ is given by restriction.
For our purposes, it is more convenient to introduce a bilinear form $$(\cdot,\cdot)_S:{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))\otimes{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))\rightarrow{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{h}}})$$ with the property that ${\operatorname{Rad}}(\cdot,\cdot)_S=\ker S$. To do this we introduce the (non-super) *transpose* antiautomorphism $\tau:{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))\rightarrow{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))$ given by $\tau(x)=x^t$ if $x\in{{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$ and extend to ${{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))$ by $\tau(xy)=\tau(y)\tau(x)$. Note that this is the “naive” antiautomorphism introduced in [@g]. Define $(\cdot,\cdot)_S$ by $$(u,v)_S=(-1)^{p(u)p(v)}S(v)(\varsigma\tau(u))=HC(\tau(u)v)$$ for all $u,v\in{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))$.
The radical of the form may be identified as: ${\operatorname{Rad}}(\cdot,\cdot)_S=\ker S$.
Assume $u\in\ker S$ and $v\in{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{b}}}^-)$. Then, $\tau(v)\in{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{b}}}^+)$ and $$(\tau\varsigma(v),u)_S
=(-1)^{p(u)p(v)}S(u)(\varsigma\tau\tau\varsigma(v))=(-1)^{p(u)p(v)}S(u)(v)=0,$$ showing that $u\in{\operatorname{Rad}}(\cdot,\cdot)_S$.
Conversely, assume $u\in{\operatorname{Rad}}(\cdot,\cdot)_S$ and $v\in{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{b}}}^+)$. Then, $\tau\varsigma(v)\in{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{b}}}^-)$ and $$0=(\tau\varsigma(v),u)_S
=(-1)^{p(u)p(v)}S(u)(\varsigma\tau\tau\varsigma(v))=(-1)^{p(u)p(v)}S(u)(v).$$ Hence, $u\in{\operatorname{Ker}}S$.
We have already defined $\tau$ to be an antiautomorphism of the AHCA. We will show the compatibility of the two anti-automorphisms in Proposition \[P:when tau’s collide\].
A Lie-Theoretic construction of ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ {#S:LieTheoreticConstr}
=========================================================================================
Let $X$ be a ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$-supermodule. In this section we construct a homomorphism of superalgebras $${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)\rightarrow{\operatorname{End}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)}(X\otimes V^{\otimes d})$$ along the lines of Arakawa and Suzuki, [@as]. The main difficulty is the lack of an even invariant bilinear form, and consequently, a lack of a suitable Casimir element in $q(n)^{\otimes2}$. However, we find inspiration for a suitable substitute in Olshanski’s work in the quantum setting [@o].
Lie Bialgebra structures on ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$
------------------------------------------------------------
We begin by reviewing the construction of a Manin triple for ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$ from [@o] (see also [@d1]). A Manin triple $({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{p}}}_1,{{\mathfrak{p}}}_2)$ consists of a Lie superalgebra ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$, a nondegenerate even invariant bilinear symmetric form $B$ and two subalgebras ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_1$ and ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_2$ which are $B$-isotropic transversal subspaces of ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$. Then, $B$ defines a nondegenerate pairing between ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_1$ and ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_2$.
Define a cobracket ${\Delta}:{{\mathfrak{p}}}_1\rightarrow {{\mathfrak{p}}}_1^{\otimes2}$ by dualizing the bracket ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_2^{\otimes 2}\rightarrow{{\mathfrak{p}}}_2$: $$B^{\otimes2}({\Delta}(X),Y_1\otimes Y_2)=B(X,[Y_1,Y_2]),\;\;\;(X\in{{\mathfrak{p}}}_1).$$ Then, the pair $({{\mathfrak{p}}}_1,{\Delta})$ is called a Lie (super)bialgebra.
Choose a basis $\{X_{\alpha}\}$ for ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_1$ and a basis $\{Y_{\alpha}\}$ for ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_2$ such that $B(X_{\alpha},Y_{\beta})={\delta}_{{\alpha}{\beta}}$, and set $s=\sum_{\alpha}X_{\alpha}\otimes Y_{\alpha}$. Then, it turns out that $s$ satisfies the classical Yang-Baxter equation $$[s^{12},s^{13}]+[s^{12},s^{23}]+[s^{13},s^{23}]=0$$ and ${\Delta}(X)=[1\otimes X+X\otimes 1,s]$, for $X\in{{\mathfrak{p}}}_1$.
The Super Casimir
-----------------
Note that when ${{\mathfrak{p}}}={{\mathfrak{g}}}$ is a simple Lie algebra, ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_1=\mathfrak{b}_+$, ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_2=\mathfrak{b}_-$ are the positive and negative Borel subalgebras and $B$ is the trace form, $s$ becomes the classical $r$-matrix, which we will denote $r^{12}$. We can repeat this construction with the roles of ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_1$ and ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_2$ reversed and obtain another classical $r$-matrix which we denote $r^{21}$. Then, the Casimir is simply ${\Omega}=r^{12}+r^{21}$, see [@as] $\S1.2$.
In [@o], Olshanski constructs such an element $s$ for ${{\mathfrak{p}}}={{\mathfrak{gl}}}(n|n)$, ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_1={\ensuremath{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$ and some fixed choice of ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_2$ analogous to a positive Borel. We will review this construction to obtain an element which we will call $s_+$, then replace ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_2$ with an analogue of a negative Borel to obtain another element called $s_-$. Then, we show that the element ${\Omega}=s_++s_-$ performs the role of the Casimir in our setting.
Let ${{\mathfrak{p}}}={{\mathfrak{gl}}}(n|n)$, $B(x,y)={\mathrm{str}}(xy)$ (where ${\mathrm{str}}(E_{ij})={\delta}_{ij}\mathrm{sgn}(i)$ for $i,j\in I$), and ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_1={{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$.
1. Let $${{\mathfrak{p}}}_2^+=\sum_{i\in I^+}{{\mathbb{C}}}(E_{ii}-E_{-i,-i})+\sum_{\substack{i,j\in
I,\\
i<j}}{{\mathbb{C}}}E_{ij}.$$ Then the corresponding element $s_+$ is given by $$s_+=\frac12\sum_{i\in
I^+}e_{ii}\otimes{{\bar{e}}}_{ii}+\sum_{\substack{i,j\in
I^+\\i>j}}e_{ij}\otimes E_{ji}-\sum_{\substack{i,j\in
I^+\\i<j}}e_{ij}\otimes E_{-j,-i}-\sum_{i,j\in I^+}f_{ij}\otimes
E_{-j,i}.$$
2. Let $${{\mathfrak{p}}}_2^-=\sum_{i\in I^+}{{\mathbb{C}}}(E_{ii}-E_{-i,-i})+\sum_{\substack{i,j\in
I,\\
i>j}}{{\mathbb{C}}}E_{ij}.$$ Then, the corresponding element $s_-$ is given by $$s_-=\frac12\sum_{i\in
I^+}e_{ii}\otimes{{\bar{e}}}_{ii}-\sum_{\substack{i,j\in
I^+\\i>j}}e_{ij}\otimes E_{-j,-i}+\sum_{\substack{i,j\in
I^+\\i<j}}e_{ij}\otimes E_{j,i}+\sum_{i,j\in I^+}f_{ij}\otimes
E_{j,-i}.$$
We now define our substitute Casimir: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{casimir}
{\Omega}=s_++s_-=\sum_{i,j\in I^+}e_{ij}\otimes{{\bar{e}}}_{ji}-\sum_{i,j\in
I^+}f_{ij}\otimes{{\bar{f}}}_{ji}\in Q(V)\otimes{\operatorname{End}}(V),\end{aligned}$$ where ${{\bar{e}}}_{ij}$ and ${{\bar{f}}}_{ij}$ are given in .
Classical Sergeev Duality {#SS:Sergeev Duality}
-------------------------
We now need to recall Sergeev’s duality between ${{\mathcal{S}}}(d)$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$. Recall the matrix $C=\sum_{i\in I^+}{{\bar{f}}}_{ii}$ from the previous section, and define the superpermutation operator $$S=\sum_{i,j\in I}\mathrm{sgn}(j)E_{ij}\otimes
E_{ji}\in{\operatorname{End}}(V)^{\otimes2},$$ where $\mathrm{sgn}(j)$ is the sign of $j$. Let $\pi_i:{\operatorname{End}}(V)\rightarrow{\operatorname{End}}(V)^{\otimes d}$ be given by $\pi_i(x)=1^{\otimes
i-1}\otimes x\otimes 1^{\otimes d-i}$ for all $x\in{\operatorname{End}}(V)$ and $i=1,\ldots,
d$; similarly, define $\pi_{ij}:{\operatorname{End}}(V)^{\otimes 2}\rightarrow{\operatorname{End}}(V)^{\otimes
d}$ by $\pi_{ij}(x\otimes y)=1^{\otimes i-1}\otimes x\otimes 1^{\otimes
j-i-1}\otimes y\otimes 1^{\otimes d-j}$. Set $C_i=\pi_i(C)$ and, for $1\leq
i<j\leq d$, set $S_{ij}=\pi_{ij}(S)$. Then,
\[Sergeev Duality Theorem\][@s Theorem 3] The map which sends $c_i\mapsto C_i$ and $s_i\mapsto S_{i,i+1}$ is an isomorphism of superalgebras $${{\mathcal{S}}}(d)\rightarrow{\operatorname{End}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)}(V^{\otimes d}).$$
${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-action {#SS:action}
----------------------------------------------------------------
Let $M$ be a ${{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$-supermodule. In this section we construct an action of ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ on $M\otimes
V^{\otimes d}$ that commutes with the action of ${{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$. To this end, extend the map $\pi_i$ from $\S$\[SS:Sergeev Duality\] to a map $\pi_i:{\operatorname{End}}(V)\rightarrow{\operatorname{End}}(V)^{\otimes d+1}$ so that $\pi_i(x)=1^{\otimes i}\otimes x\otimes 1^{\otimes d-i}$ for $x\in
{\operatorname{End}}(V)$ and $i=0,\ldots,d$ (i.e. add a 0th tensor place); similarly, extend $\pi_{ij}$.
Define $C_i$ and $S_{ij}$ as in $\S$\[SS:Sergeev Duality\]. Define $${\Omega}_{ij}=\pi_{ij}({\Omega})\;\;\;0\leq i<j\leq d$$ and set $X_i={\Omega}_{0i}+\sum_{1\leq j<i}(1-C_jC_i)S_{ji}$.
\[Affine Sergeev Action\] Let $M$ be a ${{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$-supermodule. Then, the map which sends $c_i\mapsto C_i$, $s_i\mapsto S_{i,i+1}$ and $x_i\mapsto X_i$ defines a homomorphism $${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)\rightarrow{\operatorname{End}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)}(M\otimes V^{\otimes d}).$$
It is clear from Theorem \[Sergeev Duality Theorem\] that the $C_i$ and $S_{i,i+1}$ form a copy of the Sergeev algebra ${{\mathcal{S}}}(d)$ inside ${\operatorname{End}}_{{{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)}(M\otimes V^{\otimes d})$ via the obvious embedding ${\operatorname{End}}_{{{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)}(V^{\otimes d})\hookrightarrow{\operatorname{End}}_{{{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)}(M\otimes
V^{\otimes d})$, $A\mapsto\mathrm{id}_M\otimes A$. Moreover, for $i=1,\ldots,d$, $X_i\in{\operatorname{End}}(M\otimes V^{\otimes d})$, since $X_i\in Q(n)\otimes{\operatorname{End}}(V)^{\otimes d}$. Therefore it is enough to check the following properties:
1. The $X_i$ satisfy the mixed relations and ,
2. $X_iX_j-X_jX_i=0$, and
3. the $X_i$ commute with the action of ${{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$ on $M\otimes
V^{\otimes d}$.
First, we check that ${\Omega}(1\otimes C)=-(1\otimes C){\Omega}$. To do this, a calculation shows that $C\bar{e}_{ji}=-\bar{e}_{ji}$ and $C\bar{f}_{ji}=\bar{f}_{ji}C$. Hence, $$(1\otimes C)(e_{ij}\otimes\bar{e}_{ji})=-(e_{ij}\otimes\bar{e}_{ji})(1\otimes C)$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
(1\otimes C)(f_{ij}\otimes\bar{f}_{ji})&=&(-1)^{p(f_{ij})p(C)}
(f_{ij}\otimes C\bar{f}_{ji})\\
&=&(-1)^{p(\bar{f}_{ji})p(C)}(f_{ij}\otimes \bar{f}_{ji}C)\\
&=&(-1)^{p(\bar{f}_{ji})p(C)+p(1)p(\bar{f}_{ji})}(f_{ij}\otimes
\bar{f}_{ji})(1\otimes C),\end{aligned}$$ so the result follows since $p(1)={{\bar{0}}}$. Next, it is easy to see that $S_i{\Omega}_{0i}S_i={\Omega}_{i+1}$ using . Therefore, (a) follows from the definition of $X_i$. It is now easy to show that, for $i<j$, (b) is equivalent to $${\Omega}_{0i}{\Omega}_{0j}-{\Omega}_{0j}{\Omega}_{0i}=({\Omega}_{0j}-{\Omega}_{0i})S_{ij}+
({\Omega}_{0j}+{\Omega}_{0i})C_iC_jS_{ij}.$$ This equality is then a direct calculation. Finally, to verify (c), it is enough to show that for any $X\in{{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$, $$[1\otimes X+X\otimes1,{\Omega}]=0.$$ This is another routine calculation using .
Now, recall the “naive” antiautomorphism $\tau:{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))\rightarrow{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))$. This extends to an antiautomorphism of ${{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{gl}}}(n|n))$. Extend $\tau$ to an antiautomorphism of ${{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{gl}}}(n|n))^{\otimes 2}$ by $\tau(x\otimes y)=(-1)^{p(x)}\tau(x)\otimes\tau(y)$. By induction, extend $\tau$ to an antiautomorphism of ${{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{gl}}}(n|n))^{\otimes k}$ by $\tau(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_k)=(-1)^{p(x_1)}\tau(x_1)\otimes\tau(x_2\otimes\cdots\otimes x_k)$. A direct check verifies the following result.
\[P:when tau’s collide\] We have that $\tau(C_i)=-C_i$, $\tau(S_{i,i+1})=S_{i,i+1}$ and $\tau(X_i)=X_i$ for all admissible $i$’s. In particular, the antiautomorphism $\tau^{\otimes d+1}:{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{gl}}}(n|n))^{\otimes d+1}\rightarrow{{\mathcal{U}}}({{\mathfrak{gl}}}(n|n))^{\otimes d+1}$ coincides with the antiautomorphism $\tau:{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)\rightarrow{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$.
The Functor $F_{\lambda}$ {#SS:Flambda}
-------------------------
In the previous section, we showed that there is a homomorphism from ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ to ${\operatorname{End}}_{{{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)}(M\otimes V^{\otimes d})$. Since the action of ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ on $M\otimes V^{\otimes d}$ commutes with the action of ${{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$, it preserves both primitive vectors and weight spaces. By *primitive vector* we mean an element of $M\otimes V^{\otimes d}$ which is annihilated by the subalgebra ${{\mathfrak{n}}}^{+}$ given by the triangular decomposition of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$ as in Section \[SS:RootData\]. Therefore, given a weight ${\lambda}\in P(M\otimes V^{\otimes d})$ we have an action of ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ on
$$\label{E:Flambdadef}
F_{\lambda}M :=\left\{m \in M\otimes V^{\otimes d} \mid {{\mathfrak{n}}}^+.m=0 \text{ and } m \in \left(M\otimes V^{\otimes d} \right)_{\lambda} \right\}$$
In the case when ${\lambda}\in{{P^{++}}}$ we can provide alternative descriptions of the functor $F_{\lambda}$. First we recall the following key result of Penkov [@p]. Given a weight $\lambda \in P$, we write $\chi_{\lambda}$ for the central character defined by the simple ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$-module of highest weight $\lambda$. Then, there is a block decomposition $$\label{E:blockdecomp}
\mathcal{O}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))=\bigoplus_{\chi_{_{\lambda}}}\mathcal{O}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))^{[{\lambda}]}$$ where the sum is over all central characters $\chi_{\lambda}$ and $\mathcal{O}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))^{[{\lambda}]}=\mathcal{O}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))^{[\chi_{\lambda}]}$ denotes the block determined by the central character $\chi_{\lambda}$. Given $N$ in $\mathcal{O}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))$, let $N^{[\chi_{\gamma}]}=N^{[\gamma]}$ denote the projection of $N$ onto the direct summand which lies in $\mathcal{O}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))^{[\chi_\gamma]}$
The question then becomes to describe when $\chi_{\lambda}=\chi_{\mu}$ for $\lambda, \mu \in P$. This is answered in the case when $\lambda$ is typical by the following result of Penkov [@p]. Recall that the symmetric group acts on $P$ by permuation of coordinates.
\[P:penkov\] Let $\lambda \in {{P^{++}}}$ be a typical weight and let $\mu \in P$. Then $\chi_{\lambda}=\chi_{\mu}$ if and only if $\mu
=w(\lambda)$ for some $w \in S_n.$
For short we call a weight $\lambda \in P$ *atypical* if it is not typical. By the description of the blocks $\mathcal{O}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))^{[{\lambda}]}$, if $L(\mu)$ is an object of $\mathcal{O}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))^{[{\lambda}]}$ then $\lambda$ is typical if and only if $\mu$ is typical (c.f. [@ps2 Proposition 1.1] and the remarks which follow it). We then have the following preparatory lemma.
Let $\lambda,\gamma \in P$. Then the following statements hold:
1. Assume $\gamma$ is atypical and $\lambda$ is typical. If $N$ is an object of $\mathcal{O}^{[\gamma]}$, then $N_{\lambda}=({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{n}^{-}}}N)_{\lambda}.$
2. Assume $\lambda, \gamma \in P^{++}$ are typical and dominant and $\lambda \neq \gamma$. If $N$ is an object of $\mathcal{O}^{[\gamma]}$, then $N_{\lambda}=({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{n}^{-}}}N)_{\lambda}$.
By [@b Lemma 4.5], every object $\mathcal{O}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))$ has a finite Jordan-Hölder series. The proof of (i) is by induction on the length of a composition series of $N.$ The base case is when $N$ has length one (ie. $N \cong L(\nu)$ is a simple module). This case immediately follows from the fact that in order for $N_{\lambda}$ to be nontrivial it must be that $\lambda < \nu$. But then it follows from the assumption that $\nu$ is atypical (since $L(\nu)$ is an object of $\mathcal{O}^{[\gamma]}$) while $\lambda$ is typical. Now consider a composition series $$0=N_{0} \subset N_{1} \subset \dotsb \subset N_{t} =N.$$ Let $v \in N_{\lambda}$ so that $v +N_{t-1} \in N_{t}/N_{t-1}$ is nonzero. Since $N_{t}/N_{t-1}$ is a simple module in $\mathcal{O}^{[\gamma]},$ by the base case there exists a $w \in N_{t}=N$ and $y \in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{n}^{-}}}$ so that $yw + N_{t-1}=v + N_{t-1}.$ Thus, $v-yw \in N_{t-1}$ and is of weight $\lambda.$ By the inductive assumption, there exists $w' \in N_{t-1} \subset N$ and $y' \in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{n}^{-}}}$ such that $y'w' = v-yw.$ That is, $v=yw+y'w' \in
{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{n}^{-}}}N.$ This proves the desired result.
Now, (ii) follows by a similar argument by induction on the length of a composition series. If $N$ is simple and $N_{\lambda}\neq 0$, then $\lambda$ is not the highest weight of $N$ (as $\gamma$ is the unique dominant highest weight among the simple modules in $\mathcal{O}^{[\gamma]}$ by Proposition \[P:penkov\]). From this it immediately follows that $N_{\lambda}=({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{n}^{-}}}N)_{\lambda}$. Now proceed by induction as in the previous paragraph.
\[L:TypicalFlambda\] Let $\lambda \in P^{++}$ be typical and dominant, and let $M \in \mathcal{O}.$ Then $$F_{\lambda}\left(M \right) \cong \left( (M\otimes V^{\otimes
d})^{[\lambda]}\right)_{\lambda}\cong \left[ M\otimes V^{\otimes d}/{{\mathfrak{n}}}_-(M\otimes
V^{\otimes d})\right]_{\lambda}$$ as ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-modules.
It should first be remarked that since the action of ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ commutes with the action of ${{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$, the action of ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ on $M \otimes V^{\otimes d}$ induces an action on each of the vector spaces given in the theorem.
Now, by Proposition \[P:penkov\] and the assumption that $\lambda$ is dominant, it follows that for any module $N \in \mathcal{O}^{[\lambda]},$ $N_{\nu} \neq 0$ only if $\nu \leq \lambda$ in the dominance order. Thus any vector of weight $\lambda$ in $M \otimes V^{\otimes d}$ is necessarily a primitive vector. On the other hand, if there is a primitive vector of weight $\lambda$ in $M \otimes V^{\otimes d},$ then it must lie in the image of a nonzero homomorphism $M(\lambda) \to M \otimes V^{\otimes d}$. But as $M(\lambda)$ is an object in $\mathcal{O}^{[\lambda]}$, it follows that the primitive vector lies in $\left( (M\otimes V^{\otimes
d})^{[\lambda]}\right)_{\lambda}$. Thus, there exists a canonical projection map $$F_{\lambda}\left(M \right) \to \left( (M\otimes V^{\otimes
d})^{[\lambda]}\right)_{\lambda}$$ and this map is necessarily a vector space isomorphism. The fact that it is a ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-module homomorphism follows from the fact that the action of ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ on both vector spaces is induced by the action of ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ on $M \otimes V^{\otimes d}.$
Now consider the block decomposition $$M\otimes V^{\otimes d}= \oplus_{\chi_{\gamma}} (M\otimes V^{\otimes
d})^{[\chi_{\gamma}]},$$ where the direct sum runs over dominant $\gamma \in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{h}}}_{{{\bar{0}}}}^{*}$ so that different $\chi_{\gamma}$ are different central characters of $U({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}})$. This then induces the vector space direct sum decomposition $$(M\otimes V^{\otimes d})/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{n}^{-}}}(M\otimes V^{\otimes d}) =
\oplus_{\chi_{\gamma}} (M\otimes V^{\otimes d})^{[\chi_{\gamma}]}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{n}^{-}}}(M\otimes V^{\otimes d})^{[\chi_{\gamma}]},$$ where $(M\otimes V^{\otimes d})^{[\chi_{\gamma}]}$ denotes the direct summand of $M\otimes V^{\otimes d}$ which lies in the block $\mathcal{O}^{[\gamma]}.$
By the previous lemma, if $\gamma$ is atypical or if $\gamma$ is typical and $\gamma \neq \lambda$, then $$\left[ (M\otimes V^{\otimes d})^{[\chi_{\gamma}]})/ {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{n}^{-}}}(M\otimes
V^{\otimes d})^{[\chi_{\gamma}]})\right]_{\lambda}=0.$$ Therefore, $$\label{E:functorvariations}
\left[ (M\otimes V^{\otimes d})/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{n}^{-}}}(M\otimes V^{\otimes d})\right]_{\lambda} = \left[(M\otimes
V^{\otimes d})^{[\chi_{\lambda}]}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{n}^{-}}}(M\otimes V^{\otimes
d})^{[\chi_{\lambda}]} \right]_{\lambda}.$$ Finally, if $N$ is an object of $\mathcal{O}^{[\lambda]},$ then $N_{\mu} \neq 0$ only if $\mu \leq \lambda$ in the dominance order. Thus weight considerations imply $\left[ {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{n}^{-}}}(M\otimes V^{\otimes d})^{[\chi_{\lambda}]})\right]_{\lambda}=0$ which, in turn, implies that canonical projection $$\left( (M\otimes V^{\otimes
d})^{[\lambda]}\right)_{\lambda}\to \left[ M\otimes V^{\otimes d}/{{\mathfrak{n}}}_-(M\otimes
V^{\otimes d})\right]_{\lambda}$$ is a vector space isomorphism. That is its a ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-module homomorphism follows from the fact that in both cases the action is induced from the ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ action on $M \otimes V^{\otimes d}$.
\[C:Flambdaexactness\] If $\lambda \in {{P^{++}}}$ is dominant and typical, then the functor $F_{\lambda}:\mathcal{O} \to {{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-mod is exact.
This follows immediately from the first alternative description of $F_{\lambda}$ in the above theorem as it is the composition of the exact functors $- \otimes V^{\otimes d}$, projection onto the direct summand lying in the block $\mathcal{O}^{[\lambda]}$, and projection onto the $\lambda$ weight space.
In what follows when $\lambda$ is dominant and typical we use whichever description of $F_{\lambda}$ given in lemma \[L:TypicalFlambda\] is most convenient.
Image of the Functor {#SS:functorimage}
--------------------
We can now describe the image of Verma modules under the functor.
\[L:description\] Let $M(\mu)$ be a Verma module in $\mathcal{O}$ and let $\lambda \in P^{++}$ be a dominant and typical weight. The natural inclusion $$E(\mu)\otimes(V^{\otimes d})_{{\lambda}-\mu}\hookrightarrow(M(\mu)\otimes V^{\otimes
d})_{\lambda}$$ induces an isomorphism of ${{\mathcal{S}}}(d)$-modules $E(\mu)\otimes(V^{\otimes
d})_{{\lambda}-\mu}\cong F_{\lambda}(M(\mu))$. In particular, $F_{\lambda}(M(\mu))=0$ unless ${\lambda}-\mu\in {{P_{\geq0}}}(d)$.
This is proved exactly as in [@as Lemma 3.3.2], except now the highest weight space of $M(\mu)$ is $E(\mu)$. Namely, by the tensor identity and the PBW theorem, $$\label{E:tensoridentity}
M(\mu) \otimes V^{\otimes d} \cong U({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}) \otimes_{U({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{b}}})} \left(E(\mu)
\otimes V^{\otimes d} \right) \cong U({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{n}^{-}}}) \otimes E(\mu) \otimes
V^{\otimes d},$$ where the first isomorphism is as ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}$-modules and the second is as ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{h}}}_{\bar{0}}$-modules. Thus the canonical projection map induces the isomorphism of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{h}}}_{\bar{0}}$-modules given by $$1 \otimes E(\mu) \otimes V^{\otimes d} \cong M(\mu) \otimes V^{\otimes d} /
{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{n}^{-}}}\left(M(\mu) \otimes V^{\otimes d} \right).$$ Taking $\lambda$ weight spaces on both sides yields the vector space isomorphism $$1 \otimes E(\mu) \otimes \left( V^{\otimes d}\right)_{\lambda-\mu}\cong \left[
M(\mu) \otimes V^{\otimes d} / {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{n}^{-}}}\left(M(\mu) \otimes V^{\otimes d}
\right)\right]_{\lambda}.$$ Now, the composition of the natural inclusion $E(\mu)\otimes(V^{\otimes d})_{{\lambda}-\mu}\hookrightarrow(M(\mu)\otimes V^{\otimes
d})_{\lambda}$ with , and the isomorphism above implies that $$E(\mu) \otimes \left( V^{\otimes d}\right)_{\lambda-\mu} \cong 1 \otimes E(\mu) \otimes \left( V^{\otimes d}\right)_{\lambda-\mu} \cong \left[ M(\mu) \otimes V^{\otimes d} /
{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{n}^{-}}}\left(M(\mu) \otimes V^{\otimes d} \right)\right]_{\lambda} = F_{\lambda}\left(M(\mu) \right),$$
That it is an isomorphism of ${{\mathcal{S}}}(d)$-modules follows from the fact that in each case the action of ${{\mathcal{S}}}(d)$ is via the action induced from the action of ${{\mathcal{S}}}(d)$ on $M(\mu) \otimes V^{\otimes d}.$
\[C:StandardDim\] Let $\lambda \in P^{++}$ be a dominant and typical weight and let $\mu \in P$ with ${\lambda}-\mu\in {{P_{\geq0}}}(d)$. Set $d_{i}=\lambda_{i}-\mu_{i}$ for $i=1, \dotsc ,n$.
1. Let $M(\mu)$ be the little Verma module of highest weight $\mu$. Then, $$\dim F_{\lambda}(M(\mu)) = 2^{d+\lfloor(n-{\gamma}_0(\mu)+1)/2 \rfloor}\frac{d!}{d_{1}!
\dotsb d_{n}!}.$$
2. Let $\widehat{M}(\mu)$ be the big Verma module of highest weight $\mu$. Then, $$\dim F_{\lambda}(\widehat{M}(\mu))=2^{d+n-{\gamma}_0(\mu)}\frac{d!}{d_1!\cdots d_n!}.$$
We have $\dim E(\mu) = 2^{\lfloor(n-{\gamma}_0(\mu)+1)/2 \rfloor}$. For each $\varepsilon_{i}$ $(i=1, \dotsc , n)$, $\dim
V_{\varepsilon_{i}}=2.$ A combinatorial count shows that $$\dim \left(V^{\otimes d} \right)_{\lambda - \mu} = \frac{d!}{d_{1}! \dotsb
d_{n}!}2^{d}.$$ The statement of (i) then follows by Lemma \[L:description\]. The statement of (ii) follows from (i) and Lemma \[L:little verma in big verma\].
Fix ${\lambda},\mu\in P$ such that ${\lambda}-\mu\in {{P_{\geq0}}}(d)$, and let $d_i={\lambda}_i-\mu_i$. Let $\{u_i,u_{{\bar{i}}}\}_{i=1,\ldots,n}$ be the standard basis for $V$, let $v_\mu\in
E(\mu)$, and let $u_{{\lambda}-\mu}=u_1^{\otimes d_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes
u_n^{\otimes d_n}\in (V^{\otimes d})_{{\lambda}-\mu}$. Finally, let $$m_k=\sum_{i=1}^kd_k,$$ and define $F_k=\pi_0(f_{kk})$ (see Section \[SS:action\]).
\[X action\] Let $v_{\mu} \in M(\mu)_{\mu}$ be a primitive vector of weight $\mu,$ and let $u=u_{\lambda - \mu}= u_{1}^{\otimes d_{1}} \otimes \dotsb u_{n}^{\otimes d_{n}}.$ For each $1\leq k\leq n$ and $m_{k-1}<i\leq m_k$, $$X_i.v_\mu\otimes u_{{\lambda}-\mu}\equiv
\left(\mu_k+i-m_{k-1}-1-\sum_{m_{k-1}<l<i}C_lC_i -F_{k}C_i\right)v_\mu\otimes
u_{{\lambda}-\mu}$$ modulo ${{\mathfrak{n}}}_-(M(\mu)\otimes V^{\otimes d})$. As a consequence, $$X_i^2v_\mu\otimes
u_{{\lambda}-\mu}\equiv(\mu_k+i-m_{k-1}-1)(\mu_k+i-m_{k-1})v_\mu\otimes u_{{\lambda}-\mu},$$ again modulo ${{\mathfrak{n}}}_-(M(\mu)\otimes V^{\otimes d})$.
We first do some preliminary calculations. Let $1 \leq j < k \leq n$ be fixed, let $m_{k-1} \leq i \leq m_{k}$ be fixed, and consider the vector $$v_{\mu}\otimes u_{1}^{\otimes d_{1}} \otimes \dotsb \otimes u_{k}^{\otimes a}
\otimes u_{j} \otimes u_{k}^{\otimes b} \otimes \dotsb \otimes u_{n}^{\otimes
d_{n}},$$ where the $u_{j}$ is the $i$th tensor and $a+b+1=d_{k}$ (i.e. among the $u_{k}$’s, the one in the $i$th position, recalling that $v_{\mu}$ is in the zeroth position, is replaced with $u_{j}$). For short, let us write $u =
u_{1}^{\otimes d_{1}} \otimes \dotsb u_{n}^{\otimes d_{n}}$ and $\hat{u}=u_{1}^{\otimes d_{1}} \otimes \dotsb \otimes u_{k}^{\otimes a} \otimes
u_{j} \otimes u_{k}^{\otimes b} \otimes \dotsb \otimes u_{n}^{\otimes d_{n}}$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
e_{kj}(v_{\mu}\otimes\hat{u})&=&(e_{kj}v_{\mu})\otimes\hat{u}\\
&&+ \sum_{r = 1}^{d_{j}} v_{\mu}\otimes u_{1}^{\otimes d_{1}}
\otimes \dotsb \otimes u_{j}^{\otimes r-1 } \otimes u_{k} \otimes u_{j}^{\otimes d_{j}-r}
\otimes \dotsb \otimes u_{k}^{\otimes a} \otimes u_{j} \otimes u_{k}^{\otimes
b} \otimes \dotsb \otimes
u_{n}^{\otimes d_{n}} + v_{\mu} \otimes u\\
&=&(e_{kj}v_{\mu})\otimes \hat{u} + \sum_{r = 1}^{d_{j}} S_{m_{j-1}+r, i}
(v_{\mu}\otimes u) + v_{\mu} \otimes u.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, if we write $\check{u}=C_{i}\hat{u}=u_{1}^{\otimes d_{1}} \otimes
\dotsb \otimes u_{k}^{\otimes a} \otimes v_{-j} \otimes v_{k}^{\otimes b}
\otimes \dotsb \otimes v_{n}^{\otimes d_{n}}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
f_{kj} (v_{\mu}\otimes \check{u})
&=& (f_{kj}v_{\mu})\otimes \check{u}
+(-1)^{p(v_{\mu})}\times\\
&&\times \sum_{r=1}^{d_{j}} v_{\mu}
\otimes u_{1}^{\otimes d_{1}}
\otimes \dotsb \otimes u_{j}^{\otimes r-1} \otimes u_{-k} \otimes u_{j}^{\otimes d_{j}-r}
\otimes \dotsb \otimes u_{k}^{\otimes a} \otimes u_{-j} \otimes u_{k}^{\otimes b}
\otimes \dotsb \otimes u_{n}^{\otimes d_{n}}\\
&&+ (-1)^{p(v_{\mu})}v_{\mu} \otimes u\\
&=&(f_{kj}v_{\mu})\otimes \check{u} +(-1)^{p(v_{\mu})}
\sum_{r = 1}^{d_{j}} C_{m_{j-1}+a}C_{i}S_{m_{j-1}+r, i}
(v_{\mu}\otimes u) + (-1)^{p(v_{\mu})} v_{\mu} \otimes u.\end{aligned}$$
We can now consider the first statement of the lemma. Throughout, we write $\equiv$ for congruence modulo the subspace ${{\mathfrak{n}}}_-(M(\mu)\otimes V^{\otimes
d})$. Let $1 \leq k \leq n$ be fixed so that $m_{k-1} < i \leq m_{k}$ (ie.there is a $u_{k}$ in the $i$th position of $v_{\mu}\otimes u$). Using that $v_{\mu}$ is a primitive vector and the equalities given above, we deduce that
$$\begin{aligned}
X_i\left( v_\mu\otimes u_{{\lambda}-\mu}\right)&=&\sum_{\ell,j=1}^n e_{\ell
j}v_\mu\otimes u_1^{\otimes d_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes u_k^{\otimes
i-m_{k-1}-1}\otimes {{\bar{e}}}_{j\ell}u_k\otimes u_k^{\otimes
m_k-i}\otimes\cdots\otimes u_n^{\otimes d_n}\\
&&-(-1)^{p(v_{\mu})}\sum_{\ell,j=1}^nf_{\ell j}v_\mu\otimes
u_1^{\otimes d_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes u_k^{\otimes i-m_{k-1}-1}\otimes
{{\bar{f}}}_{j\ell}u_k\otimes u_k^{\otimes
m_k-i}\otimes\cdots\otimes u_n^{\otimes d_n}\\
&&+\sum_{\ell<i}(1-C_\ell C_i)S_{\ell i}(v_\mu\otimes
u)\\
&=&\sum_{j\leq k} e_{kj}v_\mu\otimes
u_1^{\otimes d_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes u_k^{\otimes i-m_{k-1}-1}\otimes
u_j\otimes u_k^{\otimes
m_k-i}\otimes\cdots\otimes u_n^{\otimes d_n}\\
&&-(-1)^{p(v_\mu)}\sum_{j\leq k}f_{kj}v_\mu\otimes
u_1^{\otimes d_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes u_k^{\otimes i-m_{k-1}-1}\otimes
u_{-j}\otimes u_k^{\otimes
m_k-i}\otimes\cdots\otimes u_n^{\otimes d_n}\\
&&+\sum_{\ell<i}(1-C_\ell C_i)S_{\ell i}(v_\mu\otimes u)\\
& \equiv& - \sum_{j < k} \left[\sum_{a = 1}^{d_{j}} S_{m_{j-1}+a, i}
(v_{\mu}\otimes u) + v_{\mu} \otimes u \right] \\
&&+ \sum_{j < k} \left[ \sum_{a = 1}^{d_{j}}
C_{m_{j-1}+a}C_{i}S_{m_{j-1}+a, i} (v_{\mu}\otimes u) + v_{\mu} \otimes u \right] \\
&&+ \mu_{k}v_{\mu}\otimes u - C_{i}
\left((f_{kk}v_{\mu})\otimes u \right) +\sum_{\ell<i}(1-C_\ell C_i)S_{\ell i}
(v_\mu\otimes u)\\
&=& - \sum_{l \leq m_{k-1}} S_{l,i}v_{\mu}\otimes u -(k-1)v_{\mu} \otimes u
+ \sum_{l \leq m_{k-1}} C_{l}C_{i}S_{l,i}v_{\mu}\otimes u +(k-1)v_{\mu}\otimes u \\
&&+ \mu_{k}v_{\mu}\otimes u
- C_{i}\left((f_{kk}v_{\mu})\otimes u \right) +\sum_{\ell<i}(1-C_\ell C_i)S_{\ell i}(v_\mu\otimes u)\\
& = &\mu_kv_\mu\otimes
u_{{\lambda}-\mu}+C_i((f_{kk}v_\mu)\otimes u_{{\lambda}-\mu})+\sum_{m_{k-1}<\ell<i}
(1-C_\ell C_i)S_{l,i}(v_\mu\otimes u)\\
&=&\left(\mu_k+i-m_{k-1}-1-\sum_{m_{k-1}<\ell<i}C_\ell C_iS_{l,i}\right)
(v_\mu\otimes u_{{\lambda}-\mu})+C_i((f_{kk}v_\mu)\otimes u)\\
&=&\left(\mu_k+i-m_{k-1}-1-\sum_{m_{k-1}<\ell<i}C_\ell C_i -F_{k}C_i\right)
(v_\mu \otimes u).\end{aligned}$$
Note the last equality makes use of the fact that $S_{l,i}
v_{\mu}\otimes u = v_{\mu}\otimes u$ for $m_{k-1}<l<i$ and that as (odd) linear maps $F_{k}C_{i}=-C_{i}F_{k}.$
Now we consider the second statement of the lemma. Using the previous calculation, the fact that $X_{i}$ and the $C$’s satisfy relation of the degenerate AHCA, and the fact that $f_{kk}v_{\mu} \in
M(\mu)_{\mu}$ is again a primitive vector of weight $\mu$,
$$\begin{aligned}
X_i^2(v_\mu\otimes u_{{\lambda}-\mu})
&\equiv& X_i\left(\mu_k+i-m_{k-1}-1-\sum_{m_{k-1}<\ell<i}C_\ell C_i-F_kC_i\right)
(v_\mu\otimes u_{{\lambda}-\mu})\\
&=&\left(\mu_k+i-m_{k-1}-1+\sum_{m_{k-1}<\ell<i}C_\ell C_i \right)X_{i}
(v_{\mu}\otimes u)- C_iX_{i}((f_{kk}v_\mu)\otimes u_{{\lambda}-\mu})\\
& \equiv & \left(\mu_k+i-m_{k-1}-1+\sum_{m_{k-1}<\ell<i}C_\ell C_i \right)\times\\
&&\times
\left(\mu_k+i-m_{k-1}-1-\sum_{m_{k-1}<\ell<i}C_\ell C_i-F_kC_i\right)
(v_\mu\otimes u_{{\lambda}-\mu}) \\
&&-C_{i}\left(\mu_k+i-m_{k-1}-1-\sum_{m_{k-1}<\ell<i}C_\ell C_i-F_kC_i\right)
((f_{kk}v_\mu)\otimes u_{{\lambda}-\mu}) \\
&=&\left(\mu_k+i-m_{k-1}-1+\sum_{m_{k-1}<\ell<i}C_\ell C_i \right)
\left(\mu_k+i-m_{k-1}-1-\sum_{m_{k-1}<\ell<i}C_\ell C_i \right) v_{\lambda}
\otimes u\\
&&+ C_{i}F_{k}C_{i}((f_{kk}v_{\mu}) \otimes u) \\
&=&\left( (\mu_k+i-m_{k-1}-1)^{2}
- \left( \sum_{m_{k-1}<\ell<i}C_\ell C_i\right)^{2}\right) v_{\mu}\otimes u
+ (f^{2}_{kk}v_{\mu}) \otimes u \\
&=&\left( (\mu_k+i-m_{k-1}-1)^{2}
+(\mu_k+i-m_{k-1}-1)\right) v_{\mu}\otimes u.\end{aligned}$$
The last equality follows from the fact that in the Clifford algebra $$\left( \sum_{m_{k-1}<\ell<i}C_\ell C_i\right)^{2} =
\sum_{m_{k-1}<\ell<i}(C_\ell C_i)^{2} = \sum_{m_{k-1}<\ell<i} -1 = -(i-m_{k-1}
+1)$$ and that, in ${{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$, $f_{kk}^2=e_{kk}$.
\[C:ImageisIntegral\] Let $\lambda \in P^{++}$ be a dominant typical weight, let $\mu\in P$, and let $M(\mu)$ be a Verma module in $\mathcal{O}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))$. Then for $i=1, \dotsc , d$ the element $x_{i}^{2}$ acts on $F_{\lambda}(M(\mu))$ with generalized eigenvalues of the form $q(a)$ for various $a \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}$. Hence, $F_{\lambda}(M(\mu))$ is integral.
As a consequence of the previous corollary we see that for $\lambda \in P^{++}$ we have that $F_{\lambda}\left(L(\mu) \right)$ is integral for any simple module $L(\mu)$ in $\mathcal{O}$ and, therefore, $$F_{\lambda}:\mathcal{O}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))\rightarrow{\operatorname{Rep}}{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d).$$
Let ${\lambda}\in{{P^{++}}}$ and $\mu\in{\lambda}-{{P_{\geq0}}}(d)$. Then, $F_{\lambda}(\widehat{M}(\mu))\cong\widehat{{{\mathcal{M}}}}({\lambda},\mu)$.
Let $v_+\in{{\mathbb{C}}}_\mu$ be a nonzero vector in the 1-dimensional ${{\mathfrak{h}}}_{{\bar{0}}}$-module ${{\mathbb{C}}}_\mu$, let $v_\mu=1\otimes v_+\in C(\mu)_{{\bar{0}}}$ be its image and let $u_{\lambda-\mu}$ be as in the prevous lemma. Then $v_\mu\otimes u_{{\lambda}-\mu}$ is a cyclic vector for $F_{\lambda}(\widehat{M}(\mu))$ as a ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-module.
Recall the cyclic vector $\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}_{{\lambda},\mu}\in\widehat{{{\mathcal{M}}}}({\lambda},\mu)$. For ${\delta}_1,\ldots,{\delta}_n\in\{0,1\}$, let ${\varphi}_1^{{\delta}_1}\cdots{\varphi}_n^{{\delta}_n}\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}_{\lambda,\mu}=1\otimes{\varphi}_1^{{\delta}_1}\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}\otimes\cdots\otimes{\varphi}_n^{{\delta}_n}\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}$, cf. .
Note that $w.(v_\mu\otimes u_{{\lambda}-\mu})=v_\mu\otimes
u_{{\lambda}-\mu}$ for all $w\in S_{{\lambda}-\mu}$. Comparing Lemma \[X action\] and Proposition \[segment representation\], we deduce that, by Frobenious reciprocity, there exists a surjective ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-homomorphism $\widehat{{{\mathcal{M}}}}({\lambda},\mu)\rightarrow
F_{\lambda}(\widehat{M}(\mu))$ sending ${\varphi}_1^{{\delta}_1}\cdots{\varphi}_n^{{\delta}_n}\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}_{\lambda,\mu}\mapsto F_1^{{\delta}_1}\cdots F_n^{{\delta}_n}v_\mu\otimes
u_{{\lambda}-\mu}$. That this is an isomorphism follows by comparing dimensions using Lemmas \[L:standard cyclic dim\] and \[C:StandardDim\].
\[C:Image of the little verma\] We have $$F_{\lambda}M(\mu)\cong{{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu)^{\oplus 2^{\varpi(\mu)}}$$ where $$\varpi(\mu) =\begin{cases}\lfloor\frac{n+1}{2}\rfloor&\mbox{if
}{\gamma}_0(\mu)\mbox{ is even,}\\\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor&\mbox{if
}{\gamma}_0(\mu)\mbox{ is odd.}\end{cases}.$$
Using the additivity of the functor $F_{\lambda}$, the previous proposition, and Lemmas \[L:little verma in big verma\] and \[L:standard cyclic dim\] we obtain $F_{\lambda}M(\mu)=2^{n-\lfloor\frac{{\gamma}_0(\mu)+1}{2}\rfloor
-\lfloor\frac{n-{\gamma}_0(\mu)}{2}\rfloor}{{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu)$. It is just left to observe that $$n-\lfloor\frac{{\gamma}_0(\mu)+1}{2}\rfloor
-\lfloor\frac{n-{\gamma}_0(\mu)+1}{2}\rfloor=\varpi(\mu).$$
\[L:IsoStdMod\] Assume that ${\lambda}\in{{P^{++}}}$, $\mu\in P^+[{\lambda}]$, ${\lambda}-\mu\in{{P_{\geq0}}}(d)$, and ${\alpha}\in R^+[{\lambda}]$. Then, ${{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu)\cong{{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},s_{\alpha}\mu)$.
By Lemma \[L:InjHom\], there exists an injective homomorphism $M(s_{\alpha}\mu)\rightarrow M(\mu)$. Since $\varpi(\mu)=\varpi(s_{\alpha}\mu)$, there exists an injective homomorphism $${{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},s_{\alpha}\mu)^{\varpi(\mu)}=F_{\lambda}M(s_{\alpha}\mu)\to F_{\lambda}M(\mu)=
{{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu)^{\varpi(\mu)}.$$ Since $\dim{{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},s_{\alpha}\mu)=\dim{{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu)$ and by Theorem \[thm:unique irred quotient\] ${{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu)$ is indecomposible, it follows that this map is an isomorphism.
\[T:MaxSubmod\] Assume ${\lambda}\in{{P^{++}}}$ and $\mu\in{\lambda}-{{P_{\geq0}}}(d)$. Then, ${{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu)$ has a unique maximal submodule $\mathcal{R}({\lambda},\mu)$ and unique irreducible quotient ${{\mathcal{L}}}({\lambda},\mu)$.
There exists $w\in S_d[{\lambda}]$ such that $w\mu\in P^+[{\lambda}]$. By Lemma \[L:IsoStdMod\], ${{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},w\mu)\cong{{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu)$. By Theorem \[thm:unique irred quotient\], ${{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},w\mu)$ has a unique maximal submodule and unique irreducible quotient, so the result follows.
Given $\mu\in P$, the Shapovalov form on $M(\mu)$ induces a non-degenerate ${{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$-contravariant form on $L(\mu)$, which we will denote $(\cdot,\cdot)_\mu$. In turn we have a non-degenerate ${{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$-contravariant form on $L(\mu)\otimes V^{\otimes d}$ given by $(\cdot,\cdot)_\mu\otimes(\cdot,\cdot)_{{\varepsilon}_1}^{\otimes d}$. Observe that different weight spaces are orthogonal with respect to this form and different blocks of $\mathcal{O}({{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))$ given by central characters are also orthogonal. Therefore, when $\lambda\in{{P^{++}}}$ is dominant and typical it follows that the bilinear form restricts to a form on $(L(\mu)\otimes V^{\otimes d})^{[{\lambda}]}_{\lambda}=F_{\lambda}(L(\mu))$, which is non-degenerate whenever it is nonzero. By Proposition \[P:when tau’s collide\], this form is ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-contravariant.
Similarly, Proposition \[P:when tau’s collide\] implies that the Shapovalov form on $\widehat{M}(\mu)$ induces an ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-contravariant form on $\widehat{{{\mathcal{M}}}}({\lambda},\mu)$. Now, if ${\lambda}\in{{P^{++}}}$ and $\mu\in{\lambda}-{{P_{\geq0}}}(d)$, then by Theorem \[T:MaxSubmod\], $\widehat{{{\mathcal{M}}}}({\lambda},\mu)$ posesses a unique submodule $\widehat{\mathcal{R}}({\lambda},\mu)$ which is maximal among those which avoid the generalized ${\zeta}_{{\lambda},\mu}$ weight space. Indeed, $$\widehat{\mathcal{R}}({\lambda},\mu)=\mathcal{R}({\lambda},\mu)^{\oplus
2^{n-\lfloor\frac{{\gamma}_0(\mu)+1}{2}\rfloor}}.$$
\[P:ASeRadical\] Assume that ${\lambda}\in{{P^{++}}}$, $\mu\in{\lambda}-{{P_{\geq0}}}(d)$, and $\widehat{{{\mathcal{M}}}}({\lambda},\mu)$ possesses a nonzero contravariant form $(\cdot,\cdot)$. Let $\mathcal{R}$ denote the radical of this form. Then, $$\mathcal{R}\supseteq\widehat{\mathcal{R}}({\lambda},\mu).$$
First, recall that $\widehat{{{\mathcal{M}}}}({\lambda},\mu)$ is cyclically generated by $\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}_{{\lambda},\mu}\in\widehat{{{\mathcal{M}}}}({\lambda},\mu)_{{\zeta}_{{\lambda},\mu}}$. Now, assume $v\in\widehat{\mathcal{R}}({\lambda},\mu)$ and $v'\in\widehat{{{\mathcal{M}}}}({\lambda},\mu)$. Then, $v'=X.\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}_{{\lambda},\mu}$ for some $X\in{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$. Moreover, $\tau(X).v\in\widehat{\mathcal{R}}({\lambda},\mu)$. Applying Lemma \[L:ASeContraForm\] and the definition of $\widehat{\mathcal{R}}({\lambda},\mu)$ we deduce that $$(v',v)=(X.\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}_{{\lambda},\mu},v)=(\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}_{{\lambda},\mu},\tau(X).v)=0.$$ Hence, $v\in\mathcal{R}$.
\[C:ASeRadical\] Given ${\lambda}\in{{P^{++}}}$ and $\mu\in{\lambda}-{{P_{\geq0}}}(d)$, $$\mathcal{R}=\mathcal{R}({\lambda},\mu)^{\oplus k}\oplus{{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu)^{\oplus
2^{n-\lfloor\frac{{\gamma}_0(\mu)+1}{2}\rfloor}-k}$$ for some $0\leq k\leq2^{n-\lfloor\frac{{\gamma}_0(\mu)+1}{2}\rfloor}$.
\[T:SimplesToSimples\] Assume ${\lambda}\in{{P^{++}}}$, and $\mu\in{\lambda}-{{P_{\geq0}}}(d)$. If $F_{\lambda}L(\mu)$ is nonzero, then $$F_{\lambda}L(\mu)\cong{{\mathcal{L}}}({\lambda},\mu)^{\oplus\ell}$$ for some $0<\ell\leq\varpi(\mu)$.
Let $\widehat{L}(\mu)=L(\mu)^{\oplus
2^{\lfloor\frac{n-{\gamma}_0(\mu)+1}{2}\rfloor}}$, so that $\widehat{L}(\mu)=\widehat{M}(\mu)/\widehat{R}(\mu)$ where $\widehat{R}(\mu)$ is the radical of the Shapovalov form on $\widehat{M}(\mu)$. Applying the functor, we see that $$F_{\lambda}\widehat{L}(\mu)=\widehat{{{\mathcal{M}}}}({\lambda},\mu)/ F_{\lambda}\widehat{R}(\mu).$$ Now, $F_{\lambda}\widehat{R}(\mu)=\mathcal{R}$. Hence, Corollary \[C:ASeRadical\] and a calculation similar to Corollary \[C:Image of the little verma\] gives the result.
[@kl Proposition 18.18.1] Any finite dimensional irreducible ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-module is a composition factor of ${{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},{\lambda}-{\varepsilon})$ for some ${\lambda}\in{{P^{++}}}$.
Any finite dimensional simple module for ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ is isomorphic ${{\mathcal{L}}}({\lambda},\mu)$ for some $\mu\in({\lambda}-{\varepsilon})-Q^+$.
The functor $F_{\lambda}$ transforms the compostition series for $M({\lambda}-{\varepsilon})$ into the compostition series for ${{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},{\lambda}-{\varepsilon})$. It is now just left to observe that if $L(\mu)$ is a composition factor for $M({\lambda}-{\varepsilon})$, then $\mu\in({\lambda}-{\varepsilon})- Q^+$.
Calibrated Representations Revisited
------------------------------------
If ${\lambda},\mu\in{{P_{\mathrm{poly}}^+}}$ satisfy ${\lambda}-\mu\in{{P_{\geq0}}}(d)$, then $F_{\lambda}(L(\mu)) \neq 0$ and hence one has a simple module ${{\mathcal{L}}}(\lambda, \mu)$.
The formal character of $L(\mu)$ when $\mu\in{{P_{\mathrm{poly}}^+}}$ is given by the $Q$-Schur function $Q_\mu$ (c.f. [@s]). There is a nondegenerate bilinear form, $(\cdot,\cdot)_{{{P_{\mathrm{poly}}^+}}}$ on the subring of symmetric functions spanned by Schur’s $Q$-functions given by $$\left(Q_{\lambda}, Q_{\mu} \right)_{{{P_{\mathrm{poly}}^+}}} = {\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)}\left(L(\lambda), L(\mu) \right).$$ Furthermore, the basis $Q_\mu$ ($\mu\in{{P_{\mathrm{poly}}^+}}$) is an orthogonal basis. Within this subring are the skew $Q$-Schur functions $Q_{{\lambda}/\mu}$. We refer the reader to [@stem; @m] for details.
Under the hypotheses of the theorem, ${\lambda}/\mu$ is a skew shape. Moreover, $F_{\lambda}L(\mu)=0$ implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:PolynomialRep}
0={\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)} \left(L({\lambda}),L(\mu)\otimes V^{\otimes d} \right)=\bigoplus_{\nu\in{{P_{\mathrm{poly}}^+}}(d)}{\operatorname{Hom}}(L({\lambda}),L(\mu)\otimes L(\nu))^{\oplus N_\nu}.\end{aligned}$$ The second equality follows from Sergeev duality which implies that as a ${{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$-module $$V^{\otimes d}=\bigoplus_{\nu\in{{P_{\mathrm{poly}}^+}}(d)}L(\nu)^{\oplus N_\nu},$$ where $N_\nu$ is the dimension of the Specht module of ${{\mathcal{S}}}(d)$ corresponding to $\nu$ [@s2].
In terms of the bilinear form on symmetric functions, implies $$\label{E:perp}
0 = \left(Q_{\lambda}, Q_{\mu}Q_{\nu} \right)$$ for all $\nu \in {{P_{\mathrm{poly}}^+}}(d)$. In fact holds for all $\nu \in {{P_{\mathrm{poly}}^+}}$ since different graded summands of the symmetric function ring are orthogonal. However, $$\left(Q_{\lambda}, Q_{\mu}Q_{\nu} \right) = \left(Q_{\mu}^{\bot}Q_{\lambda}, Q_{\nu} \right) = 2^{\ell(\mu)}\left( Q_{\lambda/\mu}, Q_{\nu}\right),$$ where $Q_{\mu}^{\bot}$ denotes the adjoint of $Q_{\mu}$ with respect to the form and the second equality follows from $Q_{\mu}^{\bot}Q_{\lambda}= 2^{-\ell(\mu)} Q_{\lambda/\mu}$ (cf. [@m II.8]). Thus, implies that $$(Q_{{\lambda}/\mu},Q_\nu)=0$$ for all $\nu\in{{P_{\mathrm{poly}}^+}}$. But the $Q$-functions form an orthogonal basis for this subring. This implies $Q_{{\lambda}/\mu}=0$, which is not true. Hence, $F_{\lambda}L(\mu) \neq 0$.
Arguing as in section 7 of [@su2] using Sergeev duality [@s; @s2] we obtain the following result.
Let ${\lambda},\mu\in{{P_{\mathrm{poly}}^+}}$ such that ${\lambda}-\mu\in P_{\geq 0}(d)$. Then the group character of ${{\mathcal{L}}}({\lambda},\mu)\downarrow_{{{\mathcal{S}}}(d)}$ is a power of $2$ multiple of the skew $Q$-Schur function $Q_{{\lambda}/\mu}$.
A Classification of Simple Modules {#S:Classification}
==================================
In [@bk2; @kl], it was shown that the Grothendieck group of finite dimensional integral representations of ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$ is a module for the Kostant-Tits ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$-form of the Kac-Moody Lie algebra ${{\mathfrak{b}}}_\infty$. Indeed, let ${{\mathfrak{n}}}_\infty$ be a maximal nilpotent subalgebra of ${{\mathfrak{b}}}_\infty$, and let ${{\mathcal{U}}}_{{\mathbb{Z}}}^*({{\mathfrak{n}}}_\infty)$ be the *minimal* admissible lattice inside the universal envelope of ${{\mathfrak{n}}}_\infty$. This lattice is spanned by Lusztig’s dual canonical basis,
[@kl Theorem 20.5.2] There is an isomorphism of graded Hopf algebras $${{\mathcal{U}}}_{{\mathbb{Z}}}^*({{\mathfrak{n}}}^+_\infty)\cong\bigoplus_{d\geq 0}K({\operatorname{Rep}}{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)).$$
and,
[@kl Theorem 21.0.4] The set $B(\infty)$ of isomorphism classes of simple ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-modules, for all $d$, can be given the structure of a crystal (in the sense of Kashiwara). Moreover, this crystal is isomorphic to Kashiwara’s crystal associated to the crystal base of ${{\mathcal{U}}}_{{\mathbb{Q}}}({{\mathfrak{n}}}_\infty)$.
Quantum Groups and Shuffle Algebras {#SS:ShuffleAlg}
-----------------------------------
Let ${{\mathfrak{b}}}_r$ be the simple finite dimensional Lie algebra of type $B_r$ over ${{\mathbb{C}}}$, and ${{\mathcal{U}}}_q({{\mathfrak{b}}}_r)$ the associated quantum group with Chevalley generators $e_i,f_i$ ($i=0,\ldots,r-1$) corresponding to the labeling of the Dynkin diagram:
(340,30)
(100,15)(99,0)[$0$]{} (100,17)[(1,0)[32]{}]{}(100,13)[(1,0)[32]{}]{}(113,12.5)[$<$]{} (133,15)(132,0)[$1$]{} (135,15)[(1,0)[30]{}]{} (167,15)(166,0)[$2$]{} (169,15)[(1,0)[30]{}]{} (201,15)(200,0)[$3$]{} (210,12)[$\cdots$]{} (235,15)(228,0)[$r-2$]{} (237,15)[(1,0)[30]{}]{} (269,15)(265,0)[$r-1$]{}
Fix a triangular decomposition ${{\mathfrak{b}}}_r={{\mathfrak{n}}}^+_r\oplus{{\mathfrak{h}}}_r\oplus{{\mathfrak{n}}}^-_r$. Let ${\Delta}$ be the root system of ${{\mathfrak{b}}}_r$ relative to this decomposition, ${\Delta}^+$ the positive roots, and $\Pi=\{{\beta}_0,\ldots,{\beta}_{r-1}\}$ the simple roots. Let $\mathcal{Q}$ be the root lattice and $\mathcal{Q}^+=\sum_{i=0}^{r-1}{{\mathbb{Z}}}_{\geq 0}{\beta}_i$. Finally, let $(\cdot,\cdot)$ denote the trace form on ${{\mathfrak{h}}}^*$. The Cartan matrix of ${{\mathfrak{b}}}_r$ is then $A=(a_{ij})_{i,j=0}^{r-1}$, where $$a_{ij}=\frac{2({\beta}_i,{\beta}_j)}{({\beta}_i,{\beta}_i)},\;\;\; d_i=\frac{({\beta}_i,{\beta}_i)}2\in\{1,2\}.$$ Let $q_i=q^{d_i}$. To avoid confusion with notation we will use later, we adopt the following non-standard notation for $q$-integers and $q$-binomial coefficients: $$(k)_i=\frac{q_i^k-q_i^{-k}}{q_i-q_i^{-1}}.$$
The algebra ${{\mathcal{U}}}_q={{\mathcal{U}}}_q({{\mathfrak{n}}}^+_r)$ is naturally $\mathcal{Q}^+$-graded by assigning to $e_i$ the degree ${\beta}_i$. Let $|u|$ be the ${{\mathcal{Q}}}^+$-degree of a homogeneous element $u\in{{\mathcal{U}}}_q({{\mathfrak{n}}}^+_b)$.
There exist $q$-derivations $e_i'$, $i=0,\ldots,r-1$ given by $$e_i'(e_j)={\delta}_{ij}{\,\,\,\,\,\, {\mbox{and}} \,\,\,\,\,\,}e_i'(uv)=e_i'(u)v+q^{({\beta}_i,|u|)}ue_i'(v)$$ for all homogeneous $u,v\in{{\mathcal{U}}}_q^+$.
Now, let ${{\mathcal{F}}}$ be the free associative algebra over ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(q)$ generated by the set of letters $\{[0],\ldots,[r-1]\}$. Write $[i_1,\ldots,i_k]:=[i_1]\cdot[i_2]\cdots[i_k]$, and let $[]$ denote the empty word. The algebra ${{\mathcal{F}}}$ is ${{\mathcal{Q}}}^+$ graded by assigning the degree ${\beta}_i$ to $[i]$ (as before, let $|f|$ denote the ${{\mathcal{Q}}}^+$-degree of a homogeneous $f\in{{\mathcal{F}}}$). Notice that ${{\mathcal{F}}}$ also has a *principal grading* obtained by setting the degree of a letter $[i]$ to be 1; let ${{\mathcal{F}}}_d$ be the $d$th graded component in this grading.
Now, define the (quantum) shuffle product, $*$, on ${{\mathcal{F}}}$ inductively by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:inductiveqshuffle}
(x\cdot[i])*(y\cdot[j])=(x*(y\cdot[j])\cdot[i]+q^{-(|x|+{\beta}_i,{\beta}_j)}((x\cdot[i])*y)\cdot[j],\;\;\;x*[]=[]*x=x.\end{aligned}$$ Iterating this formula yields $$[i_1,\ldots,i_\ell]*[i_{\ell+1},\ldots,i_{\ell+k}]
=\sum_{w\in D_{(\ell,k)}}q^{-e(w)}[i_{w(1)},\ldots,i_{w(k+\ell)}]$$ where $$e(w)=\sum_{\substack{s\leq\ell<t\\w(s)<w(t)}}({\beta}_{i_{w(s)}},{\beta}_{i_{w(t)}}),$$ see [@lec $\S2.5$] for details. The product $*$ is associative and, [@lec Proposition 1], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:qShuffle}
x*y=q^{-(|x|,|y|)}y\overline{*}x\end{aligned}$$ where $\overline{*}$ is obtained by replacing $q$ with $q^{-1}$ in the definition of $*$.
Now, to $f=[i_1,\ldots,i_k]\in{{\mathcal{F}}}$, associate ${\partial}_f=e_{i_1}'\cdots
e_{i_k}'\in{\operatorname{End}}{{\mathcal{U}}}_q$, and ${\partial}_{[]}=\operatorname{Id}_{{{\mathcal{U}}}_q}$. Then,
[@ro1; @ro2; @grn] There exists an injective ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(q)$-linear homomorphism $$\Psi:{{\mathcal{U}}}_q\rightarrow({{\mathcal{F}}},*)$$ defined on homogeneous $u\in{{\mathcal{U}}}_q$ by the formula $\Psi(u)=\sum{\partial}_f(u)f$, where the sum is over all monomials $f\in{{\mathcal{F}}}$ such that $|f|=|u|$.
Therefore ${{\mathcal{U}}}_q^+$ is isomorphic to the subalgebra ${{\mathcal{W}}}\subseteq({{\mathcal{F}}},*)$ generated by the letters $[i]$, $0\leq i<r$.
Let ${{\mathcal{A}}}={{\mathbb{Q}}}[q,q^{-1}]$, and let ${{\mathcal{U}}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}$ denote the ${{\mathcal{A}}}$-subalgebra of ${{\mathcal{U}}}_q$ generated by the divided powers $e_i^k/(k)_i!$ ($0\leq i<r$, $k\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}_{\geq0}$). Let $(\cdot,\cdot)_K:{{\mathcal{U}}}_q\times{{\mathcal{U}}}_q\rightarrow{{\mathbb{Q}}}(q)$ denote the unique symmetric bilinear form satisfying $$(1,1)_K=1{\,\,\,\,\,\, {\mbox{and}} \,\,\,\,\,\,}(e_i'(u),v)_k=(u,e_iv)_K$$ for all $0\leq i<r$, and $u,v\in{{\mathcal{U}}}_q$. Let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:DualEnvelope}
{{\mathcal{U}}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}^*=\{\,u\in{{\mathcal{U}}}_q \mid (u,v)_K\in{{\mathcal{A}}}\mbox{ for all }v\in{{\mathcal{U}}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}\,\}\end{aligned}$$ and let $u^*\in{{\mathcal{U}}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}^*$ denote the dual to $u\in{{\mathcal{U}}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}$ relative to $(\cdot,\cdot)_K$.
Now, given a monomial $$[i_1^{a_1},i_2^{a_2},\ldots,i_k^{a_k}]
=[\underbrace{i_1,\ldots,i_1}_{a_1},\underbrace{i_2,\ldots,i_2}_{a_2},
\ldots,\underbrace{i_k,\ldots,i_k}_{a_k}]$$ with $i_j\neq i_{j+1}$ for $1\leq j<k$, let $c_{i_1,\ldots,i_k}^{a_1,\ldots,a_k}=(a_1)_{i_1}!\cdots(a_k)_{i_k}!$, so that $(c_{i_1,\ldots,i_k}^{a_1,\ldots,a_k})^{-1}e_{i_1}^{a_1}\cdots e_{i_k}^{a_k}$ is a product of divided powers. Let $${{\mathcal{F}}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}=\bigoplus{{\mathcal{A}}}c_{i_1,\ldots,i_k}^{a_1,\ldots,a_k}
[i_1^{a_1},i_2^{a_2},\ldots,i_k^{a_k}]$$ and ${{\mathcal{W}}}^*_{{\mathcal{A}}}={{\mathcal{W}}}\cap{{\mathcal{F}}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}$. It is known that ${{\mathcal{W}}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}^*=\Psi({{\mathcal{U}}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}^*)$, [@lec Lemma 8].
Define $${{\mathcal{F}}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}={{\mathbb{C}}}\otimes_{{\mathcal{A}}}{{\mathcal{F}}}_{{\mathcal{A}}},
{\,\,\,\,\,\, {\mbox{and}} \,\,\,\,\,\,}{{\mathcal{W}}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}^*={{\mathbb{C}}}\otimes_{{\mathcal{A}}}{{\mathcal{W}}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}^*$$ where ${{\mathbb{C}}}$ is an ${{\mathcal{A}}}$-module via $q\rightarrow 1$. Given an element $E\in{{\mathcal{W}}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}$ (resp. ${{\mathcal{F}}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}$) let $\underline{E}$ denote its image in ${{\mathcal{W}}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}$ (resp. ${{\mathcal{F}}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}$).
Observe that $({{\mathcal{F}}}_{{\mathbb{C}}},*)$ is the classical shuffle algebra and the shuffle product coincides with the formula for the characters associated to parabolic induction of ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$-modules (see Lemma \[L:ShuffleLemma\]).
We close this section by describing the bar involution on ${{\mathcal{F}}}$:
\[D:BarInv\][@lec Proposition 6] Let $-:{{\mathcal{F}}}\rightarrow{{\mathcal{F}}}$ be the ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$-linear automorphism of $({{\mathcal{F}}},*)$ defined by $\bar{q}=q^{-1}$ and $$\overline{[i_1,\ldots,i_k]}
=q^{-\sum_{1\leq s<t\leq k}({\beta}_{i_s},{\beta}_{i_t})}[i_k,\ldots,i_1].$$
Good Words and Lyndon Words {#SS:LyndonWords}
---------------------------
In what follows, it is convenient to differ from the conventions in [@lec]. In particular, it is natural from our point of view to order monomial in ${{\mathcal{F}}}$ lexicographically reading from *right to left*. Unlike the type $A$ case, this convention leads to some significant differences in the good Lyndon words that appear. This section contains a careful explanation of all the changes that occur.
Fix the ordering on the set of letters in ${{\mathcal{F}}}$ (resp. $\Pi$): $[0]<[1]<\cdots<[r-1]<[]$ (resp. ${\beta}_0<{\beta}_1<\cdots<{\beta}_{r-1}$). Give the set of monomials in ${{\mathcal{F}}}$ the associated lexicographic order read from right to left. That is, $$[i_1,\ldots,i_k]<[j_1,\ldots,j_\ell]\mbox{ if }i_k<j_\ell,\mbox{ or for some
}m, i_{k-m}<j_{\ell-m}\mbox{ and }i_{k-s}<j_{\ell-s}\mbox{ for all }s<m.$$ Note that since the empty word is larger than any letter, every word is smaller than all of its right factors: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:rightfactors}
[i_1,\ldots,i_k]<[i_j,\ldots,i_k],\mbox{ for all }1<j\leq k.\end{aligned}$$ (For those familiar with the theory, this definition is needed to ensure that the induced Lyndon ordering on positive roots is convex, cf. $\S$\[SS:PBWandCanonical\] below.)
For a homogeneous element $f\in{{\mathcal{F}}}$, let $\min(f)$ be the smallest monomial occurring in the expansion of $f$. A monomial $[i_1,\ldots,i_k]$ is called a *good word* if there exists a homogeneous $w\in{{\mathcal{W}}}$ such that $[i_1,\ldots,i_k]=\min(w)$, and is called a *Lyndon word* if it is larger than any of its proper left factors: $$[i_1,\ldots,i_j]<[i_1,\ldots,i_k],\mbox{ for any }1\leq j<k.$$ Let $\mathcal{G}$ denote the set of good words, ${{\mathcal{L}}}$ the set of Lyndon words, and $\mathcal{GL}={{\mathcal{L}}}\cap\mathcal{G}\subset\mathcal{G}$ the set of good Lyndon words.
\[L:GoodFactors\][@lec Lemma 13] Every factor of a good word is good.
Because of our ordering conventions, [@lec Lemma 15, Proposition 16] become
[@lec Lemma 15] Let $l\in{{\mathcal{L}}}$, $w$ a monomial such that $w\geq l$. Then, $\min(w*l)=wl$.
and
\[P:GLproduct\][@lec Proposition 16] Let $l\in\mathcal{GL}$, and $g\in\mathcal{G}$ with $g\geq l$. Then $gl\in\mathcal{G}$.
Hence, we deduce from Lemma \[L:GoodFactors\] and Proposition \[P:GLproduct\] [@lec Proposition 17]:
[@lr; @lec] A monomial $g$ is a good word if, and only if, there exist good Lyndon words $l_1\geq\ldots\geq l_k$ such that $$g=l_1l_2\cdots l_k.$$
As in [@lec], we have
[@lr; @lec] The map $l\rightarrow|l|$ is a bijection $\mathcal{GL}\rightarrow{\Delta}^+$.
Given ${\gamma}\in{\Delta}^+$, let ${\gamma}\rightarrow l({\gamma})$ be the inverse of the above bijection (called the Lyndon covering of ${\Delta}^+$).
We now define the *bracketing* of Lyndon words, that gives rise to the *Lyndon basis* of ${{\mathcal{W}}}$. To this end, given $l\in{{\mathcal{L}}}$ such that $l$ is not a letter, define the standard factorization of $l$ to be $l=l_1l_2$ where $l_2\in{{\mathcal{L}}}$ is a proper left factor of maximal length. Define the $q$-bracket $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:qbracket}
[f_1,f_2]_q=f_1f_2-q^{(|f_1|,|f_2|)}f_2f_1\end{aligned}$$ for homogeneous $f_1,f_2\in{{\mathcal{F}}}$ in the ${{\mathcal{Q}}}^+$-grading. Then, the bracketing ${{\langle}}l{{\rangle}}$ of $l\in{{\mathcal{L}}}$ is defined inductively by ${{\langle}}l{{\rangle}}=l$ if $l$ is a letter, and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:Lyndonbracketing}
{{\langle}}l{{\rangle}}=[{{\langle}}l_1{{\rangle}},{{\langle}}l_2{{\rangle}}]_q\end{aligned}$$ if $l=l_1l_2$ is the standard factorization of $l$.
\(1) ${{\langle}}[0]{{\rangle}}=[0]$;
\(2) ${{\langle}}[12]{{\rangle}}=[[1],[2]]_q=[12]-q^{-1}[21]$;
\(3) ${{\langle}}[012]{{\rangle}}=[[0],[12]-q^{-1}[21]]_q=[012]-q^{-1}[021]-q^{-2}[120]+q^{-3}[210]$.
As is suggested in this example, we have
\[P:bracketingtriangularity\][@lec Proposition 19] For $l\in{{\mathcal{L}}}$, ${{\langle}}l{{\rangle}}=l+r$ where $r$ is a linear combination of words $w$ such that $|w|=|l|$ and $w<l$.
Any word $w\in{{\mathcal{F}}}$ has a canonical factorization $w=l_1\cdots l_k$ such that $l_1,\ldots,l_k\in{{\mathcal{L}}}$ and $l_1\geq\cdots\geq l_k$. We define the bracketing of an arbitrary word $w$ in terms of this factorization: ${{\langle}}w{{\rangle}}={{\langle}}l_1{{\rangle}}\cdots{{\langle}}l_k{{\rangle}}$. Define a homomorphism $\Xi:({{\mathcal{F}}},\cdot)\to({{\mathcal{F}}},*)$ by $\Xi([i])=[i]$. Then, $\Xi([i_1,\ldots,i_k])=[i_1]*\cdots*[i_k]=\Psi(e_{i_1}\cdots e_{i_k})$. In particular, $\Xi({{\mathcal{F}}})={{\mathcal{W}}}$. We have the following characterization of good words:
[@lec Lemma 21] The word $w$ is good if and only if it cannot be expressed modulo $\ker\Xi$ as a linear combination of words $v<w$.
For $g\in\mathcal{G}$, set $r_g=\Xi({{\langle}}g{{\rangle}})$. Then, we have
\[T:Lyndonbasis\][@lec Propostion 22, Theorem 23] Let $g\in\mathcal{G}$ and $g=l_1\cdots l_k$ be the canonical factorization of $g$ as a nonincreasing product of good Lyndon words. Then
1. $r_g=r_{l_1}*\cdots*r_{l_k}$,
2. $r_g=\Psi(e_g)+\sum_{w<g}x_{gw}\Psi(e_w)$ where, for a word $v=[i_1,\ldots,i_k]$, $e_v=e_{i_1}\cdots e_{i_k}$, and
3. $\{r_g|g\in\mathcal{G}\}$ is a basis for ${{\mathcal{W}}}$.
The basis $\{r_g\mid g\in\mathcal{G}\}$ is called the Lyndon basis of ${{\mathcal{W}}}$. An immediate consequence of Proposition \[P:bracketingtriangularity\] and Theorem \[T:Lyndonbasis\] is the following:
\[P:LyndonCoveringProperty\][@lec Proposition 24] Assume ${\gamma}_1,{\gamma}_2\in {\Delta}^+$, ${\gamma}_1+{\gamma}_1={\gamma}\in{\Delta}^+$, and $l({\gamma}_1)<l({\gamma}_2)$. Then, $l({\gamma}_1)l({\gamma}_2)\geq
l({\gamma})$.
This gives an inductive algorithm to determine $l({\gamma})$ for ${\gamma}\in{\Delta}^+$ (cf. [@lec $\S4.3$]):
For ${\beta}_i\in\Pi\subset{\Delta}^+$, $l({\beta}_i)=[i]$. If ${\gamma}$ is not a simple root, then there exists a factorization $l({\gamma})=l_1l_2$ with $l_1,l_2$ Lyndon words. By Lemma \[L:GoodFactors\], $l_1$ and $l_2$ are good, so $l_1=l({\gamma}_1)$ and $l_2=l({\gamma}_2)$ for some ${\gamma}_1,{\gamma}_2\in{\Delta}^+$ with ${\gamma}_1+{\gamma}_2={\gamma}$. Assume that we know $l({\gamma}_0)$ for all ${\gamma}_0\in{\Delta}^+$ satisfying ${\mathrm{ht}}({\gamma}_0)<{\mathrm{ht}}({\gamma})$. Define $$C({\gamma})=\{\,({\gamma}_1,{\gamma}_2)\in{\Delta}^+\times{\Delta}^+ \mid {\gamma}={\gamma}_1+{\gamma}_2, \mbox{ and
}l({\gamma}_1)<l({\gamma}_2)\,\}.$$ Then, Proposition \[P:LyndonCoveringProperty\] implies
[@lec Proposition 25] We have $$l({\gamma})=\min\{\,l({\gamma}_1)l({\gamma}_2) \mid ({\gamma}_1,{\gamma}_2)\in C({\gamma})\,\}$$
In our situation, $${\Delta}^+=\{{\beta}_i+{\beta}_{i+1}+\cdots+{\beta}_j|0\leq i\leq j<r\}
\cup\{2{\beta}_0+\cdots+2{\beta}_j+{\beta}_{j+1}+\cdots+{\beta}_k|0\leq j<k<r\}.$$ A straightforward inductive argument shows that $$l({\beta}_i+{\beta}_{i+1}\cdots+{\beta}_j)=[i,i+1,\ldots,j]{\,\,\,\,\,\, {\mbox{and}} \,\,\,\,\,\,}l(2{\beta}_0+\cdots+2{\beta}_j+{\beta}_{j+1}+\cdots+{\beta}_k)=[j,j-1,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,k-1,k].$$ Remarkably,
In the notation of Lemma \[L:ShuffleLemma\] we have $$l({\beta}_i+\cdots+{\beta}_j)={\operatorname{ch}}\Phi_{[i,j]}$$ and $$2l(2{\beta}_0+\cdots+2{\beta}_j+{\beta}_{j+1}+\cdots+{\beta}_k)
={\operatorname{ch}}\Phi_{[-j-1,k]}.$$
Observe that we may write any good Lyndon word uniquely in the form $l=[i,i+1,\ldots,j]$ where $i,j\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}$ and $0\leq|i|\leq j<r$. For example, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:GoodLyndonWordConvention}
l(2{\beta}_0+\cdots+2{\beta}_j +{\beta}_{j+1}+\cdots+{\beta}_k)=[-j-1,\ldots,k].\end{aligned}$$
In the following definition, we mean for $n$ to vary. Given ${\lambda}\in
P_{>0}^{++}$, let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:Bdld}
\mathcal{B}_d({\lambda})=\{\,\mu\in P^+[{\lambda}] \mid {\lambda}-\mu\in {{P_{\geq0}}}(d)\mbox{ and
}|\mu_i|<{\lambda}_i\mbox{ for all }i\,\}\end{aligned}$$ and let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:Bd}
\mathcal{B}_d=\{\,({\lambda},\mu) \mid {\lambda}\in P_{>0}^{++}\mbox{ and
}\mu\in\mathcal{B}_d({\lambda})\,\}.\end{aligned}$$
Let $\mathcal{G}_d=\mathcal{G}\cap{{\mathcal{F}}}_d$ be the set of good words of principal degree $d$. We have
\[L:BdGd\] The map $({\lambda},\mu)\mapsto[{\lambda}-\mu]=[\mu_1,\ldots,{\lambda}_1-1,\ldots,\mu_n,\ldots,{\lambda}_n-1]$ induces a bijection $\mathcal{B}_d\rightarrow\mathcal{G}_d$.
By , $[{\lambda}-\mu]$ is a well-defined element of ${{\mathcal{F}}}_d$. Since ${\lambda}\in P^{++}_{>0}$ and $\mu\in
P^+[{\lambda}]$, the ordering convention and imply that $[{\lambda}-\mu]\in\mathcal{G}_d$. This map is clearly bijective.
PBW and Canonical Bases {#SS:PBWandCanonical}
-----------------------
The lexicographic ordering on $\mathcal{GL}$ induces a total ordering on ${\Delta}^+$, which is *convex*, meaning that if ${\gamma}_1,{\gamma}_2\in{\Delta}^+$ with ${\gamma}_1<{\gamma}_2$, and ${\gamma}={\gamma}_1+{\gamma}_2\in{\Delta}^+$, then ${\gamma}_1<{\gamma}<{\gamma}_2$ (cf. [@ro3; @lec]).
Indeed, assume ${\gamma}_1,{\gamma}_2,{\gamma}={\gamma}_1+{\gamma}_2\in{\Delta}^+$ and ${\gamma}_1<{\gamma}_2$. Proposition \[P:LyndonCoveringProperty\] and imply that $l({\gamma})\leq l({\gamma}_1)l({\gamma}_2)<l({\gamma}_2)$. If $l({\gamma})=l({\gamma}_1)l({\gamma}_2)$, then the definition of Lyndon words implies $l({\gamma}_1)<l({\gamma})$. We are therefore left to prove that $l({\gamma}_1)<l({\gamma})$ even if $l({\gamma})<l({\gamma}_1)l({\gamma}_2)$. This cannot happen if ${\gamma}={\beta}_i+\cdots+{\beta}_j$. In the case ${\gamma}=2{\beta}_0+\cdots+2{\beta}_j
+{\beta}_{j+1}+\cdots+{\beta}_k$, the possibilities for ${\gamma}_1<{\gamma}_2$ are ${\gamma}_1={\beta}_i+\cdots+{\beta}_j$ and ${\gamma}_2=2{\beta}_0+\cdots+2{\beta}_{i-1}+{\beta}_i+\cdots+{\beta}_k$ for $0\leq i\leq j$. In any of these cases, $[i,\ldots,j]<[j,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,k]$. That is, $l({\gamma}_1)<l({\gamma})<l({\gamma}_2)$.
Each convex ordering, ${\gamma}_1<\cdots<{\gamma}_N$, on ${\Delta}^+$ arises from a unique decomposition $w_0=s_{i_1}s_{i_2}\cdots s_{i_N}$ of the longest element of the Weyl group of type $B_r$ via $${\gamma}_1={\beta}_{i_1},\;{\gamma}_2=s_{i_1}{\beta}_{i_2},\;\cdots,{\gamma}_N=s_{i_1}\cdots s_{i_{N-1}}{\beta}_{i_N}.$$ Lusztig associates to this data a PBW basis of ${{\mathcal{U}}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}$ denoted $$E^{(a_1)}({\gamma}_1)\cdots E^{(a_n)}({\gamma}_N),\;\;\;(a_1,\ldots,a_N)\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}_{\geq0}^N.$$ Leclerc [@lec $\S4.5$] describes the image in ${{\mathcal{W}}}$ of this basis for the convex Lyndon ordering. We use the same braid group action as Leclerc and the results of [@lec $\S4.5,4.6$] carry over, making changes in the same manner indicated in the previous section. We describe the relevant facts below.
For $g=l({\gamma}_1)^{a_1}\cdots l({\gamma}_k)^{a_k}$, where ${\gamma}_1>\cdots>{\gamma}_k$ and $a_1,\ldots,a_k\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}_{>0}$ set $$E_g=\Psi(E^{(a_k)}({\gamma}_k)\cdots E^{(a_1)}({\gamma}_1))\in{{\mathcal{W}}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}$$ and let $E_g^*\in{{\mathcal{W}}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}^*$ be the image of $(E^{(a_k)}({\gamma}_k)\cdots
E^{(a_1)}({\gamma}_1))^*\in{{\mathcal{U}}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}^*$. Observe that the order of the factors in the definition of $E_g$ above are increasing with respect to the Lyndon ordering. Leclerc shows that if ${\gamma}\in{\Delta}^+$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:Proportional}
{\kappa}_{l({\gamma})}E_{l({\gamma})}=r_{l({\gamma})},\end{aligned}$$ For some ${\kappa}_{l({\gamma})}\in{{\mathbb{Q}}}(q)$, [@lec Theorem 28] (the proof of this theorem in our case is obtained by reversing all the inequalities and using the standard factorization as opposed to the costandard factorization).
More generally, let $f\mapsto f^t$ be the linear map defined by $[i_1,\ldots,i_k]^t=[i_k,\ldots,i_1]$ and $(x*y)^t=y^t*x^t$. Then, $E_g$ is proportional to $\overline{r_g^t}$ (cf. [@lec $\S4.6$, $\S5.5.2-5.5.3$]).
As in [@lec $\S5.5.3$], we see that there exists an explicit $c_g\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}$ such that $$E_g^*=q^{c_g} (E_{l_m}^*)*\cdots*(E_{l_1}^*)$$ if $g=l_1\cdots l_m$ with $l_1>\cdots>l_m$. Using we deduce that $$E_g^*=q^{C_g}(E_{l_1}^*)\bar{*}\cdots\bar{*}(E_{l_m}^*),$$ where $C_g=c_g-\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq m}({\beta}_i,{\beta}_j)$. In particular, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:Eshuffle}
\underline{E_g^*}=\underline{(E_{l_1}^*)*\cdots*(E_{l_m}^*)}.\end{aligned}$$
Using the bar involution (Definition \[D:BarInv\]), Leclerc constructs the canonical basis, $\{b_g \mid g\in\mathcal{G}\}$ for ${{\mathcal{W}}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}$ via the PBW basis $\{E_g \mid g\in\mathcal{G}\}$. It has the form $$b_g=E_g+\sum_{\substack{h\in\mathcal{G}\\h<g}}\chi_{gh}E_h.$$ The dual canonical basis then has the form $$b_g^*=E_g^*+\sum_{\substack{h\in\mathcal{G}\\h>g}}\chi_{gh}^*E_h^*.$$ In particular, for good Lyndon words, [@lec Corollary 41], $b^*_{l}=E^*_{l}$ for every $l\in\mathcal{GL}$. As in [@lec Lemma 8.2], we see that $b^*_{[i,\ldots,j]}=[i,\ldots,j]$ for $0\leq i<j<r$. We now prove
\[L:DblSeg\] For $0\leq j<k<r$, one has $$b^*_{[j,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,k]}=(2)_0[j,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,k].$$
We prove this by induction on $j$ and $k$ with $j<k$, using , , and for the computations.
Observe that for $k\geq1$, $r_{[0,1,\ldots,k]}=(q^2-q^{-2})^k[0,1,\ldots,k]$, which can be proved easily by downward induction on $j$, $0\leq j<k$, using and $$r_{[j,\ldots,k]}=\Xi({{\langle}}[j,\ldots,k]{{\rangle}})=\Xi([[j],{{\langle}}[j+1,\ldots,k]]_q)=[j]*r_{[j+1,\ldots,k]}-q^{-2}r_{[j+1,\ldots,k]}*[j].$$ By , we have $$\begin{aligned}
[0]*[0,1]-[0,1]*[0]&=[0,1,0]+q^2([0]*[0])[1]-([0]*[0])[1]-[0,1,0]\\
&=(q^2-1)([0,0]+q^{-2}[0,0])[1]=(q^2-q^{-2})[0,0,1]\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, applying and the relevant definitions, we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
r_{[0,0,1]}&=\Xi({{\langle}}[0,0,1]{{\rangle}})\\
&=\Xi([[0],{{\langle}}[0,1]{{\rangle}}]_q^2)\\
&=[0]*r_{[0,1]}-r_{[0,1]}*[0]\\
&=(q^2-q^{-2})([0]*[0,1]-[0,1]*[0])\\
&=(q^2-q^{-2})^2[0,0,1]\end{aligned}$$ Once again, using , we deduce that for all $k\geq2$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:DblSegReduction0}
[0]*[0,\ldots,k]-[0,\ldots,k]*[0]=([0]*[0,\ldots,k-1]-[0,\ldots,k-1]*[0])[k].\end{aligned}$$ Assume $k\geq2$. Then, $({\beta}_0,{\beta}_0+\cdots+{\beta}_k)=0$, so iterated applications of yields $$\begin{aligned}
r_{[0,0,\ldots,k]}&=[0]*r_{[0,\ldots,k]}-r_{[0,\ldots,k]}*[0]\\ &=(q^2-q^{-2})^k([0]*[0,\ldots,k]-[0,\ldots,k]*[0])\\
&=(q^2-q^{-2})^k([0]*[0,1]-[0,1]*[0])[2,\ldots, k]\\
&=(q^2-q^{-2})^{k+1}[0,0,\ldots, k]\end{aligned}$$
Now, assume that $k\geq 2$, and $0<j<k$. To compute $r_{[j,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,k]}$, we need the following. For $|j-k|>1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:DblSegReduction1}
[j]*[j-1,\ldots,&k]-q^{-2}[j-1,\ldots,k]*[j]\\
\nonumber&=([j]*[j-1,\ldots,k-1]-q^{-2}[j-1,\ldots,k-1]*[j])[k].\end{aligned}$$ For $j=k-1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:DblSegReduction2}
[j]*[j-1,\ldots,0,&0,\ldots,j+1]-q^{-2}[j-1,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,j+1]*[j]\\
\nonumber&=(q^2[j]*[j-1,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,j]-q^{-2}[j-1,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,j]*[j])[j+1].\end{aligned}$$ Finally, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:DblSegReduction3}
q^2[j]*[j-1,\ldots,0,&0,\ldots,j]-q^{-2}[j-1,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,j]*[j]\\
\nonumber&=([j]*[j-1,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,j-2]-q^{-2}[j-1,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,j-2]*[j])[j,j+1].\end{aligned}$$ Indeed, and are straightforward applications of . Equation involves a little more calculation: $$\begin{aligned}
q^2[j]*[j-1,\ldots,0,&0,\ldots,j]-q^{-2}[j-1,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,j]*[j]\\
=&q^2[j-1,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,j,j]+q^{-2}([j]*[j-1,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,j-1]\\
&-[j-1,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,j-1]*[j])[j]-q^{-2}[j-1,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,j,j]\\
=&(q^2-q^{-2})[j-1,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,j,j]+q^{-2}([j-1,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,j]\\&+q^2([j]*[j-1,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,j-2])[j-1]
-([j-1,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,j-2]*[j])[j-1]\\&-q^4[j-1,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,j])[j]\\
=&([j]*[j-1,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,j-2]-q^{-2}[j-1,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,j-2]*[j])[j,j+1],\end{aligned}$$ Note that holds for both $[j-1,j,\ldots,k]$ and $[j-1,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,k]$.
Now, assume that we have shown that $r_{[j-1,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,k]}=(q^2-q^{-2})^{j+k}[j-1,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,k]$. Then, since $({\beta}_j,2{\beta}_0+\cdots+2{\beta}_{j-1}+{\beta}_j+\cdots+{\beta}_k)=-2$, $$\begin{aligned}
r_{[j,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,k]}=&[j]*r_{[j-1,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,k]}-r_{[j-1,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,k]}*[j]\\
=&(q^2-q^{-2})^{j+k}[j]*[j-1,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,k]-q^{-2}[j-1,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,k]*[j]\\
=&(q^2-q^{-2})^{j+k}([j]*[j-1,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,j+1]\\&-q^{-2}[j-1,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,j+1]*[j])[j+2,\ldots,k]
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\mbox{by \eqref{E:DblSegReduction1}}\\
=&(q^2-q^{-2})^{j+k}(q^2[j]*[j-1,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,j]\\&-q^{-2}[j-1,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,j]*[j])[j+1,\ldots,k]
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\mbox{by \eqref{E:DblSegReduction2}}\\
=&(q^2-q^{-2})^{j+k}([j]*[j-1,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,j-2]\\&-q^{-2}[j-1,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,j-2]*[j])[j,\ldots,k]
\,\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\mbox{by \eqref{E:DblSegReduction3}}\\
=&(q^2-q^{-2})^{j+k}([j]*[j-1]-q^{-2}[j-1]*[j])[j-2,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,k]\;\;\;\;\mbox{by \eqref{E:DblSegReduction1}}\\
=&(q^2-q^{-2})^{j+k+1}[j,\ldots,0,0,\ldots,k].\end{aligned}$$
Finally, the result follows after computing the normalizing coefficient using [@lec Equation (28)]. We leave the details to the reader.
In section we give a representation theoretic interpretation of the good Lyndon words associated to the root vectors $2{\beta}_0+\cdots+2{\beta}_j+{\beta}_{j+1}+\cdots+{\beta}_k$ ($0\leq j<k<r$) which appear in [@lec Lemma 53]. The corresponding dual canonical basis vectors are given by the formula $$[0]\cdot([1,\ldots,j]*[0,\ldots,k]).$$
Let $0\leq a<b$, $d=b+a+2$, ${\lambda}=(b+1,a+1)$ and ${\alpha}=(1,-1)$. Then, for $1\leq k\leq a$, $${\operatorname{ch}}{{\mathcal{L}}}({\lambda},-k{\alpha})=2\underline{[k-1]\cdot([k-2,k-3,\ldots,1,0,0,1,\ldots,b]*[k,\ldots,a])}$$ where if $ k=1$, we interpret $$[k-2,k-3,\ldots,1,0,0,1,\ldots,b]=[0,1,\ldots, b]$$
By [@g Proposition 11.4], for each $k\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}_{\geq0}$, there exists a short exact sequence $$\xymatrix{0\ar[r]&L(-(k+1){\alpha})\ar[r]&M(-k{\alpha})\ar[r]&L(-k{\alpha})\ar[r]&0}.$$ For $k\leq a+1$, applying the functor $F_{\lambda}$ yields the exact sequence $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:ShortExactSeq}
\xymatrix@1{0\ar[r]&F_{\lambda}L(-(k+1){\alpha})\ar[r]&2{{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},-k{\alpha})\ar[r]&F_{\lambda}L(-k{\alpha})\ar[r]&0}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $${\operatorname{ch}}F_{\lambda}L(-k{\alpha})=4\underline{[k-1,\ldots,1,0,0,1,\ldots,b]*[k,\ldots,a]}-{\operatorname{ch}}F_{\lambda}L(-(k+1){\alpha}).$$ Note that when $k=a+1$, $F_{\lambda}L(-(k+1){\alpha})=0$ since ${{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},-(a+2){\alpha})=0$. Therefore the sequence implies $F_{\lambda}L(-k{\alpha})=2{{\mathcal{L}}}({\lambda},-(a+1){\alpha})\cong2{{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},-(a+1){\alpha})\cong 2\Phi_{[-a-1,b]}$, and $${\operatorname{ch}}\Phi_{[-a-1,b]}=2\underline{[a,a-1,\ldots,1,0,0,1,\ldots,b]}.$$
We now prove the lemma by downward induction on $k\leq a$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{ch}}F_{\lambda}L(-a{\alpha})=&4\,\underline{[a-1,\ldots,1,0,0,1,\ldots,b]*[a]-4[a,\ldots,1,0,0,1,\ldots,b]}\\
=&4\,\underline{[a-1]\cdot([a-2,\ldots,1,0,0,1,\ldots,b]*[a])}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $F_{\lambda}L(-a{\alpha})=2{{\mathcal{L}}}({\lambda},-a{\alpha})$ and the lemma holds for $k=a$. Now, assume $k<a$, $F_{\lambda}L(-(k+1){\alpha})=2{{\mathcal{L}}}({\lambda},-(k+1){\alpha})$, and $${\operatorname{ch}}{{\mathcal{L}}}({\lambda},-(k+1){\alpha})=2\underline{[k]\cdot([k-1,\ldots,1,0,0,1,\ldots,b]*[k+1,\ldots,a])}.$$ Then, $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{ch}}F_{\lambda}L(-k{\alpha})=&4\underline{[k-1,\ldots,1,0,0,1,\ldots,b]*[k,\ldots,a]}-
4\underline{[k]\cdot([k-1,\ldots,1,0,0,1,\ldots,b]*[k+1,\ldots,a])}\\
=&4\underline{[k-1]\cdot([k-2,\ldots,1,0,0,1,\ldots,b]*[k,\ldots,a])}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $F_{\lambda}L(-k{\alpha})\neq 0$, so $F_{\lambda}L(-k{\alpha})=2{{\mathcal{L}}}({\lambda},-k{\alpha})$ and the lemma holds.
\[C:LecDblSeg\] Let $0\leq a<b$, $d=b+a+2$, ${\lambda}=(b+1,a+1)$ and $\mu=-{\alpha}=(-1,1)$. Then, $${\operatorname{ch}}{{\mathcal{L}}}({\lambda},-{\alpha})=2\,\underline{[0]\cdot[0,\ldots,b]*[1,\ldots,a]}.$$
A Basis for the Grothendieck Group $K(\mbox{Rep} {{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d))$ {#SS:GrothendieckGroup}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[T:GrothendieckBasis1\] The set $$\{ \left[ {{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu)\right]\mid ({\lambda},\mu)\in\mathcal{B}_d\}$$ forms a basis for $K({\operatorname{Rep}}{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d))$.
By Lemma \[L:DblSeg\] and , it follows that ${\operatorname{ch}}{{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu)=\underline{E^*_{[{\lambda}-\mu]}}$. The result now follows from Lemma \[L:BdGd\] and the fact that the character map is injective.
We will now describe a basis for $K({\operatorname{Rep}}{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d))$ in terms of the simple modules ${{\mathcal{L}}}({\lambda},\mu)$.
\[P:StandardSegmentForm\] Let $b\geq0$, ${\lambda}=(b+1,b+1)$ and ${\alpha}=(1,-1)$. Then, $$\Phi_{[-b-1,b]}\cong{{\mathcal{L}}}({\lambda},b{\alpha}).$$
There is a surjective homomorphism ${{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},b{\alpha})\to\Phi_{[-b-1,b]}$. The result follows since $\Phi_{[-b-1,b]}$ is simple.
\[C:StandardizingWords\] Assume that ${\lambda}\in{{\mathcal{P}}}_{>0}^{++}$, $\mu\in P^+[{\lambda}]$, ${\lambda}-\mu\in{{P_{\geq0}}}(d)$, and $|\mu_i|\leq{\lambda}_i$ for all $i$. Then, there exists $(\eta,\nu)\in\mathcal{B}_d$ such that $${{\mathcal{L}}}({\lambda},\mu)\cong{{\mathcal{L}}}(\eta,\nu),$$ and $[{\lambda}-\mu]\leq[\eta-\nu]$.
First, we may assume $\mu_i<{\lambda}_i$ for all $i$, since the terms for which ${\lambda}_i=\mu_i$ do not contribute to ${{\mathcal{L}}}({\lambda},\mu)$. Proceed by induction on $N({\lambda},\mu)=|\{i=1,\ldots,n \mid \mu_i=-{\lambda}_i\}|$. If $N({\lambda},\mu)=0$, then $({\lambda},\mu)\in\mathcal{B}^+_d$ so there is nothing to do. If $N({\lambda},\mu)>0$, let $j$ be the smallest index such that $\mu_j=-{\lambda}_j$. Set ${\lambda}^{(1)}=({\lambda}_1,\ldots,{\lambda}_{j-1},{\lambda}_j,{\lambda}_j,{\lambda}_{j+1},\ldots,{\lambda}_n)$ and $\mu^{(1)}=(\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_{j-1},{\lambda}_j-1,\mu_j+1,\mu_{j+1},\ldots,{\lambda}_n)$. Clearly, ${\lambda}^{(1)}\in P_{>0}^{++}$ and $\mu^{(1)}\in{\lambda}^{(1)}-{{P_{\geq0}}}(d)$. We now show $\mu^{(1)}\in P^+[{\lambda}]$. Indeed, ${\lambda}_j>0$, so ${\lambda}_j-1>1-{\lambda}_j=\mu_j+1$; and, $\mu_j\geq\mu_{j+1}$, so $\mu_j+1>\mu_{j+1}$. Since $\mu_j<{\lambda}_j-1$, the $j$th twisted good Lyndon word in $[{\lambda}^{(1)}-\mu^{(1)}]$ is greater than the $j$th twisted good Lyndon word in $[{\lambda}-\mu]$. Hence, $[{\lambda}-\mu]\leq[{\lambda}^{(1)}-\mu^{(1)}]$.
Now, there exists a surjective homomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{[\mu_1,{\lambda}_1-1]}\circledast\cdots\circledast{{\mathcal{M}}}(({\lambda}_j,{\lambda}_j),({\lambda}_j-1,\mu_j+1))
&\circledast\cdots\circledast\Phi_{[\mu_{n},{\lambda}_{n}-1]}\\
&\to\Phi_{[\mu_1,{\lambda}_1-1]}\circledast\cdots\circledast\Phi_{[\mu_j,{\lambda}_j-1]}
\circledast\cdots\circledast\Phi_{[\mu_{n},{\lambda}_{n}-1]}\end{aligned}$$ Hence, a surjective homomorphism ${{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda}^{(1)},\mu^{(1)})\to{{\mathcal{L}}}({\lambda},\mu)$. It follows that ${{\mathcal{L}}}({\lambda}^{(1)},\mu^{(1)})\cong{{\mathcal{L}}}({\lambda},\mu)$.
Since $N({\lambda}^{(1)},\mu^{(1)})<N({\lambda},\mu)$ the result follows.
Recall that given $\mu\in{\lambda}-{{P_{\geq0}}}(d)$ there exists a unique $w\in S_d[{\lambda}]$ such that $w\mu\in P^+[{\lambda}]$. Let $\mu^+$ denote this element. Also, given ${\lambda}\in{{P^{++}}}$, and $\mu\in{\lambda}-{{P_{\geq0}}}(d)$, let $[{\lambda}-\mu]^+=[{\lambda}-\mu^+]\in\mathcal{TG}$ be the associated twisted good word. The following lemma is straightforward.
\[L:WordTriangularity\] Assume that ${\lambda}\in{{P^{++}}}$, ${\lambda}-\mu\in{{P_{\geq0}}}(d)$ and $\gamma\in Q^+$. Then, $[{\lambda}-\mu]\leq[{\lambda}-(\mu-{\gamma})^+]$.
The following is a complete list of pairwise non-isomorphic simple modules for ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$: $$\{\,{{\mathcal{L}}}({\lambda},\mu)\mid ({\lambda},\mu)\in \mathcal{B}^+_d\,\}.$$
Every composition factor of $M(\mu)$ is of the form $L(\mu-\gamma)$ for some $\gamma \in Q^+$. Applying the functor, we deduce that every composition factor of ${{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu)$ is of the form ${{\mathcal{L}}}({\lambda},\mu-\gamma)\cong{{\mathcal{L}}}({\lambda},(\mu-\gamma)^+)$. Now, putting together Corollary \[C:StandardizingWords\] and Lemma \[L:WordTriangularity\], we deduce that in the Grothendieck group $$[{{\mathcal{M}}}({\lambda},\mu)]=\sum_{\substack{\nu \in\mathcal{B}_d(\eta)\\
\eta \in P^{++}_{>0}\\
[{\lambda}-\mu]\leq[\eta-\nu]}}c_{\lambda,\mu, \eta, \nu}[{{\mathcal{L}}}(\eta,\nu)],$$ where the $c_{\lambda,\mu,\eta, \nu}$ are integers and where $c_{\lambda,\mu,\lambda, \mu} \neq 0 $. Therefore, the transition matrix between the basis for $K({\operatorname{Rep}}{{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d))$ given by standard modules and that given by simples is triangular.
Table of Notation {#SS:TableofNotation}
=================
For the convenience of the reader we provide a table of notation with a reference to where the notation is first defined.
Notation First Defined
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
${{\mathcal{S}}}(d)$, ${{\mathcal{H}_{{{\mathcal{C}\ell}}}^{\mathrm{aff}}}}(d)$, ${{\mathcal{P}}}_{d}[x]$, ${{\mathcal{A}}}(d) $ Section \[SS:Saffdef\]
$q(a)$ Section \[SS:weights\],
${{\mathcal{P}}}_{d}[x^{2}]$ Section \[SS:weights\]
${\operatorname{Ind}}^{d}_{\mu}$ Section \[SS:Mackey\]
$D_\nu$, $D_{(m,k)}$ Section \[SS:Mackey\]
$\gamma_{0}=\gamma_{0}(a_{1}, \dots ,a_{d})$ Section \[SS:characters\],
$[a_1,\ldots,a_d]$ Section \[SS:characters\]
${{\mathcal{C}\ell}}_{d}$ Section \[subsection irred modules\],
${{\mathcal{L}}}_i$, $s_{ij}$ Section \[subsection irred modules\],
$[a,b]$ Section \[subsection irred modules\]
$\hat{{\Phi}}_{[a,b]}$, $\hat{{\Phi}}_{[a,b]}^{+}$, $\hat{{\Phi}}_{[a,b]}^{-}$ Section \[subsection irred modules\]
${\Phi}_{[a,b]}$ Section \[subsection irred modules\], Definition \[segments\]
$\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}_{[a,b]}$, $ \varphi\hat{{{\mathbf{1}}}}_{[a,b]}$ Section \[subsection irred modules\]
${{{\mathbf{1}}}}_{a,b,n}$ Section \[unique simple quotient\]
$R$, $R^{+}$, $Q$, $Q^{+}$ Section \[SS:LieThy\]
$P$, $P_{\geq 0}$, $P^{+}$, $P^{++}$, $P^{+}_{\text{rat}}$, $P^{+}_{\text{poly}}$ Section \[SS:LieThy\]
$P(d)$, $P_{\geq 0}(d)$, $P^{+}(d)$, $P^{++}(d)$, $P^{+}_{\text{rat}}(d)$, $P^{+}_{\text{poly}}(d)$ Section \[SS:LieThy\]
$S_{n}[\lambda]$, $R[\lambda]$, $P^{+}[\lambda]$, $P^-[{\lambda}]$ Section \[SS:LieThy\]
$\widehat{\Phi}(\lambda, \mu)$, $\Phi(\lambda, \mu)$ Section \[SS:inducedmodules\]
$\widehat{{{\mathcal{M}}}}(\lambda, \mu)$, ${{\mathcal{M}}}(\lambda, \mu)$ Section \[SS:inducedmodules\], ,
${{{\mathcal{M}}}}_{a,b,n}$ Section \[unique simple quotient\]
$S_{n}[\zeta]$ Section \[SS:inducedmodules\]
$\mathcal{R}(\lambda, \mu)$ Section \[unique simple quotient\]
$L(\lambda, \mu)$ Section \[unique simple quotient\], Theorem \[thm:unique irred quotient\]
${\lambda}/\mu$ Section \[S:Calibrated\]
$\mathcal{Y}_{i,L}$ Section \[S:Calibrated\]
$H^{{\lambda}/\mu}$ Section \[S:Calibrated\]
$e_{i,j}$, $f_{i,j}$, $\bar{e}_{i,j}$, $\bar{f}_{i,j}$ Section \[SS:qndfn\]
$\mathcal{O}$, $\mathcal{O}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{q}}}(n))$ Section \[SS:RootData\]
$\widehat{M}(\lambda)$, $M(\lambda)$ Section \[SS:RootData\]
$(\cdot, \cdot)_{S}$ Section \[SS:ShapovalovForm\]
Notation First Defined
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- --------------------------------
$C_{i}$, $S_{i,j}$, $F_i$ Section \[SS:Sergeev Duality\]
$\Omega_{i,j}$ Section \[SS:action\]
$F_{\lambda}$ Section \[SS:Flambda\],
$(\cdot, \cdot)_{\mu}$ Section \[SS:functorimage\]
$\varpi(\mu)$ Section \[SS:functorimage\]
${\Delta}^+$, $\Pi$, $\mathcal{Q}$, $\mathcal{Q}^+$ Section \[SS:ShuffleAlg\]
$(\mathcal{F},*)$, $\mathcal{W}$ Section \[SS:ShuffleAlg\]
${{\mathcal{F}}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}$, ${{\mathcal{F}}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}$, ${{\mathcal{W}}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}$, ${{\mathcal{W}}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}$ Section \[SS:ShuffleAlg\]
$\underline{E}\in{{\mathcal{W}}}_{{\mathbb{C}}}$ Section \[SS:ShuffleAlg\]
$\mathcal{GL}$, $\mathcal{G}$ Section \[SS:LyndonWords\]
$\mathcal{B}_d[{\lambda}]$, $\mathcal{B}_d$ Section \[SS:LyndonWords\]
$[\cdot,\cdot]_q$, $\Xi$, $r_g$ Section \[SS:LyndonWords\]
$E_g$, $E_g^*$, $b_g$, $b_g^*$ Section \[SS:PBWandCanonical\]
[99]{}
T. Arakawa and T. Suzuki, Duality between ${{\mathfrak{sl}}}_n({{\mathbb{C}}})$ and the degenerate affine Hecke algebra of type $A$, *J. Algebra* **209** (1998), 288–304.
S. Ariki, On the decomposition numbers of the Hecke algebra of type $G(m,1,n)$, *J. Math. Kyoto Univ.* **36** (1996), 789–808.
J. Brundan, Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomials and character formulae for the Lie superalgebra ${{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$, *Adv. in Math.* **182** (2004), 28–77.
, Centers of degenerate cyclotomic Hecke algebras and parabolic category $\mathcal{O}$. *Represent. Theory* **12** (2008), 236–259.
J. Brundan and A. Kleshchev, Projective Representations of the Symmetric Group via Sergeev Duality, Math. Z. **239** (2002) no. 1, 27–68.
, Hecke-Clifford Superalgebras, Crystals of Type $A_{2l}^{(2)}$ and Modular Branching Rules for $\widehat{S}_n$, *Represent. Theory* **5** (2001), 317–403.
, Schur-Weyl duality for higher levels, *Selecta Math.* **14** (2008), 1–57.
, Representations of shifted Yangians and finite $W$-algebras, *Mem. Amer. Math. Soc.* **196** (2008), no. 918.
I. Cherednik, Special bases of irreducible representations of a degenerate affine Hecke algebra. *Functional Anal. Appl.* **20** (1986), no. 1, 76–78.
, Double affine Hecke algebras. London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, 319. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005.
J. Chuang and R. Rouquier, Derived equivalences for symmetric groups and $\mathfrak{}{sl}_{}2$-categorification. *Ann. of Math.* (2) **167** (2008), no. 1, 245–298.
V. G. Drinfeld, *Proc. Intern. Cong. Math., Berkeley*, vol. 1, Academic Press, New York, 1987, pp. 798–820.
A. Frisk, Typical blocks of the category $\mathcal{O}$ for the queer Lie superalgebra. *J. Algebra Appl.* **6** (2007), no. 5, 731–778.
V. A. Ginzburg, Proof of the Deligne-Langlands conjecture, *Soviet. Math. Dokl.* **35** (2) (1987), 304–308.
M. Gorelik, Shapovalov determinants of $Q$-type Lie superalgebras. *Int. Math. Res. Pap.* 2006, Art. ID 96895, 71 pp.
J. A. Green, Quantum groups, Hall algebras and quantum shuffles. In: Finite reductive groups (Luminy 1994), 273–290, Birkhäuser Prog. Math. 141, 1997.
I. Grojnowski, Affine $ sl_p $ controls the representation theory of the symmetric group and related Hecke algebras. math.RT/9907129.
A. De Sole and V. Kac, Finite vs affine $W$-algebras. (English summary) *Jpn. J. Math. 1* (2006), no. 1, 137–261.
M. Kashiwara, On crystal bases of the $q$-analogue of universal enveloping algebras. *Duke Math. J.* **63** (1991), 465–516 .
M. Khovanov and A. Lauda, A diagrammatic approach to categorification of quantum groups I. arXiv:0803.4121
, A diagrammatic approach to categorification of quantum groups II. arXiv:0804.2080
, A diagrammatic approach to categorification of quantum groups III. arXiv:0807.3250
S. Khoroshkin and M. Nazarov, Yangians and Mickelsson algebras. I. *Transform. Groups* **11** (2006), no. 4, 625–658.
A. Kleshchev, Linear and Projective Representations of Symmetric Groups, Cambridge University Press, 2005.
A. Kleshchev and A. Ram, Homogeneous Representations of Khovanov-Lauda Algebras. arXiv:0809.0557
P. Lalonde and A. Ram, Standard Lyndon bases of Lie algebras and enveloping algebras. *Trans. Am. Math. Soc.* **347** (1995), 1821–1830.
B. Leclerc, Dual canonical bases, quantum shuffles and $q$-characters. *Math. Z.* **246** (2004), no. 4, 691–732.
I. G. Macdonald, Symmetric Functions and Hall Polynomials, second edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995.
M. Nazarov, Young’s symmetrizers for projective representations of the symmetric group. *Adv. Math.* **127** (1997), no. 2, 190–257.
G. I. Olshanski, Quantized Universal Enveloping Superalgebra of type $Q$ and a Super-Extension of the Hecke Algebra, *Letters in Mathematical Physics* **24** (1992), 93–102.
R. Orellana and A. Ram, Affine braids, Markov traces and the category $\mathcal{O}$. Algebraic groups and homogeneous spaces, *Tata Inst. Fund. Res. Stud. Math.*, Mumbai, (2007), 423–473.
I. Penkov, Characters of typical irreducible finite-dimensional ${{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$-modules. (Russian) *Funktsional. Anal. i Prilozhen.* **20** (1986), no. 1, 37–45, 96.
I. Penkov and Serganova, V., Characters of finite-dimensional irreducible ${{\mathfrak{q}}}(n)$-modules. *Lett. Math. Phys.* **40** (1997), no. 2, 147–158.
, Characters of irreducible $G$-modules and cohomology of $G/P$ for the Lie supergroup $G=Q(N)$. Algebraic geometry, 7. J. Math. Sci. (New York) 84 (1997), no. 5, 1382–1412.
A. Ram, Skew shape representations are irreducible. Combinatorial and geometric representation theory (Seoul, 2001), *Contemp. Math.*, **325**, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, (2003), 161–189
J. D. Rogawski, On modules over the Hecke algebra of a $p$-adic group, *Invent. Math.* **79** (1985), no. 3, 443–465.
M. Rosso, Groupes quantiques et algèbres de battage quantiques. *C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris* **320**, (1995), 145–148.
, Quantum groups and quantum shuffles. *Invent. Math.* **133**, (1998), 399–416.
, Lyndon bases and the multiplicative formula for $R$-matrices. Preprint, 2002.
R. Rouquier, 2-Kac-Moody Algebras. arXiv:0812.5023
A. N. Sergeev, Tensor algebra of the identity representation as a module over the Lie superalgebras $GL(n,m)$ and $Q(n)$, *Math. USSR Sbornik* **51** (1985), 419–427.
, The Howe Duality and the Projective Representations of Symmetric Groups, *Represent. Theory* **3** (1999), 416–434.
J. R. Stembridge, Shifted tableaux and the projective representations of symmetric groups. *Adv. Math.* **74** (1989), no. 1, 87–134.
T. Suzuki, Rogawski’s Conjecture on the Jantzen Filtration for the Degenerate Affine Hecke Algebra of Type $A$, *Represent. Theory* (Electronic Jour. of AMS) **2** (1998), 393–409.
, Representations of degenerate affine Hecke algebra and ${{\mathfrak{gl}}}_n$. *Combinatorial methods in representation theory* Adv. Stud. Pure Math., 28, Kinokuniya, Tokyo, (2000), 343–372.
T. Suzuki and M. Vazirani, Tableaux on periodic skew diagrams and irreducible representations of the double affine Hecke algebra of type A. *Int. Math. Res. Not.* (2005), no. 27, 1621–1656.
M. Vazirani, Irreducible Modules over the Affine Hecke Algebra: A Strong Multiplicity One Result, Ph.D. Thesis, UC Berkeley, 1999.
J. Wan, Completely Splittable Representations of Affine Hecke-Clifford Algebras. In preparation.
W. Wang, Spin Hecke algebras of finite and affine types. *Advances in Math.* 212 (2007), 723–748.
W. Wang and L. Zhao, Representations of Lie Superalgebras in Prime Characteristic II: The Queer Series. preprint.
A. Zelevinsky, Induced representations of reductive $p$-adic groups II. *Ann. Sci. E.N.S.* **13** (1980), 165–210.
[^1]: Research of the second author was partially supported by NSF grant DMS-0734226. Research of the first and third author was partially supported by NSF EMSW21-RTG grant DMS-0354321
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'To give vector-based representations of meaning more structure, one approach is to use positive semidefinite (psd) matrices. These allow us to model similarity of words as well as the *hyponymy* or *is-a* relationship. Psd matrices can be learnt relatively easily in a given vector space $M\otimes M*$, but to compose words to form phrases and sentences, we need representations in larger spaces. In this paper, we introduce a generic way of composing the psd matrices corresponding to words. We propose that psd matrices for verbs, adjectives, and other functional words be lifted to completely positive (CP) maps that match their grammatical type. This lifting is carried out by our composition rule called Compression, . In contrast to previous composition rules like and (a.k.a. and ), preserves hyponymy. Mathematically, is itself a CP map, and is therefore linear and generally non-commutative. We give a number of proposals for the structure of , based on spiders, cups and caps, and generate a range of composition rules. We test these rules on a small sentence entailment dataset, and see some improvements over the performance of and .'
author:
- Gemma De las Cuevas
- Andreas Klingler
- Martha Lewis
- Tim Netzer
bibliography:
- 'biblio/all-my-bibliography.bib'
title: 'Cats climb entails mammals move: preserving hyponymy in compositional distributional semantics'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Vector-based representations of words, with similarity measured by the inner product of the normalised word vectors, have been extremely successful in a number of applications. However, as well as similarity, there are a number of other important relations between words or concepts, one of these being *hyponymy* or the *is-a* relation. Examples of this are that *cat* is a hyponym of *mammal*, but we can also apply this to verbs, and say that *sprint* is a hyponym of *run*. Within standard vector-based semantics based on co-occurrence statistics, there is no standard way of representing hyponymy between word vectors. There have been a number of alternative approaches to building word vectors that can represent these relationships, but most of these operate at the single word level. Of course, words can be composed to form phrases and sentences, and we use a variant of the categorical compositional distributional (DisCoCat) approach introduced in [@Co10c]. This approach uses a category-theoretic stance. It models syntax in one category, call it the *grammar category*, and semantics in another, call it the *meaning category*. A functor from the grammar category to the meaning category is defined, so that the grammatical reductions on the syntactic side can be translated into morphisms on the meaning side. The standard instantiation models meaning within the category of vector spaces and linear transformations, so that nouns are represented as vectors, and *functional words* such as verbs and adjectives are represented as multilinear maps, or alternatively, matrices and tensors. Within DisCoCat, choices can be made about the meaning category[^1]. One choice is to use the category ${\mathbf{CPM}({\mathbf{FHilb}})}$ of Hilbert spaces and completely positive maps between them. In this category, words are represented as positive semidefinite (psd) matrices. Psd matrices have a natural partial order called the Löwner order, and this order is used to model hyponymy. This approach was developed in [@sadrzadeh2018; @bankova2019; @lewisranlp], and the use of psd matrices to represent words has also been used in [@mots; @Co20]. One of the drawbacks of this approach is that learning psd matrices from text is difficult, in particular the larger matrices that are required for functional words. Therefore, in [@lewisranlp; @Co20], composition rules for psd matrices have been explored. In [@Co20] these composition rules are called and , in [@lewisranlp] they are and , respectively. For this paper we stick with the guitar pedal terminology.
One of the drawbacks of these composition rules is that they do not preserve hyponymy. That is, given two pairs of words in a hyponym-hypernym relationship, the combination of the two hyponyms is not necessarily a hyponym of the combination of the two hypernyms: $${\ensuremath{\textit{noun}}}_1 \leqslant {\ensuremath{\textit{noun}}}_2 \text{ and } {\ensuremath{\textit{verb}}}_1 \leqslant {\ensuremath{\textit{verb}}}_2 \text{ does not imply } {\ensuremath{\textit{noun}}}_1 \ast {\ensuremath{\textit{verb}}}_1 \leqslant {\ensuremath{\textit{noun}}}_2\ast {\ensuremath{\textit{verb}}}_2$$ where the nouns and verbs are psd matrices, $\leqslant$ is the Löwner ordering, and $\ast$ is one of or .
The goal of this paper is to define a composition rule which is (i) positivity preserving, and (ii) hyponymy preserving. In addition we will require it to be bilinear. If possible, it should also be non-commutative. Our composition rule is called Compression, , and it is in fact an infinite set of rules; namely all completely positive maps from ${\mathcal}{M}_m$ to ${\mathcal}{M}_m\otimes {\mathcal}{M}_m$, where ${\mathcal}{M}_m$ denotes the set of real matrices of size $m\times m$. As a special case, we recover .
We use the following notation. $A^*$ denotes complex conjugate transpose, and $A_*$ means complex conjugate. ${\mathrm{PSD}}_m$ denotes the set of positive semidefinite (psd) matrices of size $m\times m$ over the real numbers, and a psd element is denoted by $\geqslant 0$. We use the term *functional words* for words such as verbs and adjectives that take arguments. Nouns are not functional words.
Representing words as positive semidefinite matrices
====================================================
We assume that the reader is familiar with the categorical compositional distributional model of meaning introduced in [@Co10c], Frobenius algebras as used in [@sadrzadehrelpron], and the $\mathbf{CPM}$ construction [@selinger2007] – we have summarised the most important ingredients in Appendix \[app\]. We now jump right in to the representation of words as psd matrices and possible composition rules.
Positive semidefinite matrices are represented in ${\mathbf{CPM}({\mathbf{FHilb}})}$ as morphisms $\mathbb{R}\to M\otimes M^*$, where $M$ is some finite-dimensional Hilbert space and $M^*$ is its dual. The functor ${{\mathsf{S}}}: \mathbf{Preg} \rightarrow {\mathbf{CPM}({\mathbf{FHilb}})}$ sends nouns and sentences to psd matrices, and adjectives, verbs, and other functional words to completely positive maps, or equivalently psd matrices in a larger space. We represent words as psd matrices in the following way. In the vector-based model of meaning, a word $w$ is represented by a column vector, $\ket{w} \in \mathbb{R}^m$ (for some $m$). To pass to psd matrices, a subset of words $S$ will be mapped to rank 1 matrices, i.e. $\ket{w}\mapsto \ket{w}\bra{w}$. The words in $S$ are the hyponyms. The other words, which are hypernyms of the words in $S$, will be represented as mixtures of hyponyms: $$\label{eq:psdword}
\rho =\sum_{w\in W \subset S} \ket{w}\bra{w}.$$ Within a compositional model of meaning, we view nouns as psd matrices in ${\mathcal}{M}_m$, and sentences as psd matrices in ${\mathcal}{M}_s$ (for some $m$ and $s$). An intransitive verb has type $n^r s$ in the pregroup grammar, and is mapped by ${{\mathsf{S}}}$ to a psd element in ${\mathcal}{M}_m \otimes {\mathcal}{M}_s$. Equivalently, an intransitive verb is a completely positive (CP) map ${\mathcal}{M}_m \rightarrow {\mathcal}{M}_s$. The method for building psd matrices summarised in equation maps words of all grammatical types to psd matrices in ${\mathcal}{M}_m$. This is the correct type for nouns, but wrong for other grammatical types. Taking the example of intransitive verbs, we need to find a mechanism to lift an intransitive verb as a psd element in ${\mathcal}{M}_m$ to a CP map ${\mathcal}{M}_m \rightarrow {\mathcal}{M}_s$. There have been various approaches to implemnting this type lifting, which we now summarise.
Suppose $n$ is a psd matrix for a noun, and $v$ a psd matrix for a verb. Proposals in [@lewisranlp; @mots; @Co20] include the following – note in particular that and defined in [@Co20] coincide with and defined in [@lewisranlp]:
- $\textsf{Mult}(n,v) = n\odot v$ where $\odot $ is the Hadamard product, i.e. $(n\odot v)_{i,j} = n_{ij} v_{ij}$.
- $\textsf{Fuzz}(n,v) = \textsf{KMult} (n,v)= \sum_ip_i P_i nP_i $ where $v=\sum_i p_i P_i$ is the spectral decomposition of $v$. That is, $$\textsf{Fuzz}(n,v) = \sum_{i} \sqrt{p_i} P_i n P_i \sqrt{p_i}$$
- $\textsf{Phaser}(n,v) = \textsf{BMult}(n,v)= v^{1/2} nv^{1/2}$. Let $v=\sum_i p_i P_i$ be the spectral decomposition of $v$. Then $$\textsf{Phaser}(n,v) = \sum_{i,j} \sqrt{p_i} P_i n P_j \sqrt{p_j}$$
Some benefits and drawbacks of these operations are as follows. is a straightforward use of Frobenius algebra in the category ${\mathbf{CPM}({\mathbf{FHilb}})}$. It is linear, completely positive and preserves hyponymy. However, linguistically it is unsatisfactory because it is commutative, and so will map ‘Howard likes Jimmy’ to the same psd matrix as ‘Jimmy likes Howard’ – which do not have the same meaning and so should not have the same matrix representation. On the other hand, both and are non-commutative, however they are not linear and do not preserve hyponymy.
In the next section we outline the properties we want from a composition method, and propose a general framework that will allow us to generate a number of suggestions.
In search of more guitar pedals: Compression {#sec:composingpsd}
============================================
For the rest of the paper, we assume that both nouns and verbs are represented by psd matrices of the same size $m$, that is, we let $n \in {\mathrm{PSD}}_m$ and $v\in {\mathrm{PSD}}_m$. We are looking for a composition rule for these psd matrices. We call the desired operation $\textsf{Compr}$ (for reasons we shall later see), and want it to be a map $$\textsf{Compr}: {\mathcal{M}}_m \times {\mathcal{M}}_m \to {\mathcal{M}}_m.$$ The minimal two properties required from this map are the following:
1. [*Positivity preserving*]{}
If $n,v$ are psd, then $\textsf{Compr}( n,v)$ is psd: $$\textsf{Compr}: {\mathrm{PSD}}_m \times {\mathrm{PSD}}_m \to {\mathrm{PSD}}_m$$
2. [*Hyponymy preserving*]{}
If hyponymy is represented by the Löwner order $\leqslant$,[^2] $$n_1\leqslant n_2 , \quad v_1\leqslant v_2 \implies
\textsf{Compr}(n_1,v_1)\leqslant \textsf{Compr}(n_2,v_2)$$
Although these two properties are the most important ones, we now consider another property:
1. [*Bilinearity*]{}
is linear in each of its arguments, namely for $\alpha\in \mathbb{R}$:
$\textsf{Compr}(\alpha n,v) = \alpha \textsf{Compr}(n,v)$
$\textsf{Compr}(n,\alpha v) = \alpha \textsf{Compr}(n,v)$
$\textsf{Compr}(n+n',v) = \textsf{Compr}(n,v)+ \textsf{Compr}(n',v)$
$\textsf{Compr}(n,v+v') = \textsf{Compr}(n,v)+ \textsf{Compr}(n,v')$
Assumption (iii) has two advantages. The first one is that if the map is positivity preserving on the Cartesian product \[(i)\] and bilinear \[(iii)\], then it is hyponymy preserving \[(ii)\]:
Assumptions (i) and (iii) imply (ii).
Assume that $n_2\geqslant n_1$ and $v_2\geqslant 0$. Using (i) we have that $\textsf{Compr}(n_2-n_1, v_2) \geqslant 0$, and using (iii) that $\textsf{Compr}(n_2, v_2) \geqslant \textsf{Compr}(n_1, v_2).$ Now assume that $v_2\geqslant v_1$ and $n_1\geqslant 0$. Following the same argument we obtain that $\textsf{Compr}(n_1, v_2)\geqslant \textsf{Compr}(n_1, v_1). $ By transitivity of being psd, we obtain that $\textsf{Compr}(n_2, v_2)\geqslant \textsf{Compr}(n_1, v_1) $, which is condition (ii).
The second advantage of bilinearity is that it allows to reformulate in a convenient way. Since is linear in both components, we construct the following linear map: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{M}}_m&\to \textrm{Lin}({\mathcal{M}}_m,{\mathcal{M}}_m) \\ v &\mapsto \left(\textsf{Compr}(\cdot, v)\colon n\mapsto \textsf{Compr}(n, v)\right) \end{aligned}$$ Note that linearity of in the noun component is necessary for the image of this map to be $\textrm{Lin}({\mathcal{M}}_m,{\mathcal{M}}_m)$, whereas linearity in the verb component is necessary for this map itself to be linear. By slight abuse of notation we denote this new map also by : $$\textsf{Compr} \colon {\mathcal{M}}_m\to \textrm{Lin}({\mathcal{M}}_m,{\mathcal{M}}_m).$$ Now, assumption (i) applied to this new map means that psd matrices are mapped to positivity preserving maps, $$\textsf{Compr}: {\mathrm{PSD}}_m\to \textrm{PP}({\mathcal{M}}_m,{\mathcal{M}}_m) ,$$ where $\textrm{PP}({\mathcal{M}}_m,{\mathcal{M}}_m)$ is the set of positivity preserving linear maps from ${\mathcal{M}}_m$ to ${\mathcal{M}}_m$, i.e. those that map psd matrices to psd matrices. To make things more tractable, one can use the isomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
\textrm{Lin}({\mathcal{M}}_m,{\mathcal{M}}_m)&\to {\mathcal{M}}_m\otimes{\mathcal{M}}_m\\
\varphi &\mapsto \sum_{i,j} \varphi(|e_i\rangle\langle e_j|)\otimes |e_i\rangle\langle e_j|,\end{aligned}$$ where $\{\ket{e_i}\}$ is an orthonormal basis of $\mathbb{R}^m$. Using this isomorphism, $\textrm{PP}({\mathcal{M}}_m,{\mathcal{M}}_m)$ corresponds to the set of block positive matrices $\textrm{BP}({\mathcal{M}}_m \otimes {\mathcal{M}}_m)$ on the tensor product space.[^3] Summarizing, we are trying to construct a linear map $$\textsf{Compr} \colon {\mathcal{M}}_m\to {\mathcal{M}}_m\otimes {\mathcal{M}}_m$$ that maps psd matrices to block positive matrices. So far, this is just a reformulation of conditions (i) and (iii).
To make thinks more tractable, we now further strengthen the conditions on the map. Namely, we require to map psd matrices in ${\mathcal{M}}_m$ to psd matrices in ${\mathcal{M}}_m\otimes{\mathcal{M}}_m\cong {\mathcal{M}}_{m^2}$, i.e. to be positivity preserving itself. Using the isomorphism above, this means that $\textsf{Compr}$ maps psd matrices to completely positive (CP) maps from ${\mathcal{M}}_m$ to ${\mathcal{M}}_m$ (see table \[tab:posmaps\]): $$\textsf{Compr}: {\mathrm{PSD}}_m\to \textrm{CP}({\mathcal{M}}_m,{\mathcal{M}}_m) .$$
Linear map $ {\mathcal{M}}_m \to {\mathcal{M}}_m$ $\leftrightarrow$ Element in ${\mathcal{M}}_m\otimes {\mathcal{M}}_m$
--------------------------------------------------- ------------------- -----------------------------------------------------
Positivity preserving map $\leftrightarrow$ Block positive matrix
Completely positive map $\leftrightarrow$ Positive semidefinite matrix
: Correspondence between linear maps $ {\mathcal{M}}_m \to {\mathcal{M}}_m$ and elements in ${\mathcal{M}}_m\otimes {\mathcal{M}}_m$, known as the Choi-Jamiołkowski isomorphism.[]{data-label="tab:posmaps"}
And since we are still not running out of steam, we require not only to be positivity preserving, but also to be completely positive itself. In total, we are trying to construct a [*completely positive map*]{} $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\textsf{Compr}\colon {\mathcal{M}}_m &\to {\mathcal{M}}_m \otimes {\mathcal{M}}_m\cong {\mathcal{M}}_{m^2} \\
v&\mapsto \sum_l K_l v K_l^*
\label{eq:vkraus}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the well known fact that every completely positive map admits a Kraus decomposition, for certain Kraus operators $K_l\in \mathbb R^m\otimes{\mathcal{M}}_m\cong{\mathcal{M}}_{m^2,m}$. Recall that ${K}^*$ denotes the complex conjugate transpose of $K$.
In summary, we are asking for a stronger condition than just (i) and (iii). On the other hand, the weaker forms of maps mentioned above do not admit a closed description, whereas completely positive maps do. By Stinespring’s Dilation Theorem, all completely positive map can be expressed as a $*$-representation followed by a [*compression*]{}, hence the name . This is precisely what gives rise to the Kraus decomposition of the map. This also fits well with the electric guitar pedal notation from [@Co20], as can be seen in figure \[Fig:Comp\].
[nodelayer]{} (1) at (3.5, 1) [$\:$ Meaning of a noun $n$]{}; (2) at (3.5, -.5) [$\:$ Meaning of a verb $v$]{}; (3) at (1, 0.5) ; (5) at (-1, .5) ; (6) at (-3, .5) [ $\textsf{Compr}(n,v)\:$]{}; (7) at (0,0) [![Not only Fuzz and Phaser, but also Compression is an important guitar pedal. The operation takes as input an element of ${\mathcal{M}}_m \times {\mathcal{M}}_m$ (denoted $n, v$) representing the meaning of a noun and the meaning of a verb, and it outputs $\textsf{Compr}(n,v)$, representing the meaning of the sentence $n \: v$. []{data-label="Fig:Comp"}](figures/Compression.jpg "fig:"){width=".15\textwidth"}]{};
[edgelayer]{} (1.west) to (3.north); (2.west) to (3.north); (5.center) to (6.east);
Note that in general such is non-commutative, i.e. when translated back to the initial setup of $$\textsf{Compr}: {\mathcal{M}}_m \times {\mathcal{M}}_m \to {\mathcal{M}}_m$$ we will generally have $\textsf{Compr}( n,v) \neq \textsf{Compr}( v ,n) $. This is a good property, as it reflects the position of the words in a sentence has both syntactic and semantic roles, e.g. ‘woman bites dog’ versus ‘dog bites woman’. Note also that and (or and ) are not linear in the verb component, i.e. they do not fulfill (iii), and are thus not special cases of . However, is a special case of , as we shall see.
Building nouns and verbs in ${\mathbf{CPM}({\mathbf{FHilb}})}$
==============================================================
In order to build psd matrices to represent words, we can use pretrained word embeddings such as word2vec [@word2vec] or GloVe [@glove], together with information about hyponymy relations. The word embedding methods produce vectors for each word, all represented in one vector space $W$. Information about hyponymy relations can be found in WordNet [@wordnet] or in a less supervised manner by extracting hyponym-hypernym pairs using Hearst patterns [@hearst1992; @hearst].
Given a word $w$, we can gather a set of hyponyms $\{h_i\}_i$ from WordNet, Hearst patterns, or some other source. We then take the vectors for the $h_i$ from pretrained word embeddings, and form the matrix $${\rho( w )} = \sum_i \ket{h_i}\bra{h_i} \in W \otimes W^*.$$ where $W^*$ is the dual of the column vector space $W$. ${\rho( w )}$ is then normalised. In this work, we normalise using the infinity norm, that is, we divide by the maximum eigenvalue. This has been shown to have nice properties [@vdwetering]. This approach to building word representations puts all word representations in the shared space $W \otimes W^*$. If we are working in the category ${\mathbf{CPM}({\mathbf{FHilb}})}$, this is the right kind of representation for nouns, but not for functional words. To transform a psd matrix ${\rho( verb )} \in {\mathrm{PSD}}_m$ to a psd matrix in ${\mathcal}{M}_{m^2}$, we use the composition rule proposed in section \[sec:composingpsd\]: $$\begin{aligned}
\textsf{Compr}\colon {\mathcal{M}}_m&\to {\mathcal{M}}_m\otimes{\mathcal{M}}_m\cong{\mathcal{M}}_{m^2} \\
v&\mapsto \textsf{Compr}(\cdot,v) \end{aligned}$$
Characterising $\mathsf{Compr}$ diagrammatically
------------------------------------------------
We now characterise $\mathsf{Compr}$, $\mathsf{Compr}(\cdot,v)$, and $\mathsf{Compr}(n,v)$ in the diagrammatic calculus for ${\mathbf{FHilb}}$. This will allow us to generate simple examples of $\mathsf{Compr}$ in a systematic manner. Equation states: $$\mathsf{Compr}(\cdot,v) = \sum_l K_l v K_l^*$$ Diagrammatically, this gives us:
$$\mathsf{Compr} = \begin{gathered} \PandocStartInclude{tikz/T_mixed.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{454}{60}\end{gathered}, \qquad \mathsf{Compr}(\cdot,v) = \begin{gathered} \PandocStartInclude{tikz/Tv_mixed.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{454}{153}\end{gathered}$$ The application of $\mathsf{Compr}(\cdot,v)$ to $n$ is then: $$\label{eq:tvn}
\mathsf{Compr}(n,v) = \begin{gathered} \PandocStartInclude{tikz/Tvn.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{459}{61}\end{gathered}$$ Note that this style corresponds to the usual DisCoCat diagram style via some reshaping, explained in equation of the appendix. Given that we have representations of $v$ and of $n$, what should the $K_l$ look like? In full generality, parameters of the $K_l$ could be perhaps inferred using regression techniques, in a similar approach to that suggested in [@lewisrnns], inspired by [@socher], or via methods like those in [@baroni2010; @grefenstette2013]. However, we can also consider purely “structural” morphisms, generated from cups, caps, swaps, and spiders (for details, see table \[tab:frob\] in the appendix). In the following, we give a number of options to specify $K$. We divide up the internal structure of $K$ by specifying the number of spiders inside $K$.
#### 0 spiders
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:trnv}
K &= \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/Kid.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{486}{46}\end{gathered}, \quad \mathsf{Compr}(v)(n) \:=\: \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/Tvnidfull.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{486}{139}\end{gathered} \:=\: \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/Tvnid.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{486}{200}\end{gathered} = {\textrm{tr}}(n) v\\
K &= \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/Kswap.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{487}{48}\end{gathered}, \quad \mathsf{Compr}(v)(n) \:=\: \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/Tvnswapfull.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{487}{143}\end{gathered} \:=\: \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/Tvnswap.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{487}{206}\end{gathered} = {\textrm{tr}}(nv) \mathbb{I}\\
\label{eq:trvn}
K &= \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/Kcupcap.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{489}{50}\end{gathered}, \quad \mathsf{Compr}(v)(n) \:=\: \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/Tvncupcapfull.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{489}{147}\end{gathered} \:=\: \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/Tvncupcap.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{489}{212}\end{gathered} = {\textrm{tr}}(v) n
\end{aligned}$$
#### 1 spider
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:diagndiagv}
K &= \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/Kall.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{495}{48}\end{gathered}, \quad \mathsf{Compr}(v)(n) \:=\: \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/Tvnallfull.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{495}{142}\end{gathered} \:=\: \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/Tvnall.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{495}{204}\end{gathered} = \mathrm{diag}(n) \mathrm{diag}(v)
\end{aligned}$$
#### 2 spiders
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:nsumv}
K &= \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/KLupRup.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{501}{48}\end{gathered}, \quad \mathsf{Compr}(v)(n) \:=\: \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/TvLupRupfull.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{501}{144}\end{gathered} \:=\: \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/TvLupRup.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{501}{208}\end{gathered} = mn\sum_{ij} v_{ij}\\
K &= \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/KLupRdown.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{502}{51}\end{gathered}, \quad \mathsf{Compr}(v)(n) \:=\: \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/TvnLupRdownfull.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{502}{150}\end{gathered} \:=\: \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/TvnLupRdown.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{502}{217}\end{gathered} = m{\textrm{tr}}(nv)\sum_{ij} \ket{e_i}\bra{e_j}\\
\label{eq:vsumn}
K &= \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/KLupLdown.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{504}{51}\end{gathered}, \quad \mathsf{Compr}(v)(n) \:=\: \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/TvnLupLdownfull.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{504}{150}\end{gathered} \:=\: \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/TvnLupLdown.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{504}{217}\end{gathered} = mv\sum_{ij} n_{ij}\\
K &= \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/KRupRdown.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{505}{51}\end{gathered}, \quad \mathsf{Compr}(v)(n) \:=\: \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/TvnRupRdownfull.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{505}{150}\end{gathered} \:=\: \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/TvnRupRdown.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{505}{217}\end{gathered} = {\textrm{tr}}(n)\sum_{ij} v_{ij}\sum_{kl}\ket{e_k}\bra{e_l}
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
K &= \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/KRupLdown.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{508}{50}\end{gathered}, \quad \mathsf{Compr}(v)(n) \:=\: \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/TvnRupLdownfull.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{508}{149}\end{gathered} \:=\: \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/TvnRupLdown.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{508}{216}\end{gathered} = \mathbb{I} \sum_{ij} n_{ij}\sum_{kl}v_{kl}\\
K &= \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/KRdownLdown.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{509}{53}\end{gathered}, \quad \mathsf{Compr}(v)(n) \:=\: \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/TvnRdownLdownfull.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{509}{154}\end{gathered} \:=\: \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/TvnRdownLdown.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{509}{223}\end{gathered} = {\textrm{tr}}(v) \sum_{ij} n_{ij}\sum_{kl}\ket{e_k}\bra{e_l}\\
K &= \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/Kmuiota.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{510}{49}\end{gathered}, \quad \mathsf{Compr}(v)(n) \:=\: \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/Tvnmuiotafull.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{510}{146}\end{gathered} \:=\: \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/Tvnmuiota.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{510}{211}\end{gathered} = {\textrm{tr}}\left( \sum_{ij} n_{ij}v_{ij} \ket{e_i}\bra{e_j}\right)\sum_{kl}\ket{e_k}\bra{e_l}\\
\label{eq:sumndiagv}
K &= \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/Kiotamu.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{512}{49}\end{gathered}, \quad \mathsf{Compr}(v)(n) \:=\: \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/Tvniotamufull.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{512}{146}\end{gathered} \:=\: \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/Tvniotamu.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{512}{211}\end{gathered} = \sum_{ij} n_{ij}\mathrm{diag}(v)
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sumvdiagn}
K &= \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/KDeltazeta.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{516}{53}\end{gathered}, \quad \mathsf{Compr}(v)(n) \:=\: \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/TvnDeltazetafull.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{516}{153}\end{gathered} \:=\: \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/TvnDeltazeta.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{516}{221}\end{gathered} = \sum_{ij} v_{ij}\mathrm{diag}(n)
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:mult}
K &= \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/KzetaDelta.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{520}{54}\end{gathered}, \quad \mathsf{Compr}(v)(n) \:=\: \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/TvnzetaDeltafull.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{520}{154}\end{gathered} \:=\: \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/TvnzetaDelta.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{520}{222}\end{gathered} = \sum_{ij} v_{ij}n_{ij} \ket{e_i}\bra{e_j} = \mathsf{Mult}(n, v)
\end{aligned}$$
#### 3 spiders
The instances with 3 spiders are subsumed by the instances with 2 spiders, since to have 3 spiders we would need two spiders with one leg and one spider with two legs. A spider with two legs is either a cup, cap, or the identity morphism, hence these have been included in the 2 spider instances.
#### 4 spiders
$$\begin{aligned}
K = \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/K4.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{528}{42}\end{gathered}, \quad \mathsf{Compr}(v)(n) \:=\: \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/Tvn4full.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{528}{134}\end{gathered} \:=\: \begin{gathered}\PandocStartInclude{tikz/Tvn4.tikz}\PandocEndInclude{input}{528}{194}\end{gathered} = m\sum_{ij} n_{ij}\sum_{kl} v_{kl}\sum_{rs}\ket{e_r} \bra{e_s}
\end{aligned}$$
This gives us a whole range of possible instantiations of $\mathsf{Compr}$. Some of these options are more interesting than others. Options that give us a multiple of the identity matrix or a multiple of $\sum_{ij} \ket{e_i}\bra{e_j} $ for orthonormal basis $\{\ket{e_i}\}_i$ are less interesting since this means that all phrase representations will be mapped to the same psd matrix, differing only by a scalar. This means that although hyponymy information may be preserved, information about similarity will be lost.
In the following section we test out a number of options on some phrase entailment datasets. We test equations: , , , , , , and , the last of which was already shown to work well in [@lewisranlp].
Demonstration
=============
To test these composition methods, we follow the setup in [@lewisranlp; @lewisnegation]. We firstly build psd matrices using GloVe vectors. For this small scale demonstration we use GloVe vectors of dimension 50. We use a set of datasets that contain pairs of short phrases, for which the first either does or does not entail the second.
In addition, we use a graded form of the Löwner ordering to measure hyponymy, since in general the crisp Löwner ordering will not be obtained between two psd matrices $A$ and $B$. This graded form is measured as follows. Given two psd matrices $A$ and $B$, if $A \leqslant B$ then $ A + D = B $ where $D$ is itself a psd matrix. If this does not hold, we can add an error term $E$ so that $$A + D = B + E.$$ In the worst case, we can set $E = A$, so that $D = B$, and in fact we will always have that $E \leqslant A$. A graded measure of hyponymy is obtained by comparing the size of $E$ and $A$. We set $$k_E = 1 - \frac{||E||}{||A||},$$ where $||\cdot||$ denotes the Euclidean norm, $||A|| =\sqrt{{\textrm{tr}}(A^*A)}$. [The crisp Löwner order is recovered in the case]{} that $E = 0$, so that $k_E = 1$. A second measure of graded hyponymy is obtained as follows: $$k_{BA} = \frac{\sum_i \lambda_i}{\sum_i |\lambda_i|}$$ where $\lambda_i$ is the $i$th eigenvalue of $B - A$ and $| \cdot |$ indicates absolute value. This measures the proportions of positive and negative eigenvalues in the expression $B-A$. If all eigenvalues are negative, $k_{BA} = -1$, and if all are positive, $k_{BA} = 1$. This measure is balanced in the sense that $k_{BA} = - k_{AB}$.
#### Datasets
The datasets were originally collected for [@kartsaklis2016]. They consist of ordered pairs of short phrases in which the first entails the second, and also the same pair in the opposite order, so that the first phrase does not entail the second. The datasets were gathered using WordNet as source. The datasets contain intransitive sentences, of the form [$\textit{subject verb}$]{}, verb phrases, of the form [$\textit{verb object}$]{} and transitive sentences, of the form [$\textit{subject verb object}$]{}. For example:
> summer finish, season end, `true`
>
> season end, summer finish, `false`
The datasets have a binary classification, so we measure performance using area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. If we imagine that our graded measure is converted to a binary measure by giving a threshold, area under ROC curve measures performance at all cutoff thresholds. A value of 1 means that the graded values are in fact a completely correct binary classification, a value of 0.5 means that the graded values are randomly correlated with the correct classification, and a value of 0 means that the graded values are binary values that are classified in exactly the wrong way (a value of 1 is mapped to 0 and 0 to 1).
#### Models
We test the following models, for $n, v \in {\mathcal{M}}_m$. We denote by ${\mathrm{diag}}(A)$ the matrix obtained by setting all off-diagonal elements of $A$ to 0. In order to retain the property that the maximum eigenvalue is less than or equal to 1, we divide by the dimension $m$ or by $m^2$ where necessary.
1. **Traced noun**: $\textsf{Compr}(n, v) = \frac{{\textrm{tr}}(n)}{m} v$
2. **Traced verb**: $\textsf{Compr}(n, v) = \frac{{\textrm{tr}}(v)}{m} n$
3. **Diag**: $\textsf{Compr}(n, v) = {\mathrm{diag}}(n){\mathrm{diag}}(v)$
4. **Summed noun**: $\textsf{Compr}(n, v) = \frac{v}{m^2} \sum_{ij} n_{ij}$
5. **Summed verb**: $\textsf{Compr}(n, v) = \frac{n}{m^2} \sum_{ij} v_{ij}$
6. **Diag verb**: $\textsf{Compr}(n, v) = \frac{{\mathrm{diag}}(v)}{m^2} \sum_{ij} n_{ij}$
7. **Diag noun**: $\textsf{Compr}(n, v) = \frac{{\mathrm{diag}}(n)}{m^2} \sum_{ij} v_{ij}$
8. **Mult**: $\textsf{Compr}(n, v) = \sum_{ij} v_{ij}n_{ij} \ket{e_i}\bra{e_j}$
Above, we have specified models for sentences of the form [$\textit{subj verb}$]{}. For verb phrases, we treat the verb as $v$ and the object as $n$, so the models differ based on the grammatical type of the word, rather than its position in the argument list. For sentence of the form [$\textit{subject verb object}$]{}, we first combine the verb and the object, according to their grammatical type, and then treating this verb phrase as an intransitive verb, combine the subject and verb phrase, again according to grammatical type. So, for example, iterating the composition **Traced Verb** on psd matrices $s$, $v$, $o$ for subject, verb, and object, we obtain: $$\textsf{Compr}(s, \textsf{Compr}(o, v)) = \textsf{Compr}(s, \frac{{\textrm{tr}}(v)}{m} o) = \frac{{\textrm{tr}}(v){\textrm{tr}}(o)}{m^2} s$$ We also test two combined models:
1. **Traced addition**: $\textsf{Compr}(n, v) = \frac{{\textrm{tr}}(n)}{2m} v + \frac{{\textrm{tr}}(v)}{2m} n$
2. **Summed addition**: $\textsf{Compr}(n, v) = \frac{v}{m^2} \sum_{ij} n_{ij} + \frac{n}{m^2} \sum_{ij} v_{ij}$
We compare with a verb-only baseline and with and . These last two are tested in two directions:
1. **Verb only**: $\textsf{Verb only}(n, v) = v$
2. **Fuzz**: $\textsf{Fuzz}(n, v) = \sum_{i} \sqrt{p_i} P_i n P_i \sqrt{p_i}$ where $\sum_i p_i P_i$ is the spectral decomposition of $v$
3. **Fuzz switched**: $\textsf{Fuzz-s}(n, v) = \sum_{i} \sqrt{q_i} Q_i v Q_i \sqrt{q_i}$ where $\sum_i q_i Q_i$ is the spectral decomposition of $n$
4. **Phaser**: $\textsf{Phaser}(n, v) = \sqrt{v} n \sqrt{v}$
5. **Phaser switched**: $\textsf{Phaser-s}(n, v) = \sqrt{n} v \sqrt{n}$
To test for significance of our results, we bootstrap the data with 100 repetitions [@efron1992] and compare between models using a two sample t-test. We apply the Bonferroni correction to compensate for multiple comparisons.
Results
-------
Results are presented in table \[tab:results\]. A key point is that as in previous work, the $k_{BA}$ measure performs better than the $k_E$ measure. Furthermore, across all datasets, the models **Traced verb** and **Summed verb** perform much more highly than simply taking the verb on its own, indicating that information about at least the size of the noun is crucial. Across both measures, performance is highest on the SVO dataset and lowest on the VO dataset. This may be due to the construction of the datasets, or it may be due to these composition methods working well on longer phrases.
Within the results using the $k_E$ measure, the model **Diag verb** is strong across all datasets. This is surprising, as taking the diagonal of the verb would seem to result in information loss. Within the results using the $k_E$ measure, the new models largely outperform **Phaser**, and on the VO dataset, outperform **Fuzz** too.
Within the results using the $k_{BA}$ measure, the picture is less clear. **Diag**, **Mult**, and **Traced addition** are all fairly strong, but there is no outright best model. Perhaps looking at some other combination possibilities would be useful.
--------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------
SV VO SVO SV VO SVO
**Verb only** 0.599 0.586 0.652 0.787 0.744 0.834
**Fuzz** 0.867 0.803 0.917 0.927 0.896 0.968
**Fuzz switched** 0.809 0.743 0.940 0.934 0.891 0.953
**Phaser** 0.833 0.761 0.925 0.924 0.896 0.970
**Phaser switched** 0.765 0.717 0.932 0.930 0.891 0.977
**Traced noun** 0.813 0.769 0.933 0.936 $0.912^{*+}$ 0.960
**Traced verb** 0.842 $0.803^+$ $0.949^{*+}$ 0.930 $0.909^*$ $0.974^*$
**Diag** $0.898^{*+}$ $0.860^{*+}$ $0.943^+$ $0.937^+$ $\textbf{0.916}^{*+}$ 0.967
**Summed noun** 0.794 $0.779^+$ 0.898 0.890 0.886 0.933
**Summed verb** $0.865^+$ $0.810^+$ 0.936 0.926 0.884 0.970
**Diag verb** $\textbf{0.916}^{*+}$ $\textbf{0.876}^{*+}$ $\textbf{0.977}^{*+}$ 0.917 0.875 0.971
**Diag noun** $0.872^+$ $0.852^{*+}$ 0.432 0.881 0.875 0.870
**Mult** $0.850^+$ $0.813^{*+}$ $0.941^+$ $\textbf{0.943}^{*+}$ $0.915^{*+}$ 0.969
**Traced addition** $0.868^+$ $0.830^{*+}$ $0.964^{*+}$ 0.934 $0.909^{*+}$ $ \textbf{0.985}^{*+}$
**Summed addition** $0.854^+$ $0.821^{*+}$ 0.937 0.917 0.896 0.966
--------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------
: Area under ROC curve for $k_E$ and $k_{BA}$ graded hyponymy measures. Figures are mean values of 100 samples taken from each dataset with replacement. $-^*$ indicates significantly better than both variants of **Fuzz**, $p < 0.01$, $-^+$ indicates significantly better than both variants of **Phaser**, $p < 0.01$.[]{data-label="tab:results"}
Discussion
==========
We have presented a general composition rule called $\textsf{Compr}$ for converting a psd matrix for a functional word such as a verb or an adjective into a CP map that matches the grammatical type of the word. $\textsf{Compr}$ preserves hyponymy, in contrast to previous approaches like $\textsf{Fuzz}$ and $\textsf{Phaser}$. While in full generality we would want to learn the parameters of $\textsf{Compr}$ from a text corpus, as a first step we have defined the structure of $\textsf{Compr}$ using just cups, caps, and spiders. Results on the text datasets are promising, although there is no completely clear advantage over $\textsf{Fuzz}$ or $\textsf{Phaser}$.
The approach we have taken, namely that of defining a map that converts representations of functional words to a higher-order type, has also been seen in vector-based models of meaning. In [@kartsaklis2012], [@grefenstette2011], word vectors and also matrices are converted using Frobenius algebras, of which the composition is a direct analogue. Furthermore, in [@mitchell2010], and recapitulated in [@lewisrnns], a bilinear map $C: N \otimes N \rightarrow N$ that gives the composition of two vectors is proposed. Under this approach, we would have $${\rho( {\ensuremath{\textit{subj verb}}} )} = C({\rho( {\ensuremath{\textit{subj}}} )} \otimes {\rho( {\ensuremath{\textit{verb}}} )})
\text{ and }
{\rho( {\ensuremath{\textit{subj verb obj}}} )} = C({\rho( {\ensuremath{\textit{subj}}} )} \otimes C({\rho( {\ensuremath{\textit{verb}}} )} \otimes {\rho( {\ensuremath{\textit{obj}}} )}))$$ Our approach is an analogue to this one within the realm of psd matrices and CP maps.
There are a number of strands to this work to be continued. We would like to learn $\textsf{Compr}$ directly from text, rather than specifying the structure by hand. More freedom in the parameters of $\textsf{Compr}$ means that we could define it as a CP map $$\textsf{Compr}\colon {\mathcal{M}}_m\to {\mathcal{M}}_m\otimes{\mathcal{M}}_s.$$ where we are then matching the grammatical types more exactly. In addition, the psd matrices we use are built using human curated resources – ideally these would be learnt in a less supervised manner directly from text corpora. At present, we have given two possible graded measures of hyponymy – more research into these measures is needed, including how they interact with the composition methods we have specified. Work is currently ongoing to develop a model of negation within this framework [@lewisnegation].
[^1]: Choices can also be made for the grammar category, but we do not discuss that in this work.
[^2]: If $\rho$, $\sigma$ are psd, then $\rho\leqslant\sigma$ iff $\sigma -\rho\geqslant 0$, i.e. if $\sigma - \rho$ is itself psd.
[^3]: A matrix $\rho\in {\mathcal{M}}_m\otimes {\mathcal{M}}_m$ is block positive if $(\langle v|\otimes \langle w|) \rho (|v\rangle\otimes |w\rangle) \geq 0$ for all vectors $|v\rangle$, $|w\rangle$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We have analyzed available optical data for Au in the mid-infrared range which is important for a precise prediction of the Casimir force. Significant variation of the data demonstrates genuine sample dependence of the dielectric function. We demonstrate that the Casimir force is largely determined by the material properties in the low frequency domain and argue that therefore the precise values of the Drude parameters are crucial for an accurate evaluation of the force. These parameters can be estimated by two different methods, either by fitting real and imaginary parts of the dielectric function at low frequencies, or via a Kramers-Kronig analysis based on the imaginary part of the dielectric function in the extended frequency range. Both methods lead to very similar results. We show that the variation of the Casimir force calculated with the use of different optical data can be as large as 5% and at any rate cannot be ignored. To have a reliable prediction of the force with a precision of 1%, one has to measure the optical properties of metallic films used for the force measurement.'
address:
- '$^1$Laboratoire Kastler Brossel, ENS, CNRS, UPMC, 4, place Jussieu, Case 74, 75252 Paris Cedex 05, France'
- '$^2$MESA+ Research Institute, University of Twente, P.O. 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands'
author:
- 'I. Pirozhenko$^1$, A. Lambrecht$^1$, and V. B. Svetovoy$^2$'
title: Sample dependence of the Casimir force
---
Introduction\[Sec1\]
====================
The Casimir force [@Cas48] between uncharged metallic plates attracts considerable attention as a macroscopic manifestation of the quantum vacuum [@Mil94; @Mos97; @Mil01; @Kar99; @Bor01]. With the development of microtechnologies, which routinely control the separation between bodies smaller than 1 $\mu m$, the force became a subject of systematic experimental investigation. Modern precision experiments have been performed using different techniques such as torsion pendulum [@Lam97], atomic force microscope (AFM) [@Moh98; @Har00], microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) [@Cha01; @Dec03a; @Dec03b; @Dec05; @Ian04; @Ian05] and different geometrical configurations: sphere-plate [@Lam97; @Har00; @Dec03b], plate-plate [@Bre02] and crossed cylinders [@Ede00]. The relative experimental precision of the most precise of these experiments is estimated to be about 0.5% for the recent MEMS measurement [@Dec05] and 1% for the AFM experiments [@Har00; @Cha01].
In order to come to a valuable comparison between the experiments and the theoretical predictions, one has to calculate the force with a precision comparable to the experimental accuracy. This is a real challenge to the theory because the force is material, surface, geometry and temperature dependent. Here we will only focus on the material dependence, which is easy to treat on a level of some percent precision but which will turn out difficult to tackle on a high level of precision since different uncontrolled factors are involved.
In its original form, the Casimir force per unit surface [@Cas48]
$$F_{c}\left( a\right) =-\frac{\pi ^{2}}{240}\frac{\hbar c}{L^{4}}
\label{Fc}$$
was calculated between ideal metals. It depends only on the fundamental constants and the distance between the plates $L$. The force between real materials differs significantly from (\[Fc\]) for mirror separations smaller than 1 $\mu$m.
For mirrors of arbitrary material, which can be described by reflection coefficients, the force per unit area can be written as [@Lam00]:
$$\begin{aligned}
F&=& 2\sum_{\mu}\int \frac{\mathrm{d}^{2}\mathbf{k}}{4\pi ^{2}}
\int_{0}^{\infty }\frac{\mathrm{d}\zeta }{2\pi } \hbar\kappa
\frac{r_{\mu}\left[ i\zeta ,\mathbf{k} \right]^2 e^{-2\kappa
L}}{1-r_{\mu}
\left[ i\zeta ,\mathbf{k} \right]^2 e^{-2\kappa L}}\nonumber \\
&&\kappa=\sqrt{\mathbf{k}^{2}+ \frac{\zeta ^{2}}{c^2}} \label{Force}\end{aligned}$$
where $r_{\mu}=(r_s,r_p)$ denotes the reflection amplitude for a given polarization $\mu=s,\;p$
$$\begin{aligned}
r_{s } &=&-\frac{\sqrt{\mathbf{k}^{2}+ \varepsilon \left( i\zeta
\right)\frac{\zeta ^{2}}{c^2}}-c\kappa } {\sqrt{\mathbf{k}^{2}+
\varepsilon \left( i\zeta \right) \frac{\zeta ^{2}}{c^2}}+c\kappa }
\nonumber \\
r_{p} &=&\frac{\sqrt{\mathbf{k}^{2}+ \varepsilon \left( i\zeta
\right)\frac{\zeta ^{2}}{c^2}}-c\kappa \varepsilon \left( i\zeta
\right) }{\sqrt{\mathbf{k}^{2}+ \varepsilon \left( i\zeta
\right)\frac{\zeta ^{2}}{c^2}}+c\kappa \varepsilon \left( i\zeta
\right) } \label{rThick}\end{aligned}$$
The force between dielectric materials had first been derived by Lifshitz [@Lif56; @LP9]. The material properties enter these formulas via the dielectric function $\varepsilon \left( i\zeta
\right) $ at angular imaginary frequencies $\omega=i\zeta $, which is related to the physical quantity $\varepsilon ^{\prime \prime
}\left( \omega \right)= \mathrm{Im}\left( \varepsilon \left( \omega
\right)\right) $ with the help of the dispersion relation
$$\varepsilon \left( i\zeta \right) -1=\frac{2}{\pi
}\int\limits_{0}^{\infty } d\omega\frac{\omega \varepsilon ^{\prime
\prime }\left( \omega \right) }{\omega ^{2}+\zeta ^{2}}.
\label{K-K}$$
For metals $\varepsilon ^{\prime \prime }\left( \omega
\right)$ is large at low frequencies, thus the main contribution to the integral in Eq. (\[K-K\]) comes from the low frequencies even if $\zeta $ corresponds to the visible frequency range. For this reason the low-frequency behavior of $\varepsilon(\omega)$ is of primary importance.
The Casimir force is often calculated using the optical data taken from [@HB1], which provides real and imaginary parts of the dielectric function within some frequency range, typically between 0.1 and $10^4$ eV for the most commonly used metals, Au, Cu and Al, corresponding to a frequency interval $[1.519\cdot 10^{14},1.519
\cdot10^{19}]$ rad/s (1 eV=$1.519 \cdot10^{15}$ rad/s [^1]). When the two plates are separated by a distance $L$, one may introduce a characteristic imaginary frequency $\zeta_{\rm ch}=c/2L$ of electromagnetic field fluctuations in the gap. Fluctuations of frequency $\zeta \sim
\zeta _{\rm ch}$ give the dominant contribution to the Casimir force. For example, for a plate separation of $L=100$ nm the characteristic imaginary frequency is $\zeta _{\rm ch}=0.988$ eV. Comparison with the frequency interval where optical data is available shows that the high frequency data exceeds the characteristic frequency by 3 orders of magnitude, which is sufficient for the calculation of the Casimir force. However, in the low frequency domain, optical data exists only down to frequencies which are one order of magnitude below the characteristic frequency, which is not sufficient to evaluate the Casimir force. Therefore for frequencies lower than the lowest tabulated frequency, $\omega _{\rm
c}$, the data has to be extrapolated. This is typically done by a Drude dielectric function
$$\varepsilon \left( \omega \right) =1-\frac{\omega _{\rm
p}^{2}}{\omega \left( \omega +i\omega _{\tau }\right) },
\label{Drude}$$
which is determined by two parameters, the plasma frequency $\omega _{\rm p}$ and the relaxation frequency $\omega
_{\tau }$.
Different procedures to get the Drude parameters have been discussed in the literature. They may be estimated, for example, from information in solid state physics or extracted form the optical data at the lowest accessible frequencies. The exact values of the Drude parameters are very important for the precise evaluation of the force. Lambrecht and Reynaud [@Lam00] fixed the plasma frequency using the relation
$$\omega _{\rm p}^{2}=\frac{Ne^{2}}{\varepsilon _{0}m_{e}^{\ast }},
\label{Omp}$$
where $N$ is the number of conduction electrons per unit volume, $e $ is the charge and $m_{e}^{\ast }$ is the effective mass of electron. The plasma frequency was evaluated using the bulk density of Au, assuming that each atom gives one conduction electron and that the effective mass coincides with the mass of the free electron. The optical data at the lowest frequencies were then used to estimate $\omega _{\tau }$ with the help of Eq. (\[Drude\]). In this way the plasma frequency $\omega _{\rm p}=9.0$ eV and the relaxation frequency $\omega _{\tau }=0.035$ eV have been found. This procedure was largely adopted in the following [@Har00; @Ede00; @Cha01; @Bre02; @Dec03a]. However, on the example of Cu, it was stressed in [@Lam00] that the optical data may vary from one reference to another and a different choice of parameters for the extrapolation procedure to low frequencies can influence the Casimir force significantly.
Boström and Sernelius [@Bos00b] and Svetovoy and Lokhanin [@Sve00b] extracted the low-frequency optical data by fitting them with Eq. (\[Drude\]). For one set of data from Ref. [@HB2] the result [@Sve00b] was close to that found by the first approach, but using different sources for the optical data collected in Ref. [@HB2] an appreciable difference was found [@Sve00a; @Sve00b]. This difference was attributed to the defects in the metallic films which appear as the result of the deposition process. It was indicated that the density of the deposited films is typically smaller and the resistivity larger than the corresponding values for the bulk material. The dependence of optical properties of Au films on the details of the deposition process, annealing, voids in the films, and grain size was already discussed in the literature [@Sve03b].
In this paper we analyze the optical data for Au from several available sources, where the mid-infrared frequency range was investigated. The purpose is to establish the variation range of the Drude parameters and calculate the uncertainty of the Casimir force due to the variation of existing optical data. This uncertainty is of great importance in view of the recent precise Casimir force measurement [@Che04; @Dec05] which have been performed with high experimental accuracy. On the other hand, sophisticated theoretical calculations predict the Casimir force at the level of 1% or better. These results illustrate the considerable progress achieved in the field in only one decade. In order to assure a comparison between theory and experiment at the same level of precision, one has to make sure that the theoretical calculation considers precisely the same system investigated in the experiment. This is the key point we want to address in our paper. With our current investigation we find an intrinsic force uncertainty of the order of 5% coming from the fact that the Drude parameters are not precisely known. These parameters may vary from one sample to another, depending on many details of the preparation conditions. In order to assure a comparison at the level of 1% or better between theoretical predictions and experimental results for the Casimir force, the optical properties of the mirrors have to be measured in the experiment.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[Sec2\] we explain and discuss the importance of the precise values of the Drude parameters. In Sec. \[Sec3\] the existing optical data for gold are reviewed and analyzed. The Drude parameters are extracted from the data by fitting both real and imaginary parts of the dielectric function at low frequencies in Sec. \[Sec4\]. In Section \[Sec5\] the Drude parameters are estimated by a different method using Kramers-Kroning analysis. The uncertainty in the Casimir force due to the sample dependence is evaluated in Sec. \[Sec6\] and we present our conclusions in Sec. \[Sec7\].
Importance of the values of the Drude parameters\[Sec2\]
========================================================
In Figure \[fig1\] (left) we present a typical plot of the imaginary part of the dielectric function, which comprises Palik’s Handbook data for gold [@HB1]. The solid line shows the actual data taken from two original sources: the points to the right of the arrow are those by Thèye [@The70] and to the left by Dold and Mecke [@Dol65]. No data is available for frequencies smaller than the cutoff frequency $\omega _{\rm c}$ ($0.125$ eV for this data set) and $\varepsilon ^{\prime \prime }\left( \omega \right) $ has to be extrapolated into the region $\omega <\omega _{\rm c}$. The dotted line shows the Drude extrapolation with the parameters $\omega _{\rm p}=9.0$ eV and $\omega _{\tau }=0.035$ eV obtained in Ref. [@Lam00].
One can separate three frequency regions in Fig. \[fig1\] (left panel). The region marked as [1]{} corresponds to the frequencies smaller than $\omega _{\rm c}$. The region [2]{} defining the Drude parameters extends from the cutoff frequency to the edge of the interband absorption $\omega _{0}$. The high energy domain $\omega>\omega _{0}$ is denoted by [3]{}.
We may now deduce the dielectric function at imaginary frequencies (\[K-K\]) using the Kramers-Kronig relation
$$\varepsilon \left( i\zeta \right) =1+\varepsilon _{1}\left( i\zeta \right)
+\varepsilon _{2}\left( i\zeta \right) +\varepsilon _{3}\left( i\zeta
\right) , \label{split}$$
where the indices 1, 2, and 3 indicate respectively the integration ranges $0\leq \omega <\omega _{\rm c}$, $\omega _{\rm
c}\leq\omega <\omega _{0}$, and $\omega _{0}\leq \omega <\infty $. $\varepsilon _{1}$ can be derived using the Drude model (\[Drude\]) leading to
$$\varepsilon _{1}\left( i\zeta \right) =\frac{2}{\pi }\frac{\omega
_{p}^{2}}{\zeta ^{2}-\omega _{\tau }^{2}}\left[ \tan ^{-1}\left( \frac{\omega
_{c}}{\omega _{\tau }}\right) -\frac{\omega _{\tau }}{\zeta }\tan ^{-1}\left(
\frac{\omega _{c}}{\zeta }\right) \right] . \label{eps1}$$
The two other functions $\varepsilon _{2}$ and $\varepsilon _{3}$ have to be calculated numerically. The results for all three functions as well as for $ \varepsilon \left( i\zeta
\right) $ are shown in Fig. \[fig1\] (right). One can clearly see that $\varepsilon _{1}\left( i\zeta \right) $ dominates the dielectric function at imaginary frequencies up to $\zeta \approx
5$ eV. $\varepsilon _{2}\left( i\zeta \right) $ gives a perceptible contribution to $\varepsilon \left( i\zeta \right)$, while $\varepsilon_{3}\left( i\zeta \right)$ produces minor contribution negligible for $\zeta<0.5$ eV.
As mentioned in the Introduction, we may introduce a characteristic imaginary frequency $\zeta_{\rm ch}=c/2L$ of field fluctuations which give the dominant contribution to the Casimir force between two plates at a distance $L$. For a plate separation of $L=100$ nm the characteristic imaginary frequency is $\zeta _{\rm
ch}=0.988$ eV. At this frequency the contributions of different frequency domains to $\varepsilon \left( i\zeta _{ch}\right) $ are $\varepsilon _{1}=68.42$, $\varepsilon _{2}=15.65$, and $\varepsilon
_{3}=5.45$. This means that for all experimentally investigated situations, $L\gtrsim100$ nm, region [1]{}, corresponding to the extrapolated optical data, gives the main contribution to $\varepsilon \left( i\zeta \right)$. It is therefore important to know precisely the Drude parameters.
Analysis of different optical data for gold\[Sec3\]
===================================================
The optical properties of gold were extensively investigated in 50-70th. In many of those works the importance of sample preparation methods was recognized and carefully discussed. A complete bibliography of the publications up to 1981 can be found in Ref. [@Wea81]. Regrettably the contemporary studies of gold nanoclusters produce data inappropriate for our purposes. Among recent experiments let us mention the measurement of normal reflectance for evaporated gold films [@Sot03], which was performed in the wide wavelength range $0.3-50$ $\mu$m, but unfortunately does not permit to evaluate independently both real and imaginary parts of the dielectric function. In contrast, the use of new ellipsometric techniques [@An02; @Xia00] has produced data for the real and imaginary part of the dielectric function for energy intervals $1.5-4.5$ eV [@Wan98] and $1.5-3.5$ eV [@Ben99].
A significant amount of data in the interband absorption region (domain [3]{}) has been obtained by different methods under different conditions [@Pel69; @The70; @Joh72; @Gue75; @Asp80; @Wan98; @Ben99]. Though this frequency band is not very important for the Casimir force, it provides information on how the data may vary from one sample to another. On the contrary there are only a few sources where optical data was collected in the mid-infrared (domain 2) and from which the dielectric function can be extracted. The data available for $
\varepsilon ^{\prime }\left( \omega \right) $ and $ \varepsilon
^{\prime \prime }\left( \omega \right) $ in the range $\omega
<1.5$ eV and interband absorption domain [3]{} are presented respectively in the left and right graph of Fig. \[fig2\]. These data sets demonstrate considerable variations of the dielectric function from one sample to another.
Let us briefly discuss the sets of data [@HB1; @Wea81; @Mot64; @Pad61] used in our analysis and the corresponding samples. The commonly used Handbook of Optical Constants of Solids [@HB1] comprises the optical data covering the region from $0.125$ to $9184$ eV (dots in Fig. \[fig2\]). The experimental points are assembled from several sources. For $\omega<1$ eV they are reported by Dold and Mecke [@Dol65]. For higher frequencies up to $6$ eV they correspond to the Thèye data [@The70]. Dold and Mecke give only little information about the sample preparation, reporting that the films were evaporated onto a polished glass substrate and measured in air by using an ellipsometric technique [@Dol65]. Annealing of the samples was not reported.
Thèye [@The70] described her films very carefully. The samples were semitransparent Au films with a thickness of $100-250$ Å evaporated in ultrahigh vacuum on supersmooth fused silica. The substrate was kept in most cases at room temperature. After the deposition the films were annealed in the same vacuum at $
100-150^{\circ }$ C. The structure of the films was investigated by X-ray and transmission-electron-microscopy methods. The dc resistivity of the films was found to be very sensitive to the preparation conditions. The errors in the optical characteristics of the films were estimated on the level of a few percents.
The handbook [@Wea81] embraces the optical data from $0.1$ eV to $28.6$ eV (marked with squares in Fig. 2). The data in the domain $\omega<4$ eV is provided by Weaver et al. [@Wea81]. The values of $\varepsilon(\omega)$ were found for the electropolished bulk Au(110) sample. Originally the reflectance was measured in a broad interval $0.1\leq \omega \leq 30$ eV and then the dielectric function was determined by a Kramers-Kronig analysis. Due to indirect determination of $\varepsilon $ the recommended accuracy of these data sets is only 10%.
The optical data of Motulevich and Shubin [@Mot64] for Au films is marked with circles in Fig. 2. In this paper the films were carefully described. Gold was evaporated on polished glass at a pressure of $\sim 10^{-6}$ Torr. The investigated films were $0.5-1\
\mu$m thick. The samples were annealed in the same vacuum at $400^{\circ }$ C for more than 3 hours. The optical constants $n$ and $k$ ($n+ik=\sqrt{\varepsilon }$) were measured by polarization methods in the spectral range $1-12\ \mu$m. The errors in $n$ and $k$ were estimated as 2-3% and 0.5-1%, respectively.
Finally, the triangles represent Padalka and Shklarevskii data [@Pad61] for unannealed Au films evaporated onto glass.
The variation of the data points from different sources cannot be explained by experimental errors. The observed deviation is the result of different preparation procedures and reflects genuine difference between samples. The deposition method, type of the substrate, its temperature, quality and the deposition rate influence the optical properties. When we are speaking about a precise comparison between theory and experiment for the Casimir force at the level of 1% or better, there is no such material as gold in general any more. There is only a gold sample prepared under definite conditions.
Evaluation of the Drude parameters through extrapolation\[Sec4\]
================================================================
We will now use the available data in the mid-infrared region to extrapolate into the low frequency range. If the transition between inter- and intraband absorption in gold is sharp, the data below $\omega _{0}$ should be well described by the Drude function
$$\varepsilon ^{\prime }\left( \omega \right) =1-\frac{\omega
_{p}^{2}}{\omega ^{2}+\omega _{\tau }^{2} },\ \ \varepsilon ^{\prime
\prime }\left( \omega \right) =\frac{\omega _{p}^{2}\omega _{\tau
}}{\omega \left( \omega ^{2}+\omega _{\tau }^{2}\right). }
\label{ImDrude}$$
For $\omega \gg \omega _{\tau }$, the data on the log-log plot should fit straight lines with the slopes $-2$ and $-3$ for $\varepsilon ^{\prime }$ and $\varepsilon ^{\prime\prime }$, respectively, shifted along the ordinate due to variation of the parameters for different samples. The data points in the right graph of Fig. \[fig2\] are in general agreement with these expectations. The onset values for $\varepsilon ^{\prime\prime }$, $\ln(\omega_{\rm p}^2\omega_{\tau})$, vary more significantly due to a significant change in $\omega_{\tau}$ for different samples, but the Casimir force is in general not very sensitive to the relaxation parameter [@Lam00]. The onset values for $-\varepsilon ^{\prime
}$, $\ln(\omega_{\rm p}^2)$, vary less but this variation is more important for the Caimir force, which is particularly sensitive to the value of the plasma frequency $\omega_{\rm p}$. The Drude parameters can be found by fitting both $\varepsilon ^{\prime }$ and $ \varepsilon ^{\prime \prime }$ with the functions (\[ImDrude\]). This procedure is discussed below.
The dielectric function for low frequencies, $\omega < \omega_{\rm
c}$, is found by the extrapolation of the optical data from the mid-infrared domain, $\omega_{\rm c}<\omega<\omega_0$. The real and imaginary parts of $\varepsilon $ follow from Eq. (\[ImDrude\]) with an additional polarization term ${\cal P}$ in $\varepsilon
^{\prime }$:
$$\varepsilon ^{\prime }\left( \omega \right) ={\cal P}-\frac{\omega
_{p}^{2}}{\omega ^{2}+\omega _{\tau }^{2}},\ \ \varepsilon ^{\prime
\prime }\left( \omega \right) =\frac{\omega _{p}^{2}\omega _{\tau
}}{\omega \left( \omega ^{2}+\omega _{\tau }^{2}\right) }.
\label{DrudeRI}$$
The polarization term appears here due to the following reason. The total dielectric function $\varepsilon
=\varepsilon _{\left( c\right) }+\varepsilon _{\left( i\right) }$ includes contributions due to conduction electrons $\varepsilon
_{\left( c\right) }$ and the interband transitions $\varepsilon
_{\left( i\right) }$. The polarization term consists of the atomic polarizability and polarization due to the interband transitions $
\varepsilon _{\left( i\right) }^{\prime }$
$${\cal P}=1+\frac{N_{a}\alpha }{\varepsilon _{0}}+\varepsilon _{\left(
i\right) }^{\prime }\left( \omega \right) , \label{polariz}$$
where $\alpha $ is the atomic polarizability and $N_{a}$ the concentration of atoms. If the transition from intra- to interband absorption is sharp, the polarization can be considered as constant, because the interband transitions have a threshold behavior with an onset frequency $\omega _{0}$ and the Kramers-Kronig relation allows one to express $\varepsilon _{\left(
i\right) }^{\prime }$ as
$$\varepsilon _{\left( i\right) }^{\prime }\left( \omega \right) =\frac{2}{\pi
}\int\limits_{\omega _{0}}^{\infty }dx\frac{x\varepsilon _{\left( i\right)
}^{\prime \prime }\left( x\right) }{x^{2}-\omega ^{2}}. \label{KKi}$$
For $\omega \ll \omega _{0}$ this integral does not depend on $\omega $, leading to a constant $\varepsilon _{\left( i\right)
}^{\prime }\left( \omega \right) $. In reality the situation is more complicated because the transition is not sharp and many factors can influence the transition region. We will assume here that ${\cal P}$ is a constant but the fitting procedure will be shifted to frequencies where the transition tail is not very important. In practice Eq. (\[DrudeRI\]) can be applied for $\omega <1$ eV.
Our purpose is now to establish the magnitude of the force change due to reasonable variation of the optical properties. To this end the available low-frequency data for $\varepsilon ^{\prime }\left(
\omega \right) $ and $\varepsilon ^{\prime\prime }\left( \omega
\right) $ presented in the left graph of Fig. \[fig2\] were fitted with Eq. (\[DrudeRI\]). The results together with the expected errors are collected in Table \[tab1\].
N $\ \ \ \omega _{p}$(eV) $\omega _{\tau }\cdot 10^{2}$(eV) ${\cal P}$
--- ------------------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------ --------------------------------------------------------
1 $7.50\pm 0.02$ $6.1\pm 0.07$ $-27.67\pm 5.79$ Palik, 66 points , $\ \cdot$
2 $8.41\pm 0.002$ $2.0\pm 0.005$ $7.15\pm 0.035$ Weaver, 20 points, $\blacksquare, \Box $
3 $8.84\pm 0.03$ $4.2\pm 0.06$ $12.94\pm 16.81$ Motulevich, 11 points, $\bullet, \circ$
4 $6.85\pm 0.02$ $3.6\pm 0.05$ $-12.33\pm 9.13$ Padalka 11 points, $\blacktriangledown,\triangledown$
: The Drude parameters found by fitting the available infrared data for $\varepsilon ^{\prime }\left( \omega \right)$ and $\varepsilon ^{\prime \prime }\left( \omega \right) $ with Eq. (\[DrudeRI\]). The error is statistical.[]{data-label="tab1"}
The error in Table \[tab1\] is the statistical uncertainty. It was found using a $\chi ^{2}$ criterion for joint estimation of 3 parameters [@PatDat]. For a given parameter the error corresponds to the change $\Delta\chi ^{2}=1$ when two other parameters are kept constant. The parameter ${\cal P}$ enters (\[DrudeRI\]) as an additive constant and in the considered frequency range its value is smaller than 1% of $\varepsilon
^{\prime }\left( \omega \right)$ . That is why the present fitting procedure cannot resolve it with reasonable errors.
As mentioned before, in the case of the Weaver data [@Wea81] the recommended precision in $\varepsilon^{\prime}$ and $\varepsilon^{\prime\prime}$ is 10% while Motulevich and Schubin reported 2-3% and 0.5-1% errors in $n$ and $k$. We did not take these errors explicitly into account as we do not know if they are of statistical or systematic nature or a combination of both. But to illustrate their possible influence let us just mention that if we interpret them as systematic errors, we can propagate the errors in $\varepsilon$ or $n,k$ to the values of $\omega_{\rm p}$ and $\omega_{\tau}$, leading to an additional error in $\omega_{\rm p}$ of about 5% for the Weaver data and 1% for the Motulevich data and twice as large in $\omega_{\tau}$.
Significant variation of the plasma frequency, well above the errors, is a distinctive feature of the table. The bulk and annealed samples (rows 2 and 3) demonstrate larger values of $\omega _{\rm
p}$. The rows 1 and 4 corresponding to the evaporated unannealed films give rise to considerably smaller plasma frequencies $\omega
_{\rm p}$. Note that our calculations are in agreement with the one given by the authors [@Dol65; @Pad61] themselves.
To have an idea of the quality of the fitting procedure, we show in Fig. \[fig5\] the experimental points and the best fitting curves for Dold and Mecke data [@Dol65; @HB1] (full circles and solid lines) and Motulevich and Shubin data [@Mot64] (open circles and dashed lines). Only 25% of the points from [@HB1] are shown for clarity. One can see that for $\varepsilon ^{\prime \prime }$ at high frequencies the dots lie above the solid line demonstrating presence of a wide transition between inter- and intraband absorption. Coincidence of the solid and dashed lines for $\varepsilon ^{\prime
\prime }$ is accidental. The fits for $\varepsilon ^{\prime }$ are nearly perfect for both data sets.
It is interesting to see on the same figure how well the parameters $\omega _{\rm p}=9.0$ eV, $\omega _{\tau }=0.035$ eV agree with the data in the mid-infrared range. The curves corresponding to this set of parameters are shown in Fig. \[fig5\] as dotted lines. One can see that the dotted line, which describes $\varepsilon ^{\prime
\prime }$ is very close to the solid line. However, the dotted line for $ \varepsilon ^{\prime }$ does not describe well the handbook data (full circles). It agrees much better with Motulevich and Shubin data [@Mot64] (open circles). The reason for this is that $\omega _{\rm p}=9.0$ eV is the maximal plasma frequency for Au. Any real film may contain voids leading to smaller density of electrons and, therefore, to smaller $\omega _{\rm p}$. Motulevich and Shubin [@Mot64] annealed their films which reduced the number of defects and made the plasma frequency close to its maximum. A plasma frequency $\omega _{\rm p}=9.0$ eV was also reported in Ref. [@Ben66], where the authors checked the validity of the Drude theory by measuring reflectivity of carefully prepared gold films in ultrahigh vacuum in the spectral range $0.04<\omega<0.6$ eV. Therefore, this value is good if one disposes of well prepared samples.
The Drude parameters from Kramers-Kronig analysis\[Sec5\]
=========================================================
Because the values of the Drude parameters are crucial for a reliable prediction of the Casimir force, it is important to assess that different methods to determine the parameters give the same results. Alternatively to the extrapolation procedure of the previous section we will now discuss a procedure based on a Kramers-Kronig analysis. To this aim we will extrapolate only the imaginary part of the dielectric function to low frequencies $\omega<\omega_{\rm c}$. The dispersion relation between $\varepsilon^{\prime}$ and $\varepsilon^{\prime\prime}$
$$\label{KKrel}
\varepsilon^{\prime}(\omega)-1=\frac{2}{\pi
}P\int\limits_{0}^{\infty }dx\frac{x\varepsilon ^{\prime \prime
}\left( x\right) }{x^{2}-\omega ^{2}}$$
can then be used to predict the behavior of $\varepsilon^{\prime}(\omega)$ and compare it with the one observed in the experiments. From this comparison the Drude parameters can be extracted.
The low-frequency behavior of $\varepsilon^{\prime\prime}(\omega)$ is important for the prediction of $\varepsilon^{\prime}$ because for metals $\varepsilon^{\prime\prime}(\omega)\gg1$ in the low frequency range. Therefore, at $\omega<\omega_{\rm c}$ we are using $\varepsilon^{\prime\prime}(\omega)$ from Eq. (\[ImDrude\]). At higher frequencies the experimental data from different sources [@HB1; @Wea81; @Mot64; @Pad61] are used. The data in Refs. [@Mot64; @Pad61] must be extended to high frequencies starting from $\omega=1.25$ eV. We do this using the handbook data [@HB1].
Let us start from the data for bulk Au(110) [@Wea81]. This data set is given in the interval $0.1<\omega<30$ eV. Below $\omega=0.1$ eV we use the Drude model for $\varepsilon^{\prime\prime}$ and above $\omega=30$ eV the cubic extrapolation $C/\omega^3$. The Drude parameters are practically insensitive to the high frequency extrapolation. The data set was divided into overlapping segments containing 12 points. Each segment was fitted with a polynomial of forth order in frequency. The first segment, were $\varepsilon^{\prime\prime}(\omega)$ increases very fast, was fitted with the polynomial in $1/\omega$. Then, in the range of overlap (4 points) a new polynomial smoothly connecting two segments was chosen. In this way we have fitted the experimental data with a function which is smooth up to the first derivative.
The real part of the dielectric function $\varepsilon^{\prime}(\omega)$ is predicted by Eq. (\[KKrel\]) as a function of the Drude parameters $\omega_p$ and $\omega_{\tau}$. These parameters are chosen such as to minimize the difference between observed and predicted values of $\varepsilon^{\prime}(\omega)$, leading to $\omega_{\rm p}=8.40$ eV and $\omega_{\tau}=0.020$ eV. These parameters are in reasonable agreement with the ones indicated in Tab. \[tab1\]. In Fig. \[fig6\] the experimental data (dots) and $|\varepsilon^{\prime}(\omega)|$ found from Eq. (\[KKrel\]) (solid line) are plotted, showing perfect agreement at low frequencies, while at high frequencies $\omega>2.6$ eV the agreement is not very good. This may be fixed by choosing an appropriate high frequency extrapolation. We do not give these details here as this extrapolation has practically no influence on the Drude parameters.
When applying the same procedure to the handbook data [@HB1], we find $\omega_p=7.54$ eV and $\omega_{\tau}=0.051$ eV, again in agreement with the parameters indicated in Tab. \[tab1\]. Fig. \[fig7\] shows a plot of $\varepsilon^{\prime}(\omega)$ predicted with these parameters. At low frequencies the agreement with the experimental data is good but it becomes worse when the interband data [@Dol65] joins the intraband (high frequency) data [@The70]. These two data sets correspond to samples with different optical properties. In this case the dispersion relation (\[KKrel\]) is not necessarily very well satified. In contrast with the previous case, high frequency extrapolation cannot improve the situation; it influences the curve only marginally.
Following the same procedure for the Motulevich and Shubin data [@Mot64], we find the Drude parameters $\omega_{\rm p}=8.81$ eV, $\omega_{\tau}=0.044$ eV which are close to the values in Tab. \[tab1\]. The experimental data and calculated function $|\varepsilon^{\prime}(\omega)|$ are shown in Fig. \[fig8\]. There is good agreement for frequencies $\omega<4$ eV as the data in Ref. [@Mot64] matches very well the Thèye data [@The70]. Deviations at higher frequencies are again quite sensitive to high-frequency extrapolation as already noted before.
Similar calculations done for the Padalka and Shklyarevskii data [@Pad61] give the Drude parameters $\omega_{\rm p}=6.88$ eV and $\omega_{\tau}=0.033$ eV, producing good agreement only in the range $\omega<1.3$ eV because this data set matches only poorly the Thèye data [@The70].
Using the Kramers-Kronig analysis for the determination of the Drude parameters leads essentially to the same parameters for all 4 sets of the experimental data. Experimental and calculated curves for $\varepsilon^{\prime}(\omega)$ are in very good agreement at low frequencies. At high frequencies the agreement is not so good for two different reasons. First, at high frequencies the calculated curve is sensitive to the high-frequency extrapolation and thus a better choice of this extrapolation can significantly reduce high frequency deviations. The other reason is that one has to combine the data from different sources to make a Kramers-Kronig analysis possible. These data sets do not always match each other well as it is for example the case of the Dold and Mecke data and the Thèye data. In this case significant errors might be introduced in the dispersion relation. Indeed the Kramers-Kronig analysis is a valuable tool only for data taken from the same sample.
Uncertainty in the Casimir force due to variation of optical properties\[Sec6\]
===============================================================================
We will now assess how the values of the Casimir force are influenced by the different values of the Drude parameters. As an example we consider as input the optical data for Au from [@HB1].
Instead of calculating the absolute value of the Casimir force, we will give the factor which measures the reduction of the Casimir force with respect to the ideal Casimir force between perfect mirrors as introduced in [@Lam00]
$$\label{eta}
\eta_F=\frac{120 L^4}{c\pi^4}\int\limits_0^{\infty}d\kappa\,\kappa^2
\int\limits_0^\kappa
d\zeta\sum_{\mu}\frac{r_{\mu}^2}{e^{2\kappa}-r_{\mu}^2},$$
The dielectric function at imaginary frequencies $\varepsilon(i\zeta)$ is calculated using the Kramers-Kronig relation (\[K-K\]) and the integration region is divided in two parts
$$\label{imfreq}
\int_0^{\infty}\frac{x\,
\varepsilon''(x)}{x^2+\omega^2}dx\rightarrow
\left\{\int_{0}^{x_c}+\int_{x_c}^{x_{max}}\right\}\frac{x\,
\varepsilon''(x)}{x^2+\omega^2}dx=I_1+I_2.$$
We assume that for $x<x_{\rm c}$ the Drude model (\[ImDrude\]) is applicable. Then the integration in $I_1$ may be carried out explicitly, see (\[eps1\]). In $I_2$ we integrate from $x_{\rm c}=0.125$ eV to $x_{\rm max}=9000$ eV (corresponding to the range of available optical data in [@HB1]).
For the calculation of the reduction factor (\[eta\]) the integration range was chosen as $10^{-4}-10^{3}$ eV. We also varied the integration range by half an order of magnitude, which changed the result by less than $0.1\%$. The results of the numerical integration are collected in Table \[Tab3\].
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\omega_p, \omega_{\tau}(eV)\,\backslash L (\mu m)$ $ \quad $\quad 0.3\quad $ $\quad 0.5 \quad$ $\quad 1.0 \quad $\quad 3.0 \quad $
0.1 \quad $ $
------------ ----------------------------------------------------- ------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------ ---------------------
1. $\omega_{\rm p}=7.50$, $\omega_{\tau}=0.061$ 0.43 0.66 0.75 0.85 0.93
\[3mm\] 2. $\omega_{\rm p}=8.41$, $\omega_{\tau}=0.02$ 0.45 0.69 0.79 0.88 0.95
\[3mm\] 3. $\omega_{\rm p}=8.84$, $\omega_{\tau}=0.0422$ 0.46 0.69 0.78 0.87 0.94
\[3mm\] 4. $\omega_{\rm p}=6.85$, $\omega_{\tau}=0.0357$ 0.42 0.65 0.75 0.84 0.93
\[3mm\] 5. $\omega_{\rm p}=9.00$, $\omega_{\tau}=0.035$ 0.47 0.71 0.79 0.88 0.95
\[3mm\] 6. $\omega_{\rm p}=7.50\pm15\%$ 0.45 0.68 0.77 0.86 0.94
$\omega_{\tau}=0.061$ 0.41 0.63 0.73 0.83 0.92
\[3mm\] 7. $\omega_{\rm p}=7.50$ 0.42 0.65 0.74 0.84 0.92
$\omega_{\tau}=0.061\pm30\%$ 0.44 0.67 0.76 0.86 0.93
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: The reduction factors at different plate separations calculated with the different pairs of values of the Drude parameters corresponding to different data. The last two rows show the variation of the reduction factor when either the plasma frequency or the relaxation parameter is varied.[]{data-label="Tab3"}
The first four rows of the table present the reduction factors for four pairs of the Drude parameters that were obtained by fitting the optical data from different sources. The next row shows the result obtained for $\omega_{\rm p}=9$ eV and $\omega_{\tau}=35$ meV. The last two rows show the variation of the reduction factor if the plasma frequency $\omega_{\rm p}$ or the relaxation parameter $\omega_{\tau}$ are varied by $\pm 15\%$ and $\pm 30\%$, respectively. The upper (lower) line corresponds here to the upper (lower) sign.
The variation of the optical data and the associated Drude parameters introduces a variation in the Casimir force ranging from 5.5% at short distances (100 nm) to 1.5% at long distances (3 $\mu$m). The distance dependence is of course related to the fact that the material properties influence the Casimir force much more at short than at long plate separation. The strongest variation of 5.5% gives an indication of the genuine sample dependence of the Casimir force. For this reason it is necessary to measure the optical properties of the plates used in the Casimir force measurement if a precision of the order 1% or better in the *comparison* between experimental values and theoretical predictions is aimed at. Incidentally let us notice that the plasma frequency $\omega_{\rm p}=7.5$ eV, which is found here to fit best Palik’s handbook data [@HB1], is basically the same as the one proposed alternatively in [@Lam00] for Cu, which has very similar optical properties to Au concerning the Casimir force [@PRLComment]. For Cu, the variation of the plasma frequency from $\omega_{\rm p}=9$ eV to $\omega_p=7.5$ eV introduced a variation of the Casimir force up to 5% [@Lam00].
In order to asses more quantitatively the role of the two Drude parameters, we show in the last two rows of table \[Tab3\] the variation of the reduction factor when either the plasma frequency or the relaxation parameter is varied with the other parameter kept constant. One can see that the increase (decrease) of the relaxation parameter by $\delta\omega_{\tau}=30\%$ lowers (increases) the reduction factor $\eta_F$ at $L=0.1~\mu m$ by only $\delta\eta_F=1.6\%$. However, the $15\%$ variation of the plasma frequency leads to $4.2\%$ change in the reduction factor. Thus the Casimir force is much more sensitive to the variation of the plasma frequency, basically as the plasma frequency determines the reflection quality of the plates (an infinite plasma frequency corresponds to perfectly reflecting mirrors).
Conclusions\[Sec7\]
===================
In this paper we have performed the first systematic and detailed analysis of optical data for Casmir force measurements. We have studied the relative importance of the different frequency regions for the Casimir force as a function of the plate separation and established the critical role of the Drude parameters in particular for short distance measurements. We have then analyzed and compared four different sets of optical data. For each set we have extracted the corresponding plasma frequency and relaxation parameter either by fitting real and imaginary part of the dielectric function at low frequencies or by using a detailed Kramers-Kronig analysis. Both methods lead essentially to the same results. The Kramers-Kronig analysis reveals itself to be a powerful tool for the estimation of the low frequency Drude parameters for data coming from the same sample.
A variation of the values of the Casimir force up to 5.5% is found for different optical data sets. This gives an intrinsic unknown parameter for the Casimir force calculations and demonstrates the genuine sample dependence of the Casimir force. The today existing numerical and analytical calculations of the Casimir force in themselves are very precise. In the same way, measurements of the Casimir force have achieved high accuracy over the last decade. In order to compare the results of the achievements in theory and experiment at a level of 1% precision or better, the crucial point is to make sure that calculations and experiments are performed for the same physical sample. One therefore has to know the optical and material properties of the sample used in the experiment. These properties must be measured for frequencies as low as possible. In practice, the material properties have to be known over an interval of about 4 orders of magnitude around the characteristic frequency $\zeta_{\rm ch}=c/2L$. For a plate separation of $L=100$ nm this means an interval \[10 meV, 100 eV\]. If measurements at low frequencies are not possible, the low frequency Drude parameters should be extracted from the measured data, by one of the two methods discussed here.
**Acknowledgements** Part of this work was funded by the European Contract STRP 12142 NANOCASE. We wish to thank S. Reynaud and A. Krasnoperov for useful discussions.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{} Casimir H B G 1948 *Proc. K. Ned. Akad. Wet.* [**51**]{} 793.
Milonni P W 1994 The Quantum Vacuum (Academic Press, San Diego).
Mostepanenko V M and Trunov N N 1997 The Casimir Effect ans its Applications (Clarendon Press, Oxford).
Kardar M and Golestanian R 1999 *Rev. Mod. Phys.* [**71**]{} 1233.
Milton K A 2001 The Casimir Effect (World Scientific, Singapore).
Bordag M, Mohideen U, and Mostepanenko V M 2001 *Phys. Rep.* [**353**]{} 1.
Lamoreaux S K 1997 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**78**]{} 5; 1998 [**81**]{} 5475.
Mohideen U and Roy A 1998 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**81**]{} 4549; Roy A, Lin C-Y, and Mohideen U 1999 *Phys. Rev. D* [**60**]{}, 111101(R).
Harris B W, Chen F, and Mohideen U 2000 *Phys. Rev. A* [**62** ]{} 052109.
Chan H B, Aksyuk V A, Kleiman R N, Bishop D J, and Capasso F 2001 *Science* [**291**]{} 1941; 2001 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**87**]{} 211801.
Decca R S, López D, Fischbach E, and Krause D E 2003 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**91**]{} 050402.
Decca R S, Fischbach E, Klimchitskaya G L, Krause D E, López D, and Mostepanenko V M 2003 *Phys. Rev. D* [**68**]{} 116003.
Decca R S, López D, Fischbach E, Klimchitskaya G L, Krause D E, and Mostepanenko V M 2005 *Ann. Phys.* **318** 37.
Iannuzzi D, Lisanti M, and Capasso F 2004 *Proc. Natinonal Acad. Sci. USA* [**101**]{} 4019.
Lissanti M, Iannuzzi D and Capasso F 2005 *Proc. Natinonal Acad. Sci. USA* [**102**]{} 11989.
Bressi G, Carugno G, Onofrio R, and Ruoso G, 2002 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**88**]{} 041804.
Ederth T 2000 *Phys. Rev. A* **62** 062104.
Lambrecht A and Reynaud S 2000 *Eur. Phys. J. D* [**8**]{}, 309.
Lifshitz E M 1956 *Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.* [**29**]{} 94 \[1956 *Sov. Phys. JETP* [**2**]{} 73\].
Lifshitz E M and Pitaevskii L P 1980 Statistical Physics, Part 2 (Pergamon Press, Oxford).
Palik E D (ed) 1995 *Handbook of Optical Constants of Solids* (New York: Academic Press).
Svetovoy V B and Lokhanin M V 2000 *Mod. Phys. Lett. A* **15**, 1437.
Boström M and Sernelius B E 2000 *Phys. Rev. A* [**61**]{} 046101.
Svetovoy V B and Lokhanin M V 2000 *Mod. Phys. Lett. A* **15** 1013.
Zolotarev V M, Morozov V N, and Smirnova E V 1984 Optical Constants of Natural and Technical Media (Khimija, Leningrad) (in Russian).
Svetovoy V B 2003 Proc. Quantum Field Theory Under External Conditions 76, Ed. Milton K A (Princeton, NJ: Rynton Press); arXiv: cond-mat/0401562.
Chen F, Klimchitskaya G L, Mohideen U, and Mostepanenko V M 2004 *Phys. Rev. A* [**69**]{} 022117.
Thèye M-L 1970 *Phys. Rev. B* [**2**]{} 3060.
Dold B and Mecke R 1965 *Optik* [**22**]{} 435.
Weaver J H, Krafka C, Lynch D W, and Koch E E 1981 Optical Properties of Metals, Part II, Physics Data No. 18-2 (Fachinformationszentrum Energie, Physik, Mathematik, Karsruhe).
Sotelo J, Ederth J, and Niklasson G 2003 *Phys. Rev. B* [**67**]{} 195106.
An I, Park M-G, Bang K-Y, Oh H-K, and Kim H 2002 *Jpn. J. Appl. Phys.* [**41**]{} 3978.
Xia G-Q et al. 2000 *Rev. Sci. Instrum.* [**71**]{} 2677.
Yu Wang et al. 1998 *Thin Solid Films* [**313**]{} 232.
Bendavid A, Martin P J, Wieczorek L 1999 *Thin Solid Films* [**354**]{} 169.
Pells G P and Shiga M 1969 *J. Phys. C* [**2**]{} 1835.
Johnson P B and Christy R W 1972 *Phys. Rev. B* [**6**]{} 4370.
Guerrisi M, Rosei R, and Winsemius P 1975 *Phys. Rev. B* [**12**]{} 557.
Aspnes D E, Kinsbron E, and Bacon D D 1980 *Phys. Rev. B* [**21**]{} 3290.
Motulevich G P and Shubin A A 1964 *Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.* [**47**]{} 840 \[1965 *Soviet Phys. JETP* [**20**]{} 560\].
Padalka V G and Shklyarevskii I N 1961 *Opt. Spektroskopiya* [**11**]{} 527 \[1961 *Opt. Spectry. (USSR)* [**11**]{} 285\].
Bennett J M and Ashley E J 1965 *Appl. Opt.* [**4**]{} 221.
Hagiwara K et al. 2002 *Phys. Rev. D* [**66**]{} 010001.
Bennett H E and Bennett J M 1966 *in* Optical Properties and Electronic Structure of Metals and Alloys, edited by Abélès F (North-Holland Publ., Amsterdam).
Lambrecht A and Reynaud S 2000 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **84** 5672.
[^1]: In a conversion factor $1.537 \cdot
10^{15}$ rad/s was used, leading however to a negligible difference in the Casimir force (well below 1%).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Scalability is a major issue for Internet of Things (IoT) as the total amount of traffic data collected and/or the number of sensors deployed grow. In some IoT applications such as healthcare, power consumption is also a key design factor for the IoT devices. In this paper, a multi-signal compression and encoding method based on Analog Joint Source Channel Coding (AJSCC) is proposed that works fully in the analog domain without the need for power-hungry Analog-to-Digital Converters (ADCs). Compression is achieved by quantizing all the input signals but one. While saving power, this method can also reduce the number of devices by combining one or more sensing functionalities into a single device (called ‘AJSCC device’). Apart from analog encoding, AJSCC devices communicate to an aggregator node (FPMM receiver) using a novel Frequency Position Modulation and Multiplexing (FPMM) technique. Such joint modulation and multiplexing technique presents three mayor advantages—it is robust to interference at particular frequency bands, it protects against eavesdropping, and it consumes low power due to a very low Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) operating region at the receiver. Performance of the proposed multi-signal compression method and FPMM technique is evaluated via simulations in terms of Mean Square Error (MSE) and Miss Detection Rate (MDR), respectively.'
author:
- |
**Xueyuan Zhao, Vidyasagar Sadhu, and Dario Pompili**\
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Rutgers University–New Brunswick, NJ, USA\
E-mails: xueyuan\[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
bibliography:
- 'reference\_shannon.bib'
- 'Mendeley.bib'
- 'references\_v3.bib'
title: Analog Signal Compression and Multiplexing Techniques for Healthcare Internet of Things
---
Shannon Mapping; Analog Signal Compression; Healthcare; IoT; Low Power; Modulation; Multiplexing.
Introduction
============
**Overview:** The novel paradigm of Internet of Things (IoT) offers advanced connectivity of devices, systems and services, and will enable to go beyond current Machine-to-Machine (M2M) communications while encompassing a variety of new protocols, domains, and applications. The interconnection of these embedded devices (including smart objects) is expected to cover a large amount of fields, while also enabling advanced applications like smart grids and expanding to futuristic domains such as smart cities and smart healthcare. The “things”, in the IoT sense, can refer not only to a wide variety of sensing devices but also to objects and people; while devices in most cases only sense and are static, objects and people can also act on the environment and be mobile. Devices used in IoT range from heart monitoring implants, biosensors in body-networks, biochip transponders on farm animals, electric clams in coastal waters, to automobiles with built-in sensors to in-situ DNA sequencers for real-time, in-the-field environmental/food/pathogen monitoring. These “things” collect useful data with the help of existing technologies and then autonomously flow the data among the other devices.
![AJSCC devices (1-6) compress two or more sensor values into a single value and transmit to an Aggregator node (7) using Frequency Position Modulation and Multiplexing (FPMM). The Aggregator decodes individual values and transmits them to a Gateway (e.g., a mobile phone) using a Bluetooth/Zigbee/IR interface, which will then relay the data (individual/family) over Internet to the doctor. Upon analyzing the data, the doctor will increase/decrease the sensing granularity of the AJSCC IoT devices.[]{data-label="fig:iot_healthcare"}](fig/iot_healthcare.pdf){width="3.5in"}
**Motivation:** As the expansion of Internet-based automation has led to a plethora of new application domains and requirements, a denser and denser IoT is also expected to generate large amounts of data from diverse locations posing scalability as a major problem. In healthcare IoT, specifically, firstly people want to limit the number of body sensors worn so as to minimize discomfort. Secondly, with a large number of sensors transmitting simultaneously, better multiplexing techniques are needed for the sensors to communicate to a receiver node such as a Gateway that consumes less power and is robust to interference. Thirdly, with the miniaturization of sensors reaching new heights and the introduction of more resource-limited devices into the IoT arena, such as wearable/implantable sensors in Body Area Networks (BAN), reducing power consumption of the sensing devices is a major challenge. Moreover, IoT for healthcare is important for the following reason: in the current clinical practice, a patient’s symptom may not appear when s/he visits the doctor, so the doctor often cannot objectively analyze it for diagnosis or treatment purposes. This leaves both the physician and the patient frustrated. If we could provide continuous monitoring with biomedical sensors that capture what is going on with the patient, we could understand why and under which conditions a symptom occurs. This example makes the case for healthcare IoT that continuously connects patients with their physician.
**Our Approach:** To address the data scalability problem, we propose a multi-signal *compression* method that is based on Shannon mapping [@Shannon49], which is a low-complexity technique for Analog Joint Source-Channel Coding (AJSCC) [@Hekland05] that can compress two or more signals into one (introducing controlled distortion) while also staying resilient to wireless channel impairments. This technique also addresses the device scalability problem as two or more sensors can be integrated into a single device as the sensed values will be encoded/compressed using AJSCC. Furthermore, this technique will also address the power problem as encoding takes place in the analog domain without the need for power-hungry Analog-to-Digital (ADC) converters (as we show below). To address the communication problem, we propose a novel Frequency Position Modulation and Multiplexing (FPMM) technique to jointly modulate and multiplex the signals of a large number of sensors efficiently. We have designed it in such a way as to be robust to interference in particular frequency bands and to eavesdropping (more later). Due to low interference of the proposed FPMM technique, data from multiple devices is not mixed. Also, this technique can operate at a very low Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR), thus greatly reducing the transmission power (data processing power is reduced by using analog encoding as mentioned earlier) compared to digital approaches. In summary, using our approach, body-worn devices can implement one or more sensing functionalities such as blood pH and glucose levels, or blood pressure and temperature, etc. The (heterogeneous) sensed signals are compressed/encoded in a single, compact device using AJSCC technique. The devices transmit the compressed values using FPMM to an aggregator node (FPMM receiver), which is assumed to have digital communication and processing capabilities. The aggregator decodes the data from the devices and transmits it to a Gateway node (e.g., a mobile phone) using traditional mobile short-range communication interfaces such as Bluetooth, Zigbee or IR, which can then connect to the Internet using Wi-Fi/LTE.
**Broader Applications:** In this paper we focus on healthcare IoT as an application of our approach; however, our approach is general and can be applied to other IoT scenarios as well. An example of IoT healthcare application using our approach is shown in Fig. \[fig:iot\_healthcare\], where different AJSCC devices (1-6) transmit the sensor data to an Aggregator node (7). The Aggregator decodes the data and transmits it to a Gateway node (e.g., a mobile phone), which is accessible to the doctor over the Internet. The doctor analyzes the patient’s/entire family’s data for group studies and can decide to increase or decrease the sensing granularity based on observed symptoms extracted from the data. For example, if no symptoms are detected, a lower granularity can be opted, thus saving resources. We envision that our AJSCC devices’ sensing granularity can also be programmed by the aggregator (i.e., they can receive some parameters too in addition to transmitting the sensed values). Hence, sensor data can be accessed *anytime* and *anywhere*, thus enabling innovative IoT applications where devices can not only sense but also receive configuration information from the cloud based on historical/statistical data. This configuration information can be obtained by mining the sensor data in the cloud. In this paper, however, we assume the sensors to be transmit only, leaving the more general case as future work.
**Our Contributions** are listed below:
- We propose multi-signal compression techniques for IoT by extending the rectangular-type Shannon mapping to $N$ dimensions (N:1 compression). Closed-form expressions of the Mean Square Error (MSE) have been derived.
- We devise a Frequency Position Modulation and Multiplexing (FPMM) technique to multiplex data from multiple sensors that is robust to interference at specific frequency bands, protects against eavesdropping, and has low power consumption.
- We present numerical results that show the optimal parameters to minimize the MSE of the $N$-dimensional compression, and evaluate the proposed FPMM in terms of Miss Detection Rate (MDR) by varying bandwidth, SNR, and number of multiplexed devices.
**Paper Outline:** In Sect. \[sec:rel\_work\], we position our work w.r.t. others in healthcare IoT and analog sensing. In Sect. \[sec:prop\_soln\], we introduce and analyze the $N$-dimensional rectangular Shannon-mapping method (\[sec:signal-compress\]) and explain our FPMM technique including how it reduces transmission power and how it provides robustness to eavesdropping and wireless channel interference (\[sec:fpm\]). In Sect. \[sec:perf\_eval\], we present performance simulation results of MSE for the $N$-dimensional compression method and of MDR for the proposed FPMM technique. Finally, in Sect. \[sec:conc\], we draw our conclusions and indicate future directions.
[|m[4cm]{}|m[3.5cm]{}|]{} **Wireless sensor** & **Comparison with ours**\
WSN340 [@wsn340]: Active MCU power consumption of 1.1 $\mathrm{mW}$ &\
Mantaro CoSeN [@cosen]: Active MCU power consumption of 2.4 $\mathrm{mW}$ &\
Telos RevB [@telosb]: Active MCU power consumption of 6 $\mathrm{mW}$ &\
MICA2 [@mica2]: Active MCU power consumption of 26.4 $\mathrm{mW}$ &\
Related Work {#sec:rel_work}
============
In the IoT healthcare and BAN domain, all of the existing solutions do sensing and communication in the digital domain (using ADCs/DACs/Microprocessors), which needs more power than analog sensing and communication. For example, Yang’s group [@2014BodyNetworks] developed a miniaturized node that incorporates wireless communication, on-board processing, nine-axis motion tracking, and other sensors [@Andreu-Perez2015FromHealthcare]. It also developed an e-AR sensor [@Jarchi2015AssessmentPatients], a small device to be worn behind the ear that captures information about the balance of the wearer such as gait, posture, skeletal/joint shock-wave transmission, and activity of the individual. Yuce’s group developed techniques based on Ultra Wide Band (UWB) wireless technology to reduce the power consumption of body-worn sensors [@Thotahewa2014PowerPath; @Yuce2015WE-Harvest:Harvester]. Another important example is the activity recognition of the user using various body sensors viz., accelerometer and gyroscope data. The data from the sensors is digitally processed and stored into a wrist-band device that syncs the data with the mobile phone using Bluetooth technology [@Chetty2016BodyRecognition]. Unlike these approaches, we adopt an entirely different approach based on analog sensing and communication that does not use any power-hungry ADCs (see Table \[table:compare\]).
Shannon mapping has been applied in a number of applications such as Software-Defined Radio (SDR) systems [@Garcia11], optical digital communications [@Romero14], Compressive Sensing (CS) [@Saleh12], and digital video transmissions [@stopler14]. All these applications use power-hungry ADCs and other digital components making such implementations unsuitable for healthcare and other low-power IoT solutions. Some works have studied the N:1 spiral-type mapping [@Brante13]. The advantage of considering rectangular-type Shannon mapping is that there are existing low-power, all-analog circuit realizations for rectangular-type mapping (our previous work [@Zhao16]). Using this approach, sensors can be designed using all-analog circuits that can compress multiple signals into one signal, thereby consuming less power. The signals from multiple sensors are multiplexed at different frequency locations in an interleaved pattern. Similar pattern has been studied for topics of pilot placement [@Zhao06; @Zhao07].
This paper is the first work to propose this structure for multiplexing data of AJSCC sensors. Table \[table:compare\] compares the power numbers of our circuit [@Zhao16] with state-of-the-art *low-power* wireless sensor motes (all of which are digital). We can notice that $<50\mu W$ is possible with our circuit, which is essential in low-power applications. The existing circuit realizations of spiral-type mapping also are all based on digital circuits and systems [@Garcia11]. In this scenario, it is worth noting that the Hybrid Digital Analog (HDA) coding can also perform signal compression [@Abbasi14; @Behroozi11]. However, the digital part still needs digitization of the signals. Contrary to all these approaches, we propose signal compression and encoding in the analog domain with no need for ADCs/DACs/Microprocessors. To show the feasibility of our vision (analog compression and encoding), we previously developed a novel *analog* circuit to compress two signals [@Zhao16] and verified its applicability to two pathological signals (molecular biomarkers and physiological signal) [@Zhao17]. In this paper, we extend the theory for N-dimensional signal compression and propose novel multiplexing techniques that address the above mentioned challenges of scalability and power in the context of healthcare IoT as one of the key applications.
Proposed Solution {#sec:prop_soln}
=================
In this section, we present our novel techniques for N-dimensional signal compression first (Sect. \[sec:signal-compress\]) and then for joint signal modulation and multiplexing (Sect. \[sec:fpm\]).
N-dimensional Signal Compression {#sec:signal-compress}
--------------------------------
We introduce and present the motivation for using Analog Joint Source Channel Coding (AJSCC); then, we derive the theory to compute the MSE for both the 3- and N-dimensional rectangular-type Shannon mapping. Note that the mathematical analysis on high-dimension rectangular-type Shannon mapping is not trivial and has not been studied before.
### Analog Joint Source Channel Coding (AJSCC) {#sec:ajscc}
AJSCC adopts Shannon mapping as its encoding method [@Hekland05]. Such mapping, in which the design of *rectangular (parallel) lines* can be used for 2:1 compression, was first introduced by Shannon in his seminal 1949 paper [@Shannon49]. Later work has extended this mapping to a *spiral type* as well as to N:1 mapping [@Brante13]. AJSCC requires simple compression and coding, and low-complexity decoding.
To compress the source signals (“sensing source point"), the point on the space-filling curve with minimum Euclidean distance from the source point is found (“AJSCC mapped point"). The two most-widely adopted mapping methods are rectangular and spiral shaped: in the former, the transmitted signal is the “accumulated length” of the lines from the origin to the mapped point; while in the latter it is the “angle” that *uniquely* identifies the mapped point on the spiral. At the receiver—a Cluster Head (CH)—the reverse mapping is performed on the received signal using Maximum Likelihood (ML) decoding. The error introduced by the two mappings is controlled by the spacing $\Delta_H$ between lines and spacing $\Delta_S$ between spiral arms, respectively: with smaller $\Delta_H$ (or $\Delta_S$), approximation noise is reduced; however, channel noise is increased as a little variation can push the received symbol to the next parallel line (or spiral arm). In addition, the mapping signal range would also increase, pushing more resources for transmission. Hence, Shannon mapping has the two-fold property of (1) compressing the sources (by means of N:1 mapping) and (2) being robust to (wireless) channel distortions as the noise only introduces errors along the parallel lines (or the spiral curve). Note that AJSCC performs analog compression at the symbol level; the fact that symbols are memoryless makes it a low-latency and low-complexity solution that is very suitable for practical implementations. For more supporting information, refer to our work in [@wons3tier2017].
![Signal compression in 3:1 Shannon mapping.[]{data-label="fig:signal_multiplexing"}](fig/signal_multiplexing1.pdf){width="3.7in"}
### Analysis of N:1 Mapping {#sec:high_snr}
For simplicity, we will first start by analyzing the 3:1 mapping; then, we will generalize it to N:1. The 3:1 mapping of rectangular type is depicted in Fig. \[fig:signal\_multiplexing\]. The mapped signal is the accumulated length of the lines from the origin to the mapped point. Note that, since the output is an analog electric signal (such as voltage), there will be an upper limit on this signal’s amplitude (such as the circuit’s supply voltage), which will limit the number of signals that can be simultaneously multiplexed.
Let us define the source analog signal as $(s_1, s_2, s_3)$, which is a continuous signal with a distribution $p_{S1}$, $p_{S2}$, and $p_{S3}$. The distributions are bounded with range \[$Q_{1,L}$,$Q_{1,R}$\], \[$Q_{2,L}$,$Q_{2,R}$\], and \[$Q_{3,L}$,$Q_{3,R}$\]. At the transmitter, the source signals are firstly mapped to $(a_1, a_2, a_3)$. The operation on $s_1$ is to shift the distribution to the positive value range \[0,$R_1$\], where $R_1 = Q_{1,R} - Q_{1,L}$, then linearly scale the distribution to the range of $[0,d]$, where $d$ is the length of each line. The operation on $s_2$ and $s_3$ are to shift the distribution to the range \[0,$R_2$\] and \[0,$R_3$\], respectively, where $R_2$ = $Q_{2,R}$-$Q_{2,L}$ and $R_3$ = $Q_{3,R}$-$Q_{3,L}$. The second step at the transmitter is to map the signal to one point on the parallel lines so as to produce the point of $(x_s, y_s, z_s)$. In this mapping, there is quantization error introduced to $y_s$ and $z_s$. The value of $x_s$ is the same of $a_1$. At the receiver, due to channel noise, the received signal will be perturbed from its original point.
Assuming medium to high SNR, the probability that the received point moves to another parallel line is so small that it can be neglected in the analysis. For Gaussian noise and in such SNR regime, the received signal can be expressed by $x_r = x_s + n$, $y_r = y_s$, and $z_r = z_s$. Assume the transmitted signal has the maximum amplitude $D_{max}$, then $d = D_{max}/(L_1 L_2)$. The recovered source signal is denoted by $(\tilde s_1, \tilde s_2, \tilde s_3)$, where $\tilde s_1$ can be written as, $$\label{eq:s_1}
\tilde s_1 = \frac{{R_1 }}{d}x_r = \frac{{R_1 L_1 L_2 }}{{D_{\max } }}(x_s + n)= s_1 + \frac{{R_1 L_1 L_2 }}{{D_{\max } }}n.$$From we see that the greater $L_1$ and $L_2$, the larger the error. The received signal $\tilde s_2$ can be written as $\tilde s_2 = y_s = s_2 + \lambda _y$, where $\lambda _y$ is the error term. Based on the mapping method, $y_s = round\left( {\frac{{s_2 }}{{\Delta _y }}} \right) \cdot \Delta _y$, where $\Delta _y$ is the spacing of the lines in the y-axis and has the value of $R_2 / (L_1 - 1)$. Hence, the error term $\left| {\lambda _y } \right|$ can be written as, $$\left| {\lambda _y } \right| = \left| {s_2 - \tilde s_2 } \right| = \left| {s_2 - round\left( {\frac{{s_2 }}{{\Delta _y }}} \right) \cdot \Delta _y } \right|.$$ If we assume now a uniform source signal distribution of $s_2$, the $\left| {\lambda _y } \right|$ is a random variable (r.v.) uniformly distributed in $[0, {\Delta _y }/2]$. Similarly, we have $\tilde s_3 = z_s = s_3 + \lambda _z$, where the error term $\left| {\lambda _z } \right|$ is, $$\left| {\lambda _z } \right| = \left| {s_3 - \tilde s_3 } \right| = \left| {s_3 - round\left( {\frac{{s_3 }}{{\Delta _z }}} \right) \cdot \Delta _z } \right|,$$and $\Delta _z$=$R_3 / (L_2 - 1)$. The sum MSE of the three signals is, $$MSE = E\{ {\left| {s_1 - \tilde s_1 } \right|_{}^2 } \} + E\{ {\left| {s_2 - \tilde s_2 } \right|_{}^2 } \} + E\{ {\left| {s_3 - \tilde s_3 } \right|_{}^2 } \},$$which can be further written as, $$\label{eq:MSE}
MSE = \frac{{R_1^2 L_1^2 L_2^2 }}{{D_{\max }^2 }}E\{ \left| n \right|_{}^2 \} + E\{ {\left| {\lambda _y } \right|_{}^2 } \} + E\{ {\left| {\lambda _z } \right|_{}^2 } \}.$$ The Probability Density Function (PDF) of $\left| {\lambda _y } \right|$ is, $$p_{\left| {\lambda_y } \right|} = \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
2/\Delta _y ,{\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} \left| {\lambda _y } \right| \in [0,\Delta _y /2]{\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} \\
0{\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} ,{\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} otherwise.{\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} \\
\end{array} \right.$$ The expectation of $\left| {\lambda _y } \right| ^2$ in is thus written as, $$E\{ {\kern 1pt} \left| {\lambda _y } \right|_{}^2 \} = \int\limits_{}^{} {{\kern 1pt} \left| {\lambda _y } \right|_{}^2 } p_{\left| {\lambda _y } \right|} d{\left| {\lambda _y } \right|}= \frac{1}{{12}}\Delta _y^2 = \frac{1}{{12}}\frac{{R_2^2 }}{{(L_1^{} - 1)_{}^2 }}.$$ Similarly, the expectation of $\left| {\lambda _z } \right| ^2$ in is, $$E\{ {\kern 1pt} \left| {\lambda _z } \right|_{}^2 \} = \frac{1}{{12}}\frac{{R_3^2 }}{{(L_2^{} - 1)_{}^2 }}.$$Since noise $n$ follows a Normal distribution $\mathcal{N}(0,\sigma_n^2)$, we have $E\{ \left| n \right|_{}^2 \}=\sigma _n^2$. Finally, the MSE for 3:1 mapping can be expressed in the following closed form, i.e., $$MSE = \frac{{R_1^2 L_1^2 L_2^2 }}{{D_{\max }^2 }}\sigma _n^2 + \frac{1}{{12}}\frac{{R_2^2 }}{{(L_1^{} - 1)_{}^2 }}+\frac{1}{{12}}\frac{{R_3^2 }}{{(L_2^{} - 1)_{}^2 }}.$$
We can now extend this result to the N:1 mapping. The source signal $(s_1 ,s_2 ,...,s_N )$ having range $[0,R_1]$, $[0,R_2]$, ..., $[0,R_N]$ is scaled and mapped to a point, $(x_1, x_2, ..., x_N)$, on the $N$-dimensional space by $x_1 = \frac{d}{{R_1 }}s_1$, $x_2 = s_2 + \lambda _2$, ..., $x_N = s_N + \lambda _N {\kern 1pt}$. The transmitting signal constraint now generalizes to $\mathop \prod \limits_{k = 1}^{N - 1} L_k^{} \cdot d \le D_{\max}$. Similarly to the 3:1 mapping analysis, the MSE for N:1 mapping can be expressed as, $$MSE_N = \left( {\frac{{R_1^{} \mathop \prod \limits_{k = 1}^{N - 1} L_k^{} }}{{D_{\max }^{} }}} \right)_{}^2 \sigma _n^2 + \sum\limits_{k = 1}^{N - 1} {\frac{1}{{12}}\frac{{R_{k + 1}^2 }}{{(L_k^{} - 1)_{}^2 }}}.$$
The MSE minimization problem, which can be solved numerically, can be written as, $$\label{eq:opt}
\mathop{\operatorname*{\arg\!\min}}\limits_{L_1^{} ,L_{2,...}^{} ,L_{N - 1}^{} } MSE_N,$$where in the number of stages per dimension needs to be an integer greater than 1, i.e., $L_k\in \mathbb{N}\setminus\{1\}, \forall k=1...N-1$.
[0.30]{} {width="100.00000%" height="3.5cm"}
[0.25]{} {width="100.00000%" height="3.5cm"}
[0.43]{} {width="100.00000%" height="3.5cm"}
[m[0.5cm]{}m[7cm]{}]{} $x_1$ & General notation of AJSCC input signal on x-axis\
$x_2$ & General notation of AJSCC input signal on y-axis\
$\Delta$ & General notation of spacing between AJSCC parallel lines on y-axis\
$V_T$ & Temperature Voltage of AJSCC input on x-axis, a specific type of signal of $x_1$\
$V_H$ & Humidity Voltage of AJSCC input signal on y-axis, a specific type of signal of $x_2$\
$V_R$ & Length of each horizontal line in voltage in AJSCC mapping for $V_T$ and $V_H$ compression\
$\Delta_H$ & Spacing between parallel lines in AJSCC mapping for $V_T$ and $V_H$ compression\
$L$ & Number of parallel lines in AJSCC mapping\
$D_{max}$ & Maximum accumulated length of AJSCC mapping\
$B_w$ & Total double side baseband bandwidth of FPMM\
$f_s$ & Sampling frequency of ADC in the FPMM receiver\
$N_{node}$ & Total number of nodes in FPMM\
$N_{0}$ & Number of quantization points for each parallel line\
$N_{q}$ & Total number of quantization points in the final AJSCC mapped signal, $N_q = L N_0$\
$\Delta f$ & Frequency spacing of adjacent positions in FPMM, $\Delta f = B_w/(N_q N_{node} - 1) $\
$T_{win}$ & Time-domain window length in FPMM, $ T_{win} = 1/\Delta f $\
$G$ & Receiver RF circuit power gain in $\mathrm{dB}$\
Sensor Signal Modulation and Multiplexing {#sec:fpm}
-----------------------------------------
In this section, we propose to use Frequency Position Modulation and Multiplexing (FPMM) for sensors communicating to an aggregator node. The key design parameters for the sensor transmitter and FPMM receiver are summarized in Table \[table\_parameters\]. Popular existing approaches to transmitting multiple signals from single-antenna sensors on the shared Radio Frequency (RF) medium include Frequency Division Multiplexing (FDM) or Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) in which the signals are separated in distinct frequency bands or in time slots, respectively. However, the former allocates static frequency bands to sensors and as such is unfair to some of the sensors (interference-wise). Even though frequency hopping can be used to change the assigned static bands, synchronization is a problem especially in the analog domain. The latter is hard to realize due to signal timing synchronization. Hence, we propose a novel multiplexing scheme (FPMM) based on the interleaving of different user frequencies so as to be fair to all users. Below we first introduce FPMM (Sect. \[sec:fpm1\]) and explain its advantages along with how it can reduce the transmitter power (Sect. \[sec:fpm\_power\]) while being robust to eavesdropping (Sect. \[sec:fpm\_scrambler\]).
### Frequency Position Modulation and Multiplexing (FPMM) {#sec:fpm1}
Consider we compress two continuous analog signals $x_1$ (e.g., blood temperature) and $x_2$ (e.g., blood pH) to one signal by AJSCC as in Fig. \[fig:Proposed\_Transmitter\]. These signals are fed to the analog compression circuits composed of analog divider, two types of voltage-controlled voltage sources (VCVS), and an analog switch. These circuits construct an analog joint source-channel coded (AJSCC) circuit of the sensing signals $x_1$ and $x_2$. In the figure, parameter $\Delta$ is the line/stage spacing in AJSCC. More details on how these circuits perform AJSCC of the two signals are found in [@Zhao16]. The AJSCC output controls the frequency of the voltage controlled oscillator (VCO), which then modulates the signal to RF.
The basic principle of the proposed FPMM is depicted in Fig. \[fig:freq\_alloc\]. Consider the FPMM has double-side bandwidth $B_w$ and the total number of multiplexed nodes/AJSCC devices is $N_{node}$. Let us denote the number of quantization levels of the final AJSCC-mapped signal as $N_q$. Hence, there will be $N_q N_{node}$ frequency positions, and the inter-position spacing is $\Delta f = B_w/(N_q N_{node} -1 )$. The AJSCC-mapped signal is represented by one pulse per node, at interleaved frequency locations without interfering to each other. In Fig. \[fig:freq\_alloc\], different colored arrows represent different nodes. In this example, three users are shown in an interleaving pattern with adjacent points spaced by $\Delta f$. Because of this interleaving (*multiplexing*), we can see that the frequency positions of a single node are spread across the entire bandwidth, $B_w$, which ensures fairness to all nodes in terms of interference at specific frequencies. In this system it is assumed that the inter-position spacing is the same for all senor nodes. This is because it is assumed that all nodes have the same structure and are sensing the same analog source at different locations.
A simple approach of *modulating* the AJSCC outputs to frequencies is to use a linear mapping where lower values are mapped to lower frequencies and vice-versa. However this approach is prone to risk of eavesdropping and interference in case data from multiple devices is spatially correlated. To solve these two problems, a scrambling-based modulation approach is discussed in Sect. \[sec:fpm\_scrambler\]. If the receiver has a frequency-domain resolution of $\Delta f = 1/ T_{win}$, the number of frequency points in the whole bandwidth is, $$N_f = \left\lfloor {\frac{{B_w }}{{\Delta f}}} \right\rfloor,$$and the maximum number of nodes supported is expressed by, $$\label{eq:maxusers}
N_{node,max}^{} = \left\lfloor {\frac{{N_f }}{{N_q }}} \right\rfloor.$$
The proposed FPMM receiver is depicted in Fig. \[fig:Proposed\_Receiver\]. The received and down-converted signal is first sampled with sampling frequency $f_s$ and recording time $T_{win}$. The samples are sent for Fourier analysis to detect the frequency positions and to determine if a miss detection has occurred. The miss detection is said to have occurred if the received signal frequency position is not the transmitted frequency position. If the number of users is below the maximum limit, as shown in , the frequency domain samples can be recovered assuming high SNR. While the number of users approaches this limit, the frequency domain signal power will leak into target user, and the recovery will become more difficult. In Table \[table\_parameters\], the parameter $L$ controls $x_2$’s granularity, while parameter $N_q$ controls the output AJSCC signal granularity, which in turn determines $x_1$’s granularity. $N_q$ should be chosen in such as way as to meet the temperature granularity requirement. In the current system we consider additive Gaussian noise channel and do not assume Doppler. The reason is that the sensors are assumed to be deployed at fixed locations, and the Doppler is a very small value, which is much smaller than the frequency spacing $\Delta f$. In this work we are focusing on the static monitoring scenario so it is assumed that the sensors are static with no Doppler.
![Power analysis at FPMM receiver.[]{data-label="fig:Rx_power_analysis"}](fig/Rx_power_analysis.pdf){width="2.8in"}
[0.33]{} {width="100.00000%" height="2.5in"}
[0.33]{} {width="100.00000%" height="2.3in"}
[0.33]{} {width="100.00000%" height="2.3in"}
### Transmitter Power Reduction Using FPMM {#sec:fpm_power}
To analyze how the transmitting power can be reduced, we start with the signal power analysis at the FPMM receiver. The signal power values at the receiver antenna output and ADC input are depicted in Fig. \[fig:Rx\_power\_analysis\]. Assuming a thermal noise floor of -$110~\rm{dBm}$ at the antenna output, the thermal noise floor becomes -$104~\rm{dBm}$ + $G$, under the assumption of a RF circuit $G$ $\rm{dB}$ gain and a $6~\rm{dB}$ noise figure. We further assume the receiver minimum operational SNR is -$30~\rm{dB}$, and implementation loss of $6~\rm{dB}$. The minimum receiving signal power is thus -$128~\rm{dBm}$ + $G$ at the ADC input, or -$134~\rm{dBm}$ at antenna output. Assuming the ADC floor is $42~\rm{dB}$ below the thermal noise floor, then the ADC floor is -$146~\rm{dBm}$ + $G$ at the ADC input, or -$152~\rm{dBm}$ at the antenna output. Now, assume the receiver does not have Automatic Gain Control (AGC). The received signal dynamic range at the ADC input is depicted in Fig. \[fig:DR\_analysis\]. Given the ADC floor of -$146~\rm{dBm}$ + $G$ at the ADC input, and assuming a 12-bit ADC, which has a $72~\rm{dB}$ dynamic range, the full-scale power becomes -$74~\rm{dBm}$ + $G$. Furthermore, assume $9~\rm{dB}$ of margin for signal peak-to-average fluctuation and so as to avoid saturation, the maximum signal power at the receiver ADC input will be –$83~\rm{dBm}$ + $G$, again without the AGC. Meanwhile, the minimum signal power is also shown in the figure as -$128~\rm{dBm}$ + $G$.
From this power analysis it can be observed that the key factor to reduce the transmitting power is to reduce the minimum operational SNR at the receiver. It is found that such minimum operational SNR of our proposed system can be up to $30~\rm{dB}$ lower than in conventional digital linear and nonlinear modulation approaches, including FSK (in Z Wave), GFSK (in Bluetooth), and OQPSK (in ZigBee). The reason for our proposed system to achieve such a low SNR is that the transmitter and receiver adopted a structure that is completely different from the digital linear and nonlinear modulation approaches, which is explained as follows. First, we have the key observation that the sensing signal in the nature has a time period, during this period the signal can be treated as constant. For example, the temperature and humidity can be treated constant for $10$ seconds; or, if monitoring biomedical signals, e.g., the Glucose level, the sensing signal can be treated constant for $1$ second. However, current digital systems are sampling at much higher rates resulting in large redundancy as the readout signals are repeated for a large amount of samples. Digital modulation schemes in FSK, GFSK, and OQPSK are sampled with the receiver sampling rate to sense, process, and transmit the sensor outputs.
In our proposed system, the sensing signal is sensed in analog and continuously transmitted. The sampling of the sensing signal is done at the receiver side; and at the receiver, the samples are firstly buffered for the period in which the sensing signal can be treated as constant, then the buffered data is processed, as depicted in Fig. \[fig:Proposed\_Receiver\], to generate a one-time readout of the sensing source. This process has avoided the large redundancy compared to the digital sensing approaches, and more importantly allows for very low transmitting power. This one-time readout mechanism can collect all the signal power during the period of buffering to ensure signal detection. For example in our proposed receiver, large-sized FFT is adopted to perform frequency-domain analysis. The very small signal power can be recovered in the frequency domain with a large window/buffer time period. This has been verified by simulations. This buffer and one-time readout approach will allow for an ultra low operational SNR, around -$40$ to -$30~\rm{dB}$, which in turn will lead to an ultra low transmitter power.
In Fig. \[fig:Rx\_power\_analysis\], we have the minimum received signal power to be –$134~\rm{dBm}$ at the receiver antenna output. Assuming a path loss exponent of $3$, the power attenuation will be around $60~\rm{dB}$ for a coverage of $100~\rm{m}$, and $90~\rm{dB}$ for $1~\rm{km}$. For the latter, the minimum transmitter signal power can be as low as -$44~\rm{dBm}$. Consider a medium power between –$134$ and -$89~\rm{dBm}$ (maximum signal power at antenna output). If we assume a –$112~\rm{dBm}$ medium received signal power, the medium transmitting power will be -$22~\rm{dBm}$. In contrast, the digital modulations such as FSK, GFSK, and OQPSK, all have an operational SNR around $0~\rm{dB}$, therefore the minimum received signal power will be –$104~\rm{dBm}$ at the receiver antenna output and minimum transmitter signal power for a $1~\rm{km}$ coverage is -$14~\rm{dBm}$ for these digital approaches. If we assume a –$82~\rm{dBm}$ medium received signal power, the medium transmitting power is $8~\rm{dBm}$ for these digital approaches for the $1~\rm{km}$ coverage. The verification of the minimum operational SNR of our proposal has been shown by simulation in Sect. \[sec:perf\_eval\].
### FPMM Scrambler to Mitigate Interference {#sec:fpm_scrambler}
Given a communication link with fixed frequency location interference, we can design a scrambler on the devices to change the frequency location of the modulated signal. Consider the application of collecting temperature and pulse oximeter readings from different parts of the body. This is needed for robustness and catching anomalies [@Wu2011DataRecognition]. Given that the readings are collected from the same body, it is possible that some of them are correlated, generating similar AJSCC outputs and hence similar frequency-position modulated signals (frequencies) in the frequency domain. Now, if there is an interference just at the frequency location of the sensor signals, the signals of all those sensors will be distorted.
To address this problem, a scrambler designed at the sensor nodes can re-allocate the frequency pulses to widely spaced locations. In this case, even if the measurement signals are very close, the frequency-position modulated signal will still be far apart in the frequency domain. The interference at a particular location can only affect the performance of a single sensor, while other sensors’ signals will not be affected. The input of the scrambler is the AJSCC-modulated signal after quantization. The objective of the scrambler is to allocate the frequency location to another location that is statistically random and uniformly distributed in all the frequency positions. A pseudo-random number generator generating an integer from 1 to $N_q$ is assumed. The generated value is $x_r$. The AJSCC encoded and quantized signal is denoted as $x_q$; the following operation is then performed, $$y=\mod(x_q + x_r, N_q).$$ The frequency modulation is performed according to $y$ for the sensor. Different sensors have different seeds to generate pseudo-random numbers. The reverse operation can be performed at the receiver to de-scramble the signals, using the specific seed of each user. This approach is also robust to eavesdroppers due to the randomicity involved in mapping frequencies. Given that we are dealing with medical data in our application, this is an important step towards preserving user privacy. There is already some existing work on signal scrambling in the analog domain [@seitner2008analog].
Performance Evaluation {#sec:perf_eval}
======================
In this section, we evaluate the MSE performance of the generalized $N$-dimensional compression and the MDR performance of our proposed FPMM by varying SNR, bandwidth, and number of multiplexed devices under realistic conditions.
**N-dimensional Compression—MSE Analysis:**
[0.33]{} {width="110.00000%"}
[0.33]{} {width="110.00000%"}
[0.33]{} {width="110.00000%" height="1.95in"}
We studied the interesting tradeoff behavior between sum MSE and optimal number of stages for each dimension via MATLAB simulations. We know that there is a limit, $D_{max}$, on the mapped signal amplitude. Hence, we cannot arbitrarily increase the number of stages because as this number increases the range representing the first dimension reduces, leading to higher MSE for that dimension. In contrast, having a very small number of stages is also not desirable as such choice will introduce higher quantization error in the other quantized dimensions, leading to a higher sum MSE. We have studied this tradeoff behavior in simulations by varying the number of stages and $D_{max}$, and observed the resultant sum MSE. These results are shown in Fig. \[fig:MSE\_vs\_L\_Dim\_2\] for the 2-dimensional case (i.e., $N=2$, where one dimension is continuous while the other is discrete/quantized) and in Fig. \[fig:MSE\_vs\_L\_Dim\_3\] for the 3-dimensional case. From the results, as expected, we observe a local minimum for the MSE (due to the above-mentioned tradeoff), which gives the optimal number of stages for that particular $D_{max}$. This shows that, as $D_{max}$ decreases, the optimal number of lines/stages also decreases.
Figure \[fig:MSE\_vs\_L\_Dim\_3\] shows the MSE versus the number of levels for the 3-dimensional case (where one dimension is continuous and two are discrete/quantized) by varying the number of discrete levels in the second ($L_1$) and third ($L_2$) dimensions. We observe that there is a local minimum that gives the optimal number of levels, $L_{1,opt}=L_{2,opt} \approx 20$ for the second and third dimensions, for $D_{max}=3000$ at SNR=$30~\rm{dB}$. Note that these values change when $D_{max}$ and SNR change; yet a similar trend is observed It is interesting to observe that the contour graph is symmetric by the two quantization levels, which indicates that $L_{1,opt}$ and $L_{2,opt}$ are co-located values.
Figure \[fig:Optimal\_3D\] shows that (for the 3-dimensional case) these values increase, as $D_{max}$ or SNR increases. The reason for the optimal number of levels to change with $D_{max}$ and SNR is that these two parameters affect the quantization error and the Gaussian noise introduced, thus leading to errors at the receiver. With a large $D_{max}$, the error due to noise for the continuous signal $x_1$ is small, which allows for more parallel lines to be designed for the discrete signals $x_2$,...,$x_N$. For high SNR, the error due to Gaussian noise for the continuous signal $x_1$ is also small; thus, for a certain $D_{max}$, more lines are allowed for discrete signals $x_2$,...,$x_N$ to achieve the optimal MSE performance.
In Fig. \[fig:L\_vs\_N\_var\_Dmax\] we observe that, for a given $N$, optimal values of $L$ increase as $D_{max}$ increases, which is due to the reduced error on $x_1$; and the reason that the optimal number of levels decreases with increasing $N$, given a fixed $D_{max}$, is that the length for each dimension will dramatically reduce with increasing $N$. In Fig. \[fig:MSE\_vs\_N\_var\_Dmax\], we can find that for large $D_{max}$ values, the MSE is around $10^{-4}\sim10^{-5}$ for $N=2$ and around $10^{-2}$ for $N=5$. The reason of this large MSE drop is because of the change in the number of quantization levels. The number of levels decreases by an order of magnitude going from dimension 2 to 5, as shown in Fig. \[fig:L\_vs\_N\_var\_Dmax\]. We also note in Fig. \[fig:MSE\_vs\_N\_var\_Dmax\] that by increasing $D_{max}$ from 1000 to 5000, the MSE at dimension 4 and 5 are only moderately improved. These results indicate that there are intrinsic limitations imposed by the dimension that cap the MSE performance. By allowing higher dimensions (with quantization), there is an exponential demand on the maximum length $D_{max}$ as $N$ increases. On the other hand, as $D_{max}$ has the physical meaning of the modulated signal amplitude, it cannot be increased in such exponential manner due to power constraints. Such constraint on the maximum signal amplitude limits the total number of dimensions that our compression method can support.
[0.33]{} {width="110.00000%"}
[0.33]{} {width="110.00000%"}
[0.33]{} {width="110.00000%"}
**Frequency Position Modulation and Multiplexing—MDR Analysis:** We studied the proposed FPMM-based multiplexing via MATLAB simulations. We have carried out simulations to find the miss detection rate of the system for different bandwidth ($B_w$), number of users ($N_{user}$), and SNR. In practice, the collected samples are processed using a Fourier analysis system composed of cascaded Fourier transform blocks. Parameters $D_{max}$, $L$, and $N_q$ are decoupled from other parameters for detecting the frequency position modulated signal. When performing the simulations, parameters $D_{max}$, $L$, and $N_q$ are fixed. Our purpose is to find how the noise affects the detection, by varying bandwidth (sampling rate) and time of observation. These parameters are set to $L=50$, $D_{max}=5$, and $N_q=100$.
For recording the received signal, we define a time to record the FM modulated sequence as $T_{win}$, which is chosen to be $10~\rm{s}$. The received signal is firstly processed by FFT, then is detected based on the peak information to identify the frequency location of each node. Due to the analog nature of the transmitter, no pilot is available, therefore the standard digital detection techniques [@Zhao08] are not applicable in this system. In these results, the metric of evaluation is the Miss Detection Rate (MDR), defined as the number of users with detected frequency position not equaling the transmitting frequency position, divided by the total number of users multiplexed by FPMM. The SNR is defined as the signal power to noise power ratio at the receiver ADC input. We have set $N_{user}=1000$, and simulated the MDR by varying bandwidth from $50$ to $400~\rm{kHz}$ for the AWGN case. The results are shown in Fig. \[fig:mdr\_var\_snr\]. From the figure, we can notice that the MDR falls to a low value for SNR=-$40~\rm{dB}$ and is zero for SNR=-$30~\rm{dB}$. We also notice that the MDR behavior is approximately same for all bandwidths considered. For the AWGN case, due to the frequency modulation adopted, very low SNR can result in a detectable peak in frequency.
Considering AWGN channel with $50~\rm{kHz}$-bandwidth, the results of MDR vs. SNR for different number of users/nodes is shown in Fig. \[fig:awgn\_50khz\]. The same metric for a $1~\rm{MHz}$-bandwidth is shown in Fig. \[fig:awgn\_1mhz\], whose purpose is to show how the MDR changes for a large bandwidth. We can see that the MDR is almost same for different number of nodes. This is because the number of nodes are under the limit of maximum allowed number of nodes and there is no interference by the proposed FPMM (since the bandwidth is large, the frequencies are far apart resulting in less interference and hence similar MDRs). We have also simulated the same results for a fading channel case. The results for $50~\rm{kHz}$ and $1~\rm{MHz}$ bandwidths are similar to the AWGN case. This is because FPMM, which is a non-linear modulation scheme, is intrinsically robust to fading. It can be observed from the results that the minimum operational SNR of the proposed system can be less than -$30~\rm{dB}$. Also, note that there is small difference between the numbers of users. This difference is negligible since the results show the same trend in the overlapped SNR region.
Conclusions and Future Work {#sec:conc}
===========================
We proposed multi-signal compression in the analog domain based on Analog Joint Source Channel Coding (AJSCC). This addresses the problem of scalability of both data and number of sensors/things, in addition to power consumption. We also proposed a novel analog Frequency Position Modulation and Multiplexing (FPMM) technique for multiple devices to communicate to an aggregator node (FPMM receiver) that is robust to interference and eavesdropping as well as being low power. The results showed the ability of these techniques to address the above mentioned challenges in the context of healthcare Internet of Things (IoT).
As future work, we will work on the following: (i) AJSCC devices that are also able to receive configuration information from the aggregator; (ii) generating configuration information such as quantization levels by leveraging machine learning at the aggregator; (iii) analog scrambling; (iv) increasing the spectral efficiency of our FPMM technique (all devices use the same bandwidth now) through spreading (code domain approach) and multiple receiver antennas (multi user MIMO) in interference environment [@Zhao16a]; (v) use different transformations such as wavelet, DWT, chirp, z-transform, DCT, and adopt different energy/power levels for different devices.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Guillermo Angeris[^1]\
`[email protected]`\
- |
Kunal Shah\
`[email protected]`
- |
Mac Schwager\
`[email protected]`
bibliography:
- 'cites.bib'
date: May 2019
title: Fast Reciprocal Collision Avoidance Under Measurement Uncertainty
---
[^1]: These authors contributed equally to this work.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Introduction
============
The number density of galaxy clusters as a function of their mass, the mass function, and its evolution can provide a powerful probe of models of large-scale structure. Historically the most important constraint coming from the present day abundance of rich clusters has been the normalization of the [*linear theory*]{} power spectrum of mass density perturbations (e.g.[@Evr89; @FWED; @BonMye91; @HA91; @Lil; @OukBla; @BahCen; @WEF; @VL96; @VL98; @Henry]). The normalization is typically quoted in terms of $\sigma_8$, the rms density contrast on scales $8\,h^{-1}\,$Mpc, with the abundance constraint forcing models to a thin region in the $\Omega_M$-$\sigma_8$ plane.
Since the mass, suitably defined, of a cluster is not directly observable, one typically measures the abundance of clusters as a function of some other parameter which is used as a proxy for mass. Several options exist, but much attention has been focused recently on the X-ray temperature. Cosmological N-body simulations and observations suggest that X-ray temperature and mass are strongly correlated with little scatter ([@EMN; @BryNor; @ENF; @HorMS; @NevMF]). How well simulations agree with observational results is far from clear, and several issues need to be resolved. On the simulation side there are the usual issues of numerical resolution and difficulties with including all of the relevant physics. On the observational side instrumental effects can be important (especially for the older generation of X-ray facilities) in addition to the worrying lack of a method for estimating “the mass”. In this respect it is worth noting that there are numerous differing definitions of which “M” and “T” are to be related in the M–T relation ([@White_mass])!
With current samples the [*dominant*]{} uncertainty in the normalization in fact comes from the normalization of the M–T relation ([@ECF96; @VL96; @DV99; @Henry; @PSW; @Seljak]). Or phrased another way, the cluster abundance is a sensitive probe of the normalization of the M–T relation.
The abundance of clusters is, of course, not the only way to constrain the cosmological parameters. In this regard it is interesting to note that weak gravitational lensing provides a constraint on a very similar combination of $\Omega_M$ and $\sigma_8$. Therefore, the two constraints can be combined to check for consistency of our cosmological model, to provide a normalization for the M–T relation, to probe systematics in either method and/or to measure other parameters not as yet included in the standard treatments.
While the cluster constraint comes primarily from scales of about $R=10\,h^{-1}\,$Mpc, current weak lensing surveys constrain somewhat smaller scales. These surveys probe scales between roughly 1 and 10 arcmin, which for source galaxies located at $z\simeq 1$ in a $\Lambda$CDM cosmology corresponds to $0.7\,h^{-1}\,{\rm
Mpc}<R<7\,h^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}$. Therefore, weak lensing probes slightly smaller scales than clusters. As lensing surveys push to larger scales the overlap will become even better.
In this paper we argue that a natural application of combining the cluster abundance and weak lensing constraints is to calibrate the M–T relation for galaxy clusters (see also [@HuKrav]). In Sec. \[sec:MT\] we define the M–T relation and derive how cluster abundance constraints depend on $\Omega_M$ and $\sigma_8$. In Sec. \[sec:WL\_clus\] we illustrate how combining the two constraints can fix the normalization of the M–T relation using two recently obtained data sets. Finally, in Sec. \[sec:concl\] we discuss this approach further.
The Mass-temperature relation {#sec:MT}
=============================
Throughout we shall be interested in the abundance of massive clusters at low redshifts, so we parameterize the M–T relation as $${M(T,z)\over M_{15}}
= \left( {T\over T_*} \right)^{3/2}
\left(\Delta_c E^2 \right)^{-1/2}
\left[ 1 - 2 {\Omega_{\Lambda}(z)\over\Delta_c }\right]^{-3/2}
\label{eq:MT}$$ where $M_{15}= 10^{15}\,h^{-1}\,{\rm M}_\odot$, $\Delta_c$ is the mean overdensity inside the virial radius in units of the critical density, which we compute using the spherical top-hat collapse model, and $E^2=\Omega_M (1+z)^3 + \Omega_{\Lambda} + \Omega_{\rm k} (1+z)^2$. $T_*$ is the normalization coefficient that we seek to constrain; it roughly corresponds to the temperature of a $M=7.5\times 10^{13}\,h^{-1}\,{\rm M}_\odot$ cluster. If measured in keV, the value of $T_*$ is precisely equivalent to $\beta$ from Pierpaoli, Scott & White (2002) and is $1.34f_T$ of Bryan & Norman (1998).
Let us explore the sensitivity of cluster abundance on $\Omega_M$ and $\sigma_8$. The Press-Schechter formula gives the number of collapsed objects $dn$ per mass interval $d\ln M$ ([@PS]); we define ${\cal N}(M,z)=dn/d\ln M$. Further defining $\nu\equiv \delta_c/\sigma(M, z)$, where $\sigma(M, z)$ is the rms density fluctuation on mass-scale $M$ evaluated at redshift $z$ using linear theory and $\delta_c\approx 1.686$ is the linear threshold overdensity for collapse, we have $${\cal N}(M,z)= \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \frac{\rho_M}{M}
\frac{d\ln\sigma(M, z)}{d\ln\nu}\,
\nu\,\exp\left( -\nu^2/2\right)
\label{eq:dndm}$$ where $\rho_M$ is the present-day matter density. Assuming we are dealing with the current cluster abundance, $z\simeq 0$. Following Pen ([@Pen]), for the mass scales of interest we can approximate $\sigma(M)\propto M^{-\alpha}$ where $\alpha\simeq 0.27$ for the currently popular $\Lambda$CDM cosmology.
Let us examine the dependence of ${\cal N}$ on $\Omega_M$, $\sigma_8$ and $M$. Ignoring the term $d\ln\sigma/d\ln\nu$ (which slowly varies) one obtains $${\delta{\cal N}\over {\cal N}} = \frac{\delta\Omega_M}{\Omega_M}
(1-\alpha+\nu^2\alpha)+ \frac{\delta\sigma_8}{\sigma_8}(\nu^2-1)
-\frac{\delta M}{M}(1-\alpha+\nu^2\alpha)$$ Setting the left-hand side to zero and using the fact that $\delta
M/M=-3/2 \:\delta T_*/T_*$, for our fiducial cosmology and massive clusters ($M\sim 10^{15}\,h^{-1}M_\odot$, or $\nu\simeq 2$) we have[^1] $$T_* \propto (\sigma_8\Omega_M^{0.6})^{-1.1}.$$
Therefore, measurements of the cluster abundance at the present epoch constrain a degenerate combination of $T_*$ and $\sigma_8\,\Omega_M^{0.6}$. One of them cannot be determined without knowing the other. Thankfully, weak lensing happens to measure roughly this combination of $\Omega_M$ and $\sigma_8$ accurately, and the orthogonal combination much less accurately (e.g. [@Ber]). Consequently, weak lensing in conjunction with cluster abundance can be used to constrain $T_*$ quite strongly.
Weak lensing plus clusters: an example {#sec:WL_clus}
======================================
As a more concrete example of these ideas, let us examine what value of $T_*$ is required to bring current cluster and weak lensing results into agreement. This analysis will necessarily be illustrative, but is already quite enlightening.
The cluster data
----------------
We compute $\sigma_8$ using a Monte-Carlo method following the steps outlined in Pierpaoli, Scott & White (2002). Since some of the details have changed we sketch the procedure here.
We use the HiFluGCS cluster sample of Reiprich & B[" o]{}hringer (1999), restricted to clusters with $0.03<z<0.10$. For simplicity we do not include ‘additional’ clusters of lower flux/temperature which could scatter into the sample. The cosmic microwave background (CMB) frame redshifts from Struble & Rood ([@StrRoo]) were used when available and so were the two-component temperatures published in Ikebe et al. (2002). For each $\Omega_{\rm m}$ we sample from a distribution of cosmological parameters including $h$, $n$ and $T_*$ (the normalization of the M–T relation). For each such realization we generate 50 mass functions, where the temperature is chosen from a Gaussian with the mean and variance appropriate to the observational value and errors, and a scatter of 15% in mass at fixed $T$ is assumed for the M–T relation. Using the mean values of the M–T relation and the L–T relation from Ikebe et al. (2002) $$L_X = 1.38\times 10^{35}\ \left( {kT\over 1{\rm keV}} \right)^{2.5}
\quad h^{-2}{\rm W}$$ we compute the volume to which clusters of mass $M$ could be seen above the flux limit $f_{\rm lim}=1.99\times 10^{-14}\,{\rm erg}\,s^{-1}\,{\rm cm}^{-2}$ of the survey. For each realization of the mass function we compute the best fitting $\sigma_8$ by maximizing the Poisson likelihood of obtaining that set of masses from the theory with all parameters except $\sigma_8$ fixed. The mass function can be computed using either the Press-Schechter (1974), Sheth-Tormen ([@SheTor]) or Jenkins et al. ([@JFWCCEY]) formulae. We have used the Sheth-Tormen prescription throughout, with the mass variance $\sigma^2(M)$ computed using the transfer function fits of Eisenstein & Hu ([@EisHu]) and masses converted from $M_{180\Omega}$ to $M_{\Delta_c}$ assuming an NFW profile ([@NFW]) with $c=5$. The best fitting $\sigma_8$ is corrected from $\bar{z}$ to $z=0$. The mean of the 50, $z=0$ normalizations is then taken as the fit for that set of cosmological parameters (since the error from Poisson sampling is completely sub-dominant to the error in the M–T normalization we do not keep track of it here). When quoting a best fit for a given triplet of ($\Omega_{\rm m}$, $\sigma_8$, $T_*$), we marginalize (average) over the other cosmological parameters $h$ and $n$.
The weak lensing data
---------------------
As an example of weak lensing measurements, we use shear measurements obtained using Keck and William Herschel telescopes ([@Bacon]). These joint measurements used two independent telescopes covering 0.6 and 1 square degrees respectively, and enabled careful assessment of instrument-specific systematics. The authors compute the shear correlation function, and compare with the theoretical prediction. Assuming the shape parameter $\Gamma=0.21$, the results are well fit by $$\sigma_8 \left ({\Omega_M\over 0.3}\right )^{0.68}=0.97\pm 0.13$$ which captures the total 68% CL error: statistical, redshift uncertainty and uncertainty in the ellipticity-shear conversion factor. These results are consistent with other recent measurements of cosmic shear ([@vW02; @Refregier; @Hoekstra]).
Calibrating the M-T relation
----------------------------
Fig. \[fig:WL\_clus\] shows the constraints in the $\Omega_M$-$\sigma_8$ plane. The cluster constraint has been marginalized over $h$ and $n$ as explained above, and plotted for three different values of $T_*$. We have checked that the allowed ranges for $h$ and $n$ are wide enough so that essentially all of the likelihood is contained within those ranges. The weak lensing constraints assume the shape parameter $\Gamma=0.21$. Note that the constraint regions from the two methods are indeed parallel, with very similar degeneracy directions. This enables an accurate determination of the normalization $T_*$.
In the example above, we see that a relatively low $T_*$ is preferred ($T_*\lesssim 1.7\,$keV) in order for cluster results to agree with the weak lensing results. While systematics in both methods could still be important, it is interesting to note that this result is in line with most earlier estimates ([@EMN; @ENF; @BryNor; @YJS]), while it disagrees with values adopted more recently (e.g. [@Seljak]).
The fact that cluster abundance and weak lensing probe different scales opens a possibility that one might be able to secure the agreement between the two methods by varying the shape of the power spectrum or the spectral index $n$ rather than the M–T normalization. Unfortunately the constraints we have combined above have individually been marginalized over $h$ and $n$. Ideally, one would combine the cluster and weak lensing likelihood functions and then marginalize over the relevant parameters to get the probability distribution of $T_*$: $$\begin{aligned}
P(T_*) &=& \int \mathcal{L}_{\rm clus}(T_*, \Omega_M, \sigma_8, n, h)
\nonumber \\
&\times& \mathcal{L}_{\rm WL}(\Omega_M, \sigma_8, n, h)\,
d\Omega_M\, d\sigma_8\,dn\,dh.\end{aligned}$$ Then the results would be manifestly independent of the power spectrum parameters. We do not have the ability to perform such an analysis here.
Note, however, that the scales probed by lensing and clusters are quite close, separated an order of magnitude at most. For example, it would require a spectral tilt of $n\sim 1.2$ to make the recently obtained “low” normalization from cluster abundance ($\sigma_8\sim
0.6$) agree with the “high” normalization from weak lensing ($\sigma_8\sim 0.9$), and such a high value of $n$ is already disfavored by recent CMB experiments ([@max; @boom; @DASI; @CBI]).
Conclusions {#sec:concl}
===========
There has been a lot of discussion recently regarding the value of cluster normalization $\sigma_8$. While the “old” results favor $\sigma_8\sim 1$ ([@VL98; @PSW] and references therein), several new cluster abundance analyses favor a significantly lower normalization ([@ReiBoh; @Bor01; @Viana_Nichol; @Seljak; @Ikebe; @SDSS]). The lower normalization is also favored by the combined analysis of 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey and CMB data ([@2dF]). On the other hand, recent weak lensing results ([@vW02; @Bacon; @Refregier; @Hoekstra]) tend to favor a higher value of $\sigma_8$. The cause is of this discrepancy between various measurements has not been identified yet; one candidate is larger than anticipated systematic errors in one or both methods. Another possibility is the bias in the relation between the mass and the observable quantity — temperature or luminosity — used to construct the abundance of clusters.
The cluster abundance constraint on $\sigma_8$ crucially depends on the M–T normalization $T_*$. Figure \[fig:MT\_lit\] summarizes the current status of our knowledge of $T_*$. It shows seven determinations from N-body simulations and three from direct observations, as compiled in Pierpaoli, Scott & White (2002) and Muanwong et al. (2002). The shaded region is roughly our favored range of values of $T_*$. Points without error bars had none quoted, and the three observed values of $T_*$ assumed the isothermal-$\beta$ model. The measurement due to Muanwong et al. corresponds to their “radiative” and “preheating” cases that are cooling-flow corrected, while the value due to Pierpaoli, Scott & White is an average over the simulations. The large discrepancy between the different measurements is apparent, and it also appears that the observed values are systematically higher than the ones obtained from simulations (see Muanwong et al. 2002 for further discussion).
We argue here that the cluster abundance – weak lensing complementarity can be used to cross-check the M–T relation. By combining recent weak lensing constraints from Bacon et al. and the HiFluGCS cluster sample of Reiprich & B[" o]{}hringer, we have demonstrated the utility of this method. While potential systematic errors in both data sets are still a concern, the example we used prefers relatively low values of the M–T normalization ($T_*\lesssim 1.7\,$keV). We conclude that future weak lensing surveys (Vista, LSST, SNAP) combined with new cluster data from Chandra and XMM-Newton observations will provide a strong probe of the M-T relation.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
DH is supported by the DOE grant to CWRU. MW is supported by NASA and by the Sloan Foundation.
[99]{} Bacon, D.J., Massey, R.J., Refregier, A.R., & Ellis, R.S. 2002, submitted to MNRAS \[astro-ph/0203134\]
Bahcall, N. & Cen, R. 1993, ApJ, 407, L49
Bahcall, N. et al. 2002, submitted to ApJ \[astro-ph/0205490\]
Balbi, A. et al. 2000, ApJ, 545, L1
Bernardeau, Y, van Waerbeke, L., & Mellier, Y. 1997, A&A 322, 1
Bond, J.R., & Myers, S.T. 1991, Trends in Astroparticle Physics, eds. D. Cline, R. Peccei, World Scientific, Singapore, p.262
Borgani, S. et al. 2001, ApJ, 561, 13
Bryan, G.L. & Norman, M.L. 1998, ApJ, 495, 80
Donahue, M., & Voit, G.M. 1999, ApJ, 523, L137
Eisenstein, D., & Hu, W. 1999, ApJ, 511, 5
Eke, V., Cole, S., & Frenk, C.S. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 263
Eke, V., Navarro, J.F., & Frenk, C.S. 1998, ApJ, 503, 569
Evrard, A.E. 1989, ApJ, 341, L71
Evrard, A.E., Metzler, C., & Navarro, J.F. 1996, ApJ, 469, 494
Evrard, A.E. et al. 2002, ApJ, 573, 7
Frenk, C.S., White, S.D.M., Efstathiou, G., & Davis M. 1990, ApJ, 351, 10
Henry, J.P. 2000, ApJ, 534, 565
Henry, J.P., & Arnaud, K.A. 1991, ApJ, 372, 410
Hoekstra, H., Yee, H.K.C., & Gladders, M.D. 2002, submitted to ApJ \[astro-ph/0204295\]
Horner, D.J., Mushotsky, R.F., & Scharf, C.A. 1999, ApJ, 520, 78
Hu, W., & Kravtsov, A. 2002, ApJ, submitted \[astro-ph/0203169\]
Ikebe, Y., Reiprich, T.H., B[" o]{}hringer, H., Tanaka, Y., & Kitayama, T. 2002, A&A, 383, 773
Jenkins, A., Frenk, C.S., White, S.D.M., Colberg, J.M., Cole, S., Evrard, A.E., & Yoshida, N. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 371
Lahav, O., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 333, 961
Lilje, P.B. 1992, ApJ, 386, L33
Markevitch, M. 1998, ApJ, 504, 27
Muanwong, O., Thomas, P.A., Kay, S.T., & Pearce, F.R. 2002, MNRAS, in press \[astro-ph/0205137\]
Navarro J.F., Frenk C.S., White S.D.M., 1997, , 490, 493
Netterfield, C.B. et al. 2002, ApJ, 571, 604
Nevalainen, J., Markevitch, M., & Forman, W. 2000, ApJ, 532, 694
Oukbir, J., & Blanchard, A. 1992, A&A, 262, L21
Pen, U.-L. 1998 ApJ, 498, 60
Pierpaoli, E., Scott, D. and White, M. 2002, MNRAS, 325, 77
Press, W.H., & Schechter, P. 1974, ApJ, 187, 452
Pryke, C. et al. 2002, ApJ, 568, 46
Refregier, A., Rhodes, J. & Groth, E.J. 2002, ApJ, 572, L131
Reiprich, T.H., & B[" o]{}hringer H. 2002, ApJ, 567, 716
Seljak, U. 2001, submitted to MNRAS \[astro-ph/0111362\]
Sheth, R.K., & Tormen, G. 1999, MNRAS, 308, 119
Sievers, J.L. et al. 2002, submitted to ApJ \[astro-ph/0205387\]
Struble, M.F., & Rood, H. 1999, ApJS, 125, 35
van Waerbeke, L., Mellier, Y., Pelló, R., Pen, U.-L., McCracken, H.J., & Jain, B. 2002, submitted to A&A \[astro-ph/0202503\]
Viana, P.T.P., & Liddle, A. 1996, MNRAS, 281, 323
Viana, P.T.P., & Liddle, A. 1999, MNRAS, 303, 535
Viana, P.T.P., Nichol, R.C., & Liddle, A.R. 2002, ApJ, 569, L75
White, M. 2001, A&A 367, 27
White, S.D.M., Efstathiou, G., & Frenk, C.S. 1993, MNRAS, 262, 1023
Xu, H., Jin, G., & Wu, X.-P. 2001, ApJ, 553, 78
Yoshikawa, K., Jing, Y.P., & Suto, Y. 2000, ApJ, 535, 593
[^1]: Note that the dependence of $M$ (or $T_*$) on $\sigma_8$ is stronger for more massive clusters; a more detailed analysis gives $T_*\propto \sigma^{-5/3}$ for the most massive clusters ([@Evr02]).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Systems of interacting networks of strings such as cosmic strings or quantum vortices can be approximated in a certain regime as an anisotropic fluid with an equation of state depending on a conserved flux. The equations for ideal magnetohydrodynamics are shown to be another example of a fluid of this type. Previous work on these fluids is now extended to include dissipative effects. The new dissipative terms are discussed in terms of both standard resistive magnetohydrodynamics and small-scale structure formation in networks of cosmic strings. The requirement of frame invariance is shown to restrict the form of higher order corrections to heat flow in the anisotropic direction.'
author:
- Daniel Schubring
title: Dissipative String Fluids
---
Introduction
============
Networks of one-dimensional strings appear in a variety of contexts. In particular, networks of quantized vortex lines appear in turbulent quantum fluids, and networks of cosmic strings may have formed in a symmetry breaking phase transition in the early universe. These networks have been extensively studied using numerical models which track the motion of individual strings in the network, as in for instance the vortex-filament model of Schwartz [@Schwartz] or the Smith-Vilenkin model for cosmic strings [@smithVilenkin]. For many purposes it may be useful to instead consider a ‘macroscopic’ perspective in which individual strings are coarse-grained in a fluid approximation. In the context of quantum turbulence, such an approximation underlies the Hall-Vinen-Bekharevich-Khalatnikhov equations [@hvbk] which describe the net vorticity of the network as a continuous field interacting with the usual two-fluid model of a superfluid. On the other hand, in the cosmic string context the dynamics of the strings themselves are often considered independently from any interaction with external fields. Coarse-graining such a network leads to an independent ‘string fluid’ which may exhibit interesting properties distinct from any additional interactions with other fluids.
The individual strings in the network carry a conserved flux. For instance the vortex lines in a superfluid carry quantized angular momentum and the topological defects in the Abelian-Higgs model carry magnetic flux. In the coarse-grained fluid the conservation of flux is manifested as the conservation of an antisymmetric tensor $ F $: $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_\mu F^{\mu\nu} = 0.\label{dF}\end{aligned}$$ In a fluid of strings carrying magnetic flux, $ F $ is just the dual of the electromagnetic field tensor, and the vanishing of its divergence is just a statement of the homogeneous Maxwell equations. But in fact for any fluid of directed strings there is a conservation law for a tensor $ F $ which describes the topological flux of the strings [@Fluid]. It is tempting at this point to point out the similarity to magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) which is another example of a fluid with a conserved magnetic flux. A connection between Nambu-Goto strings and MHD has in fact been previously noticed by Olesen [@olesen]. In Sec. \[mhd\] we will show through quite different methods that ideal MHD is a particular case of what we call a ‘perfect string fluid’. Formally, a coarse-grained network of strings has many similarities with a plasma, but there are differences in the equation of state of the fluid at equilibrium.
Some readers may here question the idea of an equilibrium for cosmic string networks at all. Through reconnection events the small-scale structure on long strings tends to lead to the production of small loops. It was realized early on from numerical simulations that the reverse process whereby small loops attach to long strings is much less effective for densities below a critical density.[@smithVilenkin][@sakelVilenkin] Given a minimum energy cutoff beyond which small loops are restricted from fragmenting, most of the energy will flow into loops of energy comparable to the cutoff size. So any equilibrium properties will be cutoff dependent, and thus artificial in a sense. Of course the idea of separating the string dynamics from all other interactions is artificial as well, and loops near the cutoff may leave the system through various decay channels.
But what the same numerical simulations do show is that very different initial conditions will lead to the same cutoff-dependent equilibrium state, which depends on the energy density as well any net flux of the strings through the system space. And the statistics of the equilibrium states in the numerical simulations agree with analytical calculations by Mitchel and Turok [@turok1] which involve notions of temperature and entropy for the string networks. The temperature of the equilibrium states remains near the Hagedorn temperature for a very wide range of densities [@turok2]. This may suggest that the decay of small loops and wiggles can be accounted for as the flow of heat from a hot string fluid out of thermal equilibrium with the environment.
In any case, in this paper we will restrict our investigation to the dynamics of an isolated string fluid, and take a macroscopic perspective in which an equation of state is given without reference to an underlying string network. Indeed the example of magnetohydrodynamics shows that what we here call a string fluid may have nothing to do with strings at all on a more microscopic level. The requirements of thermodynamics are then shown to lead to dissipative terms in the fluid equations which correspond to the formation of small-scale structure in an underlying string network.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[secPF\] the concept of a perfect string fluid is reviewed. A full treatment emphasizing the variational principle satisfied is found in [@perfectFluid], and the concept has also been studied in the context of blackfolds [@blackfold]. The dissipative equations will depend on the equation of state in equilibrium, so two particular cases of a perfect string fluid are discussed. In Sec. \[secWiggly\] an idealized equation of state for a network of Nambu-Goto strings is reviewed. In Sec. \[mhd\] it is shown that ideal MHD is another example of a perfect string fluid.
Section \[sectTDecomp\] begins the discussion of dissipative effects by discussing the ambiguities in choosing the flow velocity and field line direction for a general fluid. Given such a choice, the conserved tensors are broken up into equilibrium and dissipative parts. In Sec. \[secEntropy\] the entropy current is determined, and the positivity of entropy production is used to find the explicit form of the dissipative terms.
The dissipative parts of the energy-momentum tensor are much the same as for an ordinary fluid, but the dissipative parts of the conserved flux tensor are discussed in \[secDiss\]. Entropy production due to the curvature of the field lines is discussed in terms of plausible effects in an underlying network of cosmic strings. The nonrelativistic limit of the theory is taken and compared to ordinary resistive magnetohydrodynamics. The dissipative correction to the electric field can be seen as resulting from Ohm’s law, but there is an additional term coupling the electric field to temperature gradients.
In Sec. \[secEquil\] necessary conditions for the fluid to be at equilibrium are derived. As for ordinary fluids, there is a timelike Killing vector proportional to the velocity. In the string fluid there is also an irrotational vector field proportional to the field line direction. In Sec. \[sec2nd\] an extension to a higher order dissipative theory similar to the Israel-Stewart model [@israelStewart] is discussed. The equation describing heat flow along a string is corrected to be hyperbolic, and the speed of second sound is calculated for the idealized cosmic string model discussed in Sec. \[secWiggly\].
Perfect String Fluids {#secPF}
=====================
An ordinary perfect fluid involves one or more conserved currents $n_a^\mu$ (indexed by $a$) which represent extensive quantities such as electric charge, particle number, or entropy. The currents flow in the direction of the timelike velocity $u$ of the fluid, $$\begin{aligned}
n_a^\mu = n_a u^\mu,\end{aligned}$$ and we will here use a $(+,-,-,-)$ signature.
The thermodynamics of the fluid is specified by giving the energy density $\rho$ as a function of the magnitudes $n_a $. Then the chemical potentials $m^a $ are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
m^a \equiv {\frac{\partial\rho}{\partialn_a}},\end{aligned}$$ and the pressure $p$ is defined essentially as a Legendre transform, $$\begin{aligned}
\rho = -p + m^a n_a\\
dp = n_a d m^a\label{dp}\end{aligned}$$
Given these quantities, the energy-momentum tensor is just $$\begin{aligned}
T^{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)u^\mu u^\nu - p g^{\mu\nu},\end{aligned}$$ and the fluid equations are equivalent to the conservation laws $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_\mu T^{\mu\nu} = \nabla_\mu n_a^\mu = 0.\label{dTn}\end{aligned}$$
Note that if one pair of density and chemical potential is singled out as the entropy density $s$ and temperature $T$, the remaining conservation laws and the expression for the derivatives of the pressure can be used to prove the conservation of $s$, $$\begin{aligned}
u_\mu\nabla_\nu T^{\mu\nu} &= \nabla_\nu (m^a n_a + Ts)u^\nu - u^\nu\nabla_\nu p{\nonumber\\}&= T \nabla_\nu su^\nu.\label{ds}\end{aligned}$$ Similar expressions will be useful in extending to the dissipative case.
A string fluid also involves the conservation of at least one antisymmetric flux tensor $F$, $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_\mu F^{\mu\nu}= 0.\end{aligned}$$ In the case of a perfect string fluid, $F$ is a simple bivector that can be written as the alternating product of two vectors. Further, the fluid velocity $u$ is in the linear space spanned by these vectors. The velocity $u$ can be used to define a normalized spacelike direction $w$ and a positive magnitude ${\varphi}$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\varphi}\,w^\mu&\equiv F^{\mu\nu}u_\nu \\
u^\mu u_\mu&= -w^\mu w_\mu = 1\\
u^\mu w_\mu &= 0.\end{aligned}$$
Together, $u$ and $w$ determine the directional part $\Sigma$ of $F$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma^{\mu\nu}&\equiv w^\mu u^\nu - u^\mu w^\nu\\
F^{\mu\nu} &= {\varphi}\Sigma^{\mu\nu}.\label{F0}\end{aligned}$$ It will also be useful to define the projector $h$ onto the space spanned by $u$ and $w$, and its orthogonal complement $\perp$, $$\begin{aligned}
h^{\mu}_{\,\,\,\nu}&=\Sigma^{\mu\rho}\Sigma_{\rho\nu}{\nonumber\\}&= u^\mu u_\nu - w^\mu w_\nu\label{h}\\
\perp^{\mu}_{\,\,\,\nu}&={\tilde{\Sigma}}^{\mu\rho}{\tilde{\Sigma}}_{\nu\rho}{\nonumber\\}&= \delta^{\mu}_{\,\,\,\nu} -u^\mu u_\nu + w^\mu w_\nu,\label{perp}\end{aligned}$$ where we are using tildes to denote the Hodge dual, $$\begin{aligned}
{\tilde{\Sigma}}_{\mu\nu}\equiv\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\Sigma^{\rho\sigma}.\end{aligned}$$ The dual ${\tilde{F}}$ of $F$ itself is a two-form that can be integrated to give the net flux carried by the strings across a surface. The magnitude ${\varphi}$ is thus a measure of this flux and it is taken to be a thermodynamic variable on the same footing as the densities $n_a$. The conjugate chemical potential to ${\varphi}$ is denoted by $\mu$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mu \equiv {\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial{\varphi}}}.\end{aligned}$$ And the pressure for a string fluid now involves $\mu{\varphi}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\rho = -p + m^a n_a + \mu{\varphi}.\end{aligned}$$
In an earlier paper [@perfectFluid] it was shown that a quite general variational principle leads to an energy-momentum tensor of the form $$\begin{aligned}
T^{\mu\nu} = (\rho+p)u^\mu u^\nu - (\tau+p)w^\mu w^\nu - p g^{\mu\nu}\label{t0},\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau$ is a thermodynamic potential related to the tension of the strings, $$\begin{aligned}
\tau \equiv -p + \mu{\varphi}.\end{aligned}$$ The equations of motion of the perfect string fluid are then equivalent to the conservation of $T^{\mu\nu} $ and all currents and fluxes .
Wiggly string fluid {#secWiggly}
-------------------
We will now review some particular examples of string fluids. Directly coarse-graining a network of Nambu-Goto strings leads to $T $ and $F$ tensors expressed in terms of correlations between the (non-unit vector) string velocity $U$ and the tangent vector to the string $W$.[@Fluid][@wigglyFluid] $$\begin{aligned}
T^{\mu\nu}=\langle U^\mu U^\nu- W^\mu W^\nu\rangle{\nonumber\\}F^{\mu\nu}=\langle W^\mu U^\nu- U^\mu W^\nu\rangle.\label{wigglyTF}\end{aligned}$$ The vectors $U$ and $W$ are properties of the individual strings in the network and the brackets denote an integration over a coarse-graining volume. There are sixteen independent components of these tensors, and so the conservation of the $T$ and $F$ tensors alone does not fully specify the system.
The extra assumption needed was suggested by Vanchurin’s kinetic theory of a gas of string segments. [@Kinetic] This model suggested that the strings would equilibriate to a state in which there are no correlations between the statistics of right and left movers. The principle that the string fluid should everywhere locally be in an equilibrium of this form allowed for the correlations in to be factored into the average string velocity field $\bar{U}$ and the average tangent vector field $\bar{W}$.
At this point we will note that for a general string fluid the conservation $\nabla_\mu F^{\mu\nu}=0$ together with the condition that $F$ be a simple bivector implies that spacetime can be foliated by two-dimensional manifolds that are everywhere tangent to the linear subspace defined by the projector $h$ in .[@wigglyFluid] Since $\bar{U}$ and $\bar{W}$ lie in this tangent space, it is tempting to interpret the manifolds as the worldsheets of ‘macroscopic strings’ which point in the direction of the field lines of $\bar{W}$ and propagate with velocity $\bar{U}$.
Ultimately these fields can be expressed in terms of the variables ${\varphi}, u, w$ in the present paper, and the energy-momentum tensor takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
T^{\mu\nu}={\varphi}(M u^\mu u^\nu - T w^\mu w^\nu),\end{aligned}$$ where the quantities $M$ and $T$ can be respectively interpreted as the mass-per-length and tension of the macroscopic strings.
In fact $M$ and $T$ have exactly the same form as the mass-per-length and tension of a single ‘wiggly string’ which can be described as an ordinary Nambu-Goto string with small-scale perturbations integrated out.[@VilenkinWiggly][@CarterWiggly] In the string fluid, the wiggles of the macroscopic strings may also involve disconnected loops smaller than the coarse-graining scale. The coarse-grained wiggles appear in the string fluid as a conserved ‘wiggle number density’ $n$, in terms of which the equation of state can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(n,{\varphi}) = {\varphi}M = \sqrt{(\mu_0 {\varphi})^2 + n^2},\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu_0$ is the mass per length of a Nambu-Goto string.[@perfectFluid]
Given that $n$ describes structure below the macroscopic scale, and that the tendency towards production of small loops should monotonically increase $n$, this strongly suggests that $n$ is proportional to the entropy density $s$: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho = \sqrt{(\mu_0 {\varphi})^2 + (T_H s)^2}\label{wigglyState},\end{aligned}$$ where $T_H$ is some constant of proportionality. In the limit as $s$ goes to infinity, the temperature $T$ goes to the finite value $T_H$, $$\begin{aligned}
T\equiv \left({\frac{\partial\rho}{\partials}}\right)_{\varphi}\rightarrow T_H,\end{aligned}$$ which suggests that we identify $T_H$ as the Hagedorn temperature. For a single wiggly string there is also a corresponding conserved current and equation of state (differing by a factor of ${\varphi}$), and the identification of this current as the entropy has been previously made [@CarterWarm]. Even so the entropy is conserved in both the dynamics of wiggly strings and in perfect string fluids. The idea will be extended in this paper by introducing dissipative effects leading to increases in entropy density.
Magnetohydrodynamics {#mhd}
--------------------
A relativistic formulation of magnetohydrodynamics is given for instance by Harris [@MHDHarris].. The energy-momentum tensor is simply the sum of a fluid part and an electromagnetic part, $$\begin{aligned}
T^{\mu\nu}&=T_{\text{m}}^{\mu\nu}+T_{\text{EM}}^{\mu\nu}{\nonumber\\}&=(\rho+p)u^\mu u^\nu - p g^{\mu\nu} - {\tilde{F}}^{\mu\rho}{\tilde{F}}^{\nu}_{\,\,\,\rho}+\frac{1}{4}g^{\mu\nu}{\tilde{F}}^{\rho\sigma}{\tilde{F}}_{\rho\sigma}.\end{aligned}$$ Taking the divergence, $$\begin{aligned}
u_\nu\nabla_\mu T^{\mu\nu} = T\nabla_\mu su^\mu - u_\nu{\tilde{F}}^{\nu}_{\,\,\,\rho}j^\rho = 0, \label{dsMH}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the homogenous Maxwell equations and the expression for divergence of entropy , and the current $j$ is defined by the Maxwell equations, $$\begin{aligned}
j^\mu \equiv \nabla_\mu{\tilde{F}}^{\mu\rho}.\end{aligned}$$ The positivity of entropy production, $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_\mu su^\mu \geq 0,\end{aligned}$$ will be satisfied if in fact the current is given by $$\begin{aligned}
j^\rho = q u^\rho + \sigma {\tilde{F}}^{\mu\rho}u_\mu,\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma$ is a positive scalar and $q$ can be arbitrary. But in the rest frame of the fluid ${\tilde{F}}^{\mu\nu}u_\mu$ is just the electric field, so this is just a statement of Ohm’s law [@Eckart]. We will later return to this point, but presently we will consider the isentropic case of ideal magnetohydrodynamics.
For entropy to be conserved in the electric field must vanish in the rest frame, $$\begin{aligned}
{\tilde{F}}^{\mu\nu}u_\nu = 0.\label{eVanish}\end{aligned}$$ This is just the well-known condition for frozen-in magnetic field lines, but for our purposes it implies that ${\tilde{F}}$ and its dual $F$ are simple bivectors, and that $u$ is in the linear subspace spanned by $F$. So we can define ${\varphi}$ and $w$ as before, noting that they can be interpreted as the magnitude and direction of the magnetic field in the rest frame.
The energy-momentum tensor can be simplified using the expression for the orthogonal projector , $$\begin{aligned}
T^{\mu\nu}&=(\rho+p)u^\mu u^\nu - p g^{\mu\nu} - {\varphi}^2\perp^{\mu\nu}+\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}{\varphi}^2{\nonumber\\}&= (\rho + p + {\varphi}^2)u^\mu u^\nu - {\varphi}^2 w^\mu w^\nu -(p+\frac{1}{2}{\varphi}^2)g^{\mu\nu}.\end{aligned}$$ So if the total equation of state is taken as $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_\text{total} = \rho + \frac{1}{2}{\varphi}^2,\end{aligned}$$ then the other thermodynamic quantities are found to be $$\begin{aligned}
\mu &= {\varphi}\label{mhdMu}\\
p_\text{total} &= p+\frac{1}{2}{\varphi}^2\\
\tau+p_\text{total} &= {\varphi}^2,\end{aligned}$$ showing that this is indeed an example of a perfect string fluid.
Note that the form of the energy density is just what we would expect from the variational principle for perfect string fluids [@perfectFluid]. There it was shown that the total energy density ends up being the negative of the Lagrangian. And the extra term in the energy density is just the negative of the usual Lagrangian for electromagnetism $$\begin{aligned}
-\frac{1}{4}{\tilde{F}}^{\rho\sigma}{\tilde{F}}_{\rho\sigma}=-\frac{1}{2}{\varphi}^2.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Dissipative String Fluids
=========================
Tensor decomposition {#sectTDecomp}
--------------------
In a more general string fluid the conservation equations for $T$, $F$, and any additional conserved currents $n_a$ still hold, but the tensors are no longer in the equilibrium forms . Just as for an ordinary dissipative fluid, there is no longer a single preferred fluid velocity $u$. We may take the fluid velocity to be in the direction of the timelike eigenvector of energy-momentum tensor (a choice known as the ‘Landau-Lifshitz frame’ [@LL]) or we may choose the velocity to be in the direction of one of the currents (known as the ‘Eckart frame’ [@Eckart]) —the directions no longer coincide in general. In a string fluid we are now faced with the additional problem that the tensor $F$ may no longer be a simple bivector, and so there is ambiguity in how to define $w$.
We may still select $u$ and $w$ as orthonormal vectors in the two-dimensional timelike eigenspace of $F^{\mu\rho}F_{\rho\nu}$. In general the fluid velocity from the Eckart or Landau-Lifshitz frames will not lie in this space so this can define a distinct third possible choice for velocity. As we will see, this frame will have some similarities to the Eckart frame. To distinguish the two cases, the ordinary Eckart frame will be referred to as the ‘particle frame’ and the choice of velocity from this eigenspace as the ‘string frame’.
There is also the difficulty that none of the frames above satisfy the integrability conditions of the perfect string fluid. We can no longer foliate spacetime by worldsheets everywhere tangent to $u$ and $w$. However the conservation of $F$ does imply that we can define a gauge potential $A$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\tilde{F}}\equiv dA.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ And by Darboux’s theorem $ A $ can be written in terms of four scalar fields $X_1,Y_1,X_2,Y_2$, $$\begin{aligned}
A \equiv X_1 \,dY_1 + X_2 \,dY_2.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ So then ${\tilde{F}}$ can be decomposed into two simple two-forms with vanishing exterior derivatives $$\begin{aligned}
{\tilde{F}}= dX_1 \wedge dY_1 + dX_2 \wedge dY_2.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ These two-forms each annihlate a two-dimensional space which does satisfy the integrability condition. So this could be used to define yet another natural choice of $u$ and $w$ which preserves the integrability condition.
We restrict our attention to fluids that are sufficiently close to equilibrium so that the difference between these frames is ‘small’. We will be more precise on this point later, where frame invariance will be used to restrict higher order dissipative terms in the theory. For now, given a choice of $u$ and $w$, we can define $\rho$, ${\varphi}$, and $n_a$ from the nonequilibrium tensors, $$\begin{aligned}
\rho &\equiv T^{\mu\nu}u_\mu u_\nu{\nonumber\\}{\varphi}&\equiv F^{\mu\nu}u_\mu w_\nu{\nonumber\\}n_a &\equiv n_a^\mu u_\mu.\label{rho}\end{aligned}$$ These values can be used to define the other thermodynamic quantities through the equilibrium equation of state. And so $T$ and $F$ can be decomposed into an equilibrium tensor and a nonequilibrium correction. The nonequilibrium correction may further be decomposed into parts parallel and orthogonal to $u$ and $w$. $$\begin{aligned}
T^{\mu\nu} &=(\rho+p) u^\mu u^\nu - \mu{\varphi}w^\mu w^\nu - p g^{\mu\nu} + 2{q}^{(\mu}u^{\nu)} + \pi^{\mu\nu}\label{Tdiss}\\
F^{\mu\nu} &= {\varphi}\Sigma^{\mu\nu} - 2 u^{[\mu}{\lambda}^{\nu]} + 2 w^{[\mu}\nu^{\nu]} + {G}^{\mu\nu}\\
n_a^\mu &= n_a u^\mu + N_a w^\mu+\nu_a^\mu,\label{Ndiss}\end{aligned}$$ and $q$ and $\pi$ are further split, $$\begin{aligned}
q^\mu &\equiv {Q_L}w^\mu + q_T^\mu\\
\pi^{\mu\nu}&\equiv -\Pi_L w^{\mu}w^{\nu} + \Pi_T \perp^{\mu\nu} -2w^{(\mu}\pi_L^{\nu)} +\pi_T^{\mu\nu}.\label{pi}\end{aligned}$$ The vectors and tensors $\lambda,\nu,{G},{q}_T,\pi_L,\pi_T,\nu_a$ are all fully orthogonal to $u$ and $w$, and $\pi_T$ is defined to be traceless. It should be emphasized that this is simply a decomposition of the tensors, and there is no loss of generality at this point.
If $u$ and $w$ are taken from our preferred frames some of these pieces vanish. In the string Eckart frame, $u$ and $w$ are chosen from an eigenspace so that both vectors ${\lambda}$ and $\nu$ in $F$ vanish. There is still some freedom in our choice of $u$, but there is a unique $u$ such that the longitudinal heat flow ${Q_L}$ vanishes.
In the Landau-Lifshitz frame the vector $\nu$ is nonzero but all heat flow components $q$ vanish. Specifying $w$ through $$\begin{aligned}
{\varphi}w^\mu \equiv F^{\mu\nu}u_\nu,\end{aligned}$$ the vector ${\lambda}$ vanishes as well.
Entropy current {#secEntropy}
---------------
The entropy density $s$ is defined through the equilibrium equation of state, and satisfies the usual thermodynamic identities $$\begin{aligned}
s &= \frac{p}{T} + \frac{1}{T}\rho -\frac{\mu}{T} {\varphi}- \frac{m^a}{T} n_a{\nonumber\\}ds &= \frac{1}{T} d\rho - \frac{\mu}{T} d{\varphi}-\frac{m^a}{T} dn_a \label{dsTherm}.\end{aligned}$$ It will be useful to promote the derivatives of the entropy to vectors, $$\begin{aligned}
\beta^\mu &\equiv \frac{1}{T}u^\mu\\
\alpha^\mu &\equiv \frac{\mu}{T}w^\mu.\end{aligned}$$ Then the equilibrium entropy current can be written in terms of the equilibrium tensors $T_0$, $F_0$, $n_{a0}$ $$\begin{aligned}
s u^\mu = {p}\beta^\mu + \beta_\nu T_0^{\mu\nu} - \alpha_\nu F_0^{\mu\nu} - \frac{m^a}{T} n_{a0}^\mu\\
d(su^\mu) = \beta_\mu dT_0^{\mu\nu} - \alpha_\nu dF_0^{\mu\nu} - \frac{m^a}{T} dn_{a0}^\mu.\label{s0}\end{aligned}$$
Closely following the approach of Israel and Stewart [@israelStewart] we then make the assumption that the derivatives of nonequilibrium entropy current $s^\mu$ satisfy the same relation with the nonequilibrium tensors, $$\begin{aligned}
ds^\mu = \beta_\mu dT^{\mu\nu} - \alpha_\nu dF^{\mu\nu} - \frac{m^a}{T} dn_a^\mu.\end{aligned}$$ The entropy current is taken to be a function of the components of $T,F,n_a$, and we can expand about the equilibrium point $T_0$, $F_0$, $n_{a0}$. To first order, $$\begin{aligned}
s^\mu &= s u^\mu +\beta_\mu (T-T_0)^{\mu\nu}- \alpha_\nu (F-F_0)^{\mu\nu} - \frac{m^a}{T} (n_a-n_{a0})^\mu{\nonumber\\}&=s u^\mu + \frac{1}{T}q^{\mu} - \frac{\mu}{T}\nu^{\mu} - \frac{m^a}{T} \nu_a^\mu.\label{scurrent}\end{aligned}$$ Comparison with suggests $q$ is naturally interpreted as a heat vector describing the transport of energy in the rest frame. The currents $\nu$ and $\nu_a$ respectively describe the transport of flux and charge in the rest frame through diffusion.
Expressions for the dissipative quantities appearing in the theory can now be determined by requiring that the entropy production be non-negative $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_\mu s^\mu \geq 0.\label{secondL}\end{aligned}$$ The divergence of $s$ can be found through similar manipulations as those leading to the conservation of entropy in the perfect fluid . For brevity at this point we will consider a theory with no dependence on conserved currents $n_a$, and choose the Landau-Lifshitz frame so that the heat vector $q$ vanishes. These aspects of the derivation are no different than that for particle fluids (see e.g. [@LL]) and can be easily derived for a string fluid in the same way. Beginning with the dissipative energy-momentum tensor : $$\begin{aligned}
u_\nu \nabla_\mu T^{\mu\nu} &= \nabla_\mu (\rho+p)u^\mu + \mu{\varphi}w^\mu w^\nu \nabla_\mu u_\nu - u^\mu \nabla_\mu p - \pi^{\mu\nu}\nabla_\mu u_\nu{\nonumber\\}&= T\nabla_\mu su^\mu + \mu \nabla_\mu {\varphi}u^\mu - \mu{\varphi}h^{\mu\nu} \nabla_\mu u_\nu- \pi^{\mu\nu}\nabla_\mu u_\nu\label{deriv}\end{aligned}$$ where $h$ is the projection operator defined in . If it were still true that $ F = {\varphi}\Sigma $ the middle terms involving ${\varphi}$ would cancel using a relation derived in [@perfectFluid]. This would be one way to show entropy is conserved in a perfect string fluid. But now the relation is modified due to dissipative terms in $F$, $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_\mu{\varphi}u^\mu &= \nabla_\mu( {\varphi}\Sigma^{\mu\lambda}w_\lambda) {\nonumber\\}&=\nabla_\mu(F^{\mu\lambda}w_\lambda - \nu ^\mu){\nonumber\\}&= F^{\mu\lambda}\nabla_\mu w_\lambda -\nabla_\mu\nu ^\mu {\nonumber\\}&={\varphi}\Sigma^{\mu\lambda}\nabla_\mu w_\lambda + (2w^{[\mu}\nu^{\lambda]}+G^{\mu\lambda})\nabla_\mu w_\lambda -\nabla_\mu\nu ^\mu{\nonumber\\}&={\varphi}h^{\kappa}_{\,\,\,\mu}\nabla_\kappa\Sigma^{\mu\lambda}w_\lambda - {\varphi}w_\lambda h^{\kappa}_{\,\,\,\mu}\nabla_\kappa\Sigma^{\mu\lambda} + \dots.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ It can be shown (for instance by explicitly writing $\Sigma$ and $h$ in terms of $u$ and $w$) that $h^{\kappa}_{\,\,\,\mu}\nabla_\kappa\Sigma^{\mu\lambda}$ is orthogonal to $w$. So the second term above vanishes, and returning to the derivation , $$\begin{aligned}
0& =\nabla_\mu su^\mu + \frac{\mu}{T}[ (2w^{[\mu}\nu^{\lambda]}+G^{\mu\lambda})\nabla_\mu w_\lambda -\nabla_\mu\nu ^\mu ]- \frac{1}{T}\pi^{\mu\nu}\nabla_\mu u_\nu{\nonumber\\}&=\nabla_\mu (su^\mu-\frac{\mu}{T}\nu ^\mu) + \frac{\mu}{T}(2w^{[\mu}\nu^{\lambda]}+G^{\mu\lambda})\nabla_\mu w_\lambda +\nu ^\mu\nabla_\mu\frac{\mu}{T}- \frac{1}{T}\pi^{\mu\nu}\nabla_\mu u_\nu{\nonumber\\}&=\nabla_\mu s ^\mu + \frac{\mu}{T}G^{\mu\lambda}\nabla_\mu w_\lambda +\nu ^\mu(\nabla_\mu\frac{\mu}{T}+\frac{\mu}{T}w^{\lambda}\nabla_\lambda w_\mu)- \frac{1}{T}\pi^{\mu\nu}\nabla_\mu u_\nu.\label{deriv2}\end{aligned}$$ Now the second law will be satisfied if each of the other terms is strictly negative. So we choose $\nu$ and ${G}$ to have the form $$\begin{aligned}
\nu^\mu &= {\xi}_T \perp^{\mu\rho}(\nabla_\rho \frac{\mu}{T} + \frac{\mu}{T} w^\sigma\nabla_\sigma w_\rho)\label{nu}\\
G^{\mu\nu} &= -{\xi}_L \frac{\mu}{T} \perp^{\mu\rho}\perp^{\nu\sigma}\nabla_{[\rho}w_{\sigma]},\label{G}\end{aligned}$$ where the coefficients ${\xi}_T,{\xi}_L$ are positive scalars. Breaking up the viscous tensor $\pi$ into its parts as in we find a series of terms each of which is set to be negative by choosing $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_L &= -3 \,\zeta_L\, w^\rho w^\sigma \nabla_\rho u_\sigma\\
\Pi_T &= \frac{3}{2} \,\zeta_T \,\perp^{\rho\sigma}\nabla_\rho u_\sigma\\
\pi_L^{\mu}&=2\,\eta_L\,\perp^{\mu\rho}w^\sigma\nabla_{(\rho}u_{\sigma)}\label{piL}\\
\pi_T^{\mu\nu}&=2\,\eta_T\left(\perp^{\mu\rho}\perp^{\nu\sigma}-\frac{1}{2}\perp^{\mu\nu}\perp^{\rho\sigma}\right)\nabla_{(\rho}u_{\sigma)},\end{aligned}$$ with positive coefficients $\zeta_L,\zeta_T,\eta_L,\eta_T $. In principle the physics in the longitudinal direction $w$ may be different from the transverse directions, which is why there are twice as many dissipative coefficients as for an isotropic fluid. The normalization of the coefficients is chosen so that if the physics were isotropic $\zeta_L=\zeta_T$ would be the usual bulk viscosity coefficient and $\eta_L=\eta_T$ the usual shear viscosity coefficient.
Note that the longitudinal viscosity vector $\pi_L$ potentially represents two distinct physical effects. One is due to changes in the transverse velocity along a single macroscopic string or field line. The other effect is due to differences in the longitudinal velocities of nearby strings. Due to the symmetry of the energy-momentum tensor these must be described by the same viscosity coefficient, but if we allow for intrinsic angular momentum these could in principle be different.
For completeness we may also consider a frame in which the heat vector $q$ does not vanish. Following the same line of derivation there would be an extra entropy production term $$-q^{\mu}(\nabla_\mu \frac{1}{T} + \frac{1}{T}u^\nu\nabla_\nu u_\mu)$$ in . The two pieces of $q$ are thus set as $$\begin{aligned}
{Q_L}&= \kappa_L w^\mu (\nabla_\mu T - T u^\nu \nabla_\nu u_\mu)\label{Q}\\
q_T^\nu &= \kappa_T \perp^{\mu\nu} (\nabla_\mu T - T u^\nu \nabla_\nu u_\mu),\end{aligned}$$ where $\kappa_L,\kappa_T$ are the positive heat conductivity coefficients. The apparent difference in sign from the Fourier heat conduction law is just due to the signature of the metric.
Dissipation in F {#secDiss}
----------------
Besides the appearance of an anisotropic direction, the dissipative terms in $T$ are essentially the same as for an ordinary fluid. What may require some interpretation are the dissipative terms in $F$, $$\begin{aligned}
F^{\mu\nu} = 2w^{[\mu}({\varphi}u + \nu)^{\nu]} + {G}^{\mu\nu}.\end{aligned}$$ The tensor is here written in a form emphasizing the analogy to ordinary particle currents . The velocity $u_E$ in the string Eckart frame where $\nu$ does not appear explicitly in $F$ is clearly given by $$\begin{aligned}
u_E \approx u + \frac{1}{{\varphi}}\nu,\label{eckart}\end{aligned}$$ where this is only an equality to first order in the dissipative fields. Following a similar line of reasoning to Landau-Lifshitz [@LL], we replace the velocity in the first term of the energy-momentum tensor, $$\begin{aligned}
(\rho+p)u^\mu u^\nu \approx (\rho+p)u_E^\mu u_E^\nu - 2\frac{\rho+p}{{\varphi}}\nu^{(\mu} u_E^{\nu)}.\end{aligned}$$ So the heat vector in the Eckart frame is approximately $$\begin{aligned}
q_E=-\frac{\rho+p}{{\varphi}}\nu.\label{eckartHeat}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting the expression for $ \nu $ and ignoring the term due to curvature of $w$, $$\begin{aligned}
q_E=\frac{\rho+p}{{\varphi}}{\xi}_T \nabla_\perp \frac{\mu}{T}.\end{aligned}$$ So by the thermodynamic identity $$\begin{aligned}
Td(\frac{\mu}{T})= -\left(\frac{\rho+p}{{\varphi}T}\right)dT + dp, \label{thermIden}\end{aligned}$$ we can make the identification $$\begin{aligned}
{\xi}_T = \left(\frac{{\varphi}T}{\rho+p}\right)^2 \kappa_T.\end{aligned}$$
So $\xi_T$ can be related to heat conductivity —but this is not the only way to understand $\nu$, and the interpretation of $G$ is still obscure. This may be clarified by taking the nonrelativistic limit: $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_\mu &= (c^{-1}\partial_t,\nabla_i){\nonumber\\}u^\mu &\rightarrow (1,c^{-1}{\mathbf}{v})\\
w^\mu &\rightarrow (c^{-1}{\mathbf}{v}\cdot{\mathbf}{w},{\mathbf}{w}),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathbf}{w}$ is a unit vector. The metric is taken to be the Minkowski metric, so as $c$ goes to infinity the time components of $\perp^{\mu\nu}$ go to zero. Thus the time components of $\nu$ and $G$ vanish, and we will take the spatial components to be of order $c^{-1}$. So in the nonrelativistic limit $\nabla_\mu F^{\mu\nu}=0$ is reduced to the equations $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla\cdot({\varphi}{\mathbf}{w})&=0\\
\partial_t ({\varphi}{\mathbf}{w}) &= -\nabla\times ({\varphi}{\mathbf}{w}\times {\mathbf}{v})-\nabla\times ({\mathbf}{w}\times {\mathbf}{\nu}) -\nabla_i G^{ij}\label{faraday}.\end{aligned}$$ Using the limit of the spatial part of the projection tensor $$\perp^{ij}=-\delta^{ij}+w^i w^j,$$ the dissipative parts are expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf}{\nu}&=-{\xi}_T(\nabla_\perp \frac{\mu}{T}-\frac{\mu}{T}{\mathbf}{\kappa})\\
G^{ij}&={\xi}_L \frac{\mu}{T} (\nabla^{[i}w^{j]}-w^{[i}\kappa^{j]}),\end{aligned}$$ with the curvature vector $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf}{\kappa}\equiv ({\mathbf}{w}\cdot\nabla){\mathbf}{w}=(\nabla\times{\mathbf}{w})\times{\mathbf}{w},\end{aligned}$$ and $\nabla_\perp$ indicates the gradient with the w-component projected out. The curvature also satisfies the identity $${\mathbf}{w}\times{\mathbf}{\kappa}=\nabla\times{\mathbf}{w}- ({\mathbf}{w}\cdot\nabla\times{\mathbf}{w}){\mathbf}{w},$$ which is used in ${\mathbf}{w}\times{\mathbf}{\nu}$ and the dual of $G$, $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{{\mathbf}{G}}&={\xi}_L \frac{\mu}{T} ({\mathbf}{w}\cdot\nabla\times{\mathbf}{w}){\mathbf}{w}{\nonumber\\}{\mathbf}{w}\times{\mathbf}{\nu}&=-{\xi}_T({\mathbf}{w}\times\nabla \frac{\mu}{T}-\frac{\mu}{T}(\nabla\times{\mathbf}{w})_\perp)\label{gtilde}.\end{aligned}$$ We have already discussed how ${\xi}_T$ and gradients in $\mu/T$ are related to heat conduction. Now even if the thermodynamic variables are constant notice that ${\xi}_T$ and ${\xi}_L$ describe the production of entropy due to the curl of the field lines in the transverse and longitudinal directions respectively.
This can be intuitively understood in the wiggly string fluid. A curl that is completely perpendicular to $w$ is found for instance in large loops lying in a plane. The loops tend to contract under tension in the direction of curvature. There is an outflow of heat due to the emission of small loops as the strings contract, so there will still be some net flow of strings $\nu$ even in the rest frame where there is no net flow of energy.
One idealized situation in which only the coefficient ${\xi}_L$ applies is when each individual field line of $w $ is an infinite straight line, and all field lines in a given plane perpendicular to some axis are pointing in the same direction. If the direction of the field lines in a plane changes as we move along the axis, the curl of $w$ will point in the direction of $w$ itself. If strings from one plane diffuse to an adjacent layer reconnections will lead to the production of entropy in the form of wiggles and there will be some loss of flux (see Fig.\[figure\]). This last point is perhaps easiest to understand in the limit of two layers of strings with nearly opposite directions reconnecting.
![Adjacent layers of straight strings diffuse and overlap. Through reconnection, entropy in the form of wiggles is produced. There is also some loss of net flux as indicated by the number of black wiggly strings passing the dotted line.\[figure\]](stringgrid.pdf){width="60.00000%"}
The nonrelativistic limit also makes it easy to see the connection to magnetohydrodynamics. The vector ${\varphi}{\mathbf}{w}$ is just the magnetic field ${\mathbf}{B}$, and from the equation of state $\mu={\varphi}$. So from the electric field vector is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf}{E}={\mathbf}{B}\times {\mathbf}{v}+{\mathbf}{w}\times{\mathbf}{\nu}+\tilde{{\mathbf}{G}}.\end{aligned}$$ Bringing $\mu={\varphi}$ inside the curls in , $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf}{E}={\mathbf}{B}\times {\mathbf}{v}+\frac{{\xi}_T}{T}(\nabla\times{\mathbf}{B})_\perp+\frac{{\xi}_T}{T^2}{\mathbf}{B}\times\nabla T+\frac{{\xi}_L}{T} (\nabla\times{\mathbf}{B})_w.\label{efield}\end{aligned}$$ The first term is also in ideal magnetohydrodynamics and is due to the Lorentz boost out of the rest frame of the fluid. At low frequencies the displacement current can be neglected and Ohm’s law can be written $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf}{E}=\sigma^{-1}{\mathbf}{J}=\sigma^{-1}\nabla\times{\mathbf}{B}.\end{aligned}$$ So the coefficients ${\xi}$ can be related to the electrical conductivity $\sigma$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\xi}= \frac{T}{\sigma}.\end{aligned}$$ This is somewhat different from ordinary resistive magnetohydrodynamics due to the possibility of anisotropic conductivity, but also due to the presence of the temperature gradient term. In the string Eckart frame this term would vanish, but that would also restrict $E$ to be parallel to $B$ in the rest frame.
The origin of the difference can be seen by comparing our introduction of dissipative terms in this paper to the standard introduction of Ohm’s law discussed in Sec. \[mhd\]. In standard MHD the energy-momentum tensor is assumed to be separated into distinct fluid and electromagnetic parts $T_\text{m}+T_\text{EM}$ even out of equilibrium. The entropy is taken to only be a function of the fluid quantities, not the electromagnetic part. This makes sense in equilibrium since dependence on $ {\varphi}$ and the electromagnetic energy density cancel $$\begin{aligned}
ds &= \frac{1}{T}d\rho_{\text{total}} - \frac{\mu}{T}d{\varphi}- \frac{m^a}{T}dn_a{\nonumber\\}&=\frac{1}{T}d\rho_m - \frac{m^a}{T}dn_a.\end{aligned}$$ But the string fluid approach taken in this paper has entropy be a function of electromagnetic sector out of equilibrium, leading to the presence of a term in the entropy current representing the diffusion of field lines . This diffusion term in the entropy current is ultimately responsible for the presence of the temperature gradient term in the electric field .
Stationary solutions {#secEquil}
--------------------
If a dissipative string fluid reaches a state of maximum entropy, the requirement that no further entropy be produced leads to stricter restrictions than are found in the perfect string fluid. This is a direct analogy to the stationary solutions of ordinary relativistic fluids which have among other things been taken to model rotating stars [@LindblomRotating].
Clearly for the entropy to be conserved all of the dissipative terms leading to entropy production in must vanish. For the components of the viscous stress $\pi^{\mu\nu}$ to vanish, the shear and expansion $\nabla_{(\mu} u_{\nu)}$ must also vanish. In particular, $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_\mu u^\mu &= 0\\
w^{\mu}w^\nu\nabla_\mu u_\nu &= 0.\label{expansion}\end{aligned}$$ So the conservation of entropy and the vanishing of expansion implies $s$ is constant in the flow direction $$\begin{aligned}
u^\mu\nabla_\mu s = 0.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ If there are any conserved currents $n_a$ besides the entropy clearly these must also be constant in the $u$ direction by the same reasoning. Furthermore, using the vanishing of shear in the expression for the divergence of $F$: $$\begin{aligned}
0=w_\mu\nabla_\nu F^{\mu\nu}=-\nabla_\nu {\varphi}u^\nu.\label{fluxU}\end{aligned}$$ So ${\varphi}$ is also constant in the flow direction, and thus all thermodynamic variables must be.
To proceed we will make use of a general relation for perfect string fluids. From the contracted conservation of $T$, $$w_\mu\nabla_\nu T^{\mu\nu}=0,$$ it can be shown that the ‘dual currents’ $m^a w$ satisfy the relation $$\begin{aligned}
s\nabla_\mu {\varphi}T w^\mu + n_a\nabla_\mu {\varphi}m^a w^\mu = 0.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Incidentally, this is a fluid generalization of the dual current which appears in Carter’s work on single strings [@CarterDuality]. For simplicity the following demonstration will consider the case where the entropy is the only current so that $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_\mu {\varphi}T w^\mu = 0.\label{tW}\end{aligned}$$
Beginning with the conservation of $T$, and making use of the relation above and the conservation of $\rho+p$ in the $u$ direction: $$0=\nabla_\mu T^{\mu\nu}= (\rho+p)u^\mu\nabla_\mu u^\nu -{\varphi}T w^\mu \nabla_\mu \frac{\mu}{T} w^\nu - \nabla^\nu p.$$ The requirement that the diffusion vector $\nu$ vanishes implies $$\begin{aligned}
\perp^{\lambda\nu}(w^\mu\nabla_\mu w_\nu+\nabla_\nu \,\text{ln}\,\frac{\mu}{T})=0,\label{nuStationary}\end{aligned}$$ so then the conservation of $T$ can be simplified further to $$\begin{aligned}
0=(\rho+p)u^\mu\nabla_\mu u^\nu +{\varphi}T \nabla^\nu \frac{\mu}{T} -\nabla^\nu p.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Making use of the thermodynamic identity , this implies $$\begin{aligned}
u^\mu\nabla_\mu u^\nu = \nabla^\nu \,\text{ln}\,T, \label{logT}
\end{aligned}$$ which together with the vanishing of the shear of $u$ leads to the conclusion $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_{(\mu}\beta_{\nu)}=\nabla_{(\mu}\frac{1}{T}u_{\nu)}=0.\end{aligned}$$ So $\beta$ is a Killing vector in equilibrium, a fact also true for ordinary fluids.
At this point, note that the orthogonal projection of $\nabla_\nu T^{\mu\nu}=0$ leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\perp^{\lambda\mu}(u^\nu\nabla_\nu u_\mu - w^\nu\nabla_\nu w_\mu - \nabla_\nu \,\text{ln}\,\mu)= 0.\label{curvStationary}\end{aligned}$$ The first two terms have a natural interpretation as the extrinsic curvature vector $K$, $$\begin{aligned}
K^\lambda &\equiv h^{\rho}_{\,\,\,\sigma}\nabla_\rho h^{\sigma\lambda}=\perp^{\lambda\rho}(u^\sigma\nabla_\sigma u_\rho- w^\sigma\nabla_\sigma w_\rho).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ So in the stationary solutions, curvature in the macroscopic worldsheets is balanced by changes in $\mu$. This relation was noticed already in [@blackfold] through a different line of reasoning. In our approach the similar relation relating the curvature of the field lines to changes in $\mu/T$ is more quickly seen.
At equilibrium there is a Killing vector $\beta$ in the direction of the velocity $u$. It will turn out there is also a preferred vector in the $w$ direction. Using the conservation of $F$ and , $$\begin{aligned}
0=\nabla_\mu F^{\mu\nu}&={\varphi}T w^\mu \nabla_\mu \frac{1}{T}u_{\nu} - {\varphi}u^\mu \nabla_\mu w^\nu{\nonumber\\}&={\varphi}(u^\nu \nabla_\mu w_\nu - u^\nu \nabla_\nu w_\mu),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the Killing vector property was used in the second line. Therefore it is true that $$u^\mu\nabla_{[\mu}\frac{\mu}{T}w_{\nu]}=0,$$ and using the vanishing of $\nu$ and $G$ (which depend on the other components), $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_{[\mu}\alpha_{\nu]} =\nabla_{[\mu}\frac{\mu}{T}w_{\nu]}=0.\end{aligned}$$
So $\alpha$ and $\beta$, which were introduced earlier as derivatives of the entropy, form a natural coordinate system for the stationary fluid. The fact that their commutator vanishes can be easily proven from the conservation of $F$ as above. Note that this is distinct from the analysis of a preferred spacelike vector appearing in [@blackfold]. There the assumption that all thermodynamic quantities are constant along the field lines $w$ was effectively made, restricting the generality of the stationary solutions.
Finally we note that as for the case of an ordinary fluid, $m^a/T$ for each current is constant throughout the fluid. This follows easily from the vanishing of the dissipative part of $n_a$ in the Landau-Lifshitz frame [@LL].
Second-order theory {#sec2nd}
-------------------
The theory we have been discussing is essentially an extension of the ‘first-order’ relativistic fluids of Eckart [@Eckart] and Landau-Lifshitz [@LL]. It is well known that these theories suffer certain difficulties. Hiscock and Lindblom have shown that the equilibrium states are unstable on short time scales under certain perturbations [@HLInstability]. Another difficulty of first-order theories which is easily seen to be present in the current theory as well is the appearance of parabolic equations. For instance, the equation for longitudinal heat flow is given by $${Q_L}= \kappa_L w^\mu (\nabla_\mu T - T u^\nu \nabla_\nu u_\mu).$$ For a system of straight strings at rest with no orthogonal gradients, this leads to the one-dimensional heat equation $$\dot{T}=\frac{\kappa_L}{C}\partial_w^2 T,$$ where $C$ is the heat capacity at constant flux $$\begin{aligned}
C \equiv {\frac{\partial\rho}{\partialT}}.\end{aligned}$$ So a small perturbation in $T$ will instantly be felt across the entire string.
The resolution to both problems for ordinary fluids [@israelStewart][@HL1983] is by including second-order terms in expansion of the nonequilibrium entropy current $s^\mu$ . For instance, an additional term $-\frac{1}{2}k u^\mu {Q_L}^2 $ for some positive coefficient $k$ will lead to an extra term $-\kappa_L T^2 k \dot{Q}_L$ in the expression for heat conduction above . This will in turn modify the heat equation to $$\begin{aligned}
kCT^2\ddot{T}+\frac{C}{\kappa_L}\dot{T}=\partial_w^2 T,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ which is now hyperbolic, with the speed of second sound $$\begin{aligned}
c_s^2 \equiv \frac{1}{kCT^2 }.\label{secondsound}\end{aligned}$$
As a practical matter however, there are many more possible independent second-order terms in the string fluid than in the ordinary Israel-Stewart theory. This is both due to the breaking of rotational symmetry into transverse and longitudinal directions, and also due to the presence of an extra direction in equilibrium. For instance there may be all the possible terms, $$g_{\rho\sigma}\nu^\rho \pi_L^\sigma u^\nu, g_{\rho\sigma}\nu^\rho \pi_L^\sigma w^\nu, {\tilde{\Sigma}}_{\rho\sigma}\nu^\rho \pi_L^\sigma u^\nu,\dots$$ and so on —each with an independent parameter.
Even so there are some principles which can restrict the number of independent terms. For one it should be required that the theory be invariant under changes of frame. The full entropy current $s$ is a function of the tensors $T$ and $F$, but we have expanded it about a certain arbitrary equilibrium state $T_0,F_0$. Expanding about a different equilibrium state should lead to the same result to the order of the highest term kept in the expansion.
Following the same approach as Israel-Stewart [@israelStewart], the entropy current is given a second-order correction $S$, $$\begin{aligned}
s^\mu = {p}\beta^\mu + \beta_\nu T^{\mu\nu} - \alpha_\nu F^{\mu\nu} - \frac{m^a}{T} n_{a}^\mu + S^\mu.\end{aligned}$$ The principle of frame invariance is then that $ ds^\mu = 0 $ under changes of $u$ and $w$.
The thermodynamic relation may be Legendre transformed to $$\begin{aligned}
d(p\beta^\mu)=F_0^{\mu\nu}d\alpha_\nu - T_0^{\mu\nu}d\beta_\nu + n_0^\mu d(\frac{m^a}{T}).\end{aligned}$$ So the change in $s$ under changes of $\alpha,\beta$ is $$ds^\mu = (T-T_0)^{\mu\nu}d\beta_\nu - (F-F_0)^{\mu\nu}d\alpha_\nu + dS^{\mu},$$ and by frame invariance the change in $S$ must be, $$\begin{aligned}
dS^{\mu} = \frac{\mu}{T}(F-F_0)^{\mu\nu}dw_\nu - \frac{1}{T}(T-T_0)^{\mu\nu}du_\nu.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Using the full decomposition of the tensors in Sec. \[sectTDecomp\], this is $$\begin{aligned}
dS^{\mu} = &\frac{\mu}{T}(-u^\mu {\lambda}^\nu+w^{\mu}\nu^\nu+G^{\mu\nu})dw_\nu {\nonumber\\}&- \frac{1}{T}(u^\mu q_T^\nu-w^\mu \pi_L^\nu + \pi_T^{\mu\nu} +\Pi_T \perp^{\mu\nu})du_\nu {\nonumber\\}&- \frac{1}{T}(\mu{\lambda}^\mu + {Q_L}u^\mu - \pi_L^\mu - \Pi_L w^\mu)w^\nu du_\nu.\label{dS}\end{aligned}$$ So $S$ may include arbitrary terms which are invariant to second order under changes of frame, but it must also include terms so as to produce the change above.
Clearly it is important to know how the various quantities change with the frame. The changes $du,dw$ to nearby equilibrium states are on the order of the field quantities themselves, as can be seen for instance in the change to the Eckart velocity in . The thermodynamic quantities $\rho,{\varphi},n_a$ defined through are all invariant to first order, and thus so must be any thermodynamic quantity. Likewise $G^{\mu\nu},\Pi_L,\Pi_T,\pi_T^{\mu\nu}$ are all invariant to first order, but the remaining dissipative fields are not: $$\begin{aligned}
d\nu^\mu &= -{\varphi}du_\perp ^\mu{\nonumber\\}dq_T^\mu &= -(\rho+p)du_\perp ^\mu{\nonumber\\}d{\lambda}^\mu &= -{\varphi}dw_\perp ^\mu{\nonumber\\}d\pi_L^\mu &= -(\tau+p)dw_\perp ^\mu{\nonumber\\}d{Q_L}&= +(\rho-\tau)w^\nu du_\nu,\label{variant}\end{aligned}$$ where the subscript $\perp$ indicates the change is projected orthogonal to $u,w$.
Even though these are not invariant, they can form the invariant combinations $$\begin{aligned}
q_T^\mu-\frac{\rho+p}{{\varphi}}\nu^\mu\\
\pi_L^\mu -\mu{\lambda}^\mu.\label{invariant}\end{aligned}$$ This is a very modest step in reducing the complexity of the second-order theory in that the five quantities in may only appear with arbitrary parameters in the two combinations above. Note that the first combination, the invariant heat, was implicitly already used in to relate $\nu$ to heat conduction.
The change in $S$ can only be produced by the noninvariant terms , and we will denote this noninvariant piece $S_0$. There is some ambiguity in how to split this from the invariant part of $S$, but we will make a choice so that $S_0$ vanishes in the Landau-Lifshitz frame. It can then be explicitly calculated: $$\begin{aligned}
S_0^\mu = &\frac{1}{T}(\frac{1}{2}u^\mu{q}_T^\nu - w^\mu\pi_L^\nu +\pi_T^{\mu\nu}+\mu w^\mu{\lambda}^\nu)\frac{q_{T\,\nu}}{\rho+p}+\frac{\mu}{ T}(\frac{1}{2}u^\mu {\lambda}^\nu-w^\mu \nu^\nu)\frac{{\lambda}_\nu}{{\varphi}}{\nonumber\\}&-\frac{1}{T}(\frac{1}{2}{Q_L}u^\mu -\Pi_L w^\mu -\pi_L^\mu+\mu{\lambda}^\mu)\frac{{Q_L}}{\rho-\tau}.\end{aligned}$$ In the absence of any particle currents the longitudinal heat ${Q_L}$ transforms differently from the other quantities . So its only appearance in the second-order theory is in the terms of $S_0$ above, with no new parameters.
Thus the coefficient $k$ of the $Q_L^2$ term which leads to the speed of second sound is $$\begin{aligned}
k = \frac{T^{-1}}{\rho-\tau}=\frac{1}{sT^2},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the second equality uses the fact that there are no particle currents in the equation of state. So the speed of second sound is $$\begin{aligned}
c_s^2= \frac{s}{C} &= \frac{s}{T}{\frac{\partialT}{\partials}}.\end{aligned}$$ In a pressureless perfect string fluid this is just the expression for the ordinary longitudinal speed of sound (see for instance [@carterWave]).
In particular, recalling the wiggly string fluid equation of state $$\rho = \sqrt{(\mu_0 {\varphi})^2 + (T_H s)^2},$$ the speed of second sound is $$\begin{aligned}
c_s =\sqrt{\frac{\tau}{\rho}} =\sqrt{1-\left(\frac{T}{T_H}\right)^2}.\end{aligned}$$ This is again just equal to the ordinary speed of perturbations on the string, expressed in terms of the tension and mass density. And the second equality makes it clear that the speed of second sound is causal and vanishes as the temperature approaches the Hagedorn temperature. Of course for many reasons the wiggly string fluid equation of state should be understood as a toy model, but this reasonable result is at the very least a consistency check on the second-order theory.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
I would like to thank Vitaly Vanchurin for interesting discussions, and for previously helping notice the connection to electromagnetism that is expanded upon here.
[10]{} K. Schwartz, Phys. Rev. B [**38**]{}, 2398 (1988)
A.G. Smith and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D [**36**]{}, 990 (1987)
M. Sakellariadou and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D [**37**]{}, 885 (1988)
H. E. Hall and W. F. Vinen, Proc. Roy. Soc. A [**238**]{}, 215 (1956); I. L. Bekharevich and I. M. Khalatnikov, JETP [**13**]{}, 643 (1961)
D. Mitchell and N. Turok, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**58**]{}, 1577 (1987)
N. Turok, Physica A [**158**]{}, 516 (1989)
W. Israel and J. M. Stewart, Ann. Phys. [**118**]{}, 341 (1979)
V. Vanchurin, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, 063508 (2013); D. Schubring and V. Vanchurin, Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{}, 083530 (2014)
D. Schubring and V. Vanchurin, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 083531 (2013)
D. Schubring and V. Vanchurin, Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{}, 083516 (2014)
D. Schubring and V. Vanchurin, \[arXiv:1410.5843 \[hep-th\]\] (2014)
A. Vilenkin. Phys. Rev. D [**41**]{}, 3038 (1990)
B. Carter. Phys. Rev. D [**41**]{}, 3869 (1990)
B. Carter. Phys. Lett. [**B224**]{}, 61 (1989)
B. Carter, Nucl. Phys. B [**412**]{}, 345 (1994); B. Carter, M. Sakellariadou, X. Martin, Phys. Rev. D [**50**]{}, 682 (1994)
C. Eckart, Phys. Rev. [**58**]{}, 919 (1940)
E. G. Harris, Phys. Rev. [**108**]{}, 1357 (1957)
L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz,“Fluid Mechanics” (Butterworth-Heinemann, 1987).
L. Lindblom, ApJ [**208**]{}, 873 (1976)
W. A. Hiscock and L. Lindblom, Phys. Rev. D [**31**]{}, 725 (1985)
W. A. Hiscock and L. Lindblom, Ann. Phys. [**151**]{}, 466 (1983)
B. Carter, Phys. Lett. B [**228**]{}, 466 (1989)
P. Olesen, Phys. Lett. B [**366**]{}, 117 (1996)
M. M. Caldarelli, R. Emparan, B. Van Pol, JHEP [**04**]{} (2011) 013
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A quantum algorithm that solves the time-dependent Dirac equation on a digital quantum computer is developed and analyzed. The time evolution is performed by an operator splitting decomposition technique that allows for a mapping of the Dirac operator to a quantum walk supplemented by unitary rotation steps in spinor space. Every step of the splitting method is decomposed into sets of quantum gates. It is demonstrated that the algorithm has an exponential speedup over the implementation of the same numerical scheme on a classical computer, as long as certain conditions are satisfied. Finally, an explicit decomposition of this algorithm into elementary gates from a universal set is carried out to determine the resource requirements. It is shown that a proof-of-principle calculation may be possible with actual quantum technologies.'
author:
- 'François Fillion-Gourdeau'
- Steve MacLean
- Raymond Laflamme
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: Algorithm for the solution of the Dirac equation on digital quantum computers
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Quantum computing, a new paradigm in computer science, has received a lot of interests in the last few decades because it promises a significant improvement of our computational capabilities. It is now well established that certain operations could be performed in polynomial time on quantum computers, instead of exponential time for classical ones. The prospected performance of quantum computers is fully demonstrated in Shor’s algorithm for the factorization of large integers [@shor1998], which requires a logarithmic number of quantum gates. The success of this quintessential method has motivated the development of many other quantum algorithms and of course, has made such devices very attractive for a number of applications such as quantum simulations, cryptography and many others [@0034-4885-61-2-002; @nielsen2010quantum].
The main topic of this article, which aims at finding a quantum algorithm to simulate single particle relativistic quantum mechanics governed by the Dirac equation, relates to the efficient simulation of physical quantum systems. This is one of the most important applications of quantum computing [@feynman1982simulating; @SLoyd; @RevModPhys.86.153].
Quantum simulation stems from the formal analogies existing between certain Hamiltonians describing different physical objects. Exploiting this analogy, a given quantum system (the quantum computer) can be employed and programmed to emulate another one if there exists a mapping between them. In some particular cases, such a mapping can be constructed and a faithful representation can be obtained easily. For instance, when two systems are described by the same Hamiltonian with different value of physical parameters, the correspondence is direct. This technique has been employed to simulate the Dirac equation and relativistic quantum mechanics using trapped ions [@gerritsma2010quantum; @PhysRevLett.98.253005] and optical devices [@PhysRevLett.105.143902; @PhysRevLett.109.023602] in regimes which are usually not accessible directly. This is an example of an analog quantum simulation, which is a powerful technique but lacks some versatility because it is limited to one class of system.
Conversely, a digital quantum computer (DQC) is made of a number of qubits. The qubits are two-state quantum entities that can serve as registers to store data. For a large class of Hamiltonians, it was demonstrated that a DQC is a universal simulator [@SLoyd] and thus, can be used to simulate any local quantum systems. In this case however, the mapping can be intricate because the Hamiltonian of the physical system under study can differ significantly from the one for qubits. Moreover, the qubits are discrete objects, which usually precludes the direct analogy described above. In this sense, DQCs are similar to classical computers because they operate via discrete operations and require a discrete representation of the object (here, the wave function) under investigation. For the simulation of quantum systems, this discretization process is non-unique and each discretization leads to a different numerical schemes with varying precision. The main goal of this article is to present a numerical scheme that solves the discretized Time-Dependent Dirac equation (TDDE) and which can be mapped to a $n$-qubits DQC.
Because it describes relativistic spin-1/2 particles, the TDDE equation is important for many applications in atomic physics, heavy ion collisions, laser physics, condensed matter physics and astrophysics. In particular, its solution is required to obtain the leading order result of quantum field theory in the strong field approximation [@Greiner:1985]. In this work, however, this second quantized problem is not considered explicitly. Rather, the quantum algorithm is dedicated to the solution of the “classical” (non-second-quantized) Dirac equation.
Solving the TDDE numerically is a challenging problem because it is a multi-dimensional hyperbolic partial differential equation with a source term. On classical computers, several numerical methods have been developed to solve this equation. A large number of approaches are based on the combined use of the split-operator and spectral schemes [@PhysRevA.59.604; @Mocken2008868; @Mocken2004558; @PhysRevA.53.1605; @Bauke2011; @Huang2005761; @Bao2004663; @Xu2013131]. Galerkin methods relying on basis function expansions and Fourier mapped methods can be found in Refs. [@PhysRevA.78.062711; @PhysRevA.86.052705; @FillionGourdeau2016122] while “real space” methods have been derived using finite element schemes [@Muller1998245; @PhysRevLett.54.669] and finite difference schemes (both explicit [@0022-3700-16-11-017] and implicit [@PhysRevA.40.5548; @PhysRevA.79.043418; @PhysRevC.71.024904]). A leapfrog scheme on a staggered grid has also been considered [@Hammer201440; @Hammer201450].
Recently, a simple split-operator scheme in real space, having connections with the Quantum Lattice Boltzmann method [@Succi1993327; @Succi15032002; @PhysRevE.75.066704; @DELLAR], was proposed and extended to second order of convergence [@Lorin2011190; @FillionGourdeau20121403]. It was suggested that this algorithm could be efficiently implemented on a quantum computer owing to its distinctive properties [@PhysRevLett.111.160602]. In particular, the time evolution of the wave function proceeds by a sequence of unitary operations where rotations in spinor space are followed by space shifts. This structure is actually reminiscent of quantum walks [@epj2015.fillion], the quantum analogues to classical random walks, where the “walker” is described by probability amplitudes [@QW1]. This is not a surprise because Dirac-like equations can be derived from general quantum walks by studying their continuum limit [@QW2; @QW3; @1751-8121-47-46-465302; @PhysRevA.89.062109]. In this article, these properties are exploited to give an explicit quantum algorithm that solves the time-dependent Dirac equation. It is demonstrated that the time evolution can be made efficient (the number of operations required is $\mathrm{poly}(n)$, where $n$ is the number of qubits) for a certain class of external electromagnetic potentials and if certain conditions for the initialization are satisfied. A classical computer would require $O(2^{n})$ operations, making the quantum implementation exponentially faster than the classical one.
This article is separated as follows. In Section \[sec:dirac\_split\], the time-dependent Dirac equation is presented along with a numerical scheme based on operator splitting that allows for a numerical computation of the spinor wave function time evolution. In Section \[sec:wf\], the mapping of the spinor wave function on quantum registers is developed. Section \[sec:num\_quantum\_walk\] is devoted to the mapping of operations obtained in the splitting operator scheme and well-known qubit gates. It is also shown that the Dirac equation evolution is a quantum walk supplemented by rotations in spinor space. In Section \[sec:comp\_ana\], the efficiency of the algorithm is discussed and compared to the classical implementation. Section \[sec:init\_reg\] briefly mentions performance issues with the initialization of the quantum register. Section \[sec:ress\_req\] contains an explicit resource analysis where the quantum gates are decomposed into elementary gates. The conclusion is found in Section \[sec:conclusion\] while many details on higher order split operator schemes and the initialization of the quantum register are in appendices.
The Dirac equation and operator splitting {#sec:dirac_split}
=========================================
This section gives a review of the operator splitting method applied to the Dirac equation. More details and numerical examples can be found in Refs. [@Succi1993327; @Succi15032002; @PhysRevE.75.066704; @DELLAR; @Lorin2011190; @FillionGourdeau20121403; @PhysRevLett.111.160602].
The Dirac equation gives a quantum relativistic description of fermions and is the relativistic extension of the Schrödinger equation to spin-$1/2$ particles. These particles are ubiquitous in nature and therefore, the Dirac equation has applications in many fields of physics. In this work, the focus is on the relativistic dynamics of a single electron of mass $m$ coupled to an external classical electromagnetic field characterized by its electromagnetic potential. The single particle time-dependent Dirac equation is given by [@Itzykson:1980rh] $$\begin{aligned}
i\partial_t \psi(t,\mathbf{x}) = \hat{H} \psi(t,\mathbf{x}),
\label{eq:dirac_eq}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(t,\mathbf{x}) =
\begin{bmatrix}
\psi_{1}(t,\mathbf{x}) \\
\psi_{2}(t,\mathbf{x}) \\
\psi_{3}(t,\mathbf{x}) \\
\psi_{4}(t,\mathbf{x}) \\
\end{bmatrix} =
\begin{bmatrix}
\phi(t,\mathbf{x}) \\
\chi(t,\mathbf{x})
\end{bmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ is the time and coordinate dependent four-spinor, where $\phi_{1,2} = \psi_{1,2}$ are the large components and $\chi_{1,2} = \psi_{3,4}$ are the small components. The operator $\hat{H}$ is the Hamiltonian given by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{H} = \boldsymbol{\alpha} \cdot \left[ c\hat{\mathbf{p}} - e\mathbf{A}(t) \right] + \beta m c^{2} + e\mathbb{I}_{4}V(\mathbf{x},t) ,
\label{eq:hamiltonian}\end{aligned}$$ where $e$ is the electric charge (obeying $e=-|e|$ for an electron) and the momentum operator is $\hat{\mathbf{p}} = -i {\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$}}$. Here, $\mathbf{A}(t)$ is the electromagnetic vector potential while $V(\mathbf{x},t) = A_{0}(\mathbf{x},t)$ is the scalar potential. The vector potential represents physically a time-dependent homogeneous electric field and thus, it is translation invariant and do not depend on space $\mathbf{x}$. The scalar potential, on the other hand, has a space dependence and can represent either a static (such as a Coulomb potential) or dynamic field. In this configuration, there is no magnetic field, the latter being given by $\mathbf{B} = \nabla \times \mathbf{A}$. Performance issues may arise when the magnetic field is included in the quantum algorithm, as discussed in more details in subsequent sections and in Appendix \[sec:magnetic\].
Finally, $\mathbb{I}_{4}$ is the 4 by 4 unit matrix and $\beta, \boldsymbol{\alpha}=(\alpha_a)_{a=x,y,z}$ are the Dirac matrices. In all calculations, the Dirac representation is used where $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{a} =
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & \sigma_{a} \\
\sigma_{a} & 0
\end{bmatrix}
\; \; , \; \;
\beta =
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbb{I}_{2} & 0 \\
0 & -\mathbb{I}_{2}
\end{bmatrix} .
\label{eq:dirac_mat}\end{aligned}$$ The $\sigma_{a}$ are the usual $2 \times 2$ Pauli matrices defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{x} =
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0
\end{bmatrix}
\;\; \mbox{,} \;\;
\sigma_{y} =
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & -i \\ i & 0
\end{bmatrix}
\;\; \mbox{and} \;\;
\sigma_{z} =
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1
\end{bmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ while $\mathbb{I}_{2}$ is the 2 by 2 unit matrix.
Time discretization
-------------------
The starting point of the general operator splitting theory is the formal solution of the Dirac equation given by $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(t_{n+1}) &= T \exp \left[ -i \int_{t_{n}}^{t_{n+1}} \hat{H}(t) dt \right] \psi(t_{n}), \\
\label{eq:suzuki_time}
&= e^{-i\Delta t (H(t_{n}) + \mathcal{T})} \psi(t_{n}),\end{aligned}$$ where $T$ is the time-ordering operator, $\Delta t = t_{n+1}-t_{n}$ is the time step and $\mathcal{T} = i \overleftarrow{\partial_{t_{n}}}$ is the “left” time-shifting operator. The second form of the solution in Eq. was obtained in Ref. [@suzuki1993general] and constitutes a convenient starting point for deriving approximation schemes. Then, the operator splitting method consists in decomposing the Hamiltonian as $\hat{H}(t) = \sum_{j=1}^{N_{\mathrm{op}}}\hat{H}_{j}(t)$ (here, $N_{\mathrm{op}} \in \mathbb{N}^{+}$ is the number of operators) and in approximating the evolution operator in Eq. by a sequence of exponentials in the form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:approx_time}
\psi(t_{n+1})
&= \prod_{k=1}^{N_{\rm seq}}\left[e^{-is_{0}^{(k)}\Delta t \mathcal{T}} \prod_{j=1}^{N_{\mathrm{op}}}e^{-is_{j}^{(k)}\Delta t \hat{H}_{j}(t_{n})} \right] \psi(t_{n}) \nonumber \\
& +O(\Delta t^{q}),\end{aligned}$$ where the coefficients $N_{\rm seq}\in \mathbb{N}^{+}$ and $s_{j}^{(k)} \in \mathbb{R}$ are chosen in order to get an approximation with a given order of accuracy $q\in \mathbb{N}^{+}$. When some pairs of Hamiltonian in $(\hat{H}_{i})_{i=1,\cdots,N_{\mathrm{op}}}$ do not commute, the splitting induces a numerical error $O(\Delta t^{q})$, where the value of $q$ can be improved to arbitrary order [@suzuki1993general].
Such a decomposition is useful when all expressions of the form $\left. e^{itH_{j}}\right|_{j=1,\cdots,N_{\mathrm{op}}}$ can be evaluated explicitly. In principle, any decomposition can be utilized but some are particularly more convenient than others. In this work, and for reasons that will become clear later, the following decomposition is used [@PhysRevLett.111.160602; @FillionGourdeau20121403; @Lorin2011190]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:H1}
\hat{H}_{1} &= \hat{H}_{x} = -ic \alpha_{x} \partial_{x} , \\
\hat{H}_{2} &= \hat{H}_{y} =-ic \alpha_{y} \partial_{y} , \\
\hat{H}_{3} &= \hat{H}_{z} = -ic \alpha_{z} \partial_{z} , \\
\hat{H}_{4} &= \hat{H}_{m} = \beta m c^{2} , \\
\hat{H}_{5} &= \hat{H}_{V}(t) = e\mathbb{I}_{4}V(\mathbf{x},t) \\
\label{eq:H5}
\hat{H}_{6} &= \hat{H}_{\mathbf{A}}(t) = -e\boldsymbol{\alpha} \cdot \mathbf{A}(t).\end{aligned}$$ This corresponds to an Alternate Direction Iteration (ADI) technique whereby each direction is treated independently. Then, the following scheme with a second order accuracy can be obtained:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:first_order_scheme}
\psi(t_{n+1})
&= e^{-i\Delta t \mathcal{T}}e^{-i\Delta t \hat{H}_{\mathbf{A}}(t_{n}) }e^{-i\Delta t \hat{H}_{V}(t_{n}) }e^{-i\Delta t \hat{H}_{m} } \nonumber \\
& \times e^{-i\Delta t \hat{H}_{z} } e^{-i\Delta t \hat{H}_{y} }e^{-i\Delta t \hat{H}_{x} } \psi(t_{n}) +O(\Delta t^{2}) ,\nonumber \\
&= Q_{\mathbf{A}}(t_{n},\Delta t) Q_{V}(t_{n},\Delta t)Q_{m}(\Delta t) \nonumber \\
& \times Q_{z}(\Delta t) Q_{y}(\Delta t) Q_{x}(\Delta t) \psi(t_{n}) +O(\Delta t^{2}),\end{aligned}$$
where $$\begin{aligned}
\left. Q_{a}(\Delta t)\right|_{a=x,y,z} &:= e^{-c\Delta t \alpha_{a}\partial_{a}}, \\
Q_{m}(\Delta t)&:=e^{-i\Delta t \beta m c^{2} }, \\
Q_{V}(t,\Delta t)&:=e^{-i\Delta t( e\mathbb{I}_{4}V(\mathbf{x},t))} ,\\
Q_{\mathbf{A}}(t,\Delta t)&:=e^{ie\Delta t\boldsymbol{\alpha} \cdot \mathbf{A}(t)} .\end{aligned}$$ This scheme can be improved to third and higher order accuracy by making use of a symmetric decomposition [@suzuki1993general; @FillionGourdeau20121403; @Lorin2011190]. The results for higher order are given in Appendix \[sec:high\_order\]. This decomposition is very convenient because the effect of each operator $Q_{i}$ can be obtained exactly. For $a=x,y,z$, we define the following unitary operators: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rot_operator_spin}
S_{a} := \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (\beta + \alpha_{a}).\end{aligned}$$ These operators transform the Dirac matrices to a Majorana-like representation, where the matrix $\tilde{\alpha}_{a} =S_{a}^{\dagger}\alpha_{a}S_{a}= \beta$ is diagonal, with eigenvalues $\pm 1$. By expanding the exponential in $Q_{a}$ and introducing unit matrices in the form of $S_{a}S^{\dagger}_{a} = \mathbb{I}$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{a} = S_{a} T_{a} S^{\dagger}_{a},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:trans_op}
T_a(\Delta t)=e^{-c\Delta t \beta \partial_{a}},\end{aligned}$$ is a translation operator along the direction $a$. The latter shifts the $\phi$ and $\chi$ spinor components by $\mp c\Delta t$, respectively. Using this result, the time evolution of the wave function is written as a sequence of unitary operators. For the first order splitting, it yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:QLB_exp}
\psi (t_{n+1}) &= Q_{\mathbf{A}}(t_{n},\Delta t)Q_{V}(t_{n},\Delta t)Q_{m}(\Delta t)\left[S_{z}T_{z}(\Delta t)S_{z}^{-1}\right] \nonumber \\
& \times \left[S_{y}T_{y}(\Delta t)S_{y}^{-1}\right]\left[S_{x}T_{x}(\Delta t)S_{x}^{-1}\right] \psi (t_{n}) .\end{aligned}$$ Eqs. is the most important result of this section, giving an approximation of the time evolution operator valid for small $\Delta t$. Again, this can be generalized to higher order schemes, as shown in Appendix \[sec:high\_order\]. This completes the discussion of the time discretization.
Space discretization
--------------------
In the last section, the time discretization of the wave function was described and the time evolution was given as a sequence of unitary operations. However, to store the values of the wave function on a classical or quantum computer, the space also needs to be discretized. To be consistent with the time discretization, it is convenient to use $P_{0}$ type elements where the value of the wave function is constant within each volume [@Lorin2011190]. Therefore, the space domain is discretized in cubic elements with edges of length $\ell = \Delta x = \Delta y = \Delta z$. The projection of the wave function on this grid, the discretized wave function $\psi_{\ell}$, can then be written as a tensor product of basis functions expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:discr_psi}
\psi_{\ell}(t,\mathbf{x}) &= \sum_{i=1}^{N_{x}} \sum_{j=1}^{N_{y}} \sum_{k=1}^{N_{z}} \mathbf{1}_{i}(x) \mathbf{1}_{j}(y) \mathbf{1}_{k}(z) \psi(t,\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_{i,j,k}) ,\end{aligned}$$ where $N_{x},N_{y},N_{z}$ is the total number of intervals in each direction and $\psi_{\ell}$ is the discretized wave-function. The basis functions $\mathbf{1}_{i}(x), \mathbf{1}_{j}(y), \mathbf{1}_{k}(z)$ have a value of 1 in the $i,j,k$ interval, respectively, and a value of zero outside. Finally, $\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_{i,j,k}$ is the vector pointing to the centroid of each volume element. It is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_{i,j,k} &= \biggl(x_{\rm min} + (i+\frac{1}{2})\ell, y_{\rm min} + (j+\frac{1}{2})\ell, \nonumber \\
& \;\;\;\;\;\;\; z_{\rm min} + (k+\frac{1}{2})\ell\biggr) \end{aligned}$$ where $x_{\rm min},y_{\rm min},z_{\rm min}$ are the lower domain boundary coordinates.
The normalization condition then becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\int d^{3}\mathbf{x} \psi^{\dagger}_{\ell}(t,\mathbf{x})\psi_{\ell}(t,\mathbf{x}) =1 ,\end{aligned}$$ which is written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:norm_wf}
\ell^{3} \sum_{i=1}^{N_{x}} \sum_{j=1}^{N_{y}} \sum_{k=1}^{N_{z}} \psi^{\dagger}(t,\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_{i,j,k}) \psi(t,\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_{i,j,k}) =1,\end{aligned}$$ once it is discretized. Thus, the amplitudes should obey $|\psi(t,\bar{\mathbf{x}}_{i,j,k})|\leq \frac{1}{\ell^{\frac{3}{2}}}$ and therefore, can be mapped easily on the finite interval $[0,1]$. This feature will be important in the next section where the mapping of the wave function on qubits is discussed.
To keep the exactness of each step in the splitting, there is another important condition that needs to be fulfilled: the time step should be related to the space step as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:cfl}
c\Delta t = N^{*}\ell,\end{aligned}$$ where $N^{*} = \frac{1}{2},1,\frac{3}{2},2,...$ can be any half-integer. In practice however, one chooses the smallest value as possible to preserve the efficiency of the numerical scheme. Eq. is a Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy (CFL) condition [@leveque2002finite].
The value of $N^{*}$ also modifies the dispersion relation of the numerical scheme. The latter can be evaluated for the free Dirac equation from the split operator approximation of the evolution operator, which takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(t_{n+1}) = U(\Delta t, -i\nabla) \psi(t_{n}),\end{aligned}$$ where $U(\Delta t,-i\nabla)$ is an approximation of the evolution operator to some order. Here, $U$ evolves the wave function according to the free massless Dirac equation and therefore, is a product of operators $Q_{x,y,z}(\Delta t)$. Then, a Von Neumann analysis can be performed as in Ref. [@Hammer201440]. The solution is assumed to be a plane wave as $\psi(t_{n})= e^{-iEt + i\mathbf{p}\cdot \mathbf{x}}$, leading to $$\begin{aligned}
e^{-iE\Delta t} = U(\Delta t,\mathbf{p}).\end{aligned}$$ Diagonalizing $U(\Delta t,\mathbf{p})$, the dispersion relation is given by $$\begin{aligned}
E\Delta t = i \ln \left[ \lambda_{i}(\Delta t,\mathbf{p}) \right] |_{i=1,\cdots,4},\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda_{i}(\Delta t,\mathbf{p}) |_{i=1,\cdots,4}$ are the eigenvalues of the matrix $U(\Delta t,\mathbf{p})$. The relation between the energy and momenta is an intricate analytical formula, which is not given here for simplicity. It can be evaluated numerically however. From these results, it can be shown in 1-D ($p_{x}=p_{y}=0$) and 2-D ($p_{x}=0$) that for the value $N^{*}=\frac{1}{2}$, the scheme is free of the fermion doubling problem, i.e. zeroes of the dispersion relation in the first Brillouin zone. Then, the dispersion relation closely resembles that of the continuum, given by $E = |\mathbf{p}|$ in the free massless case. For other cases (in 3-D for instance), doublers may appear. As a consequence, only the low momentum mode propagation will be correctly described. The effect of the dispersion relation however can be mitigated by increasing the number of lattice points. Another way to circumvent the fermion doubling problem in 3-D is by using the reservoir method [@ALOUGES2002627; @ALOUGES2008643]. This allows for using different values of CFL conditions, such as $N^{*}=1/4$. For this value, the fermion doubling does not arise in the second order scheme.
The CFL condition in Eq. guarantees that the translation operators appearing in Eq. can be treated exactly once they are discretized [@Lorin2011190]. In principle, other value of $N^{*}$ could be used in conjunction with other discretization scheme, but this would induce numerical diffusion which would deteriorate the solution.
Using the CFL condition, the time evolution of the discretized wave function is written as (here, the light velocity is set to $c=1$) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:QLB_exp_sp}
\psi_{\ell} (t_{n+1}) &= Q_{\mathbf{A}}\left(t_{n},\Delta t\right) Q_{V}\left(t_{n},\Delta t\right)
Q_{m}\left(\Delta t \right) \nonumber \\
& \times \left[S_{z}T_{z}(N^{*}\ell)S_{z}^{-1}\right]\left[S_{y}T_{y}(N^{*}\ell)S_{y}^{-1}\right] \nonumber \\
& \times \left[S_{x}T_{x}(N^{*}\ell)S_{x}^{-1}\right] \psi_{\ell} (t_{n}) .\end{aligned}$$ Similar expressions can be obtained for higher order schemes (see Appendix \[sec:high\_order\]).
The outcome of applying a translation operator $T_{a}(N^{*}\ell)$ is a translation of the value of the wave function from one mesh point to the $N^{*}$’th neighbour (the $N^{*}=1/2$ corresponds to a time staggered mesh) in direction $a=x,y,z$. For the chosen CFL condition, this operation is performed exactly on the lattice: in particular, there is no approximation of the derivative.
This completes the description of the numerical scheme to solve the time-dependent Dirac equation. Of course, this can be implemented on a classical computer and it was shown that it has some important properties: in particular, it can be parallelized very efficiently [@FillionGourdeau20121403]. In the next sections, the implementation of this scheme on quantum computers is discussed.
It should also be noted that the algorithm described in Eq. can be seen as a generalization in 3-D of the Feynman checkerboard 1-D model [@feynman], which was obtained from a path integral technique. Following the argument presented in this section, the latter can be seen as a natural consequence of the operator splitting approximation and the operator decomposition in Eqs. to , along with the CFL condition in Eq. .
In principle, higher order schemes with a better accuracy can be found. However, for $q>3$ most of them uses irrational or complex values for $s^{(k)}_{i}$ [@BANDRAUK1991428; @Bandrauk2006346]. Because our scheme includes streaming steps which translate the value of the wave function on the grid, such splitting cannot be used consistently to increase the order of accuracy of the Dirac solution because the translation step will not be exact and will induce numerical diffusion. Rather, a splitting where the parameters $s^{(k)}_{i}$ are rational numbers and where every $s^{(k)}_{i}$ is a multiple of the smallest one is required. Examples of higher order schemes are discussed in Appendix \[sec:high\_order\].
Quantum implementation of the split-operator scheme {#sec:quantum_impl}
===================================================
The quantum implementation of the split-operator method discussed in the last section requires two main features: a mapping of the wave function on a quantum register and a mapping of unitary operators on quantum gates. For the mapping of the wave function, the standard method pioneered by Zalka and Wiesner for non-relativistic quantum mechanics [@wiesner1996simulations; @Zalka08011998; @OPPROP:PR877] is employed and described in the next section. This technique has already been extended to develop quantum algorithms for the simulation of quantum systems in physics and chemistry [@PMID:21166541; @yung2014; @e12112268; @kassal2008polynomial]. The mapping of unitary operators proceeds by using the analogy with quantum walks.
Mapping of the wave function on qubits {#sec:wf}
--------------------------------------
This section is devoted to the mapping of the discretized wave function on qubits. This is required to implement the algorithm on a quantum computer: the qubits will serve as a quantum register to store the wave function, as described in [@Zalka08011998; @OPPROP:PR877].
The general state of $n$ qubits $|\psi_{n} \rangle$ is a vector in the Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{n}:=\bigotimes_{1}^{n} \mathcal{H}_{1} $ with a dimension $2^{n}$. This state can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
|\psi_{n} \rangle &= \sum_{s_{1} = 0}^{1} \cdots \sum_{ s_{n} = 0}^{1} \alpha_{s_{1} \cdots s_{n}} \bigotimes_{l =1}^{n} | s_{l} \rangle,\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_{s_{1} \cdots s_{n}}$ are complex coefficients. Here, the subscripts labelling the coefficients $s_{1} \cdots s_{n}$ are binary numbers. These coefficients are bounded by the following normalization condition: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{s_{1} = 0}^{1} \cdots \sum_{ s_{n} = 0}^{1} |\alpha_{s_{1}\cdots s_{n}}|^{2} = 1,\end{aligned}$$ obtained by setting the norm to $\langle \psi_{n} | \psi_{n} \rangle = 1$ and providing a probability interpretation of the wave function.
To map the Dirac wave function on the qubits wave function, it is convenient to partition the Hilbert space in four parts as $\mathcal{H}_{n} = \mathcal{H}_{S} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{n_{x}} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{n_{y}} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{n_{z}}$. The first Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{S} = \mathcal{H}_{2}$ serves to label the spinor degrees of freedom. Because there are four spinor components, two qubits are reserved for this role. The other qubits will be used as quantum registers for the space dependence of the wave function. Then, the state of the quantum register is written as $$\begin{aligned}
|\psi_{n} \rangle
&= \sum_{s_{1},s_{2}=0}^{1} \sum_{\{s^{(x)}\} = 0}^{1} \sum_{\{s^{(y)}\} = 0}^{1}\sum_{\{s^{(z)}\} = 0}^{1} \nonumber \\
& \times
\alpha_{s_{1},s_{2}, \{s^{(x)}\},\{s^{(y)}\},\{s^{(z)}\}} \nonumber \\
& \times | s_{1}\rangle \otimes | s_{2}\rangle
\bigotimes_{l_{x} =1}^{n_{x}} | s_{l_{x}} \rangle,
\bigotimes_{l_{y} =1}^{n_{y}} | s_{l_{y}} \rangle
\bigotimes_{l_{z} =1}^{n_{z}} | s_{l_{z}} \rangle,\end{aligned}$$ where $\{s^{(a)}\} := s^{(a)}_{1} \cdots s^{(a)}_{n_{a}}$ is the set of all qubits that label the space dependent part of the wave function in the coordinate $a=x,y,z$. This equation can be re-written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:coeff_regis}
|\psi_{n} \rangle = \sum_{S=1}^{4} \sum_{i=1}^{N_{x}} \sum_{j=1}^{N_{y}} \sum_{k=1}^{N_{z}} \alpha_{S,i,j,k} | S \rangle \otimes |i,j,k \rangle, \end{aligned}$$ where $n_{x} + n_{y} + n_{z} = n - 2 $ and $N_{x,y,z} = 2^{n_{x,y,z}}$. Here, we have redefined the coefficient subscripts as $$\begin{aligned}
(i-1)_{10} &:= (s^{(x)}_{1} \cdots s^{(x)}_{n_{x}})_{2}, \\
(j-1)_{10} &:= (s^{(y)}_{1} \cdots s^{(y)}_{n_{y}})_{2},\\
(k-1)_{10} &:= (s^{(z)}_{1} \cdots s^{(z)}_{n_{z}})_{2},\end{aligned}$$ where the notation $(b)_{n_{b}}$ stands for the number $b$ expressed in base $n_{b}$. Also, the first qubit labels whether the spinor component is a large or small component, while the second labels the component itself. Thus, we have $$\begin{aligned}
|S\rangle := | s_{1} \rangle \otimes | s_{2}\rangle ,\end{aligned}$$ where $s_{1} = \phi,\chi$ and $s_{2} = 1,2$.
This section is concluded with the mapping between the discretized wave function and qubits which can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{1}_{i}(x) &\mapsto |i\rangle ,\\
\mathbf{1}_{j}(y) &\mapsto |j\rangle ,\\
\mathbf{1}_{k}(z) &\mapsto |k\rangle ,\\
\ell^{\frac{3}{2}}\psi_{S}(t,\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_{i,j,k}) &\mapsto \alpha_{S,i,j,k}. \end{aligned}$$ In other words, there are $n-2$ qubits utilized to label the space degree of freedom and to replace the basis functions. In each space dimension, there are $n_{x,y,z}$ qubits, allowing to store $N_{x,y,z}$ discretization points. Moreover, the wave function needs to be scaled by $\ell^{\frac{3}{2}}$ to have the same norm as qubits (see Eq. ).
Numerical scheme as a conditional quantum walk {#sec:num_quantum_walk}
----------------------------------------------
The numerical scheme obtained to solve the Dirac equation has three types of operator: rotation operators in spin space $S_{a}$, translation operators $T_{a}$ and mass-like local operators $Q_{m}$, $Q_{V}$ and $Q_{\mathbf{A}}$. Their mapping on a quantum computer is now discussed.
### Rotation operator in spinor space
The rotation operator is given in Eq. and is expressed in terms of Dirac matrices. Therefore, it operates in spinor space only and as a consequence, the equivalent operator in the qubit Hilbert space is different from the identity only for the spinor subspace $\mathcal{H}_{S}$. In this subspace and in the computational basis, the rotation matrices are given by $$\begin{aligned}
S_{a} := \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbb{I}_{2} & \sigma_{a} \\
\sigma_{a} & -\mathbb{I}_{2}
\end{bmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the rotation operators are represented by 2-qubits gates acting on the first two qubits. The last matrix can be decomposed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rot_gate_spin}
S_{a} = C(\sigma_{a})(H\otimes \mathbb{I}_{2})C(\sigma_{a}),\end{aligned}$$ where $H$ is the Hadamard gate while $C(\sigma_{a})$ is the controlled-$\sigma_{a}$ gate. The equivalent quantum circuit is displayed in Fig. \[fig:rot\_op\].
![Circuit diagram for the rotation operator in spinor space. The other qubits of the register ($|i\rangle,|j\rangle,|k\rangle$) are not modified by this transformation.[]{data-label="fig:rot_op"}](rotation)
### Translation operator: quantum walk
The translation operators induce a general quantum walk [@epj2015.fillion] because $T_{a}$ translates the small or large spinor components by $l$ step. Therefore, on the qubit Hilbert space, they can be defined as a conditional shift operator as [@PhysRevA.72.062317] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:incrm_x}
T_{x} |\phi \rangle \otimes | s_{2} \rangle \otimes |i,j,k \rangle &= |\phi \rangle \otimes | s_{2} \rangle \otimes |i \ominus l,j ,k \rangle ,\\
T_{x} |\chi \rangle \otimes | s_{2} \rangle \otimes |i,j ,k \rangle &= |\chi \rangle \otimes | s_{2} \rangle \otimes |i \oplus l,j,k \rangle ,\\
T_{y} |\phi \rangle \otimes | s_{2} \rangle \otimes |i,j,k \rangle &= |\phi \rangle \otimes | s_{2} \rangle \otimes |i,j \ominus l ,k \rangle ,\\
T_{y} |\chi \rangle \otimes | s_{2} \rangle \otimes |i,j ,k \rangle &= |\chi \rangle \otimes | s_{2} \rangle \otimes |i,j \oplus l,k \rangle ,\\
T_{z} |\phi \rangle \otimes | s_{2} \rangle \otimes |i,j ,k \rangle &= |\phi \rangle \otimes | s_{2} \rangle \otimes |i ,j ,k \ominus l\rangle ,\\
\label{eq:decrm_z}
T_{z} |\chi \rangle \otimes | s_{2} \rangle \otimes |i,j ,k \rangle &= |\chi \rangle \otimes | s_{2} \rangle \otimes |i,j ,k \oplus l\rangle .\end{aligned}$$ The first qubit controls the shift because it determines which of the large or small component gets translated: the large component is shifted upward while the small component is shifted downward. These operations can be represented and decomposed efficiently into quantum gates by using controlled increment and decrement operators where the control is on the qubit $|s_{1} \rangle $, determining which of the small or large component is shifted. The shift can be performed by using a set of controlled gates on qubits [@PhysRevA.79.052335], as displayed in Fig. \[fig:incr\]. The full controlled shifting operation induced by the operator $T_{a}$ is depicted in Fig. \[fig:timestep\].
![Circuit diagram for the increment and decrement operator acting on qubits storing the data for a given dimension (the set of $n_{a}$ qubit). This implementation is borrowed from [@PhysRevA.79.052335].[]{data-label="fig:incr"}](increment "fig:")\
![Circuit diagram for the increment and decrement operator acting on qubits storing the data for a given dimension (the set of $n_{a}$ qubit). This implementation is borrowed from [@PhysRevA.79.052335].[]{data-label="fig:incr"}](decrement "fig:")
### Local mass-like operators
The evolution of the wave function by one time step requires the application of local operators $Q_{m}$, $Q_{V}$ and $Q_{\mathbf{A}}$. These operators are responsible for the mass term, the scalar potential term and the coupling of the fermion to an homogeneous electromagnetic field, respectively.
The mass operator is simply given by $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{m}(\Delta t) &= e^{-i\beta \Delta t mc^{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ This operator is uniformly applied on all positions. Therefore, on the quantum register, it can be represented by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:mass_op}
Q_{m}(\Delta t) = R_{z}(2mc^{2} \Delta t) \otimes \mathbb{I}_{2} \otimes \cdots \otimes \mathbb{I}_{2}\end{aligned}$$ where $R_{z}(\theta) := e^{-i \frac{\theta}{2}\sigma_{z}}$ is the rotation operator. The rotation is applied on the qubit $|s_{1}\rangle$, as displayed in Fig. \[fig:timestep\].
The second local operator, responsible for the electromagnetic potential, requires slightly more work. First, a transformation has to be applied to change the representation of Dirac matrices: $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{\mathbf{A}}(t,\Delta t) &= (H \otimes \mathbb{I}_{2})\tilde{Q}_{\mathbf{A}}(t,\Delta t)(H \otimes \mathbb{I}_{2}),\end{aligned}$$ where $H$ is again the Hadamard matrix. This transformation allows one to write the Dirac matrices as $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{a} = (H \otimes \mathbb{I}_{2})\tilde{\alpha}_{a}(H \otimes \mathbb{I}_{2}),\end{aligned}$$ where the Dirac matrices $(\tilde{\alpha}_{a})_{a=x,y,z}$ are now expressed in the Weyl (or chiral) representation. This representation is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\alpha}_{a} =
\begin{bmatrix}
\sigma_{a} & 0 \\
0 & -\sigma_{a}
\end{bmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ As a consequence, the local operator is also expressed in Weyl representation as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Q_A01}
\tilde{Q}_{\mathbf{A}}(t,\Delta t)&:=e^{i\Delta t(e\tilde{\boldsymbol{\alpha}} \cdot \mathbf{A}(t))}, \\
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathcal{Q}_{\mathbf{A}}^{\dagger} & 0\\
0& \mathcal{Q}_{\mathbf{A}} ,
\end{bmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{Q}_{\mathbf{A}}(t,\Delta t):=e^{-ie\Delta t \boldsymbol{\sigma} \cdot \mathbf{A}(t)}$. The operator $Q_{\mathbf{A}}$ can then be implemented as a sequence of two controlled quantum gates and Hadamard gates, as displayed in Fig. \[fig:local\_elec\].
\
The last step of the quantum implementation of local operators is the decomposition of the matrix $\mathcal{Q}_{\mathbf{A}} \in SU(2)$. As noted in Ref. [@epj2015.fillion], $\mathcal{Q}_{\mathbf{A}}$ is expressed in the canonical representation of the $SU(2)$ group obtained by the exponential mapping of the Lie algebra: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:V_can}
\mathcal{Q}_{\mathbf{A}}(t,\Delta t) = \mathbb{I}_{2} \cos(|\mathbf{A}(t)|\Delta t) -i \frac{\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot \mathbf{A}(t)}{|\mathbf{A}(t)|} \sin(|\mathbf{A}(t)|\Delta t), \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ where $|\mathbf{A}(t)| = \sqrt{A_{x}^{2}(t) + A_{y}^{2}(t) + A_{z}^{2}(t)}$. This representation does not have a direct quantum gates decomposition. Rather, the Euler-angle parametrization is much more convenient because it can be decomposed in three rotation operators. Therefore, it is possible to write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:V_euler}
\mathcal{Q}_{\mathbf{A}}(t,\Delta t) &= R_{z}(\delta)R_{y}(\theta)R_{z}(\xi),\end{aligned}$$ where $R_{a}(\theta') := e^{-i\sigma_{a}\frac{\theta'}{2}}$ is a rotation operator and $\delta,\theta,\xi \in \mathbb{R}$ are three rotation parameters. To complete the connection between the two representations, these parameters have to be linked to the three parameters characterizing the canonical representation. Using Eqs. and , it is possible to show that [@epj2015.fillion] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rot_angle_delta}
\delta &= \arctan\left[\frac{A_{z}(t)}{|\mathbf{A}(t)|} \tan \left(|\mathbf{A}(t)| \Delta t \right) \right] - \arctan\left[\frac{A_{x}(t)}{A_{y}(t)} \right],\\
\label{eq:xi}
\xi &= \arctan\left[\frac{A_{z}(t)}{|\mathbf{A}(t)|} \tan \left(|\mathbf{A}(t)| \Delta t \right) \right] + \arctan\left[\frac{A_{x}(t)}{A_{y}(t)} \right], \\
\label{eq:rot_angle_theta}
\theta &= 2\arccos \left[\frac{\cos\left(|\mathbf{A}(t)| \Delta t \right)}{\cos \left( \frac{\xi + \delta}{2} \right)} \right].\end{aligned}$$ This gives the gate decomposition given at the bottom of Fig. \[fig:local\_elec\]. If the vector potential is space dependent to accommodate for a magnetic potential, the circuit has to be modified by adding uniformly controlled gates (see Appendix \[sec:magnetic\]).
The last local operator $Q_{V}$ is a space-dependent phase operation, similar to the one found for the simulation of the single-particle Schrödinger equation [@Zalka08011998; @Strini2008]. When translation invariance is imposed and the scalar potential does not depend on space, this operator can be omitted altogether because it becomes a global phase. However, if the potential has space dependence, it has to be considered explicitly but the details of the quantum implementation depends on its functional form. The quantum evaluation of $Q_{V}$ is thus an oracle call. Because it does not mix spinor components nor change their signs and amplitudes, a general $Q_{V}$ will be decomposed using gates acting on the subspace $\mathcal{H}_{n_{x}} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{n_{y}} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{n_{z}}$, as displayed in Fig. \[fig:timestep\]. It is not possible to implement a generic $V(\mathbf{x},t)$ because this entails the usage of diagonal unitary operators, which require an exponential number of $O(2^{n+1})$ quantum gates [@bullock2004asymptotically]. Nevertheless, some physically relevant potentials can be implemented efficiently. For example, polynomial potentials of a given order $k$ can be implemented in $O(n^{k})$ operations [@Strini2008] while an efficient gate count for the Coulomb potential can be found [@kassal2008polynomial].
When the electromagnetic field is homogeneous, it is also possible to consider a gauge in which the vector potential is $\mathbf{A}(t)=0$ while the scalar potential is $V(\mathbf{x},t) = -\mathbf{x} \cdot \mathbf{E}(t)$. In this case, the operator $Q_{\mathbf{A}}$ is not needed but the number of operations to implement the linear function in the scalar potential is $\mathrm{poly}(n_{x},n_{y},n_{z})$. Conversely, in the temporal gauge ($V(\mathbf{x},t)=0$), the vector potential is space independent and thus, the number of quantum gates is independent of the number of lattice points. As a consequence, the latter case will require less quantum operations and will be more efficient.
Complexity analysis of the algorithm {#sec:comp_ana}
------------------------------------
The full time evolution for the second order accuracy scheme (the third order is a straightforward extension) is displayed in Fig. \[fig:timestep\]. The first three groups of four gates implement the quantum walk part while the last two gates are local collision operators. As demonstrated in the following, this quantum algorithm is efficient because it scales like $\mathrm{poly}(n)$.
The number of operations for the application of rotation operators and local operators is constant and does not augment as the number of lattice points is increased, except for the oracle $Q_{V}$. However, as discussed earlier, physically relevant potentials can be implemented efficiently using $\mathrm{poly}(n)$ number of gates. To preserve the efficiency of the algorithm, only this type of potentials is considered.
The computational complexity for the increment and decrement operators is now discussed. Classically, they can be implemented by using $N_{a}-1$ (here, $a=x,y,z$) `SWAP` operations and therefore, they have a linear classical scaling with the number of lattice points. On the other hand, the quantum implementation of the increment and decrement operators can be expressed in terms of one- and two-qubits gates taken from a universal set. It was demonstrated that a generalized `CNOT` gate, as the ones appearing in the increment and decrement operators, can be simulated by $O(n_{a})$ basic operations [@PhysRevA.52.3457]. However, to generate the quantum walk, one needs $n_{a}-1$ of these gates, plus one $\sigma_{x}$ gate. Therefore, the number of operations required should scale like $O(n_{a}^{2}) = \mathrm{poly}(n_{a})$, for any coordinate. Then, for $N_{a}$ lattice points in a given dimension $a$, the number of operations scales like $O(\log_{2}^{2}N_{a}) = O(n_{a}^{2})$. This corresponds to an exponential speedup of the quantum computation, in comparison to the classical case, for the increment and decrement parts. It also proves that the time evolution of the wave function displayed in Fig. \[fig:timestep\] can be simulated with a number of gates $N_{\mathrm{gate}}$ obeying $N_{\mathrm{gate}} = \mathrm{poly}(n_{x},n_{y},n_{z})$. This is exponentially better than the classical implementation which scales like $N_{\mathrm{op}} = \mathrm{poly}(N_{x},N_{y},N_{z})$. The asymptotic scaling behavior of the Dirac evolution algorithm will be demonstrated explicitly in Section \[sec:ress\_req\]. Of course, after $N_{t}$ time iterations, the number of quantum gates becomes $N_{\mathrm{gate}}(N) = N_{t} \mathrm{poly}(n_{x},n_{y},n_{z})$. Then, following Refs. [@PhysRevA.88.022316; @Ronnow420], the quantum speedup $S_{1}(N)$ is defined as $S_{1}(N) = \lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} N_{\mathrm{op}}(N)/ N_{\mathrm{gate}}(N)$. Therefore, our quantum algorithm has an exponential speedup over its classical counterpart.
The previous estimates and comparisons are performed for a fixed numerical error $\epsilon$, which takes the same value in the quantum and classical implementations. In both cases, the error decreases polynomially with the number of lattice points because the time and space steps are related by the CFL condition, implying that $N_{t} = O(N)$, where $N:=N_{x}N_{y}N_{z}$ is the total number of discretization points. Then, assuming that the operators in the splitting are smooth enough and that the norm of the operator exponentials are bounded by one [@1751-8121-43-6-065203], the error after $N_{t}$ iterations scales like $\epsilon = O(N_{t} \Delta t^{q}) = O(1/N_{t}^{q-1}) = O(1/N^{q-1})$. Using these results, the number of gates scales like $N_{\mathrm{gate}}(N) = N \mathrm{poly}(\log_{2}(N_{x}),\log_{2}(N_{y}),\log_{2}(N_{z}))$ while in the classical case, we have $N_{\mathrm{op}}(N) = N\mathrm{poly}(N_{x},N_{y},N_{z})$. In terms of the precision, we get (as $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$) $$\begin{aligned}
N_{\mathrm{gate}}(\epsilon) = \epsilon^{-\frac{1}{q-1}} \mathrm{poly}\left[ \log_{2}\left(\epsilon^{-\frac{1}{q-1}}\right)\right],\end{aligned}$$ for the quantum algorithm while in the classical case, one gets that $$\begin{aligned}
N_{\mathrm{op}}(\epsilon) = \epsilon^{-\frac{1}{q-1}} \mathrm{poly}\left[ \epsilon^{-\frac{1}{q-1}}\right].\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, even if the CFL condition links the time and space steps, the algorithm has a strong exponential speedup, defined as $S_{2}(N) = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} N_{\mathrm{op}}(\epsilon)/ N_{\mathrm{gate}}(\epsilon)$ [@PhysRevA.88.022316]. The advantage of the quantum approach will be exhibited explicitly in Section \[sec:ress\_req\] where a gate decomposition of the algorithm will be presented.
Initialization of the quantum register {#sec:init_reg}
--------------------------------------
Before utilizing the quantum algorithm described in previous section, the quantum register has to be initialized to a physically relevant state $\psi_{S,\mathrm{init}}(\mathbf{x})$. This is performed by setting the coefficients $\alpha_{S,i,j,k}$ that encode the wave function, to some properly chosen value. This can be a challenge because initializing general states require diagonal unitary operations. As demonstrated in Appendix \[sec:gen\_init\], the quantum gate decomposition for the initialization of a general wave function is given in terms of uniformly controlled gates. The optimal number of gates required to carry these operations scales like $O(2^{n+1})$ [@PhysRevLett.91.027902; @PhysRevA.71.052330; @bullock2004asymptotically], which will obliterate the performance of the quantum time-evolution algorithm. However, this technique can be useful to simulate elementary quantum systems [@Strini2008].
For many physical applications, it is enough to start the simulation with an eigenstate of some static potential instead of some general state [@tannor2007introduction]. In this case, the phase-estimation method can be employed and can be implemented efficiently under some conditions [@PhysRevLett.83.5162; @kassal2008polynomial; @Aspuru-Guzik1704]. This procedure allows for the determination of both the eigenvalues and eigenstates. However, it requires many ancilla qubits to have enough energy resolution. The number of ancilla qubits can be reduced significantly by a filtering technique inspired from the Feit-Fleck method [@ffg.feitfleck]. The latter is described in Appendix \[sec:init\].
Resource requirements and feasibility {#sec:ress_req}
=====================================
The circuit depth (number of gates) and width (the number of required ancilla qubits) for the quantum Dirac solver is now determined by using `Quipper` to perform an explicit gate decomposition [@green2013quipper]. `Quipper` is a functional scalable quantum programming language capable of, among other things, translating intricate quantum algorithms and circuits into sequences of elementary gates from a given universal set. Moreover, it includes many functions to specify and manipulate quantum circuits. Therefore, it is an efficient and convenient tool for the concrete determination of quantum resource requirements of a given quantum algorithm. As a matter of fact, it has been utilized to analyze the resource requirement for some common quantum algorithms such as the quantum linear system algorithm [@scherer2015resource] and others [@green2013quipper; @siddiqui2014five]. Here, the feasibility of the implementation of the Dirac solver on actual quantum computers, for a proof-of-principle calculation, is assessed with this tool.
In the following results, an idealized quantum computer is assumed where all the quantum operations are carried without error. In a real device, some errors could be occurring due to noise coming from the interaction with the environment. These errors can be compensated by error correcting algorithms but this demands for more resources. In this sense, the results given in the following are lower bound estimate for real calculations.
The algorithm given in Section \[sec:quantum\_impl\] and more precisely, the part for the time evolution displayed in Fig. \[fig:timestep\], is coded in `Quipper`. For simplicity and because it depends on the physical system studied, a vanishing scalar potential is assumed ($V(\mathbf{x},t) = 0$). The contribution of this oracle can be evaluated independently for specific applications. The quantum gates in the Dirac solver algorithm are decomposed into a standard universal set of gates comprising the Hadamard (`H`), the Clifford (`S`), the $\frac{\pi}{8}$-phase (`T`) and the controlled-not (`CNOT`) gates. Hereinafter, these gates will be denoted as fundamental quantum gates. These gates are then used to approximate all the logical gates in our algorithm. For rotation gates appearing in mass operators, a numerical precision is required and is set to 10 digits. Of course, a higher precision will entail a larger number of fundamental gates. The value of the vector potential is set to an arbitrary value while the time step is set to $\Delta t = 0.0001$, although the explicit value of $\Delta t$ does not have a large effect on the gate count.
The results for the circuit depth as a function of the number of qubits are displayed in Fig. \[fig:ress\_req\]. The number of gates is obtained from the decomposition into the fundamental set of gates while the number of qubits displayed in the figure corresponds to $n_{x}$, i.e. the number of qubits used to store the wave function $x$-coordinates. It is assumed that $n_{x} = n_{y} = n_{z}$. Moreover, the evaluation of multi-controlled gates in the increment and decrement operators requires $n_{x}$ ancilla qubits, making for a circuit width (total number of qubits) of $n_{\mathrm{total}} = 4n_{x}+2$.
It is verified by fitting the data in Fig. \[fig:ress\_req\] with a polynomial that for a large number of qubits ($n_{x} \gtrsim 10$), the number of gates increases quadratically. This confirms the complexity analysis and the asymptotic behavior given in Section \[sec:comp\_ana\]. For $n_{x} \lesssim 10$, the dependence is close to a linear behavior. For any number of quantum qubits, there is a given number of quantum gates reserved for the local mass operators. In particular the gate $Q_{m}(\Delta t)$ requires 245 fundamental quantum gates while the $Q_{\mathbf{A}}$ necessitates 3330 fundamental quantum gates. If desired, the circuit depth for these gates could be reduced by decreasing the precision for the approximation of rotation operators.
![The circuit depth (number of gates) required to evolve the wave function by one time step as a function of the number of qubits. The number of qubits corresponds to $n_{x}$. It is assumed that $n_{x} = n_{y} = n_{z}$. The circuit width required is then given by $n_{\mathrm{total}} = 4n_{x}+2$. []{data-label="fig:ress_req"}](resource_req){width="45.00000%"}
The maximum number of qubits considered in this analysis is $n_{x} = 100$ ($n_{\mathrm{total}} = 402$), corresponding to a simulation with a lattice of size $ N_{x} = N_{y} = N_{z} = 1.27 \times 10^{30} $. This is much higher than the number of lattice points any classical computer can accommodate. Moreover, assuming that the number of classical operations is linear with the number of lattice points (see Section \[sec:comp\_ana\]), the total number of operations on a classical computer would reach $\sim 10^{90}$, which is many orders of magnitude higher than on a quantum computer, which necessitates $\sim 10^{6}$ quantum gates. State of the art classical simulations of the Dirac equation could use lattice with a size $ N_{x} = N_{y} = N_{z} = 1024$ [@FillionGourdeau20121403], requiring approximately $\sim 10^{9}$ operations. In comparison, our quantum algorithm would need $n_{x}=10$ ($n_{\mathrm{total}} = 42$) and 12773 quantum gates, which is five orders of magnitude below. These comparisons clearly attest to the advantage of the quantum computer over the classical computer.
However, actual quantum devices are limited in the number of qubits and the number of gates they can apply on the quantum register. The maximum number of entangled qubits is $\sim 14$ [@PhysRevLett.106.130506] while the maximum number of gates (quality factor) reaches $\sim 10^{4}$ [@0034-4885-74-10-104401]. Combining a high quality factor along with using a large number of qubits is a challenging experimental problem. Nevertheless, digital quantum computing has been conducted on various devices. For example, it has been accomplished with a superconducting circuit using nine qubits and $\approx 1000$ quantum logic gates [@barends2016digitized; @barends2015digital; @kelly2015state]. Trapped ions have also been considered, where $\approx 100$ quantum logic gates on six qubits have been achieved [@Lanyon57]. Finally, circuit quantum electrodynamics has been utilized to simulate quantum interacting spin models using two qubits [@PhysRevX.5.021027].
Given these limitations, we now try to find some parameters which could allow for a proof-of-principle simulation. The simplest system that can be studied is the massless ($m=0$) 1-D electron. In this case, there are no rotation operators, reducing the relative number of operation significantly for low number of qubits. The mass term can be included, adding 130 gates (using a precision of 5 digits) to the massless case. In 1-D, two spinor components become redundant and can be discarded, also reducing the number of qubit by one [@epj2015.fillion]. The resource requirements for this system are given in Table \[table:ress\_req\] for many lattice sizes. Clearly, the lattice size that can be simulated on actual quantum computer is relatively small compared to classical calculations. More importantly however is the number of time steps which can be simulated, on the order of $\sim $10-25 for lattice size of 16-32 points. This is much lower than the number of time steps usually required in classical simulations, which reaches 1000-10000 time steps for much larger lattice sizes [@FillionGourdeau20121403]. Advancing the wave function by 10-25 time steps may be enough for a proof-of-principle calculation using present day technologies, but this is not sufficient for conducting physically relevant calculations. It also demonstrates that quantum computers are still far from outperforming classical calculations.
$n_{z}$ Circuit depth Circuit width $N_{z}$
--------- --------------- --------------- ---------
2 60 3 4
3 182 5 8
4 376 7 16
5 642 9 32
6 980 11 64
7 1390 13 128
: Minimal resource requirements for simulating the 1-D massless Dirac equation on an actual quantum computer device. With the mass term, the circuit depth increases by 130 gates.
\[table:ress\_req\]
It may be possible to implement our numerical scheme on quantum computing devices based on superconducting circuits. As mentioned earlier, this kind of quantum computer has been used successfully to perform digital quantum calculations [@barends2016digitized; @barends2015digital; @kelly2015state]. Using `Quipper`, our algorithm can be decomposed into a sequence of quantum logic gates, which can be implemented on superconducting circuits computers as a sequence of electric pulses. The gate decomposition of one time step for $n_{z}=3$ of the 1-D massive Dirac equation (see Table \[table:ress\_req\]) is given in Supplementary Material. The decomposition yields 72 `H`, 92 `S`, 94 `T` and 50 `CNOT` gates, for a total of 308 gates and a quantum register of 5 qubits. These operations can be carried on a superconducting circuits quantum computer. Assuming the number of operations for the initialization is low enough, a few time steps could be performed.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
The analysis presented in this article have demonstrated that it is possible to solve the discrete Dirac equation efficiently on a quantum computer, including the initialization of the quantum register to an eigenstate of a static potential, under some conditions. Therefore, the technique presented in this article could be used to simulate important problems requiring a time-dependent solution of the Dirac equation such as pair production in Schwinger-like processes [@RevModPhys.84.1177] or the dynamics of charge carriers in graphene [@novoselov2005two], for example.
An explicit gate decomposition was carried out to evaluate the resource requirements and the feasibility of simulating relativistic quantum dynamics with actual quantum devices. It was demonstrated that the coherence time of existing quantum computers may allow for the evaluation of a few time iterations. Therefore, proof-of-principle calculations may be performed in the short term but a physically relevant calculation clearly necessitates much improvement in both the coherence time and in the number of qubits of quantum registers.
In this work, general electromagnetic fields have not been considered. General potentials entails diagonal operations which are similar to those found in Figs. \[fig:uniformctrl\] - \[fig:init\_wf\] of Appendix \[sec:gen\_init\]. These necessitates an exponential number of gates, killing the performance of the quantum algorithm. Rather, we examined the possibility of having electromagnetic field with a vanishing magnetic field. As argued previously, for a large class of scalar potential, these can be included efficiently. In principle, a magnetic field could also be included by making the vector potential $\mathbf{A}$ space-dependent. The quantum circuit that implements this effect is shown in Appendix \[sec:magnetic\]. A general magnetic field requires an exponential number of gates, but as for the scalar potential, there may be special cases where it could be implemented in a logarithmic number of gates. Then, the translation invariance requirement can be relaxed completely. A thorough study of potentials implementable with a logarithmic number of gates is out of scope of this article, but would deserve more investigation.
A possible extension of this work is for the Dirac equation in curved space time. It has been demonstrated in Ref. [@PhysRevA.88.042301; @QW3] that the continuum limit of a certain class of space-dependent quantum walks reduces to the massless Dirac equation in a gravitational field. Then, it is plausible that the techniques presented in this article, also based on the analogy between quantum walks and the Dirac equation, could be applied to the gravitational case.
Finally, it would be interesting to look at the possibility of simulating the Dirac equation by combining both analog and digital approaches, as proposed in Ref. [@arrazola2016digital]. Trapped ion quantum computers seems particularly suitable for this task, given that their quantum dynamics is analogous to the free part of the Dirac equation [@PhysRevLett.98.253005; @gerritsma2010quantum]. It may be possible to take advantage of this, while keeping some aspects of the scheme given in this article, to obtain a more efficient algorithm. This is presently under investigation.
The authors would like to thank A.D. Bandrauk, E. Lorin, S. Succi and S. Palpacelli for many discussions relating to the numerical solution of the Dirac equation. Also, the authors acknowledge some important comments made by R. Somma on the initialization method and P. Selinger for some help with the code `Quipper`. Finally, we thank T. Farrelly for his useful comments on the fermion doubling problem.
Higher order schemes {#sec:high_order}
====================
An operator splitting scheme with a third order accuracy is given by [@suzuki1993general; @FillionGourdeau20121403; @Lorin2011190]: $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(t_{n+1})
&= e^{-i\frac{\Delta t}{2} \mathcal{T}} e^{-i\frac{\Delta t}{2} \hat{H}_{x} } e^{-i\frac{\Delta t}{2} \hat{H}_{y} } e^{-i\frac{\Delta t}{2} \hat{H}_{z} } e^{-i\frac{\Delta t}{2} \hat{H}_{m} }
\nonumber \\
& \times
e^{-i\frac{\Delta t}{2} \hat{H}_{V}(t_{n}) }
e^{-i\frac{\Delta t}{2} \hat{H}_{\mathbf{A}}(t_{n}) }
e^{-i\frac{\Delta t}{2} \hat{H}_{\mathbf{A}}(t_{n}) } e^{-i\frac{\Delta t}{2} \hat{H}_{V}(t_{n}) }
\nonumber \\
& \times
e^{-i\frac{\Delta t}{2} \hat{H}_{m} } e^{-i\frac{\Delta t}{2} \hat{H}_{z} } e^{-i\frac{\Delta t}{2} \hat{H}_{y} }e^{-i\frac{\Delta t}{2} \hat{H}_{x} } e^{-i\frac{\Delta t}{2} \mathcal{T}} \psi(t_{n})
\nonumber \\
& \times
+O(\Delta t^{3}) ,\nonumber \\
&= Q_{x}\left(\frac{\Delta t}{2}\right) Q_{y}\left(\frac{\Delta t}{2}\right) Q_{z}\left(\frac{\Delta t}{2}\right) Q_{m}\left(\frac{\Delta t}{2}\right)
\nonumber \\
& \times
Q_{V}\left(t_{n}+\frac{\Delta t}{2},\frac{\Delta t}{2}\right)
Q_{\mathbf{A}}\left(t_{n}+\frac{\Delta t}{2},\Delta t\right)
\nonumber \\
& \times
Q_{V}\left(t_{n}+\frac{\Delta t}{2},\frac{\Delta t}{2}\right)
Q_{m}\left(\frac{\Delta t}{2}\right)
Q_{z}\left(\frac{\Delta t}{2}\right)
\nonumber \\
& \times
Q_{y}\left(\frac{\Delta t}{2}\right) Q_{x}\left(\frac{\Delta t}{2}\right) \psi(t_{n}) +O(\Delta t^{3}).\end{aligned}$$ Using the same strategy as for the second order scheme and the same type of discretization yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:QLB_exp_order2_sp}
\psi_{\ell} (t_{n+1}) &=
\left[S_{x}T_{x}\left(\frac{N^{*}\ell}{2} \right)S_{x}^{-1}\right]
\left[S_{y}T_{y}\left(\frac{N^{*}\ell}{2} \right)S_{y}^{-1}\right]
\nonumber \\
& \times
\left[S_{z}T_{z}\left(\frac{N^{*}\ell}{2} \right)S_{z}^{-1}\right]
Q_{m}\left(\frac{\Delta t}{2} \right)
\nonumber \\
& \times
Q_{V}\left(t_{n}+\frac{\Delta t}{2},\frac{\Delta t}{2}\right)
Q_{\mathbf{A}}\left(t_{n}+\frac{\Delta t}{2},\Delta t\right)
\nonumber \\
& \times
Q_{V}\left(t_{n}+\frac{\Delta t}{2},\frac{\Delta t}{2}\right)
Q_{m}\left(\frac{\Delta t}{2} \right)
\nonumber \\
& \times
\left[S_{z}T_{z}\left(\frac{N^{*}\ell}{2} \right)S_{z}^{-1}\right]
\left[S_{y}T_{y}\left(\frac{N^{*}\ell}{2} \right)S_{y}^{-1}\right]
\nonumber \\
& \times
\left[S_{x}T_{x}\left(\frac{N^{*}\ell}{2} \right)S_{x}^{-1}\right]
\psi_{\ell} (t_{n}) .\end{aligned}$$ An $m$’th order splitting can be obtained from the $m-1$’th order splitting using Suzuki’s iterative scheme [@Suzuki1990319]. The latter states that the $m$’th order approximant $F_{m}(\Delta t)$, which yields an error as $O(\Delta t^{m+1})$, is given in terms of the $m-1$’th order approximant as $$\begin{aligned}
F_{m}(\Delta t) = F_{m-1}(p_{1}\Delta t) \cdots F_{m-1}(p_{r}\Delta t),\end{aligned}$$ where $r \in \mathbb{N}^{+}$ while the parameters $p_{1},\cdots,p_{r} \in \mathbb{C}$ are constrained by the following equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:suzuki_condition}
\sum_{i=1}^{r} p_{i} = 1 \;\; , \;\; \sum_{i=1}^{r} p^{m}_{i} = 0.\end{aligned}$$ The value of $r$ is chosen arbitrarily, but in practice, it is important to use the smallest value of $r$ as possible to reduce the number of operations. For a given $r$, the solution of Eq. is not necessarily unique: the best choice then is essentially a matter of convenience.
$r$ $\tilde{p}_{1}$ $\tilde{p}_{2}$ $\tilde{p}_{3}$ $\tilde{p}_{4}$ $\tilde{p}_{5}$ $\tilde{p}_{6}$ $\tilde{p}_{7}$ $\tilde{p}_{8}$ $\tilde{p}_{9}$
----- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
7 6 6 6 3 3 3 -2
8 6 4 4 4 3 3 -2 -12
9 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 -3
9 6 6 6 3 3 3 2 -2 -2
9 6 6 6 3 3 3 3 -2 -3
9 12 6 6 6 3 3 3 -2 -12
: Possible rational splittings schemes for $m=3$ with an accuracy $O(\Delta t^{4})$.
\[table:splitting\_fourth\]
To obtain a splitting where the parameters $p_{i}$ are rational numbers and where every $p_{i}$ is a multiple of the smallest one, it is convenient to define $\tilde{p}_{i} = 1/p_{i}$ for $i=1,\cdots r$. Then, the splitting we are looking for should obey the following conditions: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{cases}
(\tilde{p}_{i})_{i=1,\cdots, r} \in \mathbb{N} , \\
(p_{i} = n_{i}p_{j})_{i=1,\cdots, j-1,j+1,\cdots , r}, n_{i} \in \mathbb{N} \\
\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \mbox{for} \;\; p_{j} \leq (p_{i})_{i=1,\cdots, j-1,j+1,\cdots , r} ,\\
\sum_{i=1}^{r} \frac{\prod_{j=1}^{r} \tilde{p}_{j}}{ \tilde{p}_{i}} = \prod_{i=1}^{r} \tilde{p}_{i} ,\\
\sum_{i=1}^{r} \frac{\prod_{j=1}^{r} \tilde{p}^{m}_{j}}{ \tilde{p}^{m}_{i}} = 0.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ This system of equation is challenging to solve for large $m$ and $r$. For $m=3$, solutions shown in Table \[table:splitting\_fourth\] can be found by a systematic searching algorithm. There is no solution for $r<7$.
Quantum circuit for the inclusion of a magnetic field {#sec:magnetic}
=====================================================
When a magnetic field is included, the vector potential $\mathbf{A}$ depends on both time and space. In this case, the decomposition in Eq. still holds but then, the rotation angles in Eqs. to depends on space as $\delta_{i,j,k},\xi_{i,j,k}$ and $\theta_{i,j,k}$. The space dependence can be introduced by using uniformly controlled gates, as displayed in Fig. \[fig:magnetic\]. Such circuit are not efficient for general space dependence because they require $N_{x}N_{y}N_{z}$ multi-controlled gates. However, it may be possible to find special cases where the vector potential can be implemented in $\mathrm{poly}(n_{x},n_{y},n_{z})$.
General initial states {#sec:gen_init}
======================
The initialization for an initial state corresponds to the following mapping (here given for one arbitrary spinor component $\psi_{S}$):
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:map_init}
\frac{1}{2^{\frac{n}{2}}}
\begin{pmatrix}
1\\1\\ \vdots \\1
\end{pmatrix}
\rightarrow
\begin{pmatrix}
\psi_{S,\mathrm{init}}(\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_{0,0,0})\\
\psi_{S,\mathrm{init}}(\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_{0,0,1})\\
\vdots \\
\psi_{S,\mathrm{init}}(\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_{N_{x},N_{y},N_{z}})
\end{pmatrix} =
\begin{pmatrix}
|\psi_{S,\mathrm{init}}(\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_{0,0,0})|e^{i\varphi_{S,0,0,0}}\\
|\psi_{S,\mathrm{init}}(\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_{0,0,1})|e^{i\varphi_{S,0,0,1}}\\
\vdots \\
|\psi_{S,\mathrm{init}}(\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_{N_{x},N_{y},N_{z}})|e^{i\varphi_{S,N_{x},N_{y},N_{z}}}
\end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$
where $\varphi_{S,i,j,k}$ is the phase of the wave component $\psi_{S,\mathrm{init}}(\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_{i,j,k})$. Assuming that the quantum register is initialized in the state $|00\cdots 0\rangle$, the left part of Eq. can be obtained via a Hadamard transform. The mapping is a diagonal operation that can be realized by a sequence of uniformly-controlled quantum gates (UCQG) [@PhysRevA.71.052330]: this class of gates is defined in Fig. \[fig:uniformctrl\] and they consist in the set of all possible multi-qubits controlled gates. Then, the initialization proceeds by using one gate per spinor component, as displayed in Fig. \[fig:init\_wf\].
The operators $U_{i,j,k}^{(\psi_{S})}$ appearing in the gate definition are related to the value of the wave function. First, they are 1-qubit operation and thus, can be decomposed as a sequence of rotation operators as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
U_{i,j,k}^{(\psi_{S})} = e^{i\gamma_{S,i,j,k}}R_{z}(\delta_{S,i,j,k})R_{y}(\theta_{S,i,j,k}),\end{aligned}$$ where the parameters $\gamma_{S,i,j,k},\delta_{S,i,j,k},\theta_{S,i,j,k} \in [0,2\pi]$ characterize the unitary operation. These parameters are related to the initial wave function as $$\begin{aligned}
\theta_{S,i,j,k} &= 2 \arccos \left( \cfrac{|\psi_{S,\mathrm{init}}(\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_{i,j,2k-1})| + |\psi_{S,\mathrm{init}}(\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_{i,j,2k})|}{2} \right),\nonumber \\ \\
\gamma_{S,i,j,k} &= \varphi_{S,i,j,2k} + \varphi_{S,i,j,2k-1},\\
\delta_{S,i,j,k} &= \varphi_{S,i,j,2k} - \varphi_{S,i,j,2k-1}.\end{aligned}$$ This unitary operation initializes the wave function at two points simultaneously, hence the limit of the index $k \in [1,N_{z}/2]$ in the circuit diagram of Fig. \[fig:uniformctrl\].
![Circuit diagram for the initialization of the wave function.[]{data-label="fig:init_wf"}](fig_init)
The number of gates required to initialize the wave function on the quantum register can be evaluated by analysing the UCQGs. It has been demonstrated that the complexity of an arbitrary $n$-qubit UCQG is $O(4^{n})$ [@PhysRevA.71.052330]. This can be improved further to $O(2^{n})$ [@PhysRevA.83.032302]. Applying these results to the Dirac equation, we obtain that the number of quantum gates should scale like $O(2^{n_{x}}2^{n_{y}}2^{n_{z}})$. Therefore, this part of the algorithm is not efficient because it is not a polynomial of $n_{x},n_{y},n_{z}$ for the initialization of a general space-time dependent wave function.
Quantum Feit-Fleck method {#sec:init}
=========================
In this appendix, the quantum Feit-Fleck method given in Ref. [@ffg.feitfleck] is reviewed and applied to the Dirac equation. The Feit-Fleck spectral method has been originally developed to evaluate eigenenergies and eigenstates of the Schrödinger equation in a static potential [@Feit1982412]. This technique was then applied to the Dirac equation to calculate eigenfunctions of hydrogen-like atoms [@Mocken2004558; @Mocken2008868; @PhysRevA.83.063414; @Bauke2011]. It is well suited for Dirac operators because it does not require the spectrum to be bounded from below, in contrast with variational methods.
An accurate approximation of the eigenenergy of the desired eigenstate is expected for the filtering phase presented below. In some cases, these eigenenergies can be estimated from analytical methods or classical computations. However, there exist techniques to perform this task efficiently on a quantum computer. The starting point is the autocorrelation function $C(t)$, given by [@Feit1982412] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:auto_corr}
C(t) &= \int d^{3}\mathbf{x} \psi^{*}(0,\mathbf{x})\psi(t,\mathbf{x}) \\
C(E) &= \frac{1}{t_{f}}\int_{0}^{t_{f}} dt w(t) e^{iEt}C(t).\end{aligned}$$ The eigenenergies appear as sharp peaks in the spectral density $C(E)$. This autocorrelation can be computed semi-classically [@PhysRevLett.76.3228; @ffg.feitfleck; @PhysRevLett.81.5672; @PhysRevA.65.042323]. First, an ancilla qubit is added in the state $|0\rangle$. Applying a Hadamard gate on this ancilla qubit and initializing some arbitrary trial state, the quantum register will be in the state $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left[|0\rangle + |1\rangle \right]\otimes |\psi_{\mathrm{trial}}(0)\rangle , \\
\label{eq:register}
&\mapsto \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left[|0\rangle \otimes |\psi_{\mathrm{trial}}(0)\rangle + |1\rangle \otimes |\psi_{\mathrm{trial}}(t)\rangle \right].\end{aligned}$$ The mapping in Eq. is obtained by applying a controlled evolution operator that evolves the trial state to some final time $t$. Then, it can be demonstrated that performing the following measurement on the ancilla qubit yields the autocorrelation function: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle (\sigma_{x}+i\sigma_{y})\otimes \mathbb{I} \rangle &= \langle \psi_{\mathrm{trial}}(0) |\psi_{\mathrm{trial}}(t)\rangle , \\
\label{eq:quantum_autocorr}
&= \sum_{S=1}^{4} \sum_{i=1}^{N_{x}} \sum_{j=1}^{N_{y}} \sum_{k=1}^{N_{z}} \alpha^{*}_{S,i,j,k}(0)\alpha_{S,i,j,k}(t), \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_{S,i,j,k}(t)$ are the coefficients of the register that store the wave function, as in Eq. . Eq. is a discretized version of the autocorrelation function in Eq. . The resulting circuit diagram is displayed in Fig. \[fig:autocorr\].
![Circuit diagram for the computation of the autocorrelation function. The quantity $\langle (\sigma_{x}+i\sigma_{y})\otimes \mathbb{I} \rangle$ is measured on the ancilla qubit.[]{data-label="fig:autocorr"}](autocorr)
Once the autocorrelation has been evaluated, the Fourier transform has to be performed classically. Then, the eigenenergies can be read off the spectral density $C(E)$.
Here, the final time $t_{f}$, where $t\in [0,t_{f}]$, is important because it determines the resolution of the spectral method as $\Delta E = \pi/t_{f}$, where $\Delta E$ is the energy resolution of the method. Therefore, obtaining a precise value of the eigenenergy requires a large simulation time. Moreover, the energy range that can be considered is governed by the time step as $[-\pi/\Delta t,\pi/\Delta t]$.
Once the eigenenergy is known, it is possible to use the following equation to filter an arbitrary trial state [@Feit1982412]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eigen_state_ff}
\psi_{E}(\mathbf{x}) = \frac{1}{t_{f}} \int_{0}^{t_{f}} dt \psi_{\mathrm{trial}}(t,\mathbf{x}) w(t)e^{iEt},\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi_{E}(\mathbf{x})$ is the wanted eigenstate, $E$ is the energy of the eigenstate, $t_{f}$ is is final time of the calculation, $\psi_{\mathrm{trial}}(t,\mathbf{x})$ is an arbitrary trial function and $w(t)$ is a window function. One convenient choice for the window function is the Hann function but other choices are available [@heinzel2002spectrum].
The filtering can be implemented on a quantum computer by supplementing the quantum register with an additional qubit $|c\rangle$. Then, Eq. is approximated by a quadrature formula of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eigen_state_quad}
\psi_{E}(\mathbf{x}) &\approx \sum_{k=0}^{N_{t}} B_{k} \psi_{\mathrm{trial}}(t_{k},\mathbf{x}) ,\\
B_{k} &:= \Delta t a_{k} w(t_{k})e^{iEt_{k}},
$$ where $N_{t}$ is the number of timestep, $t_{k} = k\Delta t$ is the time where the integrand is evaluated and $(a_{k})_{k=0,\cdots,N_{t}}$ are coefficients required by the quadrature rule [^1].
The result of the partial sum can be stored in the register by applying a non-unitary operator at every time step defined by $\hat{B}_{i} \otimes \mathbb{I}_{2} \cdots \otimes \mathbb{I}_{2}$ where $\hat{B}_{i}$ is a two-by-two matrix given by [@ffg.feitfleck] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gate_B}
\hat{B}_{i} := \frac{1}{ \sqrt{1+ \frac{|B_{i}|^{2}}{2} + |B_{i}|\sqrt{1+\frac{|B_{i}|^{2}}{4}}}}
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
B_{i} & 1
\end{bmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ The resulting quantum circuit is displayed in Fig. \[fig:init\_ff\].
It is possible to implement non-unitary operations on a quantum computer by using non-deterministic algorithms [@Terashima2005; @mezzacapo2015quantum; @Blass2015; @Childs:2012:HSU:2481569.2481570; @PhysRevLett.114.090502]. Following the technique described in [@Terashima2005], the first step is to find the singular value decomposition of the matrix $\hat{B}$. It is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:SVD}
\hat{B}_{i} &= U_{i} \Sigma_{i} V^{\dagger}_{i}. \end{aligned}$$ The matrices $U_{i}, V^{\dagger}_{i}$ are unitary while $\Sigma_{i} = \mathrm{diag}(1,a_{i})$ is diagonal, where the singular value is given by $$\begin{aligned}
a_{i} &= \sqrt{ \frac{1+ \frac{|B_{i}|^{2}}{2} - |B_{i}|\sqrt{1+\frac{|B_{i}|^{2}}{4}}}{1+ \frac{|B_{i}|^{2}}{2} + |B_{i}|\sqrt{1+\frac{|B_{i}|^{2}}{4}}}} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $a_{i} \leq 1$, in accordance with the exact realization theorem [@Blass2015]. Then, the operator $\Sigma_{i}$ can be literally realized with one ancilla initialized in the state $|0\rangle$, a unitary transformation and a projective measurement [@ffg.feitfleck]. The corresponding quantum circuit is displayed in Fig. \[fig:nonunitary\], where the controlled unitary operator is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{c-}P_{i} =
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & a_{i} & 0 & \sqrt{1-a_{i}^{2}} \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & -\sqrt{1-a_{i}^{2}}& 0 & a_{i}
\end{bmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ The last step of the circuit is a projective measurement $|0\rangle \langle 0|$ on the ancilla qubit. A success occurs when the ancilla is measured in the state $|0\rangle$, which implies that the non-unitary operation has been implemented properly. The success probability of this projective measurement, after $N_{t}+1$ iterations is [@ffg.feitfleck] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:prob_success}
P_{\mathrm{success}}(N_{t}+1) &\geq \ \frac{1}{e} \left[ 1 - \frac{1}{N_{t}} \right] + O\left(\frac{1}{N_{t}^{2}} \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $e \approx 2.7183$ is Euler’s number (not the electric charge).
![Circuit diagram for the implementation of the nonunitary operation. The upper qubit is an ancilla qubit prepared in the state $|0\rangle$. The measurement operator implements the projective measurement $|0\rangle \langle 0|$. If the measurement yields the state $|1\rangle$, the calculation has to be redone from the beginning.[]{data-label="fig:nonunitary"}](nonunitary)
The number of operations required to initialize the wave function using this quantum implementation of the Feit-Fleck method scales like $\bar{N} = e^{2}N_{t}\mathrm{poly}(n_{x},n_{y},n_{z})/P$, where $P$ is the probability to be in the eigenstate after the filtering. As long as $P$ is not exponentially small, the initialization can be performed using a logarithmic number of gates. The performance is similar to the phase-estimation algorithm but requires less ancilla qubits. More details are given in Ref. [@ffg.feitfleck].
[^1]: For example, for the trapezoidal rule, we have $a_{0} = a_{N_{t}} = 1/2$ and $(a_{k})_{k=1,\cdots,N_{t}-1}=1$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a phenomenological study of three models with different effective degrees of freedom: a Goldstone Boson Exchange (GBE) model which is based on quark-meson couplings, the quark delocalization, color screening model (QDCSM) which is based on quark-gluon couplings with delocalized quark wavefunctions, and the Fujiwara-Nijmegen (FN) mixed model which includes both quark-meson and quark-gluon couplings. We find that for roughly two-thirds of 64 states consisting of pairs of octet and decuplet baryons, the three models predict similar effective baryon-baryon interactions. This suggests that the three very different models, based on different effective degrees of freedom, are nonetheless all compatible with respect to baryon spectra and baryon-baryon interactions. We also discuss the differences between the three models and their separate characteristics.'
address:
- '$^1$Physics Department, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210093, China'
- '$^2$Physics Department, Nanjing normal University, Nanjing, 210097, China'
- '$^3$Theoretical Division, LANL, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA'
author:
- 'H.R. Pang$^1$, J.L. Ping$^2$, Fan Wang$^1$ and T.Goldman$^3$'
title: Phenomenological study of hadron interaction models
---
[**PACS numbers:**]{} 12.39.-x, 14.20.Pt, 13.75.Cs, 13.75.Ev
LA-UR-01-1908
introduction
============
Hadronic interactions are central to strong interaction physics. However, for the time being, the fundamental strong interaction theory, Quantum ChromoDynamics (QCD) remains too complicated for these to be directly calculated from it. Nevertheless, initial lattice QCD calculations of hadronic interactions[@dr] have been initiated. Due to the complication of a multiquark system, however, quantitative results remain in the distant future.
Meson exchange models, based on meson-baryon couplings, were developed long before QCD[@yukawa] and are still the best at fitting the vast collection of NN experimental data[@mach]. Unfortunately, the QCD basis for such effective degrees of freedom in [*t-channel*]{} exchanges is not clear at present. Chiral perturbation effective field theory[@wein] is well-based in QCD; for a recent derivation, see [@wangq]. However, due to the fact that the quark and gluon degrees of freedom have been integrated out, it can not be used to study the quark-gluon internal structure of hadrons. Nor is it suitable for the study of genuine multiquark-gluon systems such as glueballs, hybrids, $q\bar{q}q\bar{q}$ systems, and dibaryons.
R.T.Cahill et al.[@cah] have developed an effective field theory which takes spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking into account. Constituent quarks and Goldstone bosons appear here as the effective degrees of freedom for low energy QCD physics. This model has been applied both to pion and $\sigma$ meson internal structure and to meson interactions, but not yet to NN interactions[@caht]. L.Ya.Glozman, D.O.Riska and G.E.Brown[@grb] propose a phenomenological model, with constituent quarks and Goldstone bosons as the effective degrees of freedom for describing baryon spectroscopy and baryon interactions. However, their quark meson coupling is the linear Yukawa coupling, which reflects neither QCD based chiral perturbation nor the nonlinear coupling obtained from the effective field theory referred to above.
A.Manohar and H.Georgi[@mg] have argued that below the chiral symmetry breaking scale($\sim$1Gev) and within the confinement regime ($\sim$1fm), the proper effective degrees of freedom are Goldstone bosons, constituent quarks and gluons.(We have constructed an approximate QCD derivation of this model, similar to Cahill’s approach, but the quantum fluctuations of the gluon field are suppressed.) Such a hybrid quark-gluon-meson exchange model has been widely used to describe nucleon-baryon interactions and a semi-quantitative fit has been obtained[@tff].
Models with constituent quarks and effective one gluon exchange[@rggi] describe hadron spectroscopy quite well. The Hamiltonian approach to QCD[@gji] seeks the QCD basis for this model. The Schwinger-Dyson equation approach also keeps constituent quarks and gluons as the effective degrees of freedom[@sch]. However, direct extension of this model to the NN interaction obtains only a repulsive core[@cww]. A variant of this model obtains the NN repulsive core and intermediate range attraction simultaneously, by taking into account both quark delocalization and color screening. This also describes a qualitative similarity between nuclear and molecular forces. A semiquantitative fit to the existing NN, N$\Lambda$, and N$\Sigma$ scattering data and to properties of the deuteron has been obtained as well [@wpwg].
The MIT bag model uses current quarks and gluons to describe hadron internal structure[@jaffe]. A quark-meson coupling has to be introduced to restore chiral symmetry[@thomas] to this model; Cahill et al. have given an approximate QCD derivation[@cah]. The model has been extended to the description of hadron interactions using the R-matrix method and compound quark model approach[@lomon].
The Skyrmion model can be viewed as originating from the large $N_c$ limit. It has been used both for nucleon internal structure and for hadronic interactions[@izah]. The nontopological soliton model also acquired an approximate QCD derivation a few years ago[@twen].
There might be even more QCD models that can be listed. But this short review suggests that neither theoretical studies of QCD nor phenomenological model analyses can yet determine which effective degrees of freedom are best, nor which model is best for the description of low energy hadron physics. Therefore, theoretical study of QCD and phenomenological analysis are both still needed to extend our understanding of low energy strong interaction physics.
This paper reports a phenomenological study of the effective baryon-baryon interactions of the ground state octet and decuplet baryons using three constituent quark models with quark-meson, quark-meson-gluon, and quark-gluon effective degrees of freedom respectively. The results show that in many channels, (about 2/3 of the total states) the three different models give more or less the same predictions. We take this as a phenomenological verification that, even for baryon-baryon interactions, quark models with different effective degrees of freedom are quite compatible and that meson exchange effects are modeled, at least to some extent, by quark delocalization and color screening. In some channels, however, especially promising dibaryon states, the different models give drastically different predictions. These cannot be viewed as being as reliable as those above; i.e., these results are sensitive to model details. Experimental searches in those channels are needed to distinguish the validity of the different models.
This paper is organized as follows: In Sec. II, we describe the Hamiltonians and parameters of the three models. In Sec. III, we present the results and discuss them. The final section gives our conclusions.
Hamiltonian and parameters of three models
==========================================
From among the models discussed in the introduction, we choose three constituent quark models on which to do a comparative phenomenological study; i.e., we calculate the adiabatic effective baryon-baryon interactions and dibaryon candidates systematically. The three models are: the Glozman-Riska-Brown model, based on constituent quarks and exchange of Goldstone bosons (GBE); the Fujiwara model, based on constituent quarks and gluons, with the Nijmegen description of one boson exchange (FN); the quark delocalization and color screening model (QDCSM), based on constituent quarks and gluons but with quark delocalization and color screening effects included. We choose to consider these three models for several reasons: There has been considerable debate recently regarding these effective degrees of freedom[@twenone]; These models have been extensively studied with respect to baryon spectroscopy and baryon-baryon interactions; They can be calculated straightforwardly in a consistent, systematic way, using fractional parentage expansions and variational methods.
Quark and meson effective degrees of freedom: GBE models
--------------------------------------------------------
We take the Goldstone Boson Exchange (GBE) model of Glozman’s group as the example with constituent quarks and Goldstone bosons as the effective degrees of freedom. This model has been successfully applied to baryon spectra and also extended to study NN interactions. Although recent research shows that scalar and vector mesons should also be included to describe baryon-baryon interactions, here we use only the original version, i.e., only pseudo-scalar mesons (as Goldstone bosons), which gives a surprisingly good description of baryonic spectra.
In the nonrelativistic meson-exchange quark-quark interaction of any such model, there is a $\delta$-function term, which is true only for point-like particles. For particles with structure, this $\delta$-function must be smeared out. In the GBE model, two types of smearing were used: Gaussian and Yukawa. We designate them as model GBE(a) and GBE(b), respectively.
### GBE with Gaussian smearing: GBE(a)
In this case, the $\delta$-function is smeared by a Gaussian function[@light]. This version provides a successful description of the spectroscopy of baryons. In addition, the short-range repulsion of the NN interaction is also obtained. This Gaussian smearing involves two parameters corresponding to the short range cutoff point ($r_0$) and the width ($\alpha$) of a bell-shaped curve.
$$\begin{aligned}
H&=&\sum_im_i+\sum_i\frac{P_i^2}{2m_i}-\frac{{(\sum_iP_i)}^2}{2\sum_im_i}
+\sum_{i<j}V_{conf}(r_{ij})+\sum_{i<j}V_{\chi}(r_{ij}) \nonumber \\
V_{conf}(r_{ij})&=&-\frac{3}{8}{\lambda}_i^c\cdot{\lambda}_j^c%%%%%%%%%%i
(Cr_{ij}+V_0)\nonumber \\
V_{\chi}(r_{ij})&=&\{\sum_{F=1}^3V_{\pi}(r_{ij})
{\lambda}_i^F\cdot{\lambda}_j^F+
\sum_{F=4}^7 V_k(r_{ij}){\lambda}_i^F\cdot{\lambda}_j^F+
V_{\eta}(r_{ij}){\lambda}_i^8\cdot{\lambda}_j^8+V_{{\eta}^{'}}(r_{ij})
{\lambda}_i^0\cdot{\lambda}_j^0\}{\sigma}_i\cdot{\sigma}_j \nonumber \\
V_{\gamma}(r)&=&\frac{g^2_{\gamma}}{4\pi}\frac{1}{12m_im_j}\{
{\theta}(r-r_0){\mu}^2_{\gamma}\frac{e^{-{\mu}_{\gamma}r}}{r}
-\frac{4}{\sqrt{\pi}}{\alpha}^3exp(-{\alpha}^2{(r-r_0)}^2)\} \nonumber \\
&&{\gamma}=\pi,k,{\eta},{\eta}^{'} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$
where the parameters are
$${\mu}_{\pi}=139 MeV, {\mu}_k=495 MeV, {\mu}_{\eta}=547 MeV,
{\mu}_{{\eta}^{'}}=958 MeV$$ $$m_{u,d}=340 MeV, m_s=440 MeV,
\frac{g^2_{{\pi}q}}{4\pi}=\frac{g^2_{{\eta}q}}{4\pi}
=\frac{g^2_{kq}}{4\pi}=0.67$$ $$\frac{g^2_{{\eta}^{'}q}}{4\pi}=1.206, r_0=0.43 fm,
\alpha=2.91{fm}^{-1},V_0=0,C=0.474{fm}^{-2},b=0.437fm.$$ Here $b$ is the baryon size parameter (a parameter of the quark orbital Gaussian wave function).
### GBE with Yukawa smearing: GBE(b)
Because Gaussian smearing does not meet the well known requirement that the volume integral of the pseudoscalar meson exchange interaction should vanish, another smearing version, Yukawa smearing, was also applied in the GBE model[@nucleon].
$$V_{\gamma}(r)=\frac{g_{\gamma}^2}{4\pi}\frac{1}{12m_im_j}
({\mu}_{\gamma}^2\frac{e^{-{\mu}_{\gamma}r}}{r}
-{\Lambda}_{\gamma}^2\frac{e^{-{\Lambda}_{\gamma}r}}{r}),
{\Lambda}_{\gamma}={\Lambda}_0+{\kappa}{\mu}_{\gamma}$$ $$m_{u,d}=340MeV, m_s=507MeV, C=0.77{fm}^{-2},$$ $$\frac{g_{{\pi}q}^2}{4\pi}=
\frac{g_{{K}q}^2}{4\pi}=
\frac{g_{{\eta}q}^2}{4\pi}=1.24~~,
~~\frac{g_{{\eta'}q}^2}{4\pi}=2.7652,
{\Lambda}_0=5.82{fm}^{-1},\kappa=1.34$$ $$b=0.537fm, V_0=-686.4MeV$$
The values of $b$ and $V_0$ are obtained by reproducing the $N-\Delta$ mass difference and the nucleon mass with a Gaussian single quark orbital wave function, as is used in standard quark model calculations. We also assume a single quark-meson coupling constant, $\frac{g_8^2}{4\pi}$, for all octet mesons ($\pi$, $K$, $\eta$) as the originators of the model have done in their calculations. The strange quark mass, $m_s$, is determined by an overall fit to the masses of the strange baryons. Since “irrespective of the parametrization, the flavor-spin symmetry is essential in the model”[@nucleon], we presume that we have maintained the essence of the GBE. In addition, only the spin-spin component of the pseudoscalar exchange interaction has been included in the calculation. We note that there are extensions of the GBE which include pseudoscalar, vector and scalar meson exchanges with all possible force components[@extension]. This is expected to be necessary for baryon-baryon interactions, but this addition will be left for future studies.
Quark-meson-gluon effective degrees of freedom: FN model
--------------------------------------------------------
The naive quark-gluon exchange model is quite successful in baryon spectroscopy, but its extension to baryon-baryon interactions is much less so. Only a repulsive core is obtained, but no intermediate range attraction develops in the best studied NN channel. Meson exchange interactions are introduced into the model to provide this well established attraction and the resulting hybrid model with quark, meson and gluon effective degrees of freedom is widely used in baryon interaction calculations. There are several different model variations in this approach. We choose Fujiwara’s model (FN)[@des] as an example since it gives a simultaneous description of both NN and NY (nucleon-hyperon) interactions.
$$\begin{aligned}
H&=&{\sum}^{6}_{i=1}(m_i+\frac{P_i^2}{2m_i})
+{\sum}^6_{i<j}(U_{ij}^{Cf}+U_{ij}^{FB}+{\sum}_{\beta}U_{ij}^{S\beta}
+{\sum}_{\beta}U_{ij}^{PS\beta}) \nonumber \\
U_{ij}^{Cf}&=&-a_c{\lambda}_i^C\cdot{\lambda}_j^Cr_{ij}^2 \nonumber \\
U_{ij}^{FB}&=&\frac{{\alpha}_s}{4}{\lambda}_i^C\cdot{\lambda}_j^C
\{\frac{1}{r_{ij}}
-\frac{\pi}{2}(\frac{1}{m_i^2}+\frac{1}{m_j^2}+\frac{4}{3}
\frac{{\sigma}_i\cdot{\sigma}_j}{m_im_j})\delta(\vec{r_{ij}})
-\frac{1}{2m_im_j}(\frac{\vec{P_i}\cdot\vec{P_j}}{r_{ij}}
+\frac{\vec{r_{ij}}\cdot(\vec{r_{ij}}\cdot\vec{P_i})\vec{P_j}}{r_{ij}^3})\}
\nonumber \\
U_{ij}^{PS\beta}&=&w_{ij}^{PS\beta}{(\frac{m_{\beta}}{m_{{\pi}^{+}}})}^2
\frac{m_{\beta}}{3}
\{{\sigma}_i\cdot{\sigma}_j[Y(x)-c_{\delta}\frac{4\pi}{m_{\beta}^3}
\delta(\vec{r_{ij}})]\} \nonumber \\
U_{ij}^{S\beta}&=&-w_{ij}^{S\beta}m_{\beta}Y(x) \nonumber \\
&&Y(x)=\frac{e^{-x}}{x},~~~x=m_{\beta}|r_{ij}| \nonumber \\
&&w_{ij}^{\pi}={(\frac{3}{5}f_8^{PS})}^2{\sum}_{F=1}^3{\lambda}_i^F
{\lambda}_j^F
,~~~w_{ij}^K={(\frac{3}{5}f_8^{PS})}^2{\sum}_{F=4}^7{\lambda}_i^F
{\lambda}_j^F
\nonumber \\
&&w_{ij}^{\eta}=(-f_1^{PS}sin{\theta}_{PS}+\frac{3}{5}f_8^{PS}
cos{\theta}_{PS}
{\lambda}_i^8)\times(-f_1^{PS}sin{\theta}_{PS}+\frac{3}{5}f_8^{PS}
cos{\theta}
_{PS}{\lambda}_j^8), \nonumber \\
&&w_{ij}^{{\eta}^{'}}=(f_1^{PS}cos{\theta}_{PS}+\frac{3}{5}f_8^{PS}
sin{\theta}_{PS}
{\lambda}_i^8)\times(f_1^{PS}cos{\theta}_{PS}+\frac{3}{5}f_8^{PS}
sin{\theta}_{PS}{\lambda}_j^8) \nonumber \\
&&w_{ij}^{\delta}={(f_8^S)}^2{\sum}_{F=1}^3{\lambda}_i^F{\lambda}_j^F,~~~
w_{ij}^{\kappa}={(f_8^S)}^2{\sum}_{F=4}^7{\lambda}_i^F{\lambda}_j^F,
\nonumber \\
&&w_{ij}^{\epsilon}=(\frac{1}{3}f_1^Scos{\theta}_S+f_8^Ssin{\theta}_S
{\lambda}_i^8
)\times(\frac{1}{3}f_1^Scos{\theta}_S+f_8^Ssin{\theta}_S{\lambda}_j^8),
\nonumber \\
&&w_{ij}^{S*}=(-\frac{1}{3}f_1^Ssin{\theta}_S+f_8^Scos{\theta}_S
{\lambda}_i^8
)\times(-\frac{1}{3}f_1^Ssin{\theta}_S+f_8^Scos{\theta}_S{\lambda}_j^8)
\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
$$m_{{\pi}^{+}}=140MeV, m_{\pi}=138MeV, m_K=496MeV, m_{\eta}=547MeV, m_{{\eta}^{'}}=958MeV,$$ $$m_{\delta}=970MeV, m_{\kappa}=1145MeV, m_{\epsilon}=800MeV, m_{S*}=1250MeV,
c_{\delta}=0.381$$ $$f_1^S=2.89138, f_8^S=1.07509, f_1^{PS}=0.21426, f_8^{PS}=0.26994, {\theta}_{PS}=-23^{0},{\theta}_S=27.78^{0}$$ $$b=0.616fm, a_c=95.61MeV{\cdot}fm, m_{ud}=360MeV, {\alpha}_s=2.1742, {\lambda}=m_s/m_{ud}=1.526$$
Quark-gluon effective degrees of freedom: QDCSM
-----------------------------------------------
For this case, we take the quark delocalization, color screening model (QDCSM) as the example[@wpwg]. As noted above, the naive quark model with quark and gluon effective degrees of freedom gives a good description of individual baryon properties. However, its extension to baryon-baryon interactions is not successful. The QDCSM maintains quarks and gluons as the effective degrees of freedom, but enlarges the Hilbert space by incorporating quark delocalization. It also distinguishes the confinement potential between quark pairs inside one baryon and from different baryons by introducing color screening. This is based on the recognition that the interaction between quarks from different color singlet baryons must be screened as color neutrality is observed to be maintained on a $fm$ scale. To be precise, the backflow of color necessary is not explicitly modelled, but is accomplished by an effective matrix elements method. The QDCSM gives a reasonable fit to NN, N$\Lambda$ and N$\Sigma$ scattering data.
$$\begin{aligned}
H(6) &=& \sum_{i=1}^{6}(m_{i}+\frac{p_{i}^{2}}{2{m}_{i}})+ \sum_{i<j=1}
^{6}V_{ij}-T_{CM} \nonumber \\
V_{ij} &=& V_{ij}^{c}+V_{ij}^{oge} \nonumber \\
V_{ij}^{oge}&=&{\alpha}_{s}\frac{1}{4}{\lambda}_i^c\cdot{\lambda}_j^c
[\frac{1}{r}
-\frac{\pi}{2}\delta(r_{ij})(\frac{1}{m_i^2}+\frac{1}{m_j^2}+
\frac{4{\sigma}_i{\sigma}_j}{3m_im_j})+\cdot\cdot\cdot] \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
$$~~~~~~{V}_{ij}^{c}=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
-{\lambda}_{i}^{c} {\lambda}_{j}^{c}a_c{r}_{ij}^{2} &
\mbox{if i,j occur in the same baryon orbit} \\
-{\lambda}_{i}^{c}{\lambda}_{j}^{c}\frac{a_c}{\mu}
(1-{e}^{-{\mu}{r}_{ij}^2})
& \mbox{if i,j occur in different baryon orbits} \\
\end{array}
\right.$$
and the delocalized quark orbits are $$\begin{aligned}
{\Psi}_{L}(r) &=& \frac{({\Phi}_{L}(r)+\epsilon({R}_{s}){\Phi}_{R}(r))}{N({R}_{s})}
\nonumber \\
{\Psi}_{R}(r) &=& \frac{({\Phi}_{R}(r)+\epsilon({R}_{s}){\Phi}_{L}(r))}{N({R}_{s})}
\nonumber \\
{N}^{2}({R}_{s}) &=& 1+{\epsilon}^{2}({R}_{s})+2{\epsilon}({R}_{s})
\langle{\Phi}_{L}|{\Phi}_{R}\rangle \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where ${\phi}_L ({\phi}_R)$ is the left- (right-) centered quark orbital wave function; the mixing parameter $\epsilon(R_s)$ is determined variationally for every $R_s$ by the dynamics of the six-quark system. $$m_u=m_d=313MeV, m_s=634MeV,$$ $$b=0.603fm, {\alpha}_s=1.54, a_c=25.13MeV{fm}^{-2},
\mu=1.0fm^{-2}.$$
Among these three models, the QDCSM has the fewest parameters.
In order to do a systematic calculation for all three-flavor (u, d, s) six-quark systems, the adiabatic approximation is used to obtain the effective potential between two baryons as a function of their separation. The mass of the six-quark system is then estimated as the sum of the two separate baryon masses, plus the value of the effective potential at its minimum and the zero-point oscillation energy. In the calculation of the six-body matrix elements, the fractional parentage expansion is used. The details of this method can be found in Refs.[@wpwg; @jlping]. Such an adiabatic calculation is reasonable for a systematic survey, but only gives a rough estimation of the mass of the six-quark system. A dynamical calculation is needed to obtain quantitative results, but is not expected to lead to significant differences at the level of accuracy of interest here.
Results and Discussion
======================
The baryon-baryon scattering properties calculated are listed in Tables I to VII. Figures 1-12 show the baryon-baryon effective potentials (in units of MeV) as a function of separation $R$(fm).
Two smearing versions of the GBE model
--------------------------------------
In a series of papers, Glozman et al. used two different versions of smearing of Goldstone boson exchanges to calculate baryon masses and the NN interaction. We have extended their studies to all possible baryon-baryon S-wave channels consisting of baryon octet and decuplet states and find:
\(1) The short-range repulsion obtained from Gaussian smearing is much larger than from Yukawa smearing for some states. Taking the (001) deuteron channel as an example, we find the short-range repulsion is 2436 MeV for Gaussian smearing[@light], but only about 790MeV for Yukawa smearing.
\(2) Channel coupling has obvious effects for model(a), but negligible effect for model(b). Because of this, some states (about 1/6 of the total) have the similar effective interactions in models (a) and (b) for single channel results, but quite different effective interactions for results from channel coupling. Such states include (-1,3/2,1) (-1,3/2,2) (-201) (-200) (-213) (-221) (-3,1/2,2) (-3,3/2,3) (-402) (-412) , typical examples of which are shown in Fig. 1.
\(3) We identify three groups of states, depending on the minimum value of the potential, $|V_0|$:
For the first group, the difference of $|V_0|$ between models (a) and (b) is about 10 MeV. These states include most of the states with small angular momentum ($J=0,1$). These states, including (021), (030), (-1,1/2,2), (-1,3/2,0), (-1,5/2,0), (-2,0,2), (-2,2,0), (-5,1/2,0), (-6,0,2) and so on, are not sensitive to the different forms of smearing of the $\delta$-function, typical examples of which are shown in Fig. 2.
For the second group, the difference of $|V_0|$ values between model(a) and (b) is greater than 20 MeV, but not more than 100 MeV. For these states, intermediate-range attraction is always present, but the strength of the attraction varies with the form of smearing. Many states with large angular momentum ($J=3$) belong to this group, such as (003), (013), (-203), (-3,1/2,0), (-3,1/2,3), (-403) and so on. (See Fig. 2). As for the first group, the results do not depend sensitively on the form of the choice of smearing.
The difference between models (a) and (b) shows up most strongly for the third group of states. Comparing the results for (023), (022), (033), (-1,3/2,3), (-1,5/2,3), (-1,5/2,2), (-213), (-3,3/2,0), (-3,3/2,3), (-5,1/2,2), (-5,1/2,3), and (-603), (see Fig. 3,) we find a very small value for $|V_0|$, or even no attraction at all, in model (b) , while we find a very large value for $|V_0|$, in the range of 200 to 400 MeV at small equilibrium separation ($R_s = 0.5-0.8 fm$) in model (a).
In the following comparisons, when we refer to the GBE model, we will mean model (b), because it is consistent with the requirement that the volume integral of the pseudoscalar meson exchange interaction should vanish.
Comparison among the three different models
-------------------------------------------
All possible S-wave states of (SIJ) obtained from the ground state octet and decuplet baryons in the u, d, and s three-flavor world have been calculated with the three models (GBE(a) and (b), FN and QDCSM) based on three sets of effective degrees of freedom. We will discuss the general features first and then the details for some interesting aspects.
### General features
\(1) Deuteron properties: Since the deuteron is a well known, stable, two-nucleon state ($SIJ=001$), we take it as a measure of the precision of our model calculation. The three different models all show a weak attraction; the minimum of the effective potential is [-18 MeV (FN)]{}, -21 MeV (QDCSM), -3 MeV (GBE), and the separation corresponding to the minimum energies is 1.2fm, 1.3fm, 2.0fm, respectively. These reproduce the deuteron channel NN interaction qualitatively, but the estimated masses in the three models differ by 15-27 MeV from the deuteron energy. The main causes of this deviation are twofold: First, the S-D wave mixing due to the one pion exchange tensor interaction has not been taken into account; second the adiabatic approximation and zero-point harmonic oscillation energy used in this calculation are rough approximations. A dynamical calculation with the extended QDCSM, where the one pion exchange tensor interaction is included, does reproduce the deuteron energy, size and D-wave mixing accurately[@wpwg]. This emphasizes that the results reported here only produce a qualitative effective baryon-baryon interaction. To study dibaryon states, a careful dynamical calculation is needed. In fact, if the deuteron would not have been found by experiment, it would have been difficult for any of the models to predict its existence.
\(2) Quark delocalization effect: For Fujiwara’s quark-meson-gluon coupling model, enlarging the model space will not change the results, i.e., systems always prefer to remain with small delocalization($\epsilon\leq{0.1}$) [^1], even for those states with minimum energy at small separations. A similar conclusion follows for both of Glozman’s quark-meson coupling models, (a) and (b). On the other hand, for the QDCSM, the quark delocalization effect is obvious. For some states the delocalization parameter $\epsilon$ can reach 1.0 at the minimum energy of the system. Quark delocalization compensates for the explicit meson exchange effect absent in the QDCSM.
\(3) Channel coupling effect: In all of these three models, the channel coupling effect is small for most cases; the largest effect is about 50-100MeV. For those channels where the binding energy is close to the channel threshold, channel coupling may well play a critical role in forming dibaryon states. Jaffe’s H particle case is a clear example. In those cases, the channel coupling should be studied dynamically.
### Details
From the calculated results of three different models, we found that about two-thirds of the states within the u, d,and s three-flavor world have quite similar, and in some cases indistinguishable, effective baryon-baryon interactions:
\(1) States with the same, purely repulsive, interaction:\
States with almost the same effective repulsive baryon-baryon interactions include (000), (011), (023), (022), (033), (032), (-1,3/2,2), (-1,3/2,1), (-1,5/2,3), (-1,5/2,2), (-221), (-403), (-411), (-5,1/2,3), (-5,1/2,2), (-603) and (-602). These states have purely repulsive potentials in all three models despite their different effective degrees of freedom. There are altogether 17 states, among all 64 states of 6-quark system, belonging to this case. To simplify the presentation, only the four states which have different strangeness are shown in Fig.4.
\(2) States with similar weak attraction :\
(i) Some states have very similar baryon-baryon interactions for all three models, all producing a weak attraction, with the minimum energies of the systems appearing at large separation. (The separation is a bit smaller for a few states in the FN model). We find 13 states belonging to this case, such as (001), (010), (021), (-1,1/2,1), (-1,3/2,0), (-201), (-211), (-210), (-222), (-3,3/2,2), (-3,3/2,1), (-402) and (-400). Typical ones are shown in Fig.5. Because the binding energies of these states are small, their masses are close to the corresponding thresholds. Whether the binding energy is positive or negative is very sensitive to the details of the models. It is difficult to determine whether these are strong interaction stable states or not, since the precision of the adiabatic approximation is limited. A dynamical calculation is especially needed in these cases in order to obtain more reliable results.\
(ii) There are states for which the QDCSM and FN give quite similar results, but the GBE model yields an even weaker attraction. States belonging to this case include (031), (-3,1/2,1), (-401) and (-412), two of which are shown in Fig.6. The QDCSM and FN model obtain a minimum of the effective attraction of several tens of MeV, or at most a hundred MeV, but the GBE model yields only several MeV for these states.\
(iii) There are states for which the QDCSM and GBE models obtain a weak attraction, while the FN model yields a little stronger attraction. These states include: (-1,1/2,0), (-1,5/2,1), (-220) and (-3,1/2,0), as shown in Fig.7. For these states, the QDCSM and GBE models obtain a minimum of several MeV, while in the FN model, the minimum is several tens of MeV.\
(iv) For some states, the QDCSM obtains a somewhat stronger attraction than either of the other two models. Such states include: (012), (-223) and (-413); the latter two are shown in Fig.8.\
(v) Finally, there are states for which the FN and GBE models obtain slightly different effective potentials with the results of the QDCSM in between. For the states (020), (030) and (-1,5/2,0), the latter two of which are shown in Fig.9, the GBE model yields a strong repulsive core and weak intermediate-range attraction; the FN model obtains a weak repulsive core and considerable intermediate-range attraction, and the QDCSM obtains, on the one hand, a repulsive core similar to that of the GBE model, and on the other, an intermediate-range attraction similar to that of the FN model.
Altogether, we find that the three different models based on the three different effective degrees of freedom not only all give a good description of baryon spectra, but they also give similar effective baryon-baryon interactions for two thirds of all of the states possible within the three-flavor world. This implies that, with regard to baryon spectra and baryon-baryon interactions, the models based on the different effective degree of freedoms are still compatible. We infer that quark delocalization and color screening, working together in the QDCSM, must provide a good representation of meson exchange effects at some level of accuracy. All of this appears consistent with old conclusions developed from nonperturbative QCD: Models with different effective degrees of freedom but with physically equivalent results can be obtained for low energy QCD under different approximations.
Each model has distinct characteristics with respect to the remaining one third of the states:
\(1) The QDCSM predicts strong intermediate-range attraction for states with large angular momentum. As the strangeness becomes more negative, the minimum of the effective potential, $V_0$, becomes less negative, as can be seen from the sequence: (003) with $V_0=-359$MeV, (-1,1/2,3) with $V_0=-308$MeV, (-202) with $V_0=-184$MeV, and (-403) where $|V_0|$ is only several MeV. (See Fig.10.)
\(2) The FN model predicts a weak attraction in the effective potential for states with small strangeness. Conversely to the QDCSM, here, as the strangeness becomes more negative, $|V_0|$ also becomes more negative. For example, for the state (-3,3/2,0) $V_0=-87$MeV, for (-410) $V_0=-95$MeV, for (-5,1/2,1) $V_0=-136$MeV, and for (-600) $V_0=-281$MeV. (See Fig.11.)
The Darwin term of the Breit-Fermi interaction has been included in the FN model. We find its contribution to the baryon-baryon effective interaction to be small, typically giving rise to a weak attraction with a minimum ${\leq} 10 MeV$.
\(3) Since the GBE model that we used in our calculations does not take into account scalar and vector meson contributions, the effective interaction obtained is usually less attractive than the other two models. One would expect that the GBE will give more similar results if these exchanges are incorporated.
### Particularly interesting states
\(1) $d^{*}$ dibaryon state (003); (see Fig.10): The QDCSM predicts this to be a tightly bound, 6-quark state, but the other models predict only a weak intermediate-range attraction, which does not provide enough attraction to form a bound state relative to $NN\pi\pi$ threshold. Recently, a dynamical calculation in the QDCSM obtained a slightly smaller binding energy for the $d^{*}$ ($\sim$ 2.18GeV)[@wpwg]. The difference is due to the fact that the zero-point oscillation energy in this case underestimates the relative kinetic energy of the two baryons. However the $d^{*}$ mass is still much lower than found in the other models.
\(2) Di-$\Omega$ state (-600); (see Fig.11): The FN model predicts a strong intermediate-range attraction with binding energy $B=-62$MeV. The mass of the state is 3282 MeV, which is lower than the $\Omega\Omega$ threshold $3345 MeV$, so that a strong interaction stable state is predicted. Another hybrid model[@zhang] obtains a similar result; (B is about -100 MeV). The GBE model predicts $B=-11$ MeV. This mass is slightly lower than the threshold, and is expected to decrease further if scalar and vector meson exchanges are incorporated. The QDCSM predicts a mass of 3350 MeV, but a dynamical calculation obtains a smaller mass, which is closer to the results of the hybrid models. In this case, the zero-point harmonic oscillation energy overestimates the relative kinetic energy.
\(3) H particle (-200); (see Fig.12): The QDCSM predicts that this is a strong interaction stable state with small binding energy, $B=-14$ MeV; the mass is 2218 MeV. The FN model obtains a mass of 2312 MeV, which is higher than the threshold (2231MeV). Zhang’s dynamical calculation obtains a mass for the H close to the $\Lambda\Lambda$ threshold[@zhangg]. The GBE(a) model obtains 2207 MeV, which is a little lower than the threshold, while GBE(b) obtains 2249 MeV, which is a little higher than the threshold. Almost all of these model results are close to the $\Lambda\Lambda$ threshold. Taken together, they imply that the mass of the H particle is sensitive to model details. Experimental searches should (and do) take into account the two possibilities of a strong interaction stable state with long lifetime, as well as a narrow resonances with a short lifetime.
conclusion
==========
The three constituent quark models based on quark-meson, quark-gluon and quark-meson-gluon effective degrees of freedom are widely used in the study of hadron spectroscopy and hadron interaction, and there is a hot debate about which degrees of freedom are the proper ones[@twenone]. For the $64$ two baryon channels consisting of octet and decuplet baryons, we find that the three models give similar effective baryon-baryon interactions for about 2/3 of these channels. The three models appear to be different, but in fact are not very different in describing effective baryon-baryon interactions.
For some time, a number of authors have viewed the QDCSM as an exceptional model. Some have even claimed that it violates principles of quantum mechanics[@zzhang]. This is incorrect, as it is a conventional effective matrix element approach, which we have proposed because of our concern regarding a sound theoretical basis for direct extension of the two body confinement interaction from single to multi-hadron systems, where nonlinearity may be expected to be significant. Quark model studies of multi-hadron systems provide important checks of the model descriptions of confinement. The results of this paper demonstrate that predictions of the QDCSM are not so exceptional as might appear from its definition. On the contrary, it embodies meson exchange effects in its own way, i.e., through quark delocalization and a different parametrization of quark confinement. Since the effective matrix element method is widely used in the Heisenberg version of matrix mechanics, we are at a loss to explain how the authors of Ref.[@zzhang] have so misunderstood our model as to arrive at such incorrect conclusions regarding it.
This paper also demonstrates that there are differences among these three models. This has been shown in baryon spectroscopy[@twenone]. It also appears in the predictions for different dibaryon masses, especially for states of high spin and high strangeness. More precise hadron spectroscopy and experimental study of the dibaryon states predicted by these models are needed to distinguish which degree of freedom best describes low energy hadron physics.
This research is partly supported by the NSF, SED and SSTD of China, and partly by the US Department of Energy under contract W-7405-ENG-36.
[99]{}
D.Richards, nucl-th/0011012. H.Yukawa, Proc.Phys.Math.Soc.Jpn. [**17**]{}, 48 (1935). R.Machleidt, Nucl.Phys.[**A**]{} (nucl-th/0009055). S.Weinberg, Physica[**96A**]{}, 327 (1979); Phys.Lett. [**B251**]{}, 288 (1990); Nucl.Phys.[**B363**]{}, 3 (1991); Phys.Lett.[ **B295**]{}, 114 (1992). Q.Wang, Y.P.Kuang, X.L.Wang and M.Xiao, Phys.Rev. [**D61**]{}, 54011 (2000). R.T.Cahill and C.D.Roberts, Phys.Rev.[**D32**]{}, 2419 (1985). P.C.Tandy, Prog.Part.Nucl.Phys.[**39**]{}, 117 (1997).\
[R.T.Cahill and S.M.Gunner, Fizika[**B7**]{}, 17 (1998).]{}\
[X.F.Lu, Y.X.Liu, H.S.Zong, E.G.Zhao, Phys.Rev.[**C58**]{}, 1195 (1998).]{} L.Ya.Glozman and D.O.Riska, Phys.Rep.[**268**]{}, 263 (1996).\
[D.O.Riska and G.E.Brown, Nucl.Phys.[**A653**]{}, 251 (1999).]{} A.Manohar and H.Georgi, Nucl.Phys.[**B234**]{}, 189 (1984). S.Takeuchi, K.Shimizu and K.Yazaki, Nucl.Phys. [**A504**]{}, 777 (1989).\
[A.Valcarcr, A.Buchmann, F.Fernandez, A.Faessler, Phys.Rev. [**C50**]{}, 2246 (1994); [**C51**]{}, 1480 (1995).]{}\
[Y.Fujiwara, C.Nakamoto and Y.Suzuki, Phys.Rev.Lett.[ **76**]{}, 2242 (1996).]{} A.De Rujula, H.Georgi and S.L.Glashow, Phys.Rev.[ **D12**]{}, 147 (1975).\
[N.Isgur and G.Karl, Phys.Rev.[**D18**]{}, 4187 (1978); [ **D19**]{}, 2653 (1979); [**D20**]{}, 1191 (1979).]{} E.Gubankova, C.R.Ji and S.R.Cotanch, hep-ph/9908331. C.D.Roberts and S.M.Schmidt, Prog.Part.Nucl.Phys.[ **45S1**]{}, 1-103, (2000). M.Oka and K.Yazaki, “Quarks in Nuclei”, International Review of Nuclear Physics, Vol.1, ed. W.Weise (World Scientific, Singapore, 1985), p.489.\
[C.W.Wong, Phys.Rep.[**136**]{}, 1 (1986).]{}\
[F.Myhrer and J.Wroldsm, Rev.Mod.Phys.[**60**]{}, 629 (1988).]{}\
[K.Shimizu, Rep.Prog.Phys.[**52**]{}, 1 (1989).]{} F.Wang et al., Phys.Rev.Lett.[**69**]{}, 2901 (1992).\
[G.H.Wu et al., Phys.Rev.[**C53**]{}, 1161 (1996); Nucl.Phys.[**A673**]{}, 279 (2000).]{}\
[J.L.Ping, F.Wang and T.Goldman, nucl-th/0012011.]{} A.Chodos, R.L.Jaffe, K.Johnson, C.B.Thorn and V.Weisskopf, Phys.Rev.[**D9**]{}, 3471 (1974). A.Chodos and C.B.Thorn, Phys.Rev.[**D12**]{}, 2733 (1975).\
[A.W.Thomas, J.Phys.[**G7**]{}, L283, (1981).]{}\
[G.E.Brown and M.Rho, Phys.Lett.[**B82**]{}, 177 (1979).]{} R.L.Jaffe and F.E.Low, Phys.Rev.[**D19**]{}, 2105 (1979).\
[P.LaFrance and E.L.Lomon, Phys.Rev.[**D34**]{}, 1341 (1986) and references therein.]{}\
[A.M.Badalyan and Yu.A.Simonov, Yad.Fij.[**36**]{}, 1479 (1982).]{}\
[Yu.A.Simonov, Nucl.Phys.[**A416**]{}, 109c (1984); [ **A463**]{}, 231c (1987).]{} I.Zahed and G.E.Brown, Phys Reports, [**142**]{}, 1 (1986). R.Friedberg and T.D.Lee, Phys.Rev.[**D15**]{}, 1694 (1977); [**D16**]{}, 1096 (1977).\
[M.R.Frank and P.C.Tandy, Phys.Rev.[**C46**]{}, 338 (1992).]{} N.Isgur, Phys.Rev.[**D61**]{}, 118501; [**D62**]{}, 054026 (2000).\
[L.Ya.Glozman, nucl-th/9909021. ]{}\
[H.Collins and H.Georgi, Phys.Rev.[**D59**]{}, 094010 (1999).]{}\
[K.F.Lin et.al., Phy.Rev.[**D59**]{}, 112001 (1999); [ **D61**]{}, 118502 (2000). ]{} L.Ya.Glozman, Z.Papp, W.Plessas, Phys.Lett.[ **B381**]{}, 311 (1996).\
[Fl.Stancu, S.Pepin and L.Ya.Glozman, Phys.Rev.[**C56**]{}, 2779 (1997).]{}\
[L.Ya.Glozman, Z.Papp, W.Plessas et al. Nucl.Phys.[ **A623**]{}, 90c (1997).]{}\
[M.Genovese, J.M.Richard, Fl.Stancu and S.Pepin, Phys.Lett. [**B625**]{}, 171 (1998).]{}\
[D.Bartz and Fl.Stancu, Phys. Rev.[**C59**]{}, 1756 (1999); [**C60**]{}, 055207 (1999).]{} L.Ya.Glozman, W.Plessas, K.Varga and R.F.Wagenbrunn, Phys.Rev.[**D58**]{}, 094030 (1998).\
[D.Bartz and Fl.Stancu, Phys.Rev.[**C63**]{}, 034001 (2001).]{} L.Ya.Glozman, Nucl.Phys.[**A663-664**]{}, 103c (2000).\
[R.F.Wagenbrunn, L.Ya.Glozman, W.Plessas, K.Varga, Nucl.Phys. [**A663-664**]{}, 703c (2000).]{} Y.Fujiwara, C.Nakamoto and Y.Suzuki, Phys.Rev.[**C54**]{}, 2180 (1996). F.Wang et al., Phys.Rev.[**C51**]{}, 3411 (1995).\
[J.L.Ping, et al., Nucl.Phys.[**A657**]{}, 95 (1999).]{} Q.B.Li, P.N.Shen, Z.Y.Zhang and Y.W.Yu, Nucl.Phys.[ **A683**]{}: 487-509 (2001). P.N.Shen, Z.Y.Zhang, et al., J.Phys.G[**25**]{}, 1807 (1999).\
[P.N.Shen, Z.Y.Zhang, et al., Chin.Phys.Lett. (1999) (in press).]{} X.Q.Yuan, Z.Y.Zhang, Y.W.Yu and P.N.Shen, Phys.Rev. [**C60**]{}, 045203 (1999).
Table I: An asymptotic two-baryon system with channel quantum numbers and delocalization parameter values ($\epsilon$) in GBE(a) and (b) for $S=0,-1,-2$. The notation is as follows: sc stands for single channel; cc stands for multichannel coupling; $B_{\alpha}$ is the binding energy; $E_{\alpha}$ is the mass and $V_0$ is the potential energy at the equilibrium separation, $R_s$; (SIJ) are the strangeness, isospin and total angular momentum quantum numbers for each channel.
------------ ---- -------------- -------- -------------- ------------ ------- -------------- ------- -------------- ------------ ------- ---------------------------------------
SIJ $E_{\alpha}$ $V_0$ $B_{\alpha}$ $\epsilon$ $R_s$ $E_{\alpha}$ $V_0$ $B_{\alpha}$ $\epsilon$ $R_s$ Threshold
$0,0,1$ sc $1889$ $-1$ $11$ $0.0$ $2.3$ $1891$ $-3$ $13$ $ $2.0$ $1878(NN)$
0.0$
cc $1889$ $-1$ $11$ $0.0$ $2.3$ $1891$ $-3$ $13$ $ $2.0$
0.0$
$0,0,3$ sc $2503$ $-35$ $39$ $0.1$ $0.7$ $2474$ $-14$ $10$ $0.1$ $1.4$ $2464(\Delta\Delta)$,$2158(NN\pi\pi)$
$0,1,0$ sc $1888$ $-1$ $10$ $0.0$ $2.4$ $1892$ $-3$ $14$ $0.0$ $1.9$ $1878(NN)$
cc $1888$ $-1$ $10$ $0.0$ $2.4$ $1892$ $-3$ $14$ $0.0$ $1.9$
$0,2,3$ sc $2333$ $-205$ $-131$ $0.0$ $0.8$ $2471$ $-1$ $7$ $0.0$ $2.6$ $2464(\Delta\Delta)$,$2158(NN\pi\pi)$
$-1,1/2,3$ sc $2621$ $-40$ $5$ $0.1$ $1.0$ $2619$ $-24$ $2$ $0.1$ $1.3$ $2617(\Delta{\Sigma}^{*})$
cc $2638$ $-49$ $21$ $0.1$ $0.8$ $2619$ $-24$ $2$ $0.1$ $1.3$ $2335(N\Lambda\pi\pi)$
$-1,3/2,0$ sc $2141$ $-1$ $9$ $0.0$ $2.4$ $2144$ $-3$ $12$ $0.0$ $1.9$ $2132(N\Sigma)$
cc $2141$ $-1$ $9$ $0.0$ $2.4$ $2144$ $-3$ $12$ $0.0$ $1.9$
$-1,3/2,3$ sc $2523$ $-164$ $-94$ $0.0$ $0.8$ $2623$ $-1$ $6$ $0.0$ $2.5$ $2617(\Delta{\Sigma}^{*})$
cc $2523$ $-164$ $-94$ $0.0$ $0.8$ $2629$ $-10$ $13$ $0.1$ $1.4$ $2335(N\Lambda\pi\pi)$
$-2,0,0$ sc $2239$ $0$ $8$ $0.0$ $-$ $2245$ $0$ $14$ $0.0$ $-$ $2231(\Lambda\Lambda)$
cc $2207$ $-106$ $-24$ $0.0$ $0.8$ $2249$ $-1$ $18$ $0.0$ $1.7$
$-2,0,2$ sc $2481$ $-1$ $9$ $0.0$ $2.3$ $2487$ $-3$ $15$ $0.0$ $1.7$ $2472(N{\Xi}^{*})$
cc $2481$ $-1$ $9$ $0.0$ $2.3$ $2487$ $-3$ $15$ $0.0$ $1.7$ $2397(N\Xi\pi)$
$-2,0,3$ sc $2785$ $-26$ $16$ $0.1$ $1.0$ $2779$ $-3$ $10$ $0.0$ $1.8$ $2770({\Sigma}^{*}{\Sigma}^{*})$
$-2,1,3$ sc $2762$ $-56$ $-3$ $0.1$ $0.9$ $2775$ $-16$ $10$ $0.1$ $1.3$ $2765(\Delta{\Xi}^{*})$
cc $2701$ $-117$ $-64$ $0.0$ $0.9$ $2765$ $-36$ $-1$ $0.1$ $1.1$ $2690(\Delta\Xi\pi)$
$-2,2,0$ sc $2393$ $-1$ $7$ $0.0$ $2.5$ $2397$ $-3$ $11$ $0.0$ $1.9$ $2386(\Sigma\Sigma)$
cc $2393$ $-1$ $7$ $0.0$ $2.5$ $2400$ $-3$ $14$ $0.0$ $1.7$
$-2,2,2$ sc $2559$ $0$ $9$ $0.0$ $-$ $2560$ $-1$ $10$ $0.0$ $2.1$ $2550(\Xi\Delta)$
cc $2262$ $-471$ $-288$ $0.0$ $0.5$ $2568$ $-9$ $18$ $0.1$ $1.3$
$-2,2,3$ sc $2635$ $-197$ $-131$ $0.0$ $0.8$ $2766$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $2765(\Delta{\Xi}^{*})$
cc $2491$ $-393$ $-274$ $0.0$ $0.6$ $2769$ $-22$ $3$ $0.1$ $1.3$ $2690(\Delta\Xi\pi)$
------------ ---- -------------- -------- -------------- ------------ ------- -------------- ------- -------------- ------------ ------- ---------------------------------------
Table II: The same as Table I for states with $S=-3,-4,-5,-6$.
------------ ---- -------------- -------- -------------- ------------ ------- -------------- ------- -------------- ------------ ------- -------------------------------
SIJ $E_{\alpha}$ $V_0$ $B_{\alpha}$ $\epsilon$ $R_s$ $E_{\alpha}$ $V_0$ $B_{\alpha}$ $\epsilon$ $R_s$ Threshold
$-3,1/2,0$ sc $2440$ $0$ $7$ $0.0$ $-$ $2449$ $-1$ $15$ $0.0$ $1.7$ $2434(\Lambda\Xi)$
cc $2444$ $-50$ $10$ $0.0$ $0.9$ $2455$ $-3$ $22$ $0.0$ $1.4$
$-3,1/2,3$ sc $2867$ $-100$ $-51$ $0.0$ $0.9$ $2924$ $-1$ $6$ $0.0$ $2.4$ $2918({\Xi}^{*}{\Sigma}^{*})$
cc $2867$ $-100$ $-51$ $0.0$ $0.9$ $2930$ $-9$ $12$ $0.1$ $1.4$
$-3,3/2,0$ sc $2361$ $-197$ $-150$ $0.0$ $1.0$ $2523$ $-7$ $21$ $0.1$ $1.3$ $2511(\Sigma\Xi)$
cc $2290$ $-513$ $-221$ $0.0$ $0.4$ $2534$ $-10$ $23$ $0.1$ $1.2$
$-3,3/2,3$ sc $2874$ $-81$ $-30$ $0.1$ $0.9$ $2917$ $-11$ $13$ $0.1$ $1.3$ $2904(\Delta\Omega)$
cc $2701$ $-318$ $-203$ $0.0$ $0.6$ $2892$ $-54$ $-12$ $0.1$ $1.0$ $2714(\Lambda\Xi\pi\pi)$
$-4,0,0$ sc $2637$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $2654$ $-5$ $18$ $0.0$ $1.4$ $2636(\Xi\Xi)$
cc $2637$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $2654$ $-5$ $18$ $0.0$ $1.4$
$-4,0,3$ sc $3038$ $-76$ $-29$ $0.0$ $0.9$ $3073$ $-1$ $6$ $0.0$ $2.4$ $3066({\Xi}^{*}{\Xi}^{*})$
$-4,1,2$ sc $2828$ $-52$ $-23$ $0.0$ $1.2$ $2852$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $2851(\Xi{\Xi}^{*})$
cc $2657$ $-360$ $-195$ $0.0$ $0.5$ $2873$ $-13$ $21$ $0.1$ $1.1$
$-4,1,3$ sc $2998$ $-107$ $-59$ $0.0$ $0.9$ $3063$ $0$ $6$ $0.0$ $-$ $3057({\Sigma}^{*}\Omega)$
cc $2876$ $-288$ $-181$ $0.0$ $0.6$ $3068$ $-12$ $11$ $0.1$ $1.3$
$-5,1/2,2$ sc $2907$ $-123$ $-83$ $0.0$ $1.0$ $2991$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $2990(\Xi\Omega)$
cc $2778$ $-322$ $-212$ $0.0$ $0.6$ $2998$ $0$ $7$ $0.0$ $-$
$-5,1/2,3$ sc $3025$ $-256$ $-181$ $0.0$ $0.7$ $3207$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $3205({\Xi}^{*}\Omega)$
cc $3025$ $-256$ $-181$ $0.0$ $0.7$ $3213$ $0$ $7$ $0.0$ $-$
$-6,0,0$ sc $3350$ $0$ $5$ $0.0$ $2.6$ $3334$ $-40$ $-11$ $0.1$ $1.1$ $3345(\Omega\Omega)$
$-6,0,1$ sc $3350$ $0$ $5$ $0.0$ $2.6$ $3355$ $-11$ $10$ $0.1$ $1.3$
$-6,0,3$ sc $3198$ $-218$ $-147$ $0.0$ $0.7$ $3346$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$
------------ ---- -------------- -------- -------------- ------------ ------- -------------- ------- -------------- ------------ ------- -------------------------------
Table III: An asymptotic two-baryon system with channel quantum numbers and delocalization parameter values ($\epsilon$) in the QDCSM, GBE and FN models for $S=0$. The notation is the same as Table I. (For the FN model, $\epsilon$ is omitted.)
--------- ---- -------------- ------- -------------- ------------ ------- -------------- -------- -------------- ------- -------------- -------- -------------- ------------ ------- ----------------------
SIJ $E_{\alpha}$ $V_0$ $B_{\alpha}$ $\epsilon$ $R_s$ $E_{\alpha}$ $V_0$ $B_{\alpha}$ $R_s$ $E_{\alpha}$ $V_0$ $B_{\alpha}$ $\epsilon$ $R_s$ Threshold
$0,0,0$ sc $1879$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ - $1879$ $0$ $1$ - $1879$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ - $1878(NN)$
cc $1888$ $4$ $10$ $0.0$ - $1887$ $2$ $9$ - $1885$ $0$ $7$ $0.0$ -
$0,0,1$ sc $1891$ $-3$ $13$ $0.0$ $2.0$ $1903$ $-18$ $25$ $1.2$ $1885$ $-20$ $7$ $0.1$ $1.5$
cc $1891$ $-3$ $13$ $0.0$ $2.0$ $1903$ $-18$ $25$ $1.2$ $1894$ $-21$ $16$ $0.2$ $1.3$
$0,0,2$ sc $2478$ $-14$ $14$ $0.1$ $1.3$ $2479$ $-24$ $15$ $1.1$ $2259$ $-233$ $-205$ $1.0$ $1.3$ $2464(\Delta\Delta)$
$0,0,3$ sc $2474$ $-14$ $10$ $0.1$ $1.4$ $2479$ $-24$ $15$ $1.1$ $2144$ $-359$ $-320$ $1.0$ $1.1$ $2158(NN\pi\pi)$
$0,1,0$ sc $1892$ $-3$ $14$ $0.0$ $1.9$ $1906$ $-35$ $28$ $1.0$ $1893$ $-10$ $15$ $0.1$ $1.6$ $1878(NN)$
cc $1892$ $-3$ $14$ $0.0$ $1.9$ $1905$ $-35$ $27$ $1.0$ $1892$ $-9$ $14$ $0.1$ $1.6$
$0,1,1$ sc $1879$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $1879$ $0$ $1$ $-$ $1879$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ -
cc $1885$ $0$ $7$ $0.0$ - $1890$ $0$ $12$ $0.0$ $1885$ $0$ $7$ $0.0$ -
$0,1,2$ sc $2182$ $-2$ $11$ $0.0$ $2.1$ $2185$ $-14$ $14$ $1.4$ $2122$ $-87$ $-49$ $0.4$ $1.2$ $2171(N\Delta)$
cc $2181$ $-4$ $11$ $0.0$ $1.9$ $2185$ $-14$ $14$ $1.4$ $2122$ $-87$ $-49$ $0.4$ $1.2$ $2018(NN\pi)$
$0,1,3$ sc $2472$ $-4$ $8$ $0.0$ $2.0$ $2476$ $-3$ $12$ $1.8$ $2304$ $-188$ $-160$ $1.0$ $1.3$ $2464(\Delta\Delta)$
$0,2,0$ sc $2476$ $-12$ $12$ $0.1$ $1.4$ $2442$ $-80$ $-22$ $0.9$ $2383$ $ $-81$ $0.4$ $1.4$
-105$
$0,2,1$ sc $2181$ $-5$ $10$ $0.0$ $1.9$ $2170$ $-39$ $1$ $1.2$ $2169$ $-24$ $-2$ $0.1$ $1.6$ $2171(N\Delta)$
cc $2181$ $-5$ $10$ $0.0$ $1.9$ $2186$ $-40$ $15$ $1.0$ $2169$ $-24$ $-2$ $0.1$ $1.6$ $2018(NN\pi)$
$0,2,2$ sc $2172$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $2172$ $0$ $1$ $-$ $2172$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$
cc $2180$ $-1$ $9$ $0.0$ $-$ $2172$ $0$ $6$ $-$ $2172$ $0$ $6$ $0.0$ $-$
$0,2,3$ sc $2471$ $-1$ $7$ $0.0$ $-$ $2470$ $0$ $6$ $-$ $2442$ $-41$ $ $0.6$ $1.6$ $2464(\Delta\Delta)$
-22$
$0,3,0$ sc $2471$ $-11$ $7$ $0.0$ $1.6$ $2385$ $-153$ $-79$ $0.8$ $2416$ $-69$ $-48$ $0.2$ $1.5$
$0,3,1$ sc $2473$ $-6$ $9$ $0.0$ $1.8$ $2440$ $-63$ $-24$ $1.1$ $2451$ $-32$ $-13$ $0.2$ $1.6$
$0,3,2$ sc $2472$ $-1$ $8$ $0.0$ $2.3$ $2474$ $-3$ $10$ $1.9$ $2474$ $-2$ $10$ $0.1$ $2.0$
$0,3,3$ sc $2465$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $2465$ $0$ $1$ $-$ $2465$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$
--------- ---- -------------- ------- -------------- ------------ ------- -------------- -------- -------------- ------- -------------- -------- -------------- ------------ ------- ----------------------
Table IV: The same as Table III for $S=-1$.
------------ ---- -------------- ------- -------------- ------------ ------- -------------- -------- -------------- ------- -------------- -------- -------------- ------------ ------- ----------------------------
SIJ $E_{\alpha}$ $V_0$ $B_{\alpha}$ $\epsilon$ $R_s$ $E_{\alpha}$ $V_0$ $B_{\alpha}$ $R_s$ $E_{\alpha}$ $V_0$ $B_{\alpha}$ $\epsilon$ $R_s$ Threshold
$-1,1/2,0$ sc $2056$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $ $0$ $1$ $-$ $2056$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $2055(N\Lambda)$
2056$
cc $2070$ $-2$ $16$ $0.0$ $1.8$ $ $-35$ $35$ $0.9$ $2072$ $-5$ $17$ $0.1$ $1.6$
2090$
$-1,1/2,1$ sc $2056$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $ $0$ $11$ $2.3$ $2056$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$
2065$
cc $2071$ $-1$ $17$ $0.0$ $1.8$ $ $-10$ $38$ $1.1$ $2077$ $-17$ $23$ $0.2$ $1.2$
2095$
$-1,1/2,2$ sc $2334$ $-2$ $11$ $0.0$ $2.0$ $ $-12$ $15$ $1.4$ $2255$ $-111$ $-68$ $0.4$ $1.1$ $2324(N{\Sigma}^{*})$
2339$
cc $2337$ $-3$ $13$ $0.0$ $1.8$ $ $-16$ $36$ $1.0$ $2227$ $-161$ $-96$ $1.0$ $0.9$
2359$
$-1,1/2,3$ sc $2619$ $-24$ $2$ $0.1$ $1.3$ $ $-4$ $14$ $1.6$ $2346$ $-308$ $-271$ $1.0$ $1.1$ $2617(\Delta{\Sigma}^{*})$
2630$
cc $2619$ $-24$ $2$ $0.1$ $1.3$ $ $-23$ $14$ $1.1$ $2346$ $-308$ $-271$ $1.0$ $1.1$ $2335(N\Lambda\pi\pi)$
2631$
$-1,3/2,0$ sc $2144$ $-3$ $12$ $0.0$ $1.9$ $ $-27$ $11$ $1.2$ $2138$ $-18$ $6$ $0.1$ $1.5$ $2132(N\Sigma)$
2143$
cc $2144$ $-3$ $12$ $0.0$ $1.9$ $ $-45$ $24$ $0.9$ $2138$ $-18$ $6$ $0.1$ $1.5$
2156$
$-1,3/2,1$ sc $2133$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $ $0$ $1$ $-$ $2133$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$
2133$
cc $2133$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $ $0$ $1$ $-$ $2133$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$
2133$
$-1,3/2,2$ sc $2325$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $ $0$ $1$ $-$ $2325$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $2324(N{\Sigma}^{*})$
2325$
cc $2330$ $0$ $6$ $0.0$ $-$ $ $0$ $8$ $-$ $2333$ $-17$ $9$ $0.2$ $1.4$
2331$
$-1,3/2,3$ sc $2623$ $-1$ $6$ $0.0$ $-$ $ $0$ $5$ $-$ $2512$ $-131$ $-105$ $0.6$ $1.3$ $2617(\Delta{\Sigma}^{*})$
2622$
cc $2629$ $-10$ $13$ $0.1$ $1.4$ $ $-1$ $11$ $1.9$ $2512$ $-131$ $-105$ $0.6$ $1.3$ $2335(N\Lambda\pi\pi)$
2628$
$-1,5/2,0$ sc $2621$ $-19$ $4$ $0.1$ $1.4$ $ $-167$ $-97$ $0.8$ $2578$ $-61$ $-38$ $0.2$ $1.4$
2520$
cc $2621$ $-19$ $4$ $0.1$ $1.4$ $ $-167$ $-97$ $0.8$ $2578$ $-61$ $-38$ $0.2$ $1.4$
2520$
$-1,5/2,1$ sc $2435$ $-2$ $10$ $0.0$ $2.0$ $ $-39$ $-5$ $1.2$ $2423$ $-21$ $-2$ $0.1$ $1.6$ $2425(\Delta\Sigma)$
2420$
cc $2437$ $-5$ $12$ $0.0$ $1.7$ $ $-66$ $-7$ $0.9$ $2424$ $-25$ $-1$ $0.2$ $1.4$
2418$
$-1,5/2,2$ sc $2426$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $ $0$ $1$ $-$ $2426$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$
2426$
cc $2431$ $0$ $6$ $0.0$ $-$ $ $0$ $5$ $-$ $2430$ $0$ $5$ $0.0$ $-$
2430$
$-1,5/2,3$ sc $2618$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $2618$ $0$ $1$ $-$ $2681$ $0$ $2$ $0.0$ $-$ $2617(\Delta{\Sigma}^{*})$
cc $2618$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $2618$ $0$ $1$ $-$ $2623$ $-7$ $6$ $0.2$ $1.8$ $
2335(N\Lambda\pi\pi)$
------------ ---- -------------- ------- -------------- ------------ ------- -------------- -------- -------------- ------- -------------- -------- -------------- ------------ ------- ----------------------------
Table V: The same as Table III for $S=-2$.
---------- ---- -------------- ------- -------------- ------------ ------- -------------- ------- -------------- ------- -------------- -------- -------------- ------------ ------- ----------------------------------
SIJ $E_{\alpha}$ $V_0$ $B_{\alpha}$ $\epsilon$ $R_s$ $E_{\alpha}$ $V_0$ $B_{\alpha}$ $R_s$ $E_{\alpha}$ $V_0$ $B_{\alpha}$ $\epsilon$ $R_s$ Threshold
$-2,0,0$ sc $2245$ $0$ $14$ $0.0$ $1.9$ $ $-36$ $71$ $0.7$ $2249$ $-5$ $18$ $0.1$ $1.5$ $2231(\Lambda\Lambda)$
2302$
cc $2249$ $-1$ $18$ $0.0$ $1.7$ $ $-65$ $81$ $0.6$ $2218$ $-159$ $-14$ $1.0$ $0.6$
2312$
$-2,0,1$ sc $2232$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $ $-1$ $14$ $1.9$ $2232$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$
2245$
cc $2237$ $0$ $6$ $0.0$ $-$ $ $-9$ $98$ $0.7$ $2300$ $-38$ $69$ $1.0$ $0.7$
2329$
$-2,0,2$ sc $2487$ $-3$ $15$ $0.0$ $1.7$ $ $-10$ $16$ $1.4$ $2476$ $-173$ $-102$ $0.7$ $0.8$ $2472(N{\Xi}^{*})$
2488$
cc $2487$ $-3$ $15$ $0.0$ $1.7$ $ $-35$ $43$ $0.8$ $2367$ $-184$ $-106$ $1.0$ $0.8$ $2397(N\Xi\pi)$
2515$
$-2,0,3$ sc $2779$ $-3$ $10$ $0.0$ $1.8$ $ $-6$ $13$ $1.5$ $2656$ $-142$ $-113$ $0.7$ $1.2$ $2770({\Sigma}^{*}{\Sigma}^{*})$
2782$
$-2,1,0$ sc $2258$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $ $0$ $1$ $-$ $2258$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $2257(N\Xi)$
2258$
cc $2253$ $0$ $6$ $0.0$ $-$ $ $-31$ $53$ $0.8$ $2277$ $-7$ $20$ $0.1$ $1.4$
2310$
$-2,1,1$ sc $2267$ $0$ $10$ $0.0$ $2.3$ $ $-2$ $16$ $1.7$ $2276$ $-5$ $19$ $0.1$ $1.5$
2274$
cc $2268$ $0$ $11$ $0.0$ $2.2$ $ $-19$ $65$ $0.8$ $2290$ $-33$ $33$ $0.4$ $0.9$
2322$
$-2,1,2$ sc $2473$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $ $0$ $1$ $-$ $2362$ $-260$ $-188$ $1.0$ $0.8$ $2472(N{\Xi}^{*})$
2473$
cc $2478$ $0$ $6$ $0.0$ $-$ $ $0$ $8$ $-$ $2422$ $-129$ $-50$ $1.0$ $0.8$
2480$
$-2,1,3$ sc $2775$ $-16$ $10$ $0.1$ $1.3$ $ $-3$ $16$ $1.5$ $2560$ $-251$ $-209$ $1.0$ $1.0$ $2765(\Delta{\Xi}^{*})$
2781$
cc $2765$ $-36$ $-1$ $0.1$ $1.1$ $ $-18$ $17$ $1.1$ $2557$ $-251$ $-209$ $1.0$ $1.0$ $2690(\Delta\Xi\pi)$
2782$
$-2,2,0$ sc $2397$ $-3$ $11$ $0.0$ $1.9$ $ $-57$ $19$ $0.8$ $2397$ $-11$ $11$ $0.1$ $1.5$ $2386(\Sigma\Sigma)$
2405$
cc $2400$ $-3$ $14$ $0.0$ $1.7$ $ $-62$ $14$ $0.8$ $2397$ $-11$ $11$ $0.1$ $1.5$
2400$
$-2,2,1$ sc $2387$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $ $0$ $1$ $-$ $2387$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$
2387$
cc $2387$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $ $0$ $1$ $-$ $2387$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$
2387$
$-2,2,2$ sc $2560$ $-1$ $10$ $0.0$ $2.1$ $ $-2$ $11$ $1.9$ $2531$ $-57$ $-19$ $0.5$ $1.1$ $2550(\Delta\Xi)$
2561$
cc $2568$ $-9$ $18$ $0.1$ $1.3$ $ $-19$ $38$ $0.9$ $2530$ $-52$ $-20$ $0.3$ $1.2$
2588$
$-2,2,3$ sc $2766$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $ $0$ $1$ $-$ $2713$ $-82$ $-52$ $0.6$ $1.2$ $2765(\Delta{\Xi}^{*})$
2766$
cc $2769$ $-22$ $3$ $0.1$ $1.3$ $ $0$ $1$ $-$ $2717$ $-74$ $-49$ $0.4$ $1.3$ $2690(\Delta\Xi\pi)$
2766$
---------- ---- -------------- ------- -------------- ------------ ------- -------------- ------- -------------- ------- -------------- -------- -------------- ------------ ------- ----------------------------------
Table VI: The same as Table III for $S=-3,-6$.
------------ ---- -------------- ------- -------------- ------------ ------- -------------- -------- -------------- ------- -------------- -------- -------------- ------------ ------- -------------------------------
SIJ $E_{\alpha}$ $V_0$ $B_{\alpha}$ $\epsilon$ $R_s$ $E_{\alpha}$ $V_0$ $B_{\alpha}$ $R_s$ $E_{\alpha}$ $V_0$ $B_{\alpha}$ $\epsilon$ $R_s$ Threshold
$-3,1/2,0$ sc $2449$ $-1$ $15$ $0.0$ $1.7$ $ $-21$ $19$ $1.1$ $2444$ $-19$ $10$ $0.1$ $1.3$ $2434(\Xi\Lambda)$
2453$
cc $2455$ $-3$ $22$ $0.0$ $1.4$ $ $-63$ $36$ $0.7$ $2443$ $-19$ $9$ $0.1$ $1.3$
2469$
$-3,1/2,1$ sc $2435$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $ $0$ $10$ $-$ $2528$ $-99$ $94$ $1.0$ $0.5$
2444$
cc $2495$ $-37$ $61$ $0.1$ $0.7$ $ $-83$ $51$ $0.6$ $2520$ $-107$ $86$ $1.0$ $0.5$
2485$
$-3,1/2,2$ sc $2623$ $0$ $12$ $0.0$ $2.0$ $ $-1$ $18$ $1.6$ $2552$ $-271$ $-151$ $1.0$ $0.6$ $2611(N\Omega)$
2629$
cc $2656$ $-15$ $45$ $0.1$ $0.9$ $ $-38$ $61$ $0.7$ $2548$ $-198$ $-64$ $1.0$ $0.6$ $2574(\Lambda\Xi\pi)$
2672$
$-3,1/2,3$ sc $2924$ $-1$ $6$ $0.0$ $2.4$ $ $0$ $5$ $-$ $2836$ $-115$ $-82$ $0.6$ $1.1$ $2918({\Sigma}^{*}{\Xi}^{*})$
2923$
cc $2930$ $-9$ $12$ $0.1$ $1.4$ $ $-6$ $14$ $1.4$ $2836$ $-115$ $-82$ $0.6$ $1.1$
2932$
$-3,3/2,0$ sc $2523$ $-7$ $21$ $0.1$ $1.3$ $ $0$ $1$ $-$ $2512$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $2511(\Sigma\Xi)$
2512$
cc $2534$ $-10$ $23$ $0.1$ $1.2$ $ $-87$ $8$ $0.7$ $2527$ $-8$ $15$ $0.1$ $1.4$
2519$
$-3,3/2,1$ sc $2514$ $0$ $3$ $0.0$ $-$ $ $0$ $3$ $-$ $2527$ $-23$ $16$ $0.2$ $1.1$
2514$
cc $2538$ $-6$ $27$ $0.1$ $1.2$ $ $-49$ $47$ $0.7$ $2527$ $-23$ $16$ $0.2$ $1.1$
2558$
$-3,3/2,2$ sc $2707$ $0$ $4$ $0.0$ $-$ $ $0$ $6$ $-$ $2699$ $-57$ $-3$ $0.6$ $0.9$ $2703(\Xi{\Sigma}^{*})$
2709$
cc $2713$ $-26$ $10$ $0.1$ $1.1$ $ $-45$ $23$ $0.8$ $2683$ $-63$ $-19$ $0.4$ $1.0$ $2651(\Xi\Sigma\pi)$
2726$
$-3,3/2,3$ sc $2917$ $-11$ $13$ $0.1$ $1.3$ $ $0$ $8$ $-$ $2766$ $-202$ $-152$ $1.0$ $0.9$ $2904(\Delta\Omega)$
2913$
cc $2892$ $-54$ $-12$ $0.1$ $1.0$ $ $-12$ $29$ $1.0$ $2754$ $-201$ $-150$ $1.0$ $0.9$ $2714(\Lambda\Xi\pi\pi)$
2934$
$-6,0,0$ sc $3334$ $-40$ $-11$ $0.1$ $1.1$ $ $-281$ $-62$ $0.4$ $3350$ $-30$ $5$ $0.1$ $1.0$ $3345(\Omega\Omega)$
3282$
$-6,0,1$ sc $3355$ $-11$ $10$ $0.1$ $1.3$ $ $-118$ $-21$ $0.6$ $3348$ $0$ $4$ $0.0$ $3.1$
3323$
$-6,0,2$ sc $3351$ $0$ $6$ $0.0$ $-$ $ $-11$ $13$ $1.2$ $3346$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$
3358$
$-6,0,3$ sc $3346$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $ $0$ $1$ $-$ $3346$ $0$ $1$ $1.0$ $-$
3346$
------------ ---- -------------- ------- -------------- ------------ ------- -------------- -------- -------------- ------- -------------- -------- -------------- ------------ ------- -------------------------------
Table VII: The same as Table III for $S=-4,-5$.
------------ ---- -------------- ------- -------------- ------------ ------- -------------- -------- -------------- ------- -------------- -------- -------------- ------------ ------- ----------------------------
SIJ $E_{\alpha}$ $V_0$ $B_{\alpha}$ $\epsilon$ $R_s$ $E_{\alpha}$ $V_0$ $B_{\alpha}$ $R_s$ $E_{\alpha}$ $V_0$ $B_{\alpha}$ $\epsilon$ $R_s$ Threshold
$-4,0,0$ sc $2654$ $-5$ $18$ $0.0$ $1.4$ $ $-39$ $5$ $1.0$ $2643$ $-24$ $7$ $0.1$ $1.2$ $2636(\Xi\Xi)$
2641$
cc $2654$ $-5$ $18$ $0.0$ $1.4$ $ $-40$ $5$ $1.0$ $2643$ $-24$ $7$ $0.1$ $1.2$
2641$
$-4,0,1$ sc $2806$ $-4$ $18$ $0.0$ $1.4$ $ $-38$ $5$ $1.0$ $2796$ $-18$ $8$ $0.1$ $1.3$ $2788(\Lambda\Omega)$
2793$
cc $2665$ $-26$ $29$ $0.1$ $0.9$ $ $-118$ $5$ $0.6$ $3016$ $-113$ $380$ $1.0$ $0.3$ $2636(\Xi\Xi)$
2641$
$-4,0,2$ sc $2789$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $ $0$ $1$ $-$ $2789$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$
2789$
cc $2789$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $ $-4$ $32$ $1.1$ $2828$ $-50$ $40$ $1.0$ $0.7$
2820$
$-4,0,3$ sc $3073$ $-1$ $6$ $0.0$ $2.4$ $ $0$ $5$ $-$ $3071$ $-11$ $4$ $0.2$ $1.6$ $3066({\Xi}^{*}{\Xi}^{*})$
3072$
$-4,1,0$ sc $2653$ $-3$ $17$ $0.0$ $1.5$ $ $-93$ $30$ $0.6$ $2659$ $-3$ $23$ $0.1$ $1.3$ $2636(\Xi\Xi)$
2666$
cc $2655$ $-4$ $19$ $0.0$ $1.4$ $ $-95$ $28$ $0.6$ $2659$ $-4$ $23$ $0.1$ $1.3$
2664$
$-4,1,1$ sc $2637$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $ $0$ $7$ $-$ $2637$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$
2643$
cc $2637$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $ $-17$ $106$ $0.6$ $2637$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$
2742$
$-4,1,2$ sc $2852$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $ $0$ $1$ $-$ $2852$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $2851(\Xi{\Xi}^{*})$
2852$
cc $2873$ $-13$ $21$ $0.1$ $1.1$ $ $-43$ $41$ $0.7$ $2862$ $-74$ $10$ $1.0$ $0.7$
2893$
$-4,1,3$ sc $3063$ $0$ $6$ $0.0$ $-$ $ $0$ $4$ $-$ $2999$ $-96$ $-58$ $0.8$ $1.0$ $3057({\Sigma}^{*}\Omega)$
3061$
cc $3068$ $-12$ $11$ $0.1$ $1.3$ $ $-3$ $16$ $1.4$ $3011$ $-84$ $-46$ $0.6$ $1.0$
3073$
$-5,1/2,0$ sc $3207$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $ $-252$ $-106$ $0.5$ $3199$ $-37$ $-6$ $0.2$ $1.1$ $3205({\Xi}^{*}\Omega)$
3100$
cc $3213$ $0$ $7$ $0.0$ $-$ $ $-252$ $-106$ $0.5$ $3199$ $-37$ $-6$ $0.2$ $1.1$
3100$
$-5,1/2,1$ sc $3001$ $-7$ $16$ $0.1$ $1.3$ $ $-63$ $-14$ $0.9$ $3007$ $-7$ $17$ $0.1$ $1.3$ $2990(\Xi\Omega)$
2977$
cc $3013$ $-10$ $22$ $0.1$ $1.1$ $ $-136$ $22$ $0.5$ $3125$ $-24$ $134$ $1.0$ $0.5$
3013$
$-5,1/2,2$ sc $2991$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $ $0$ $1$ $-$ $2991$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$
2991$
cc $2998$ $0$ $7$ $0.0$ $-$ $ $-3$ $13$ $1.6$ $2995$ $0$ $4$ $0.0$ $-$
3003$
$-5,1/2,3$ sc $3207$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $ $0$ $1$ $-$ $3207$ $0$ $1$ $0.0$ $-$ $3205({\Xi}^{*}\Omega)$
3207$
cc $3213$ $0$ $7$ $0.0$ $-$ $ $0$ $6$ $-$ $3216$ $-4$ $11$ $0.2$ $1.6$
3212$
------------ ---- -------------- ------- -------------- ------------ ------- -------------- -------- -------------- ------- -------------- -------- -------------- ------------ ------- ----------------------------
FIGURE CAPTIONS\
Fig.1 Channel coupling effect for GBE(a) and (b) where the state is denoted by the symbols S,I,J for spin, isospin and angular momentum. The single channel (sc) case for GBE(a) is shown as the solid curve; the channel coupling case (cc) for GBE(a) is shown as the thick solid curve; the single channel (sc) case for GBE(b) is shown as the dashed curve; the channel coupling case (cc) for GBE(b)is shown as the thick dashed curve.\
Fig.2 The effect of different smearing forms for GBE models. The solid curve is for the GBE(a) model; the dashed curve is for the GBE(b) model.\
Fig.3 Additional channels as in Fig.2\
Fig.4 States with similar pure repulsive effective interactions for the GBE, FN and QDCSM models. The solid curve is for the QDCSM; the dashed curve is for the GBE model and the dotted curve is for the FN model.\
Fig.5 The same as Fig.4 for states with similar weak attraction for all three models.\
Fig.6 The same as Fig.4 for states with similar effective interactions for the QDCSM and FN models.\
Fig.7 The same as Fig.4 for states with similar effective interactions for the QDCSM and GBE models.\
Fig.8 The same as Fig.4 for states with similar effective interactions for the GBE and FN models.\
Fig.9 States with effective interactions in the QDCSM which lie between those of the GBE and FN model. The curves for each model are as in Fig.4.\
Fig.10 States with strong intermediate-range attraction in the QDCSM, for which $|V_0|$ decreases with the increasing strangeness. The curves for each models are as in Fig.4.\
Fig.11 States for which $|V_0|$ increases with the increasing strangeness for the FN model. The curves for the models are as in Fig.1.\
Fig.12 H particle with single channel and channel coupling in the QDCSM, GBE and FN models. The curves for the models are as in Fig.4, and the thick curves are for the channel coupling case.\
[^1]: In Tables III–VII, $\epsilon$ is omitted for the FN model.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We calculate the one-loop partition function of three-dimensional parity even tricritical gravity. Agreement with logarithmic conformal field theory single-particle partition functions on the field theory side is found and we furthermore discover a partially massless limit of linearized six-derivative parity even gravity. Then we define a “truncation” of the critical theory, at the level of the partition function, by calculating black hole determinants via summation over quasi-normal mode spectra and discriminating against those modes which are not present in the physical spectrum. This “truncation” is applied to critical new massive gravity and three-dimensional parity even tricritical gravity.'
address: |
Centre for Theoretical Physics, University of Groningen,\
Nijenborgh 4, 9747 AG Groningen, The Netherlands
author:
- Thomas Zojer
title: 'On one-loop partition functions of three-dimensional critical gravities'
---
Introduction
============
Three-dimensional gravity has long been an interesting testing ground for theories of quantum gravity. But pure Einstein gravity, plus a cosmological constant, does not lead to propagating degrees of freedom in the bulk. Therefore modifications are sought. One natural way of extending the theory is to add massive gravitons. This can be achieved by adding higher-derivative terms to the action. Two concrete proposals in the literature are the parity violating topologically massive gravity (TMG) [@Deser:1981wh] with one massive (helicity) degree of freedom, and parity even new massive gravity (NMG) [@Bergshoeff:2009hq] with two massive (helicity) degrees of freedom propagating in a unitary fashion around an anti-de Sitter (AdS) background.
Lately, one center of attention in the study of three-dimensional higher-derivative gravity were so-called logarithmic or critical tunings of the parameters. The seminal example is chiral gravity [@Li:2008dq], a fine-tuned version of TMG, which was conjectured to be dual to a logarithmic conformal field theory (LCFT) [@Grumiller:2008qz]. Besides the latter example the phenomenon of critical points was also studied in NMG, general massive gravity (GMG) [@Bergshoeff:2009hq; @Bergshoeff:2009aq] and more recently in parity even tricritical gravity (PET) [@Bergshoeff:2012ev]. For a summary on the works contributing to the LCFT conjectures in three-dimensional critical gravities see e.g. [@Bergshoeff:2012ev; @Grumiller:2010tj] and references therein.
One piece of evidence for the aforementioned critical gravity/LCFT conjecture was the calculation of one-loop partition functions on the gravity side and the results were shown to agree with those expected from a LCFT. This computation was performed for TMG and NMG in [@Gaberdiel:2010xv] and for GMG in [@Bertin:2011jk]. In this work we calculate the one-loop partition function of PET gravity along the lines of [@Gaberdiel:2010xv]. We will scan the whole parameter space of PET gravity, covering the critical points found in [@Bergshoeff:2012ev], but also uncovering an additional special point in parameter space: the partially massless limit of linearized six-derivative parity even gravity. Focusing on the critical points we will give further evidence for the conjectured duality of PET gravity to LCFTs of rank two and three.
The AdS/*L*CFT duality only holds for those theories where *all* solutions to the equations of motion are allowed. From the very beginning probably one of the most prominent questions concerning critical gravities was how (and if) one can consistently truncate (some of) the logarithmic solutions by imposing boundary conditions. For example restricting to Brown–Henneaux boundary conditions [@Brown:1986nw] for excitations on the gravity side would kill all log modes. In the prime example of TMG/chiral gravity these are the boundary conditions one has to choose to obtain chiral gravity. If one imposes log boundary conditions [@Grumiller:2008es] one obtains log-TMG which is dual to a LCFT. Recently, using a scalar field toy model, another truncation of critical theories was put forward that allows some, but not all log solutions [@Bergshoeff:2012sc]. In [@Bergshoeff:2012ev] a tricritical version of this scalar field toy model was generalized to interacting spin-two fields. Calculations on the linearized level seemed to lend support to the possibility of truncating the theory. However, it was shown that the theory is flawed with a linearization instability [@Apolo:2012he] and only makes sense either as dual to a LCFT by allowing all solutions, or, imposing Brown–Henneaux boundary conditions, as a ’trivial’ theory propagating null modes.
In the second part of this work we introduce an idea on how such a truncation via boundary conditions could be understood at the level of the partition function. To do so we will interpret the partition function as a sum over quasi-normal mode frequencies following the idea of [@Denef:2009kn]. The authors of [@Denef:2009kn] emphasize that translating from the heat-kernel to the quasi-normal mode spectrum would allow one to pick out the contribution of only one mode or only one frequency to the partition function. We try to turn this argument around by using it to dismiss the contributions of certain modes. Our “truncation” will effectively be a prescription on which quasi-normal modes to keep in the spectrum and which not to keep. We obtain results concurrent with the comment made in the previous paragraph: either we keep all modes and the theory is dual to a non-unitary LCFT, or it is not logarithmic but an “ordinary” CFT that propagates only null modes.
This work is organized as follows. In section \[sec2\] we calculate the partition function of PET gravity and discuss its similarity to LCFT single-particle partition functions. In section \[sec3\] we define the truncation by translating from black hole determinants to quasi-normal mode spectra and discriminating against certain modes. Finally we apply this truncation to critical NMG and PET gravity.
Partition function of PET gravity {#sec2}
=================================
In this first part of the work we calculate the gravity one-loop partition function of PET gravity. Such a calculation is conveniently carried out by splitting the metric into a background metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ and a perturbation $h_{\mu\nu}$. Our background is an AdS space-time, but, as we will argue later, this is equivalent to taking the BTZ black hole [@Banados:1992wn] as background. The partition function then consist at least of a classical part, $Z_c$, corresponding to the background $g_{\mu\nu}$, and a one-loop contribution coming from the perturbation $h_{\mu\nu}$, $Z^{\rm 1-loop}$. This one-loop contribution is precisely what we are interested in.
We start by covering the whole parameter range of $\beta$ and $b_2$ \[see the action (\[linaction\])\], or equivalently the masses $M_+$ and $M_-$ of the two propagating massive gravitons. Subsequently, we specialize to the logarithmic points and subsection \[critloc\] is devoted to the critical loci: the tricritical point, the logarithmic line (single log) where one of the two masses $M_+$ and $M_-$ goes to zero, and the massive logarithmic line (massive log) where $M_+$ and $M_-$ degenerate with each other. Section \[pmPET\] covers a special parameter limit that leads to a partially massless theory. At the critical loci the calculation confirms the conjecture that PET gravity is dual to parity even logarithmic CFTs of rank two and three. This is shown in section \[CFTinterpret\] using the combinatorial counting argument of [@Gaberdiel:2010xv].
The calculation will follow the lead of [@Gaberdiel:2010xv] and all formulas and technicalities that are not explained in detail here can be found in that reference.
Linearized action and ghost determinants
----------------------------------------
The semi-classical one-loop contribution to the gravity partition function is given by $$\label{pathint}\hskip 1cm
Z_{\rm PET}^{\rm 1-loop}=\int\mathcal{D}h_{\mu\nu}\mathcal{D}k_{\mu\nu}\mathcal{D}f_{\mu\nu} \,
e^{-\delta^{(2)} S_{\rm PET}} \,.$$ The action in the exponent is the linearized Euclidean action of PET gravity, given by [@Bergshoeff:2012ev] $$\begin{split}\label{linaction}\hskip 1cm
\delta^{(2)} S_{\rm PET} = \frac{1}{\kappa^2}\int{\rm d} ^3x\sqrt{g} \, \Big\{
& -\frac12 \bar{\sigma} h^{\mu\nu}\mathcal{G}_{\mu\nu}(h) +k^{\mu\nu}\mathcal{G}_{\mu\nu}(h)
+2b_2f^{\mu\nu}\mathcal{G}_{\mu\nu}(f) \\
& +(2b_2/\ell^2+\beta)(f^{\mu\nu}f_{\mu\nu}-f^2)-(f^{\mu\nu}k_{\mu\nu}-fk) \Big\} \,,
\end{split}$$ with $\bar{\sigma}=\sigma+3b_2/(2\ell^4)+\beta/(2\ell^2)$. Newton’s constant $G$ is in $\kappa^2=16\pi G$ and the parameters $\beta$ and $b_2$ have mass dimension minus two and minus four respectively, but are otherwise arbitrary parameters of the model. The linearized Einstein tensor $\mathcal{G}_{\mu\nu}$ — without imposing any gauge condition — takes the form[^1] $$\hskip 1cm
2 \mathcal{G}_{\mu\nu}(h) = -\nabla^2h_{\mu\nu}-\nabla_\mu\nabla_\nu h+2\nabla_{(\mu}\nabla^\beta h_{\nu)\beta}
-\frac{2}{\ell^2} h_{\mu\nu}-g_{\mu\nu}(\nabla_\rho\nabla_\sigma h^{\rho\sigma}-\nabla^2h) \,.$$
All fluctuations $h_{\mu\nu}$, $k_{\mu\nu}$ and $f_{\mu\nu}$ can be split into a transverse-traceless (TT), a trace, and a vector (or gauge) part: $$\begin{split}\label{tensorsplit}\hskip 1cm
&h_{\mu\nu}(h^{TT},h,\xi) = h_{\mu\nu}^{TT}+\frac13 g_{\mu\nu}h +\nabla_{(\mu}\xi_{\nu)} \\
&k_{\mu\nu}(k^{TT},\bar{K},v) = k_{\mu\nu}^{TT}+\frac13 g_{\mu\nu}\bar{K} +\nabla_{(\mu}v_{\nu)} \\
&f_{\mu\nu}(f^{TT},\bar{F},u) = f_{\mu\nu}^{TT}+\frac13 g_{\mu\nu}\bar{F} +\nabla_{(\mu}u_{\nu)} \,.
\end{split}$$ Note that by definition $g^{\mu\nu}h_{\mu\nu}^{TT}=\nabla^\mu h_{\mu\nu}^{TT}=0$ and that the vector parts contribute to the traces of $g^{\mu\nu}k_{\mu\nu}=\bar{K}+2\nabla_\mu v^\mu$ and $g^{\mu\nu}f_{\mu\nu}=\bar{F}+2\nabla_\mu u^\mu$.
Each such decomposition of the fluctuations produces a ’ghost’ factor [@Gaberdiel:2010xv] in the measure of the path-integral (\[pathint\]). $$\hskip 1cm
\mathcal{D}h_{\mu\nu}=Z_{\rm gh}\,\mathcal{D}h_{\mu\nu}^{TT}\mathcal{D}\xi_\mu\mathcal{D}h$$
Another useful split is $$\label{vectorsplit}\hskip 1cm
u^\mu=u^\mu_T + \nabla^\mu \delta \,,$$ where $\nabla_\mu u^\mu_T=0$. This yields the ghost factor $J_1$. $$\hskip 1cm
\mathcal{D}u_\mu=J_1\,\mathcal{D}u_\mu^T\mathcal{D}\delta$$ The values of $Z_{\rm gh}$ and $J_1$ are given by [@Gaberdiel:2010xv] $$\label{Zghost}\hskip 1cm
Z_{\rm gh}= \big[\det(-\nabla^2+2)_1^T\det(-\nabla^2+3)_0\big]^{1/2} \quad{\rm and}\quad
J_1= \big[\det(-\nabla^2)_0\big]^{1/2}\,.$$
Path-integral for PET gravity
-----------------------------
We now consider the action (\[linaction\]) under the decompositions (\[tensorsplit\]) and (\[vectorsplit\]). All scalar, ’vector’ (T) and ’tensor’ (TT) modes decouple and we can write the action (\[linaction\]) as a sum of terms which are quadratic in the respective fluctuations. For the transverse-traceless part we find $$\begin{split}\label{actionTT}\hskip 1cm
\delta^{(2)}S_{\rm PET}^{TT}= \int {\rm d} ^3x\sqrt{g} \,\Big\{
& -\frac{\bar{\sigma}}{4} h_{TT}^{\mu\nu}\big(-\nabla^2-\frac{2}{\ell^2}\big)h_{\mu\nu}^{TT}
+ \frac12 k_{TT}^{\mu\nu}\big(-\nabla^2-\frac{2}{\ell^2}\big)h_{\mu\nu}^{TT} + \\
& + b_2 f_{TT}^{\mu\nu}\big(-\nabla^2+\frac{\beta}{b_2}\big)f_{\mu\nu}^{TT} -f^{\mu\nu}_{TT}k_{\mu\nu}^{TT}\Big\} \,.
\end{split}$$ The transverse vector part is given by $$\label{actionT}\hskip 1cm
\delta^{(2)}S_{\rm PET}^T = 2\int{\rm d} ^3x\sqrt{g} \,\Big\{
\big(\frac{2b_2}{\ell^2}+\beta\big)u_T^\mu\big(-\nabla^2+\frac{2}{\ell^2}\big)u_\mu^T
-u_T^\mu\big(-\nabla^2+\frac{2}{\ell^2}\big)v_\mu^T\Big\} \,,$$ and the scalar contribution is $$\begin{aligned}
\hskip -.8cm
\delta^{(2)}S_{\rm PET}^{\rm scalar}=\int{\rm d} ^3x\sqrt{g}\,\Big\{ &
\frac{\bar{\sigma}}{18}h\big(-\nabla^2+\frac{3}{\ell^2}\big)h
-\frac19\bar{K}\big(-\nabla^2+\frac{3}{\ell^2}\big)h
-\frac{2b_2}{9}\bar{F}\big(-\nabla^2+\frac{3}{\ell^2}\big)\bar{F} \nonumber\\
&+ \big(\frac{2b_2}{\ell^2}+\beta\big)\big[
-\frac23\bar{F}^2-\frac83\bar{F}\nabla^2\delta-\frac{8}{\ell^2}\delta\nabla^2\delta\big] \label{actionS}\\
&+ \frac23\bar{F}\bar{K}+\frac43\bar{F}\nabla^2\varepsilon+\frac43\bar{K}\nabla^2\delta
+\frac{8}{\ell^2}\delta\nabla^2\varepsilon \Big\} \,, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\varepsilon$ is the scalar part coming from the decomposition $v^\mu=v^\mu_T + \nabla^\mu\varepsilon$.
### The critical/logarithmic loci {#critloc}
We now evaluate the path-integrals (\[actionTT\])–(\[actionS\]) for the critical values of the parameters $\beta$ and $b_2$ that lead to dual LCFTs of rank two and three.\
*Tricritical point* Let us now consider in particular the tricritical point. At this critical locus the combinations $\bar{\sigma}$ and $(2b_2/\ell^2+\beta)$ vanish, thus the formulas (\[actionTT\])–(\[actionS\]) simplify considerably. The path-integral over the transverse-traceless tensor modes is[^2] $$\label{ZTT}\hskip 1cm
Z^{TT}_{\rm crit} = \int\mathcal{D}h_{\mu\nu}^{TT}\mathcal{D}k_{\mu\nu}^{TT}\mathcal{D}f_{\mu\nu}^{TT}\,
e^{-\delta^{(2)}S_{\rm PET}^{TT}} = \big[\det(-\nabla^2-\frac{2}{\ell^2})_2^{TT}\big]^{-3/2} \,.$$ To perform the integral over the transverse vector and scalar fluctuations we note that the kinetic terms have the wrong sign. This can be remedied by a Gibbons–Hawking–Perry [@Gibbons:1978ac] rotation of the fluctuations to imaginary values, which we shall also employ repeatedly in the remainder of this work. The results are $$\label{ZT}\hskip 1cm
Z^T_{\rm crit}=\int\mathcal{D}v^T_\mu\mathcal{D}u^T_\mu\,e^{-\delta^{(2)}S_{\rm PET}^T}
= \big[\det(-\nabla^2+\frac{2}{\ell^2})_1^T\big]^{-1} \,,$$ and after integration over $h$, $\bar{K}$, $\delta$, $\varepsilon$ and finally $\bar{F}$ in that order: $$\hskip -.8cm
Z^{\rm scalar}_{\rm crit} = \int\mathcal{D}h\mathcal{D}\bar{K}\mathcal{D}\varepsilon\mathcal{D}\bar{F}\mathcal{D}\delta \,
e^{-\delta^{(2)}S_{\rm PET}^{\rm scalar}}
= \big[\det(-\nabla^2+\frac{3}{\ell^2})_0\big]^{-3/2}\big[\det(-\nabla^2)_0\big]^{-1} \,. \label{ZS}$$ The gravity one-loop partition function for PET gravity at the tricritical point is obtained by carefully collecting all ghost determinants, see (\[Zghost\]), and the determinants (\[ZTT\]), (\[ZT\]) and (\[ZS\]): $$\begin{split}\label{Zpetdet}\hskip 1cm
Z_{\rm crit~PET}^{\rm 1-loop}=& \,Z_{\rm gh}^3\cdot J_1^2\cdot Z^{TT}_{\rm crit}\cdot Z^T_{\rm crit}\cdot Z^{\rm scalar}_{\rm crit} \\
=&\,\frac{\big[\det(-\nabla^2+\frac{2}{\ell^2})_1^T\big]^{1/2}}{\big[\det(-\nabla^2-\frac{2}{\ell^2})_2^{TT}\big]^{3/2}}
= Z_{\rm Ein}\cdot \Big(\big[\det(-\nabla^2-\frac{2}{\ell^2})_2^{TT}\big]^{-1/2}\Big)^2 \,,
\end{split}$$ with $Z_{\rm Ein}$ being the one-loop contribution to the partition function of Einstein gravity, see eq. (\[Zein\]). Using heat kernel techniques [@Giombi:2008vd; @David:2009xg] it is straightforward to obtain the result (for positive temperature \[$\tau_2>0$\]) $$\label{Zpet}\hskip 1cm
Z_{\rm crit~PET}^{\rm 1-loop}= \prod_{n=2}^\infty\frac{1}{|1-q^n|^2} \,\bigg[
\prod_{m=2}^\infty\prod_{\bar{m}=0}^\infty\frac{1}{1-q^m\bar{q}^{\bar{m}}}
\prod_{l=0}^\infty\prod_{\bar{l}=2}^\infty\frac{1}{1-q^l\bar{q}^{\bar{l}}} \bigg]^2 \,.$$ Here we use the notation of [@Giombi:2008vd], where $q=\exp(i\tau)$ with $\tau=\tau_1+i\tau_2$ and $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ being related to the angular momentum $\theta$ and the inverse temperature $\beta$.\
This can be compared to the partition function of single-particle excitations in a parity even rank-three LCFT.\
*Single log* Now we consider the critical line in parameter space where one of the massive modes degenerates with the massless graviton, $\beta=-3b_2/\ell^2-2\sigma\ell^2$, which still implies $\bar{\sigma}=0$. An interesting scaling limit is $b_2\to\infty$ which we will treat separately in section \[pmPET\].
The calculation of the transverse-traceless part is simply done and yields $$\label{ZlogTT}\hskip 1cm
Z_{\rm log}^{TT}= \big[\det(-\nabla^2-\frac{2}{\ell^2})_2^{TT}\big]^{-1}
\big[\det(-\nabla^2-\frac{3}{\ell^2}-\frac{2\sigma\ell^2}{b_2})_2^{TT}\big]^{-1/2} \,.$$ For the vector part we integrate over $v^T$ to obtain a delta function for $u^T$ and find the same result we obtained earlier, see eq. (\[ZT\]). For the scalar part we redefine $\varepsilon=\alpha\varepsilon'$ and $\delta'=\delta+\varepsilon'/2+\bar{F}\ell^2/6$ with $\alpha=b_2/\ell^2+2\sigma\ell^2$. These redefinitions do not produce further ghost determinants. The point where $\alpha$ becomes zero is the tricritical point, which we already covered in the previous subsection. After integration over $h$, $\bar{K}$, $\varepsilon'$, $\delta'$ and $\bar{F}$ we find the result (\[ZS\]). Collecting all contributions the result is $$\begin{split}\label{Zlogpetdet}\hskip 1cm
Z_{\rm log~PET}^{\rm 1-loop}= Z_{\rm Ein}\cdot \big[\det(-\nabla^2-\frac{2}{\ell^2})_2^{TT}\big]^{-1/2}
\big[\det(-\nabla^2-\frac{3}{\ell^2}-\frac{2\sigma\ell^2}{b_2})_2^{TT}\big]^{-1/2}\,.
\end{split}$$ Setting $b_2=-2\sigma\ell^4$ in the final expression (\[Zlogpetdet\]), we find that it reduces to (\[Zpetdet\]). Another cross-check is the limit going to critical NMG, $b_2\to0$. This is not apparent from formula (\[Zlogpetdet\]). We need to set $b_2=0$ in the action (\[actionTT\]) to see that there is no contribution from the integral over $\mathcal{D}f_{\mu\nu}^{TT}$, i.e. we do not get the last factor in (\[Zlogpetdet\]). Therefore we obtain exactly the same result that was obtained for critical NMG [@Gaberdiel:2010xv].
For arbitrary $b_2$ ($\neq-2\sigma\ell^4$) we find that the partition function (\[Zlogpetdet\]) consist of the contribution of one massive mode (third term) and the contribution of critical NMG. We thus find a parity even rank-two LCFT plus one massive mode.
The last term of eq. (\[Zlogpetdet\]) in terms of $q$’s is $$\label{ZM}\hskip 1cm
Z_\mathcal{M}=\prod_{l=|\mathcal{M}|}^\infty\prod_{\bar{l}=|\mathcal{M}|}^\infty
\frac{1}{(1-q^{l+1}\bar{q}^{\bar{l}-1})(1-q^{l-1}\bar{q}^{\bar{l}+1})}\,,$$ where we defined $\mathcal{M}^2=-2\sigma\ell^2/b_2$.[^3]\
*Massive log* In the massive log case the parameters $\beta$ and $b_2$ are restricted by the equation $$\label{Mp=Mm}\hskip 1cm
\beta^2+4b_2\sigma+\frac{6b_2\beta}{\ell^2}+\frac{10b_2^2}{\ell^4}=0 \,.$$ Here a little more effort is needed to evaluate the ’TT’ and the scalar path-integrals. The vector components do not change; we find the result (\[ZT\]). To evaluate the ’TT’ part we first rescale $2k^{TT}_{\mu\nu}=\bar{\sigma}\bar{k}^{TT}_{\mu\nu}$ and shift $\bar{h}^{TT}_{\mu\nu}=h^{TT}_{\mu\nu}-1/2\bar{k}^{TT}_{\mu\nu}$. Then $\bar{h}^{TT}$ decouples and we can integrate over it. It is not possible to diagonalize in the remaining variables, but we can “block-diagonalize” $\bar{k}^{TT}$ and $f^{TT}$ in the following way. Defining $$\hskip 1cm
A=a\,\bar{k}^{TT}+b\,f^{TT} \qquad{\rm and}\qquad B=c\,\bar{k}^{TT}+f^{TT}$$ we replace the remainder of the TT path-integral expression by $$\hskip 1cm
A(-\nabla^2+m_A)B+B(-\nabla^2+m_B)B \,.$$ This fixes all variables. Provided that $a$ and $b$ are not simultaneously zero the path-integral over $A$ yields a determinant depending on $m_A$ and a delta function for $B$. We find $m_A=-2/\ell^2+M^2$, where $M^2=M_-^2=M_+^2$ is the mass of the two propagating massive gravitons, thus $$\hskip 1cm
Z_{\rm mlog}^{TT}= \big[\det(-\nabla^2-\frac{2}{\ell^2})_2^{TT}\big]^{-1/2}
\big[\det(-\nabla^2-\frac{2}{\ell^2}+M^2)_2^{TT}\big]^{-1} \,.$$ To obtain the result for the scalar sector we rescale $2\bar{K}=\bar{\sigma}\bar{K}'$, $\varepsilon=\alpha\varepsilon'$ with $\alpha$ as defined earlier, and shift $\bar{h}=h-\bar{K}'/2$, $\delta'=\delta+\ell^2/6\bar{F}$. Then we integrate over $\bar{h}$, $\varepsilon'$ and $\delta'$ to obtain a quadratic expression in $\bar{k}$ and $\bar{F}$. This we “block-diagonalize” again to find exactly (\[ZS\]), provided $\beta\neq-2b_2/\ell^2$. Setting $\beta=-2b_2/\ell^2$, together with equation (\[Mp=Mm\]), implies $$\hskip 1cm
(b_2,\beta)=(0,0) \qquad{\rm or }\qquad (b_2,\beta)=(-2\sigma\ell^4,4\sigma\ell^2) \,.$$ The first solution is Einstein–Hilbert gravity while the second one is the tricritical point, so we already covered those.
The full one-loop gravity partition function for massive-log PET gravity reads $$\hskip 1cm
Z_{\rm mlog~PET}^{\rm 1-loop}= Z_{\rm Einstein}\cdot (Z_\mathcal{M})^2 \,,$$ where we defined $\mathcal{M}^2=M^2+1/\ell^2$ and $Z_\mathcal{M}$ is given in (\[ZM\]).
### A special point {#pmPET}
The theory shows very interesting behavior if, in addition to the single log limit $\beta=-3b_2/\ell^2-2\sigma\ell^2$, we take the scaling limit $b_2\to\infty$. In order to do so it is advised to rescale the auxiliary field $f_{\mu\nu}$. After rescaling $$\hskip 1cm
\tilde{f}_{\mu\nu}=\sqrt{2b_2}\,f_{\mu\nu}\,,$$ all fields in the linearized action (\[linaction\]) are normalized “canonically”, i.e. there are no dimensionfull parameters multiplying terms such as $(h/k/f)^{\mu\nu}\mathcal{G}_{\mu\nu}(h/k/f)$. If we now take the limit $b_2\to\infty$, keeping $b_2/\kappa^2=1/\kappa'^2$ finite, the action (\[linaction\]) becomes $$\begin{split}\label{pmaction}\hskip 1cm
\delta^{(2)} S_{\rm pmPET} = \frac{1}{\kappa'^2}\int{\rm d} ^3x\sqrt{g} \, \Big\{
& k^{\mu\nu}\mathcal{G}_{\mu\nu}(h) +\tilde{f}^{\mu\nu}\mathcal{G}_{\mu\nu}(\tilde{f})
-\frac{1}{2\ell^2}(\tilde{f}^{\mu\nu}\tilde{f}_{\mu\nu}-\tilde{f}^2)\Big\} \,.
\end{split}$$
The theory with the linearized action (\[pmaction\]) has much more gauge symmetry then the original theory (\[linaction\]). First, using the self-adjointness of the tensor operator $\mathcal{G}_{\mu\nu}$ we can write the first term as $h^{\mu\nu}\mathcal{G}_{\mu\nu}(k)$. Thus, the vector modes $v_\mu$ coming from the split of the auxiliary field $k_{\mu\nu}$, see eq. (\[tensorsplit\]), are gauge modes similar to the vector part $\xi_\mu$ of $h_{\mu\nu}$. Therefore we have an additional infinitesimal vector gauge symmetry.
Secondly, we note that the $\tilde{f}_{\mu\nu}$ terms match exactly the Lagrangian of partially massless gravity, a certain parameter limit of NMG [@Bergshoeff:2009aq]. One of the massive modes becomes partially massless in the sense of Deser and Waldron [@pmrefs] and the theory is invariant under the gauge transformation $$\label{infinv}\hskip 1cm
\delta\tilde{f}_{\mu\nu}=\nabla_\mu\nabla_\nu\zeta-\frac{1}{\ell^2}g_{\mu\nu}\zeta \,,$$ with an infinitesimal scalar gauge parameter $\zeta$. Further features of ’partially massless NMG’ were discussed in [@Bergshoeff:2009aq] and [@Grumiller:2010tj].
However, for NMG it was shown that this gauge invariance only appears at the linearized level [@Blagojevic:2011qc] and does not persist in the non-linear theory. We expect the same to be true here and it would be interesting to verify this. Furthermore, we would like to point out the relation to the “canonical bifurcation” [@Deser:2012ci] effect taking place in the three-dimensional pure quadratic curvature model of [@Deser:2009hb]. In fact, for PET gravity in the above mentioned limit all conditions (i)–(iv) of [@Deser:2012ci] for the “canonical bifurcation” are met.
Another remark concerns the values of the masses of the propagating modes. This is directly related to the background around which we linearize the theory. So far we have considered our background to be AdS. In [@Bergshoeff:2012ev] the limit $b_2\to\infty$ is not contained in the physical range of the parameters $\beta$ and $b_2$ because (one of) the mass squared is negative. This is a consequence of choosing an AdS background. In analogy to ’partially massless NMG’ [@Bergshoeff:2009aq; @Grumiller:2010tj] the mass squared of the partially massless mode in an AdS background is negative and saturates the Breitenlohner–Freedman bound [@Breitenlohner:1982bm].
Formally, it is easy to obtain (\[pmaction\]) and (\[infinv\]) in a de Sitter background by replacing $1/\ell^2=-\Lambda$, with positive $\Lambda$. Then (\[pmaction\]) does indeed propagate partially massless modes with positive mass squared.
Because the nature of the additional symmetries at the partially massless point is not clear to us, e.g. whether they exist also at the non-linear level, we will not discuss further the partition function of this particular theory but go on to discuss the better understood critical points of PET gravity and their LCFT duals.
CFT interpretation {#CFTinterpret}
------------------
Following the logic laid out in [@Gaberdiel:2010xv] and [@Bertin:2011jk] we present the partition functions of the conjectured LCFT duals. Lacking a better knowledge/understanding of LCFT partition functions we give only the partition functions corresponding to single-particle log-excitations on the CFT side. We find perfect agreement of the results at that level.\
*Tricritical point* In the double-log case PET gravity is conjectured to be dual to a parity even rank-three LCFT. For such a LCFT the single-particle contribution is $$\label{log2CFT}\hskip 1cm
Z_{\rm Double~log}^{\rm 1-particle} = \prod_{n=2}^\infty\frac{1}{|1-q^n|^2} \,
\Big(1+\frac{2q^2+2\bar{q}^2}{|1-q|^2}\Big) \,.$$ We can thus interpret the result (\[Zpet\]) as $$\label{cftl2PET}\hskip 1cm
Z_{\rm PET}^{\rm log^2}=Z_{\rm Double~log}^{\rm 1-particle}+{\rm multiparticle}\,,$$ where the multi-particle contribution is given by $$\label{Zmultiparticle}\hskip 1cm
Z_{\rm multiparticle}=\sum_{h,\bar{h}}N_{h,\bar{h}}q^h\bar{q}^{\bar{h}}\prod_{n=1}^\infty\frac{1}{|1-q^n|^2} \,.$$ By explicit calculation of $N_{h,\bar{h}}$ for low values of $h$ and $\bar{h}$, and using the combinatorial counting argument from [@Gaberdiel:2010xv; @Bertin:2011jk], one can show that all $N_{h,\bar{h}}$’s are non-negative integers. Thus, we can interpret (\[Zmultiparticle\]) as the contribution of physical states to the partition function.\
*Single log* For $\beta=-3b_2/\ell^2-2\sigma\ell^2$ and $b_2\neq\pm2\sigma\ell^4$ PET gravity is conjectured to be dual to a parity even rank-two LCFT, plus an additional massive mode. The single-particle partition function is $$\label{log1mCFT}\hskip 1cm
Z_{\rm Single~log}^{\rm 1-particle} = \prod_{n=2}^\infty\frac{1}{|1-q^n|^2} \,
\Big(1+\frac{q^2+\bar{q}^2}{|1-q|^2}+\frac{q^{|\mathcal{M}|+1}\bar{q}^{|\mathcal{M}|-1}+q^{|\mathcal{M}|-1}\bar{q}^{|\mathcal{M}|+1}}{|1-q|^2}\Big) \,.$$ Again, we can write $$\label{cftlPET}\hskip 1cm
Z_{\rm PET}^{\rm log}=Z_{\rm Single~log}^{\rm 1-particle}+Z_{\rm multiparticle} \,,$$ with $Z_{\rm multiparticle}$ given in (\[Zmultiparticle\]), and for given $\mathcal{M}$ show that all $N_{h,\bar{h}}$’s are non-negative integers.\
*Massive log* In the parameter range where $M_+=M_-=M$, PET gravity is conjectured to be dual to a parity even rank-two LCFT with non-vanishing central charge given by $$\hskip 1cm
c_{R/L}=\frac{3\ell\sigma}{G}\frac{\ell^4M^4}{1+2\ell^2M^2+2\ell^4M^4}
=\frac{3\ell\sigma}{G}\frac{(\ell^2\mathcal{M}^2-1)^2}{1-2\ell^2\mathcal{M}^2+2\ell^4\mathcal{M}^4}\,.$$ The single-particle CFT partition function for such a theory takes the form $$\label{mlogCFT}\hskip 1cm
Z_{\rm Massive~log}^{\rm 1-particle} = \prod_{n=2}^\infty\frac{1}{|1-q^n|^2} \,
\Big(1+\frac{2q^{|\mathcal{M}|+1}\bar{q}^{|\mathcal{M}|-1}+2q^{|\mathcal{M}|-1}\bar{q}^{|\mathcal{M}|+1}}{|1-q|^2}\Big) \,.$$ Again, we can write $$\label{cftlmPET}\hskip 1cm
Z_{\rm PET}^{\rm mlog}=Z_{\rm Massive~log}^{\rm 1-particle}+Z_{\rm multiparticle} \,,$$ with $Z_{\rm multiparticle}$ given in (\[Zmultiparticle\]), and for given $\mathcal{M}$ show that all $N_{h,\bar{h}}$’s are non-negative integers.
Quasi-normal modes and partition functions of (truncated) critical gravities {#sec3}
============================================================================
In this section we address the question if there are other methods to calculate the gravity one-loop partition function circumventing the (direct) use of heat kernel techniques. We will focus on one specific idea which relies on the work of Denef, Hartnoll and Sachdev [@Denef:2009kn], where they claim that the calculation of black hole determinants via heat kernel techniques is equal to summing over the quasi-normal mode spectrum of the theory. Calculations in higher spin gravity lend support to this conjecture, see e.g. [@Datta:2011za]. However, the issue of boundary conditions does not play such a prominent role there and the method of summing over quasi-normal mode spectra has not been applied to critical gravity theories yet.
One motivation to look for other-than heat kernel methods is the apparent difference of the results obtained for the gravity one-loop partition function of log-TMG [@Gaberdiel:2010xv] (TMG at the chiral point with log boundary conditions) and chiral gravity [@Maloney:2009ck] (TMG at the chiral point with Brown–Henneaux boundary conditions). It was argued in [@Castro:2011ui] that this is an artifact of the ignorance of the AdS heat kernel to the existence of null modes and negative energy states, which should be excluded from the spectrum of physical modes. It was suggested to calculate a different heat kernel, one that would not include log-modes or null states. While this seems to be a formidable, if challenging, task we will take a different approach.
It is hard to impose boundary conditions on the heat kernel, but it is very simple to do so for quasi-normal modes: choosing the ansatz for the solution determines the boundary conditions the mode will fulfill. Here we do not refer to the boundary conditions at the black hole horizon, which need be specified for quasi-normal modes, but to the asymptotic behavior of the mode.
An analysis like the one we carried out in section \[sec2\] is usually around thermal AdS, see e.g. [@Giombi:2008vd]. This is not a black hole background. However, the approach of [@Denef:2009kn] also holds for non black hole backgrounds, quasi-normal modes being replaced by normal modes [@Denef:2009kn]. On the other hand, the results obtained in section \[sec2\] would not change if we would take the background to be the BTZ black hole, instead of AdS; mainly because the BTZ is obtained by identifications of AdS [@Banados:1992gq]. Moreover, the thermal AdS background used above is also the background of the Euclidean BTZ black hole, with the identification $\tau\to-1/\tau$ [@Giombi:2008vd]. Therefore, we shall blithely permit ourselves to go from one background to the other, as its suits our analysis. In this section our background will be the BTZ black hole.
Quasi-normal modes for excitations around the BTZ black hole were calculated in [@Birmingham:2001pj]. In the context of critical gravity this was first done for log-TMG in [@Sachs:2008gt; @Sachs:2008yi] and a tricritical theory was discussed recently in [@Kim:2012rz].
In the following we will calculate the one-loop partition function of two critical gravity theories in three dimensions, NMG and PET gravity, using the conjecture of [@Denef:2009kn]. We confirm that at the (tri-)critical point the results agree with earlier calculations using heat kernel techniques. Based on that confidence we calculate different truncated one-loop partition functions by subsequently summing over different quasi-normal mode spectra, allowing log-excitations as well as not allowing them.
We will start by recalling the partition function of Einstein gravity with a negative cosmological constant. We discuss the contributions to the partition functions of Einstein gravity, NMG and PET gravity. Then we will define a truncation of the theory and apply it to critical NMG and tricritical PET gravity. Finally we summarize and comment on the results we have obtained.
Partition function of Einstein gravity
--------------------------------------
The one-loop contribution to the partition function of Einstein gravity is (see e.g. [@David:2009xg]) $$\label{Zein}\hskip 1cm
Z_{\rm Ein}=\sqrt{\frac{\det(-\nabla^2+2)_1^T}{\det(-\nabla^2-2)_2^{TT}}} \,.$$ Let us briefly comment on the two terms contributing to the partition function in (\[Zein\]). The determinant in the numerator is due to the gauge choice and corrects the path-integral measure (see e.g. [@Gaberdiel:2010xv]), while the determinant in the denominator stems from the gauge-fixed equations of motion. Thus, for a critical theory where we observe degeneration of the equations of motion, we expect to find a multiple of the contribution $\det(-\nabla^2-2)_2^{TT}$ in the denominator.
According to [@Denef:2009kn] and [@Datta:2011za] the determinants are evaluated using $$\label{zdelta}\hskip 1cm
\frac12\ln Z_{\Delta_s}=\ln\prod_{\kappa\geq0}^\infty|1-q^{\kappa+\Delta_s}|^{-2(\kappa+1)} \,,$$ where $\Delta_s=1+|m_s|$ can be read off from the definitions $$\hskip 1cm
\det(-\nabla^2+m^2_1-2)_1^T \quad{\rm and}\quad \det(-\nabla^2+m^2_2-3)_2^{TT} \,.$$ Comparison with (\[Zein\]) yields $\Delta_1=3$ and $\Delta_2=2$ to give $$\label{ZCFT}\hskip 1cm
Z_{\rm Ein}=\prod_{n\geq2}^\infty\frac{1}{|1-q^n|^2}\,.$$
This has a nice interpretation as the vacuum character of a CFT [@Maloney:2007ud]. In the following we will refer to any theory of gravity whose one-loop contribution is of the form (\[ZCFT\]) as dual to Einstein gravity or an “ordinary” CFT as opposed to a logarithmic CFT, but we make no further restrictions. As we will see a CFT with zero central charge gives rise to the same character — simply because the same modes are present in the theory — even though they are null modes.
We note here that massless spin-two quasi-normal modes are often dismissed because they are pure gauge, see e.g. [@Sachs:2008gt]. But as is often the case in gravity the asymptotic behavior of the modes tells us whether it is relevant or not. The Einstein modes are large gauge transformations and as shown by Brown and Henneaux [@Brown:1986nw] they are of crucial importance as generating elements of the asymptotic symmetry group. Thus, being interested in the boundary behavior, it is logical to include those modes and that we obtain precisely the CFT vacuum character by summing over those modes that are responsible for non-trivial diffeomorphisms at the boundary.
However, we try to argue in this work that we can *choose* to include them in the quasi-normal mode spectrum or not. Here we do include them because they are related to non-trivial excitations in the dual conformal field theory with non-zero central charge ($c=3\ell/2G$). In the same vein, for a critical theory we can choose not to — or, as spelled out in [@Castro:2011ui], shall not — include them in the spectrum if they correspond to null states that lead to zero central charge in the dual CFT.
It was pointed out too in [@Castro:2011ui] that even formula (\[ZCFT\]) is over-counting states if the central charge is too small. Then we find null states that are multi-particle states, combinations of states which have positive norm when considered as single-particle excitations. This lead to the restriction from (\[ZCFT\]) to a (Virasoro) minimal model character. Since in the following we are dealing with critical theories the central charge is always zero in our case. Therefore all non-log-modes are null modes.
We will now go on to our main objective, the partition functions of critical gravities.
Partition function of critical NMG and PET gravity
--------------------------------------------------
Let us consider the partition function of critical NMG, which is given by [@Gaberdiel:2010xv] $$\label{ZcNMG}\hskip 1cm
Z_{\rm cNMG}=Z_{\rm Ein}\cdot\frac{1}{\sqrt{\det(-\nabla^2-2)_2^{TT}}} \,.$$ Not surprisingly it contains $Z_{\rm Ein}$ because all solutions to Einstein gravity are also solutions to NMG. The second factor in (\[ZcNMG\]) comes from the massive graviton. Here we already took the limit to critical NMG, thus, as a consequence of the degeneration of the equations of motion, this term coincides with the spin-two contribution of Einstein gravity.
Straightforward application of formula (\[zdelta\]) yields $$\label{?ZNMG?}\hskip 1cm
Z_{\rm cNMG} =Z_{\rm Ein}\cdot\prod_{m\geq0}^\infty|1-q^{m+2}|^{-2-2m}
=Z_{\rm Ein}\cdot\prod_{m\geq2}^\infty\prod_{n\geq0}^\infty\frac{1}{|1-q^{m+n}|^2} \,,$$ which, for $q=\bar{q}$,[^4] perfectly agrees with the result in [@Gaberdiel:2010xv]. On the one hand this is a confirmation of the conjecture of [@Denef:2009kn]. On the other hand, since (\[?ZNMG?\]) is equal to the result that was used to support the LCFT conjecture, it tells us, that, to obtain (\[?ZNMG?\]), we already summed over the log quasi-normal frequencies. They are equal to the frequencies of the Einstein quasi-normal modes [@Sachs:2008gt; @Sachs:2008yi] and correspond to the poles of the retarded correlators in the dual CFT [@Birmingham:2001pj]. In the log case these are double poles [@Sachs:2008yi], so we must sum over them twice. Taking a look at (\[ZcNMG\]) we see that we actually did count the spin-two frequencies twice simply because the (square root of the) determinant $\det(-\nabla^2-2)_2^{TT}$ appears twice.
The partition function of tricritical PET gravity was calculated in section \[sec2\]. $$\label{ZcPET}\hskip 1cm
Z_{\rm cPET}=Z_{\rm Ein}\cdot\frac{1}{\det(-\nabla^2-2)_2^{TT}}$$ Using formula (\[zdelta\]) we find $$\label{?PET?}\hskip 1cm
Z_{\rm cPET} =Z_{\rm Ein}\cdot\bigg(\prod_{m\geq0}^\infty|1-q^{m+2}|^{-2-2m}\bigg)^2
=Z_{\rm Ein}\cdot\bigg(\prod_{m\geq2}^\infty\prod_{n\geq0}^\infty\frac{1}{|1-q^{m+n}|^2}\bigg)^2 \,.$$ For $q=\bar{q}$ this agrees with (\[Zpet\]). Just as in (\[?ZNMG?\]) we summed over one factor square root of $\det(-\nabla^2-2)_2^{TT}$ for each pole of the retarded correlators. To obtain (\[?PET?\]) we need three such factors and indeed one finds triple poles at a tricritical point [@Kim:2012rz].
Now that we identified where the separate terms in (\[ZcNMG\]) and (\[ZcPET\]) come from we can address the issue of truncating the theory.
The calculations in (\[?ZNMG?\]) and (\[?PET?\]) suggest that the conjecture of [@Denef:2009kn] holds for NMG and PET gravity at the (tri-)critical point. Based on this finding, we go on to make use of the quasi-normal mode method and excise certain modes from the spectrum by ignoring their contribution to the partition function. For example, in critical NMG an intriguing idea would be not to sum over the spin-two modes at all because they correspond either to null states or negative energy states. Of course this would alter formula (\[zdelta\]) in a drastic way: $$\hskip 1cm
Z_{\Delta_2}=1 \,.$$ In the following we will comment on the implications of such a restriction.
Hand-picked partition functions of critical gravities
-----------------------------------------------------
If we do not take into account the contribution from the spin-two modes the partition function of critical NMG would become $$\label{toomuch}\hskip 1cm
Z_{\text{``no modes''}}=\prod_{m\geq3}^\infty\prod_{n\geq0}^\infty |1-q^{m+n}|^2\,.$$ Hence, we would be lead to conclude that the theory deprived of its spin-two modes is not trivial. However, it seems likely that the correct interpretation is that here we truncated too much and the resulting theory does not make sense.[^5]
If we were to cancel only the log-modes we find, in fact, for any parity even critical gravity theory without log-modes, $$\hskip 1cm
\tilde{Z}_{\rm cNMG}=\sqrt{\frac{\det(-\nabla^2+2)_1^T}{\det(-\nabla^2-2)_2^{TT}}}=Z_{\rm Ein}\,.$$ Thus, we could conclude that critical NMG with Brown–Henneaux boundary conditions is dual to Einstein gravity. However, we know that the only propagating modes are not only pure gauge but also null states and the dual CFT has vanishing central charge. Therefore, according to [@Castro:2011ui] we would have to drop also the Einstein modes which, naively, brings us back to (\[toomuch\]).
Let us now consider a six-derivative theory that offers “higher-rank” criticality and more possibilities to truncate the theory, PET gravity. Truncating to the zero charge sub-sector, i.e. imposing log boundary conditions, kills the log$^2$-modes [@Bergshoeff:2012ev]. If we further dismiss the Einstein modes because they are null the partition function effectively reduces to $$\hskip 1cm
\tilde{Z}_{\rm PET}=\sqrt{\frac{\det(-\nabla^2+2)_1^T}{\det(-\nabla^2-2)_2^{TT}}}=Z_{\rm Ein}\,.$$ This suggest that tricritical gravity with the above mentioned restrictions is again dual to Einstein gravity. The propagating degrees of freedom have zero energy but non-trivial two-point functions [@Bergshoeff:2012ev]. The coexistence of the two quadratic forms, energy and correlators, yielding different results is due to a linearization instability [@Apolo:2012he] and the resulting theory does not seem sensible. If we truncate further the log-modes by imposing Brown–Henneaux boundary conditions we are again left with the infamous result (\[toomuch\]).
Summary
-------
We have shown the equivalence of the quasi-normal mode and heat kernel approaches to calculate the one-loop partition function for critical NMG and PET gravity. We then identified the contributions to the partition function of the different modes that on the gravity side contribute to this spectrum. This identification lead us to conclude whether or not we should include the mode when summing over the quasi-normal mode spectrum.
We applied the truncation to two critical theories, NMG and PET gravity, which are dual to a rank-two and a rank-three LCFT respectively. We found that a truncation of NMG by imposing Brown–Henneaux boundary conditions yields a theory dual to an ordinary CFT. PET gravity with log boundary conditions and truncating the gauge modes yields another theory dual to an ordinary CFT. In the case of PET gravity, however, the theory has a linearization instability [@Apolo:2012he]. So, while the higher-rank criticality of tricritical gravity seemed to offer the possibility of a truncation to a “sensible” sub-sector, non-linear calculations suggest that critical theories are either dual to LCFTs, or ordinary CFTs propagating null modes.
It might look as if we were deliberately canceling the annoying terms in the partition function. The main goal of this work was to motivate this cancellation by identifying each determinant with its corresponding quasi-normal mode. By deciding which mode we want to keep we are at the same time deciding which determinants actually contribute and which do not.
We did not include parity odd theories in our discussion because one of the main ingredients, eq. (\[zdelta\]), only works for parity even theories (and a non-rotating BTZ black hole background). It would be very rewarding to find an expression similar to (\[zdelta\]) which, unlike eq. (\[?ZNMG?\]), yields the critical NMG partition function from [@Gaberdiel:2010xv] on the nose. Furthermore, this would allow one to consider also the case of chiral gravity, or GMG at the tricritical point.
Finally, we stress again that the relation between heat kernel and quasi-normal mode approach is a conjecture. The fact that the results obtained using both formalisms agree made us confident to think about the truncation procedure. A rigorous proof of the conjecture of [@Denef:2009kn] would not only confirm our results but also be a strong motivation to consider the parity odd case mentioned in the previous paragraph.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The author would like to thank Eric Bergshoeff, Sjoerd de Haan, Daniel Grumiller, Wout Merbis and Jan Rosseel for discussions and comments on the draft. This work was supported by a grant of the Dutch Academy of Sciences (KNAW).
Multiplicity Coefficients
=========================
To show the positivity of the multiplicity coefficients $N_{h,\bar{h}}$ we use the combinatorial counting arguments of [@Gaberdiel:2010xv; @Bertin:2011jk]. The arguments are given explicitly for the (single) log case in [@Gaberdiel:2010xv] and for the tricritical case in [@Bertin:2011jk]. To proof that all multiplicity coefficients are positive the first few coefficients have to be determined explicitly. The tables in this appendix enlist those first few coefficients for the critical cases discussed in the main text. Table \[tab1\] enlists the coefficients for the double log case, table \[tab2\] the coefficients for the single log and table \[tab3\] gives the coefficients of the massive log case. In the latter two tables we fixed the mass parameter to be $\mathcal{M}=2$, since $\mathcal{M}=1$ would recover the double log case while $\mathcal{M}=0$ is a partially massless mode.
$\bar h=$ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
----------- --- --- ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ------
$h=0$: 0 0 0 0 3 1 7 3
$h=1$: 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 9
$h=2$: 0 0 4 4 13 13 35 41
$h=3$: 0 0 4 4 13 23 47 77
$h=4$: 3 1 13 13 47 61 148 216
$h=5$: 1 3 13 23 61 115 238 422
$h=6$: 7 3 35 47 148 238 550 908
$h=7$: 3 9 41 77 216 422 908 1690
: Double log multiplicity coefficients $N_{h,\bar h}$ in eq. (\[cftl2PET\]) for $h, \bar h < 8$.[]{data-label="tab1"}
$\bar h=$ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
----------- --- --- --- ---- ---- ---- ----- -----
$h=0$: 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0
$h=1$: 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 4
$h=2$: 0 0 1 1 3 3 8 7
$h=3$: 0 0 1 3 4 9 12 22
$h=4$: 1 0 3 4 11 14 31 41
$h=5$: 0 2 3 9 14 31 49 91
$h=6$: 2 1 8 12 31 49 104 159
$h=7$: 0 4 7 22 41 91 159 302
: Single log multiplicity coefficients $N_{h,\bar h}$ in eq. (\[cftlPET\]) for $h, \bar h < 8$ and $\mathcal{M}=2$.[]{data-label="tab2"}
$\bar h=$ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
----------- --- --- --- --- --- ---- ---- ----
$h=0$: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
$h=1$: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
$h=2$: 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1
$h=3$: 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3
$h=4$: 0 0 0 0 4 4 7 5
$h=5$: 0 0 0 0 4 4 5 13
$h=6$: 0 0 3 1 7 5 10 14
$h=7$: 0 0 1 3 5 13 14 38
: Massive log multiplicity coefficients $N_{h,\bar h}$ in eq. (\[cftlmPET\]) for $h, \bar h < 8$ and $\mathcal{M}=2$.[]{data-label="tab3"}
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[10]{}
S. Deser, R. Jackiw, and S. Templeton, “[Topologically Massive Gauge Theories]{},” [[*Annals Phys.*]{} [**140**]{} (1982) 372–411](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(82)90164-6), [Erratum-ibid. [**185**]{} (1988) 406](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(88)90053-X), [[*Annals Phys.*]{} [**185**]{} (1988) 406](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(88)90053-X), [[*Annals Phys.*]{} [**281**]{} (2000) 409–449](http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/aphy.2000.6013) [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[inSPIRE\]</span>](http://inspirehep.net/record/169285). E. A. Bergshoeff, O. Hohm, and P. K. Townsend, “[Massive Gravity in Three Dimensions]{},” [[ *Phys.Rev.Lett.*]{} [**102**]{} (2009) 201301](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.201301) [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[inSPIRE\]</span>](http://inspirehep.net/record/810887) [](http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.1766). W. Li, W. Song, and A. Strominger, “[Chiral Gravity in Three Dimensions]{},” [[*JHEP*]{} [ **0804**]{} (2008) 082](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/082) [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[inSPIRE\]</span>](http://inspirehep.net/record/778412) [](http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.4566). D. Grumiller and N. Johansson, “[Instability in cosmological topologically massive gravity at the chiral point]{},” [[*JHEP*]{} [ **0807**]{} (2008) 134](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2008/07/134) [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[inSPIRE\]</span>](http://inspirehep.net/record/786091) [](http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2610). E. A. Bergshoeff, O. Hohm, and P. K. Townsend, “[More on Massive 3D Gravity]{},” [[ *Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D79**]{} (2009) 124042](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.79.124042) [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[inSPIRE\]</span>](http://inspirehep.net/record/819750) [](http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1259). E. A. Bergshoeff, S. de Haan, W. Merbis, J. Rosseel, and T. Zojer, “[Three-Dimensional Tricritical Gravity]{},” [[*Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D86**]{} (2012) 064037](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.064037) [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[inSPIRE\]</span>](http://inspirehep.net/record/1118305) [](http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.3089). D. Grumiller, N. Johansson, and T. Zojer, “[Short-cut to new anomalies in gravity duals to logarithmic conformal field theories]{},” [[*JHEP*]{} [**1101**]{} (2011) 090](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP01(2011)090) [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[inSPIRE\]</span>](http://inspirehep.net/record/873622) [](http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.4449). M. R. Gaberdiel, D. Grumiller, and D. Vassilevich, “[Graviton 1-loop partition function for 3-dimensional massive gravity]{},” [[*JHEP*]{} [**1011**]{} (2010) 094](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2010)094) [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[inSPIRE\]</span>](http://inspirehep.net/record/863609) [](http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.5189). M. Bertin, D. Grumiller, D. Vassilevich, and T. Zojer, “[Generalised massive gravity one-loop partition function and AdS/(L)CFT]{},” [[*JHEP*]{} [**1106**]{} (2011) 111](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP06(2011)111) [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[inSPIRE\]</span>](http://inspirehep.net/record/894389) [](http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.5468). J. D. Brown and M. Henneaux, “[Central Charges in the Canonical Realization of Asymptotic Symmetries: An Example from Three-Dimensional Gravity]{},” [[*Commun.Math.Phys.*]{} [ **104**]{} (1986) 207–226](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01211590) [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[inSPIRE\]</span>](http://inspirehep.net/record/231928). D. Grumiller and N. Johansson, “[Consistent boundary conditions for cosmological topologically massive gravity at the chiral point]{},” [[*Int.J.Mod.Phys.*]{} [**D17**]{} (2008) 2367–2372](http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0218271808014096) [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[inSPIRE\]</span>](http://inspirehep.net/record/793388) [](http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.2575).
E. A. Bergshoeff, S. de Haan, W. Merbis, M. Porrati, and J. Rosseel, “[Unitary Truncations and Critical Gravity: a Toy Model]{},” [[*JHEP*]{} [**1204**]{} (2012) 134](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2012)134) [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[inSPIRE\]</span>](http://inspirehep.net/record/1083409) [](http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0449). L. Apolo and M. Porrati, “[Nonlinear Dynamics of Parity-Even Tricritical Gravity in Three and Four Dimensions]{},” [[*JHEP*]{} [**1208**]{} (2012) 051](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2012)051) [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[inSPIRE\]</span>](http://inspirehep.net/record/1119432) [](http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.5231). F. Denef, S. A. Hartnoll, and S. Sachdev, “[Black hole determinants and quasinormal modes]{},” [[ *Class.Quant.Grav.*]{} [**27**]{} (2010) 125001](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/27/12/125001) [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[inSPIRE\]</span>](http://inspirehep.net/record/829077) [](http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.2657). M. Banados, C. Teitelboim, and J. Zanelli, “[The Black hole in three-dimensional space-time]{},” [[*Phys.Rev.Lett.*]{} [**69**]{} (1992) 1849–1851](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.1849) [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[inSPIRE\]</span>](http://inspirehep.net/record/32290) [](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9204099). G. Gibbons, S. Hawking, and M. Perry, “[Path Integrals and the Indefiniteness of the Gravitational Action]{},” [[*Nucl.Phys.*]{} [**B138**]{} (1978) 141](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(78)90161-X) [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[inSPIRE\]</span>](http://inspirehep.net/record/6506). S. Giombi, A. Maloney, and X. Yin, “[One-loop Partition Functions of 3D Gravity]{},” [[*JHEP*]{} [**0808**]{} (2008) 007](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2008/08/007) [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[inSPIRE\]</span>](http://inspirehep.net/record/783201) [](http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1773). J. R. David, M. R. Gaberdiel, and R. Gopakumar, “[The Heat Kernel on AdS(3) and its Applications]{},” [[*JHEP*]{} [**1004**]{} (2010) 125](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2010)125) [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[inSPIRE\]</span>](http://inspirehep.net/record/838200) [](http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.5085). S. Deser and R. I. Nepomechie, “[Gauge invariance versus masslessness in de Sitter space]{},” [[*Annals Phys.*]{} [**154**]{} (1984) 396](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(84)90156-8) [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[inSPIRE\]</span>](http://inspirehep.net/record/13830). S. Deser and A. Waldron, “[Gauge invariances and phases of massive higher spins in (A)dS]{},” [[*Phys.Rev.Lett.*]{} [**87**]{} (2001) 031601](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.031601) [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[inSPIRE\]</span>](http://inspirehep.net/record/553479) [](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0102166). S. Deser and A. Waldron, “[Partial masslessness of higher spins in (A)dS]{},” [[*Nucl.Phys.*]{} [**B607**]{} (2001) 577–604](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0550-3213(01)00212-7) [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[inSPIRE\]</span>](http://inspirehep.net/record/554444) [](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0103198). M. Blagojevic and B. Cvetkovic, “[Extra gauge symmetries in BHT gravity]{},” [[*JHEP*]{} [**1103**]{} (2011) 139](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2011)139) [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[inSPIRE\]</span>](http://inspirehep.net/record/892526) [](http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.2388). S. Deser, S. Ertl, and D. Grumiller, “[Canonical bifurcation in higher derivative, higher spin, theories]{},” [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[inSPIRE\]</span>](http://inspirehep.net/record/1125560) [](http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0339). S. Deser, “[Ghost-free, finite, fourth order D=3 (alas) gravity]{},” [[*Phys.Rev.Lett.*]{} [**103**]{} (2009) 101302](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.101302) [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[inSPIRE\]</span>](http://inspirehep.net/record/818959) [](http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.4473). P. Breitenlohner and D. Z. Freedman, “[Positive Energy in anti-De Sitter Backgrounds and Gauged Extended Supergravity]{},” [[*Phys.Lett.*]{} [**B115**]{} (1982) 197](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(82)90643-8) [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[inSPIRE\]</span>](http://inspirehep.net/record/12129). S. Datta and J. R. David, “[Higher Spin Quasinormal Modes and One-Loop Determinants in the BTZ black Hole]{},” [[*JHEP*]{} [**1203**]{} (2012) 079](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2012)079) [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[inSPIRE\]</span>](http://inspirehep.net/record/1082354) [](http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.4619). A. Maloney, W. Song, and A. Strominger, “[Chiral Gravity, Log Gravity and Extremal CFT]{},” [[ *Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D81**]{} (2010) 064007](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.81.064007) [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[inSPIRE\]</span>](http://inspirehep.net/record/816360) [](http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.4573). A. Castro, T. Hartman, and A. Maloney, “[The Gravitational Exclusion Principle and Null States in Anti-de Sitter Space]{},” [[ *Class.Quant.Grav.*]{} [**28**]{} (2011) 195012](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/28/19/195012) [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[inSPIRE\]</span>](http://inspirehep.net/record/920289) [](http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.5098). M. Banados, M. Henneaux, C. Teitelboim, and J. Zanelli, “[Geometry of the (2+1) black hole]{},” [[ *Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D48**]{} (1993) 1506–1525](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.48.1506) [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[inSPIRE\]</span>](http://inspirehep.net/record/343161) [](http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9302012). D. Birmingham, I. Sachs, and S. N. Solodukhin, “[Conformal field theory interpretation of black hole quasinormal modes]{},” [[*Phys.Rev.Lett.*]{} [**88**]{} (2002) 151301](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.151301) [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[inSPIRE\]</span>](http://inspirehep.net/record/567938) [](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0112055). I. Sachs and S. N. Solodukhin, “[Quasi-Normal Modes in Topologically Massive Gravity]{},” [[*JHEP*]{} [**0808**]{} (2008) 003](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2008/08/003) [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[inSPIRE\]</span>](http://inspirehep.net/record/787864) [](http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1788). I. Sachs, “[Quasi-Normal Modes for Logarithmic Conformal Field Theory]{},” [[*JHEP*]{} [ **0809**]{} (2008) 073](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2008/09/073) [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[inSPIRE\]</span>](http://inspirehep.net/record/790551) [](http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.1844). Y.-W. Kim, Y. S. Myung, and Y.-J. Park, “[Quasinormal modes around the BTZ black hole at the tricritical generalized massive gravity]{},” [[*Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D86**]{} (2012) 064017](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.064017) [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[inSPIRE\]</span>](http://inspirehep.net/record/1122536) [](http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.3149). A. Maloney and E. Witten, “[Quantum Gravity Partition Functions in Three Dimensions]{},” [[*JHEP*]{} [**1002**]{} (2010) 029](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP02(2010)029) [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[inSPIRE\]</span>](http://inspirehep.net/record/769256) [](http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.0155).
[^1]: The symmetrization over indices is normalized as follows: $2\nabla_{(\mu}\nabla^\beta h_{\nu)\beta}=\nabla_{\mu}\nabla^\beta h_{\nu\beta}+\nabla_{\nu}\nabla^\beta h_{\mu\beta}$.
[^2]: We integrate first over $h^{TT}$ which yields a delta function for $k^{TT}$ and a determinant factor. The integral over $k^{TT}$ is then done trivially and we are left with an easy integral over $f^{TT}$. In the following we will not always try to diagonalize the action. Moreover, we will extensively make use of the delta functions emerging from “mixed” path-integrals such as $h^{TT}\nabla^2k^{TT}$. For the benefit of the reader we will often denote the order of integration.
[^3]: Note that $\mathcal{M}^2$ defined in this way differs from the mass squared of the propagating massive mode — which we denote by a non-script $M^2$ — by a factor $1/\ell^2$. Therefore, log-modes for which $M^2=0$ have $\mathcal{M}^2=1/\ell^2$.
[^4]: For the non-rotating BTZ black hole $q=\bar{q}$. This was also used to show the equality of the two approaches in [@Datta:2011za]. We think that equality of the two calculations should also hold for the rotating BTZ but it is technically more challenging to show.
[^5]: We do not make any claims about consistency of the suggested truncations. Rather, we calculate partition functions of possible truncations of critical theories that have been put forward in the literature elsewhere.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
[*Abstract:*]{} We investigate the infrared singularity structure of Feynman diagrams entering the next-to-leading-order (NLO) DGLAP kernel (non-singlet). We examine cancellations between diagrams for two gluon emission contributing to NLO kernels. We observe the crucial role of color coherence effects in cancellations of infra-red singularities. Numerical calculations are explained using analytical formulas for the singular contributions.
*Submitted To Acta Physica Polonica B*
address: |
Institute of Nuclear Physics PAN,\
ul. Radzikowskiego 152, 31-342 Kraków, Poland
author:
- Magdalena Slawinska and Aleksander Kusina
title: |
**IFJPAN-IV-2009-2\
**
Non-abelian infra-red cancellations in the unintegrated kernel.[^1]
---
**IFJPAN-IV-2009-2\
**
Introduction
============
This study is part of the effort with the aim of constructing fully-exclusive (unintegrated) kernels for DGLAP [@DGLAP] evolution in QCD at the complete NLO level. More details on this project can be found in ref. [@ifjpan-iv-09-3]. Let us only mention that construction of the exclusive NLO DGLAP kernels in ref. [@ifjpan-iv-09-3] is done following Curci-Furmanski-Petronzio (CFP) scheme [@Curci:1980uw] and we adopt this scheme also in our study. In short the CFP scheme uses axial gauge and dimensional regularization ($\overline{MS}$) and generalizes collinear factorization developed in ref. [@Ellis:1978sf]. The two particle-irreducible (2PI) evolution kernels $K_0$ $$M = C_0(1+K_0 + K_0^2+ ...) = C_0 \Gamma_0$$ are contracted with the coefficient functions $C_0$, which are infra-red finite. All infra-red collinear divergences are encapsulated in $\Gamma_0$, which denotes the sum over kernels $K_0$. The DGLAP NLO kernel is then extracted according to the scheme [@Curci:1980uw] as a single pole in $\Gamma_0$. More details can be found in ref. [@Curci:1980uw] and in ref. [@ifjpan-iv-09-3] of these proceedings.
As it is well known individual Feynman diagrams are not gauge-invariant and sizeable cancellations occur among them. In particular some graphs contributing to NLO DGLAP kernels may contain artificial infra-red singularities, which cancel in a bigger subset of diagrams and do not appear in the final results. Our aim is to analyze in detail such cancellations at the level of the exclusive distributions, before the phase space integration, for the diagrams contributing to NLO DGLAP kernels in the CFP scheme.
\
We shall analyze singular infra-red structure of the Feynman diagrams depicted in Fig. \[two\_glue\_diags\]. They describe emission of two gluons off a quark and enter into calculation of the non-singlet NLO kernel. Diagrams of Fig. \[fig:laddera\]-\[fig:ladderc\] are bremsstrahlung type diagrams, including interference in Fig. \[fig:ladderc\]. Their $C_F^2$ part is the same as in the corresponding case of QED, hence we shall sometimes call them “abelian”. The other diagrams of Fig. \[two\_glue\_diags\] include production of the gluon pair, see Fig. \[fig:nonabeld\], and its interference with the previous bremsstrahlung diagrams, Figs. \[fig:nonabelb\] and \[fig:nonabelc\]. Because of the presence of the triple-gluon vertex they are diagrams of the genuine non-abelian origin. Moreover, since the crossed-ladder diagram of Fig.\[fig:ladderc\] carries color factor equal to $C_F^2-\frac{1}{2} C_FC_A $, it contributes to both “abelian” and “non-abelian” part of NLO kernel.
Let us now introduce notation. The two gluon phase-space is parametrized using Sudakov variables: $$\begin{split}
&
k_i = \alpha_i p + \alpha_i ^- n + k_{i\perp}, \quad i = 1,2,
\\&
k = k_1 + k_2, \qquad q = p - k
\end{split}$$ with $p$ being the four-momentum of the incoming quark and $n$ a light-cone vector. Four-vectors $k_1$ and $k_2$ denote four-momenta of the emitted gluons, with their transverse parts being $k_{1\perp}$ and $k_{2\perp}$ respectively, and $k^2=(k_1+k_2)^2$ being their effective mass. The sum of $\alpha_i$ is fixed $$\alf1 + \alf2 = 1 - x.
\label{eq:x}$$ We shall examine the distributions of two gluons in the soft limit: $$\begin{cases}
\alf1 \rightarrow 0\cr
\alf2 \rightarrow 1-x
\end{cases}
\text{ or }
\begin{cases}
\alf1 \rightarrow 1-x\cr
\alf2 \rightarrow 0.
\end{cases}
\label{eq:sudakovlimit}$$ We shall also use the “eikonal minus variables” $v_i$ of the emitted gluons defined as $$\label{vi}
v_i = \frac{k_{i\perp}}{\sqrt{\alpha_i}}.$$ The kernel is then extracted according to the scheme [@Curci:1980uw] as a single pole in $\Gamma_0$: $$\begin{split}
\Gamma_1 =
\frac{C}{2{\varepsilon}}\left(\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\right)^2
\int d\Psi\delta(1- x -\alf1 - \alf2)
\Theta(Q -\max\{v_{1}, v_{2}\} ) \rho(\alf1, \alf2, v_{1}, v_{2}, x),
\end{split}
\label{eq:gamma}$$ where $C$ is the color factor and the function $\rho$ represents contribution from each Feynman diagram (trace and kinematics). We shall also use the dimensionless “eikonal phase-space” defined as follows: $$d\Psi =
\frac{d\alf1}{\alf1} \frac{dv_1}{v_1} d\phi_1
\frac{d\alf2}{\alf2} \frac{dv_2}{v_2} d\phi_2.
\label{Psi}$$ The two-gluon phase space is cut from below by means of geometrical regulator $\delta$, namely the factors $1/\alpha_i$ are regulated by principal value prescription: $\frac{1}{\alpha_i}\rightarrow\frac{\alpha_i}{\alpha_i^2+\delta^2}$. The closing of the phase space from above is ensured by the $\Theta$ function[^2]. For the gluon pair mass we shall also use technical cut $k^2>\kappa$. In the numerical exercises we shall typically integrate over the azimuthal angles $\phi_i$ of the gluons, while concentrating on the dependence on $v_i$ and $\alpha_i$. Also, because of the constraint in eq. , if we say that we examine the distribution in $\alf1/\alf2$ it really means that we use $\alf1/(1-x-\alf1)$. Also, due to a simple dimensional argument one of the variables $v_i$ can be always factored out from $\rho$ function and the essential dependence of the distributions in variables $v_i$ can be reduced to the dependence on the ratio $y=v_1/v_2$ only.
IR cancellations among bremsstrahlung diagrams {#sec:bremss}
==============================================
In the first part we analyze “QED-like” bremsstrahlung diagrams of Fig. \[fig:laddera\] - \[fig:ladderc\]. We shall first show infrared cancellations among these diagrams in the Monte Carlo exercise and later on analyze the same cancellations analytically.
In the following numerical exercises we keep variable $x$ fixed and equal 0.3. This will ensure that at least one gluon is relatively hard.
The distributions $$f(\alpha_i,v_i) = \int d\phi_1 d\phi_2 \delta(1-x-\alpha_1-\alpha_2) \delta\left(Q-\max\{v_1,v_2\}\right) \rho(\alpha_i,v_i)$$ are plotted on Sudakov plane parametrized using variables $\log(\alf1/ \alf2)$ and $\log(v_1/ v_2)$, see eq. for definition of $v_i$.
Plots in Figs. \[nladders\] show contributions from the two ladder diagrams. They are obtained using Monte Carlo program FOAM [@foam:2002]. As we see, their contributions appear to be strongly ordered in virtuality variables $v_i$ of the emitted gluons, see for instance left part of Fig. \[nladders\]. The interference diagram is shown in the upper right plot of the Fig. \[nBrnBx\]. It contributes in the region of the phase-space where both bremsstrahlung diagrams are comparable, which is exactly the line of equal virtualities $v_1 = v_2$. The crossed-ladder interference diagram has a singly-logarithmic singularity along the same line $v_1 = v_2$.
Fig. \[nBrnBx\] represents both contributions: from summarized and crossed ladder (upper plots) together with their sum (lower plot). The singly-logarithmic structure, visible on the upper-left plot, disappears completely. The dominant contribution is an infinite “plateau”, with a long “valley” along the line $\alf1 \simeq \alf2$, This is not an internal infra-red singularity, however, but a leading-log structure. The ladder diagram is not 2PI, but quadratic in the leading-order kernel and therefore requires a soft counterterm to cancel this doubly-logarithmic plateau, see [@ifjpan-iv-09-3]. This counterterm is necessary to construct the NLO kernel and its construction is justified by the CFP scheme. We do not introduce it in this paper, as our aim is to present the universality of gauge cancellations. Therefore we often refer to: “contribution to the NLO kernel” rather than a kernel itself, having in mind that this is not a complete NLO kernel in a strict sense. Despite this dominant LO contribution, in the Fig. \[nBrnBx\] one sees no structure in the soft Sudakov limit .
Results of the above numerical exercise can be also understood analytically. Contributions from diagrams in Figs. \[fig:laddera\] - \[fig:ladderc\] in the soft limit are proportional to simple expressions shown in Tab. \[table:tab1\]. Two columns in this table refer to two possible different Sudakov limits, with either first or second gluon being soft.
----- ------ -------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
$\alf1 \rightarrow 0$ $\alf2 \rightarrow 0$
Br1 $C_F^2 \frac{(1+x^2)}{(1+xy)^2}$ $C_F^2 \frac{(1+x^2)}{(y+x)^2}\; x^2$
Br2 $C_F^2 \frac{(1+x^2)}{(1+xy)^2}\; x^2y^2 $ $C_F^2 \frac{(1+x^2)}{(y+x)^2} y^2$
Bx $2C_F^2\frac{(1+x^2)}{(1+xy)^2}\; xy $ $2C_F^2\frac{(1+x^2)}{(y+x)^2}\; xy$
$C_F^2\left(1+x^2\right)$ $C_F^2\left(1+x^2\right)$
----- ------ -------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
: Contributions from ladders in the Sudakov limit (up to a constant factor) []{data-label="table:tab1"}
The common denominator $ \frac{1}{(1+xy)^2}$ is the (rescaled) square of the virtual quark propagator $\frac{1}{q^4}=\frac{1}{((p-k_1-k_2)^2)^2}$ after emitting two gluons. Other factors come from $\gamma$-traces[^3]. The last row is the sum of the three, see also the lower plot in Fig. \[nBrnBx\]. It is finite in the soft Sudakov limit, as the denominator cancels out exactly with the spinorial part of the matrix element squared.
In the above warm-up exercise we have examined in a fine detail how in the NLO kernel calculations, in the axial gauge, quantum interference cancellations do work in practice. In fact they were exactly the same as in QED in axial gauge. Let us now turn to the genuine non-abelian gauge cancellations of the same kind.
IR cancellations among genuine non-abelian contributions
========================================================
In this section we will discuss contributions proportional to $C_F C_A$ from the diagrams (c-f) of Fig. \[two\_glue\_diags\]. They are of the genuine non-abelian character, as certified by the presence of $C_A$. It is interesting to see how they all “communicate” in the soft Sudakov limit defined below.
We shall start with the overview of the IR cancellations in analytical form and next we shall illustrate them with 2-dimensional plots coming from Monte Carlo numerical exercises. In the following we find useful to use rapidity-related variables $a_i$ in order to parametrize phase-space of two gluons: $$a_i = \frac{k_{i\perp}}{\alpha_i},\qquad
d\Psi = \frac{d\alf1}{\alf1} \frac{da_1}{a_1} d\phi_1\,
\frac{d\alf2}{\alf2} \frac{da_2}{a_2} d\phi_2.
\label{eq:ai}$$ The angular dependence enters only through the relative angle between $k_{1\perp}$ and $k_{2\perp}$ namely $\phi_{12}$, the remaining angle can be integrated out since nothing depends on it.
By the soft Sudakov limit we understand that $$\begin{cases}
\alpha_i \rightarrow 0\cr
k_{i\perp} \rightarrow 0
\end{cases}
\label{eq:softsudakov}$$ while $a_i$ is finite. The Sudakov plane in the plots will be parametrized using variables $\log(\alf1/\alf2)$ and $\log(a_1/a_2)$.
----- ------ --------------------------------------------------------------------
Vg $C_F C_A (1+x^2)\left[\; \frac{u^2}{a^2} F_1
+ \; \frac{1}{a^2} F_2 \;\right]$
Yg1 $C_F C_A (1+x^2)\left[\; \frac{u\cos\phi_{12} -u^2}{a^2} F_1
+x\; \frac{\alpha_2}{1-x} F_0\;\right]$
Yg2 $C_F C_A (1+x^2)\left[\; \frac{u\cos\phi_{12} -1}{a^2} F_2
+x\; \frac{\alpha_1}{1-x} F_0\;\right]$
Bx $-C_F C_A (1+x^2)\; x F_0$
$C_FC_A (1+x^2)\; \frac{u\cos\phi_{12}}{a^2}\left(F_1+F_2\right) $
----- ------ --------------------------------------------------------------------
: Cancellations of the non-abelian contributions from various diagrams due to gauge invariance (color coherence). Singular part for each diagram is shown in analytical form. Factors $F_i$ are relatively mild, see text for their definition. []{data-label="table:tab9"}
General structure of the IR non-abelian cancellations
-----------------------------------------------------
In Table \[table:tab9\] we summarize the IR cancellations of the non-abelian origin between the two real gluon diagrams contributions to NLO kernel in analytical form. Formulas in Tab. \[table:tab9\] are the leading divergences extracted from two real gluon distributions in a maximally simplified form. Functions $F_i$ are relatively mild and defined as follows: $$\begin{split}
&F_1=\frac{\alf2}{\alf1}\frac{1}{u^2}F_0,\qquad
F_2=\frac{\alf1}{\alf2}u^2F_0,
\\&
\sqrt{F_0}=\frac{\sqrt{\alf1\alf2}u} {\alpha_1(1-\alpha_2)u^2+\alpha_2(1-\alpha_1) +2\alpha_1\alpha_2 u\cos\phi_{12}}
= \frac{\sqrt{\alpha_1 \alpha_2}a_1 a_2}{q^2},
\end{split}$$ where we defined $u = a_1/a_2$. Moreover we define $a^2 = 1 + u^2 - 2u\cos\phi_{12}$, which is up to the $\alpha_1\alpha_2a_2^2$ factor, the effective mass of the gluon pair squared $k^2=(k_1+k_2)^2$. Function $F_0 $ is proportional to rescaled square of the propagator $1/q^4$, which is regular in the soft limit.
The pattern of the IR cancellations in Tab. \[table:tab9\] is manifest.
The most evident singularity is associated with $u/a^2$ factor, infinite when the effective mass of the gluon pair is zero. In logarithmic variables this $u/a^2$ divergence is seen as a thin infinite ridge along $u=1$. It is a function of $u$ and $\phi_{12}$ only, strongly peaked at $u=1$. In the gluonic vacuum polarization diagram this singularity is dominant. This is, however, a collinear singularity, not a soft one. It remains uncancelled but it is not relevant in our discussion of cancellation of soft singularities. We only mention it to understand the full singularity structure of the diagrams of interest. In Yg1 and Yg2 diagrams the $u/a^2$ factor is present, too but the singularity is cancelled out by the numerators. The factors $u F_1$ and $F_2/u$ are functions of both $u$ and $\alpha_1 / \alpha_2$. They “soften” the sharp fall of $u/a^2$ in the limits $u\rightarrow 0$ and $u\rightarrow \infty$. They are non-zero in the soft Sudakov limit , giving rise to a doubly-logarithmic IR divergence[^4]. These terms are present in both Vg and Yg diagrams, with opposite signs. This is checked and discussed below in the context of numerical exercises.
In the last row of Tab. \[table:tab9\] the sum of all aforementioned contributions is presented. The terms proportional to $u^2F_1/a^2$ and $F_2/a^2$ cancel explicitly among diagram with gluonic vacuum polarization and its interference with bremsstrahlung. The remaining factor $F_1+F_2$ is equal to 1 in the soft Sudakov limit , leaving out $u/a^2$ factor free from doubly-logarithmic divergences.
Let us stress that this particular cancellation of the doubly logarithmic Sudakov structure of the non-abelian origin in the two-gluon distribution in QCD is usually referred to in the literature as the “color coherence effect”, see for instance ref. [@khoze-book].
The other IR divergence is caused by the presence of terms $\sim F_0$ in diagrams Yg1, Yg2 and Bx, see again Table \[table:tab9\]. $F_0$ is nonzero along $a_1^2/a_2^2 = \alpha_1/\alpha_2$, giving rise to a single-log singularity after phase space integration. This has been discussed already in the case of bremsstrahlung diagrams. Here, however, the analytical cancellation among Yg1, Yg2 and Bx, ensured by $\alpha_1+\alpha_2=1-x$, occurs in the whole phase-space, not only in the soft limit.
Finally, the only singularities that remain are associated with $u/a^2$ term, as discussed before in this section.
Numerical illustration of IR non-abelian cancellations
------------------------------------------------------
In Fig. \[fig:rapi\] we show the distribution $f(a_i,\alpha_i)$ for two gluons (averaged over the gluon azimuthal angles) for fixed $x=1-\alpha_1-\alpha_2 = 0.3$, from gluonic pair production graph (Vg) and its interference with bremsstrahlung (Yg = Yg1+Yg2), see also Tab. \[table:tab9\]. Contributions from all diagrams are written explicitly in Tab. \[table:tab9\]. In the plots on Figs. \[fig:rapi\] - \[VYall\] we omit their color coefficients. The gluonic pair production graph (Vg) has a strong peak along the line of equal rapiditites $a_1=a_2$ originating from $u/a^2$ factor (off-shell gluon propagator). In addition, this diagram features in the plot triangular infinite plateau between the lines of the equal rapiditites $a_1=a_2$ and the line of equal virtualities $v_1=v_2$. It is exactly this triangular plateau which upon integration leads to $\ln^2(1/\delta)$. Note, that in Figs. \[fig:rapi\] - \[VYall\] we use variables $\log (a_1/a_2)$, contrary to the previous section, where we had $\log (v_1/v_2)$. This is why the line $v_1=v_2$ is now diagonal in the plots.
Very similar, but with opposite sign, doubly-logarithmic structure is present in the left plot in Fig. \[fig:rapi\] from the interference graphs Yg1+Yg2, see also Tab. \[table:tab9\]. After adding the contributions from the above diagrams, see Fig. \[fig:Vg+Yg\_rapi\], the doubly-logarithmic structure between the lines: $a_1 = a_2$ and $v_1=v_2$ disappears. What remains, is the single-log singularity, appearing in a familiar shape along the diagonal line of $v_1=v_2$ (barely visible in the plots of Fig. \[fig:rapi\]) and collinear singularity represented here as an infinite ridge along the line of equal rapiditites. The latter is associated with zero effective mass of the gluon pair, $k^2$.
The above cancellation is the well known “color coherence effect”, see for instance ref. [@khoze-book]. It reflects the fact that the gluonic pair production graph (Vg) pretends that in the triangular region it is the harder gluon carrying octet color charge which is the “emitter”, with the emission strength $\sim C_F C_A$. In reality, however, the emitter should be quark carrying triplet color charge, with the almost twice weaker emission strength $\sim C_F^2$. The role of the interference diagram Yg1+Yg2 is to correct for that and we see this to happen in the plot and in the formulas in Tab. \[table:tab9\]. One has to remember that this part of the plot is already populated with the bremsstrahlung diagrams of the previous section proportional to $\sim C_F^2$.
What still remains in Fig. \[fig:Vg+Yg\_rapi\] is a singly-logarithmic structure along the diagonal line $v_1=v_2$. Its presence is in principle allowed in the doubly-logarithmic Sudakov approximation. A more subtle analysis of the soft limit in QCD shows that it should also vanish and this phenomenon is often referred to as “eikonalization”, see for instance ref. [@yfs:1961; @Frenkel:1983da]. The job of bringing back the proper soft limit of the two gluon distribution and eliminating remaining single-log structure is done by the crossed bremsstrahlung diagram Bx (in fact its $C_FC_A$ part), as it is shown in Figs. \[two\_I0\] and \[VYall\], see also Tab. \[table:tab9\].
In right hand side of Fig. \[two\_I0\] the crossed-ladder diagram Bx is presented again. On the left hand side of Fig. \[two\_I0\] we show the result of adding the triple-gluon vertex diagrams (Vg+Yg1+Yg2). Both plots have a characteristic single-log structure, seen as an infinite ridge along the diagonal line of equal virtualities $v_1=v_2$. However, Bx has opposite signs in its $C_F C_A$ color coefficients. In Fig. \[VYall\] we see the result of adding all the above “ non-abelian” diagrams. Bx enters with a minus sign. We see that the singly-logarithmic structure $\sim C_F C_A$ disappears completely in the soft limit $\alpha_i\to 0$. What is still present in the picture is the dominant $1/k^2 \sim u/a^2$ gluon pair mass singularity.
The concluding plots are shown in Fig. \[fig:All\_rapi\]. We presented there Feynman diagrams entering the kernel, both $\sim C_F^2$ and $\sim C_FC_A$. In the left plot there are solely amplitude-squared diagrams (Br1, Br2 and Vg) and in the right plot all diagrams including interferences. We see explicitly the crucial role of “color coherence effects” (the interference diagrams) in the cancellation of IR singularities. In the sum of all diagrams of interest we see that remaining structure lies on top of the LO doubly-logarithmic plateau. The plateau does not enter into the NLO kernel. It is cancelled by the counterterm required by the kernel definition, as discussed in Section 2.
Conclusions
===========
We examined the infra-red structure of the diagrams contributing to NLO non-singlet kernel in the unintegrated form.
We have shown the mechanisms of gauge cancellations occurring among different diagrams and the importance of “color coherence effects” for this cancellations.
These effects in soft Sudakov limit are examined/discussed in both analytical and numerical form.
[**Acknowledgments**]{}\
We would like to thank Stanis[ł]{}aw Jadach, Maciej Skrzypek and Boris Ermolaev for many useful discussions during the preparation of this work.
[1]{}
L.N. Lipatov, [*Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**20**]{} (1975) 95;\
V.N. Gribov and L.N. Lipatov, [*Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**15**]{} (1972) 438;\
G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**126**]{} (1977) 298;\
Yu. L. Dokshitzer, [*Sov. Phys. JETP*]{} [**46**]{} (1977) 64.
S. Jadach and M. Skrzypek, report IFJPAN-IV-09-3, to appear in these proceedings. [[arXiv:0905.1399 \[hep-ph\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1399).
G. Curci, W. Furmanski, and R. Petronzio, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B175**]{} (1980) 27. R. K. Ellis, H. Georgi, M. Machacek, H. D. Politzer, and G. G. Ross, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B78**]{} (1978) 281. S. Jadach, [*Comput. Phys. Commun.*]{} [**152**]{} (2003) 55–100, [[physics/0203033]{}](http://www.arXiv.org/abs/physics/0203033). Y. Dokshitzer, V. Khoze, A. Mueller, and S. Troyan, [*Basics of Perturbative QCD*]{}. Editions Frontieres, 1991.
D. R. Yennie, S. Frautschi, and H. Suura, [*Ann. Phys. (NY)*]{} [**13**]{} (1961) 379.
J. Frenkel, J. G. M. Gatheral, and J. C. Taylor, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B228**]{} (1983) 529.
[^1]: This work is supported by the EU grant MRTN-CT-2006-035505, and by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education grant No. 153/6.PR UE/2007/7.\
Presented at the [*Cracow Epiphany Conference on hadron interactions at the dawn of the LHC*]{}, January 5-7, 2009
[^2]: The choice of the variable in $\Theta$ function closing the phase space from above can be different. We use $\max\{v_1,v_2\}$ or $\max\{a_1,a_2\}$ which is different from CFP choice $q^2=-(p-k_1-k_2)^2$.
[^3]: Only “$C_F^2$” part of the crossed ladder is taken here, hence the color coefficient is shown explicitly. Other unimportant factors are omitted.
[^4]: The doubly-logarithmic IR divergence after phase space integration is $\sim\ln^2\frac{1}{\delta}$, where $\delta$ is cut-off variable, see *[Introduction]{}.*
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Effective representation of a text is critical for various natural language processing tasks. For the particular task of Chinese sentiment analysis, it is important to understand and choose an effective representation of a text from different forms of Chinese representations such as *word*, *character* and *pinyin*. This paper presents a systematic study of the effect of these representations for Chinese sentiment analysis by proposing a multi-channel convolutional neural network (MCCNN), where each channel corresponds to a representation. Experimental results show that: (1) Word wins on the dataset of low OOV rate while character wins otherwise; (2) Using these representations in combination generally improves the performance; (3) The representations based on MCCNN outperform conventional ngram features using SVM; (4) The proposed MCCNN model achieves the competitive performance against the state-of-the-art model `fastText` for Chinese sentiment analysis.'
author:
- |
Pengfei Liu, Ji Zhang, Cane Wing-Ki Leung, Chao He and Thomas L. Griffiths\
\
Wisers AI Lab, Wisers Information Limited, Hong Kong\
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Exploiting Effective Representations for Chinese Sentiment Analysis Using a Multi-Channel Convolutional Neural Network'
---
=1
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
=16.0cm =23.5cm
=0.5cm
[**[*Nature, 5 September 1996*]{}**]{}
\
H.J. de Vega$^{1}$, N. Sánchez$^{2}$, F. Combes$^{2}$\
$^{1}$Laboratoire de Physique Théorique et Hautes Energies, Université Paris VI, Tour 16, 1er étage, 4 Pl. Jussieu 75252 Paris, France\
$^{2}$DEMIRM, Observatoire de Paris, 61 Av. de l’Observatoire, 75014 Paris, France\
[ **The gas clouds of the interstellar medium have a fractal structure, the origin of which has generally been thought to lie in turbulence [@larson]-[@fal]. The energy of turbulence could come from galactic rotation at large-scale, then cascade down to be dissipated on small-scales by viscosity [@obser; @fle]; it has been suggested that such turbulence helps to prevent massive molecular clouds from collapsing in response to their own gravity [@hen; @chi]. Here we show that, on the contrary, self-gravity itself may be the dominant factor in making clouds fractal. We develop a field-theory approach to the structure of clouds, assuming them to be isothermal, and with only gravitational interactions; we find that the observed fractal dimension of the clouds arise naturally from this approach. Although this result does not imply that turbulence is not important, it does demonstrate that the fractal structure can be understood without it.** ]{}
The interstellar medium (ISM) is an ensemble of gas clouds and dust, composed mainly of hydrogen (either atomic HI, or molecular H$_2$) and helium (25% by mass), with other elements present in trace amounts (dust is only 1% in mass). The bulk of the ISM is distributed in cold clouds (T $\sim$ 5-50 K), forming a very fragmented and clumpy structure, confined to the galactic plane of spiral galaxies.
For at least two decades, radioastronomy line observations (HI at 21cm wavelength, and CO at a wavelength of 2.6mm for the major lines), have told us that the ISM is composed of a hierarchy of structures, with masses from about 1 M$_\odot$ to 10$^6$ M$_\odot$. Structures have been observed in the ISM with sizes from 10$^{-4}$pc (20 AU or 3 10$^{14}$cm) to 100pc. The largest of these structures are giant molecular clouds or complexes, thought to be the largest self-gravitating structures in the Galaxy. Above 100pc, larger structures would be destroyed by galactic shear. The accumulation of observations at many scales, and with many tracers of the ISM (CO and its isotopes, HCN, CS, NH$_3$, HI, dust as in Fig. 1) revealed that the interstellar medium obeys power-law relationships between size (R), mass (M) and internal velocity dispersion ($\Delta$v) (see for example [@larson; @obser]): $$\label{vobser}
M (R) \sim R^{d_H} \quad , \quad \Delta v \sim R^q \; ,$$ These apply across the entire observed range of structure sizes and masses, with Haussdorf dimension ($d_H$) and the power $q$ $$\label{expos}
1.5 \leq d_H \leq 2. \quad , \quad \; 0.3 \leq q \leq 0.5 \; .$$ Structures appear virialised at any scale: the scaling laws obey the relationships $ \Delta$v$^2$ $\propto$ GM/R, or equivalently $q =(d_H -1)/2$.
Here we apply, for the first time, field theory and Wilson’s approach to critical phenomena [@kgw], to the problem of a gravitational gas in statistical equilibrium. We consider a gas of non-relativistic particles in thermal equilibrium at temperature $T$ interacting with each other through Newtonian gravity. We work in the grand canonical ensemble, allowing for a variable number of particles $N$. The grand partition function of the system of particles, of mass $m$ and phase space coordinates $p$ and $q$, can be written as $$\label{gfp}
{\cal Z} = \sum_{N=0}^{\infty}\; {{z^N}\over{N!}}\; \int\ldots \int
\prod_{l=1}^N\;{{d^3p_l\, d^3q_l}\over{(h)^3}}\; e^{- {{H_N}\over{kT}}}, \quad
{\rm with} \quad
H_N = \sum_{l=1}^N\;{{p_l^2}\over{2m}} - G \, m^2 \sum_{1\leq l < j\leq N}
{1 \over { |{\vec q}_l - {\vec q}_j|}}$$ $G$, $h$ and $k$ are Newton, Planck and Boltzmann constants respectively and $z$ is the fugacity $z= e^{{{\bar \mu}\over{kT}}}$; $ {\bar \mu} $ is the gravito-chemical potential. Transforming this expression through a functional integral [@origen; @stra], it can be shown that this system is exactly equivalent to the theory of a scalar field $\phi({\vec x})$ (the detailed derivation will be found in de Vega, Sánchez & Combes, 1996, in prep.); the grand canonical partition function $ {\cal Z} $ can be expressed as a functional integral $$\begin{aligned}
\label{zetafi}
{\cal Z} &=& \int\int\; {\cal D}\phi\; e^{-S[\phi]} \; , \quad
{\rm with} \quad
S[\phi] \equiv {1\over{T_{eff}}}\;
\int d^3x \left[ \frac12(\nabla\phi)^2 \; - \mu^2 \;
e^{\phi({\vec x})}\right] \; , \cr \cr
T_{eff} &=& 4\pi \; {{G\; m^2}\over {kT}} \quad , \quad
\mu^2 = {{\pi^{5/2}}\over {h^3}}\; z\; G \, (2m)^{7/2} \, \sqrt{kT} \; ,\end{aligned}$$ The parameter $\mu$ coincides with the inverse of the Jeans length $\mu = \sqrt{{12}\over{\pi}} {{1}\over{d_J}}$. The stationary points of the action $ S $ are given by the equation for the undimensioned field $\phi$: $$\label{simple}
\Delta\phi = -\mu^2 e^{\phi}\; ,$$ which is exactly the equation satisfied by the gravitational field $ U = - { kT \over m } \phi $ of a perfect isothermal gas. Indeed, the equation of state combined with the hydrostatic equilibrium equation yields $\rho = \rho_0 \; e^{-\frac{m}{kT} U}$. The application of the Poisson equation leads then to (\[simple\]), provided that $\rho_0 = z (2\pi m kT h^{-2})^{3/2} $. This leads to the well-known solution of the isothermal sphere, and small fluctuations around the stationary point have been studied in [@kh]. In terms of the scalar field $\phi$, the particle density can be expressed as $ <\rho({\vec r})> = -{1 \over {T_{eff}}}\;<\Delta \phi({\vec r})>=
{{\mu^2}\over{T_{eff}}} \; <e^{\phi({\vec r})}> $ where $ <\ldots > $ means functional average over $ \phi $ with statistical weight $ e^{-S[\phi]} $.
The term $-\mu^2 e^{\phi}$ which makes $ S $ unbounded from below reflects the short-distance gravitational attraction. We limit the newtonian forces at short distances since there the interparticle interaction is no more purely gravitational. The ISM in isothermal conditions (i.e. the ISM in contact with the heat bath represented by the cosmic background radiation), is unstable through Jeans instability at any scale [@pc]; fragmentation occurs down to the scale where the coupling with the thermal bath breaks down, at which the regime becomes adiabatic instead of isothermal. This scale is that of the smallest possible fragments. Our isothermal gravitational gas model has therefore a natural cutoff here.
Now that we have derived the scalar field representing the problem of $N$-body in gravitational interaction, we work in two directions. We study first the perturbative method, then the renormalization group approach.
First we can note that $ S[\phi] $ has no constant stationary points, except $\phi_0 = -\infty$. In order to compute perturbations around $\phi_0$, we add a small constant term $\delta$ in the density, so that $\phi_0 =\log \delta$ is finite for non zero values of the constant $\delta$ (de Vega, Sánchez & Combes, 1996, in prep). The perturbative development in terms of the dimensionless coupling constant $ g = \sqrt {\mu T_{eff}} $ reveals that the the field $\phi$ is massless; the two-points density correlation function decreases as $ r^{-2} $ for large distances.
Therefore, the theory remains critical, for a large range of values of the physical parameters. Since we consider the gas inside a large sphere of radius $ R $ ($ R \leq 100\, pc $, since other forces are involved above such scale) no divergences appear at large radii. More information is gained when the perturbative development is made around the spherically symmetric solution is $\phi^c = \log {{2} \over {\mu^2 r^2} }$, which is invariant under scale transformations.
The next step to analyze this theory is to use the renormalization group. This non-perturbative approach is the most powerful framework to derive scaling behaviours in field theory (e.g. [@kgw; @dg; @ll]). As is well known, the correlation length $\xi$ for infinite volume systems becomes infinite at criticality, as $\xi \sim \Lambda^{-\nu}$ when $\Lambda \to 0$; $\Lambda ={{\mu^2}\over{T_{eff}}}$ is the distance to the critical point ($\Lambda = T-T_c$ in condensed matter and spin systems) and varies according to the renormalization group transformations. Since here our system is critical on a finite size $ R $, it is not singular and we have $ \xi \sim R $, i.e. $\Lambda \sim R^{-\frac{1}{\nu}}$. The mass density $ m \, \rho \sim e^{\phi} $ is identified with the energy density of the renormalization group (also called thermal operator). The partition function can be written as $$\label{Zsca1}
{\cal Z}(\Lambda) =
\int\int\; {\cal D}\phi\; e^{ -S^* + \Lambda
\int d^3x \; e^{\phi({\vec x})}\;}\; ,$$ where $S^*$ stands for the action at the critical point. Since the $\phi$-theory has a scaling behaviour (is critical) as seen in the perturbative approach, we can write $\log{\cal Z}$ as a power-law in $\Lambda$, plus an analytical function F($\Lambda$), such that $$\label{Zsca2}
{1 \over V} \; \log{\cal Z}(\Lambda) = {K \over{(2-\alpha)(1-\alpha)}}\;
\Lambda^{2-\alpha} + F(\Lambda)$$ where $ V \sim R^3 $ stands for the volume, $ K$ is a constant and alpha is the thermal critical exponent
Calculating the second derivative of $\log{\cal Z}(\Lambda)$ with respect to $ \Lambda $ (at constant $V$) from eqs.(\[Zsca1\]) and (\[Zsca2\]) and equating the results, yields $$\label{flucM}
{{\partial^2}\over{\partial\Lambda^2}}\log{\cal Z}(\Lambda) \sim
K V \Lambda^{-\alpha} \sim R^{{2}\over{\nu}} =
\int d^3x\; d^3y\;\left[ <\rho({\vec x})\rho({\vec y})>-
\; <\rho({\vec x})><\rho({\vec y})> \right]$$ where we used that $ \Lambda \sim R^{-1/\nu} $ and the scaling relation $ \alpha = 2 - 3 \nu $ [@dg]. The r.h.s. of eq.(\[flucM\]) precisely yields the mass fluctuations squared $ (\Delta M(R))^2 \equiv \; <M^2> -<M>^2 $. Hence, $$\Delta M(R) \sim R^{d_H} \; .$$ Therefore, the scaling exponent $\nu$ can be identified with the inverse Haussdorf (fractal) dimension $d_H$ of the system $$d_H = \frac1{\nu} \; .$$ On one side, the perturbative calculation yields the mean field value for $ \nu $ [@ll]. That is, $$\label{meanF}
\nu= \frac12 \quad , \quad d_H = 2 \quad {\rm and } \quad q = \frac12 \; .$$ On the other side, the renormalization group transformation amounts to replace the parameter $ \mu^2 $ in $ S[\phi] $ by the effective one at the scale in question. This approach indicates that the long distance critical behaviour is governed by the (non-perturbative) Ising fixed point [@kgw; @dg]. Very probably, there are no further fixed points [@grexa]. The scaling exponents associated to the Ising fixed point are $$\label{Isint}
\nu = 0.631 \quad , \quad d_H = 1.585 \quad {\rm and} \quad
q = 0.293\; \; .$$ From the renormalization group analysis, the two-points density correlation function behaves as $ r^{\frac2{\nu} -6}$ or $r^{-2.830}$ for large distances ($r^{-2}$ for mean field). This should be compared with observations. Previous attempts to derive correlation functions from observations were not entirely conclusive, because of lack of dynamical range [@klein], but much more extended maps of the ISM could be available soon to test our theory. In addition, we predict an independent exponent for the gravitational potential correlations ($ \sim r^{-1-\eta} $, where $\eta_{Ising}=0.037$ or $\eta_{mean field}=0$ [@dg]), which could be checked through gravitational lenses observations in front of quasars.
The mean field exponents describe the situation where non-linear field fluctuations are negligible. When non-linear fluctuations are strong, the renormalization group exactly accounts for their contributions, giving the Ising fixed point exponents.
If we consider the mass of the particles to be the neutral hydrogen atom, at $T\sim 3K$, and we estimate the fugacity $z$ using the ideal gas value $z = \rho_0 ({{h^2}\over{2\pi m kT}})^{3/2}$, we find the length $\mu^{-1} \sim$ 30 AU (4.5 10$^{14}$ cm), and the dimensionless coupling $g^2 \sim 5\; 10^{-53}$, for a density $\rho_0\sim 10^{10}$ atom/cm$^3$ ([@pc]). This extremely small $g$ supports the perturbative method at these scales implying the mean field values for the exponents (\[meanF\]). However, the effective coupling constant $g$ grows with the scale, according to the renormalization group flow (towards the Ising fixed point); $\mu^{-1} $ indicates the order of the smallest distance where the scaling regime applies, and corresponds to the observed smallest gravitational scale. Both numerical values for the critical exponents (\[meanF\]) and (\[Isint\]) are compatible with the values observed in the present interstellar medium eq.(\[expos\]). Further theoretical work in the $\phi$-theory will determine whether the scaling behaviour is given by the mean field or by the Ising fixed point.
We have considered for the ISM the simplified view of an isothermal self-gravitating gas. This idealized view corresponds exactly to the outer parts of galaxies, far from any star formation and heating sources. There, the molecular cloud ensemble must be in isothermal equilibrium with the cosmic background radiation at T$\sim$ 3K (e.g. [@pcm; @pc]). Well inside the galaxy, the physics of the ISM is much more complex, especially when the violent perturbations due to star formation are taken into account. Locally, the ISM around star formation regions can effectively lose its fractal structure, at least partially (it becomes diffuse and much less fragmented, more or less ionized). But radiative cooling is very efficient, and shock waves are highly dissipative, so that globally on large-scale, the interstellar medium can still be considered as isothermal. The bulk of the ISM is only slightly perturbed, and we have shown that the scaling laws are [**stable**]{} under perturbations, so that we believe that our theory applies to most of the ISM (and in particular to the low star-forming Taurus region of figure 1).
Turbulence is probably relevant in the dynamics of the ISM [@obser], but this could be a consequence of the fractal structure built up by gravitational instabilities. It has been recognized for a long time that the size line-width relation in the ISM is similar to the Kolmogorov law $ \Delta v \propto R^{1/3} $ derived for incompressible subsonic turbulence (this assumes that the energy flow per unit mass ($\epsilon \propto \Delta v^3/R $) is constant all over the hierarchy, and is finally dissipated on the smallest scales through viscous processes). The energy would be powered at large scale by the galactic rotation [@fle]. Gravitationally driven compressible turbulence [@hen] as well as gravitational clouds in quasistatic virial equilibrium [@chi] yield mean field exponents (\[meanF\]).
The important point demonstrated here is that self-gravity alone can account for the fractal structure of the ISM, and quantitatively predicts its fractal dimension and related critical exponents. A new and unexpected connection between the ISM and critical phenomena uncovers. It is interesting to note that the gravitational gas has been found at critical conditions, with correlations at [**all scales**]{}, and scale- independent power-law relations for a [**continuous**]{} range of physical parameters (temperature, coupling constant), while the spin models with which we have found an analogy, are critical only at a single value of the temperature. This feature is connected with the scale invariant character of the Newtonian force and its infinite range, i.e. $ r^{-2} $.
A further step in the study of the ISM will be to include the dynamical (time dependent) description within the field theory approach presented in this paper.
Larson, R.B. [*Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.*]{} [**194**]{}, 809-826 (1981) Falgarone, E., Phillips, T.G., Walker, C.K. [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**378**]{}, 186-201 (1991). Scalo, J.M. in ‘Interstellar Processes’, D.J. Hollenbach and H.A. Thronson Eds., D. Reidel Pub. Co, p. 349-392 (1987) (Dordrecht, Holland) Wilson, K.G. [*Rev. Mod. Phys.* ]{} [**55**]{}, 583-600 (1983). Albeverio, S., H[ø]{}egh-Krohn, R. [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**30**]{}, 171-200 (1973). Hubbard, J. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**3**]{}, 77-78 (1959). Horwitz, G., Katz, J. [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**222**]{}, 941-958 (1978) Pfenniger, D., Combes, F. [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{} [**285**]{}, 94-118 (1994) Phase transitions and Critical Phenomena vol. 6, Domb C. & Green, M.S. Academic Press, 1976 (New York) Morris, T.R. [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B334**]{}, 355-362 (1994). Landau, L.D., Lifchitz, E.M. Physique Statistique, 4ème édition, Mir-Ellipses, 1996 (Paris) Kleiner, S.C., Dickman, R.L. [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**312**]{}, 837-847 (1987) Pfenniger, D., Combes, F., Martinet, L. [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{} [**285**]{}, 79-93 (1994) Fleck, R.C. [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**458**]{}, 739-741 (1996). Henriksen R.N., Turner, B.E. [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**287**]{}, 200-207 (1984). Chièze, J-P. [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{} [**171**]{}, 225-232 (1987).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the interplay between magnetic frustration and itinerant electrons. For example, how does the coupling to mobile charges modify the properties of a spin liquid, and does the underlying frustration favor insulating or conducting states? Supported by Monte Carlo simulations, our goal is in particular to provide an analytical picture of the mechanisms involved. The models under considerations exhibit Coulomb phases in two and three dimensions, where the itinerant electrons are coupled to the localized spins via double exchange interactions. Because of the Hund coupling, magnetic loops naturally emerge from the Coulomb phase and serve as conducting channels for the mobile electrons, leading to doping-dependent rearrangements of the loop ensemble in order to minimize the electronic kinetic energy. At low electron density $\rho$, the double exchange coupling mainly tends to segment the very long loops winding around the system into smaller ones while it gradually lifts the extensive degeneracy of the Coulomb phase with increasing $\rho$. For higher doping, the results are strongly lattice dependent, displaying loop crystals with a given loop length for some specific values of $\rho$, which can melt into another loop crystal by varying $\rho$. Finally, we contrast this to the qualitatively different behavior of analogous models on kagome or triangular lattices.'
author:
- 'L. D. C. Jaubert'
- Swann Piatecki
- Masudul Haque
- 'R. Moessner'
title: Itinerant electrons in the Coulomb phase
---
Introduction
============
The combination of magnetism and itinerant electrons is a multi-faceted field in the physics of correlated electrons, where our understanding is still remarkably patchy: even in the case of a square lattice Hubbard model, we lack consensus on a detailed phase diagram in the doping-temperature plane.
Besides the cuprate superconductors, there are plenty of other settings in which interesting questions arise, not least popularized of late by questions raised by the pnictide superconductors, where magnetic frustration and accidental degeneracies have started to be considered.
More broadly, there has been increased interest in the interaction of frustrated magnetism with itinerant electrons [@Ohgushi00a; @Onoda03b; @Ikoma03a; @Haerter05a; @Shimomura05a; @Martin08a; @Kalitsov09a; @Motome10b; @Kumar10a; @Udagawa10a; @Tang11a]. Here, we take up the spirit of this thread of work and study itinerant electrons on a highly frustrated lattice, the pyrochlore lattice. We consider both three and two dimensions, the latter case also being known as the square lattice with crossings, planar pyrochlore, or checkerboard lattice.
We start with an exotic frustrated phase of a magnetic insulator, the Coulomb phase, which has been extensively studied recently [@Huse03a; @Chen09a; @Morris09a; @Fennell09a; @Henley10a; @Powell11a]. This phase has a number of unusual properties, including algebraic spin correlations and the emergence of extended one-dimensional degrees of freedom [@Villain79a; @Banks11a; @Jaubert11a], the nature of which is an independently interesting problem [@Nahum11a].
Especially the latter will play an important role in the following analysis, given the ability of electrons to provide evidence for non-local structures through properties related to transport phenomena. Indeed, it is the marriage of the local constraints imposed by frustration with the ‘non-local’ physics describing mobile particles which makes up for much of the interest in this field.
The Ising-double exchange model which we study here has many parameters: electron density, $\rho$, temperature $T$, Ising anisotropy, Hund’s coupling, $J_H$, magnetic exchange, $J$, and electron hopping integral, $t$. A full study of general parameter choices is well-nigh impossible in any detail analytically.
Our approach to the problem considers a regime where the effects of frustration are particularly strong but where considerable progress towards a detailed description is nonetheless possible by analytical (or simple numerical) means. That a (non-trivial) regime where this is possible exists at all is a priori not obvious, and we find that we need to restrict a number of parameters to limiting values: we study the limit where the magnetic energy scales are much larger than the hopping integral $t$, so that the resulting problem is one of electrons hopping on a classical background spin configuration. We do not need to restrict the electron density to be small, although for that case, we have the most detailed set of results.
We find that the low-density behaviour can be mapped onto a study of a classical loop model with non-trivial weights arising from the addition of electrons Hund’s coupled to the spins in the Coulomb phase. This results in phenomena such as a transition from a (in two dimensions, critical) percolation situation to one in which the loops acquire an exponential length distribution, thereby removing all conducting paths across the sample. As the doping is increased further, we find a sequence of density-dependent preferred loop lengths, which lead to a tendency to form loop crystals which may, however, be frustrated by the lattice geometry.
The organization of this article, and our main results, are summarized below.
Summary and Overview
--------------------
We restrict ourselves to the limit of large exchange coupling interactions so that the ice-rules (see figure \[fig:latt\]) themselves are never compromised. We make extensive use of the loop picture encoding the ice rules. [@Jaubert11a] The loops serve as 1D channels for the electrons. The problem is thus transformed to entropy and energy considerations of possible loop coverings, with loops supporting varying numbers of electron. This “loop framework” for describing conduction electrons is introduced in Section \[sec:loop\_framework\].
Ref. has described in some detail the loop distributions for both 2D and 3D in the absence of electrons. Once electrons are added, within each loop electrons can occupy states whose energy is given by a 1D dispersion. The dispersion minimum is independent of loop length, so the first electron in a loop has the same energy in all loops. As a result, there is a low doping regime where it is possible to fit at most one electron per loop. All such configurations have the same energy. This is the entropic regime, because entropic arguments determine favorable configurations within an equal-energy manifold.
When the density of electrons $\rho$ is larger, a sub-extensive number of states, possibly even a unique one, tend to be favored, because they manage to minimize the kinetic energy; this we term the energetic regime.
In Section \[sec\_lowdoping\], we present entropic considerations relevant to the regime of low doping. The total entropy contribution comes from both the loops (with parameters extracted numerically), and the electrons (derived analytically). In particular, the presence of electrons acts like a cutoff on the total number of loops in the system. In 3D, forbidding configurations with less loops than electrons suppresses the formation of extensive loops (present in the peak of the probability distribution function (PDF), see e.g. figure \[fig:pdfelec3d\]), but does not modify the exponents of the PDF. On the other hand in 2D, there is evidence for a variation in the exponent of the power law of the loop distribution.
Once the electronic density gets too large for loops to be restricted to at most one electron, we need to consider energetics. Section \[sec\_phasediagram\] presents these energy considerations and the phase diagram obtained thereby. Ignoring lattice constraints on loop coverings, we use energy calculations and a Maxwell construction to obtain the phase diagram of Figure \[fig:PD\]. We verify some of these results through Monte Carlo simulations. We also present constraints imposed by the lattices under considerations and identify loop crystals arising as the doping is varied.
With periodic boundary conditions, loops spanning the system can be divided into segments connecting “opposite” faces, which we call filaments. Because the transmission of electrons through the system can only occur via these conducting channels, section \[sec:conduction\] is dedicated to their statistics, as a function of doping $\rho$ and dimension. In absence of itinerant electrons, the number of filaments grows linearly with (cubic) system size in 3D but remains constant and of $\mathcal{O}(1)$ in 2D. While these behaviors are qualitatively not modified at low doping, the conducting channels turn out to vanish at intermediate values of $\rho$.
A separate final section is devoted to an outlook which also contains some words on the behaviour of analogous models on the triangular and kagome lattices, which turn out to exhibit qualitatively different properties both from the pyrochlores and from each other: we find a magnetic conducting solid as well as an insulating cooperative paramagnet.
The numerical component of our work involves Monte Carlo simulations of several types; some details are provided in the Appendix.
The system and the loop framework {#sec:loop_framework}
=================================
The model
---------
We will focus primarily on the checkerboard and pyrochlore lattices, which are two lattices where a Coulomb phase can appear (see figure \[fig:latt\]). The localized magnetic moments are Ising spins $\mathbf{S}_{i}$ all parallel to a *global* axis, while itinerant electrons can hop on the lattice sites. The Hamiltonian is $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H} &=&~ J\sum_{\left<i,j\right>} \mathbf{S}_{i}\cdot\mathbf{S}_{j}
~-~ \sum_{\left<i,j\right>,\alpha}\;
t\,(c_{i,\alpha}^{\dagger}c_{j,\alpha}\;+\;c_{j,\alpha}^{\dagger}c_{i,\alpha}) \nonumber
\\
&-&~ J_{h}\sum_{i,\alpha,\beta} c_{i,\alpha}^{\dagger}(\mathbf{\sigma}_{\alpha,\beta}\cdot\mathbf{S}_{i})\;c_{i,\beta}
\label{eq:ham1}\end{aligned}$$ where $t$ is the hopping integral between two neighboring sites, $c_{i,\alpha}^{\dagger}$ ($c_{i,\alpha}$) are creation (annihilation) operators of itinerant electrons of spin $\alpha$ on site $i$, and $\sigma_{\alpha,\beta}$ are the Pauli matrices. In order of appearance, the terms in equation (\[eq:ham1\]) are the antiferromagnetic nearest-neighbour exchange between the localized spins incorporating magnetic frustration, the hopping term allowing movement of itinerant electrons, whose spins interact with the localized magnetic moments through ferromagnetic Hund coupling (last term).
In this work, we focus on the limit $t\ll J_{h}\ll J$. In this limit, the highly degenerate ground state of the frustrated system serves as background for the motion of the electrons. Magnetic excitations (violations of ice rules) are not present in this limit. Electrons can only hop between nearest neighbour spins having the same orientation.
At zero temperature, a Néel or ferromagnetic order would give rise to an insulating or metallic state respectively, but a spin liquid provides a network of conducting paths for itinerant electrons. The present work unveils the geometry of this network, as it is influenced by both the lattice and the minimization of the hopping energy.
![ In the Coulomb phase, each frustrated unit (crossed squares in 2D checkerboard, left, and tetrahedra in 3D pyrochlore, right) possesses two up and two down spins, respectively colored in blue and red. Those are the so-called ice-rules or divergence free conditions. Connecting spins of the same color forms a network of loops, as illustrated for the checkerboard. This model is equivalent to the nearest neighbour spin ice model.[]{data-label="fig:latt"}](CoulombPhase2D3D){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
Emergence of loops
------------------
The pyrochlore and checkerboard lattices are made of corner-sharing units with four spins; respectively the tetrahedron and the square with crossings. The antiferromagnetic couplings impose the so-called “ice-rules” with zero magnetization per unit, obtained with two spins pointing up and two spins pointing down [@Bernal33a]. In absence of itinerant electrons, this ground state is highly degenerate with 6 possible configurations per unit. It corresponds to the 6-vertex model in 2 dimensions [@Baxter07a] and can be mapped onto the nearest neighbor spin ice model in 3 dimensions [@Harris97a; @Moessner98b]. These spin systems serve as background for the emergent physics of the so-called *Coulomb phase* [@Henley10a], a gauge theory where the discrete ice-rules under coarse-grained lead to the emergence of a divergence free flux.
Joining spins of the same orientation in every unit, one obtains loops of up spins and loops of down spins (see Fig. \[fig:latt\]). The Coulomb phase can thus be described as an ensemble of possible loop coverings. The resulting loop model possesses two flavors (loops of up and down spins), where every site of the premedial lattice [@Henley10a] is occupied by two loops, one of each flavor, and every bond is visited by one loop only. In previous work by some of the authors [@Jaubert11a], a detailed account has been given of the statistics and distribution of these loops, both for the 2D and 3D cases.
In the limit of large $J_h$, all up (down) electrons are only allowed to hop along an up (down) loop, and are constrained to remain within this loop. This reduces the electron dynamics to be one-dimensional whatever the dimension of the lattice.
The 1D hopping restriction allows us to describe electron dynamics in terms of the dispersion of a 1D tight-binding problem, $E_k=-2t\cos{k}$, with $k$ the 1D momentum along the loop. The 1D momentum along the loop, $k=2\pi q/\ell$, is discrete for a loop of finite length $\ell$ ($q = -\ell/2, ... , \ell/2-1$). An up (down) loop of length $\ell$ can contain between 0 to $\ell$ up (down) electrons. Note that double occupancy does not occur in the limit we are considering.
The lowest and highest single-particle levels in the dispersion have energy $\pm 2t$, independent of the loop length (figure \[fig:nrjlevel\]).
![ Single-particle energy levels of itinerant electrons confined to loops of length $\ell=8$ (left) and $\ell=12$ (right), due to the hopping term in Hamiltonian . There are nondegenerate levels at the highest and lowest energies, $\pm{2t}$, independent of loop length; the other levels are doubly degenerate. []{data-label="fig:nrjlevel"}](cartoon_loop_dispersion_03){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
Our system is thus described by
- the number of lattice sites $N$, equal to $4\,L^{2}$ and $16\,L^{3}$ for the checkerboard and pyrochlore lattices respectively, where $L$ is the linear number of unit cells;
- the total electron number $N_e$, and the electron density $\rho=N_e/N$;
- the loop histogram of a given configuration, *i.e.* the number $h_{i}$ of loops of length $\ell_{i}$, $\ell_{i}$ being necessarily an even number on a bipartite lattice;
- the type of lattice, which will among other things determine the smallest possible loop in the system $\ell_{min}$ (4 for checkerboard and 6 for pyrochlore); the longest possible loop length is always $\sim N/2$.
We define a few additional relevant observables:
- the total number of loops in a given configuration $N_{\ell}=\sum_{i} h_{i}$;
- the average loop length for a given configuration\
$\overline{\ell}\;=\;\dfrac{\sum_{i} h_{i} \ell_{i}}{\sum_{i} h_{i}}\;=\;\dfrac{N}{N_{\ell}}$;
- the statistical average loop length $\langle \ell \rangle$ over all loop configurations;
- the statistical average number of loops $\langle N_{\ell} \rangle$;
- the number of filaments (see section \[sec:conduction\]).
Low doping regime {#sec_lowdoping}
=================
In this section we consider the low doping regime where $N_e$ is small enough to have loop configurations with more loops than electrons, $N_{\ell}>N_e$. Since the lowest single-electron energy level in any loop is $-2t$, the minimum accessible energy is the same ($-2tN_e$) for all such configurations. Therefore, the ground state manifold consists of all such loop coverings with the same energy $-2tN_e$. The free energy within this manifold is then only determined by entropics. At zero temperature, entropy is understood in the sense that all configurations have an equal probability to occur.
In the first subsection below, we present some entropy calculations, combining loop and electronic contributions to the entropy, and show how this determines the average loop length at nonzero electronic density $\rho$. In the second subsection we present numerical results on the effect of electrons on the entire loop length distribution (loop PDF). The effect on the loop PDF is a natural way to characterize the influence of electrons in the magnetic Coulomb-phase system.
{width="0.9\columnwidth"} {width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Entropy
-------
The total entropy consists of loop and electronic contributions. The loop distribution is of course itself affected by the itinerant electrons. However, in the limit of small $\rho$, the change in loop entropy is small. Below we combine the $\rho=0$ loop entropy with the finite-$\rho$ electronic entropy to approximate the total entropy at small $\rho$.
#### Loop entropy. {#loop-entropy. .unnumbered}
Figure 3 shows the distribution of the number of loops $N_{\ell}$ having length $\ell$, in the absence of electrons ($\rho=0$), obtained from Monte Carlo simulations (Appendix \[appworm\]). The distribution has Gaussian form: $$\begin{aligned}
P(N_{\ell})\sim \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\;\exp\left[-\dfrac{(N_{\ell}-\langle N_{\ell}\rangle)^{2}}{2\kappa N}\right]
\label{eq:Gaussian}\end{aligned}$$ where $\kappa_{2d}=0.0384$ and $\kappa_{3d}=0.00423$. In 2D, there are *two* Gaussians, corresponding to even and odd $N_{\ell}$.
For a system with short-distance correlations, Gaussian distributions are natural to expect from the Central Limit Theorem, since by dividing the system into small mesoscopic segments the total distribution can be recast into a sum of many random variables. In our case, however, we have a system with algebraic correlations and extended objects (loops), so finding Gaussian distributions is not a priori trivial.
Equation \[eq:Gaussian\] can be expressed in terms of the average loop length $\overline{\ell}=N/N_{\ell}$ instead of $N_{\ell}$: $$\begin{gathered}
P(\overline{\ell})\equiv P(N_{\ell}) \left|\dfrac{{\rm d}N_{\ell}}{{\rm
d}\overline{\ell}}\right| \,
\sim \dfrac{\sqrt{N}}{\overline{\ell}^{2}}\;\exp\left[-\dfrac{N}{2\kappa}\left(\frac{1}{\overline{\ell}}-\frac{1}{\langle \ell\rangle}\right)^{2}\right]
\\
\sim \dfrac{\sqrt{N}}{\overline{\ell}^{2}}\;\exp\left[-\dfrac{N}{2\kappa}
\left(\frac{\overline{\ell}-\langle \ell\rangle}{\langle \ell\rangle^{2}}\right)^{2}\right]
\label{eq:Gaussian2}\end{gathered}$$ Here we have used $1/\overline{\ell}\langle\ell\rangle\approx
1/\langle\ell\rangle^2$, which is valid for large $N$ in the region where the Gaussian is appreciable. Thus the loop contribution to the entropy ($\sim\ln{P}$) is $$S_{loop}=S_{1}-\dfrac{N}{2\kappa\,\langle \ell\rangle^{4}}\left(\overline{\ell}-\langle \ell\rangle\right)^{2}
\, ,
\label{eq:entropy2}$$ where $S_1$ is a constant.
#### Electronic entropy. {#electronic-entropy. .unnumbered}
Since we have at most one electron per loop, the number of possible combinations to put $N_{e}$ electrons in $N_{\ell}$ loops is the binomial (Pascal) coefficient $N_l!/[N_e!(N_l-N_e)!]$. The logarithm then gives the electronic contribution to the entropy. Using Stirling’s approximation for the thermodynamic limit ($N_l\gg1$, $N_e\gg1$), we get as per usual $$S_{elec} = \frac{N}{\overline{\ell}} \left[x \ln x + (1-x) \ln(1-x)\right]$$ where $x= N_e/N_l = \rho \overline{\ell}$.
{width="0.9\columnwidth"} {width="0.9\columnwidth"}
#### Total Entropy. {#total-entropy. .unnumbered}
For small electron densities, we can approximate the loop entropy by the $\rho=0$ expression calculated above. The total entropy of electrons and loops is then $$\begin{gathered}
S_{tot}=\;-\; \frac{N}{\overline{\ell}} \left[\rho \overline{\ell} \ln \rho \overline{\ell}
+ (1-\rho \overline{\ell}) \ln(1-\rho \overline{\ell})\right] \\
~+~
S_{1}-\dfrac{N}{2\kappa\,\langle \ell\rangle_0^{4}}\left(\overline{\ell}-\langle \ell\rangle_0\right)^{2}
\, .
\label{eq:Selecloop}\end{gathered}$$ The subscript 0 represents the ensemble average at $\rho=0$. The value of $\overline{\ell}$ that maximizes $S_{tot}$ is found (in the limit $\rho\overline{\ell}\ll1$) to be $$\overline{\ell}_{opt} \approx \langle \ell\rangle_0 \;-\; \rho\kappa\langle \ell\rangle_0^{3} \, .
\label{eq:ell0}$$ For $\rho \langle \ell\rangle_{0} \ll1$, the distribution stays almost Gaussian, so this most probable value of $\overline{\ell}$ is approximately the mean value of the distribution $\langle\ell\rangle_{\rho}$. In Figure \[fig:meanell\_rho\], we compare this prediction to numerical data. For each system size $L$, we can extract $\langle\ell\rangle_0$ from the numerical $\langle\ell\rangle$ at $\rho=0$. Eq. then gives a linear prediction (dashed straight lines in Figure \[fig:meanell\_rho\]), which works well for small $\rho$.
Loop length distribution
------------------------
We next examine the effect of electrons on the entire loop probability distribution function (PDF). We denote by $\tau$ the power-law exponent, when the PDF has form $\ell^{-\tau}$. Without electrons ($\rho=0$), the PDF follows $P_{2D}{\sim}L^{2}/\ell^{\tau}$ in 2D with $\tau=2+1/7$. In 3D, the $\rho=0$ PDF displays a crossover around $\ell\sim L^{2}$ between two power laws, from $L^{3}/\ell^{5/2}$ to $1/\ell$. (For details, see Ref. .)
At finite electron densities, loop configurations with $N_{\ell}<N_{e}$ are rejected due to energetics, as explained previously. Thus electron doping acts not entirely unlike a “chemical potential” for loops, favoring configurations with more loops, and thus a priori shorter ones. In both 2D and 3D, this implies a disappearance of longer loops, as can be seen in the calculated PDF’s of Figures \[fig:pdfelec3d\] and \[fig:pdfelec2d\], where the large-$\ell$ parts of the PDF are progressively decimated for increasing $\rho$. In 3D the form of the PDF is otherwise unchanged (Figure \[fig:pdfelec3d\]). In 2D the effect seems to be more drastic; the inset of figure \[fig:pdfelec2d\] suggests that the entire power-law behavior of the PDF is modified.
To quantify how the 2D loop PDF changes qualitatively at finite $\rho$, we define and compute a *local* exponent in $\ell$: $\tau_{\rm
local}(\ell,\rho)=\log\left(P_{2D}(\ell,\rho)/P_{2D}(2\ell,\rho)\right)/\log
2$. This is displayed in the upper right inset to Figure \[fig:pdfelec2d\]. Our results suggest a trend toward increasing $\tau_{\rm local}$ as a function of $\rho$, consistent with the idea that itinerant electrons favor small loops.
This outcome deserves a few comments. In Ref. , the loop statistics of the 2D Coulomb phase (zero doping) has been shown to be analogous to the Stochastic Loewner evolution process SLE$_{\kappa=6}$ with fractal dimension $D_{f}=1+\kappa/8=7/4$. The SLE$_{\kappa}$ can be identified to various realizations of the $\mathcal{O}(n)$ model through the relation $n = -2 \cos(4\pi/\kappa)$. [@Cardy05a] The $\mathcal{O}(n)$ model is often used to describe fully packed loop models with loop fugacity $n$ (see *e.g.* Ref. ). The partition function of the fully packed loop model is $\mathcal{Z}=\sum n^{N_{\ell}}$, where the sum runs over all possible configurations. The Coulomb phase corresponds to a fully packed loop model [@Jaubert11a]; at zero doping, the free energy of our model is trivially independent of the number of loops $N_{\ell}$ and thus corresponds to a fugacity $n=1$. Higher values of the fugacities favor configurations with more loops and tend to increase the value of $\tau$ [@Jacobsen99a], in a way reminiscent of the influence of doping here. The addition of itinerant electrons remains a non-trivial problem and is not exactly the same as a fugacity for a loop, but at small and finite doping $\rho$, some features could be captured by $\mathcal{O}(n(\rho)>1)$ models or SLE$_{\kappa(\rho)<6}$ processes.
![ Loop length distribution $P_{3D}(\ell,\rho)$ in 3D for different values of doping ($\rho = \{0, 0.00075, 0.0015, 0.002\}]$) and system size $L=10$. The distribution is normalized such that $\int \ell P_{3D}(\ell,\rho) \textrm{d}\ell =16 L^{3}= N$. The dashed line indicates the power law fit $\ell^{-1}$ at $\rho=0$ and the arrow shows the shifting of the distribution for increasing $\rho$. The exponents of the two power law regions (before and after $\ell\approx L^{2}= 100$) do not vary, but the peak for long winding loops $\ell \sim 8 L^{3}=N/2$ gets smaller with increasing $\rho$. []{data-label="fig:pdfelec3d"}](3dblooodyL10realpdf_totl){width="\columnwidth"}
![ *Main:* Loop length distribution $P_{2D}(\ell,\rho)$ in 2D for different values of doping ($\rho = \{0, 0.0025, 0.0056, 0.0087\}]$) and system size $L=40$. The distribution is normalized such that $\int \ell P_{2D}(\ell,\rho) \textrm{d}\ell =4 L^{2}= N$. The dashed line indicates power law $L^{2}/\ell^{15/7}$ and the arrow shows the shifting of the distribution for increasing $\rho$. On this scale, it is not obvious whether the exponent of the power law varies or not. *Inset:* The power-law exponent defined locally on $\ell$, $\tau_{\rm local}$ for $\ell=8 (\textcolor{red}{\blacksquare}), 16 (\textcolor{green}{\blacktriangle}), 32 (\textcolor{blue}{\bullet})$ for $L=40$ (similar behavior obtained for $L=20$ and 60). []{data-label="fig:pdfelec2d"}](2dblooodyL40paper){width="\columnwidth"}
Large densities; phase diagrams {#sec_phasediagram}
===============================
In this section, we present results relevant for higher densities, where entropic considerations are no longer sufficient, and non-trivial electronic hopping energies need to be considered. We continue to describe the system in terms of loop coverings.
We first provide an analysis based on calculations for loop coverings of equal-length loops. Using a Maxwell construction, we can use this information to predict ranges of electron density where the ground state manifold consists of coverings by loops of two different lengths.
These considerations, described in the first two subsections below, do not take into account any lattice constraints other than the fact that the minimum loop length is $\ell_{min}=4$(6) for the checkerboard (pyrochlore). Lattice constraints, disallowing some loop coverings, are difficult to enumerate or list comprehensively on account of their non-local nature. In the final subsection, we present the lattice constraints that we have identified, and their implications.
Equal-length loop configurations
--------------------------------
In this subsection and the next, we imagine that coverings with any unique loop length $\ell \geqslant \ell_{min}$ are possible. Later, we will show that at certain fillings, the ground states exhibit a unique loop length, while at others, the behaviour can be understood through a Maxwell construction based on the single-length results.
For an odd number of electrons $\rho \ell=2n_{o}+1$ in a loop of length $\ell$, the energy is (see figure \[fig:nrjlevel\]) $$\begin{aligned}
E(\rho,\ell)=-2t\;\sum_{n=-n_{o}}^{n_{o}}\;\cos\left(\dfrac{2\pi n}{\ell}\right)= -2t \; \dfrac{\sin\left(\pi\rho\right)}{\sin\left(\pi/\ell\right)}
\label{eq:nrjloopodd}\end{aligned}$$ For an even number of electrons $2n_{o}$, this expression becomes $$\begin{aligned}
E(\rho,\ell)&=& -2t \; \dfrac{\sin\pi\left(\rho-1/\ell\right)}{\sin\left(\pi/\ell\right)} -2t\;\cos(\pi \rho)
\label{eq:nrjloopeven}\end{aligned}$$ More generally, if $\rho\ell$ is not an integer, we define the highest odd integer below $\rho\ell$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\eta\;=\;2 \textrm{E}\left(\dfrac{\rho\;\ell-1}{2}\right)+1
\label{eq:eta}\end{aligned}$$ where E$(.)$ is the floor function. Each loop is filled with at least $\eta$ electrons up to the energy levels at $k=\pm\pi(\eta-1)/\ell$, while the remaining $N(\rho-\eta/\ell)$ electrons in the system are distributed in the partially filled level at $k=\pm\pi(\eta+1)/\ell$. The total energy is $$\begin{aligned}
E(\rho,\ell)= -2t
N \left[ \dfrac{\sin\left(\pi\eta/\ell\right)}{\ell\sin\left(\pi/\ell\right)}
+\left(\rho-\dfrac{\eta}{\ell}\right) \cos\left(\pi \dfrac{\eta+1}{\ell}\right)\right]
\label{eq:nrjloop}\end{aligned}$$ These expressions are electron-hole symmetric, *i.e.* invariant under $\rho\leftrightarrow(1-\rho)$.
Figure \[fig:ellrho\] displays the loop length $\ell(\rho)$ that minimizes the energy (\[eq:nrjloop\]) as a function of $\rho$, and thus corresponds to the ground state if we impose a unique loop length in the system. (The electron-hole symmetry shows up clearly through the mirror symmetry on either side of $\rho=0.5$. Therefore, we shall from now on only consider densities below 1/2.)
Since the lowest possible energy for an electron is $-2t$ and is only accessible for one electron per loop, loops of length 4 are favored up to $\rho=1/4$. Of course for lower densities than 1/4, other configurations may be possible as long as the number of loops is larger than the number of electrons, but a system with only loops of length 4 will always be part of the ground state manifold for $\rho \leqslant 1/4$.
Remarkably, for most densities, a finite loop length with discrete energy levels is preferred compared to infinite loops, except for $\rho=1/3$ and $2/5$.
{width="\columnwidth"} {width="\columnwidth"}
We plot on figure \[fig:nrjrho\] the minimum energy corresponding to the loop length $\ell(\rho)$ of figure \[fig:ellrho\]: $E_{min}(\rho)=E(\rho,\ell(\rho))$.
Maxwell construction; lattice-independent phase diagram
-------------------------------------------------------
We now move beyond configurations with unique loop length. We need to consider mixtures of electron densities in the different loops. This is done through a Maxwell construction, similar to the physics of a liquid-gas first-order phase transition.
A system of $N$ sites and density $\rho$ can be divided into two subsets of sites $N_{1}$ and $N_{2}$, with density $\rho_{1}$ and $\rho_{2}$ of electrons and loop length $\ell_{1}$ and $\ell_{2}$ respectively, with $$\begin{gathered}
N\;=\;N_{1}\;+\;N_{2} \nonumber \\
N\;\rho\;=\;N_{1}\;\rho_{1}\;+\;N_{2}\;\rho_{2}.
\label{eq:csv}\end{gathered}$$ Now if a straight line between $E_{min}(\rho_{1})$ and $E_{min}(\rho_{2})$ remains below the curve $E_{min}(\rho)$ on figure \[fig:nrjrho\], *i.e.* if $$\begin{aligned}
N\;E_{min}(\rho)\;>\;N_{1}\;E_{min}(\rho_{1})\;+\;N_{2}\;E_{min}(\rho_{2}) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ then the mixture of two densities is more stable than a unique density and “phase separation” occurs. We thus construct a phase diagram, separating regions of different loop length combinations.
{width="\columnwidth"} {width="\columnwidth"}
{width="1.7\columnwidth"}
On figure \[fig:PD\], the dots correspond to densities where a unique loop length is favored, whereas the zones between them are “phase mixed”, defined by the loop lengths and electron densities of the surrounding dots. The ratio of one phase compared to the other is given by equations . For example for $\rho=0.4$, 80% of the sites belong to loops of length $\ell_{1}=8$ with electron density $\rho_{1}=3/8$, while the remaining 20% belong to loops of length $\ell_{2}=6$ with density $\rho_{2}=1/2$. As shown on figure \[fig:ellrho\], loops of length 4 are particularly robust over a wide range of $\rho$; preventing their formation, *e.g.* in the pyrochlore lattice in $d=3$ which permits loops of minimal length 6, thus strongly modifies the phase diagram.\
These results indicate that itinerant electrons tend to favor relatively small loops and to prevent the formation of infinite ones at zero temperature.
At low electron densities (up to $1/\ell_{min}$), the minimum energy for a given $\rho$ is degenerate: *e.g.* for $\rho=1/12$, having only loops of length 4, 6, 8, 10 or 12 gives the same energy, as the number of electrons is smaller than the number of loops on the system, and every electron can fill the lowest energy level. This explains why $E_{min}(\rho)$ is a straight line in this region (Figure \[fig:nrjrho\]): as $\rho$ decreases from $1/\ell_{min}$ to 0, the degeneracy of the ground state increases until one recovers naturally the full degeneracy for $\rho=0$. This of course corresponds to the entropic regime mentioned above.
We stress again that these results have been obtained independently of the lattice (except for the value of $\ell_{min}$), and that lattice constraints (next subsection) will modify some of the phase diagram.
Lattice constraints on loop coverings {#sec:lattice_constraints}
-------------------------------------
We now consider effects of the lattice in disallowing some of the configurations predicted by our analysis above. For the specific densities where it is possible to cover the lattice with loops of a unique length, the result is an ordered *loop crystal*. In some cases, however, a covering by a unique length or by a combination of loops of two lengths, is not possible. We point out some such cases below.
### Checkerboard
We first focus on the regime $\rho \in [1/4;3/8]$ favoring loops of length 4 or 8 according to the Maxwell construction. As illustrated in figure \[fig:loop48\], not only can the lattice be covered by these loops, but the transformation from 4 loops of length 4 to 2 of length 8 is also purely local and allows all possible ratios between these two phases in the thermodynamic limit. A pair of loops of length 8 (one made of up spins, the other of down ones) cannot be separated if there are no other lengths than 4 and 8 in the system. We shall call such pair a defect. The defect concentration is determined by $\rho$. Defects are not topological in the sense that they can be created and annihilated locally, they can be placed anywhere in the background made of loops of length 4.
At quarter filling, there is one electron per loop of length 4, its energy is $-2t$ and their total number is $N/4$. Each additional pair of electrons fills the first excited level of the newly created defect (3 electrons per $\ell=8$ loop) and gives an energy $-4t\left(\sqrt{2}-1\right)$. At a given $\rho$, the number of electrons added with respect to the loop crystal at quarter filling is $(\rho N-N/4)=(4\rho-1)L^{2}$. The total energy of the system between $\rho=1/4$ and $3/8$ is then $$\begin{aligned}
E(\rho)=-2t\,L^{2}\,\left(1+(4\rho-1)(\sqrt{2}-1)\right)
\label{eq:nrj48}\end{aligned}$$ Once normalized per number of sites $4L^{2}$, this expression is the dashed line plotted on figure \[fig:nrjrho\]. We have verified this analytical result with finite-temperature Monte Carlo simulations; some details of the method are in Appendix \[appworm\]. Extensive degeneracy is recovered in this region between 1/4 and 3/8.
At higher doping, above $\rho=3/8$, the Maxwell argument predicts a mixture of loops of length 8 and 6. However, as we can see in figure \[fig:loop48\], a single loop of length 6 imposes the presence of loops of length 10 at least. This implies that this region of the phase diagram (obtained without accounting for such lattice constraints) is further modified, in an as yet unknown manner.
### Pyrochlore {#sec:pyrokag}
Analogous modification of the phase diagram of figure \[fig:PD\] is more severe for the pyrochlore, and shows up already at $\rho=1/\ell_{min}=1/6$. We have found that it is impossible to cover the pyrochlore lattice with loops of length 6 only. However, it is possible to do it for half of the system, as explained next.
The pyrochlore lattice can be seen as an alternative stack of kagome and triangular layers orthogonal to one of the global \[111\] axes. As depicted on figure \[fig:trikag\](d), 2/3 of each kagome layer can be filled with loops of length 6 (blue hexagons), while the other 1/3 of the kagome sites forms extensive winding loops along the \[111\]-axis, crossing alternatively the kagome and triangular layers. Since all blue sites form loops of length 6, putting one electron per loop provides a ground state configuration up to $\rho=1/12$ at least. This is a priori not the only one, but this proves its existence.
Indeed, despite an intensive search by complete enumeration of configurations respecting the ice-rules on the pyrochlore lattice, we have not detected any relevant loop crystal or mixture of them for systems up to 128 sites. A system of size 192 has been partially investigated, with the same outcome. The smallest occurrence of a single-length loop covering is for 8 loops of length 16 in a system of 128 sites; however this is not a relevant length according to our phase diagram of Figure \[fig:PD\]. Thus, the loop coverings on an actual pyrochlore are modified from Figure \[fig:PD\] in most or all of the density range $\rho\in[1/6,1/2]$. The details of this modification remains an important open problem.
Conducting channels or “filaments” {#sec:conduction}
==================================
In this section, we discuss the effect of the Coulomb phase and loop structure on the conductivity of mobile electrons. Since the electrons are confined to loops, they can conduct only if a loop connects one edge of the sample to the opposite end. Therefore, we study the number of such sample-spanning loops, which, following Ref. , we refer to as “filaments”.
When there are no filaments (*e.g.* in loop crystals with only finite-length loops), the system is unambiguously an insulator. When there are filaments spanning the system, the system cannot be immediately called a conductor, because the actual conductivity will depend on scattering mechanisms exterior to our model.
In the first subsection below, we consider small dopings, where we present Monte Carlo results for the average number of filaments as a function of system size. In the second subsection, we comment on the consequences of our phase diagram.
Filaments at low densities
--------------------------
We first consider very low densities that the loop distribution can be assumed to be largely unchanged from the $\rho=0$ case.
In 2D, there is a small but constant number ($\approx{1.86}$) of winding loops on average in the thermodynamic limit [@Jaubert11a]. There is thus some probability to have filaments in the checkerboard case, but the number of filaments does not grow with system size.
In 3D, the background of winding loops ensures that there are filaments whose number grows with system size. The data in Figure \[fig:avlNs\] shows that the number of filaments increases linearly with the linear size of the cubic sample.
![ Average number of filaments, *i.e.* those segments of loops spanning the entire system from one border to the opposite one, as a function of system size $L$. We use two definitions of filaments; they can either cross the orthogonal borders thanks to the periodic boundary conditions $(\textcolor{red}{\bullet})$ or not $(\textcolor{blue}{\blacksquare})$. The cartoon on the right shows such a boundary-crossing filament, which would be excluded in the $\textcolor{blue}{\blacksquare}$ data. Dashed lines are guides to the eye for the linear behavior with $L$. Both x- and y-axes are on a logarithmic scale. []{data-label="fig:avlNs"}](filaments_undoped_01){width="0.98\columnwidth"}
Since our simulations and loop counting are performed with periodic boundary conditions, some of the filaments, while spanning the sample in one direction, also cross one of the orthogonal boundaries. (An example is shown in the cartoon to the right of Figure \[fig:avlNs\].) One can argue that this type of filament would not contribute to conduction in a real-life cubic pyrochlore sample. Therefore, we show data both excluding and including this type of filament, and they are seen to have the same power-law behavior.
Since the data including these filaments have better statistics, for finite $\rho$ we display the inclusive data, with the expectation that there is no qualitative difference.
According to Fig. \[fig:pdfelec3d\], itinerant electrons tend to make disappear extensive loops of length $L^{3}$ in 3D. Whether or not this prevents the formation of filaments is not as straightforward as it seems. Indeed, one could naively assume that the number of conducting channels will decrease and maybe even vanish in the thermodynamic limit. However the number of filaments remains approximately constant as plotted on figure \[fig:Nfil\]. This means that the average number of loops increases with doping via dividing the very long ones into smaller but nonetheless extensive loops spanning the system. In the low doping regime in 3D, the number of conducting channels is approximately *independent* of $\rho$.
By contrast, in 2D, with relatively large error-bars, the number of filaments decreases but remains of $\mathcal{O}(1)$ as electrons are added.
{width="8cm"} {width="8cm"}
Conduction channels at larger fillings
--------------------------------------
In Section \[sec\_phasediagram\], we identified densities (for both 2D and 3D) where the system is a loop crystal or is covered by loops of two finite lengths only. In such cases, there are no filaments, and the system is truly insulating: lifting the frustration-induced degeneracy removes the non-locality of the loops. How the energetics (and resulting degeneracies) imposed by lattice constraints (see section \[sec:lattice\_constraints\]) manifest themselves in transport properties is an intriguing separate question.
For some ranges of $\rho$, especially in 3D, the loop coverings indicated by the Maxwell construction are disallowed by the lattice geometry (section \[sec:lattice\_constraints\]). In such cases it remains an open question whether or not the lattice constraints result in loop coverings including infinite (sample-spanning) loops. Unfortunately, the issue of conducting channels depends on the answer to this generally unresolved question.
Summary and outlook
===================
We have analyzed the double exchange model on the pyrochlore lattice in two and three dimensions. We have chosen to consider a parameter range for which (i) magnetic frustration is known to give rise to unconventional ground state ensembles and (ii) where it is possible to make considerable analytical progress by mapping the system onto an ensemble of loops, the statistical properties of which are influenced by the addition of the electrons.
We have identified a number of phenomena which depend on features such as dimensionality, which determines whether or not there exist loop segments winding around the system; or lattice structure, which may frustrate the geometric packing of preferred loop lengths.
The model studied here leaves unanswered a number of questions and immediately suggests many generalizations and extensions. We have worked in a limit of parameters such that the magnetic exchange and anisotropy dominate over the Hund coupling which in turn dominates the hopping integral. Our analysis applies to zero temperature.
It would be interesting to relax any of these choices, although technically this may not be easy. In particular, given the presence of gapless excitations on long loops, interesting low-temperature physics may appear. Canting can give rise to non-trivial Berry phase physics, and finite Hund’s coupling will enable electrons to hop between loops. For example, recent work at quarter filling on the pyrochlore Kondo lattice has shown the emergence of a chiral magnetic order in the weak-coupling regime [@Chern10a].
Finally, even in the parameter range discussed here, it will be interesting to ask how different frustrated lattices shape up compared to the pyrochlores. We devote the final paragraphs of this paper to discussing this question for the case of triangle-based lattices, the triangular Bravais lattice and the Archimedean kagome lattice.
Other lattices: triangular and kagome
-------------------------------------
The Ising ground states observed for the pyrochlore lattice have vanishing total spin on each tetrahedron. These ‘ice rules’ ensure the existence of the Coulomb phase and states obeying them amount to a moderate zero-point entropy of less than a third of that of a free spin. By contrast, the zero-point entropy of the triangular Ising magnet is not far from half of that of a free spin, while that of the kagome magnet is over 70% of $\log2$.
Most fundamentally, the single triangle is relatively much more degenerate than a tetrahedron, with 6 out of 8 (rather than out of 16) states being ground states. The triangle states have varying magnetizations of $\pm 1$ (whereas states obeying the ice rule have a unique magnetization, unless one tunes a field to a transition between magnetization plateaux [@Moessner09a]).
To move towards the full triangle-based lattices, it is worth noting that for any Ising antiferromagnet, the ‘hopping network’ formed by neighbouring aligned spins can have a coordination of at most half that of $z$, the coordination of the underlying lattice – otherwise it would be energetically favorable to flip the highly coordinated spin. The concept of the hopping network generalizes the loops on which the electrons hop on the planar and three dimensional pyrochlores.
It now turns out that triangle and kagome lattices behave entirely differently from pyrochlore in both two and three dimensions, on account of the nature of their frustrated ground state ensembles.
### Triangular lattice
The ground-state degeneracy of the triangular lattice is immediately lifted by the addition of even a single hole. This result is entirely analogous to the frustrated Nagaoka theorem presented in Ref. , in the context of the magnetic supersolid discussed there, and it is also connected to the triangular Bosonic supersolids [@Murthy97a; @Heidarian05a; @Wessel05a; @Melko05a].
As $z=6$ for the triangular lattice, the hopping network of aligned spins no longer has coordination two as in the loops of the pyrochlore lattice. In fact, the coordination of a site of the hopping network no longer even needs to be uniform, so that there may be dangling or even isolated sites, as on Fig. \[fig:trikag\].(a). The coordination can range all the way from zero (for a spin surrounded by a hexagon of oppositely aligned spins) to maximally $z/2=3$.
The latter happens when the hole sits on a site experiencing zero net exchange field from its six neighbors. There exists a unique state (pictured in Fig. \[fig:trikag\].(b)) in which there is a network of three-fold coordinated sites. This state breaks translational symmetry by tripling the unit cell as well as time-reversal symmetry as it corresponds to a state with a magnetization of a third of the saturated value. We have not studied what happens to a finite doping but a Fermi liquid regime on the hexagonal backbone at low doping looks likely. This would imply a conducting state, with the possibility of additional low-energy excitations in the form of defects of the hexagonal backbone.
![Configurations on the triangular (top) and kagome (bottom) lattices respecting the antiferromagnetic frustrated constraints. *(a)* and *(c)* are random configurations, while *(b)* is the conducting hopping network minimizing the kinetic energy on the triangular lattice, and *(d)* is the insulating state maximizing the number of closed loops on kagome. Panel *(d)* also illustrates the arrangement of loops described in section \[sec:pyrokag\] in the two dimensional kagome layers which are part of the three dimensional pyrochlore lattice. []{data-label="fig:trikag"}](cartoons_triangle_kagome_01){width="8cm"}
### Kagome lattice
The situation on the kagome lattice is different still. Its magnetic ground state ensemble is very short-range correlated, unlike that of the triangular lattice, which has algebraic correlations. With $z=4$ for the kagome lattice, the hopping network can no longer branch but it can now have dangling links or isolated spins (coordination 1 and 0, respectively, as illustrated on Fig. \[fig:trikag\].(c)).
The hopping networks thus consist of loop segments which need no longer close on themselves, minimally containing only one spin but not bounded above in the thermodynamic limit. The length distribution is, however, unlikely to contain long loops as this would only happen if each the magnetization of all the triangles along the loop segment has the same sign, at considerable cost in entropy.
Energetically, it is of course again most advantageous to have closed loops, as electrons on them gain hopping energy $-2|t|$. On the kagome lattice, such loops are readily constructed. The shortest ones are obtained by arranging spins to be aligned around a hexagon. Their densest packing is obtained for a state which breaks translational symmetry, tripling the unit cell and incorporating a 1/3 magnetization as was the case of the triangular lattice above, see Fig. \[fig:trikag\].(d). However, this state – which is the unique ground state at electron density $\rho=1/9$ is now an insulating one – all hopping paths for the electrons close back on themselves after six steps.
We thank J. Chalker, C. Henley, and M. Viret for useful discussions.
Worm algorithm {#appworm}
==============
#### Worm algorithm without electrons.
In our definition, a loop is made of nearest neighbour spins pointing in the same direction: it is uniquely defined and possesses an up or down flavor. On the other hand, a worm consists of alternating up/down/up/down/... spins; through each vertex of the premedial lattice (square in 2D or diamond in 3D); see figure \[fig:latt\_worm\]. The worm can randomly choose between two paths energetically equivalent and eventually hit its initial position; the worm is then closed. Reversing all spins in the worm gives way to a new configuration in the Coulomb phase (figure \[fig:latt\_worm\]). This method ensures both ergodicity and detailed balance to the algorithm in absence of electrons [@Barkema98a].
Worms, as defined above, are not self-avoiding, *i.e.* they can erase their own path. If a worm goes an odd number of times through the same site, the corresponding spin will be flipped during the Monte Carlo update; if it happens an even number of times, the spin shall not be flipped.
![ On the left, the same loop configuration as in figure \[fig:latt\]. The thick dashed green line represents a possible worm, as built by our algorithm; flipping the spins along this worm does not break the ice-rules (see on the right) and allows us to visit the configurational space of the Coulomb phase, ensuring ergodicity. []{data-label="fig:latt_worm"}](CoulombPhase2Dworm){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
#### Decorrelation.
Since we are dealing with Ising spins, two random configurations roughly differ by one half of the system sites on average. Hence two configurations separated by $k$ worm updates can be considered decorrelated if close to one half of the system sites are different: we arbitrarily chose 45%. Previous work [@Jaubert11a] has shown that a finite constant number of worm updates ($\sim 10$) was enough to decorrelate the system in 3D, but an increasing number with system size $L$ was necessary in 2D. This is related to Pólya’s theorem stating that a random walk (similar to the worm here) in 3D is transient (finite probability never to come back to the origin), while it is recurrent in 2D (it always comes back) [@Hughes95a].
#### Worm algorithm with electrons – entropic regime.
In the entropic regime, *i.e.* at low doping, there is at most one electron per loop. A correct sampling can then be done by using the above worm algorithm free of electrons, and rejecting all configurations with more electrons $N_{e}$ than loops $N_{\ell}$. However, the distribution of number of loops per configuration being Gaussian (see figure \[fig:entropy2\]), the density of electrons acts as a cutoff and above a certain threshold of the order of $1/\langle \ell \rangle$, almost all configurations are rejected and it becomes impossible to get good statistics.
In order to take into account the influence of itinerant electrons in the entropy, we chose to weigh any loop configuration by the number of possible combinations to distribute $N_{e}$ electrons in $N_{\ell}$ loops, namely the binomial coefficient $C_{N_{\ell}}^{N_{e}}$.
#### Worm algorithm with electrons – energetic regime.
In the energy regime, *i.e.* at intermediate or high doping, there is more than one electron per loop. The above method based on the worm algorithm without electrons become inefficient and finite temperature Monte Carlo simulations are necessary.
Starting from a given configuration, a worm update is proposed. The loop histogram of the states before and after the proposed update are computed, and the corresponding electron energies are calculated after filling the energy levels with $N_{e}$ electrons. The worm update is then accepted or not via a Metropolis argument.
K. Ohgushi, S. Murakami, and N. Nagaosa, Physical Review B **62**, R6065 (2000).
S. Onoda and N. Nagaosa, Physical Review Letters **90** (2003).
D. Ikoma, H. Tsuchiura, and J. Inoue, Physical Review B **68** (2003).
J. Haerter and B. Shastry, Physical Review Letters **95**, 087202 (2005).
Y. Shimomura, S. Miyahara, and N. Furukawa, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan **74**, 661 (2005).
I. Martin and C. D. Batista, Physical Review Letters **101**, 156402 (2008).
A. Kalitsov, B. Canals, and C. Lacroix, Journal of Physics: Conference Series **145**, 012020 (2009).
Y. Motome and N. Furukawa, Physical Review Letters **104** (2010).
S. Kumar and J. van den Brink, Physical Review Letters **105**, 216405 (2010).
M. Udagawa, H. Ishizuka, and Y. Motome, Physical Review Letters **104**, 226405 (2010).
E. Tang, J.-W. Mei, and X.-G.Wen, Physical Review Letters **106**, 236802 (2011).
D. A. Huse, W. Krauth, R. Moessner, and S. L. Sondhi, Physical Review Letters **91**, 167004 (2003).
G. Chen, J. Gukelberger, S. Trebst, F. Alet, and L. Balents, Physical Review B **80** (2009).
D. J. P. Morris, D. A. Tennant, S. A. Grigera, B. Klemke, C. Castelnovo, R. Moessner, C. Czternasty, M. Meissner, K. C. Rule, J. U. Hoffmann, et al., Science **326**, 411 (2009).
T. Fennell, P. P. Deen, A. R. Wildes, K. Schmalzl, D. Prabhakaran, A. T. Boothroyd, R. J. Aldus, D. F.McMorrow, and S. T. Bramwell, Science **326**, 415 (2009).
For a review of the Coulomb phase, see C. L. Henley, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics **1**, 179 (2010).
S. Powell, Physical Review B **84**, 094437 (2011).
J. Villain, Zeitschrift F¬ur Physik B-Condensed Matter **33**, 31 (1979).
S. T. Banks and S. T. Bramwell, arXiv:1107.5411 (2011).
L. D. C. Jaubert, M. Haque, and R. Moessner, Physical Review Letters **107**, 177202 (2011).
A. Nahum, J. T. Chalker, P. Serna, M. Ortu÷no, and A. M. Somoza, Physical Review Letters **107**, 110601 (2011).
J. D. Bernal and R. H. Fowler, Journal of Chemical Physics **1**, 515 (1933).
R. J. Baxter, Exactly solved models in statistical mechanics (Dover Publications, 2007).
M. J. Harris, S. T. Bramwell, D. F. McMorrow, T. Zeiske, and K. W. Godfrey, Physical Review Letters **79**, 2554 (1997).
R. Moessner, Physical Review B **57**, R5587 (1998).
J. Cardy, Annals of Physics **318**, 81 (2005).
J. L. Jacobsen and J. Vannimenus, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General **32**, 5455 (1999).
M. Viret, F. Ott, J. Renard, H. Glattli, L. Pinsard-Gaudart, and A. Revcolevschi, Physical Review Letters **93** (2004).
G.-W. Chern, Physical Review Letters **105**, 226403 (2010).
R. Moessner, Journal of Physics: Conference Series **145**, 012001 (2009).
R. Moessner and S. L. Sondhi, Physical Review B **62**, 14122 (2000).
G. Murthy, D. Arovas, and A. Auerbach, Physical Review B **55**, 3104 (1997).
D. Heidarian and K. Damle, Physical Review Letters **95**, 127206 (2005).
S. Wessel and M. Troyer, Physical Review Letters **95**, 127205 (2005).
R. Melko, A. Paramekanti, A. Burkov, A. Vishwanath, D. Sheng, and L. Balents, Physical Review Letters **95**, 127207 (2005).
G. T. Barkema and M. E. J. Newman, Physical Review E **57**, 1155 (1998).
B. D. Hughes, Random walks and random environments (Oxford University Press, 1995)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present an analysis of [[*Chandra*]{}]{} spectra of five gravitationally lensed active galactic nuclei. We confirm the previous detections of FeK$\alpha$ emission lines in most images of these objects with high significance. The line energies range from 5.8 to 6.8 keV with widths from unresolved to 0.6 keV, consistent with emission close to spinning black holes viewed at different inclination angles. We also confirm the positive offset from the Iwasawa-Taniguchi effect, the inverse correlation between the FeK$\alpha$ equivalent width and the X-ray luminosity in AGN, where our measured equivalent widths are larger in lensed quasars. We attribute this effect to microlensing, and perform a microlensing likelihood analysis to constrain the emission size of the relativistic reflection region and the spin of supermassive black holes, assuming that the X-ray corona and the reflection region, responsible for the iron emission line, both follow power-law emissivity profiles. The microlensing analysis yields strong constraints on the spin and emissivity index of the reflection component for [Q2237$+$0305]{}, with $a > 0.92$ and $n > 5.4$. For the remaining four targets, we jointly constrain the two parameters, yielding $a=0.8\pm0.16$ and an emissivity index of $n=4.0\pm 0.8$, suggesting that the relativistic X-ray reflection region is ultra-compact and very close to the innermost stable circular orbits of black holes, which are spinning at close to the maximal value. We successfully constrain the half light radius of the emission region to $< 2.4$ $r_g$ ($r_g = GM/c^2$) for [Q2237$+$0305]{} and in the range 5.9–7.4 $r_g$ for the joint sample.'
author:
- Xinyu Dai
- Shaun Steele
- Eduardo Guerras
- 'Christopher W. Morgan'
- Bin Chen
title: Constraining Quasar Relativistic Reflection Regions and Spins with Microlensing
---
Introduction
============
The X-ray spectra of active galactic nuclei (AGN) are characterized by continuum emission that is well modeled by a power law [e.g., @guilbert1988; @reynolds2003; @brenneman2013]. The UV emission of the accretion disk provides the seed photons and these photons are then inverse Compton scattered by relativistic electrons in the corona to produce the continuum. A portion of these photons are scattered back to the accretion disk and can can create a reprocessed or reflected emission component including fluorescent emission lines, most notably, the emission line at 6.4keV in the source rest frame [@guilbert1988; @fabian1995; @reynolds2003; @brenneman2013]. The exact locations of the reflection are not well constrained and the process can occur at multiple locations, from the inner accretion disk, disk, broad line regions, to the torus.
Measuring the spins of super-massive black holes (SMBH) at the centers of AGN is important because it is related to the growth history of the black holes, their interaction with the environment, the launching of relativistic jets, and the size of the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO) [e.g., @thorne1974; @blandford1977; @fabian2012; @brenneman2013; @chartas2017]. For example, as a SMBH grows it can provide matter and energy to its surrounding environment through outflows [@fabian2012]. One important method to estimate spins models the general relativistic (GR) and special relativistic (SR) distortions of the emission line [e.g., @brenneman2013; @reynolds2014]. This method has been applied to many nearby Seyferts with most estimates being close to the maximal spin [@reynolds2014]. Another approach is to model the UV-optical SEDs of high redshift quasars [e.g., @capellupo2015; @capellupo2017]. These studies again find high spins for high redshift quasars.
Quasar microlensing has significantly improved our understanding of the accretion disks [e.g., @dai2010; @morgan2010; @mosquera2013; @blackburne2014; @blackburne2015; @macleod2015] and non-thermal emission regions [e.g., @pooley2006; @pooley2007; @morgan2008; @chartas2009; @chartas2016; @chartas2017; @dai2010; @chen2011; @chen2012; @guer2017] of quasars, and the demographics of microlenses in the lens galaxy [e.g., @blackburne2014; @dg2018; @gdm2018] . Since the magnification diverges on the caustics produced by the lensing stars, quasar microlensing can constrain arbitrarily small emission regions if they can be isolated from other emission, in position, velocity, or energy. In particular, microlensing can be used to constrain the spin of black holes by measuring the ISCO size.
In this paper, we will utilize the excess equivalent width (EW) difference between lensed and unlensed quasars first summarized by @chen2012 to constrain the size of the reflection region and the spin of quasars. This paper is organized as follows. We present the [[*Chandra*]{}]{} observations and the data reduction in Section \[sec:obs\_red\] and the spectral analysis in Section \[sec:spec\]. In Section \[sec:spec\] we discuss the significance of the iron line detections and we confirm the offset of equivalent widths of lensed quasars. In Section \[sec:ML\], we carry out a microlensing analysis to estimate the size of the emission region and the spin of the black hole. We discuss the results in Section \[sec:discussion\]. We assume cosmological parameters of $\Omega_M = 0.27$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.73$, and $H_0 = 70$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ throughout the paper.
OBSERVATIONS AND DATA REDUCTION {#sec:obs_red}
===============================
The observations used in this paper were made with the Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer [@garmire2003] on board [[*Chandra X-ray Observatory*]{}]{} [@weisskopf2002]. [[*Chandra*]{}]{} has a point spread function (PSF) of 0[$^{\prime\prime}\!\!.$]{}5 and is therefore able to resolve most of the multiple images in lensed systems since they have a typical image separation of 1–2. We used two sets of data in this analysis. The first, which we call Data Set 1, mainly comes from the [[*Chandra*]{}]{} Cycle 11 program and the second, which we call Data Set 2, comes from [[*Chandra*]{}]{} Cycles 14–15. We analyzed five lenses: [QJ0158$-$4325]{}, [HE0435$-$1223]{}, [SDSSJ1004$+$4112]{}, [HE1104$-$1805]{}, and [Q2237$+$0305]{}. The lens properties are summarized in Table \[tab:lensinfo\]. All the data were reprocessed using the [[*Chandra X-ray Center*]{}]{} CIAO 4.7 software tool `chandra_repro`, which takes data that have already passed through the [[*Chandra X-ray Center*]{}]{} Standard Data Processing and filters the event file on the good time intervals, grades, cosmic ray rejection, transforms to celestial coordinates, and removes any observation-specific bad pixel files.
[lccccccccc]{}
QJ 0158$-$4325 & 1.29 & 0.317 & 01:58:41.44 & $-$43:25:04.20 & 1.95 & 12 & 29.9 & 111.7 & 141.6\
HE 0435$-$1223 & 1.689 & 0.46 & 04:38:14.9 & $-$12:17:14.4 & 5.11 & 10 & 48.4 & 217.5 & 265.9\
SDSS J1004$+$4112 & 1.734 & 0.68 & 10:04:34.91 & $+$41:12:42.8 & 1.11 & 11 & 103.8 & 145.6 & 249.4\
HE 1104$-$1805 & 2.32 & 0.73 & 11:06:33.45 & $-$18:21:24.2 & 4.62 & 15 & 110.0 & 80.5 & 191.5\
Q 2237$+$0305 & 1.69 & 0.04 & 22:40:30.34 & $+$03:21:28.8 & 5.51 & 30 & 292.4 & 175.4 & 467.8\
SPECTRAL ANALYSIS {#sec:spec}
=================
We extracted spectra using the CIAO 4.7 software tool `specextract`. We used circular extraction regions with a radius of 0[$^{\prime\prime}\!\!.$]{}72, which is less than the typical image separation but greater than the PSF of [[*Chandra*]{}]{}. We chose this extraction radius to balance the needs for maximizing the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) of the spectrum from a lensed image while minimizing the contamination from the other nearby lensed images. For the cluster lens, SDSS J1004+4112, we instead used circles with a radius 1[$^{\prime\prime}\!\!.$]{}5, because the lensed images are well separated in this system and are therefore not contaminated by the other images. The extraction regions were centered on the positions found from the PSF fits performed in @guer2017 to the X-ray images. For the background regions, a circular region with radius of 0[$^{\prime\prime}\!\!.$]{}72 was reflected through the position of the other images of the lens to account for both large scale backgrounds and any contamination from the other images. For SDSS J1004+4112, we used partial annuli to account for the non-negligible X-ray contamination from the X-ray emission of the cluster that acts as the lens for this object. We also extracted “Total” spectra using circular regions that encompass all images. Again, SDSS J1004+4112 was treated differently and the “Total" spectra is the sum of the individual image spectra. These regions are similar to those used in @chen2012, where a spectral analysis was performed for Data Set 1. @chartas2017 also performed an analysis on individual epochs of RXJ1131$-$1231, [QJ0158$-$4325]{}, and [SDSSJ1004$+$4112]{}.
We fit the extracted spectra using the [*NASA*]{} *HEASARC* software [*XSPEC*]{}*V12.9*. We used a simple power-law model for the direct X-ray continuum and then added Gaussian components for any emission lines. These were modified by Galactic absorption [@dickey90] and absorption from the lens. Galactic absorption was fixed for each system to the values given in Table \[tab:lensinfo\]. The lens absorption was a free parameter in the fitting process, unless there was no evidence for absorption in the lens. In these cases, the lens absorption was set to zero. The source and lens redshifts are also listed in Table \[tab:lensinfo\]. The spectral fitting results for combined data, Data Set 1, and Data Set 2 are given in Tables \[tab:spec\_fit\_results\], \[tab:spec\_fit\_results\_1\], and \[tab:spec\_fit\_results\_2\] respectively. In these tables, we report the photon index $\Gamma$, the lens absorption $N_H$, the Gaussian line properties (rest frame line energy, width, and EW)[^1], the reduced $\chi^2$ of the fit, the null-hypothesis probability of the fit, the analytical and Monte Carlo calibrated significances of the metal line, the line detection threshold of the spectrum, and the absorption free and macro magnification corrected X-ray luminosity $L_{X}$ over the 10–50keV rest frame range. We fit the spectra in the 0.4–8.0keV observed frame. The [*XSPEC*]{} command *dummyrsp* was used to extend our model to 50keV. The magnifications were calculated using the equation $$\label{eqn:mag_eqn}
\mu= |(1-\kappa)^2-\gamma^2|^{-1},$$ where $\kappa$ and $\gamma$ are the surface mass density and shear for each image, and we adopted the values from Table 9 of @guer2017. The reported luminosity values are different for individual images of each lens, because of the combination of source variability, time-delay, and microlensing effects. The spectral fits and $\Delta\chi ^2$ plots are shown in Figures \[fig:0158\_spec\]–\[fig:2237\_spec\].
We detected the FeK$\alpha$ emission line at high significances ($>99\%$) in the combined, “Total” spectra in four out of five lenses and with a weaker detection in [HE1104$-$1805]{} (see Table \[tab:spec\_fit\_results\]). For the combined data sets of the individual images, we detected the FeK$\alpha$ line with high significance ($>99\%$) in ten images of the combined data sets, and we detected low significance FeK$\alpha$ lines in [QJ0158$-$4325]{} image B, [HE0435$-$1223]{} images A, B, and D, and [HE1104$-$1805]{} image A (see Table \[tab:spec\_fit\_results\]). We were unable to obtain a stable fit for [HE1104$-$1805]{} image B that included the iron emission line.
Analyzing the data sets separately, we detected the FeK$\alpha$ emission line in the “Total" image for [SDSSJ1004$+$4112]{} and [Q2237$+$0305]{} with $>99\%$ significance for Data Set 1. We have a weak detection in the “Total" image for [QJ0158$-$4325]{}, [HE0435$-$1223]{}, and [HE1104$-$1805]{} (see Table \[tab:spec\_fit\_results\_1\]). For the individual images, we find $>99\%$ significant detections only in the images of [SDSSJ1004$+$4112]{} and [Q2237$+$0305]{}. The rest have weak detections except for [QJ0158$-$4325]{} image B, [HE0435$-$1223]{} image D, and [HE1104$-$1805]{} image B where we were unable to obtain stable fits for that included the iron emission line. Compared to the analysis of @chen2012 of Data Set 1, the line detections and significance values are generally consistent, however, with the significance values reported in this paper slightly more conservative.
We detected the FeK$\alpha$ emission line with $>99\%$ significance in the “Total" image in four of the five lenses for Data Set 2, except [HE1104$-$1805]{} with a significance value of 96% (see Table \[tab:spec\_fit\_results\_2\]). We report weak detections in [QJ0158$-$4325]{} image B, [HE0435$-$1223]{} images B and D, and [Q2237$+$0305]{} image D. For [HE1104$-$1805]{} image B, we were unable to obtain a stable fit that included the iron emission line. The non-detection of the iron line in Data Set 1 for [QJ0158$-$4325]{} image B or [HE0435$-$1223]{} image D is in agreement with @chen2012, and we have weak line detections in these two images in Data Set 2 and in the combined data set as well.
@protassov2002 showed that the F-test should be used with caution when testing the significance of emission line detections since the data may not necessarily follow an F-distribution. If the models are well constrained, @protassov2002 provided a method to calibrate the F statistic using Monte Carlo simulations of the spectra. Following this method and the example of @dai2003, we generated ten thousand simulated spectra for each image of each object in all data sets to evaluate the significance of the detected emission lines. We used the [*XSPEC*]{} command *fakeit* to simulate the spectra. We fixed the null model parameters (not including the emission line) to the best fit values listed in Tables \[tab:spec\_fit\_results\]–\[tab:spec\_fit\_results\_2\]. These simulated spectra were then grouped exactly like the real data and fit with the null model and the model with the line. From the fits, we calculated the F statistic of the simulated spectra for each image of each object and compared it to the F statistic from the real data. Figure \[fig:fdist\] shows the distribution of the F statistics from the simulated spectra, the F statistic from the real data, and the analytical F distribution for image A of [QJ0158$-$4325]{} as an example. We then calculated the significance of the real data’s F statistics by calculating the percentage of the simulated spectra having an F statistic greater than or equal to that of the real data. These calibrated F test significances from the Monte Carlo simulations are given in Tables \[tab:spec\_fit\_results\]–\[tab:spec\_fit\_results\_2\]. In these tables, we see that the differences between the Monte-Carlo and analytical significances are small for most of the images. We also note that the differences are much larger for the low significance emission lines. We also simulated the line detection threshold for each spectrum of the combined data by simulating spectra of different EW values and finding those having $1 \sigma$ detections.
We also generated simulated spectra to test if the stacked EW measurements are comparable to averaged individual EW measurements, since the line is observed to be a variable between individual observations of gravitational lenses [@chartas2017]. Figure \[fig:EW\_sim\] compares these two EWs giving a mean difference of 0.0065keV with a standard deviation of 0.42keV which is only slightly larger than the 1$\sigma$ uncertainties of the stacked EW measurements. These results show that the stacking process does not bias the mean of the EW from a sequence of observations.
The line energies are measured to be within the range of 5.8 to 6.8keV, and the widths of the lines are mostly 1–2$\sigma$ broad compared to the measurement uncertainties. For [Q2237$+$0305]{}, the line widths are measured from 0.41 to 0.66 keV with 4–8$\sigma$ broad, confirming the broad line nature first claimed in @dai2003. The energy range and broadness of the lines are consistent with emission originated from a few $r_g$ around spinning black holes and viewed at different inclination angles, and those 1–2$\sigma$ broad line width measurements are due to the poor signal-to-noise ratios. We plot the rest-frame EW and lensing corrected X-ray luminosity of our sample for the five lenses using the results in Table \[tab:spec\_fit\_results\] for the Total and individual images (Figures \[fig:LvsEW\]–\[fig:LvsEW\_images\]) and compare with the Iwasawa-Taniguchi or X-ray Baldwin effect, an inverse correlation between the $EW$ of metal emission lines and the X-ray Luminosity. The relation was first discovered by @iwasawa93 for neutral FeK$\alpha$ lines and the 2–10 keV X-ray luminosity. @fukazawa2011 later showed that the trend holds by including the ionized FeK$\alpha$ lines and at 10–50 keV X-ray luminosity as well using 88 nearby Seyfert galaxies observed by *Suzaku*. We adopt the fit from @chen2012 to the sample of @fukazawa2011 as $$\label{eqn:chenfit}
\log{\frac{EW_{model}}{\rm eV}} = (2.96 \pm 0.22)-(0.21 \pm 0.07) \log{\frac{L_{X}}{10^{40}{\hbox{erg~s$^{-1}$}}}} \pm (0.44 \pm 0.11).$$ The lensed sample shows a positive EW offset from the unlensed systems (Figures \[fig:LvsEW\]–\[fig:LvsEW\_images\]). For our targets, the predicted rest-frame EW are between 0.08 to 0.15 keV with the mean at 0.11 keV, while the measured values have a range between 0.2–0.7 keV with the mean at 0.42 keV. We performed the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test between our lensed sample and the *Suzaku* sample [@fukazawa2011]. For the *Suzaku* sample, we selected objects within the luminosity range of the lensed sample between $43.7 < \log{L_X ({\hbox{erg~s$^{-1}$}})} < 45.0$ and EW values greater than the median detection threshold of the lensed sample, 0.1 keV for individual images and 0.05 keV for total images. For the lensed sample, the EW of non-detections are set to be half of the detection threshold values. The K-S test results show that the probability of the null hypothesis that the EW of *Suzaku* sample and the lensed individual image sample are from the same parent distribution is 0.008, and between *Suzaku* sample and the lensed total image sample, the null probability is 0.001. The cumulative EW distributions are shown in Figure \[fig:ks\]. The Student’s T-test yields similar results with the null probabilities further reduced by a factor of two. Based on these statistical test results, we concluded that the EW of lensed sample and unlensed sample are different.
Since our sample of AGN are at high redshifts $z \sim 2$, it is possible that the properties of the line are different from the local sample. However, several studies on high redshift non-lensed samples show little evolution of the EW of from the local sample, such as the stacking analyses of [[*Chandra*]{}]{} deep field sources [@falocco2012; @falocco2013] with the average EW of 0.07 and 0.14 keV reported. The line of the two brightest sources in the field were measured to have EW of 0.2 keV [@iwasawa2015]. Here, we attribute this offset as a microlensing effect, because microlensing signals are stronger for smaller sources leading to the conclusion that the reflection region is more compact than the X-ray corona. Although there are low magnification regions in the magnification patterns, the current sample focuses on lenses with on-going microlensing activities and those non-active lenses usually are not well observed.
[lccccccccccccc]{}
0158 & A & $1.93^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & $0.00^{+0.01}_{-0.00}$ & $6.49^{+0.07}_{-0.06}$ & $0.14^{+0.08}_{-0.11}$ & $0.42^{+0.12}_{-0.12}$ & 1.05(116) & 0.35 & 3.45 & 0.9969 & 0.9988 & 0.1\
0158 & B & $1.84^{+0.13}_{-0.11}$ & $0.02^{+0.05}_{-0.02}$ & $6.34^{+0.27}_{-0.19}$ & $<0.49$ & $0.29^{+0.25}_{-0.24}$ & 0.69(54) & 0.96 & 2.57 & 0.6416 & 0.7419 & 0.3\
0158 & Total & $1.92^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & $0.000^{+0.003}_{-0.000}$ & $6.50^{+0.07}_{-0.07}$ & $0.17^{+0.09}_{-0.08}$ & $0.33^{+0.10}_{-0.09}$ & 0.92(132) & 0.73 & 3.25 & 0.9994 & 0.9996 & 0.1\
0435 & A & $1.93^{+0.06}_{0-0.06}$ & $0.02^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$ & $5.98^{+0.12}_{-0.11}$ & $0.11^{+0.11}_{-0.11}$ & $0.21^{+0.12}_{-0.12}$ & 0.80(102) & 0.93 & 2.04 & 0.8902 & 0.9023 & 0.1\
0435 & B & $1.89^{+0.5}_{-0.5}$ & $0.00^{+0.01}_{0.00}$ & $5.99^{+0.76}_{-0.14}$ & $0.35^{+0.82}_{-0.21}$ & $0.36^{+0.21}_{-0.20}$ & 0.90(73) & 0.71 & 1.14 & 0.7891 & 0.8302 & 0.25\
0435 & C & $1.84^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$ & $0.00^{+0.01}_{-0.00}$ & $6.41^{+0.43}_{-0.44}$ & $0.91^{+0.50}_{-0.44}$ & $0.72^{+0.33}_{-0.32}$ & 0.61(90) & 0.999 & 1.71 & 0.9946 & 0.9983 & 0.07\
0435 & D & $1.80^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$ & $0.00^{+0.01}_{-0.00}$ & $6.28^{+0.14}_{-0.21}$ & $<0.42$ & $0.19^{+0.14}_{-0.13}$ & 1.16(76) & 0.17 & 2.27 & 0.4988 & 0.5822 & 0.25\
0435 & Total & $1.88^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ & $0.000^{+0.004}_{-0.000}$ & $6.15^{+0.13}_{-0.12}$ & $0.28^{+0.10}_{-0.11}$ & $0.23^{+0.08}_{-0.07}$ & 1.01(142) & 0.47 & 1.78 & 0.9952 & 0.9974 & 0.05\
J1004 & A & $1.72^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$ & $0.00^{+0.01}_{-0.00}$ & $6.32^{+0.05}_{-0.10}$ & $<0.23$ & $0.44^{+0.12}_{-0.11}$ & 0.97(92) & 0.55 & 0.52 & 0.9993 & 0.9999 & 0.08\
J1004 & B & $1.86^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$ & $0.01^{+0.02}_{-0.01}$ & $6.46^{+0.09}_{-0.08}$ & $0.14^{+0.11}_{-0.08}$ & $0.27^{+0.10}_{-0.10}$ & 0.86(141) & 0.88 & 1.03 & 0.9941 & 0.9977 & 0.08\
J1004 & C & $1.87^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$ & $0.03^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$ & $6.32^{+0.06}_{-0.08}$ & $0.15^{+0.10}_{-0.09}$ & $0.50^{+0.11}_{-0.12}$ & 0.82(122) & 0.92 & 1.43 & 0.999992 & 0.9999 & 0.1\
J1004 & D & $1.78^{+0.07}_{-0.06}$ & $0.02^{+0.04}_{-0.02}$ & $6.30^{+0.07}_{-0.07}$ & $<0.15$ & $0.42^{+0.15}_{-0.14}$ & 1.10(86) & 0.24 & 1.87 & 0.9902 & 0.9965 & 0.1\
J1004 & Total & $1.81^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ & $0.01^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ & $6.37^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & $0.10^{+0.07}_{-0.08}$ & $0.35^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ & 0.92(142) & 0.73 & 0.99 & $1-7\times10^{-11}$ & 1.0000 & 0.05\
1104 & A & $1.76^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$ & $0.00^{+0.01}_{-0.00}$ & $6.78^{+0.30}_{-0.34}$ & $<0.55$ & $0.31^{+0.18}_{-0.16}$ & 0.93(84) & 0.65 & 3.48 & 0.8912 & 0.9176 & 0.17\
1104 & B & $1.83^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$ & $0.00^{+0.01}_{-0.00}$ & ... & ... & ... & 0.79(76) & 0.91 & 9.17 & ... & ... & 0.2\
1104 & Total & $1.79^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & $0.000^{+0.004}_{-0.000}$ & $6.84^{+0.28}_{-0.47}$ & $0.37^{+0.24}_{-0.13}$ & $0.23^{+0.12}_{-0.14}$ & 1.09(108) & 0.24 & 4.87 & 0.8173 & 0.8309 & 0.13\
2237 & A & $1.84^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & $0.08^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ & $6.17^{+0.12}_{-0.12}$ & $0.60^{+0.13}_{-0.11}$ & $0.50^{+0.09}_{-0.10}$ & 1.29(120) & 0.02 & 8.30 & $1-4\times10^{-6}$ & 1.0000 & 0.04\
2237 & B & $1.84^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ & $0.09^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ & $6.07^{+0.19}_{-0.20}$ & $0.53^{+0.16}_{-0.12}$ & $0.56^{+0.18}_{-0.18}$ & 1.19(86) & 0.11 & 2.69 & 0.9943 & 0.9984 & 0.05\
2237 & C & $1.86^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ & $0.09^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ & $5.76^{+0.12}_{-0.11}$ & $0.41^{+0.16}_{-0.11}$ & $0.59^{+0.17}_{-0.15}$ & 0.95(81) & 0.61 & 4.94 & 0.9999 & 0.9998 & 0.05\
2237 & D & $1.81^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$ & $0.10^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ & $6.08^{+0.16}_{-0.16}$ & $0.50^{+0.13}_{-0.11}$ & $0.50^{+0.14}_{-0.13}$ & 0.93(117) & 0.68 & 4.56 & 0.9998 & 1.0000 & 0.05\
2237 & Total & $1.82^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ & $0.077^{+0.007}_{-0.007}$ & $5.89^{+0.08}_{-0.09}$ & $0.66^{+0.09}_{-0.07}$ & $0.57^{+0.07}_{-0.06}$ & 1.36(180) & 0.001 & 4.85 & $1-4\times10^{-15}$ & 1.0000 & 0.025\
[lcccccccccccc]{}
0158 & A & $1.91^{+0.08}_{-0.07}$ & $<0.02$ & $6.46^{+0.06}_{-0.09}$ & $<0.22$ & $0.37^{+0.22}_{-0.24}$ & 1.02(105) & 0.43 & 3.00 & 0.5458 & 0.5534\
0158 & B & $1.72^{+0.18}_{-0.13}$ & $<0.07$ & ... & ... & ... & 0.90(34) & 0.63 & 3.35 & ... & ...\
0158 & Total & $1.87^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ & $<0.01$ & $6.42^{+0.15}_{-0.15}$ & $<0.32$ & $0.36^{+0.23}_{-0.23}$ & 0.97(63) & 0.54 & 3.30 & 0.7415 & 0.7773\
0435 & A & $1.97^{+0.17}_{0-0.16}$ & $0.10^{+0.08}_{-0.07}$ & $6.53^{+1.51}_{-0.86}$ & $<0.73$ & $0.46^{+0.77}_{-0.39}$ & 0.90(65) & 0.70 & 1.35 & 0.6564 & 0.7210\
0435 & B & $1.84^{+0.18}_{-0.14}$ & $<0.12$ & $6.64^{+0.12}_{-0.19}$ & $<0.35$ & $0.90^{+0.63}_{-0.50}$ & 0.90(42) & 0.66 & 1.20 & 0.8315 & 0.8924\
0435 & C & $1.51^{+0.11}_{-0.11}$ & $<0.03$ & $6.43^{+0.11}_{-0.11}$ & $<0.32$ & $0.65^{+0.42}_{-0.39}$ & 1.04(33) & 0.40 & 2.30 & 0.6916 & 0.7609\
0435 & D & $2.01^{+0.23}_{-0.21}$ & $0.12^{+0.11}_{-0.10}$ & ... & ... & ... & 0.89(47) & 0.73 & 2.30 & ... & ...\
0435 & Total & $1.82^{+0.07}_{-0.07}$ & $<0.06$ & $6.52^{+0.15}_{-0.13}$ & $<0.35$ & $0.35^{+0.18}_{-0.16}$ & 0.99(77) & 0.56 & 1.70 & 0.8983 & 0.9297\
J1004 & A & $1.80^{+0.08}_{-0.07}$ & $<0.06$ & $6.28^{+0.08}_{-0.10}$ & $<0.33$ & $0.63^{+0.21}_{-0.20}$ & 1.15(71) & 0.18 & 0.52 & 0.9841 & 0.9966\
J1004 & B & $1.89^{+0.06}_{-0.04}$ & $<0.03$ & $6.57^{+0.09}_{-0.08}$ & $<0.23$ & $0.50^{+0.17}_{-0.19}$ & 0.92(102) & 0.71 & 0.85 & 0.9897 & 0.9944\
J1004 & C & $1.90^{+0.08}_{-0.08}$ & $0.05^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$ & $6.22^{+0.29}_{-0.25}$ & $0.49^{+0.28}_{-0.20}$ & $0.59^{+0.26}_{-0.26}$ & 0.83(80) & 0.86 & 1.32 & 0.9507 & 0.9739\
J1004 & D & $1.74^{+0.11}_{-0.10}$ & $<0.11$ & $6.26^{+0.06}_{-0.09}$ & $<0.20$ & $0.50^{+0.22}_{-0.19}$ & 1.23(65) & 0.10 & 2.19 & 0.8882 & 0.9276\
J1004 & Total & $1.84^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$ & $0.03^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ & $6.37^{+0.82}_{-0.82}$ & $<0.07$ & $0.37^{+0.14}_{-0.14}$ & 0.92(129) & 0.73 & 0.96 & $1-4\times10^{-6}$ & 1.0000\
1104 & A & $1.77^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$ & $<0.007$ & $7.06^{+0.35}_{-0.35}$ & $<0.82$ & $0.42^{+0.28}_{-0.26}$ & 0.99(78) & 0.50 & 3.77 & 0.6500 & 0.7031\
1104 & B & $1.87^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ & $<0.02$ & ... & ... & ... & 0.70(103) & 0.99 & 8.42 & ... & ...\
1104 & Total & $1.79^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$ & $<0.005$ & $6.99^{+0.27}_{-0.24}$ & $<0.61$ & $0.30^{+0.16}_{-0.16}$ & 1.10(103) & 0.23 & 5.04 & 0.7623 & 0.7835\
2237 & A & $1.85^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$ & $0.08^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ & $6.46^{+0.07}_{-0.08}$ & $0.22^{+0.09}_{-0.07}$ & $0.37^{+0.08}_{-0.08}$ & 1.38(110) & 0.005 & 8.41 & 0.9998 & 1.0000\
2237 & B & $1.89^{+0.08}_{-0.08}$ & $0.09^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ & $6.29^{+0.22}_{-0.19}$ & $0.35^{+0.13}_{-0.14}$ & $0.45^{+0.21}_{-0.20}$ & 1.29(86) & 0.04 & 2.48 & 0.8984 & 0.9287\
2237 & C & $1.96^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ & $0.08^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$ & $6.04^{+0.14}_{-0.13}$ & $0.43^{+0.11}_{-0.09}$ & $0.85^{+0.25}_{-0.24}$ & 1.13(91) & 0.19 & 3.36 & 0.9972 & 0.9988\
2237 & D & $1.87^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ & $0.13^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ & $6.12^{+0.21}_{-0.21}$ & $0.54^{+0.18}_{-0.15}$ & $0.53^{+0.18}_{-0.18}$ & 0.93(92) & 0.67 & 4.83 & 0.9971 & 0.9996\
2237 & Total & $1.88^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & $0.082^{+0.008}_{-0.008}$ & $5.99^{+0.10}_{-0.11}$ & $0.60^{+0.09}_{-0.08}$ & $0.56^{+0.09}_{-0.08}$ & 1.29(148) & 0.009 & 4.64 & $1-10^{-10}$ & 1.0000\
[lcccccccccccc]{}
0158 & A & $1.94^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$ & $<0.01$ & $6.50^{+0.11}_{-0.10}$ & $0.20^{+0.16}_{-0.11}$ & $0.41^{+0.15}_{-0.15}$ & 0.90(121) & 0.77 & 3.46 & 0.9859 & 0.9971\
0158 & B & $1.90^{+0.15}_{-0.14}$ & $<0.11$ & $6.43^{+0.10}_{-0.14}$ & $<0.9$ & $0.34^{+0.22}_{-0.24}$ & 0.95(44) & 0.57 & 2.22 & 0.4912 & 0.7904\
0158 & Total & $1.94^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & $<0.005$ & $6.52^{+0.09}_{-0.08}$ & $0.32^{+0.09}_{-0.09}$ & $0.39^{+0.13}_{-0.24}$ & 0.76(132) & 0.98 & 3.09 & 0.9997 & 1.0000\
0435 & A & $1.93^{+0.05}_{0-0.04}$ & $<0.02$ & $6.05^{+0.07}_{-0.09}$ & $<0.42$ & $0.22^{+0.08}_{-0.22}$ & 0.70(104) & 0.99 & 2.06 & 0.9541 & 0.9909\
0435 & B & $1.91^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ & $<0.01$ & $6.24^{+0.46}_{-0.11}$ & $<0.15$ & $0.25^{+0.12}_{-0.15}$ & 0.97(69) & 0.55 & 1.09 & 0.6860 & 0.8385\
0435 & C & $1.88^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$ & $<0.02$ & $6.53^{+0.06}_{-0.38}$ & $<0.13$ & $0.28^{+0.24}_{-0.17}$ & 0.93(85) & 0.66 & 1.70 & 0.9050 & 0.9779\
0435 & D & $1.80^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ & $<0.009$ & $5.97^{+0.35}_{-0.22}$ & $<0.47$ & $0.26^{+0.19}_{-0.20}$ & 1.14(77) & 0.19 & 2.23 & 0.4836 & 0.7069\
0435 & Total & $1.91^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ & $<0.003$ & $6.06^{+0.11}_{-0.10}$ & $0.24^{+0.08}_{-0.08}$ & $0.25^{+0.08}_{-0.07}$ & 1.08(116) & 0.27 & 1.71 & 0.9942 & 0.9998\
J1004 & A & $1.61^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$ & $<0.02$ & $6.29^{+0.07}_{-0.07}$ & $<0.18$ & $0.40^{+0.20}_{-0.16}$ & 0.94(74) & 0.63 & 0.53 & 0.9551 & 0.9746\
J1004 & B & $1.86^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$ & $<0.03$ & $6.18^{+0.17}_{-0.16}$ & $0.26^{+0.15}_{-0.15}$ & $0.32^{+0.15}_{-0.15}$ & 0.70(102) & 0.99 & 1.12 & 0.9722 & 0.9957\
J1004 & C & $1.85^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$ & $<0.02$ & $6.34^{+0.07}_{-0.09}$ & $0.16^{+0.11}_{-0.13}$ & $0.52^{+0.16}_{-0.14}$ & 0.84(90) & 0.84 & 1.50 & 0.9991 & 0.9995\
J1004 & D & $1.83^{+0.10}_{-0.06}$ & $<0.08$ & $6.42^{+0.05}_{-0.06}$ & $<0.12$ & $0.43^{+0.17}_{-0.19}$ & 0.81(72) & 0.87 & 1.53 & 0.9533 & 0.9774\
J1004 & Total & $1.81^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ & $<0.01$ & $6.27^{+0.08}_{-0.09}$ & $0.29^{+0.13}_{-0.11}$ & $0.43^{+0.10}_{-0.10}$ & 0.89(131) & 0.80 & 0.96 & $1-2\times10^{-6}$ & 1.0000\
1104 & A & $1.75^{+0.08}_{-0.08}$ & $<0.05$ & $6.53^{+0.08}_{-0.08}$ & $<0.19$ & $0.46^{+0.19}_{-0.17}$ & 0.66(56) & 0.98 & 2.76 & 0.9871 & 0.9941\
1104 & B & $1.80^{+0.08}_{-0.08}$ & $<0.06$ & ... & ... & ... & 0.67(60) & 0.98 & 8.94 & ... & ...\
1104 & Total & $1.80^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$ & $<0.03$ & $6.44^{+0.61}_{-0.56}$ & $<0.16$ & $0.25^{+0.13}_{-0.11}$ & 0.85(64) & 0.80 & 4.19 & 0.9491 & 0.9622\
2237 & A & $1.86^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$ & $0.11^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ & $5.97^{+0.19}_{-0.189}$ & $0.39^{+0.20}_{-0.20}$ & $0.27^{+0.13}_{-0.12}$ & 0.87(94) & 0.81 & 8.34 & 0.9521 & 0.9674\
2237 & B & $1.81^{+0.10}_{-0.10}$ & $0.06^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & $6.02^{+0.27}_{-0.26}$ & $0.71^{+0.23}_{-0.19}$ & $0.82^{+0.37}_{-0.31}$ & 0.97(55) & 0.53 & 3.30 & 0.9788 & 0.9921\
2237 & C & $1.82^{+0.09}_{-0.09}$ & $0.10^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$ & $5.54^{+0.13}_{-0.14}$ & $0.38^{+0.17}_{-0.13}$ & $0.57^{+0.23}_{-0.18}$ & 0.86(76) & 0.81 & 7.25 & 0.9984 & 0.9867\
2237 & D & $1.63^{+0.09}_{-0.09}$ & $0.02^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$ & $6.16^{+0.23}_{-0.23}$ & $0.33^{+0.44}_{-0.15}$ & $0.38^{+0.25}_{-0.21}$ & 1.09(77) & 0.28 & 4.59 & 0.7631 & 0.7845\
2237 & Total & $1.78^{+0.13}_{-0.17}$ & $0.07^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ & $5.74^{+0.13}_{-0.17}$ & $0.69^{+0.25}_{-0.16}$ & $0.55^{+0.12}_{-0.11}$ & 0.83(136) & 0.92 & 5.49 & $1-4\times10^{-9}$ & 1.0000\
Microlensing Analysis {#sec:ML}
=====================
We performed a microlensing analysis to interpret the positive EW offset measured in lensed quasars. In magnitude units, we have $$\label{eqn:EW_ml}
f = -2.5\log_{10}{\frac{EW_{data}}{EW_{fit}}},$$ where $f$ is the differential magnification magnitude between the magnification of the reflection region and the corona. Here, we have included a modest evolution effect, assuming that the rest-frame EW of high redshift quasars are higher than the local ones to be $EW_{fit} = 0.2$ keV [@iwasawa2015]. We generated magnification maps of these five lenses using the inverse polygon mapping algorithm [@mediavilla2006; @mediavilla2011b]. These magnification maps are 16,000$^2$ pixels and each pixel has a length scale of 0.685 $r_g$ for the five lenses. The rest of the pertinent magnification map properties are listed in Table \[tab:mag\_map\_props\] and further details on the magnification maps can be found in @guer2017. We then generated images of “average” AGN corona and the reflection region that are modified by the relativistic effects caused by the black hole using the software `KERTAP` [@chen2013a; @chen2013b; @chen2015].
We assumed that the X-ray corona and reflection region are located very close to the disk in Keplerian motion, following power-law emissivity profiles, $I \propto r^{-n}$, but with different emissivity indices. The models have three parameters: the Kerr spin parameter $a$ of the black hole, the power-law index for the emissivity profile of the reflection region $n$, and the inclination angle of the accretion disk. To simplify the analysis, we set the inclination angle to 40 degrees, a typical inclination angle for Type I AGN. The emissivity index $n$ for the reflection region was varied from 3.0 to 6.2 in steps of $0.4$ and the spin $a$ was varied between 0 and 0.998 in steps of 0.1. Some example Kerr images of the emissivity profiles are shown in Figure \[fig:kerr\]. These resulting images were then convolved with the magnification maps of each lens image to estimate the amount of microlensing that the corona and reflection region would experience at different locations of the magnification maps. We performed these convolutions in flux units and then converted to magnitude scales. We also tested to see if the orientation of the corona and reflection region with respect to the magnification map matters by rotating the images by 90 degrees, and in general this will not invoke a significant change in the parameter estimations discussed below. The half light radius for the X-ray continuum emission is expected to be $\sim$10$r_g$ (gravitational radii) [@dai2010; @mosquera2013], corresponding to emissivity indices of $n=2.2$ – 3.4 for different spins. We then subtracted the two convolved magnification maps from the continuum and reflection models to estimate the differential microlensing between the two emission regions, $f_j=\mu_{con} - \mu_{ref}$ in magnitude units, as a function of source position on the magnification map for a lensed image and common values of $a$ and $n$. We obtained distributions of these subtracted convolutions by making histograms of the values for randomly selected points in the subtracted convolved images.
[lcccccccccccc]{}
0158 & A & 13.2 & 0.348 & 0.428 & 4.13 & 0.16 (MgII)\
0158 & B & 13.2 & 0.693 & 0.774 & 1.98 & 0.16 (MgII)\
0435 & A & 11.4 & 0.445 & 0.383 & 6.20 & 0.50 (CIV)\
0435 & B & 11.4 & 0.539 & 0.602 & 6.67 & 0.50 (CIV)\
0435 & C & 11.4 & 0.444 & 0.396 & 6.57 & 0.50 (CIV)\
0435 & D & 11.4 & 0.587 & 0.648 & 4.01 & 0.50 (CIV)\
J1004 & A & 9.1 & 0.763 & 0.300 & 29.6 & 0.39 (MgII)\
J1004 & B & 9.1 & 0.696 & 0.204 & 19.7 & 0.39 (MgII)\
J1004 & C & 9.1 & 0.635 & 0.218 & 11.7 & 0.39 (MgII)\
J1004 & D & 9.1 & 0.943 & 0.421 & 5.75 & 0.39 (MgII)\
1104 & A & 9.1 & 0.610 & 0.512 & 9.09 & 0.59 ($H_\beta$)\
1104 & B & 9.1 & 0.321 & 0.217 & 2.42 & 0.59 ($H_\beta$)\
2237 & A & 38.5 & 0.390 & 0.400 & 4.71 & 1.20 ($H_\beta$)\
2237 & B & 38.5 & 0.380 & 0.390 & 4.30 & 1.20 ($H_\beta$)\
2237 & C & 38.5 & 0.740 & 0.730 & 2.15 & 1.20 ($H_\beta$)\
2237 & D & 38.5 & 0.640 & 0.620 & 3.92 & 1.20 ($H_\beta$)\
We then performed a likelihood analysis using the microlensing magnification distributions and the $EW$s we measured in the data. For a given image and fixed $n$ and $a$, the likelihood of the data given the model is $$\label{eqn:L(n)_image}
L_{image}(n,a)=A\sum_j b_j(n,a) e^{-\chi_j^2[f_j(n,a)]/2},$$ where $A$ is a normalization constant and $b_j$ is the bin height of the $j$th value from the convolved histograms discussed previously. The chi-square is calculated from $$\label{eqn:chi(n)}
\chi_j^2[f_j(n,a)]=\left(\frac{f_j(n,a)+2.5 \log_{10}{EW_{data}}-2.5 \log_{10}{EW_{fit}}}{2.5 EW_{err}/(EW_{data}\ln{10})}\right)^2,$$ where $EW_{data}$ and $EW_{err}$ are respectively the $EW$ and the $EW$ uncertainty from the spectra analysis done in Section \[sec:spec\] and $f_j$ is the amount of differential microlensing between the continuum and reflection regions in magnitudes. Using Equations \[eqn:chenfit\]–\[eqn:chi(n)\], we then have a likelihood as a function of $n$ and $a$, the index of the emissivity profile and spin parameter, for each image of each object. Examples for [Q2237$+$0305]{} A and [QJ0158$-$4325]{} A are shown in Figure \[fig:mlMAGdist\], where we plot the model likelihood ratios compare to the $a=0.9$ and $n=5.8$ model. We then combined the likelihoods of all the images from a target $$\label{eqn:L(n)_total}
L_{total}(n, a)=\prod_{image}B L_{image}(n, a),$$ where B is the new normalization constant and the multiplication applies to all the images of the target. After calculating $L_{total}(n, a)$ for a grid of $(n, a)$ combinations, we can then marginalize over either $a$ or $n$ to obtain the posterior probability for the emissivity index or spin, separately. We have discarded [HE1104$-$1805]{}B, the non-detection case, in the microlensing analysis, and since it contributes to less than a tenth of the sample, we do not expect that our results will change significantly.
Figures \[fig:L(a)\_total\] and \[fig:L(n)\_total\] show the marginalized probabilities for the spin and emissivity index parameters. For [Q2237$+$0305]{}, we obtain tight constraints on both the spin and emissivity index parameters with well established probability peaks, and the 68% and 90% confidence limits for the spin parameter are $a > 0.92$ and $a>0.83$, respectively, where we linearly interpolate the probabilities to match the designated limits. The corresponding 68% and 90% confidence limits for the emissivity index are $n > 5.4$ and $n > 4.9$ for [Q2237$+$0305]{}. Compared to other targets, [Q2237$+$0305]{} has the longest exposure among the sample, the line EWs have small relative uncertainties, and the EW deviations from the Iwasawa-Taniguchi relation are large, and because of these factors, the constraints for [Q2237$+$0305]{} are strong. For the remaining four targets [QJ0158$-$4325]{}, [HE0435$-$1223]{}, [SDSSJ1004$+$4112]{}, and [HE1104$-$1805]{}, the individual constraints are weak. However, since the shapes of the probability distributions are similar (Figure \[fig:L(a)\_total\] right), we jointly constrain the remaining targets by multiplying the probability functions, yielding 68% and 90% limits of $a=0.8\pm0.16$ and $a > 0.41$ for the spin parameter and $n=4.0\pm0.8$ and $n=4.2\pm1.2$ for the emissivity index. We need to remove [Q2237$+$0305]{} from the joint sample; otherwise the probabilities for the joint sample will be dominated by a single object. We plot the two dimensional confidence contours of the two parameters for [Q2237$+$0305]{} and the remaining sample in Figure \[fig:con\]. We can also bin the two-dimensional parameter space by the half-light radius after the Kerr lensing effect and calculate the corresponding probabilities in each bin. Figure \[fig:hl\] shows the normalized probabilities as a function of emission radius for [Q2237$+$0305]{} and the remaining joint sample in the logarithm scale. The half light radius are constrained to be $< 2.4$ $r_g$ and $<2.9$ $r_g$ (68% and 90% confidence) for [Q2237$+$0305]{} and in the range of 5.9–7.4 $r_g$ (68% confidence) and 4.4–7.4 $r_g$ (90% confidence) for the joint sample.
DISCUSSION {#sec:discussion}
==========
Under the hypothesis that the higher average EW of lensed quasars for a monitoring sequence of observations is a microlensing effect, we explain the offset using a set of general relativistic corona, reflection, and microlensing models. We perform a microlensing analysis to obtain the likelihood as a function of the index of the emissivity profile for the reflection component and spins of black holes, which we have included a modest redshift evolution effect on the rest-frame EW of lines, such that the spin values obtained are more conservative.
For the joint constraint from a sample of four targets, our analysis showed that the relativistic reflection region is more likely to have an emissivity index of $n=4.0\pm 0.8$ and a half light radius of 5.9–7.4 $r_g$ ($1 \sigma$), and therefore originates from a more compact region relative to the continuum emission region. This result confirms the previous qualitative microlensing argument that point towards the reflection region belonging to a more compact region [e.g., @chen2012]. The result also shows that the X-ray continuum cannot be a simple point source “lamppost” model, confirming the earlier analysis result of @popovic2006. The spin value of the joint sample is constrained to be $a=0.8\pm0.16$. This is in agreement with previous studies reporting high spin measurements [e.g., @reis2014; @reynolds2014; @mreynolds2014; @capellupo2015; @capellupo2017] either in the local or high redshift samples. For [Q2237$+$0305]{}, both the spin and emissivity index parameters are well constrained individually with $a > 0.92$ and $n>5.4$ corresponding to 2.25–3 $r_g$ for spins between 0.9 and the maximal value. Overall, our spin measurements favor the “spin-up” black hole growth model, where most of the accretion occurs in a coherent phase with modest anisotropies, especially for $z > 1$ quasars [e.g., @dotti2013; @volonteri2013].
Since this paper uses the relative microlensing magnification as a signal to constrain the emissivity profiles of the reflection region, the technique only probes the emission region comparable or smaller than the X-ray continuum emission regions. Emission lines originating from this compact region are theoretically predicted to have a broad line profile and with the peak energy varying with the inclination angle. The broad emission line widths, especially for [Q2237$+$0305]{} of $\sim$0.5keV and 4–8 $\sigma$ broad, and the range of line energies between 5.8–6.8keV, provide the confirmation of this theoretical expectation. For the reflections that occur at much larger distances, at the outer portion of the accretion disk, disk wind, broad line region, or torus, they will result in a narrow line that is not sensitive to this technique. It is also quite possible that our sample is biased because we selected our targets based on their strong microlensing signals at optical wavelengths. However, since being microlensing active and having large spin values are independent, we do not see this bias will significantly affect our results. Furthermore, [HE1104$-$1805]{}B was the only image with no detectable features and was discarded in the microlensing analysis, suggesting that our somewhat limited exposure times were sufficiently large as to not introduce any non-detection bias. This will not affect the microlensing constraints for [Q2237$+$0305]{}, and will only have limited effect on the joint sample results because it contributes less than a tenth of the sample. @reis2014 and @mreynolds2014 fit a broad relativistic line to the stacked spectra of gravitationally lensed quasars. This technique assumes that the stacked line profile resembles the un-lensed line profile; however, the line peak is observed to be a variable between observations [@chartas2017]. Although this technique has a different set of systematic uncertainties, the resulting constraints are quite similar to the analysis results from this paper. For [Q2237$+$0305]{}, the line fitting method has yielded $a = 0.74^{+0.06}_{-0.03}$ [90% confidence, @mreynolds2014], and the constraint in this paper is $a > 0.83$ (90% confidence). Both studies show that [Q2237$+$0305]{} has a large spin values, while the analysis here points more to a maximal value. The steep emissivity profiles measured in this paper are also broadly consistent with those measurements from local AGN, such as MCG-6-30-15 [@wilms2001; @vf2004; @miniutti2007], 1H0707$-$495 [@zoghbi2010; @dauser2010], and IRAS 13224$-$3809 [@ponti2010]. These steep emission profiles can be resulted by combining the light bending, vertical Doppler boost, or ionization effects to produce slopes as steep as $n\sim7$ [@wilms2001; @vf2004; @fk2007; @svoboda2012].
Unfortunately, the spin measurement technique presented in this paper can only be used to analyze the small sample of targets whose X-ray spectra can be measured with sufficient signal-to-noise ratios using the current generation of X-ray telescopes. The next generation X-ray telescopes with an order of magnitude increase in the effective area will allow these measurements in a much larger sample. Ideally, we need sub-arcsec angular resolutions to resolve the lensed images to increase the constraining power for the size and spin measurements. However, a similar analysis can be applied to the total image of the lensed quasars, where the requirement for the angular resolution is less crucial, because the analysis relies on the time-averaged relative microlensing signals between the X-ray continuum and emission regions. In addition, quasar microlensing can induce variability in the polarization signals, especially the polarization angle [@chen2015b], which can be detected by future X-ray polarization missions and put constraints on quasar black hole spins independently.
We acknowledge the financial support from the NASA ADAP programs NNX15AF04G, NNX17AF26G, NSF grant AST-1413056, and SAO grants AR7-18007X, GO7-18102B. CWM is supported by NSF award AST-1614018. We thank D. Kazanas, L. C. Popovic for helpful discussion and the anonymous referee for valuable comments.
Assef, R. J., Denney, K. D., Kochanek, C. S., Peterson, B. M., et al. 2011, , 742, 93 Blackburne, J. A., Kochanek, C. S., Chen, B., Dai, X., & Chartas, G. 2015, , 798, 95 Blackburne, J. A., Kochanek, C. S., Chen, B., Dai, X., & Chartas, G. 2014, , 789, 125 Blandford, R. D. & Znajek, R. L. 1977, , 179, 433 Brenneman, L. (ed.) 2013, Measuring the Angular Momentum of Supermassive Black Holes (New York: Springer) Capellupo, D. M., Netzer H., Lira P., Trakhtenbrot B., & Mejia-Restrepo, J. 2015, , 446, 3427 Capellupo, D. M., Wafflard-Fernandez, G., & Haggard, D. 2017, , 836, L8 Chartas, G., Kochanek, C. S., Dai, X., Poindexter, S., & Garmire, G. 2009, , 693, 174 Chartas, G., Rhea, C., Kochanek, C., Dai, X., Morgan, C., Blackburne, J., Chen, B., Mosquera, A., & Macleod, C. 2016, AN, 337, 356 Chartas, G., Krawczynski H., Zalesky L., Kochanek C. S., Dai X., Morgan C. W., & Mosquera A. 2017, , 837, 26 Chen, B., Dai, X., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2011, , 740, L34 Chen, B., Dai, X., Kochanek, C. S., Chartas, G., Blackburne, J., & Morgan, C. 2012, , 755, 24 Chen, B., Dai, X., Baron, E., & Kantowski, R. 2013, , 769, 131 Chen, B., Dai, X., & Baron, E. 2013, , 762, 122 Chen, B., Kantowski, R., Dai, X., Baron, E., & Maddumage, P. 2015, , 218, 4 Chen, B. 2015, Scientific Reports, 5, 16860 Dai, X., Chartas, G., Agol, E., Bautz, M. W., & Garmire, G. P. 2003, , 589, 100 Dai, X., Kochanek, C. S., Chartas, G., Kozlowksi, S., Morgan, C. W., Garmire, G., & Agol, E. 2010, , 709, 278 Dai, X., & Guerras, E. 2018, , 853, L27 Dauser, T., Svoboda, J., Schartel, N., et al. 2012, , 422, 1914 Dickey, J. M., & Lockman, F. J. 1990, , 28, 215 Dotti, M., Colpi, M., Pallini, S., Perego, A., & Volonteri, M. 2013, , 762, 68 Fabian, A. C., Nandra, K., Reynolds, C. S., Brandt, W. N., Otani, C., Tanak, Y., Inoue, H., & Iwasawa, K. 1995, , 277, L11 Fabian, A. C. 2012, , 50, 455 Falocco, S., Carrera, F. J., Corral, A., et al. 2012, , 538, A83 Falocco, S., Carrera, F. J., Corral, A., et al. 2013, , 555, A79 Fukumura, K., & Kazanas, D. 2007, , 664, 14 Fukazawa, Y., Hiragi, K., Mizuno, M., et al. 2011, , 727, 19 Garmire, G. P., Bautz, M. W., Nousek, J. A., & Ricker, G. R. 2003, Proc. SPIE, 4851, 28 Guilbert, P. W. & Rees, M. J. 1988, , 233, 475 Guerras, E., Dai, X., Steele, S., Liu, A., Kochanek, C. S., Chartas, G., Morgan, C., & Chen, B. 2016, , 111, 11 Guerras, E., Dai, X., & Mediavilla, E. 2018, arXiv:1805.11498 Iwasawa, K., & Taniguchi, Y. 1993, , 413, 15 Iwasawa, K., Vignali, C., Comastri, A., et al. 2015, , 574, A144 MacLeod, C. L., Morgan, C. W., Mosquera, A., et al. 2015, , 806, 258 Mediavilla, E., Mediavilla, T., Muoz, J. A., Ariza, O., et al. 2011, , 730, 16 Mediavilla, E., Munoz, J. A., Lopez, P., Mediavilla, T., et al. 2006, , 653, 942 Miniutti, G., Fabian, A. C., Anabuki, N., et al. 2007, , 59, 315 Morgan, C. W., Kochanek, C. S., Dai, X., Morgan, N. D., & Falco, E. E. 2008, , 689, 755 Morgan, C. W., Kochanek, C. S., Morgan, N. D., & Falco, E. 2010, , 712, 1129 Mosquera, A. M., Kochanek, C. S., Chen, B., Dai, X., Blackburne, J. A., & Chartas, G. 2013, , 769, 53 Ponti, G., Gallo, L. C., Fabian, A. C., et al. 2010, , 406, 2591 Pooley, D., Blackburne, J. A., Rappaport, S., Schechter, P. L., & Fong W. 2006, , 648, 67 Pooley, D., Blackburne, J. A., Rappaport, S., & Schechter, P. L. 2007, , 661, 19 Popovi[ć]{}, L. [Č]{}., Jovanovi[ć]{}, P., Mediavilla, E., et al. 2006, , 637, 620 Protassov, R., Vandyk, D., Connors A., Kashyap V. L., & Siemiginowska A. 2002, , 545, 571 Reis, R. C., Reynolds, M. T., Miller, J. M., & Walton, D. J. 2014, , 507, 207 Reynolds, C. S. & Nowak, M. A. 2003, PhR, 377, 389 Reynolds, C. S. 2014, , 183, 277 Reynolds, M. T., Walton, D. J., Miller, J. M., & Reis, R. C. 2014, , 792, L19 Svoboda, J., Dov[č]{}iak, M., Goosmann, R. W., et al. 2012, , 545, A106 Thorne, K. S. 1974, , 191, 507 Vaughan, S., & Fabian, A. C. 2004, , 348, 1415 Volonteri, M., Sikora, M., Lasota, J.-P., & Merloni, A. 2013, , 775, 94 Weisskopf, M. C., Brinkman, B., Canizares, C., Garmire G., Murray S., & Van Speybroeck L. P. 2002, PASP, 114, 1 Wilms, J., Reynolds, C. S., Begelman, M. C., et al. 2001, , 328, L27 Zoghbi, A., Fabian, A. C., Uttley, P., et al. 2010, , 401, 2419
[^1]: The rest frame EW is calculated using the XSPEC command eqw and then times $(1+z)$ to correct the cosmological redshift effect.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We consider the cubic Szegö equation $$i{\partial_t}u=\Pi(|u|^{2}u)$$
in the Hardy space $L^2_+({\mathbb{R}})$ on the upper half-plane, where $\Pi$ is the Szegö projector. It was first introduced by Gérard and Grellier in [@PGSG] as a toy model for totally non-dispersive evolution equations. We show that the only traveling waves are of the form $\frac{C}{x-p}$, $p \in {\mathbb{C}}$ with $\text{Im} p<0$. Moreover, they are shown to be orbitally stable, in contrast to the situation on the unit disk where some traveling waves were shown to be unstable.
address: |
Oana Pocovnicu\
Laboratoire de Mathématiques d’Orsay\
Université Paris-Sud (XI)\
91405, Orsay Cedex, France
author:
- Oana Pocovnicu
title: '**Traveling Waves for the Cubic Szegö Equation on the Real Line**'
---
Introduction
============
One of the most important properties in the study of the nonlinear Schrödinger equations (NLS) is [*dispersion*]{}. It is often exhibited in the form of the Strichartz estimates of the corresponding linear flow. In case of the cubic NLS: $$\label{eqn: Schrodinger}
i\partial_t u+\Delta u=|u|^2u, \quad (t,x)\in{\mathbb{R}}\times M,$$
Burq, Gérard, and Tzvetkov [@BGT] observed that the dispersive properties are strongly influenced by the geometry of the underlying manifold $M$. Taking this idea further, Gérard and Grellier [@PGSGX] remarked that dispersion disappears completely when $M$ is a sub-Riemannian manifold (for example, the Heisenberg group). In this situation, many of the classical arguments used in the study of NLS no longer hold. As a consequence, even the problem of global well-posedness of on a sub-Riemannian manifold still remains open.
In [@PGSG; @PGSGX], Gérard and Grellier introduced a model of a non-dispersive Hamiltonian equation called [*the cubic Szëgo equation.*]{} (See below.) The study of this equation is the first step toward understanding existence and other properties of smooth solutions of NLS in the absence of dispersion. Remarkably, the Szegö equation turned out to be completely integrable in the following sense. It possesses a Lax pair structure and an infinite sequence of conservation laws. Moreover, the dynamics can be approximated by a sequence of finite dimensional completely integrable Hamiltonian systems. To illustrate the degeneracy of this completely integrable structure, several instability phenomena were established in [@PGSG].
The Szëgo equation was studied in [@PGSG; @PGSGX] on the circle $\mathbb{S}^1$. More precisely, solutions were considered to belong at all time to the Hardy space $L^2_+(\mathbb{S}^1)$ on the unit disk $\mathbb{D} = \{|z| < 1\}$. This is the space of $L^2$-functions on $\mathbb{S}^1$ with $\hat{f}(k)=0$ for all $k<0$. These functions can be extended as holomorphic functions on the unit disk. Several properties of the Hardy space on the unit disk naturally transfer to the Hardy space $L^2_+({\mathbb{R}})$ on the upper half-plane ${\mathbb{C}}_+ = \{ z; \text{Im} z > 0\}$, defined by $$L^2_+({\mathbb{R}})=\big\{f \text{ holomorphic on } {\mathbb{C}}_+;
\|g\|_{L^2_+({\mathbb{R}})}:=\sup_{y>0}\bigg(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}|g(x+iy)|^{2}dx\bigg)^{1/2}<\infty \big\}.$$
In view of the Paley-Wiener theorem, we identify this space of holomorphic functions on ${\mathbb{C}}_+$ with the space of its boundary values: $$L^2_+({\mathbb{R}})=\{f\in L^2({\mathbb{R}}); \, \operatorname*{supp}{\hat{f}}\subset [0,\infty)\}.$$
The transfer from $L^2_+(\mathbb{S}^1)$ to $L^2_+({\mathbb{R}})$ is made by the usual conformal transformation $\omega:{\mathbb{D}}\to{\mathbb{C}}_+$ given by $$\omega(z)=i\frac{1+z}{1-z}.$$
However, the image of a solution of the Szëgo equation on $\mathbb{S}^1$ under the conformal transformation is no longer a solution of the Szëgo equation on ${\mathbb{R}}$. Therefore, we directly study the Szëgo equation on ${\mathbb{R}}$ in the following.
Endowing $L^2({\mathbb{R}})$ with the usual scalar product $(u,v)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}u\bar{v}$, we define the Szegö projector $\Pi:L^{2}({\mathbb{R}})\to L^2_+({\mathbb{R}})$ to be the projector onto the non-negative frequencies, $$\Pi (f)(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{ix\xi}\hat{f}(\xi)d\xi.$$
For $u \in L^2_+({\mathbb{R}})$, we consider *the Szëgo equation on the real line*: $$\label{eq:szego}
i{\partial_t}u=\Pi(|u|^{2}u), \quad x \in {\mathbb{R}}.$$
This is a Hamiltonian evolution associated to the Hamiltonian $$E(u)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}|u|^4 dx$$
defined on $L^4_+({\mathbb{R}})$. From this structure, we obtain the formal conservation law $E(u(t))=E(u(0))$. The invariance under translations and under modulations provides two more conservation laws, $Q(u(t))=Q(u(0))$ and $M(u(t))=M(u(0))$, where $$Q(u)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}|u|^2 dx\quad \text{and} \quad M(u)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\bar{u}Du\,dx,\
\text{ with } D = -i {\partial_x}.$$
Now, we define the Sobolev spaces $H^s_+({\mathbb{R}})$ for $s\geq 0$: $$\begin{aligned}
H^s_+({\mathbb{R}})=&\big\{h\in L^2_+({\mathbb{R}}); \|h\|_{H^s_+}:=\bigg{(}\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{\infty}(1+|\xi|^2)^{s}|\hat{h}(\xi)|^2d\xi\bigg{)}^{1/2}<\infty\big\}.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, we define the homogeneous Sobolev norm for $h\in \dot{H}^s_+$ by $$\begin{aligned}
||h\|_{\dot{H}^s_+}:=\bigg{(}\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{\infty}|\xi|^{2s}|\hat{h}(\xi)|^2\bigg{)}^{1/2}<\infty.\end{aligned}$$
Slight modifications of the proof of the corresponding result in [@PGSG] lead to the following well-posedness result:
The cubic Szegö equation is globally well-posed in $H_+^{s}({\mathbb{R}})$ for $s \geq \frac{1}{2}$, i.e. given $u_0\in H_+^{1/2} $, there exists a unique global-in-time solution $u\in C({\mathbb{R}}; H_+^{1/2})$ of with initial condition $u_{0}$. Moreover, if $u_0\in H_+^{s}$ for some $s>\frac{1}{2}$, then $u\in C({\mathbb{R}};H_+^{s})$.
In this paper, we concentrate on the study of traveling waves. The two main goals are the classification of traveling waves and their stability. As a result, we show that the situation on the real line is essentially different from that on the circle.
A solution for the cubic Szegö equation on the real line is called a [*traveling wave*]{} if there exist $c,\omega\in{\mathbb{R}}$ such that $$\label{eq:travel}
u(t, z)=e^{-i\omega t}u_0(z-ct), \quad z\in {\mathbb{C}}_+\cup{\mathbb{R}}, t \in{\mathbb{R}}$$
for some $u_0 \in H^{1/2}_+({\mathbb{R}})$. Note that a solution to in $H^{1/2}_+({\mathbb{R}})$ has a natural extension onto ${\mathbb{C}}_+$, and we have used this viewpoint in . Substituting into , we obtain that $u_0$ satisfies the following equation on ${\mathbb{R}}$: $$\label{eqn:u}
cDu_0+\omega u_0=\Pi(|u_0|^{2}u_0).$$
In the following, we use the simpler notation $u$ instead of $u_0$, when we study time-independent problems. From , we see that traveling waves with nonzero velocity, $c\neq 0$, have good regularity. Indeed, we prove that $u\in H_+^{s}({\mathbb{R}})$ for all $s\geq 0$ in Lemma \[lemma: smothness\]. In particular, by Sobolev embedding theorem, we have $u\in L_+^p({\mathbb{R}})$ for $2\leq p\leq\infty$. On the other hand, equation yields in Lemma \[lemma: stationary waves\] that there exist no nontrivial stationary waves, i.e. traveling waves of velocity $c=0$, in $L^2_+$.
Now, we present our main results:
\[main th\] A function $u\in C({\mathbb{R}},H_+^{1/2}({\mathbb{R}}))$ is a traveling wave if and only if there exist $C,p\in{\mathbb{C}}$ with $\textup{Im}\, p<0$ such that $$\label{eq:simple}
u(0,z)=\frac{C}{z-p}.$$
\[main cor\] Let $a>0$, $r>0$, and consider the cylinder $$C(a,r)=\Big\{\frac{\alpha}{z-p}; |\alpha|=a, \textup{ Im}p=-r\Big\}.$$
Let $\{u_0^n\}\subset H^{1/2}_+$ with $$\inf_{\phi\in C(a,r)}\|u_0^n-\phi\|_{H^{1/2}_+}\to 0 \text{ as } n\to +\infty,$$
and let $u^n$ denote the solution to with initial data $u_0^n$. Then $$\sup_{t\in{\mathbb{R}}}\inf_{\phi\in C(a,r)}\|u^n(t,x)-\phi(x)\|_{H^{1/2}_+}\to 0.$$
Let us compare our results to those obtained in [@PGSG]. In the case of the Szegö equation on $\mathbb{S}^1$, the nontrivial stationary waves ($c=0$) are finite Blaschke products of the form $$\alpha\prod_{j=1}^N\frac{z-p_j}{1-p_jz},$$
where $|\alpha|^2=\omega$, $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$, and $p_1,p_2,...,p_N\in{\mathbb{D}}$, and the traveling waves with nonzero velocity are rational fractions of the form: $$\label{eq:simple2}
\frac{Cz^l}{z^N - p },$$
where $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$, $l\in\{0,1,\dots,N-1\}$, $C,p\in{\mathbb{C}}$, and $|p|>1$. Moreover, instability phenomena were displayed for some of the above traveling waves. For the cubic Szegö equation on ${\mathbb{R}}$, Theorems \[main th\] and \[main cor\] state that there exist less traveling waves (corresponding to $N = 1$ and $l = 0$ in ) and that there is no instability phenomenon.
The proof of Theorem \[main th\] involves arguments from several areas of analysis: a Kronecker-type theorem, scattering theory, existence of a Lax pair structure, a theorem by Lax on invariant subspaces of the Hardy space, and canonical factorization of Beurling-Lax inner functions. In the following, we introduce the main notions and known results, and briefly describe the strategy of the proof.
As in [@PGSG], an important property of the Szëgo equation on ${\mathbb{R}}$ is the existence of a Lax pair structure. Using the Szegö projector, we first define two important classes of operators on $L^2_+$: [*the Hankel and Toeplitz operators*]{}. We use these operators to find a Lax pair. See Proposition \[th:Lax pair\].
A Hankel operator $H_{u}:L^2_+\to L^2_+$ of symbol $u\in H^{1/2}_+$ is defined by $$H_{u}(h)=\Pi(u\bar{h}).$$
Note that $H_{u}$ is ${\mathbb{C}}$-antilinear and satisfies $$\label{sym H_u}
(H_{u}(h_{1}),h_{2})=(H_{u}(h_{2}),h_{1}).$$
In Lemma \[H\_u is H-S\] below we prove that $H_u$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator of Hilbert-Schmidt norm $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\|u\|_{\dot{H}^{1/2}}$.
A Toeplitz operator $T_{b}:L^2_+\to L^2_+$ of symbol $b\in L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})$ is defined by $$T_{b}(h)=\Pi(bh).$$
$T_{b}$ is ${\mathbb{C}}$-linear. Moreover, $T_b$ is self-adjoint if and only if $b$ is real-valued.
\[th:Lax pair\] Let $u\in C({\mathbb{R}};H_+^{s})$ for some $s>\frac{1}{2}$. The cubic Szegö equation is equivalent to the following evolution equation: $$\frac{d}{dt}H_{u}=[B_{u},H_{u}],$$
where $B_{u}=\frac{i}{2}H_{u}^{2}-iT_{|u|^{2}}$. In other words, the pair $(H_u,B_u)$ is a Lax pair for the cubic Szegö equation on the real line.
The proof of Proposition \[th:Lax pair\] follows the same lines as that of the corresponding result on $\mathbb{S}^1$ in [@PGSG], and is based on the following identity: $$\label{Lax pair identity}
H_{\Pi(|u|^{2}u)}=T_{|u|^{2}}H_u+H_uT_{|u|^{2}}-H_u^3.$$
Combining and , we deduce that if $u$ is a traveling wave with $c\neq 0$, then the following identity holds: $$\label{identity for traveling waves}
A_uH_u+H_u A_u+\frac{\omega}{c} H_u+\frac{1}{c}H_u^{3}=0,$$
where $$\label{eqn:A}
A_u=D-\frac{1}{c}T_{|u|^{2}}.$$
In Section 2, we prove a Kronecker-type theorem for the Hardy space $L^2_+({\mathbb{R}})$, where we classify all the symbols $u$ such that the operator $H_u$ has finite rank. For a proof of the classical theorem for $L^2_+(\mathbb{S}^1)$, due to Kronecker, see [@PGSG].
We prove Theorem \[main th\] in Section 4. We first prove that all the traveling waves are rational fractions. On $\mathbb{S}^1$, this follows easily from the Kronecker theorem and the fact that the operator $A_u$ has discrete spectrum. On ${\mathbb{R}}$, however, it turns out that $A_u$ has continuous spectrum. Therefore, we use scattering theory to study the spectral properties of $A_u$ in detail in Section 3. More precisely, we show that the generalized wave operators $\Omega^{\pm}(D,A_u)$, rigorously defined by below, exist and are complete. As a result, we obtain that $$\mathcal{H}_{\text{ac}}(A_u)\subset \text{Ker} \, H_{u},$$
where $\mathcal{H}_{\text{ac}}(A_u)$ is the absolutely continuous subspace of $A_u$. The subspace $\text{Ker}\, H_u$ plays an important role in our analysis. More precisely, it turns out to be invariant under multiplication by $e^{i\alpha x}$, for all $\alpha \geq 0$. Therefore, applying a theorem by Lax (Proposition \[th: Lax 1959\] below) on invariant subspaces, it results that $$\text{Ker}\, H_u=\phi L^2_+,$$
where $\phi$ is an inner function in the sense of Beurling-Lax, i.e. a bounded holomorphic function on ${\mathbb{C}}_+$ such that $|\phi(x)|=1$ for all $x\in{\mathbb{R}}$. Using the Lax pair structure and the identity , we show that $\phi$ satisfies the following simple equation: $$cD\phi=|u|^2\phi.$$
However, as an inner function, $\phi$ satisfies a canonical factorization . From this, it follows that $\phi$ belongs to a special class of inner functions, the finite Blaschke products, i.e. $$\phi(z)=\prod_{j=1}^N\frac{z-{\lambda}_j}{z-{\overline}{{\lambda}_j}},$$
where $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and $\text{Im} {\lambda}_j>0$ for all $j=1,2,\dots,N$. The Kronecker-type theorem then yields that the traveling wave $u$ is a rational fraction.
In the case of $\mathbb{S}^1$, the natural shift, multiplication by $e^{ix}$, was used in concluding traveling waves are of the form . In our case, we use the “infinitesimal" shift, multiplication by $x$, to show that traveling waves are of the form .
Finally, we prove Theorem \[main cor\] in Section 5. The orbital stability of traveling waves is a consequence of the fact that traveling waves are ground states for the following inequality, an analogue of Weinstein’s sharp Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality in [@Weinstein].
\[prop:GN\] For all $u\in H^{1/2}_{+}({\mathbb{R}})$ the following Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality holds: $$\label{ineqn:Gagliardo-Nirenberg}
\|u\|_{L^{4}}\leq \frac{1}{\sqrt[4]{\pi}}\|u\|_{L^{2}}^{1/2}\|u\|_{\dot{H}_+^{1/2}}^{1/2},$$ or, equivalently, $$\notag
E\leq \frac{1}{\pi}MQ.$$
Moreover, equality holds if and only if $u=\frac{C}{x-p}$, where $C,p\in{\mathbb{C}}$ with $\textup{Im}p<0$.
As a consequence of Proposition \[prop:GN\], one can verify that the functions $u=\frac{C}{x-p}$, with $\text{Im} p<0$, are indeed initial data for traveling waves. More precisely, since they are minimizers of the functional $$v\in H^{1/2}_+\mapsto M(v)Q(v)-\pi E(v),$$ the differential of this functional at $u$ is zero. Thus, $$\frac{1}{2}Q(u)Du+\frac{1}{2}M(u)u-\pi \Pi(|u|^2u)=0.$$ Consequently, $u$ is a solution of equation with $$c=\frac{Q(u)}{2\pi}=\frac{|C|^2}{-2\textup{Im} p},\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, \omega=\frac{M(u)}{2\pi}=\frac{|C|^4}{4(-\textup{Im} p)^3}$$ and hence it is an initial datum for a traveling wave.
In the case of $\mathbb{S}^1$, the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality suffices to conclude the stability of the traveling waves with $N = 1$. However, in the case of ${\mathbb{R}}$, we need to use in addition a concentration-compactness argument. This concentration-compactness argument, which first appeared in the work of Cazenave and Lions [@Cazenave], was refined and turned into profile decomposition theorems by Gérard [@PG] and later by Hmidi and Keraani [@Keraani]. We use it in the form of Proposition \[prop: profile dec\], a profile decomposition theorem for bounded sequences in $H^{1/2}_+$.
We conclude this introduction by presenting two open problems. Here, we use the term soliton instead of traveling wave, so that we put into light several connections with existing works. The first problem is the soliton resolution, which consists in writing any solution as a superposition of solitons and radiation. For the KdV equation, this property was rigorously stated in [@KdV] for initial data to which the Inverse Scattering Transform applies. Therefore, for the Szëgo equation, one needs to solve inverse spectral problems for the Hankel operators and also find explicit action angle coordinates.
The second open problem is the interaction of solitons with external potentials. Consider the Szëgo equation with a linear potential, where initial data are taken to be of the form . As in the works of Holmer and Zworski [@Zworski] and Perelman [@Perelman], it would be interesting to investigate if solutions of the perturbed Szëgo equation can be approximated by traveling wave solutions to the original Szegö equation .
A Kronecker-type theorem
========================
A theorem by Kronecker asserts in the setting of $\mathbb{S}^1$ that the set of symbols $u$ such that $H_u$ is of rank $N$ is precisely a $2N$-dimensional complex submanifold of $L^2_+(\mathbb{S}^1)$ containing only rational fractions. In this section, we prove the analogue of this theorem in the case of $L^2_+({\mathbb{R}})$. For a different proof of a similar result on some Hankel operators on $L^2_+({\mathbb{R}})$ defined in a slightly different way, we refer to Lemma 8.12, p.54 in [@Peller].
Let $N\in{\mathbb{N}}^{\ast}$. We denote by ${\mathcal{M}}(N)$ the set of rational fractions of the form $$\frac{A(z)}{B(z)},$$ where $A\in{\mathbb{C}}_{N-1}[z]$, $B\in{\mathbb{C}}_{N}[z]$, $0\leq \deg(A)\leq N-1$, $\deg(B)=N$, $B(0)=1$, $B(z)\neq 0$, for all $z\in{\mathbb{C}}_{+}\cup{\mathbb{R}}$, and $A$ and $B$ have no common factors.
\[th: Kronecker\] The function $u$ belongs to ${\mathcal{M}}(N)$ if and only if the Hankel operator $H_u$ has complex rank N.
Moreover, if $u\in {\mathcal{M}}(N)$, $u(z)=\frac{A(z)}{B(z)}$, where $B(z)=\prod_{j=1}^{J}(z-p_j)^{m_j}$, with $\sum_{j=1}^Jm_j=N$ and $\textup{Im} p_j<0$ for all $j=1,2,...,J$, then the range of $H_u$ is given by $$\label{ran}
\textup{Ran}\,H_u=\textup{span}_{{\mathbb{C}}}\bigg\{\frac{1}{(z-p_j)^{m}}, 1\leq m\leq m_j\bigg\}_{j=1}^J$$
The theorem will follow once we prove:
- $u\in{\mathcal{M}}(N){\Longrightarrow}\text{rk}(H_u)\leq N$
- $\text{rk}(H_u)=N{\Longrightarrow}u\in{\mathcal{M}}(N).$
Let us first prove (i). Let $u\in{\mathcal{M}}(N)$, i.e. $u$ is a linear combination of $$\frac{1}{(z-p)^{m}},$$ where $\text{Im} p <0$, $1\leq m\leq m_{p}$, and $\sum m_{p}=N$. Then, computing the integral $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\frac{e^{-ix\xi}}{(x-p)^{m}}dx,$$
using the residue theorem, we obtain that $\hat{u}(\xi)=0$ for all $\xi\leq0$ and $\hat{u}(\xi)$ is a linear combination of $\xi^{m-1}e^{-ip\xi}$, with $1\leq m\leq m_{p}$, for $\xi> 0$.
Given $h\in L^2_+$, we have $\widehat{H_{u}(h)}(\xi)=0$ for $\xi<0$. Moreover, for $\xi>0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{H_{u}(h)}(\xi)
& =\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{0}\hat{u}(\xi-\eta)\hat{\bar{h}}(\eta)d\eta \notag\\
& =\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty}\hat{u}(\xi+\eta)\overline{\hat{h}}(\eta)d\eta \label{H_u Fourier}\\
& =\sum_{\substack{1\leq m\leq m_{p} \notag
\\ \sum m_{p}=N}} c_{m,p}
\bigg(\sum_{k=0}^{m-1}C_{m-1}^{k}\xi^{m-1-k}\int_0^{\infty}\eta^{k}
\overline{\hat{h}}(\eta)e^{-ip\eta}d\eta \bigg)e^{-ip\xi}\notag\\
& =\sum_{\substack{1\leq m\leq m_{p}\notag\\ \sum m_{p}=N}}\tilde{d}_{m,p}(u,h)\xi^{m-1}e^{-ip\xi}
=\sum_{\substack{1\leq m\leq m_{p} \notag\\ \sum m_{p}=N}}d_{m,p}(u,h)
\bigg(\frac{1}{(x-p)^{m}}\bigg)^{\wedge}(\xi),\notag\end{aligned}$$
where $c_{m,p}$, $\tilde{d}_{m,p}$, $d_{m,p}$ are constants depending on $p$ and $m$.
Hence, $$\label{eqn: Hu}
H_{u}(h)(x)=\sum_{\substack{1\leq m\leq m_{p}\\ \sum m_{p}=N}}\frac{d_{m,p}(u,h)}{(x-p)^{m}}$$
and $\text{rk}(H_u)\leq N$.
Let us now prove (ii). Assume that $\text{rank}(H_u)=N$, i.e. the range of $H_u$, $\text{Ran}\, H_u$, is a 2$N$-dimensional real vector space. As $H_u$ is ${\mathbb{C}}$-antilinear, one can choose a basis of $\text{Ran}\, H_u$ of eigenvectors of $H_u$ in the following way: $$\{v_1,iv_1,...,v_N,iv_N\, ; \,H_{u}(v_{j})={\lambda}_jv_j, {\lambda}_j>0,j=1,2,\dots,N\}$$
Let $w_j=\sqrt{{\lambda}}_jv_j.$ If $h\in L^2_+$, then by Parseval’s identity we have $$\begin{aligned}
H_u(h)& =\sum_{j=1}^{N}(H_u(h),v_j)v_j+\sum_{j=1}^{N}(H_u(h),iv_j)iv_j=2\sum_{j=1}^{N}(H_u(h),v_j)v_j
=2\sum_{j=1}^{N}(H_u(v_j),h)v_j\\
&=2\sum_{j=1}^{N}({\lambda}_jv_j,h)v_j=2\sum_{j=1}^{N}(w_j,h)w_j
=\frac{1}{\pi}\sum_{j=1}^{N}\Big{(}\int_0^{\infty}\hat{w_j}(\eta)\overline{\hat{h}}(\eta)d\eta\Big{)} w_j.\end{aligned}$$
Consequently, $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{H_{u}(h)}(\xi)
=\frac{1}{2\pi}\pmb{1}_{\xi\geq 0}\int_{0}^{\infty}\hat{u}(\xi+\eta)\overline{\hat{h}}(\eta)d\eta
=\frac{1}{\pi}\pmb{1}_{\xi\geq 0}\sum_{j=1}^{N}\int_0^{\infty}\hat{w}_j(\eta)\hat{w}_j(\xi)\overline{\hat{h}}(\eta)d\eta.\end{aligned}$$
and hence, $$\pmb{1}_{\xi\geq 0}\int_0^{\infty}\Big{(}\hat{u}(\xi+\eta)-2\sum_{j=1}^{N}\hat{w}_j(\eta)\hat{w}_j(\xi)\Big{)}\overline{\hat{h}}(\eta)d\eta=0,$$
for all $h\in L^2_+$. Therefore, for all $\xi,\eta\geq 0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hat u(xi+eta)}
\hat{u}(\xi+\eta)=2\sum_{j=1}^{N}\hat{w}_j(\eta)\hat{w}_j(\xi).\end{aligned}$$
Let $L>2N+1$ be an even integer and $\phi$ be the probability density function of the chi-square distribution defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(\xi)=
\begin{cases}
&\frac{1}{2^{\frac{L}{2}}\Gamma (\frac{L}{2})}\xi ^{\frac{L}{2}-1}e^{-\frac{\xi}{2}}, \text{ if } \xi \geq 0\\
&0, \text{ if } \xi <0,
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
where $\Gamma$ is the Gamma function. Then, its Fourier transform is $$\begin{aligned}
{\widehat}{\phi}(x)=(1+2ix)^{-\frac{L}{2}}.\end{aligned}$$
Notice that $\phi\in H^N({\mathbb{R}})$ since $$\begin{aligned}
\|\phi\|^2_{H^N}=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \frac{{\langle x \rangle}^{2N}}{|1+2i x|^{L}}dx\end{aligned}$$
which is convergent if and only if $2N-L<-1$.
Let ${\langle \theta,\psi \rangle}=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\theta(x)\psi(x)$ for all $\theta\in H^{-N}({\mathbb{R}})$ and $\psi\in H^N({\mathbb{R}})$. Consider the matrix $A_{\phi}$ defined by: $$\left(
\begin{matrix}
{\langle \hat{w}_1,\phi \rangle} & {\langle \hat{w}_1',\phi \rangle} & \cdots & {\langle \hat{w}_1^{(N)},\phi \rangle} \\
{\langle \hat{w}_2,\phi \rangle} & {\langle \hat{w}_2',\phi \rangle} & \cdots & {\langle \hat{w}_2^{(N)},\phi \rangle} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
{\langle \hat{w}_N,\phi \rangle} & {\langle \hat{w}_N',\phi \rangle} & \cdots & {\langle \hat{w}_N^{(N)},\phi \rangle}
\end{matrix}
\right)$$
Since $\text{rk}(A_{\phi})\leq N$, it results that there exists $(c_0,c_1,\dots,c_N)\neq 0$ such that $$\Big\langle \sum_{k=0}^{N}c_k\hat{w_j}^{(k)},\phi \Big\rangle=0,$$
for all $j=1,2,\dots,N$. Then, since $\operatorname*{supp}\phi\subset [0,\infty)$ and by , we have for all $\eta\geq 0$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=0}^{N}\Big\langle c_k\hat{u}^{(k)}(\xi),\phi(\xi-\eta)\Big\rangle_{\xi}&=\sum_{k=0}^{N}\Big\langle c_k\hat{u}^{(k)}(\xi+\eta),\phi(\xi)\Big\rangle_{\xi}=\sum_{k=0}^N(-1)^kc_k\int_0^{\infty}\hat{u}(\xi+\eta)\phi^{(k)}(\xi)d\xi\\
&=2\sum_{k=0}^N(-1)^kc_k\int_0^{\infty}\Big (\sum_{j=1}^N\hat{w}_j(\eta)\hat{w}_j(\xi)\Big)\phi^{(k)}(\xi)d\xi\\
&= 2\sum_{j=1}^{N}\hat{w}_j(\eta)\sum_{k=0}^{N}c_k\Big\langle\hat{w}_j^{(k)}(\xi),\phi(\xi)\Big\rangle=0.\end{aligned}$$
Denote $T=\sum_{k=0}^Nc_k\hat{u}^{(k)}$. Then $T\in H^{-N}$ and $\operatorname*{supp}T\in [0,\infty)$. We have just proved that for all $\eta\geq 0$ $$\begin{aligned}
0&={\langle T,\phi(\cdot-\eta) \rangle}=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}T(\xi)\phi(\xi-\eta)d\xi=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}T(\xi)\Big (\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\frac{e^{ix(\xi-\eta)}}{(1+2ix)^{L/2}}dx\Big )d\xi\\
&=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\Big (\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}T(\xi)e^{ix\xi}d\xi \Big )\frac{e^{-ix\eta}}{(1+2ix)^{L/2}}dx=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\mathcal{F}^{-1}T(x)\frac{e^{-ix\eta}}{(1+2ix)^{L/2}}dx.\end{aligned}$$
Denoting $R(x):=\frac{1}{(1+2ix)^{L/2}}\mathcal{F}^{-1}T(x)$, we have $\hat{R}\in H^{L/2-N}({\mathbb{R}})\subset H^{1/2}({\mathbb{R}})$ and $$\begin{aligned}
0=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}R(x)e^{-ix\eta}dx=\hat{R}(\eta), \text { for all } \eta\geq 0.\end{aligned}$$
Thus $\operatorname*{supp}\hat{R}\subset (-\infty, 0]$. By the definition of $R$, $(1-2D_{\xi})^{L/2}\hat{R}(\xi)=T(\xi)$. Since the left hand-side is supported on $(-\infty,0]$ and the right hand-side is supported on $[0,\infty)$, we deduce that $\operatorname*{supp}T\subset {0}$. In particular, $T_{|\xi>0}=0$. This yields that $\hat{u}_{|\xi>0}$ is a weak solution on $(0,\infty)$ of the following linear ordinary differential equation: $$\label{equation hat{u}}
\sum_{k=0}^{N}c_kv^{(k)}(\xi)=0.$$ Then, by [@Hormander Theorem 4.4.8, p.115], we have that $\hat{u}_{|\xi>0}\in C^{N}((0,\infty))$, $\hat{u}_{|\xi>0}$ is a classical solution of this equation and therefore it is a linear combination of $$\xi^{m-1}e^{q\xi}$$
where $q\in{\mathbb{C}}$ is a root of the polynomial $P(X)=\sum_{k=0}^{N}c_kX^{k}$ with multiplicity $m_q$, $1\leq m\leq m_q$, and $\sum_q m_{q}=N$. Note that we must have $\text{Re} \, q<0$, because $u\in L_+^{2}({\mathbb{R}})$. Therefore we will denote $q=-ip$, with $\text{Im} \, p <0$ and obtain that $\hat{u}(\xi)$ is a linear combination of $\xi^{m-1}e^{-ip\xi}$ for $\xi>0$. By the hypothesis $u\in L^2_+({\mathbb{R}})$, we obtain $\hat{u}(\xi)=0$ for $\xi\leq 0$. Hence for all $\xi\in{\mathbb{R}}$, $\hat{u}(\xi)$ is a linear combination of $\Big(\frac{1}{(x-p)^{m}}\Big)^\wedge(\xi)$, with $1\leq q\leq m_q$ and $\sum m_{q}=N$. Thus $u\in{\mathcal{M}}(N')$ for some $N'\leq N$. If $N'<N$, then $(i)$ yields $\text{rk}(H_u)\leq N'$, which contradicts our assumption. In conclusion $u\in{\mathcal{M}}(N).$
Finally, when $u\in {\mathcal{M}}(N)$ we have $\text{rk}(H_u)=N$ and equation , and thus follows.
As a consequence of we make the following remark.
\[remark\] If $u\in {\mathcal{M}}(N)$, then $u\in\textup{Ran}\,H_u$.
Spectral properties of the operator $A_{u}$ for a traveling wave $u$
====================================================================
Let us first recall the definition and the basic properties of the generalized wave operators, which are the main objects in scattering theory. We refer to chapter XI in [@Reed; @and; @Simon] for more details.
Let $A$ and $B$ be two self-adjoint operators on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$. The basic principle of scattering theory is to compare the free dynamics corresponding to $e^{-iAt}$ and $e^{-iBt}$. The fact that $e^{-iBt}\phi$ “looks asymptotically free” as $t\to -\infty$, with respect to A, means that there exists $\phi_+\in \mathcal{H}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{t\to -\infty}\|e^{-iBt}\phi-e^{-itA}\phi_{+}\|=0
\intertext{or equivalently,}
\lim_{t\to -\infty}\|e^{iAt}e^{-itB}\phi-\phi_{+}\|=0.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we reduced ourselves to the problem of the existence of a strong limit. Let $\mathcal{H}_{\text{ac}}(B)$ be the absolutely continuous subspace for $B$ and let $P_{\text{ac}}(B)$ be the orthogonal projection onto this subspace. In the definition of the generalized wave operators we have $\phi\in\mathcal{H}_{\text{ac}}(B)$.
We say that the generalized wave operators exist if the following strong limits exist: $$\label{eqn: wave operators}
\Omega^{\pm}(A,B)=\lim_{t\to\mp\infty}e^{itA}e^{-itB}P_{\text{ac}}(B).$$
The wave operators $\Omega^{\pm}(A,B)$ are partial isometries with initial subspace $\mathcal{H}_{\text{ac}}(B)$ and with values in $\text{Ran }\Omega^{\pm}(A,B)$. Moreover, $\text{Ran}\, \Omega^{\pm}(A,B)\subset \mathcal{H}_{\text{ac}}(A)$. If $\text{Ran}\, \Omega^{\pm}(A,B)=\mathcal{H}_{\text{ac}}(A)$, we say that the generalized wave operators are complete.
Lastly, we note that the following equality holds: $$\label{id: wave operators}
A\Omega^{\pm}(A,B)=\Omega^{\pm}(A,B)B.$$
\[lemma: smothness\] If $u\in H^{1/2}_+$ is a traveling wave, then $u\in H_+^{s}({\mathbb{R}})$ for all $s\geq 0$. In particular, by Sobolev embedding theorem, we have $u\in L^p({\mathbb{R}})$ for $2\leq p\leq\infty$.
Because $u\in H^{1/2}({\mathbb{R}})$, the Sobolev embedding theorem yields $u\in L^p({\mathbb{R}})$, for all $2\leq p<\infty$. Therefore $|u|^2u\in L^{2}({\mathbb{R}})$ and thus $\Pi(|u|^2u)\in L^2_+$. Using equation $$cDu+\omega u=\Pi(|u|^{2}u),$$
we deduce that $Du\in L^2_+$. Consequently, $u\in H^1_+$ and by Sobolev embedding theorem we have $u\in L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})$. Then $u^2D\bar{u}, |u|^2Du\in L^{2}({\mathbb{R}})$. Applying the operator $D$ to both sides of equation , we obtain $D^2u\in L^2({\mathbb{R}})$ and hence $u\in H^2_+$. Iterating this argument infinitely many times, the conclusion follows.
Let $u$ be a traveling wave. Then, $(A_u+i)^{-1}-(D+i)^{-1}$ is a trace class operator.
We prove first that for all $f\in L^2({\mathbb{R}})$, the operator $(D+i)^{-1}f$, defined on $L^2({\mathbb{R}})$ by $$\big{(}(D+i)^{-1}f\big{)}h(x)= (D+i)^{-1}(fh)(x)$$
is Hilbert-Schmidt. Denote by $\mathcal{F}$ the Fourier transform. Using the isomorphism of $L^2({\mathbb{R}})$ induced by the Fourier transform, we have that $(D+i)^{-1}f$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator if and only if $\mathcal{F}(D+i)^{-1}f$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator. The latter is an integral operator of kernel $K(\xi,\eta)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\cdot\frac{1}{\xi+i}\hat{f}(\xi-\eta)$. Indeed, $$\mathcal{F}\big{(}(D+i)^{-1}fh\big{)}(\xi)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\cdot\frac{1}{\xi+i}{\widehat}{fh}(\xi)
=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\frac{1}{\xi+i}\hat{f}(\xi-\eta)\hat{h}(\eta)d\eta=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}K(\xi,\eta)\hat{h}(\eta)d\eta.$$
Therefore, it is Hilbert-Schmidt if and only if $K(\xi,\eta)\in L^2_{\xi,\eta}({\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}})$. By the change of variables $\eta\mapsto \zeta=\xi-\eta$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|K(\xi,\eta)\|^2_{L^2_{\xi,\eta}}=\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\frac{d\xi}{\xi^2+1}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}|\hat{f}(\zeta)|^2d\zeta=C\|f\|_{L^2}^2<\infty.\end{aligned}$$
Hence $(D+i)^{-1}f$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and so is $\bar{f}(D+i)^{-1}$, its adjoint. According to Lemma \[lemma: smothness\], $u\in L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})$ and thus $|u|^2\in L^{2}({\mathbb{R}})$. Taking $f=|u|^{2}$ and $f=u$, we conclude that the operators $(D+i)^{-1}|u|^{2}$, $(D+i)^{-1}u$, and $\bar{u}(D+i)^{-1}$ are all Hilbert-Schmidt.
We write $$\begin{aligned}
(A_u+i)^{-1}-(D+i)^{-1}
& =(D+i)^{-1}(D-A_u)(A_u+i)^{-1}\\
& =\frac{1}{c}(D+i)^{-1}T_{|u|^{2}}(A_u+i)^{-1}\\
& =\frac{1}{c}\Pi(D+i)^{-1}|u|^{2}(A_u+i)^{-1}=L(A_u+i)^{-1},\end{aligned}$$
where $L=\frac{1}{c}\Pi(D+i)^{-1}|u|^{2}$. Note that $L$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator since it is the composition of the bounded operator $\frac{1}{c}\Pi:L^2({\mathbb{R}})\to L^2_+$ with the Hilbert-Schmidt operator $(D+i)^{-1}|u|^{2}$. Finally, we write, using the latter formula twice $$\begin{aligned}
(A_u+i)^{-1}-(D+i)^{-1}
& =L(L(A_u+i)^{-1}+(D+i)^{-1})\\
& =L\circ L\circ (A_u+i)^{-1}+\frac{1}{c}\Pi(D+i)^{-1}u\circ\bar{u}(D+i)^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$
We obtain that $(A_u+i)^{-1}-(D+i)^{-1}$ is a trace class operator since the composition of two Hilbert-Schmidt operators is a trace class operator.
If u is a traveling wave, then the wave operators $\Omega^{\pm}(D,A_u)$ exist and are complete.
This easily follows from Kuroda-Birman theorem that we state below [@Reed; @and; @Simon Theorem XI.9]:
Let $A$ and $B$ be two self-adjoint operators on a Hilbert space such that $(A+i)^{-1}-(B+i)^{-1}$ is a trace class operator. Then $\Omega^{\pm}(A,B)$ exist and are complete.
\[cor sigma ac\] If u is a traveling wave, then $\sigma_{\textup{ac}}(A_{u})=[0,+\infty)$.
Since $\Omega^{\pm}(D,A_u)$ are complete, it results that they are isometries from $\mathcal{H}_{\text{ac}}(A_u)$ onto $\mathcal{H}_{\text{ac}}(D)=L^2_+$. By , we then have $${A_u}_{|_{\mathcal{H}_{\text{ac}}(A_u)}}
=[\Omega^{\pm}(D,A_u)_{|_{\mathcal{H}_{\text{ac}}(A_u)}}]^{-1}D\Omega^{\pm}(D,A_u)_{|_{\mathcal{H}_{\text{ac}}(A_u)}}.$$ Consequently, $\sigma_{\text{ac}}(A_{u})=\sigma_{\text{ac}}(D)=[0,+\infty)$.
Our main goal in the following is to prove $\mathcal{H}_{\text{ac}}(A_{u})\subset\text{Ker}\, H_{u}$. As we see below, it is enough to prove that $\big{[}\Omega^{+}(D,A_u)H^{2}_u\big{]}(\mathcal{H}_{\text{ac}}(A_{u}))=0$.
\[H\_u is H-S\] The operator $H_u$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator on $L^2_+({\mathbb{R}})$ of Hilbert-Schmidt norm $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\|u\|_{\dot{H}^{1/2}_+}$.
Let us denote by $\|T\|_{HS}$ the Hilbert-Schmidt norm of a Hilbert-Schmidt operator $T$. By , we have $$\widehat{H_{u}(h)}(\xi)
=\frac{1}{2\pi}\pmb{1}_{\xi\geq 0}\int_{0}^{\infty}\hat{u}(\xi+\eta)\overline{\hat{h}}(\eta)d\eta.$$
Then, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
H_{u}(h)(x)
&=\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\int_{0}^{\infty}\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{ix\xi}\hat{u}(\xi+\eta)\overline{\hat{h}}(\eta)d\eta d\xi\\
&=\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\bigg{(}\int_{0}^{\infty}
\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{ix\xi}e^{iy\eta}\hat{u}(\xi+\eta)d\eta d\xi\bigg{)}\bar{h}(y)dy.\end{aligned}$$
Using the fact that the Hilbert-Schmidt norm of an operator is equal to the norm of its integral kernel, Plancherel’s formula, and Fubini’s theorem, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|H_{u}(h)\|^2_{HS}
&=\frac{1}{16\pi^4}\bigg\|\int_{0}^{\infty}\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{ix\xi}e^{iy\eta}\hat{u}(\xi+\eta)d\eta d\xi\bigg\|^2_{L^2_{x,y}}
=\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\|\pmb{1}_{\xi\geq 0}\pmb{1}_{\eta\geq 0}\hat{u}(\xi+\eta)\|^2_{L^2_{\eta,\xi}}\\
&=\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\int_{0}^{\infty}\int_{0}^{\infty}|\hat{u}(\xi+\eta)|^2d\eta d\xi=\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\int_{0}^{\infty}\int_{\xi}^{\infty}|\hat{u}(\zeta)|^2d\zeta d\xi\\
&=\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\int_{0}^{\infty}\bigg{(}\int_{0}^{\zeta}d\xi\bigg{)}|\hat{u}(\zeta)|^2d\zeta
=\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\int_{0}^{\infty}\zeta|\hat{u}(\zeta)|^2d\zeta =\frac{1}{2\pi}\|u\|_{\dot{H}^{1/2}}^2.\end{aligned}$$
\[lemma: Ker Hu\^2\] $\textup{ Ker}\,H_u^2=\textup{Ker}\,H_u$. Moreover, if $\textup{ Ran} H_u$ is finite dimensional, then $\textup{ Ran}\,H_u^2=\textup{Ran}\,H_u$.
Let $f\in \text{Ker}\,H_u^2$. Then, by , $$\notag
(H_{u}(h_{1}),h_{2})=(H_{u}(h_{2}),h_{1}) \text{ for all } h_1,h_2\in L^2_+,$$
we have $$\|H_uf\|_{L^2}^2=(H_uf,H_uf)=(H_u^2f,f)=0$$
and thus $H_u f=0$. Hence, $\text{Ker}\,H_u^2\subset\text{Ker}H_u\,$. Therefore, we obtain $\text{Ker}\,H_u^2=\text{Ker}H_u$ since the inverse inclusion is obvious.
The identity yields also $\text{Ker} H_u=(\text{Ran} H_u)^{\perp}$. Moreover, it implies that $H_u^2$ is a self-adjoint operator and therefore, $\text{Ker} H^2_u=(\text{Ran} H^2_u)^{\perp}$. Hence, we obtain $$(\text{Ran}H_u^2)^{\perp}=(\text{Ran}H_u)^{\perp}.$$
Taking the orthogonal complement of both sides, this yields $$\overline{\text{Ran}H_u^2}=\overline{\text{Ran}H_u.}$$
If $\textup{Ran} H_u$ is finite dimensional, so is $\text{Ran}H_u^2$, since $\text{Ran}H_u^2\subset \text{Ran}H_u$. Thus, $\text{Ran}H^2_u$ and $\text{Ran}H_u$ are closed. Hence, we have $\text{Ran}H^2_u=\text{Ran}H_u$.
\[Ran Hu\] If $u$ is a traveling wave, then $$\label{eqn:comutativity A and H_u^2}
A_uH_u^2=H_u^2 A_u.$$
Consequently, if $\textup{ Ran} H_u$ is finite dimensional, then $A_u(\textup{Ran}\, H_u)\subset \textup{Ran}\, H_{u}$.
The commutativity relation is a consequence of identity . The second statement then follows by Lemma \[lemma: Ker Hu\^2\], $\text{Ran}\,H_u^2=\text{Ran}\,H_u$.
It is a classical fact that if $A$ and $B$ are two self-adjoint operators on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ such that $AB=BA$, then $B\big(\mathcal{H}_{\text{ac}}(A)\big)\subset\mathcal{H}_{\text{ac}}(A)$. For the sake of completeness, we prove it here in the case of the operators $A_u$ and $H_u^2$.
\[lemma:commutativity H\_u\^2 and P\_[ac]{}\] $H_u^2\mathcal{H}_{\textup{ac}}(A_u)\subset \mathcal{H}_{\textup{ac}}(A_u)$.
As we see below, the inclusion follows if we prove that $\mu_{H_u^{2}\phi}\ll\mu_{\phi}$ for all $\phi\in L^2_+$, where the measures above are the spectral measures with respect to the operator $A_u$, corresponding respectively to $H_u^2\phi$ and $\phi$.
Let $E\subset{\mathbb{R}}$ be a measurable set and $f=\pmb{1}_{E}$. Then, by and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_{H_{u}^2\phi}(E)
& =\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}fd\mu_{H_{u}^2\phi}
=(H_{u}^2\phi,f(A_{u})H_{u}^2\phi)\\
& =(H_{u}^2\phi,H_{u}^2f(A_{u})\phi)=(H_{u}^4\phi,f(A_{u})\phi)\\
& \leq \sqrt{(f(A_{u})\phi,f(A_{u})\phi)}\|H_{u}^4\phi\|_{L^{2}}
=\sqrt{(\phi,f(A_{u})\phi)}\|H_{u}^4\phi\|_{L^{2}}\\
& =\sqrt{\mu_{\phi}(E)}\|H_{u}^4\phi\|_{L^{2}}.\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, $\mu_{H_u^{2}\phi}\ll\mu_{\phi}$.
Let us denote by $m$ the Lebesgue measure on ${\mathbb{R}}$. If $\phi\in \mathcal{H}_{\text{ac}}(A_u)$, then $\mu_{\phi}\ll m$ and thus $\mu_{H_u^{2}\phi}\ll m$. Hence, $H^2_u\mathcal{H}_{\text{ac}}(A_u)\subset\mathcal{H}_{\text{ac}}(A_u)$.
\[prop:H\_ac subset Ker H\_u\] If u is a traveling wave, then $\mathcal{H}_{\textup{ac}}(A_u)\subset \textup{Ker}\, H_u$.
It is enough to prove that $\big{[}\Omega^{+}(D,A_u)H_u^{2}\big{]}\big{(}\mathcal{H}_{\text{ac}}(A_u)\big{)}=0$. If this holds, then we have $H_u^{2}\big{(}\mathcal{H}_{\text{ac}}(A_u)\big{)}=0$ since $H^2_u\mathcal{H}_{\text{ac}}(A_u)\subset\mathcal{H}_{\text{ac}}(A_u)$ and $\Omega^{+}(D,A_u)$ is an isometry on $\mathcal{H}_{\text{ac}}(A_u)$. Therefore, $\mathcal{H}_{\text{ac}}(A_u)\subset\text{Ker}\, H_u^2=\text{Ker}\, H_u$.
Let us first note that $$\label{id}
H_ue^{itD}=e^{itD}H_{\tau_t(u)},$$
where $\tau_{a}$ denotes the translation $\tau_{a}u(x)=u(x-a)$. Indeed, for $f\in L^2_+$, passing into the Fourier space, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\big{(}H_ue^{itD}f\big{)}^\wedge(\xi)&=\pmb{1}_{\xi\geq 0}\big{(}u\overline{e^{itD}f}\big{)}^\wedge(\xi)
=\frac{1}{2\pi}\pmb{1}_{\xi\geq 0}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\hat{u}(\xi-\eta)e^{it\eta}\hat{\bar{f}}(\eta)d\eta\\
&=\frac{1}{2\pi}\pmb{1}_{\xi\geq 0}e^{it\xi}\int e^{-it(\xi-\eta)}\hat{u}(\xi-\eta)\hat{\bar{f}}(\eta)d\eta
=\pmb{1}_{\xi\geq 0}e^{it\xi}\big{(}\tau_{t}(u)\bar{f}\big{)}^\wedge(\xi)\\
&=\pmb{1}_{\xi\geq 0}\big{(}e^{itD}(\tau_{t}(u)\bar{f})\big{)}^\wedge(\xi)=\big{(}e^{itD}H_{\tau_{t}(u)}f\big{)}^\wedge(\xi).\end{aligned}$$
By Lemma \[lemma:commutativity H\_u\^2 and P\_[ac]{}\], , and , we have for all $f\in \mathcal{H}_{\text{ac}}(A_u)$ $$\begin{aligned}
e^{itD}e^{-itA_{u}}P_{\text{ac}}H_u^2f
&=e^{itD}e^{-itA_{u}}H_u^2f
=e^{itD}H_u^2e^{-itA_{u}}f
=e^{itD}H_{u}H_ue^{-itD}e^{itD}e^{-itA_{u}}f\\
&=e^{itD}H_{u}e^{-itD}H_{\tau_{-t}(u)}e^{itD}e^{-itA_{u}}f
=H^2_{\tau_{-t}(u)}e^{itD}e^{-itA_{u}}P_{\text{ac}}(A_{u})f.\end{aligned}$$
We intend to prove that $H^2_{\tau_{-t}(u)}e^{itD}e^{-itA_{u}}P_{\text{ac}}(A_{u})f$ tends to 0 in the $L^2_+$-norm as $t\to -\infty$. From this, we conclude that $\Omega^{+}(D,A_u)H_u^{2}f=0$.
Since, by Lemma \[H\_u is H-S\], $H_{\tau_{-t}(u)}$ is a uniformly bounded operator, it is enough to prove that $H_{\tau_{-t}(u)}e^{itD}e^{-itA_{u}}P_{\text{ac}}(A_{u})f$ tends to 0. $$\begin{aligned}
\|H_{\tau_{-t}(u)}e^{itD}e^{-itA_{u}}
& P_{\text{ac}}(A_{u})f\|_{L^2_+}\notag\\
&\leq \Big\|H_{\tau_{-t}(u)}\Big{(}e^{itD}e^{-itA_{u}}P_{\text{ac}}(A_{u})f-\Omega^{+}(D,A_u)f\Big{)}\Big\|_{L^2_+}\notag \\
& \hphantom{XXXXXX} +\|H_{\tau_{-t}(u)}\Omega^{+}(D,A_u)f\|_{L^2_+}\notag\\
&\leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\|u\|_{\dot{H}^{1/2}}\|e^{itD}e^{-itA_{u}}P_{\text{ac}}(A_{u})f-\Omega^{+}(D,A_u)f\|_{L^2_+} \notag \\
& \hphantom{XXXXXX}+\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}|u(x+t)|^2|\Omega^{+}(D,A_u)f(x)|^2dx\label{terms}\end{aligned}$$
The first term in converges to $0$ by the definition of the wave operator $\Omega^+(D,A_u)$.
Since $u$ is a traveling wave, $$u\in \bigcap_{s\geq 0}H^s({\mathbb{R}})\subset C^{\infty}_{\to 0}({\mathbb{R}}),$$ where $C^{\infty}_{\to 0}({\mathbb{R}})$ is the space of functions $f$ of class $C^{\infty}$ such that $\lim_{x\to -\infty}D^{k}f(x)=\lim_{x\to \infty}D^{k}f(x)=0$ for all $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$. Therefore, for arbitrary fixed $x$, we have $$\lim_{t\to -\infty}\tau_{-t}(u)(x)=\lim_{t\to -\infty}u(x+t)=0.$$ Note also that $|u(x+t)|^2|\Omega^{+}(D,A_u)f(x)|^2\leq \|u\|_{L^{\infty}}|\Omega^{+}(D,A_u)f(x)|^2$ for all $x\in{\mathbb{R}}$. Then the second term in converges to $0$ by the dominated convergence theorem. Hence $\big{[}\Omega^{+}(D,A_u)H_u^{2}\big{]}\big{(}\mathcal{H}_{\text{ac}}(A_u)\big{)}=0$.
Classification of traveling waves
=================================
\[lemma: stationary waves\] There are no nontrivial traveling waves of velocity $c=0$ in $L^2_+({\mathbb{R}})$.
Let $u$ be a nontrivial traveling wave of velocity $c=0$. Then, equation \[eqn:u\] gives $\Pi(|u|^2u)=\omega u$. Taking the scalar product with $e^{i\xi x}u(x)$, where $\xi\geq 0$, we obtain $$\mathcal{F}(|u|^4-\omega |u|^2)(\xi)=0,$$
where $\mathcal{F}$ denotes the Fourier transform. Since $|u|^4-\omega |u|^2$ is a real valued function, we have that the last equality holds for all $\xi\in{\mathbb{R}}$. Thus $|u|^4-\omega |u|^2=0$ on ${\mathbb{R}}$ and therefore $u(x)=0$ or $|u(x)|^2=\omega>0$, for all $x\in{\mathbb{R}}$. Since the function $u$ is holomorphic on ${\mathbb{C}}_+$, its trace on ${\mathbb{R}}$ is either identically zero, or the set of zeros of $u$ on ${\mathbb{R}}$ has Lebesgue measure zero. In conclusion, we have $|u|^2=\omega>0$ a.e. on ${\mathbb{R}}$ and thus $u$ is not a function in $L^2_+({\mathbb{R}})$.
\[lemma:uv holomorphic\] If $u\in H^{s}_+$ for $s>\frac{1}{2}$ and $v\in \textup{Ker } H_{u}$, then $\bar{u}v\in L^2_+$. Moreover, if $u\in L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})$, then $T_{|u|^{2}}v=|u|^{2}v$.
Indeed, $0=H_{u}(v)=\Pi(u\bar{v})$ and thus $\bar{u}v\in L^2_+$. Furthermore, since $u,\bar{u}v\in L^2_+$, we obtain $T_{|u|^{2}}v=\Pi(u\bar{u}v)=|u|^{2}v$.
\[lemma psi\] Let $u\in H^s_+$, $s>\frac{1}{2}$, be a solution of the cubic Szegö equation . Consider the following Cauchy problem: $$\label{eqn psi}
\begin{cases}
i{\partial_t}\psi=|u(t)|^{2}\psi\\
\psi \big|_{t = 0} = \psi_0,
\end{cases}$$
If $\psi_{0}\in \textup{Ker}\, H_{u(0)}$, then $\psi(t)\in \textup{Ker}\, H_{u(t)}$ for all $t\in{\mathbb{R}}$.
Let us first consider: $$\begin{cases}
i{\partial_t}\psi_1=T_{|u(t)|^{2}}\psi_1\\
\psi_1 \big|_{t = 0} = \psi_0,
\end{cases}$$
Using the Lax pair structure, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\partial_t}H_{u}(\psi_{1})&=[B_u,H_u]\psi_1+H_u{\partial_t}\psi_1=[\frac{i}{2}H_u^2-iT_{|u|^2},H_u]\psi_1+H_u(-iT_{|u|^2}\psi_1)\\
&=-iT_{|u|^2}H_u\psi_1-iH_uT_{|u|^2}\psi_1+iH_uT_{|u|^2}\psi_1=-iT_{|u|^2}H_u\psi_1.\end{aligned}$$
The solution of this linear Cauchy problem $$\begin{cases}
{\partial_t}H_{u}(\psi_{1})=-iT_{|u|^2}H_u\psi_1\\
H_u(\psi_1(0))=0
\end{cases}$$
is identically zero. i.e., $H_{u(t)}\psi_1(t)=0$ for all $t\in{\mathbb{R}}$. Consequently, $\psi_1(t)\in \text{Ker}\,H_{u(t)}$ and by Lemma \[lemma:uv holomorphic\] we obtain $T_{|u|^2}\psi_1=|u|^2\psi_1$. In conclusion, $\psi(t)=\psi_1(t)\in \text{Ker}\,H_{u(t)}$.
The space $\text{Ker}\,H_{u}$ is invariant under multiplication by $e^{i\alpha x}$, for all $\alpha\geq 0$. Indeed, suppose $f\in\text{Ker}\,H_{u}$. Then ${\widehat}{u\bar{f}}(\xi)=0$, for all $\xi\geq 0$ and $$\big{(}H_u(e^{i\alpha x}f)\big{)}^\wedge(\xi)=\big{(}e^{-i\alpha x}u\bar{f}\big{)}^\wedge(\xi)={\widehat}{u\bar{f}}(\xi+\alpha)=0,$$ for all $\xi,\alpha\geq 0$. Hence, $e^{i\alpha x}f\in \text{Ker}\,H_u$ for all $\alpha\geq 0$.
One can then apply the following theorem to the subspaces $\text{Ker}\,H_{u_0}$.
\[th: Lax 1959\] Every non-empty closed subspace of $L^2_+$ which is invariant under multiplication by $e^{i\alpha x}$ for all $\alpha\geq 0$ is of the form $FL^2_+$, where $F$ is an analytic function in the upper-half plane, $|F(z)|\leq 1$ for all $z\in{\mathbb{C}}_+$, and $|F(x)|=1$ for all $x\in{\mathbb{R}}$. Moreover, $F$ is uniquely determined up to multiplication by a complex constant of absolute value 1.
We deduce that $\text{Ker}\,H_{u_0}=\phi L^2_+$, where $\phi$ is a holomorphic function in the upper half-plane ${\mathbb{C}}_+$, satisfying $|\phi(x)|=1$ on ${\mathbb{R}}$ and $|\phi(z)|\leq 1$ for all $z\in{\mathbb{C}}_{+}$.
Functions satisfying the properties in Lax’s theorem are called inner functions in the sense of Beurling-Lax. A special class of inner functions is given by the Blaschke products. Given ${\lambda}_{j}\in{\mathbb{C}}$ such that for all $j$ $$\text{Im}\,{\lambda}_j>0$$ and $$\sum_{j}\frac{\text{Im}\,{\lambda}_j}{1+|{\lambda}_j|^{2}}<\infty,$$ the corresponding Blaschke product is defined by $$\label {eqn: Blaschke}
B(z)=\prod_j{\varepsilon}_j\frac{z-{\lambda}_j}{z-\overline{{\lambda}}_j},$$
where ${\varepsilon}_j=\tfrac{|{\lambda}_j^2+1|}{{\lambda}_j^2+1}$ (by definition ${\varepsilon}_j=1$ if $\lambda_j=1$).
Inner functions have a canonical factorization, which is analogous to the canonical factorization of inner functions on the unit disk, see [@Rudin Theorem 17.15], [@Nikolskii Theorem 6.4.4]. More precisely, every inner function $F$ can be written as the product $$\label{eqn: factorization}
F(z)={\lambda}B(z) e^{iaz} e^{i\int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \frac{1+tz}{t-z}d\nu(t)},$$
where $z\in{\mathbb{C}}_+$, ${\lambda}\in {\mathbb{C}}$ with $|{\lambda}| = 1$, $a\geq 0$, $B$ is a Blaschke product, and $\nu$ is a positive singular measure with respect to the Lebesgue measure. In particular, the inner function $\phi$ has such a canonical factorization.
\[lemma equation phi\] Let u be a traveling wave and denote by $\phi$ an inner function such that $\textup{Ker}\,H_{u_0}=\phi L^2_+$. Then, $\phi$ satisfies the following equation on ${\mathbb{R}}$: $$\label{eqn:phi}
cD\phi=|u_{0}|^{2}\phi.$$
Since $u(t,x)=e^{-i\omega t}u_{0}(x-ct)$, we have $H_{u(t)}=e^{-i\omega t}\tau_{ct}H_{u_{0}}\tau_{-ct}$. Thus, $$\text{Ker}\,H_{u(t)}=\tau_{ct}\text{Ker}\,H_{u_{0}}=\tau_{ct}(\phi)L^2_+.$$
Let $f\in L^2_+$ and let $\psi_0=\phi f\in \text{Ker} H_{u_0}$ be the initial data of the Cauchy problem in Lemma \[lemma psi\]. We then have $\phi e^{-i\int_{0}^{t}|u_s|^{2}ds}f\in \text{Ker} H_{u(t)}$. Therefore, $$\label{inclusion}
\phi e^{-i\int_{0}^{t}|u_s|^{2}ds}L^2_+\subset\tau_{ct}(\phi) L^2_+.$$
Conversely, by solving backward the problem with the initial data in $\tau_{ct}(\phi) L^2_+$ at time $t$, up to the time $t=0$, we obtain $$\tau_{ct}(\phi) L^2_+\subset\phi e^{-i\int_{0}^{t}|u_s|^{2}ds}L^2_+$$ and thus, the two sets are equal.
Let us first prove that $\phi_t:=\phi e^{-i\int_{0}^{t}|u_s|^{2}ds}$ is an inner function. Note that $\phi_t$ is well defined on ${\mathbb{R}}$ and its absolute value is 1 on ${\mathbb{R}}$. Consider the function defined by $h(x)=\frac{\phi_t(x)}{x+i}$, for all $x\in{\mathbb{R}}$. Since $h\in L^2_+$, we can write using the Poisson integral that $$h(z)=\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\text{Im}z\frac{h(x)}{|z-x|^2}dx,$$
for all $z\in{\mathbb{C}}_+$. Then, $$zh(z)=\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\text{Im}z\frac{xh(x)}{|z-x|^2}dx+\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\text{Im}z\frac{(z-x)h(x)}{|z-x|^2}dx.$$
Note that the last integral is equal to $\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\text{Im}z\frac{h(x)}{\bar{z}-x}dx$. By the residue theorem and using the fact that the function $\frac{h}{\bar{z}-x}$ is holomorphic on ${\mathbb{C}}_+$, we have that this integral is zero and thus $$zh(z)=\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\text{Im}z\frac{xh(x)}{|z-x|^2}dx.$$
Therefore, we can use the Poisson integral to extend $\phi_t$ to ${\mathbb{C}}_+$ as a holomorphic function. $$\label{eqn:Poisson phi}
\phi_t(z)=(z+i)h(z)=\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\text{Im}z\frac{(x+i)h(x)}{|z-x|^2}dx=\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\text{Im}z\frac{\phi_t(x)}{|z-x|^2}dx.$$
Moreover, $$|\phi_t(z)|\leq\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\text{Im}z\frac{1}{|z-x|^2}dx=1,$$
for all $z\in{\mathbb{C}}_+$. Hence $\phi_t$ is an inner function.
Since $\tau_{ct}(\phi) $ and $\phi e^{-i\int_{0}^{t}|u_s|^{2}ds}$ are inner functions and $$\phi e^{-i\int_{0}^{t}|u_s|^{2}ds}L^2_+=\tau_{ct}(\phi) L^2_+,$$
Proposition \[th: Lax 1959\] yields the existence of a real valued function $\gamma$ such that $\gamma(0)=0$ and $$\phi e^{-i\int_{0}^{t}|u_s|^{2}ds}=\tau_{ct}(\phi) e^{i\gamma(t)}.$$ Taking the derivative with respect to $t$ we obtain that $\phi$ satisfies the following equation: $$cD\phi(x)=|u(t,x+ct)|^{2}\phi(x)+\dot{\gamma}(t)\phi(x).$$
for all $t\in{\mathbb{R}}$. Since $u$ is a traveling wave, we have $|u(t,x+ct)|=|e^{-i\omega t}u_0(x)|=|u_0(x)|$. Then we deduce that $\dot{\gamma}(t)=k$ and hence $\gamma (t)=kt$, for some $k\in{\mathbb{R}}$. Therefore, $$\label{eqn:phi 2}
cD\phi=(|u_{0}|^{2}+k)\phi.$$
We prove in the following that $k=0$. First, note that $\frac{k}{c}\geq 0$. The function $\phi u_0\in \text{Ker} H_{u_0}$ and by Lemma \[lemma:uv holomorphic\], we have $|u_0|^2\phi=\overline{u}_0(u_0\phi)\in L^2_+$. If $\frac{k}{c}$ is negative, denoting $\chi:=\frac{1}{c}|u_0|^{2}\phi\in L^{2}_+$ and passing into the Fourier space, we have: $$\hat{\phi}(\xi)=\frac{1}{\xi-\frac{k}{c}}\hat{\chi}(\xi) \, \pmb{1}_{[0, \infty)}(\xi).$$
This implies that $\phi\in L^{2}_+$, contradicting $|\phi(x)|=1$ for all $x\in{\mathbb{R}}$.
Let us now prove that $\frac{k}{c}=0$. Let $h\in L^2_+$ regular. Then $\phi h\in \text{Ker}\, H_{u_0}$ and by equation we have $$A_{u_0}(\phi h)=(D-\tfrac{1}{c}|u_0|^{2})(\phi h)=\phi(D-\tfrac{1}{c}|u_0|^{2})(h)+hD\phi=\phi(D+\tfrac{k}{c})h.$$
Denoting by $\mu_{\phi h}(A_{u_0})$ the spectral measure corresponding to $\phi h$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int f d\mu_{\phi h}
& =(\phi h, f(A_{u_0}) \phi h)=(\phi h, \phi f(D+\tfrac{k}{c}) h)=(h,f(D+\tfrac{k}{c}) h)\\
& =\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty} f(\xi+\tfrac{k}{c})|\hat{h}(\xi)|^{2} d\xi
=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\frac{k}{c}}^{\infty} f(\eta)|\hat{h}(\eta-\tfrac{k}{c})|^{2} d\eta.\end{aligned}$$
Consequently, $\operatorname*{supp}\mu_{\phi h}(A_{u_0})\subset [\frac{k}{c},+\infty)$. By Proposition \[prop:H\_ac subset Ker H\_u\], we have $\mathcal{H}_{\text{ac}}(A_{u_0})\subset\text{Ker} \, H_{u_0}$, and therefore $$\sigma_{\text{ac}}(A_{u_0})
=\overline{\bigcup_{\psi\in \mathcal{H}_{\text{ac}}(A_{u_0})}\operatorname*{supp}\mu_{\psi}}
\subset\overline{\bigcup_{\phi h\in \text{Ker} H_{u_0}}\operatorname*{supp}\mu_{\phi h}}\subset \big[\tfrac{k}{c},\infty\big).$$
Since, by Corollary \[cor sigma ac\], $\sigma_{\textup{ac}}(A_{u_{0}})=[0,\infty)$, this yields $k=0$.
All traveling waves are rational fractions.
We first prove that $\phi$ is a Blaschke product.
Since $\phi$ is an inner function in the sense of Beurling-Lax, it has the following canonical decomposition: $$\label{eqn: phi intermediate}
\phi(z)={\lambda}B(z) e^{iaz} e^{i\int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \frac{1+tz}{t-z}d\nu(t)},$$
where $z\in{\mathbb{C}}_+$, ${\lambda}$ is a complex number of absolute value 1, $a\geq 0$, $B$ is a Blaschke product having exactly the same zeroes as $\phi$, and $\nu$ is a positive singular measure with respect to the Lebesgue measure.
Because $\phi$ satisfies the equation and $u_0\in L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})$, we obtain that $\phi$ has bounded derivative on ${\mathbb{R}}$ and hence it is uniformly continuous on ${\mathbb{R}}$. Then, since $\phi$ satisfies the Poisson formula , it follows that $$\phi(x+i{\varepsilon})\to\phi(x), \text{ as }{\varepsilon}\to 0,$$
uniformly for $x\in{\mathbb{R}}$.
$\phi$ being uniformly continuous on ${\mathbb{R}}$ and $|\phi(x)|=1$, $\forall x\in{\mathbb{R}}$, we deduce that the zeroes of $\phi$ and hence, those of the Blaschcke product $B$ as well, lie outside a strip $\{z\in{\mathbb{C}}; 0\leq \textup{Im} z\leq {\varepsilon}_0\}$, for some ${\varepsilon}_0>0$. Therefore, we have $$\frac{\phi(x+i{\varepsilon})}{B(x+i{\varepsilon})}\to \frac{\phi(x)}{B(x)}, \text{ as } {\varepsilon}\to 0$$
uniformly for $x$ in compact subsets of ${\mathbb{R}}$. Taking the logarithm of the absolute value and noticing that $\big{|}\frac{\phi(x)}{B(x)}\big{|}=1$, we obtain $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\frac{{\varepsilon}}{(x-t)^2+{\varepsilon}^2}d\nu(t)\to 0,$$
uniformly for $x$ in compact subsets in ${\mathbb{R}}$. In particular, for all $\delta>0$ there exists $0<{\varepsilon}_1\leq {\varepsilon}_0$ such that for all $0<{\varepsilon}\leq {\varepsilon}_1$ and for all $x\in [0,1]$, we have $$\frac{1}{2{\varepsilon}}\nu([x-{\varepsilon},x+{\varepsilon}])\leq\int_{x-{\varepsilon}}^{x+{\varepsilon}}\frac{{\varepsilon}}{(x-t)^2+{\varepsilon}^2}d\nu(t)\leq\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\frac{{\varepsilon}}{(x-t)^2+{\varepsilon}^2}d\nu(t)\leq \delta.$$
Taking ${\varepsilon}=\frac{1}{2N}\leq {\varepsilon}_1$ with $N\in{\mathbb{N}}^{\ast}$, we obtain $$\nu([0,1])=\nu\big(\bigcup_{k=0}^{N-1}[\frac{k}{N},\frac{k+1}{N}]\big)\leq N\delta\frac{1}{N}=\delta.$$
In conclusion $\nu([0,1])=0$, and one can prove similarly that the measure $\nu$ of any compact interval in ${\mathbb{R}}$ is zero. Hence $\nu\equiv 0$.
Consequently, $\phi(x)={\lambda}B(x) e^{iax}$ for all $x\in{\mathbb{R}}$. On the other hand, because $\phi$ satisfies the equation , we have $\phi(x)=\phi(0)e^{\frac{i}{c}\int_0^x|u_0|^{2}}$ and, in particular, $\lim_{x\to\infty}\phi(x)=\phi(0)e^{\frac{i}{c}\int_0^{\infty}|u_0|^{2}}$. Since $\lim_{x\to\infty}B(x)=1$, we conclude that $a=0$. Substituting $\phi={\lambda}B$ in the equation , we obtain $$\frac{c}{i}\frac{B'}{B}=|u_0|^{2}.$$ Then $\frac{1}{i}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{B'(x)}{B(x)}\,dx<\infty$. Computing this integral, we obtain that $$\frac{1}{i}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{B'(x)}{B(x)}\,dx=2\sum_{j}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\text{Im} {\lambda}_j}{|x-{\lambda}_j|^2}\,dx=2\sum_{j}\pi$$
and thus it is finite if and only if $B$ is a finite Blaschke product, $B(x)=\prod_{j=1}^{N} {\varepsilon}_{j}\frac{x-{\lambda}_{j}}{x-\overline{{\lambda}}_{j}}$.
Let us prove that the traveling wave $u$ is a rational fraction. $$\text{Ker}\,H_{u}=\phi L^2_+=B L^2_+.$$
Notice that $B L^2_+=\Big{(}\text{span}_{{\mathbb{C}}}\Big\{\frac{1}{x-\overline{{\lambda}}_{j}}\Big\}_{j=1}^N\Big{)}^{\perp}.$ Indeed, $f\in \Big{(}\text{span}_{{\mathbb{C}}}\Big\{\frac{1}{x-\overline{{\lambda}}_{j}}\Big\}_{j=1}^N\Big{)}^{\perp}$ if and only if $$f({\lambda}_{j})=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}e^{i\xi{\lambda}_j}{\widehat}{f}(\xi)d\xi=\frac{1}{2\pi}\Big(\hat{f},e^{-i\overline{{\lambda}}_{j}\xi}\Big)
=\Big(f,\frac{1}{x-\overline{{\lambda}}_{j}}\Big)=0,$$
if and only if there exists $h\in L^2_+$ such that $f=Bh$. Hence $$\text{Ker}\,H_{u}=\bigg{(}\text{span}_{{\mathbb{C}}}\bigg\{\frac{1}{x-\overline{{\lambda}}_{j}}\bigg\}_{j=1}^N\bigg{)}^{\perp}$$ This yields $\overline{\text{Ran}\, H}_{u}=\text{span}_{{\mathbb{C}}}\Big\{\frac{1}{x-\overline{{\lambda}}_{j}}\Big\}_{j=1}^N$. By Remark \[remark\] it follows that $u$ is a rational fraction. More precisely, $u\in\text{Ran}\,H_u =\text{span}_{{\mathbb{C}}}\Big\{\frac{1}{x-\overline{{\lambda}}_{j}}\Big\}_{j=1}^N$.
\[prop: Hu\^2=ld u\] If $u$ is a traveling wave, then there exists ${\lambda}>0$ such that $H_{u}^{2}u={\lambda}u$.
According to Remark \[remark\], since $u$ is a rational fraction, we have $u\in\text{Ran }H_u$.
Secondly, $u$ satisfies the equation of the traveling waves , which is equivalent to $A_u(u)=-\frac{\omega}{c} u$. Therefore, $u$ is an eigenfunction of the operator $A_u$ for the eigenvalue $-\frac{\omega}{c}$. Applying the identity , $$A_uH_{u}+H_{u}A_u+\frac{\omega}{c} H_{u}+\frac{1}{c}H_{u}^{3}=0,$$
to $u$ and then to $H_u u$, one deduces that $A_uH_{u}^{2}u=-\frac{\omega}{c} H_{u}^{2}u$. Therefore, the conclusion of the proposition follows once we prove all the eigenfunctions of the operator $A_u$ belonging to $\text{Ran}\,H_u$, corresponding to the same eigenvalue, are linearly dependent.
Let $a$ be en eigenvalue of the operator $A_u$ and let $\psi_{1},\psi_{2}\in \text{Ker}\,(A_u-a)\cap \text{Ran} \, H_{u}$. Since $u$ is a rational fraction, by the Kronecker type theorem \[th: Kronecker\], $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$ are also nonconstant rational fractions. Then, one can find $\alpha,\beta\in{\mathbb{C}}$, $(\alpha,\beta)\neq (0,0)$, such that $\psi:=\alpha\psi_{1}+\beta\psi_{2}=O(\frac{1}{x^{2}})$ as $x\to\infty$. Moreover, we have $\psi\in L^1({\mathbb{R}})$, $x\psi\in L^{2}({\mathbb{R}})$, and thus we can compute $A_u(x\psi)$.
Passing into the Fourier space we have, $${\widehat}{\Pi(xf)}(\xi)=i(\partial_{\xi}\hat{f})\pmb{1}_{\xi\geq 0}=i\partial_{\xi}(\hat{f}\pmb{1}_{\xi\geq 0})-i\hat{f}(\xi)\delta_{\xi=0}={\widehat}{x\Pi f}(\xi)-i\hat{f}(0)\delta_{\xi=0},$$
for all $f\in L^1({\mathbb{R}})$. Thus, we obtain $\Pi(xf)=x\Pi(f)+\frac{1}{2\pi i}\hat{f}(0)$ for all $f\in L^{1}({\mathbb{R}})$. We then have $$A_u(x\psi)=xA_u(\psi)+\frac{1}{i}\psi-\frac{1}{2c\pi i}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}|u|^{2}\psi dx$$ and therefore, since $A_u\psi=a\psi$, $$\label{eqn: x psi}
A_u(x\psi)=ax\psi+\frac{1}{i}\psi-\frac{1}{2c\pi i}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}|u|^{2}\psi dx.$$
Since $x\psi\in \text{Ran}\, H_{u}$ and $A_u(\text{Ran}\,H_u)\subset\text{Ran}\,H_u$ by Lemma \[Ran Hu\], we have $A_u(x\psi)\in \text{Ran}\, H_{u}\subset L^{2}({\mathbb{R}})$. The constant in equation is zero because all the other terms are in $L^2({\mathbb{R}})$. Then we have $$\label{eqn: x psi 2}
(A_u-a)(x\psi)=\frac{1}{i}\psi.$$
Applying the self-adjoint operator $A_u-a$ to both sides of the equation , we obtain $(A_u-a)^2(x\psi)=0$ and $$\|(A_u-a)(x\psi)\|_{L^2}^2=((A_u-a)(x\psi),(A_u-a)(x\psi))=((A_u-a)^2(x\psi),x\psi)=0.$$
Thus, $(A_u-a)(x\psi)=0$. In conclusion, by equation , $\psi=0$ and therefore all the eigenfunctions belonging to $\text{Ran}\,H_u$, corresponding to the same eigenvalue $a$, are linearly dependent.
Since $u\in\text{Ran} \, H_{u}$, there exists a unique function $g\in \text{Ran}\, H_{u}$ such that $u=H_{u}(g)$. By Lemma \[prop: Hu\^2=ld u\], it results that $H_{u}(u)=\lambda g$. Applying the identity , $$A_uH_{u}+H_{u}A_u+\frac{\omega}{c} H_{u}+\frac{1}{c}H_{u}^{3}=0,$$
to $g$ and using $A_uu=-\frac{\omega}{c}u$, one obtains $H_{u}(A_ug+\frac{{\lambda}}{c} g)=0$. Since $A_u(\text{Ran}\, H_{u})\subset \text{Ran}\, H_{u}$, we have $A_ug+\frac{{\lambda}}{c} g\in \text{Ran}\, H_{u}\cap\text{Ker}\,H_u$. Therefore, $A_ug+\frac{{\lambda}}{c} g=0$, which is equivalent to $$cDg-T_{|u|^{2}}g+{\lambda}g=0.$$
In the following we intend to find a simpler version of the above equation, in order to determine the function $g$ explicitely. Note that $\bar{u}(1-g)\in L^2_+$, since it is orthogonal to each complex conjugate of a holomorphic function $f\in L^2_+$: $$(\bar{u}(1-g),\bar{f})=(f(1-g),u)=(f,u)-(f,H_{u}(g))=0.$$
Thus, $T_{|u|^{2}}(g)=\Pi(|u|^{2})-\Pi(|u|^{2}(1-g))=H_{u}(u)-|u|^{2}(1-g)={\lambda}g-|u|^{2}(1-g).$
Passing into the Fourier space and using the fact that $|u|^{2}$ is a real valued function, one can write $$|u|^{2}=\int_0^{\infty}e^{ix\xi}{\widehat}{|u|^2}(\xi)d\xi+\int_0^{\infty}e^{-ix\xi}\overline{{\widehat}{|u|^2}}(\xi)d\xi=\Pi(|u|^{2})+\overline{\Pi(|u|^{2})}.$$ Therefore $|u|^{2}=H_{u}(u)+{\overline}{H_{u}(u)}={\lambda}(g+{\overline}{g})$. Consequently, $T_{|u|^{2}}(g)={\lambda}(-\bar{g}+g^{2}+|g|^{2})$ and $g$ solves the equation $$\label{eqn:g}
cDg-{\lambda}g^{2}+{\lambda}(g+\bar{g}-|g|^{2})=0.$$
We prove that $g+\bar{g}-|g|^{2}=0$. First, note that $\bar{u}(1-g)\in L^2_+$ , also yields $(1-g)f\in \text{Ker} \, H_{u}$, for all $f\in L^2_+$. Secondly, let us prove that $g+\bar{g}-|g|^{2}$ is orthogonal to the complex conjugate of all $f\in L^2_+$: $$(g+\bar{g}-|g|^{2},\bar{f})=(g,\bar{f})-(f(1-g),g)=-(f(1-g),\tfrac{1}{{\lambda}}H_{u}(u))=-\tfrac{1}{{\lambda}}(u,H_{u}(f(1-g)))=0.$$ In addition, since $g+\bar{g}-|g|^{2}$ is a real valued function, we have $$(g+\bar{g}-|g|^{2},f)=(g+\bar{g}-|g|^{2},\bar{f})=0$$ for all $f\in L^2_+$. Therefore, $g+\bar{g}-|g|^{2}$ is orthogonal to all the functions in $L^2({\mathbb{R}})$ and thus $g+\bar{g}-|g|^{2}=0$. This is equivalent to $|1-g|=1$ on ${\mathbb{R}}$. Moreover, equation gives the precise formula for $g$, $$g(z)=\frac{r}{z-p},$$ where $r,p\in{\mathbb{C}}$ and $\text{Im}(p)<0.$ Thus $1-g(x)=\frac{x-\bar{p}}{x-p}$ for all $x\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and $$\text{Ker} \, H_{\frac{1}{z-p}}=\frac{z-\bar{p}}{z-p}L^2_+=(1-g)L^2_+\subset \text{Ker}\, H_{u}.$$
Consequently, $u\in\text{Ran}\, H_{u}\subset \text{Ran} \, H_{\frac{1}{z-p}}=\frac{{\mathbb{C}}}{z-p}$.
Orbital stability of traveling waves
====================================
In order to prove the orbital stability of traveling waves, we first use the fact that they are minimizers of the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality. We begin this section by proving this inequality, more precisely proposition \[prop:GN\].
The proof is similar to the proof of Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality for the circle, in [@PGSGX]. The idea is to write all the norms in the Fourier space, using Plancherel’s identity. $$E=\|u\|_{L^{4}}^{4}=\|u^{2}\|_{L^{2}}^2=\frac{1}{2\pi}\big\|{\widehat}{u^{2}}\big\|_{L^{2}}^2=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int _{{\mathbb{R}}}|{\widehat}{u^2}(\xi)|^2d\xi.$$
Using the fact that $u\in L^2_+$ and Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
|{\widehat}{u^2}(\xi)|^2&=\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\big{|}\int_0^{\xi}{\widehat}{u}(\eta){\widehat}{u}(\xi-\eta)d\eta\big{|}^2\leq \frac{1}{4\pi^2}\xi\int_0^{\xi}|{\widehat}{u}(\eta)|^2|{\widehat}{u}(\xi-\eta)|^2d\eta\\
&\leq\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\Big{(}\int_0^{\xi}\eta|{\widehat}{u}(\eta)|^2|{\widehat}{u}(\xi-\eta)|^2d\eta+\int_0^{\xi}(\xi-\eta)|{\widehat}{u}(\eta)|^2|{\widehat}{u}(\xi-\eta)|^2d\eta\Big{)}.\end{aligned}$$
By change of variables $\xi-\eta\mapsto \eta$ in the second integral, we have $$|{\widehat}{u^2}(\xi)|^2\leq \frac{1}{2\pi^2}\int_0^{\xi}\eta|{\widehat}{u}(\eta)|^2|{\widehat}{u}(\xi-\eta)|^2d\eta.$$ By Fubini’s theorem and change of variables $\zeta=\xi-\eta$ it results that $$E\leq \frac{1}{4\pi^3}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\int_0^{\xi}\eta|{\widehat}{u}(\eta)|^2|{\widehat}{u}(\xi-\eta)|^2d\eta d\xi=\frac{1}{4\pi^3}\int_0^{+\infty}\eta|{\widehat}{u}(\eta)|^2d\eta\int_0^{+\infty}|{\widehat}{u}(\zeta)|^2d\zeta=\frac{1}{\pi} MQ.$$
Moreover, equality holds if and only if we have equality in Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, i.e. $${\widehat}{u}(\xi){\widehat}{u}(\eta)={\widehat}{u}(\xi+\eta){\widehat}{u}(0),$$
for all $\xi,\eta\geq 0$. This is true if and only if ${\widehat}{u}(\xi)=e^{-ip\xi}{\widehat}{u}(0)$, for all $\xi\geq 0$. Since $u\in H^{1/2}_+$, this yields $\text{Im}(p)<0$ and $u(x)=\frac{C}{x-p}$, for some constant $C$.
The second argument we use in proving stability of traveling waves is a profile decomposition theorem. It states that bounded sequences in $H^{1/2}_+$ can be written as superposition of translations of fixed profiles and of a remainder term. The remainder is small in all the $L^p$-norms, $2<p<\infty$. Moreover, the superposition is almost orthogonal in the $H_+^{1/2}$-norm.
\[prop: profile dec\] Let $\{v^n\}_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ be a bounded sequence in $H^{1/2}_+$. Then, there exist a subsequence of $\{v^n\}_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}$, still denoted by $\{v^n\}_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}$, a sequence of fixed profiles in $H^{1/2}_+$, $\{V^{(j)}\}_{j\in{\mathbb{N}}}$, and a family of real sequences $\{x^{(j)}\}_{j\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ such that for all $\ell\in{\mathbb{N}}^{\ast}$ we have $$v^n=\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}V^{(j)}(x-x_n^{(j)})+r_{n}^{(\ell)},$$
where $$\lim_{\ell\to\infty}\limsup_{n\to\infty}\|r_{n}^{(\ell)}\|_{L^p({\mathbb{R}})}=0$$
for all $p\in (2,\infty)$, and
$$\begin{aligned}
\|v^n\|^2_{L^2} & =\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\|V^{(j)}\|^2_{L^2}+\|r_n^{(\ell)}\|_{L^2}^2+o(1),\ \text{ as } n\to \infty,\\
\|v^n\|^2_{\dot{H}^{1/2}_+} & =\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\|V^{(j)}\|^2_{\dot{H}^{1/2}_+}+\|r_n^{(\ell)}\|_{\dot{H}^{1/2}_+}^2+o(1),\ \text{ as } n\to \infty, \\
\lim_{n\to \infty}\|v^n\|^4_{L^4} & =\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\|V^{(j)}\|^4_{L^4}.\end{aligned}$$
The proof of this proposition follows exactly the same lines as that of the profile decomposition theorem for bounded sequences in $H^{1}({\mathbb{R}})$, [@Keraani Proposition 2.1]. However, note that in our case, the profiles $V^{(j)}$ belong to the space $H^{1/2}_+$, (not only to the space $H^{1/2}({\mathbb{R}})$), as they are weak limits of translations of the sequence $\{v^n\}_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}$.
According to Proposition \[prop:GN\], $C(a,r)$ is the set of minimizers of the problem $$\inf\{M(u)\big{|} u\in H^{1/2}_+, Q(u)=q(a,r), E(u)=e(a,r)\},$$
where $$q(a,r)=\frac{a^2\pi}{r},\ \ \ \ \ e(a,r)=\frac{a^4\pi}{2 r^3}.$$
We denote the infimum by $m(a,r)$.
Since $$\inf_{\phi\in C(a,r)}\|u_0^n-\phi\|_{H^{1/2}_+}\to 0,$$
by the Sobolev embedding theorem, we deduce $$Q(u_0^n)\to q(a,r),\ \ \ \ \ \ E(u_0^n)\to e(a,r),\ \ \ \ \ \ M(u_0^n)\to m(a,r).$$
Let $\{t_n\}_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ be an arbitrary sequence of real numbers. The conservation laws yield $$Q(u^n(t_n))\to q(a,r),\ \ \ E(u^n(t_n))\to e(a,r),\ \ \ M(u^n(t_n))\to m(a,r).$$
We can choose two sequences of positive numbers $\{a_n\}$ and $\{{\lambda}_n\}$ such that $v^n(x):=a_nu^n(t_n,{\lambda}_n x)$ satisfies $\|v^n\|_{L^{2}({\mathbb{R}})}=1$, $\|v^n\|_{L^{4}({\mathbb{R}})}=1$. Notice that $$a_n\to a_{\infty},\,\,\,\,\, {\lambda}_n\to {\lambda}_{\infty},$$ where $a_{\infty}>0$, ${\lambda}_{\infty}>0$, and $$\frac{{\lambda}_{\infty}}{a_{\infty}^4}=e(a,r),\,\,\,\,\,\, \frac{{\lambda}_{\infty}}{a_{\infty}^2}=q(a,r).$$ Then $$\|v^n\|^{1/2}_{\dot{H}^{1/2}_+}=\frac{\|v^n\|^{1/2}_{L^{2}}\|v^n\|^{1/2}_{\dot{H}^{1/2}_+}}{\|v^n\|_{L^{4}}}=\frac{\|u^n(t_n)\|^{1/2}_{L^{2}}\|u^n(t_n)\|^{1/2}_{\dot{H}^{1/2}_+}}{\|u^n(t_n)\|_{L^{4}}},$$
for all $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$. In particular, as a consequence of the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality, $$\lim_{n\to \infty}\|v^n\|_{\dot{H}^{1/2}_+}=\sqrt{\pi}
.$$ Thus, the sequence $\{v^n\}_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ is bounded in $H^{1/2}_+$. Applying the profile decomposition theorem (Proposition \[prop: profile dec\]), we obtain that there exist real sequences $\{x^{(j)}\}_{j\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ depending on the sequence $\{t_n\}_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ in the definition of $\{v^n\}_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}$, such that for all $\ell\in{\mathbb{N}}^{\ast}$ we have: $$v^n=\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}V^{(j)}(x- x_n^{(j)})+r_{n}^{(\ell)},$$
where $$\lim_{\ell\to\infty}\limsup_{n\to\infty}\|r_{n}^{(\ell)}\|_{L^p({\mathbb{R}})}=0$$
for all $p\in (2,\infty)$, and
$$\begin{aligned}
\|v^n\|^2_{L^2} & =\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\|V^{(j)}\|^2_{L^2}+\|r_n^{(\ell)}\|_{L^2}^2+o(1),\ \text{ as } n\to \infty,\\
\|v^n\|^2_{\dot{H}^{1/2}_+} & =\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}\|V^{(j)}\|^2_{\dot{H}^{1/2}_+}+\|r_n^{(\ell)}\|_{\dot{H}^{1/2}_+}^2+o(1),\ \text{ as } n\to \infty, \\
\lim_{n\to \infty}\|v^n\|^4_{L^4} & =\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\|V^{(j)}\|^4_{L^4}.\end{aligned}$$
Consequently, $$\label{eqn:profile 1}
1\geq\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\|V^{(j)}\|^2_{L^2},\quad \quad
\pi\geq\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\|V^{(j)}\|^2_{\dot{H}^{1/2}_+},\quad \quad
1=\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\|V^{(j)}\|^4_{L^4}.$$
Therefore, by the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\pi
\geq (\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\|V^{(j)}\|^2_{L^2})(\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\|V^{(j)}\|^2_{\dot{H}^{1/2}_+})
\geq \sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\|V^{(j)}\|^2_{L^2}\|V^{(j)}\|^2_{\dot{H}^{1/2}_+}
\geq \pi\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\|V^{(j)}\|^4_{L^4}=\pi.\end{aligned}$$
Thus, there exist only one profile $V:=V^{(1)}$ and a sequence $x=x^{(1)}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
v^n=&V(x- x_n)+r_{n},\notag\\
\|v^n\|^2_{L^2}=&\|V\|^2_{L^2}+\|r_n\|_{L^2}^2+o(1),\ \text{ as } n\to \infty,\label{profile 2}\\
\|v^n\|^2_{\dot{H}^{1/2}_+}=&\|V\|^2_{\dot{H}^{1/2}_+}+\|r_n\|_{\dot{H}^{1/2}_+}^2+o(1),\ \text{ as } n\to \infty.\label{profile 3}\end{aligned}$$
According to , $V$ satisfies $1\geq\|V\|_{L^{2}}^2$, $\pi\geq\|V\|^2_{\dot{H}^{1/2}_+}$, and $\|V\|^4_{L^4}=1$. In conclusion, $$\pi=\pi\|V\|_{L^{4}}^4\leq \|V\|_{L^2}^{2}\|V\|^2_{\dot{H}^{1/2}_+}\leq \pi.$$
Hence, $V$ is a minimizer in the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality. Moreover, $$\|V\|_{L^{2}}^2=1=\|v^n\|_{L^{2}},\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \|V\|^2_{\dot{H}^{1/2}_+}=\pi=\lim_{n\to \infty}\|v^n\|_{\dot{H}^{1/2}_+}^2,$$
By and , we have $r_n\to 0$ in $H^{1/2}_+$ as $n\to \infty$. Consequently, $v^n(\cdot+x_n)\to V$ in $H^{1/2}_+$, or equivalently, $$\lim_{n\to \infty}\|a_nu^n(t_n,{\lambda}_nx)-V(x-x_n)\|_{H^{1/2}_+}=0.$$
We then have $$\lim_{n\to \infty}\|u^n(t_n,x)-\frac{1}{a_{\infty}}V(\frac{x- x_n{\lambda}_{\infty}}{{\lambda}_{\infty}})\|_{H^{1/2}_+}=0.$$
Notice that, since $V$ is a minimizer in the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality, we have $\tilde\phi(x):=\frac{1}{a_{\infty}}V(\frac{x}{{\lambda}_{\infty}})=\frac{\alpha}{x-p}\in C(a,r)$. Then, since $x_n\lambda_{\infty}\in{\mathbb{R}}$, we have $\phi(x)=\tilde\phi(x-x_n{\lambda}_{\infty})=\frac{\alpha}{x-\tilde p}\in C(a,r)$. Thus, $$\label{sup approx}
\inf_{\phi\in C(a,r)}\|u^n(t_n,x)-\phi(x)\|_{H^{1/2}_+}\to 0, \text{ as } n\to\infty.$$
The conclusion follows by approximating the supremum in the statement by the sequence in with an appropriate $\{t_n\}_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}$.
[**Acknowledgments:**]{} The author is grateful to her Ph.D. advisor Prof. Patrick Gérard for introducing her to this subject and for constantly supporting her during the preparation of this paper. She would also like to thank the referee for his helpful comments.
[99]{} N. Burq, P. Gérard, N. Tzvetkov, [*Bilinear eigenfunction estimates and the nonlinear Schrödinger equation on surfaces,*]{} Invent. Math., 159 (2005), 187–223.
T. Cazenave, P.-L. Lions, [*Orbital stability of standing waves for some nonlinear Schrödinger equations,*]{} Comm. Math. Phys., 85 (1982), no. 4, 549–561.
W. Eckhaus, P. Schuur, [*The emergence of solitons of the Korteweg de Vries equation from arbitrary initial conditions,*]{} Math. Meth. Appl. Sci., 5 (1983), 97–116.
P. Gérard, [*Description du défaut de compacité de l’injection de Sobolev,*]{} (French) ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variation, vol.3 (1998), 213–233.
P. Gérard, S. Grellier, [*The cubic Szegö equation,*]{} Annales Scientifiques de l’Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris, $4^e$ série, t. 43, (2010), 761–810.
P. Gérard, S. Grellier, [*L’équation de Szegö cubique,*]{} Séminaire X EDP, 20 octobre 2008, École Polytechnique, Palaiseau, <http://sedp.cedram.org/cedram-bin/article/SEDP_2008-2009____A2_0.pdf>
T. Hmidi, S. Keraani, [*Remarks on the blow-up for the $L^2$-critical nonlinear Schrödinger equations,*]{} SIAM J. Math. Anal., 38 (2006), no.4, 1035-1047.
L. Hörmander, [*The analysis of linear and partial differential operators I, Distribution theory and Fourier analysis,*]{} second edition, Classics in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag (2003).
J. Holmer; M. Zworski, [*Soliton interaction with slowly varying potentials,*]{} Int. Math. Res. Not., (2008), no. 10, Art. ID rnn026, 36 pp.
P. Lax, [*Translation invariant spaces*]{}, Acta Math.,101 (1959),163–178.
P. Lax, [*Integral of nonlinear equations of evolution and solitary waves,*]{} Comm. Pure and Applied Math., 101 (1968), 467–490.
N.K. Nikolskii, [*Operators, Functions and Systems: An Easy Reading, Vol.I: Hardy, Hankel, and Toeplitz,*]{} Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, vol.92, AMS, (2002).
V.V. Peller, [*Hankel Operators and Their Applications,*]{} Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, New-York, (2003).
G. Perelman, [*A remark on soliton-potential interactions for nonlinear Schrodinger equations,*]{} Math. Res. Lett. 16 (2009), no. 3, 477–486.
M. Reed, B. Simon, [*Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics, Vol.I-IV,*]{} Academic Press, 1972–1978.
W. Rudin, [*Real and Complex Analysis*]{}, McGraw Hill, Second edition, 1980.
M. Weinstein, [*Nonlinear Schrödinger equations and sharp interpolation estimates,*]{} Com. Math. Phys., 87 (1982/1983), 567–576.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The statistics of dark matter halos is an essential component of understanding the nonlinear evolution in modified gravity cosmology. Based on a series of modified gravity N-body simulations, we investigate the halo mass function, concentration and bias. We model the impact of modified gravity by a single parameter $\zeta$, which determines the enhancement of particle acceleration with respect to GR, given the identical mass distribution ($\zeta=1$ in GR). We select snapshot redshifts such that the linear matter power spectra of different gravity models are identical, in order to isolate the impact of gravity beyond modifying the linear growth rate. At the baseline redshift corresponding to $z_S=1.2$ in the standard $\Lambda$CDM, for a $10\%$ deviation from GR($|\zeta-1|=0.1$), the measured halo mass function can differ by about $5-10\%$, the halo concentration by about $10-20\%$, while the halo bias differs significantly less. These results demonstrate that the halo mass function and/or the halo concentration are sensitive to the nature of gravity and may be used to make interesting constraints along this line.'
author:
- Youcai Zhang$^1$
- Pengjie Zhang$^1$
- Xiaohu Yang$^1$
- Weiguang Cui$^2$
title: 'Nonlinearities in modified gravity cosmology — [slowromancap2@]{}. Impacts of modified gravity on the halo properties'
---
INTRODUCTION {#sec_intro}
============
Dark matter halos are prominent structures in the dark universe. Their abundance, density profile and clustering (halo bias) contain valuable cosmological information. In particular, dark matter halos form and grow under gravitational instability. Hence halo properties contain rich information on the nature of gravity at $\sim$ Mpc scales and above, and can provide strong gravity constraints [@Narikawa2012; @Thomas2011a; @Thomas2011b; @Sartoris2011; @LiB2011; @Lombriser2011; @Mak2011; @LiYin2011; @Jain2011; @LiMiao2011; @Allen2011; @Clifton2011; @Ferraro2011; @Schmidt2009a; @Schmidt2009c; @ZhaoG2011; @Jain10]. These properties also provide a powerful tool to understand the matter clustering through the halo model [@Jing98; @Cooray02], which is also a sensitive measure of gravity.
In [@Cui10] (hereafter paper I) we run a controlled set of N-body simulations with identical initial condition to study the impact of modified gravity (MG) on the matter power spectrum. These simulations adopt a MG parameterization with a single parameter $\zeta$. $\zeta$ is the relative enhancement of nonrelativistic particle acceleration with respect to general relativity (GR), given the identical mass distribution. More specifically, it is the quantity that enters into the $\psi$-$\rho$ relation in Fourier space, $$\label{eqn:psi}
k^2\psi=-\zeta4\pi G a^2\delta\rho\ .$$ Here, $\delta \rho\equiv \rho-\bar{\rho}$ and $\rho$ is the matter density. $\psi$ is defined through $ds^2=-(1+2\psi)dt^2+a^2(1+2\phi)d{\bf
x}^2$. $\psi$ is the only gravitational potential that nonrelativistic particles can sense. So the value of $\zeta(k,z)$ as a function of scale and redshift, along with the initial condition and the expansion rate of the universe, completely fixes the evolution of the matter density and velocity fields. This is the major reason that we adopt this single parameter parametrization on modified gravity N-body simulations. For more detailed discussion on this parametrization, please refer to paper I.
Neverthless, such parameterization is highly simplified in the sense that it lacks any screening mechanism [@Jain10] required to pass the solar system tests. For this reason, these simulations lose the capability to explore the rich consequences induced by the MG environmental dependence. These features have been explored in advanced simulations on $f(R)$ and DGP [@Schmidt2009a; @Oyaizu08a; @Oyaizu08b; @ZhaoGB2011; @Schmidt2009b; @Chan09; @Li12]. Nevertheless, our simulations benefit from costing no extra time than the ordinary CDM simulations. So in principle one can run a large number of such simulations within reasonable amount of time to fairly sample relevant parameter space. One then interpolates/extrapolates the simulation results to explore the whole relevant parameter space and understand the nonlinear evolution for $\zeta$ of general spatial and time dependence. The hope is that, by choose appropriate spatial and time dependence in $\zeta$, one can effectively take the environmental dependence into account [^1].
In the current paper, we will examine the halo properties in these simplified MG simulations, including the halo abundance, concentration and bias as a function of mass and redshift. In the standard framework of structure formation in GR, these properties, in particular the halo abundance and bias, are largely fixed by the linear matter power spectrum at the corresponding epoch. We utilize this property to better isolate the impact of MG. We will compare the above properties not at the same redshift, but at redshifts of identical linear matter power spectrum. The same method is also adopted in paper I. It has extra benefit of reducing cosmic variance and numerical artifact, since we focus on the differences between different MG simulations with identical initial condition.
This paper is organized as follows. We briefly describe our simulations in §\[sec\_data\] and present results in §\[sec\_imethod\]. We discuss and summarize in §\[sec:conclusion\].
N-body Simulation {#sec_data}
=================
We run a set of simulations with the TreePM parallel code GADGET-2 [@Springel2005] at Shanghai Astronomical Observatory. All the simulations evolved $512^3$ dark matter particles in a periodic box of $300\mpc$ on a side. The cosmological parameters used in the simulations are $\Omega_{\rm m}=
\Omega_{\rm dm}+\Omega_{\rm b} =0.276$, $\Omega_{\rm b}=0.046$, $h=0.703$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.724$, $n=1$, and $\sigma_8=0.811$. The particle mass and softening length are $1.541\times10^{10} \msun$ and $12.89 \kpc$, respectively. Glass-like cosmological initial conditions were generated at redshift $z=100$ using the Zel’dovich approximation.
In this paper as in Paper [slowromancap1@]{}, the modified gravity model is characterized by a single parameter $\zeta$, which determines the enhancement of particle acceleration with respect to GR, given the identical mass distribution ($\zeta=1$ in GR). All the simulations for different $\zeta$ values have the same linear power spectrum, such that $$P_L(k;z_S, \zeta=1) = P_L(k;z_\zeta, \zeta),$$ where $P_L$ is linear matter power spectrum, $z_S$ and $z_\zeta$ denote the redshifts in the standard $\Lambda$CDM and the MG cosmology, respectively. Since all the simulations begin with the identical initial condition, the above relation means that $$\label{eqn:D_z}
D(z_S, \zeta=1) = D(z_\zeta, \zeta),$$ where $D(z,\zeta)$ is the linear density growth factor. Given redshifts $z_S$ in the $\Lambda$CDM, through Eq. (\[eqn:D\_z\]) we can calculate the corresponding redshifts $z_\zeta$, which are shown in Table [slowromancap1@]{} of Paper [slowromancap1@]{}. In this paper, we mainly focus on the redshift $z_S = 1.2$ in the $\Lambda$CDM and the corresponding redshifts in the MG universe (10th row of Table [slowromancap1@]{} in Paper [slowromancap1@]{}).
![Comparison of halo distributions from N-body simulations for different $\zeta$ values at the baseline redshift $z_S=1.2$, which is that of $\zeta=1$ ($\Lambda$CDM). The panels show the dark matter halos with the mass $M_{200}\ge10^{11.5}\msun$ in slices $100\times100\times8h^{-1}{\rm
Mpc}$, and the sizes of the dots are proportional to the radii $R_{200}$ of the halos.[]{data-label="fig:slice"}](f1.eps){width="45.00000%"}
Dark matter halos were identified from the simulation at each snapshot using the standard friends-of-friends (FOF) algorithm[@Davis1985] with a linking length of $b=0.2$ times the mean interparticle separation. For currently favored cosmologies, $15$-$20\%$ of $b=0.2$ FOF halos have irregular substructure or have two or more major halo components linked together[@Lukic2009]. Only isolated, relaxed halos are well-fit by the Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) profile[@Navarro1997], therefore, we use the virial halo mass to fit NFW profile in the simulations. The mass $M_{200}$ is defined as the interior mass within a sphere of radius $R_{200}$ centered on the most bound particle of the halo, where $R_{200}$ is the radius within which the over-density is $\Delta_{200}=200$ times the mean density $\rho_{\rm mean}$ of the universe. Thus, the mass and radius of a halo are related by $$M_{200} = \frac{4}{3}\pi \Delta_{200} \rho_{\rm mean} R^3_{200},$$ where $\rho_{\rm mean}$ is the mean density of the universe at redshift $z$. Note that some authors use a value $\Delta_{\rm vir}$ motivated by the spherical collapse model, where the corresponding radius is specified as $R_{\rm vir}$. This value is both redshift and gravity dependent. It gives $\Delta_{\rm vir}=339.5$ at $z=0$ and $178$ at $z\gg 1$ for our adopted $\Lambda$CDM parameters [@Eke1996]. It also shows significant deviation in MG models [@Schmidt2009a]. Since we will compare the halo properties of different MG models at different redshifts (e.g. $z_s$ vs. $z_\zeta$), this latter choice could mix the impact of background cosmology with the impact of gravity. For this reason, we will not adopt this latter definition. Unless otherwise specified, throughout the paper we use a fixed value $\Delta=200$ to define the halo mass.
Fig. \[fig:slice\] shows the distributions of dark matter halos with the mass $M_{200}\ge10^{11.5}\msun$ in a slice of thickness $8h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$ for different $\zeta$ values at the baseline redshift $z_S=1.2$, which is that of $\zeta=1$ ($\Lambda$CDM). According to visual inspection, the general appearances of the large-scale structures are remarkably similar, as a result of the same linear power spectrum for different $\zeta$ values. Although the shape of Cosmic Web (the pattern on clusters, filaments, sheets, and voids) is more or less preserved in the $\zeta\ne1$ runs when compared to the $\Lambda$CDM case, we can depict arising differences when looking into the internal properties of dark matter halos.
Numerical Results {#sec_imethod}
=================
In this section we show the halo mass function, concentration and bias as a function of $M_{200}$. Structure grows more slowly in $\zeta<1$ models than that in GR. So for too low $z_S$ in $\Lambda$CDM, structure growth in a $\zeta<1$ universe may not be able to catch up with that of $\Lambda$CDM even at $z_\zeta=0$ (table I, paper I). For this reason, we only compare the results corresponding to $z_S=1.2$ in $\Lambda$CDM, for which we can compare the halo statistics for all $\zeta$.
The halo mass function
----------------------
![Measured halo mass functions from N-body simulations for different $\zeta$ values at redshift $z_\zeta$ where the linear matter power spectrum is identical to that in $\Lambda$CDM ($\zeta=1$) at the baseline redshift $z_S=1.2$. Since all simulations begin with the identical condition, the measured halo mass function has similar Poisson error. Hence we only show the Poisson error bars of $\Lambda$CDM to demonstrate the measurement uncertainty. The lower panel shows the ratio of the measured mass functions of MG models to the one in $\Lambda$CDM when they have the same linear power spectrum. The plotted errors are the same Poisson errors showing in the upper panel. Since the Poisson errors of different simulations have strong positive correlations, they largely cancel when taking the ratio. So the plotted errors represent a conservative upper limit of the halo mass function ratio. The lower panel then shows that the observed deviations from a universal mass function are significant. []{data-label="fig:massfunction"}](f2.eps){width="40.00000%"}
One of the long-standing efforts in precision cosmology is to determine the mass function of dark matter halos ${\rm d}n/{\rm d}M$, which is the number of halos per unit volume per unit mass. It is a sensitive probe of gravity and has been used to put strong constraints on modified gravity models (e.g. [@Schmidt2009b] on $f(R)$ gravity).
Although the number density of halos of a given mass depends on the shape and amplitude of the power spectrum, analytical work has suggested that the halo abundance can be expressed by a universal functional form when expressed in terms of suitable variables [@Press1974; @Bond1991; @Sheth1999]. A convenient form to describe halo abundance can be expressed as [@Jenkins2001] $$\label{eqn:ms}
\frac {{\rm d}n} {{\rm d}M}(M,z) = f(\sigma) \frac {\rho_0}{M}
\frac {{\rm d~ln}[\sigma^{-1}(M,z)]}{{\rm d}M},$$ where $\rho_0$ is the background matter density at redshift $z=0$, and $\sigma^2(M,z)$ is the variance of the linear matter power spectrum over a length $R$, $$\label{eqn:gf}
\sigma^2(M,z) = \frac{D^2(z)}{2\pi^2} \int_0^\infty k^2P(k)W^2(kR(M))dk,$$ where $W(x)=3[\sin(x)-x\cos(x)]/x^3$ is the Fourier transformation of the top-hat filter, $R(M)=(3M/4\pi \rho_0)^{1/3}$ is the smoothed radius with halo mass $M$, and $D(z)$ is the growth factor.
This definition of mass function has been widely examined against N-body simulations and useful fitting functions $f(\sigma)$ have been provided by several authors [@Jenkins2001; @Warren2006; @Tinker2008; @Bhatt2010]. Nevertheless, deviations from the universality have been reported. For example, @Bhatt2010 found through their N-body simulations that, for their $\omega$CDM cosmological models (where the dark energy equation of state parameter $\omega$ is constant in time, but $\omega\ne-1$), the universality of the mass function is systematically broken at a level of $10\%$. Deviations from the universality are also detected in interacting dark energy models @Cui2012. @Cui2012 reported that deviations can exceed $\sim10\%$ for most of the models in the high mass end.
Fig. \[fig:massfunction\] shows the measured halo mass functions from our simulations for different $\zeta$ values at the baseline redshift $z_S=1.2$, which is that of $\zeta =1$ ($\Lambda$CDM). The $M_{200}$ halo mass is used in the plot in order to get consistent comparisons with concentration and bias, where the same mass definition are adopted. We have checked our measured halo mass functions for $\Lambda$CDM simulation, which agree well with the fitting function proposed by [@Sheth2001].
In order to assess the difference, the Poisson error bars are only added for $\zeta=1$. Because of the same initial condition been used, the error bars for $\zeta\ne1$ have the similar forms. In Fig. \[fig:massfunction\], the lower panel shows the ratio of the measured mass functions of MG models to the one in $\Lambda$CDM. The Poisson error bars for $\zeta=1$ are added to assess the maximum limit. Since $D(z_\zeta,\zeta)=D(z_S,\zeta=1)$, the linear power spectrum and hence $\sigma(M,z)$ are identical. If the halo mass function is indeed universal and described by Eq. (\[eqn:ms\]) and Eq. (\[eqn:gf\]), the mass function in the MG model should be the same as that in $\Lambda$CDM. However, the result in Fig. \[fig:massfunction\] shows the difference of mass functions between $\zeta=0.8$ and $\zeta=1.0$($\Lambda$CDM) is about $20\%$ with the halo mass range from $10^{11.5}\msun$ to $10^{14.0}\msun$. The difference between $\zeta=1.2$ and $\zeta=1.0$ is about $10\%$. We find that the difference of $\zeta=1.2$ is about twice that of $\zeta=0.8$, although they have the same $20\%$ deviation from GR. For a $10\%$ deviation from GR($\zeta=0.9$, or $\zeta=1.1$), the measured mass functions can differ by about $5-10\%$. Interestingly, the difference of $\zeta=0.9$ is also about twice that of $\zeta=1.1$. In general, for the identical deviation of $\zeta$ from unity, the deviation of halo mass function of $\zeta<1$ is about twice that of $\zeta>1$, which implies that the decrease of gravity can lead to more difference of halo mass function. This behavior can also be found in the bottom-right panel of Fig. $4$ in Paper [slowromancap1@]{} for the comparison of the nonlinear power spectra. For the same deviation of $\zeta$ from unity, the deviation of nonlinear power spectra of $\zeta<1$ are about twice that of $\zeta>1$ at $\Delta^2\sim10$.
If the halo abundance is completely determined by the shape and amplitude of the linear power spectrum, the halo mass functions for different $\zeta$ simulation should have the identical form. However, based on the measured halo mass functions from N-body simulations for different $\zeta$ values at the same linear power spectrum, we find that this is not the case, which means that the halo abundance also depends on the structure growth history and the underlying gravity. The deviation of halo abundance becomes larger if the deviation of $\zeta$ from unity is larger. The halo mass function is therefore a sensitive probe for our modified gravity model.
Halo concentration
------------------
![Measured halo concentrations from N-body simulations for different $\zeta$ values at the baseline redshift $z_S=1.2$. The lower panel shows the ratio of the measured halo concentrations of MG models to the one in $\Lambda$CDM. For clarity, we plot the error bars of the $\zeta=1$ result. As explained in Fig. \[fig:massfunction\], these errors are conservative upper limit. Hence the observed differences in $c$ are statistically significant. Difference in the nature of gravity contributes to these differences. However, since $z_S\neq z_\zeta$, difference in $c$ also arises from difference in the background matter density. More systematical studies are required to disentangle the two and to infer the nature of gravity from the halo concentration. []{data-label="fig:concentration"}](f3.eps){width="40.00000%"}
The concentration parameter has been widely used to describe the internal structure of halos[@Jing2000; @Bullock2001; @Zhao2003; @Neto2007; @Zhao2009]. Recently, @Jeeson2011 investigated the correlation between nine different dark matter halo properties, and they claimed that while the scale of a halo is set by its mass, the concentration is the most fundamental property. In this paper, the NFW form is used to fit the halo density profiles, which can be approximated by a simple formula with two free parameters, $$\label{eqn:nfw}
\frac {\rho(r)}{\rho_{\rm mean}} = \frac {\delta_{\rm c}}
{(r/r_s)(1+r/r_s)^2},$$ where $r_s$ is a scale radius and $\delta_{\rm c}$ is a characteristic density contrast. The concentration of a halo is defined as $c=R_{200}/r_s$, thus $\delta_{\rm c}$ and concentration are linked by the relation $$\label{deltac}
\delta_{\rm c}=\frac {200}{3} \frac{c^3}{[{\rm ln}(1+c)
-c(1+c)]}.$$ In our calculation of concentration from the simulation, the radius of a halo is divided in uniform logarithmic bins ($\Delta \log_{10}=0.1$), starting from the radius where the bin contains at least $20$ particles to $R_{\rm
max}=R_{200}$ (or to $R_{\rm vir}$ in case halo masses are defined using the over-density $\Delta_{\rm vir}$). Due to the relation of equation \[deltac\], at given halo mass $M_{200}$, there is a single free parameter in equation \[eqn:nfw\], which can be expressed as the concentration parameter $c$. The best-fit concentration parameter can be computed from simulation by minimizing the rms deviation $\sigma$ between the binned $\rho(r)$ and the NFW profile, $$\sigma^2 = \frac{1}{N_{\rm bins}} \sum_{i=1}^{N_{\rm bins}}
[\log_{10} \rho_i - \log_{10} \rho_{\rm NFW}(c)]^2\,.$$
Fig. \[fig:concentration\] shows the measured concentration of the halos contained at least $200$ particles for different $\zeta$ values. In each mass bin, the halos are randomly divided into five parts. Then the average concentration of each part is calculated. The error bars plotted in Fig. \[fig:concentration\] is the standard deviation of five average concentrations. In general the errors of the average concentrations of the total halos can be reduced by a factor of $\sqrt{5}$. For $\zeta=1$, we find that the concentrations of halos with $N>1000$ particles ($M_{200}>13.18\msun$) can be approximately fitted by a power law $c\propto
M_{200}^{-0.1}$, which is in good agreement with the results of @Neto2007. For the halos with $N<1000$ particles, we find the power law index is less than $-0.1$, which is in good agreement with the results calculated by the model of @Zhao2009 [^2].
Because the main focus in this paper is to compare the difference of concentration for different $\zeta$ values, in the lower panel of Fig. \[fig:concentration\], the ratio of the measured halo concentrations is plotted. For a $10\%$ deviation from GR ($|\zeta-1|<0.1$), the deviation of halo concentration can differ by $10-20\%$, which means that the modified gravity can significantly affect the structure formation on small scale and the internal properties of the dark matter halos. For $\zeta=0.8$, the deviation of halo concentration even differ by larger than $50\%$ compared to that of $\zeta=1.0$. Here again, with similar difference in $\zeta$, the concentration difference of $\zeta< 1$ is much larger than that of $\zeta>1$.
The discrepancy between the different $\zeta$ values is mainly due to the different background density although they have the same linear matter perturbation. Since structure grows faster in $\zeta>1$ cosmology ($z_\zeta >
z_S$), halos in this universe form in a background with higher mean density ($\propto(1+z)^3$). We then expect them to have a smaller concentration[@Zhao2009]. For the same reason, we expect halos with $\zeta<1$ have a larger concentration. The behavior of the concentrations for different $\zeta$ values is roughly similar to the trend of the concentrations corresponding to the redshift $z_\zeta$ in $\Lambda$CDM models. Large values of the ratio of the concentration parameters from unity implies that the halo concentration is a valuable property to detect different modified gravity models.
Halo bias
---------
![Measured halo bias from N-body simulations for different $\zeta$ values at the baseline redshift $z_S=1.2$. The lower panel shows the ratio of the measured halo bias of MG models to the one in $\Lambda$CDM. As in previous plots, the errors are that of $\Lambda$CDM. As explained in previous plots, these errors are conservative upper limit. For this reason, the observed difference in the halo bias is statistically significant, despite the apparently large error bars. []{data-label="fig:bias"}](f4.eps){width="40.00000%"}
We define the bias of dark matter halos as the ratio of the halo mass cross-power spectrum to the dark matter power spectrum $$b(k,M_{200}) = \frac {P_{hm}(k,M_{200})}{P_{mm}(k)},$$ where $P_{hm}(k,M)$ denotes the cross-power spectrum with halos of mass $M_{200}$, and $P_{mm}(k)$ is the dark matter power spectrum. This measure dose not require a shot-noise correction, and it yields better statistics when the halos become sparse. The power spectrum is calculated using Daubechies wavelet mass assignment, which avoids the sampling effect. Although halo bias is scale dependent in the quasi-linear and nonlinear regime, here we focus on the large-scale bias, where $b$ is independent of $k$. We calculate $b$ as the average over the $5$ largest wavelength modes ($k\lesssim0.1 h/{\rm Mpc}$) in the simulation. We also check these results against bias as defined by $b_{hh}
= \sqrt {P_{hh}/P_{mm}}$, and we find that there is a good agreement between $b_{hm}$ and $b_{hh}$.
In the $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model, the linear halo bias can be expressed as a function of $\nu$, [@Sheth2001; @Mo1996; @Seljak2004; @Tinker2010], where $\nu=\delta_c/\sigma$ is the ratio of the critical over-density required for collapse to the rms density fluctuation.
Fig. \[fig:bias\] shows measured halo biases from N-body simulations for different $\zeta$ values at the baseline redshift $z_S=1.2$. The error bars is the standard deviation of the $5$ largest wavelength modes. The error bars for different $\zeta$ values have very similar amplitude and only $\zeta=1.0$ has been plotted in the figure. The lower panel shows the ratio of the measured halo bias of MG models to the one in $\Lambda$CDM. We find that the difference of halo bias for different $\zeta$ values becomes larger as the increase of halo mass. However, the deviations of halo bias differ by less than $10\%$ from GR ($\zeta=1$) for all the $\zeta\ne1$ values used in our simulation. This behavior is expected due to the halo bias is a function of $\nu$ in $\Lambda$CDM model. The simulations for different $\zeta$ values have the same linear power spectrum and growth factor, therefore, according to Eq. (\[eqn:gf\]) they have the same density fluctuation $\sigma$. Besides $\delta_c$ is weakly dependent on the redshift, thus the difference of the halo bias for different $\zeta$ values is very small. We can conclude that the halo bias is a weak statistics to detect the modified gravity model.
![Same as Fig. \[fig:massfunction\] but for the virial halo mass $M_{\rm vir}$ defined by a value $\Delta_{\rm vir}$ from the spherical collapse model. []{data-label="fig:ms_vir"}](f5.eps){width="45.00000%"}
Discussion and Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
=========================
![Same as Fig. \[fig:concentration\] but for the virial halo mass $M_{\rm vir}$ defined by a value $\Delta_{\rm vir}$ from the spherical collapse model. []{data-label="fig:concen_vir"}](f6.eps){width="45.00000%"}
In this paper we have compared the halo mass function, concentration and bias based on a series of modified gravity N-body simulations. The modified gravity model is characterized by a single parameter $\zeta$, which determines the enhancement of particle acceleration with respect to GR. All the simulations for different $\zeta$ values are started from the same initial condition. The redshifts for different $\zeta$ of the comparison of halo properties are selected when they have the same linear power spectrum as $\Lambda$CDM simulations at $z_S=1.2$.
![Same as Fig. \[fig:bias\] but for the virial halo mass $M_{\rm
vir}$ defined by a value $\Delta_{\rm vir}$ from the spherical collapse model. []{data-label="fig:bias_vir"}](f7.eps){width="45.00000%"}
Based on our various comparisons, we summarize our findings as follows.
- The measured halo mass functions can differ from that in GR by about $5-10\%$ for $10\%$ deviation from GR ($|\zeta-1|=0.1$). Although the difference must be symmetric with respect to $\zeta=1$ in the limit $\zeta\rightarrow 1$, it already shows significant asymmetry for $|\zeta-1|\sim 10\%$. For example, the difference between the halo mass function of $\zeta=0.9$ and that of GR is about twice of the corresponding case of $\zeta=1.1$.
- For a $10\%$ deviation from GR($|\zeta-1|=0.1$), the deviation of halo concentration can differ by $10-20\%$, which shows that modified gravity can significantly affect the structure formation on small scale and the internal properties of the dark matter halos.
- The halo bias is less sensitive to the nature of gravity. For all the $\zeta\ne1$ values used in our simulation ($0.8\leq \zeta\leq 1.5$), the halo bias differ from that of GR by less than $10\%$.
We note that all the above findings are obtained based on the halos that are defined to be the spherical over-density regions within which the average over-density are $\Delta_{200}=200$ times the mean density $\rho_{\rm mean}$ of the universe. This definition is widely used in literature and is easy to be implemented both in simulations and in observations. The impact of using different $\Delta$ has been discussed using high resolution N-body simulations[@Tinker2008].
One might argue that the differences between MG models and the GR shown above are mainly due to the definition of the halos. To test to what extent halo definition impacts our results, we have also compared the halo mass function, concentration and bias using the virial halo mass $M_{\rm vir}$ (defined by a value $\Delta_{\rm vir}$ [@Eke1996] from the spherical model) instead of $M_{200}$. According to the virial mass definition from GR, we do see in Fig. \[fig:ms\_vir\] that for a $20\%$ deviation from ($|\zeta-1|<0.2$), the deviation of halo mass function differs by less than $10\%$, which is smaller than that of the halo mass $M_{200}$. However, we can still detect the observed differences of the halo mass functions for different $\zeta$ values.
In Fig. \[fig:concen\_vir\], for $\zeta>1.0$, the difference of $c_{\rm
vir}(\zeta)$ with respect to that of GR is roughly the same as the case of $c_{200}(\zeta)$. Since at redshift $z_S =1.2$, the universe is dominated by dark matter and $R_{200}$ is approximately equal to $R_{\rm vir}$, which is $195.7$ for our adopted parameters. In one word, by comparing the results shown in Fig. \[fig:concentration\] and Fig. \[fig:concen\_vir\], we can see that there exists a significant difference of the halo concentration for different $\zeta$ values, which illustrates that deviations from general relativity can strongly affect the mass distribution in the nonlinear regime, although the large-scale structures are remarkably similar (see Fig. \[fig:slice\]) [^3].
Fig. \[fig:bias\_vir\] shows that the bias of halos defined with virial mass still shows weak dependence on gravity, for all the $\zeta\ne1$ considered ($0.8\leq \zeta\leq
1.5$). This confirmes previous finding that the halo bias may not be a sensitive probe of gravity. This conclusion would be robust for halos of mass less than $10^{13}\msun$. Neverthless, our simulations do not have sufficiently large box size to robustly measure the bias of halos with mass larger than $10^{13}\msun$ and evaluate its dependence on gravity. In th above results $\Delta_{\rm vir}$ is evaluated assuming GR. It is known that $\Delta_{\rm vir}$ is changed in MG models [@Schmidt2009a; @Schmidt2010]. To what extent it can account for the found difference in the mass function [@Schmidt2009a; @Schmidt2010] is an issue for further investigation.
Our results have robustly demonstrated that the halo mass function is not completely determined by the shape and amplitude of the linear power spectrum. As a consequence, it shows significant dependence on the nature of gravity. We also show that the halo concentration is also affected by gravity. These results can be used to understand the impact of gravity on halo formation and distribution. They can also be used in halo model to understand the nonlinear matter clustering [@Cui10].
We would like to thank Volker Springel for the N-GenIC, Postprocessing code and detailed help. We are grateful to the anonymous referee for useful comments that helped to improve the presentation of this paper. Youcai thanks Donghai Zhao for helpful discussions. This work is supported by the national science foundation of China (grant Nos. 10973027, 11025316, 10973018, 10925314, 11233005, 11121062, 11203054), National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) under grant No.2009CB24901, the CAS/SAFEA International Partnership Program for Creative Research Teams (KJCX2-YW-T23) and the Shanghai Committee of Science and Technology, China (grant No. 12ZR1452800).
T. Narikawa and K. Yamamoto, 2012, [JCAP]{}, 5, 16
D. B. Thomas and C. R. Contaldi, 2011, [JCAP]{}, 12, 13
D. B. Thomas and C. R. Contaldi, 2011, arXiv:1112.6378
B. Sartoris, S. Borgani, , P. Rosati, and J. Weller, 2011, arXiv:1112.0327
B. Li, G.-B. Zhao, and K. Koyama, 2011, arXiv:1111.2602
L. Lombriser, F. Schmidt, T. Baldauf, et al. 2011, arXiv:1111.2020
D. S. Y. Mak, E. Pierpaoli, F. Schmidt, and N. Macellari, 2011, arXiv:1111.1004
Y. Li and W. Hu, 2011, , 84, 084033
B. Jain and J. VanderPlas, 2011, [JCAP]{}, 10, 32
M. Li, X-D. Li, S. Wang, and Y. Wang, 2011, Communications in Theoretical Physics, 56, 525
S. W. Allen, A. E. Evrard, and A. B. Mantz, 2011, [ARA&A]{}, 49, 409
T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, and C. Skordis, 2011, arXiv:1106.2476
S. Ferraro, F. Schmidt, and W. Hu, 2011, , 83, 063503
F. Schmidt, M. Lima, H. Oyaizu, and W. Hu, 2009, , 79, 083518
F. Schmidt, A. Vikhlinin, and W. Hu, 2009, , 80, 083505
G.-B. Zhao, B. Li, and K. Koyama, 2011, Physical Review Letters, 107, 071303
B. Jain and J. Khoury, 2010, AnPhy, 325, 1479
Y. P. Jing, H. J. Mo, and G. Boerner, 1998, , 494, 1
A. Cooray and R. Sheth, 2002, Physics Report, 372, 1
W. Cui, P. Zhang, and X. Yang, 2010, , 81, 103528
H. Oyaizu, 2008, , 78, 123523
H. Oyaizu, M. Lima, and W. Hu, 2008, , 78, 123524
G.-B. Zhao, B. Li, and K. Koyama, 2011, , 83, 044007
F. Schmidt, 2009, , 80, 043001
K. C. Chan and R. Scoccimarro, 2009, , 80, 104005
B. Li, G.-B. Zhao, R. Teyssier, and K. Koyama, 2012, [JCAP]{}, 1, 51
V. Springel, 2005, [MNRAS]{}, 364, 1105
M. Davis, G. Efstathiou, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, 1985, , 292, 371
Z. Luki[ć]{}, D. Reed, S. Habib, and K. Heitmann, 2009, , 692, 217
J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, 1997, , 490, 493
V. R. Eke, S. Cole, and C. S. Frenk, 1996, [MNRAS]{}, 282, 263
W. H. Press and P. Schechter, 1974, , 187, 425
J. R. Bond, S. Cole, G. Efstathiou, and N. Kaiser, 1991, , 379, 440
R. K. Sheth and G. Tormen, 1999, [MNRAS]{}, 308, 119
A. Jenkins, C. S. Frenk, , S. D. M. White, J. M. Colberg, S. Cole, A. E. Evrard, H. M. P. Couchman, and N. Yoshida, 2001, [MNRAS]{}, 321, 372
M. S. Warren, K. Abazajian, D. E. Holz, and L. Teodoro, 2006, , 646, 881
J. Tinker, A. V. Kravtsov, A. Klypin, K. Abazajian, M. Warren, G. Yepes, S. Gottl[ö]{}ber, and D. E. Holz, 2008, , 688, 709
S. Bhattacharya, K. Heitmann, M. White, et al. 2011, , 732, 122
W. Cui, M. Baldi, and S. Borgani, 2012, arXiv:1201.3568
F. Schmidt, W. Hu, and M. Lima, 2010, , 81, 063005
R. K. Sheth, H. J. Mo, and G. Tormen, 2001, [MNRAS]{}, 323, 1
Y. P. Jing and Y. Suto, 2000, [ApJ]{}, 529, L69
J. S. Bullock, T. S. Kolatt, Y. Sigad, R. S. Somerville, A. V. Kravtsov, A. A. Klypin, J. R. Primack, and A. Dekel, 2001, [MNRAS]{}, 321, 559
D. H. Zhao, H. J. Mo, Y. P. Jing, Y. P., G. B[ö]{}rner, 2003, [MNRAS]{}, 339, 12
A. F. Neto, et al. 2007, [MNRAS]{}, 381, 1450
D. H. Zhao, Y. P Jing, H. J. Mo, G. B[ö]{}rner, 2009, , 707, 354
A. Jeeson-Daniel, C. Dalla Vecchia, M. R. Haas, and J. Schaye, 2011, arXiv:1103.5467
H. J. Mo, and S. D. M. White, 1996, [MNRAS]{}, 282, 347
U. Seljak and M. S. Warren, 2004,[MNRAS]{}, 355, 129
J. L. Tinker, B. E. Robertson, A. V. Kravtsov, et al. 2010, , 724, 878
[^1]: Strictly speaking, MG described by a spatial and time dependent $\zeta$ is still environmental independent. Nevertheless, $\zeta$ with spatial and time dependence is promising to mimic the statistically averaged properties of a environmental dependent MG model. In such case, the interpretation of $\zeta$ may not be straightforward.
[^2]: A calculator which allows one to interactively generate data for any given cosmological model is provided at http://www.shao.ac.cn/dhzhao/mandc.html.
[^3]: This behavior should also hold for more realistic modified gravity models with screening mechanisms required to pass the solar system tests. In this case, the halo center may be well shielded. Nevertheless, the accretion history and the halo outskirts are impacted by modifications to GR.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider a class of adaptive network models where links can only be created or deleted between nodes in different states. These models provide an approximate description of a set of systems where nodes represent agents moving in physical or abstract space, the state of each node represents the agent’s heading direction, and links indicate mutual awareness. We show analytically that the adaptive network description captures the phase transition to collective motion in swarming systems and that the properties of this transition are determined by the number of states (discrete heading directions) that can be accessed by each agent.'
author:
- Li Chen
- Cristián Huepe
- Thilo Gross
title: Adaptive network models of collective decision making in swarming systems
---
Introduction
============
Adaptive networks define a versatile class of models that have been recently applied to a wide variety of systems [@GrossReview; @GrossSayama]. They combine processes that change the structure of a network, such as growth or rewiring, with dynamics taking place on the network. This results in a feedback between topology and dynamics that can lead to different forms of self-organization. Following the pioneering work of Bornholdt and Rohlf [@BornholdtAndRohlf] adaptive networks have been applied to a wide range of systems, including neural networks [@Levina; @Meisel], mobile sensor networks [@DiBernardo; @Leonard], epidemics [@Gross; @ShawSchwartz], and the evolution of cooperation [@Traulsen; @Do], among many others [@ANwiki].
In the study of adaptive networks, a special role is played by opinion formation models and, in particular, by the adaptive voter model and its variants [@Holme; @Federico; @Gil; @SanMiguel; @Kimura; @Gesa1; @Gesa2; @Demirel]. The adaptive voter model describes the process through which a population of agents forms an opinion. A group of nodes representing agents are connected by links that describe social interactions. Each node is associated to a variable that can take values representing all possible opinions. At every iteration, the network is updated by propagating these values along the links (social adjustment) and by rewiring links (social segregation). One typically considers nodes that rewire their connections to surround themselves by like-minded agents that hold the same opinion. This common type of social dynamics is called *homophily*. Its opposite *heterophily*, where agents seek connections to different-minded agents [@Kimura], has received much less attention.
Extensions of the adaptive voter model have been recently proposed to describe collective motion in groups of animals [@Cristian; @Couzin2011], a basic social phenomenon that occurs in a broad variety of species. Examples include insect swarms, fish schools, bird flocks, herds of quadrupeds [@Couzin], and even crowds of people [@Helbing]. Here, we will refer to all these, generically, as [*swarming systems*]{}. The process through which such systems self-organize into coordinated collective motion is still poorly understood. There has been much debate, for example, regarding the nature of the swarming transition that marks the onset of collective motion [@VicsekPR].
Most theoretical studies investigate swarming by either analyzing detailed agent-based models [@Vicsek1] or representing the swarm as a continuous medium [@TT1; @TT2]. Adaptive network models provide an alternative route: the swarm is represented as an adaptive network by an approximation that captures the agents’ headings and interactions but neglects their trajectories in space. In such models, each agent is represented by a node, its heading direction is treated as an internal state, and mutual awareness between two agents is represented by a link. But, there is no explicit representation of space, i.e. no variable keeps track of each agent’s position in space.
Network swarming models are reminiscent of the standard adaptive voter model if we view the heading directions as the different potential opinions in an opinion formation process. A notable difference, however, is that in the swarming case having different opinions (i.e. moving in different directions) increases, both, the probabilities of creating and of destroying links between agents (Fig. \[fig:1\]). The adaptive swarming models thus constitute a third class of opinion formation systems comprising aspects of both homophily and heterophily. We refer to such systems as the [*swarming systems class*]{} of adaptive network models. This type of approach was originally proposed [@Cristian] to model experiments on the collective motion of groups of locusts marching on a ring-shaped arena [@Buhl]. A slightly extended version of this model was later used to predict the outcome of decision-making experiments with fish [@Couzin2011].
We note that the swarming systems class of adaptive network models may also be relevant for other applications that consider motion in abstract (rather than physical) space. For instance, if translated into a social context where different heading directions correspond to different opinions, it describes individuals that create or destroy social connections mainly with those who have a different opinion. While this is not the most common social dynamics, it may describe situations where original opinions are strongly valued and attract new social interactions but also create tensions within established interactions, leading to dissolution.
The previously proposed adaptive network models for swarming systems considered only cases where each agent was restricted to choose between two heading directions, corresponding to clock-wise or counter-clockwise motion on the circular arena [@Cristian] or to swimming towards one of two targets [@Couzin2011] in the collective decision-making experiment. These investigations thus focused on situations where the internal opinion state was a binary variable, akin to the adaptive voter model. While several multi-state extensions to the voter model have been explored [@Deffuant; @Holme; @Gesa2; @Durret], the present paper is the first to analyze a similar extension for the swarming system class of adaptive network models. This extension is intuitive, as real swarms typically move in two or three-dimensional space, where the heading direction can be discretized into more than two node states.
In this paper we show that the swarming system class of adaptive network models displays a symmetry-breaking ordering transition that can be likened to collective motion. This transition can be either continuous or discontinuous, depending on the number of accessible states (e.g. the dimensionality of the embedding space).
The paper is organized as follows. Section \[Sec:Model\] introduces the swarming system class of adaptive network models. Section \[Sec:MeanField\] analyzes its mean field approximation. Section \[Sec:AdaptiveNetworkSol\] computes its analytical and numerical solutions. Section \[Sec:Swarm\] compares our adaptive network results with the standard swarming transition to collective motion. Finally, Section \[Sec:Conclusions\] presents our conclusions.
Adaptive network system {#Sec:Model}
=======================
![Model illustration. The diagram presents nodes (circles) displaying two different opinions (black/white) out of $M$ possible choices. The state dynamics (left column) consists of spontaneous fluctuations of individual nodes (top) and of three-body processes (bottom), with rates $w_0$ and $w_2$, respectively. The link dynamics (right column) consists of the creation and deletion of links only between nodes in different states, with rates $a$ and $d$, respectively. These dynamics take place irrespective of any additional links, which may be present but are not shown in this figure, or of the total number of links connected to the node in the $w_0$ process. []{data-label="fig:1"}](Figure1.pdf)
We consider a system of $N$ nodes, representing agents, connected by links representing mutual awareness. Each agent has an internal variable that encodes its opinion state (or, equivalently, its heading direction) as one of $M$ potential discrete states. For convenience, we denote the set of all possible opinion states by $\Omega\!=\!\{\!1,2,..., M\!\}$ and the complement of a given state $X$ with respect to $\Omega$ by $\overline{\Omega}_{\{\!X\!\}}=\Omega\!\setminus\!\{\!X\!\}$. The initial states of the agents are drawn from $\Omega$ with equal probability. The network is initialized as an Erdős-Rényi random graph with inital mean degree $\langle k\rangle=3$. The network then evolves in time as follows (see Fig. \[fig:1\]):
*State dynamics* — The state of each node is updated according to one of the following two processes. (*i*) Every node changes its state spontaneously at a net rate of $w_0$ changes per node, picking one of the $M-1$ other states in $\overline{\Omega}_{\{\!X\!\}}$ with equal probability. ([*ii*]{}) In every triplet of nodes $Y\!-X\!-Y$, where two nodes on the same state $Y$ are linked to a single node on a different state $X$, the central node switches its state to $Y$ with a probability that amounts to a net rate of $w_2$ transitions per triplet [@footnote1].
*Link dynamics* — Links are established or removed only between pairs of nodes that are in different states, with probabilities that amount to a net creation and deletion rates of $a$ (per pair) and $d$ (per link), respectively.
All numerical network simulations were carried our using an event-driven (Gillespie) algorithm that yields a very good approximation of the continuous-time dynamics at the link level [@ZschalerBioinformatics].
![ Bifurcation diagram of the mean field approximation of the density of agents in each state as a function of normalized noise $\tilde{w}_0/\tilde{w}_2$ in the $M=2$ (a) and $M=3$ (b) cases. The curves represent stable (solid) and unstable (dashed) branches of the steady state solutions. The $M=2$ case (a) undergoes a continuous transition in the form of a supercritical pitchfork bifurcation. The $M=3$ case (b), presents two sets of stable solutions: one set (I) appears through a discontinuous transition and corresponds to a single majority opinion and two minority opinions with the same number of agents, the other set (II) results from a continuous transition and corresponds to two majority opinions with equal number of agents and a single minority opinion. []{data-label="fig:2"}](Figure2a-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:") ![ Bifurcation diagram of the mean field approximation of the density of agents in each state as a function of normalized noise $\tilde{w}_0/\tilde{w}_2$ in the $M=2$ (a) and $M=3$ (b) cases. The curves represent stable (solid) and unstable (dashed) branches of the steady state solutions. The $M=2$ case (a) undergoes a continuous transition in the form of a supercritical pitchfork bifurcation. The $M=3$ case (b), presents two sets of stable solutions: one set (I) appears through a discontinuous transition and corresponds to a single majority opinion and two minority opinions with the same number of agents, the other set (II) results from a continuous transition and corresponds to two majority opinions with equal number of agents and a single minority opinion. []{data-label="fig:2"}](Figure2b-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:")
Mean field solution {#Sec:MeanField}
===================
Before carrying out an adaptive network analysis, it is instructive to gain some intuition by considering a mean field approximation. This approximation is equivalent to neglecting the link dynamics and assuming that the density of links connecting nodes in given states is proportional to the product of the densities of these states. While crude, it leads to a picture that is qualitatively similar to the adaptive network results described in Section \[Sec:AdaptiveNetworkSol\].
For simplicity, we denote by $x$ the density of any given state and by $y_i$ the density of all other $M-1$ states. The mean field approximation then leads to $$\label{eq:MeanFieldSystem}
\frac{{\rm d} x}{{\rm d} t} = \frac{w_0}{M-1} \left(\sum_{i=1}^{M-1} y_i\right) - w_0 x +
w_2 \langle k \rangle^2 \sum_{i=1}^{M-1} \left( x^2 y_i - y_i^2 x \right),$$ where $\langle k \rangle$ is the mean degree, i.e. the mean number of links per network node.
In the equation the first two terms describe the gain and loss of nodes in state $x$ due to spontaneous switching, respectively, and the last term captures the gains and losses resulting from the triplet process. The conservation of the total node density implies that $x+\sum_i y_i =1$. Basic intuition and preliminary numerical simulations suggest that the system will either converge towards a disordered (mixed) solution where all node states occur with the same probability or to an ordered solution where a preferred direction emerges and its corresponding state is overexpressed in the population, while the other states remain at an equal, lower density. We can thus make analytical progress by assuming $y_1=y_2=\ldots=:y$. This leads to the simplified system $$\label{eq:MeanField}
\frac{{\rm d} x}{{\rm d} t} = \tilde{w}_0 \left( y - x \right) + \tilde{w}_2 \left( M-1 \right) \left( x^2 y - y^2 x \right),$$ where we defined $\tilde{w}_0=w_0$ and $\tilde{w}_2=w_2 \langle k \rangle^2$, to simplify the expression. We now compute the steady state solutions of this system by setting the left-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:MeanField\]) to zero. Factorizing $y-x$ we obtain $$0=(y-x) [ \tilde{w}_0-\tilde{w}_2(M-1)xy ].$$ From this equation it is apparent that we get a symmetric solution $x=y$ and asymmetric solutions that satisfy $$xy=\frac{\tilde{w}_0}{\tilde{w}_2(M-1)}.$$ Using the normalization condition $(M\!-\!1)y+x=1$, we find that the symmetric solution is given by $x = 1/M$, and the asymmetric pair by $$\label{eq:parabolic}
x = \frac{1}{2} \pm \sqrt{ \frac{1}{4} - \frac{\tilde{w}_0}{\tilde{w}_2} },$$ which is independent of the number of states $M$. The constant symmetric solution represents a disordered state where all heading directions are equally probable. The parabolic asymmetric solutions in Eq. (\[eq:parabolic\]), ordered cases with preferred heading directions.
As the noise level is increased, the system undergoes a transition from the ordered to the disordered state (Fig. \[fig:2\]). Even before carrying out a linear stability analysis [@Kuznetsov], direct visual inspection reveals the bifurcation points at which the stability of these steady state branches changes: Bifurcations occur both at the tips of the parabolas and at the intersection point of the different solutions.
The tip of the parabola corresponds to the point $\tilde{w}_0/\tilde{w}_2=1/4$, where the stable and unstable solution branches meet through a saddle-node bifurcation. The intersection of the two solutions occurs at $\tilde{w}_0/\tilde{w}_2 = (1-1/M)/M$ where a degenerate transcritical bifurcation takes place.
In the context of the full system, the bifurcation points correspond to phase transitions. For any $M > 2$, the destabilization of the mixed state occurs through a subcritical bifurcation, corresponding to a discontinuous transition. Only in the $M=2$ case the two bifurcation points coincide at $\tilde{w}_0/\tilde{w}_2 = 1/4$ and become a supercritical pitchfork bifurcation, corresponding to a continuous transition.
A detailed stability analysis [@XPPAUT] of Eq. (\[eq:MeanField\]) verifies the results above and shows an additional set of stable solution branches in Fig. \[fig:2\](b) (labeled by II). In these branches two majority opinions are represented in an equal number of nodes and while a single minority opinion is held by a smaller number of nodes. However, in the next section we show that the stability of these branches is lost when a more accurate approximation is used. This suggests that the stability of the 2-majority/1-minority branches is a spurious result of the mean field approximation, which appears due to an excessive reduction of the dimensionality of the state space. In the full system these branches must thus be unstable to certain perturbations that involve a dynamical redistribution of links, which is not captured by the mean field.
Adaptive Network Solution with Pair-level Closure {#Sec:AdaptiveNetworkSol}
=================================================
We now derive a system of equations that takes the dynamics of link densities into account, using a moment expansion [@Demirel2]. The basic idea of this expansion is to write differential equations that capture the density of small subgraphs. These densities are also called network moments. Each subgraph can be classified by its order, which is equal to the number of links it contains. For example, if we have three distinct states $X\!,\!Y\!,\!Z\!\in\!\Omega$, the density of nodes in the $X$ state, denoted by $[X]$, is a zeroth-order moment; the per-capita density of $X\!-\!Y$ linked pairs $[XY]$, a first-order moment; and the $X\!-\!Y\!-\!Z$ triplet density $[XYZ]$, a second-order moment. With these definitions, the dynamics of the zeroth and first order moments are captured by
$$\label{Eq:AN1}
\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[X]=\frac{w_{0}}{M\!\!-\!\!1}\Big \{\!\!\!\sum_{Y\!\in\overline{\Omega}_{\{\!X\!\}}}\!\!\!\![Y]-\!(M\!\!-\!\!1)[X]\!\Big \}\!+\!w_{2}\!\!\sum_{Y\!\in\overline{\Omega}_{\{\!X\!\}}}\!\!\!\! \Big \{ [X\!Y\!X]\!-\![Y\!X\!Y] \Big \},$$ $$\label{Eq:AN2}
\begin{split}
\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[X\!X]
&=\frac{w_{0}}{M\!\!-\!\!1}\Big \{\!\!\sum_{Y\!\in\overline{\Omega}_{\{\!X\!\}}}\!\!\!\![X\!Y]\!-\!2(M\!\!-\!\!1)[X\!X]\Big \}\!
\!+\!w_{2}\!\!\!\sum_{Y\!\in\overline{\Omega}_{\{X\}}}\!\!\!\!\Big \{2[X\!Y\!X]\!+\!3[^XY_X^X]\!-\![^XX_Y^Y]\Big \}, \\
\end{split}$$ $$\label{Eq:AN3}
\begin{split}
\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[X\!X']
&=\frac{w_{0}}{M\!\!-\!\!1}\Big \{2([X\!X]\!+\![X'\!X'])\!+\!\!\!\!\sum_{Y\!\in\overline{\Omega}_{\!\{\!X\!,\!X\!'\!\}\!}}\!\!\!\!([XY]\!+\![X'Y])\!-\!2(M\!\!-\!\!1)[X\!X']\Big \}\!+\!w_{2} \Big \{-2[X\!X\!'\!X]-2[X'\!X\!X']+[^X\!X_{X'}^{X'}] \\
&+\![^{X\!'}\!{X\!'}_{X}^{X}]\!-\!3[^{X\!'}\!X_{X'}^{X'}]\!-\!3[^X{X'}_{X}^{X}]\!+\!\!\!\!\sum_{Y\!\in\overline{\Omega}_{\{\!X\!,\!X\!'\!\}}}\!\!\!\!\big([^{X'}\!Y_{X}^{X}]\!+\![^X\!Y_{X'}^{X'}]\!-\![^X\!{X'}_{Y}^{Y}]\!-\![^{X'}\!X_{Y}^{Y}]\big)\Big \}\!+\!a[X][X']\!-\!d[X\!X'],
\end{split}$$
where $X,X'\!\in\!\Omega$ (with $X\!\neq\!X'$), and $[^X\!Y_{Z}^{W}]$ denotes the density of motifs with a central node in state $Y$ connected to three other nodes in states $X$, $W$, and $Z$. In all these equations, the first right-hand side term corresponds to noise-driven state dynamics and the second, to three-body interactions. The remaining terms in Eq. (\[Eq:AN3\]) result from the link creation and deletion processes. These expressions summarize a larger system of equations, with (\[Eq:AN1\]), (\[Eq:AN2\]) and (\[Eq:AN3\]) representing $M$, $M$, and $M(M-1)/2$ equivalent equations, respectively. Note that each equation describing the dynamics at a given order involves higher order terms. We thus need to close the system through a moment closure approximation. We use a pair-level closure [@Keeling; @Gross] of the form $$\label{Eq:ANtri}
[X\!Y\!Z]=\frac{h([X\!Y])h([Y\!Z])}{h([X\!Y\!Z])}\!\frac{[X\!Y][Y\!Z]}{[Y]}, \nonumber$$ $$\label{Eq:ANqua}
[^X\!Y\!^Z_W]=\frac{h([X\!Y])h([Y\!Z])h([Y\!W])}{h([^X\!Y\!^Z_W])}\!\frac{[X\!Y][Y\!Z][Y\!W]}{[Y]^2}, \nonumber
%\end{eqnarray}$$ where $h([X\!Y])=\!1\!+\!\delta_{XY}$, $h([X\!Y\!Z])=\!1\!+\!\delta_{XZ}$ and $h([^XY^Z_W])=\!1\!+\!\delta_{XZ}\!+\!\delta_{XW}\!+\!\delta_{ZW}\!+\!\delta_{XZ}\delta_{ZW}\!+\!\delta_{XW}\delta_{ZW}$, with $\delta$ the Kronecker delta.
![(Color online). Bifurcation and phase diagrams of adaptive network systems with $M=2$ (left) and $M=3$ (right) available states per node. The bifurcation diagrams (top) show the density of nodes in a given state for the stable (solid) and unstable (dashed) stationary solutions. In both diagrams, the system undergoes a transition from a disordered solution to an ordered one as the noise level $w_0$ is decreased. For $M=2$ (a) this transition occurs through a supercritical pitchfork bifurcation and for $M=3$ (b), through a transcritical one, corresponding to a continuous or a discontinuous transition, respectively. Analytical results using a pair-level closure approximation (lines) are in good agreement with numerical network simulations (circles) using $N=10^4$ nodes. The phase diagrams (bottom) as a function of noise $w_0$ and link creation rate $a$ display a region of bistability only in the $M \geq 3$ case. Parameters: $a=0.5$ (top panels), $w_2=0.2$, $d=0.1$.[]{data-label="fig:3"}](Figure3a-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:") ![(Color online). Bifurcation and phase diagrams of adaptive network systems with $M=2$ (left) and $M=3$ (right) available states per node. The bifurcation diagrams (top) show the density of nodes in a given state for the stable (solid) and unstable (dashed) stationary solutions. In both diagrams, the system undergoes a transition from a disordered solution to an ordered one as the noise level $w_0$ is decreased. For $M=2$ (a) this transition occurs through a supercritical pitchfork bifurcation and for $M=3$ (b), through a transcritical one, corresponding to a continuous or a discontinuous transition, respectively. Analytical results using a pair-level closure approximation (lines) are in good agreement with numerical network simulations (circles) using $N=10^4$ nodes. The phase diagrams (bottom) as a function of noise $w_0$ and link creation rate $a$ display a region of bistability only in the $M \geq 3$ case. Parameters: $a=0.5$ (top panels), $w_2=0.2$, $d=0.1$.[]{data-label="fig:3"}](Figure3b-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:") ![(Color online). Bifurcation and phase diagrams of adaptive network systems with $M=2$ (left) and $M=3$ (right) available states per node. The bifurcation diagrams (top) show the density of nodes in a given state for the stable (solid) and unstable (dashed) stationary solutions. In both diagrams, the system undergoes a transition from a disordered solution to an ordered one as the noise level $w_0$ is decreased. For $M=2$ (a) this transition occurs through a supercritical pitchfork bifurcation and for $M=3$ (b), through a transcritical one, corresponding to a continuous or a discontinuous transition, respectively. Analytical results using a pair-level closure approximation (lines) are in good agreement with numerical network simulations (circles) using $N=10^4$ nodes. The phase diagrams (bottom) as a function of noise $w_0$ and link creation rate $a$ display a region of bistability only in the $M \geq 3$ case. Parameters: $a=0.5$ (top panels), $w_2=0.2$, $d=0.1$.[]{data-label="fig:3"}](Figure3c-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:") ![(Color online). Bifurcation and phase diagrams of adaptive network systems with $M=2$ (left) and $M=3$ (right) available states per node. The bifurcation diagrams (top) show the density of nodes in a given state for the stable (solid) and unstable (dashed) stationary solutions. In both diagrams, the system undergoes a transition from a disordered solution to an ordered one as the noise level $w_0$ is decreased. For $M=2$ (a) this transition occurs through a supercritical pitchfork bifurcation and for $M=3$ (b), through a transcritical one, corresponding to a continuous or a discontinuous transition, respectively. Analytical results using a pair-level closure approximation (lines) are in good agreement with numerical network simulations (circles) using $N=10^4$ nodes. The phase diagrams (bottom) as a function of noise $w_0$ and link creation rate $a$ display a region of bistability only in the $M \geq 3$ case. Parameters: $a=0.5$ (top panels), $w_2=0.2$, $d=0.1$.[]{data-label="fig:3"}](Figure3d-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:")
To make analytical progress, we assume that the creation and deletion rates of every type of link cancel each other independently in the stationary solution, i.e. $a [X][X']\!\!=\!\!d[XX']$. This is confirmed below by comparing our analytical results to direct agent-based numerical simulations of the full network dynamics. In analogy to the mean field case, we assume that all states have identical densities except for a single focal state. We denote by $[x]$ the density of nodes in this focal state and by $[j]$ the density of all other states. Using this notation, we can rewrite Eq.(\[Eq:AN1\]) as $$\label{Eq:AN7}
\frac{d [x]\!}{d t}\!\!=\!\!w_0 \left( [j]\!-\![x] \right) \!+\!
\frac{w_2}{2} \left( M\!-\!1 \right) [xj]^2 \left( \frac{1}{[j]} \!\!-\!\! \frac{1}{[x]} \right).$$ By imposing the conservation law $\sum_{i=1}^M[i]=1$, we find the stationary solutions $$\label{Eq:ANsol1}
[x]=[j]= 1 / M$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:ANsol2a}
\left[x \right] &=& \frac{1 \pm \sqrt{1-w_0/c_1}}{2}, \\
\label{Eq:ANsol2b}
\left[j \right] &=& \frac{1 \mp \sqrt{1-w_0/c_1}}{2(M-1)}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $c_1= w_2 a^2 / (8 d^2)$ and Eq. (\[Eq:ANsol2b\]) represents $M-1$ identical equations for the node densities of all states other than $x$.
The results of the analysis (Fig. \[fig:3\]) are similar to those obtained with the mean field approximation: at low noise the disordered state becomes unstable and stable branches appear that correspond to the symmetry-broken solution. However, there are two differences. First, only the ordered solution that has one majority opinion and $M-1$ minority opinions is stable; the reversed case with one minority opinion and $M-1$ majority opinions (set II in Fig. \[fig:2\]) is unstable. Second, the bifurcation points now depend on the density of linked pairs, and are therefore a function of the link creation and deletion rates. The saddle-node bifurcation (for $M > 2$) where the ordered states vanish now occurs at $c_1$, whereas the transcritical bifurcation where the disordered state loses its stability is at $$\label{Eq:c1c2}
c_2= \left[ 1\!-\!\left( \frac{M-2}{M} \right)^2 \right] c_1.$$ We therefore have $c_2 < c_1$ for all systems with more than two available states. Thus, the transition is generally of first order and has a bistable region in the $w_0$ interval given by $c_2 < w_0 < c_1$. In the limit of a large number of possible states, $c_2 \to 0$ and the region of bistability extends to the origin. A continuous transition is only observed in the special case of two opinions, where $M=2$ implies $c_1=c_2$ and the two transitions coincide to form a pitchfork bifurcation.
These analytical predictions are in good agreement with results from large agent-based simulation runs (cf. Fig. \[fig:3\] panels a,b). Only near the critical points a small difference is observed, which may be due to the moment closure approximation or finite size effects.
Comparison to the Swarming Transition {#Sec:Swarm}
=====================================
![ (Color online). Bifurcation diagrams of the order parameter $\Phi$ in Eq. (\[Eq:psi2\]) as a function of noise $w_0$. The curves were computed using Eqs. (\[Eq:ANsol1\]-\[Eq:ANsol2b\]) for $M = 2$, $4$, and $6$ potential heading directions, corresponding to $D=1$, $2$, and $3$ dimensions, respectively. For $M = 2$, the transition is continuous. For $M > 2$, the critical value of the control parameter where the $\Phi = 0$ branch loses stability ($c_2$) becomes smaller than the point where the upper branch vanishes ($c_1$). This results in a discontinuous transition and a region of bistability, which gives rise to the hysteresis cycles indicated by the arrows. The inset displays $c_1$ and $c_2$ as a function of $M$; the bistable region is broader for larger $M$ values. []{data-label="fig:4"}](Figure4-eps-converted-to.pdf)
In this Section, we will relate the ordering transition described above to the collective motion transition observed in swarms [@VicsekPR]. For this purpose, each node is interpreted as a self-propelled agent, its state as its heading direction, and linked nodes as interacting agents. An advantage of this approach is that it does not require specifying the details of the interactions. While collective motion can result from a broad variety of interactions (such as aligning [@Vicsek1], attraction-repulsion [@Ferrante1; @Ferrante2], or escape-pursuit [@Pawel]), the adaptive-network perspective can treat all of these equally by focusing on the exchanges of information that lead to consensus on the collective heading direction, without considering the details of the interactions. In particular, if we assume that interactions can only occur within a given distance, the limit case studied in this paper (where the linking and unlinking rates between agents in the same state is set to zero) can be mapped to a situation where agents that advance in a common direction do not change their relative positions and therefore do not create or destroy interactions between them. We also focus on the simplest limit case where the linking and unlinking rates (corresponding here to the encounter and disbanding rates at which agents start or stop interacting with each other) are constant and equal for all agents in different states (i.e. with different headings).
In order to compare our adaptive network system to collective motion, we start by associating each node state $[h]$ with an agent’s heading $\hat{v}$ in a space where agents can only move in discretized directions that are perpendicular to each other. Each $\hat{v}$ is thus a unit vector pointing in a direction that is either opposite or orthogonal to all others. The number of potential headings $M$ therefore depends on the dimensionality of the space, with $M=2$ in one dimension, $M=4$ in two dimensions, $M=6$ in three dimensions and, in general, $M=2 D$ in $D$ dimensions. The usual polarization order parameter used to describe the degree of alignment and of collective motion in swarming systems is given by $$\label{Def:psi}
\Phi = \frac{1}{N} \left| \sum_{i=1}^N \hat{v}_i \right|,$$ where $N$ is the total number of agents and $\hat{v}_i$ is a unit vector indicating the heading direction of agent $i$ [@VicsekPR]. With this definition, $\Phi = 1$ if all agents are perfectly aligned and swarming in the same direction, whereas $\Phi = 0$ if they are randomly oriented. In the discretized space with only orthogonal heading directions that we consider here, $\Phi$ can be expressed as $$\label{Eq:psi2}
\Phi = \sqrt{ \sum_{h=1}^{M/2} \left( \left[ 2 h \right] - \left[ 2 h - 1 \right] \right)^2 }.$$ This relationship allows us to plot the polarization order parameter $\Phi$ as a function of $w_0$, which serves as a proxy for the amount of noise in the agent motion (Fig. \[fig:4\]).
In the context of swarms, the symmetry-breaking bifurcations computed above correspond to ordering phase transitions to collective motion. For agents moving in one-dimensional space ($M=2$), the transition is continuous (second order), whereas for agents moving in more dimensions ($M \geq 4$), the transition is discontinuous (first order). A region of bistability appears for $M \geq 3$ and becomes broader for higher values of $M$ (Fig. \[fig:4\], inset).
Although the adaptive network approach includes several approximations, the results above provide insights into the more complex problem of understanding general features of the transition to collective motion in swarms. The question of whether the actual swarming transition to collective motion is continuous or discontinuous, for example, has been the subject of intense debate [@Vicsek1]. While in the initial numerical explorations the transition appeared to be continuous (second order), it was later shown through theoretical arguments and large-scale numerical simulations that it is, in fact, discontinuous (first order) and has a bistable transition region where ordered and disordered swarming states coexist [@Vicsek1; @Chate1; @Chate2]. The results presented in Fig. \[fig:4\] would suggest that, generically, this transition should be continuous in one dimension and discontinuous in two or three dimensions, with a more prominent bistable region in the 3d case.
To the best of our knowledge, there has been no systematic analysis of the properties of the ordering transition as a function of the embedding space dimensionality for different types of swarming models. In one dimension, various approaches have concluded that the transition is either absent or first order [@1DCollMotA; @1DCollMotB; @1DCollMotC; @1DCollMotD]. In two dimensions, the transition has been much better studied and shown to be first order, as in three dimensions, but the size of their bistable regions has not been compared [@VicsekPR; @TT2].
![(color online). Per-capita density of linked pairs as a function of noise $w_0$, computed analytically for $M=2$ (a) and 3 (b) using the same parameters as in the corresponding bifurcation diagrams in Fig. \[fig:3\]. Blue dashed lines: Density of linked pairs with both nodes in the same state of majority (labeled $[11]$) or minority opinion ($[22]$ and $[33]$, the lowest branch at left side of the bifurcation in both plots). Red solid lines: Density of linked pairs with one node in the majority and one in the minority opinion ($[12]$ and $[13]$), or both in the minority opinions ($[23]$ in panel (b), the lowest red line at the left side of the bifurcation). Black dotted lines: Total density of linked pairs. The bifurcation features displayed in Fig. \[fig:3\] are mirrored here in these link density plots.[]{data-label="fig:5"}](Figure5a-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:") ![(color online). Per-capita density of linked pairs as a function of noise $w_0$, computed analytically for $M=2$ (a) and 3 (b) using the same parameters as in the corresponding bifurcation diagrams in Fig. \[fig:3\]. Blue dashed lines: Density of linked pairs with both nodes in the same state of majority (labeled $[11]$) or minority opinion ($[22]$ and $[33]$, the lowest branch at left side of the bifurcation in both plots). Red solid lines: Density of linked pairs with one node in the majority and one in the minority opinion ($[12]$ and $[13]$), or both in the minority opinions ($[23]$ in panel (b), the lowest red line at the left side of the bifurcation). Black dotted lines: Total density of linked pairs. The bifurcation features displayed in Fig. \[fig:3\] are mirrored here in these link density plots.[]{data-label="fig:5"}](Figure5b-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:")
We can further examine the connection between our adaptive network model and swarming systems by considering the per-capita densities of linked pairs displayed in Fig. \[fig:5\]. These match the interaction frequencies that are expected to occur in swarms. For example, the total number of links decreases monotonically with noise level, which corresponds to the observation that higher noise values will produce less clustering and therefore fewer interactions between agents in swarming systems [@HuepeAldanaPRL; @VicsekPR]. We also see that the density of heterophilic links $[12]$ (and $[13]$ in the $M\!=\!3$ case) increases with noise. This can be explained by an increasing rate of encounters at higher noise levels.
Furthermore, we find that for all cases with $M>2$ (such as the $M=3$ case displayed in the figure) the density of heterophilic links in the ordered branch, $[12]$ and $[13]$, continues to increase as a function of noise within the bistable region, where it becomes higher than that of the disordered branch. Despite this high number of heterophilic links, the ordered branch persists because the density of homophilic links $[11]$ is also high. This can be related to what is observed in the bistable region in swarms, where it is known that a higher density of interactions between agents in the majority heading state, which corresponds to the formation of high-density bands (oriented perpendicular to the heading direction) in two or more dimensions, stabilizes the ordered state [@Chate1; @Chate2], leading to a bistable region and thus to a discontinuous transition. This analogy could provide an alternative way to understand the details of the swarming transition as a function of the dimension of the embedding space.
Conclusions {#Sec:Conclusions}
===========
In this paper, we analyzed the swarming systems class of adaptive network models, where links can only be created or deleted between nodes in different states. We showed analytically that this class displays a symmetry-breaking transition with properties that depend on the number of states $M$ accessible to each node. If $M=2$, the transition occurs through a supercritical pitchfork bifurcation; if $M \geq 3$, through a subcritical one. Consequently, only this latter case displays a bistable region near the bifurcation point. Note, however, that previous work [@Cristian] had shown that bistable solutions can also be obtained in the $M=2$ case if we allow link creation and deletion processes to occur between nodes in the same state, a situation that was not studied here. The results above, taken together, provide insights on a potential direct connection between link dynamics, their dependence on internal states, and the resulting properties of this type of symmetry-breaking transitions. We also discussed in this paper their implications for the analysis of the collective motion transition in swarms.
The parallels between the adaptive-network approach presented here and agent-based dynamics are not restricted to swarming systems. They can be extended to any group of agents moving in an abstract phase space with similar dynamical rules. These rules must consider agents with an internal state (as the heading direction in the swarming case) that determines their trajectory in this phase space, in which their relative positions determine whether they interact. It is thus conceivable that the proposed model could be extended to study social processes involving heterophily, such as the diffusion of innovations and technologies [@Rogers] or job seeking through weak interpersonal ties [@Granovetter]. We would like to thank Gerd Zschaler and Güven Demirel for their assistance in using the XPPAUT and largetnet library. The work of CH was supported by the US National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY-0848755. No empirical data was produced in this work. Additional material will be made available on www.biond.org.
T. Gross and B. Blasius, J. R. Soc. Interface [**5**]{}, 259 (2008).
*Aaptive Networks: Theory, Models and Applications*, edited by T. Gross and H. Sayama, (Springer, New York, 2008).
S. Bornholdt and T. Rohlf, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 6114 (2000).
A. Levina, J. Herrmann, and T. Geisel, Nat. Phys. [**3**]{}, 857 (2007).
C. Meisel and T. Gross, Phys. Rev. E [**80**]{}, 061917 (2009).
T. E. Gorochowski, M. Di Bernardo, and C. S. Grieson, Complexity, [**17**]{}, 18 (2012).
P. Ogren, E. Fiorelli, and N. E. Leonard, IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, [**49**]{}, 1292 (2004).
T. Gross, C. Dommar D’ Lima and B. Blasius, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 208701 (2006).
L. B. Shaw and I. B. Schwartz, Phys. Rev. E [**77**]{}, 066101 (2008).
J. M. Pacheco, A. Traulsen, and M. A. Nowak, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 258103 (2006).
A.-L. Do, L. Rudol,f and T. Gross, New J. Phys. [**12**]{}, 063023 (2010).
For more information please visit the adaptive networks wiki http://adaptive-networks.wikidot.com.
P. Holme and M. E. J. Newman, Phys. Rev. E [**74**]{}, 056108 (2006).
S. Gil and D. H. Zanette, Phys. Lett. A [**356**]{}, 89 (2006).
M. G. Zimmermann, V. M. Eguiluz, and M San Miguel, Phys. Rev. E, [**69**]{}, 065102 (2004).
D. Kimura and Y. Hayakawa, Phys. Rev. E [**78**]{}, 016103 (2008).
F. Vazquez, V. M. Eguíluz, and M. S. Miguel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 108702 (2008).
G. A. Böhme and T. Gross, Phys. Rev. E [**83**]{}, 035101(R) (2011).
G. A. Böhme and T. Gross, Phys. Rev. E [**85**]{}, 066117 (2012).
G. Demirel, R. Prizak, P. Reddy, and T. Gross, Eur. Phys. J. B [**84**]{}, 541 (2011).
C. Huepe, G. Zschaler, A.-L. Do, and T. Gross, New J. Phys. [**13**]{}, 073022 (2011).
I. D. Couzin, C. C. Ioannou, G. Demirel, T. Gross, C. J. Torney, A. Hartnett, L. Conradt, S. A. Levin, and N. E. Leonard, Science [**334**]{}, 1578 (2011).
I. D. Couzin and J. Krause, Adv. Stud. Behav. [**32**]{}, 1 (2003).
D. Helbing, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**73**]{}, 1067 (2001).
T. Vicsek and A. Zafeiris, Phys. Rep. [**517**]{}, 71 (2012).
T. Vicsek, A. Czirók, E. Ben-Jacob, I. Cohen, and O. Shochet, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 1226 (1995).
J. Toner and Y. Tu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 4326 (1995).
J. Toner and Y. Tu, Phys. Rev. E [**58**]{}, 5828 (1998).
J. Buhl, D. J. T. Sumpter, I. D. Couzin, J. J. Hale, E. Despland, E. R. Miller, and S. J. Simpson, Science [**312**]{}, 1402 (2006).
G. Deffuant, F. Amblard, G. Weisbuch, and T. Faure, J. Artificial Societies and Social Simulations, [**5**]{}, 4 (2002).
F. Shi, P.J. Mucha, and R. Durrett, Phys. Rev. E [**88**]{}, 062818 (2013).
It is also natural to consider an additional process, whereby a pair of linked nodes $X-Y$, each in a different state, can influence each other to produce either $X-X$ or $Y-Y$. For the stationary solutions considered here, however, these terms will cancel out and the total density of nodes in a given state will remain unchanged [@Cristian]. For simplicity, we will therefore not include here any terms representing these processes.
G. Zschaler and T. Gross, Bioinformatics, [**29**]{}, 277 (2013).
Y. A. Kuznetsov, *Elements of Applied Bifurcation Theory* (Second ed.), (Springer, 1998).
The direct bifurcation analysis is conducted by using the software XPPAUT, which computes the detailed bifurcation diagram of a given set of ordinary differential equations. XPPAUT was developed by G. Bard Ermentrout, and is available at www.math.pitt.edu/$\sim$bard/xpp/xpp.html for free.
G. Demirel, F. Vazquez, G. A. Böhme, and T. Gross, Physica D [**267**]{}, 68 (2013).
M. J. Keeling, D. A. Rand, and A. J. Morris, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B [**264**]{}, 1149 (1997). M. J. Keeling and K. T. D. Eames, J. R. Soc. Interface [**2**]{}, 295 (2005).
E. Ferrante, A. E. Turgut, M. Dorigo, and C. Huepe, New J. Phys., [**15**]{}, 095011 (2013).
E. Ferrante, A. E. Turgut, M. Dorigo, and C. Huepe, Phys. Rev. Lett., [**111**]{}, 268302 (2013).
P. Romanczuk, I. D. Couzin, and L. Schimansky-Geier, Phys. Rev. Lett., [**102**]{}, 010602 (2009).
G. Grégoire and H. Chaté, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 025702 (2004).
H. Chaté, F. Ginelli, G. Grégoire, and F. Raynaud, Phys. Rev. E [**77**]{}, 046113 (2008).
A. Czirók, A-L Barabási, and T. Vicsek, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 209 (1999).
O. J. O’Loan and M. R. Evans, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**32**]{} L99 (1999).
A. Kolpas, J. Moehlis, and I. G. Kevrekidis, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA [**104**]{}(14), 5931 (2007).
A. P. Solon and J. Tailleur, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**111**]{}, 078101 (2013).
C. Huepe and M. Aldana, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}(16), 168701 (2004).
E. M. Rogers, *Diffusion of innovations (5th edition)*, (Free press, New York, 2003).
M. Granovetter, Am. J. Sociol. [**78**]{}, 1360 (1973).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The main result of the paper establishes the irreducibility of a large family of nonzero central charge induced modules over Affine Lie algebras for any non standard parabolic subalgebra. It generalizes all previously known partial results and provides a a construction of many new irreducible modules.'
address: ' Institute of Mathematics, University of São Paulo, Caixa Postal 66281 CEP 05314-970, São Paulo, Brazil'
author:
- Vyacheslav Futorny
- Iryna Kashuba
title: 'Structure of parabolically induced modules for affine Kac-Moody algebras'
---
Dedicated to Efim Zelmanov in the occasion of his 60th birthday
Introduction {#s1}
============
Let ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}$ be an affine Kac-Moody algebra with a $1$-dimensional center $Z={\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}\xspace}c$ and a fixed Cartan subalgebra.
The main problem in the representation theory of affine Kac-Moody algebras is a classification of all irreducible weight representations. Such classification is known in various subcategories of weight modules, e.g. in the category $\mathcal O$, in its generalizations [@F1], [@C1], [@FS], in the category of modules with finite dimensional weight multiplicities and nonzero central charge [@FT]. An important tool in the construction of representations of affine Lie algebras is a parabolic induction. The conjecture ([@F2], Conjecture 8.1) indicates that induced modules are construction devices for irreducible weight modules. This conjecture is known to be true for $A_1^{(1)}$ ([@F4], Proposition 6.3), for $A_2^{(2)}$, [@Bu] and for all affine Lie algebras in the case of modules with finite-dimensional weight spaces [@FT], [@DG].
Simplest case of parabolic induction corresponds to the induction from Borel subalgebras. Standard examples of Borel subalgebras arise from taking partitions of the root system. For affine algebras there is always a finite number of conjugacy classes by the Weyl group of such partitions and corresponding Borel subalgebras. Verma type modules induced from these Borel subalgebras were first studied and classified by Jakobsen and Kac [@JK1; @JK2], and by Futorny [@F1; @F3], and were further developed in [@C1], [@FS], [@F2], [@F4] and references therein. We will consider a more general definition of a Borel subalgebra (see below).
Nontrivial (different from Borel) parabolic subalgebras are divided into two groups, those with finite dimensional Levi subalgebras and those with infinite dimensional one. In this paper we are interested in the second case. The simplest non trivial example is given by a parabolic subalgebra whose Levi factor is the Heisenberg subalgebra together with Cartan subalgebra. Corresponding induced modules were studied in recent papers [@FK2] and [@BBFK]. It was shown that any irreducible ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}$-graded module over the Heisenberg subalgebra with a nonzero central charge induces the irreducible ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}$-module. In [@FK1] a similar reduction theorem was shown for pseudo parabolic subalgebras. These parabolic subalgebras give a particular class of non-solvable parabolic subalgebra of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}$ with infinite dimensional Levi factor. The main results of [@FK1] states that in this case the parabolic induction preserves irreducibility if the central charge is nonzero. The technique used in the proofs in [@FK1] and [@FK2] are different and somewhat complementary.
The main purpose of the present paper is to show that in the affine setting both these cases of parabolic induction (and hence all known cases) can be extended to a more general result for modules with nonzero central charge.
For any Lie algebra $\mathfrak a$ we denote by $U(\mathfrak a)$ the universal enveloping algebra of $\mathfrak a$.
Denote by $G$ the Heisenberg subalgebra of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}$ generated by all imaginary root subspaces of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}$. Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}\xspace}\subset {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}$ be a parabolic subalgebra of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}$ such that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}\xspace}=\mathfrak l\oplus \mathfrak n$ is a Levi decomposition and $\mathfrak l$ is an infinite dimensional Levi factor. Denote by $\mathfrak l^0$ the Lie subalgebra of $\mathfrak l$ generated by all its real root subspaces and ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{H}}}$. Let $G({\mathfrak l})$ be a subalgebra of $\mathfrak l^0$ spanned by its imaginary root subspaces. Then $\mathfrak l=\mathfrak l^0+ G_{\mathfrak l}$ where $G_{\mathfrak l}\subset G$ is the orthogonal complement of $G({\mathfrak l})$ in $G$ with respect to the Killing form, that is $G=G({\mathfrak l})+G_{\mathfrak l}$, $[G_{\mathfrak l}, \mathfrak l^0]=0$ and $\mathfrak l^0\cap G_{\mathfrak l}=\mathbb C c$.
For a Lie algebra $\mathfrak{a}$ containing the Cartan subalgebra ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{H}}}$ we say that a module $V$ is a [*weight*]{} module if $V=\oplus_{\mu\in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{H}}}^*}
V_{\mu}$, where $$V_{\mu}=\{v\in V|hv=\mu(h)v, \forall h\in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{H}}}\}.$$ We denote by $\mathcal W_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}}$ (respectively, $\mathcal{W}_{\mathfrak l}$) the category of weight ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}$-modules (respectively, $\mathfrak l$-modules) with respect to the common Cartan subalgebra ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{H}}}$ of both ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}$ and $\mathfrak l$. We say that a module $V$ from either category has a nonzero central charge if the central element of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}$ acts on $V$ as a nonzero scalar. If $N\in \mathcal{W}_{\mathfrak l}$ then denote by ${\rm ind}_{N}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}\xspace}, {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}})$ the induced ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}$-module $U({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}})\otimes_{U({\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}\xspace})}N$, where $\mathfrak n N=0$. This defines a functor ${\rm ind}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}\xspace}, {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}})$ from the category $\mathcal{W}_{\mathfrak l}$ to the category $\mathcal W_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}}$. Denote by $\widetilde{\mathcal{W}}_{\mathfrak l}$ the full subcategory of $\mathcal{W}_{\mathfrak l}$ consisting of those modules on which the central element $c$ acts injectively and let $\widetilde{{\rm ind}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}\xspace}, {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}})$ be the restriction of ${\rm ind}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}\xspace}, {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}})$ onto $\widetilde{\mathcal{W}}_{\mathfrak l}$.
Since $\mathfrak l$ is a sum of two commuting Lie subalgebras $\mathfrak l^0$ and $G_{\mathfrak l}$ then a natural way to construct irreducible modules in $\widetilde{\mathcal{W}}_{\mathfrak l}$ is to take a tensor product of an irreducible weight module $L$ over $\mathfrak l^0$ with a $\mathbb Z$-graded irreducible module $T$ over $G_{\mathfrak l}$ with the same scalar action of $c$. We will call such modules [*[tensor]{}*]{}.
For any positive integer $k$, denote ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}_k={\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}_{k\delta}\oplus \mathbb C c\oplus {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}_{-k\delta}$ (see notations in the next section). We say that a ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}_k$-module $S$ is $U({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}_{k\delta})$-surjective (respectively $U({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}_{-k\delta})$-surjective) if for any two elements $s_1, s_2\in S$ there exist $s\in S$ and $u_1, u_2\in U({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}_{k\delta})$ (respectively, $u_1, u_2\in U({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}_{-k\delta})$) such that $s_i=u_is$, $i=1,2$. A $G_{\mathfrak l}$-module $T$ is admissible if for any positive integer $k$, any cyclic ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}_k$-submodule $T'\subset T$ is $U({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}_{k\delta})$-surjective or $U({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}_{-k\delta})$-surjective.
A tensor module $L\otimes T$ is called [*[admissible]{}*]{} if $T$ is an admissible $G_{\mathfrak l}$-module. All known to us examples of irreducible $\mathfrak l$-modules are admissible tensor modules. On the other hand we do not have sufficient evidence to expect that admissible tensor modules exhaust all irreducible modules in $\widetilde{\mathcal{W}}_{\mathfrak l}$ or even tensor modules.
Our main result is the following theorem:
\[the-main\] Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}\xspace}\subset {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}$ be a parabolic subalgebra of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}$ such that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}\xspace}=\mathfrak l \oplus \mathfrak n$ is a Levi decomposition and $\mathfrak l$ is infinite dimensional Levi factor. Then $\widetilde{{\rm ind}}_N({\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}\xspace}, {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}})$ is an irreducible ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}$-module for any irreducible admissible tensor module $N$ from $\widetilde{\mathcal{W}}_{\mathfrak l}$.
We see that this result is quite general allowing one to induce from an arbitrary irreducible admissible tensor $\mathfrak l$-module with nonzero central charge and to construct many new irreducible modules over ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}$. This generalises the results from [@FK1], [@FK2], [@BBFK]. In fact, it is possible to go beyond the category of weight modules but some grading is required in order to apply the same technique. Note that the proof of Theorem 1 in [@FK2] is only valid for admissible $G$-modules, it is a particular case of the theorem above.
All results in the paper hold for both [*untwisted*]{} and [*twisted*]{} affine Lie algebras.
Preliminaries
=============
We address to [@K] for the basics of the Kac-Moody theory. The affine Lie algebra ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}$ has the root decomposition $${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}= {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{H}}}\oplus (\oplus_{\alpha \in \Delta}
{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}_\alpha),$$ where ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}_\alpha = \{ x \in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}\, | \, [h, x] = \alpha(h) x
{\text{ for every }} h \in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{H}}}\}$ and $\Delta$ is the root system of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}$. Let $\pi$ be a fixed basis of the root system $\D$. Then the root system $\D$ of has a natural partition into positive and negative roots with respect to $\pi$, $\D_+$ and $\D_-$ respectively. Let $\delta\in \D_+(\pi)$ be the indivisible imaginary root. Then the set of all imaginary roots is $\Delta^{im}=\{k\delta|
k\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}\setminus\{0\}\}$. Let $G= \oplus_{k \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}\setminus \{0\}} {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}_{k\delta} \oplus \mathbb C c$, a Heisenberg subalgebra of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}$. Then $G$ has a triangular decomposition $G = G_- \oplus {\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}\xspace}c \oplus G_+$, where $G_{\pm} = \oplus_{k>0} {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}_{\pm k \delta}$.
Denote by ${\mathfrak g}$ the underlined simple finite dimensional Lie algebra that has $\{\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_N\}\subset \pi$ as set of simple roots and $\dot \D = \dot \D_+ \cup \dot \D_-$ be a decomposition of the root system $\dot \D$ of ${\mathfrak g}$ into positive and negative to this set of simple roots. When there are roots of two lengths in ${\mathfrak g}$, we set $\dot \D_l$ and $\dot \D_s$ to be the long and short roots in $\dot \D$ respectively. The real roots $\D^{\mathsf {re}}$ of $\D$ can be described as follows: $\D^{\mathsf {re}}=S\cup -S$, where $$\label{eq:posreal}
S = \begin{cases} \{ \alpha + n\delta\ |\ \alpha \in \dot \D_+, \, n \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}\},
\hspace{1.7 truein} \hbox{\rm if $r = 1$ (the untwisted case), } \\
\{ \alpha + n\delta\ |\ \alpha \in (\dot \D_s)_+, n \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}\}\, \cup \, \{ \alpha + nr\delta\ |\ \alpha \in (\dot \D_l)_+, n \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}\}
\qquad \hbox{\rm if $r = 2,3$ and} \\
\hspace{4.7 truein} \hbox{\rm not $\mathsf{A}_{2\ell}^{(2)}$ type,} \\
\{ \alpha + n\delta\ |\ \alpha \in (\dot \D_s)_+, n \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}\}\, \cup \, \{ \alpha + 2n\delta\ |\ \alpha \in (\dot \D_l)_+, n \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}\} \\
\hspace{1.2 truein} \cup \, \{\frac{1}{2}\left ( \alpha + (2n-1)\delta\right) \ |\ \alpha \in (\dot \D_l)_+, n \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}\} \qquad \qquad \hbox{\rm if $\mathsf{A}_{2\ell}^{(2)}$ type.} \\
\end{cases}$$
Parabolic induction
===================
In this section we consider our main tool of constructing new modules - parabolic induction. We start with the discussion of the Borel subalgebras.
Borel subalgebras
-----------------
A subalgebra ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}\subset {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}$ is called a [*Borel subalgebra*]{} if it contains ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{H}}}$ (and hence has a root decomposition) and there exists an automorphism $\sigma$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}$ satisfying
- $\sigma({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{H}}})={\ensuremath{\mathfrak{H}}}$;
- ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}+\sigma({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}})={\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}$;
- ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}\cap\sigma({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}})={\ensuremath{\mathfrak{H}}}$.
Note that this definition is more general than the usual definition of Borel subalgebras associated with closed partitions of root systems [@F1], [@DFG].
Consider a subset $P\subset \D$ such that $P\cap (-P)=\emptyset$ and $P\cup
(-P)=\D$. Denote by ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}_P$ a Lie subalgebra of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}$ generated by ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{H}}}$ and the root spaces ${\mathfrak G}_{\alpha}$ with $\alpha \in P$. We will say that $P$ is a [*quasi partition*]{} of $\D$ if for any root $\alpha$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}_P$ we have $\alpha\in P$. Note that in a contrast with a usual concept of a [*partition*]{} of the root systems [@F1] we do not require $P$ to be a closed subset with respect to the sum of roots, that is whenever $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are in $P$ and $\alpha + \beta$ is a root, then $\alpha + \beta
\in P$. A subset of all real roots of any quase partition is closed with respect to the sum of the roots while it is not necessary for imaginary roots (cf. [@BBFK]). Clearly, ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}_P$ is a Borel subalgebra for any quase partition $P$. These subalgebras are a main source of examples of Borel subalgebras, though they do not exhaust all of them as shown in the following remark.
\[imag-multiple\] In each subspace $G_{k\delta}$ we can choose a commuting basis $x_{k1}, \ldots, x_{k s_k}$ such that $[x_{ki}, x_{-kj}]=\delta_{ij}$ for any $k$ and all $i,j$. We can define a triangular decomposition of $G$: $G=G_1\oplus \mathbb C c\oplus G_{-1}$, where for each nonzero $k$, $G_{k\delta}\subset G_i$ implies $G_{-k\delta}\subset G_{-i}$, $i=1, -1$. On the other hand we can obtain a more general triangular decomposition by splitting for every $k$, $x_{kj}$ and $x_{-kj}$ between $G_1$ and $G_{-1}$ for each $j$ independently, $j=1, \ldots, s_k$. Each such triangular decomposition can be extended to the following decomposition of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}$. Denote by $B_{\pm}$ a Lie subalgebra of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}$ generated by all root spaces ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}_{\pm\beta}$, $\beta\in \{\alpha+k\delta|\alpha \in \dot{\Delta}_+, k\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}\}$ and $G_{\pm 1}$. Then $${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}=B_-\oplus {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{H}}}\oplus B_+$$ and $ B={\ensuremath{\mathfrak{H}}}\oplus B_+$ is a Borel subalgebra of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}$. In particular, if $x_{kj}$ are in the same $G_i$ for all positive $k$ and all $j=1, \ldots, s_k$ then $B$ corresponds to a partition of the root system. If for some positive $k\neq m$, $x_{kj}$ and $x_{m r}$ belong to different $G_i$ but for any $k$, $x_{kj}$ are in the same $G_i$ for all $j=1, \ldots, s_k$, then $B$ corresponds to a quase partition of the root system (cf. ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}_{\rm nat}^{{\varphi}}$ below).
Classification of partitions of the root system and corresponding Borel subalgebras was obtained in [@JK1] and [@F1]. Classification of quasi partitions follows from [@BBFK]. Finally, the classification of all Borel subalgebras defined above can easily be deduced from Remark \[imag-multiple\].
There are two extreme Borel subalgebras, the [standard]{} Borel subalgebra which corresponds to the partition $P=\Delta_+$ and the [*natural*]{} Borel subalgebra ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}_{\rm nat}={\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}_P$ which corresponds to the partition $$P_{\rm nat}=\{\alpha+k\delta|\alpha \in \dot{\Delta}_+, k\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}\}\cup \{n\delta| n> 0\}.$$ These Borel subalgebras are not conjugated by the Weyl group. For other conjugacy classes of Borel subalgebras by the Weyl group see [@F1]. We will be interested mainly in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}_{\rm nat}$ in this paper. Starting from this Borel subalgebra one can construct a family of twisted subalgebras as in [@BBFK]. For a function ${\varphi}: \mathbb{N} \rightarrow \{\pm \}$, set $$P^{{\varphi}}= \{\alpha+k\delta|\alpha \in \dot{\Delta}_+, k\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}\}
\cup \{n \delta\ |\ n \in \mathbb N, {\varphi}(n)=+\}\cup \{-m \delta\
|\ m \in \mathbb N, {\varphi}(m)=-\}$$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}_{\rm nat}^{{\varphi}}={\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}_{P^{{\varphi}}}$. Further examples of Borel subalgebras can be obtained by combining ${\varphi}$-twisting with the procedure described in Remark \[imag-multiple\].
Parabolic subalgebras
---------------------
A subalgebra ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}\xspace}\subset {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}$ is called a [*parabolic subalgebra*]{} if it contains a Borel subalgebra. There are essentially two types of parabolic subalgebras: those containing the standard Borel and those containing one of the twisted Borel subalgebras ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}_{\rm nat}^{{\varphi}}$. We call them [*type I*]{} and [*type II*]{} parabolic subalgebras respectively (cf. [@F2] for details). We address in the paper the parabolic subalgebras of [*type II*]{}. Even though all the results of this paper are valid for all parabolic subalgebras of [*type II*]{} we will assume for simplicity that a fixed parabolic subalgebra ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}\xspace}$ of [*type II*]{} contains ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}_{\rm nat}$. We will describe all such ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}\xspace}$’s which contain properly ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}_{\rm nat}$ (cf. also Proposition 3.3, [@FK1]).
Let $N$ be the rank of the underlined simple finite dimensional Lie algebra $\dot{\mathfrak g}$ and $\pi_0=\{\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_N\}\subset \pi$ the set of simple roots of $\dot{\mathfrak g}$. Set $I = \{1, \dots, N\}$ and choose any proper subset $J \subset I$. Let $\pi^J = \{ \alpha_j
\in \pi\ |\ j \in J\}$. Denote by $\dot \D^J$ the finite root system generated by the roots in $\pi^J$ ( $\dot \D^J = \emptyset$ if $J
= \emptyset$). Now consider the affinization $$\D^J = \{ \alpha + n\delta \in \D\ |\ \alpha \in \dot \D^J, n \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}\} \cup
\{n\delta \ |\ n \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}\setminus \{0\} \},$$ of $\dot \D^J$ (in $\D$).
Define ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}\xspace}_J={\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}_{\rm nat}+\sum_{\alpha\in \D^J}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}_{\alpha}$. This is the parabolic subalgebra of type II associated with $J$. Again it admits modifications as in Remark \[imag-multiple\] but we will not consider it though the main statement remains valid also in this case. If $J
= \emptyset$ then ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}\xspace}_{\emptyset}={\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}_{\rm nat}+G$. The parabolic subalgebra ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}\xspace}_J$ has the Levi decomposition ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}\xspace}_J=\mathfrak l_J\oplus \mathfrak n_J$ where $\mathfrak l_J$ is a Lie subalgebra generated by ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}_{\alpha}$ with $\alpha\in \D^J$ and $\mathfrak n_J=\sum_{\alpha\in P_{\rm nat}\setminus \D^J}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}_{\alpha}$. Note that $\mathfrak l_{\emptyset}=G+{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{H}}}$.
Denote $\mathfrak n_{\bar J}=\sum_{\alpha\in -P_{\rm nat}\setminus \D^J}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}_{\alpha}$. Then we have the following decomposition of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}$: ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}=\mathfrak n_{\bar J}\oplus {\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}\xspace}_J= \mathfrak n_{\bar J}\oplus \mathfrak l_J\oplus \mathfrak n_J$. Note that this may not be a triangular decomposition in the classical sense of [@MP]. Nevertheless this decomposition allows us to construct families of induced modules.
We say that a subset $S \subseteq J$ is connected if the Coxeter-Dynkin diagram associated to the simple roots $\alpha_i$, $i\in S$ is connected. Then $J=\cup_{t\in T}S_t$ where $S_t$’s are connected components of the Coxeter-Dynkin diagram associated to $J$. Each subset $S_t$ gives rise to an affine root subsystem of $\D^J $ which generates an affine Lie subalgebra $\mathfrak l_J(S_t)\subset \mathfrak l_J$. Also denote by $G_J\subset
G$ the orthogonal completion (with respect to the Killing form) of the Heisenberg subalgebra $G(\mathfrak l_J)$ of $\mathfrak l_J$. Then $G=G_J+G(\mathfrak l_J)$, $[G_J, \mathfrak l_J]=0$ and we have $$\mathfrak l_J=\sum_{t\in T}\mathfrak l_J(S_t) + G_J +{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{H}}}.$$
Induced modules
---------------
We will assume that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}\xspace}_J$ is the parabolic subalgebra of type II associated with fixed subset $J$, ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}\xspace}_J=\mathfrak l_J\oplus \mathfrak n_J$. Let $N$ be a weight (with respect to ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{H}}}$) module over ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}\xspace}_J$ with a trivial action of $\mathfrak n_J$. Define the induced ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}$-module $$M_{J}(N)={\rm ind}_N({\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}\xspace}_J, {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}).$$
This is the [*generalized Imaginary Verma module*]{} associated with $J$ and $N$.
If $N$ is irreducible then $M_{J}(N)$ has a unique irreducible quotient $L_{J}(N)$. Basis properties of modules $M_J(N)$ are collected in the following proposition. Details of the proofs can be found in [@F2].
Let $J \subseteq
I$ and $N$ irreducible weight $\mathfrak l_J$-module. Then $M_J(N)$ has the following properties.
- The module $M_J(N)$ is a free $U(\frak{n}_{\bar J})$-module.
- Let $V$ be a nonzero ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}$-module generated by a weight vector $v$ such that $\frak{n}_{J}v=0$. Set $N=U(\mathfrak l_J)v$. Then there exists a unique surjective homomorphism $\psi:M_J(N) \mapsto V$ such that $\psi (1\otimes v) = v$. If $V$ is irreducible then $N$ is irreducible $\mathfrak l_J$-module and $V\simeq L_J(N)$.
- $M_J(N)$ is a weight module. Moreover, $0 < \dim M_J(N)_{\mu} <
\infty$ if and only if $\mu$ is a weight of $N$ and $0 < \dim N_{\mu}< \infty$.
- If $N$ is irreducible $\mathfrak l$-module then the subspace of $\mathfrak n_J$-invariants in $L_J(N)$ is the class of $1\otimes N$.
- If $J=\emptyset$ and $N$ is a highest weight $G$-module generated by a weight vector $v$ such that $hv=\lambda(h)v$ for any $h\in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{H}}}$ and some $\lambda\in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{H}}}^*$ and $\mathfrak n_{\emptyset} v=0$ then $M_{\emptyset}(N)$ is an Imaginary Verma type module $M(\lambda)$ generated by an eigenvector for the natural Borel subalgebra ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}_{\rm nat}$.
<!-- -->
- Generalized loop modules considered in [@FK2] and, in particular, ${\varphi}$-Imaginary Verma modules [@BBFK] are partial cases of modules $M_{\emptyset}(N)$ when $N$ is irreducible $G$-module;
- Pseudo-parabolic induction considered in [@FK1] is a particular case of modules $M_{J}(N)$ where $ G_J N=0$.
Set $M^t_J(N) := 1\otimes N$. This is the “top” part of $M^t_J(N)$ which generates $M_{J}(N)$.
### Tensor $\mathfrak l_J$-modules
Denote $\mathfrak l_J^0=\sum_{t\in T}\mathfrak l_J(S_t)+{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{H}}}$. Hence $\mathfrak l_J=\mathfrak l_J^0+ G_J$ and $[\mathfrak l_J^0, G_J]=0$. If $V$ is an irreducible weight $\mathfrak l_J^0$-module and $W$ is an irreducible $\mathbb Z$-graded $G_J$-module with the same central charge then $V\otimes W$ is naturally an $\mathfrak l_J$-module, a tensor module. If the central charge is $a\in \mathbb C$ then $V\otimes W$ is a module over the tensor product $U(\mathfrak l_J^0)/(c-a)\otimes U(G_J)/(c-a)$.
In the extreme case when $J=\emptyset$ we have $\mathfrak l_J^0={\ensuremath{\mathfrak{H}}}$ and $G_J=G$. Hence $V$ is a $1$-dimensional space and $W$ is a $\mathbb Z$-graded $G$-module. Parabolic induction functor from $G$ to ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}$ was considered in [@FK2].
Suppose now that $J\neq \emptyset$. Let $N$ be an irreducible weight $\mathfrak l_J$-module with a nonzero central charge $a$. Assume that for each positive integer $k$ either $(G_J)_{k\delta}$ or $(G_J)_{-k\delta}$ acts trivially on $N$. Such $\mathfrak l_J$-modules were considered in [@FK1] when inducing from pseudo parabolic subalgebras. We will show that any such irreducible module is a tensor module. Without loss of generality we assume that $(G_J)_{k\delta}N=0$ for all positive integer $k$.
$N$ is a tensor $\mathfrak l_J$-module, that is $N\simeq V\otimes W$ where $V$ is irreducible weight $\mathfrak l_J^0$-module and $W$ is irreducible $\mathbb Z$-graded $G_J$-module.
Choose nonzero element $v\in N$. Denote $V=U(\mathfrak l_J^0)v$ and $W=U(G_J)v$. It is standard that $W$ is irreducible $G_J$-module since the central charge is nonzero and $G_J^+v=0$. Suppose $V$ is not irreducible and $V'$ is a nonzero proper $\mathfrak l_J^0$-submodule. Take any nonzero $v'\in V'$. Then $v'=xv$ for some $x\in U(\mathfrak l_J^0)$. Since $N$ is irreducible there exists $y\in U(G_J)$ such that $yxv=v$. Moreover, we can assume that $y\in U(G_J^-)$. But the $G_J$-module $U(G_J)xv$ is irreducible. Hence, there exists $y'\in U(G_J^+)$ such that $y'yxv=y'v=xv$. But $y'v=0$, thus $v'=xv=0$ which is a contradiction. We conclude that $V$ is $\mathfrak l_J^0$-module. Then $V\otimes W$ is irreducible $\mathfrak l_J$-module. Consider a map $f:V\otimes W\rightarrow N$, sending $xv\otimes yv$ to $xyv$ which is clearly a homomorphism since $\mathfrak l_J^0$ and $G_J$ commute. We immediately see that $f$ is surjective since $N$ is irreducible. If $xyv=0$ then choose $y'$ as above. We have $0=y'yxv=xv$ and $f$ is injective. Therefore, $N\simeq V\otimes W$.
These are all known cases when parabolic induction preserves irreducibility and in all cases we induce from certain tensor modules. Combining techniques from [@FK1] and [@FK2] we will extend the proof to all tensor modules.
Irreducibility of Generalized Imaginary Verma modules
=====================================================
In this section we prove our main result by finding conditions for a module $M_{J}(N)$ to be irreducible.
Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}\xspace}_J=\mathfrak l_J\oplus \mathfrak n_J$ and $N\in W_{\mathfrak l}$. Denote by $T_J(N)$ the subspace of $\mathfrak n_J$-invariants in $M_J(N)$, that is $v\in T_J(N)$ if and only if $ \mathfrak n_J v=0$.
\[thm-glav\] If $U$ is an irreducible admissible tensor module in $\widetilde{W}_{\mathfrak l}$ then $T_J(U)=M^t_J(U)$.
The proof of Theorem \[thm-glav\] combines the proofs of Theorem 2 from [@FK2] and Theorem 3.1 from [@FK1] where particular cases of parabolic induction were considered.
For any subset $\omega\subset I$, let $Q^{\omega}_{\pm}$ denote a semigroup of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{H}}}^*$ generated by $\pm \alpha_i$, $i\in \omega$. Set $Q^J = \oplus_{j \in J} {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}\alpha_j
\oplus {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}\delta$ and $Q_{\pm}=Q^{I}_{\pm}$. Then $Q_{\pm}^J= Q^J \cap Q_{\pm}$.
Let $\alpha\in Q^{J}_{-}$ and $\alpha = -\sum_{j\in \omega} k_j \alpha_j$, where each $k_j$ is in $\mathbb Z_{\geq 0}$. We set $\mathsf {ht}_{J}(\alpha) = \sum_{j=1}^n k_j$, the *J-height* of $\alpha$.
Let $v\in M_J(N)$ be a nonzero weight element. Then $$v=\sum_{i\in R} u_iv_i,$$ for some finite set $R$, where $u_i\in U(\mathfrak n_{\bar{J}})$ are linearly independent homogeneous elements, $v_i\in N$, $i\in R$. Since $v$ is a weight vector then each $u_i$ is a homogeneous element of $U(\mathfrak n_{\bar{J}})$. Its homogeneous degree is an element of $Q_-^{\bar{J}}+ Q^J+{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}\delta$. Suppose that $u_i$ has homogeneous degree $${\varphi}_i= -\sum_{j\in \bar{J}} k_{ij} \alpha_j+\sum_{j\in J} l_{ij} \alpha_j+ m_i\delta,$$ where $k_{ij}\in\mathbb Z_{\geq 0}$ not all zeros, $l_{ij}\in\mathbb Z$ and $m_i\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}\xspace}$. Since $v$ is a weight vector then all ${\varphi}_i$ have the same J-height. We will call it the [*J-height*]{} of $v$ and denote $\mathsf {ht}_{J}(v)$.
\[lem-ht-big\] Suppose $U\in \widetilde{W}_{\mathfrak l}$ and $v\in M_J(U)$ a nonzero weight element such that $\mathsf {ht}_{J}(v)>1$. Then there exists $u\in U(\mathfrak n_J)$ such that $uv\neq 0$ and $\mathsf {ht}_{J}(uv)=\mathsf {ht}_{J}(v)-1$.
Let $v=\sum_{i\in R} u_iv_i,$ where $u_i\in U(\mathfrak n_{\bar J})$ are linearly independent homogeneous elements and $v_i\in U$ are nonzero elements, $i\in R$. We assume that for each $i$, $u_i$ has homogeneous degree ${\varphi}_i$ and all ${\varphi}_i$ have the same J-height. Then we can apply exactly the same argument as in the proof of the induction step in Lemma 5.3 in [@BBFK]. We refer to [@BBFK] for details.
It follows immediately from Lemma \[lem-ht-big\] that $T_J(N)$ can not contain nonzero elements of J-height $\mathsf {ht}_{J}(v)>1$. Indeed, any such element would generated a proper submodule whose elements would have J-heights $\geq \mathsf {ht}_{J}(v)$ which contradicts Lemma \[lem-ht-big\]. Note that the proof of Lemma \[lem-ht-big\] does not work in the case when $\mathsf {ht}_{J}(v)=1$. This case requires a more delicate treatment. We consider first the case when $J=\emptyset$. This case was treated in [@FK2] where the key point was Lemma 1. But the proof of this lemma is somewhat incomplete so we address the proof here in more details.
Set $\mathfrak l=\mathfrak l_{\emptyset}=G+{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{H}}}$.
\[lem-heis\] Let $W\in \widetilde{W}_{\mathfrak l}$ be an irreducible and admissible, $v\in W$ a nonzero element and $u_2, \ldots, u_s\in U(G)$ nonzero homogeneous elements of nonzero degrees $k_2, \ldots k_s$ respectively, that is $u_i\in U(G)_{k_i\delta}$, such that $u_iv\neq 0$, $i=2, \ldots, s$, $k_i\neq k_j$ if $i\neq j$. Then there exists $N\in \mathbb Z$ for which $$z_N=x_N v+ \sum_{i=2}^s x_{N-k_i} u_i v\neq 0$$ for any choice of nonzero $x_k\in G_{k\delta}$ such that $[x_k, x_{-k}]\neq 0$.
Since $W$ is admissible we can assume without loss of generality that $k_i+k_j\neq 0$ for all $i\neq j$. This implies $[u_i, u_j]=0$ and $[x_{N-k_i}, x_{-N-k_j}]=0$ for all $i,j$. Fix $N\in \mathbb Z$ and suppose that $z_N=z_{-N}=0.$ We will assume $N$ sufficiently large. We have $x_{N}v=-\sum_{i=2}^s x_{N-k_i} u_iv$ and $x_{-N}v=-\sum_{i=2}^s x_{-N-k_i}
u_iv$. Then $$[x_{N}, x_{-N}]v=(-x_N\sum_{i=2}^s x_{-N-k_i}u_i+x_{-N}\sum_{i=2}^s x_{N-k_i} u_i)v,$$ since $[x_{N}, u_i]=[x_{-N}, u_i]=[x_{N-k_i}, x_{-N}]=[x_{N}, x_{-N-k_i}]=0$.
Fix $j=2, \ldots, s$. Then $x_{N-k_j}u_jv=-x_{N}v-\sum_{2\leq i\neq j} x_{N-k_i} u_iv$ and $x_{-N-k_j}u_jv=-x_{-N}v-\sum_{2\leq i\neq j} x_{-N-k_i}
u_iv$. We have $$[x_{N-k_j}u_j, x_{-N-k_j}u_j]v= - x_{-N} x_{N-k_j} u_j v- x_{N-k_j}\sum_{2\leq i\neq j} x_{-N-k_i}u_j u_i v +$$ $$+ x_{N} x_{-N-k_j}u_j v + x_{-N-k_j}u_j(\sum_{2\leq i\neq j} x_{N-k_i}u_i) v.$$ Since $k_j\neq 0$, $[x_{N-k_j}u_j, x_{-N-k_j}u_j]=0$ for all $j=2, \ldots, s$. We sum up all these equalities for $j=2, \ldots, s$: $$0=\sum_{j=2}^s (- x_{-N} x_{N-k_j} + x_{N} x_{-N-k_j})u_j v - \sum_{j=2}^s x_{N-k_j}(\sum_{2\leq i\neq j} x_{-N-k_i}u_j u_i) v$$ $$+ \sum_{j=2}^s x_{-N-k_j}(\sum_{2\leq i\neq j} x_{N-k_i}u_ju_i) v =$$ $$\sum_{j=2}^s (- x_{-N} x_{N-k_j} + x_{N} x_{-N-k_j})u_j v = -[x_{N}, x_{-N}]v\neq 0$$ which is a contradiction. Hence, $z_N=0$ or $z_{-N}=0$ which completes the proof.
\[cor-ht-empty\] Suppose $J=\emptyset$, $W\in \widetilde{W}_{\mathfrak l}$ is irreducible and $v\in M_J(W)$ a nonzero weight element such that $\mathsf {ht}_{J}(v)=1$. Then there exists $d\in U(\mathfrak n_J)$ such that $dv\neq 0$ and $\mathsf {ht}_{J}(dv)=0$.
Since $v\in M_J(W)$ a weight element then $$v=\sum_{r\in R} d_rw_r,$$ where $d_r\in \mathfrak n_{\bar \emptyset}$ are linearly independent, $w_r\in W$, $r\in R$. Fix $r_0\in R$ and assume $d_{r_0}\in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}_{{\varphi}}$. Choose an integer $N$ and let $d\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}_{-{\varphi}+N\delta}\subset \mathfrak n_{\emptyset}$ be a nonzero element. Then $[d, d_{r_0}]\neq 0$ and we have $$dv=d d_{r_0}w_{r_0} + d \sum_{r\in R, r\neq r_0} d_r w_r=$$ $$=[d, d_{r_0}]w_{r_0}+ \sum_{r\in R, r\neq r_0}[d, d_r]w_r.$$ Since $W$ is irreducible there exist $u_r\in U(G)$, $r\in R$ such that $w_r=u_rw_{r_0}$. Note that all $u_r$ have different homogeneous degrees as $d_r$ were linearly independent. Note that $[d, d_{r_0}]\in G_{N\delta}$. Applying Lemma \[lem-heis\] for a sufficiently large $N$ we obtain $dv\neq 0$ and $\mathsf {ht}_{J}(dv)=0$.
Next we consider the case $J\neq \emptyset$.
\[lem-tensor-module\] Let $U$ be a tensor module in $\widetilde{W}_{\mathfrak l}$, $U\simeq V\otimes W$ where $V$ is irreducible weight $\mathfrak l_J^0$-module and $W$ is irreducible $\mathbb Z$-graded $G_J$-module. Choose nonzero $v_1,\ldots, v_k\in V$ and nonzero $w_1,\ldots, w_k\in W$. Fix an integer $N>0$ and nonzero $x_{\pm N}\in G_{\pm N\delta}$, such that $x_{\pm N}\notin \mathfrak l_J^0$ and $[x_N, x_{-N}]\neq 0$. Then for any $a_i, b_i\in U(\mathfrak l_J)$, $i=2, \ldots, k$ and sufficiently large $N$ we have $$x_{-N}(v_1\otimes w_1) +\sum_{i=2}^k a_i v_i\otimes w_i\neq 0$$ or $$x_{N}(v_1\otimes w_1) +\sum_{i=2}^k b_i v_i\otimes w_i\neq 0.$$
Assume $$z=x_{-N}(v_1\otimes w_1) +\sum_{i=2}^k a_i v_i\otimes w_i=0.$$ Suppose first that $[x_{\pm N}, \mathfrak l_J^0]=0$, that is $x_{\pm N}\in G_J$. Then $$x_{N}z=v_1\otimes x_{N}x_{-N}w_1 +\sum_{i=2}^k a_i v_i\otimes x_{N}w_i=0.$$ If $N$ is sufficiently large then $x_{N}w_i$ have different gradings than $w_1$, $i=2, \ldots, k$ and thus $x_{N}x_{-N}w_1=0$. Similarly, if $v_1\otimes x_{N}w_1 +\sum_{i=2}^k b_i v_i\otimes w_i=0$ then $x_{-N}x_{N}w_1=0$. But this is a contradiction. Consider now a general case. We have $x_{\pm N}=x_{\pm N}^1+x_{\pm N}^2$ where $[x_{\pm N}^1, \mathfrak l_J^0]=0$ and $x_{\pm N}^2\in \mathfrak l_J^0$. Moreover, $x_{\pm N}^1\neq 0$ since $x_{\pm N}\notin \mathfrak l_J^0$ and $[x_{N}^1, x_{-N}^1]\neq 0$. Then $$z=v_1\otimes x_{-N}^1w_1+ x_{-N}^2v_1\otimes w_1 +\sum_{i=2}^k a_i v_i\otimes w_i=0$$ and $$x_{N}^1z=v_1\otimes x_{N}^1x_{-N}^1w_1+ x_{-N}^2v_1\otimes x_{N}^1w_1 +\sum_{i=2}^k a_i v_i\otimes x_{N}^1w_i=0.$$ Then we proceed as in the previous case and conclude $x_{N}^1x_{-N}^1w_1=0$. Replacing $N$ by $-N$ we obtain $x_{-N}^1x_{N}^1w_1=0$ implying $w_1=0$ which is a contradiction. This completes the proof.
\[cor-ht-not-empty\] Let $U\simeq V\otimes W$ be a tensor module in $\widetilde{W}_{\mathfrak l}$, where $V$ is irreducible weight $\mathfrak l_J^0$-module and $W$ is irreducible $G_J$-module. For a nonzero weight element $v\in M_J(U)$ with $\mathsf {ht}_{J}(v)=1$ there exists $u\in U(\mathfrak n_J)$ such that $uv\neq 0$ and $\mathsf {ht}_{J}(uv)=0$.
Let $v=\sum_{r\in R} d_r (v_r\otimes w_r),$ where $d_r\in \mathfrak n_{\bar J}$ are linearly independent, $v_r\in V$, $w_r\in W$, $r\in R$. We proceed as in the proof of Corollary \[cor-ht-empty\]. Fix $r_0\in R$ and assume $d_{r_0}\in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}_{{\varphi}}$. Choose an integer $N$ and let $t_{\pm N}\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}_{-{\varphi}\pm N\delta}\subset \mathfrak n_{J}$ be nonzero elements. Then $x_{\pm N}=[t_{\pm N}, d_{r_0}]\neq 0$. Moreover, $[x_N, x_{-N}]\neq 0$ and we have $$t_{\pm N}v=t_{\pm N} d_{r_0}(v_{r_0}\otimes w_{r_0}) + t_{\pm N} \sum_{r\in R, r\neq r_0} d_r(v_r \otimes w_r)=$$ $$=x_{\pm N}(v_{r_0}\otimes w_{r_0}) + \sum_{r\in R, r\neq r_0}[t_{\pm N}, d_r](v_r \otimes w_r).$$ Applying Lemma \[lem-tensor-module\] we conclude that at least one of $t_{\pm N}v$ is not zero. Since $\mathsf {ht}_{J}(t_{\pm N}v)=0$ the corollary is proved.
We can now prove Theorem \[thm-glav\].
Proof of Theorem \[thm-glav\]
-----------------------------
Let $v\in T_J(U)$ be a nonzero weight element and $\mathsf {ht}_{J}(v)=s\geq 1$. Consider a ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}$-submodule $\mathcal N$ of $M_J(U)$ generated by $v$, $\mathcal N=U({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}})v$. Since $\mathfrak n_J v=0$ we have that $\mathcal N$ is a proper submodule of $M_J(U)$ and all its weight elements have $\mathsf {ht}_{J}$ greater or equal than $s$. But this is a contradiction since by Lemma \[lem-ht-big\], Corollary \[cor-ht-not-empty\] and Corollary \[cor-ht-empty\] we can always find $u\in ({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}})$ such that $uv\neq 0$ and $\mathsf {ht}_{J}(uv)=\mathsf {ht}_{J}(v)-1$. Therefore $\mathsf {ht}_{J}(v)$ must be zero and $T_J(U)=M^t_J(U)$.
Applying Theorem \[thm-glav\] we have
\[cor-irr\] If $U$ is an irreducible admissible tensor module in $\widetilde{W}_{\mathfrak l}$ then the induced module $M_J(U)$ is irreducible.
Corollary \[cor-irr\] immediately implies Theorem \[the-main\] which provides a powerful tool to construct new irreducible representations for affine Lie algebras by inducing from irreducible tensor modules from $\widetilde{W}_{\mathfrak l}$. We conclude with the following observation.
It would be interesting to see if Theorem \[thm-glav\] extends to any admissible tensor module $U$ in $\widetilde{W}_{\mathfrak l}$. This would lead to an equivalence of certain subcategories of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{G}}}$-modules and $\mathfrak l_J$-modules. Another problem is to check if admissible tensor modules exhaust all irreducible modules in $\widetilde{W}_{\mathfrak l}$.
Acknowledgment
==============
V.F. is supported in part by the CNPq grant (301320/2013-6) and by the Fapesp grant (2014/09310-5). I.K. is supported by the CNPq grant (309742/2013-7) and by the Fapesp grant (2016/08740-1). The authors are grateful to the referee for useful remarks.
[999]{} V.Bekkert, G.Benkart, V.Futorny, I.Kashuba, New Irreducible Modules for Heisenberg and affine Lie Algebras. J. Algebra 373 (2013), 284-298. T.Bunke, Classification of irreducible non-dense modules for $A_2^{(2)}$, Algebra Discrete Math., 2 (2009), 11-26. B.Cox, Verma modules induced from nonstandard Borel subalgebras, Pacific J. Math. [**165**]{} (1994), 269–294. I. Dimitrov and D. Grantcharov, Simple weight modules of affine Lie algebras. arXiv:0910.0688. I. Dimitrov, V.Futorny, D.Grantcharov, Parabolic sets of roots, Contemporary Mathematics, 499, (2009), 61-73. V.Futorny, Imaginary Verma modules for affine Lie algebras, Canad. Math. Bull., v. 37(2), 1994, 213-218. V.Futorny, Representations of affine Lie algebras, Queen’s Papers in Pure and Applied Math., v. 106 (1997), Kingston, Ont., Canada. V.Futorny, The parabolic subsets of root systems and corresponding representations of affine Lie algebras, Contemporary Math., 131 (1992), part 2, 45-52. V.Futorny, Irreducible non-dense $A_1^{(1)}$-modules, Pacific J. of Math. 172 (1996), 83-99. V. Futorny, I.Kashuba, Induced modules for Kac-Moody Lie algebras, SIGMA - Symmetry, Integrability and Geometry: Methods and Applications [**5**]{} (2009), Paper 026. V.Futorny, I. Kashuba, Generalized loop modules for affine Kac-Moody algebras, Developments in Mathematics. 1ed.: Springer International Publishing, 2014, v. 496, p. 175-183. V.Futorny and H.Saifi, Modules of Verma type and new irreducible representations for affine Lie Algebras, CMS Conference Proceedings, v.14 (1993), 185-191. V.Futorny, A.Tsylke, Classification of irreducible nonzero level modules with finite-dimensional weight spaces for affine Lie algebras, J. Algebra 238 (2001), 426-441. H.Jakobsen and V.Kac, A new class of unitarizable highest weight representations of infinite dimensional Lie algebras, Lecture Notes in Physics [**226**]{} (1985), Springer-Verlag, 1–20. H.Jakobsen and V.Kac, A new class of unitarizable highest weight representations of infinite dimensional Lie algebras, J. Funct. Anal. 82 (1989), 69-90. V.Kac, Infinite dimensional Lie algebras, Cambridge University Press, third edition, 1990. Funkts. anal. i ego prilozhen. 21 (1987), 84-85. B.Moody, A.Pianzola, Lie Algebras with triangular decomposition, J.Wiley, 1994.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that the scalar curvature of a steady gradient Ricci soliton satisfying that the ratio between the square norm of the Ricci tensor and the square of the scalar curvature is bounded by one half, is boundend from below by the hyperbolic secant of one half the distance function from a fixed point.'
address: 'Faculty of Mathematics, University of Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain'
author:
- 'Manuel Fernández-López, Eduardo García-Río'
title: A sharp lower bound for the scalar curvature of certain steady gradient Ricci solitons
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
A *Ricci soliton* is a Riemannian manifold $(M,g)$ that admits a smooth vector field $X$ on $M$ such that $$\label{soliton}
\frac12\mathcal{L}_Xg+ Rc=\lambda g,$$ where $\mathcal{L}_X$ is the Lie derivative in the direction of the vector field $X$, $Rc$ denotes the Ricci tensor and $\lambda$ is a constant. When the vector field $X$ can be replaced by the gradient of some smooth function $f$ on $M,$ called the *potential function*, $(M,g)$ is said to be a *gradient Ricci soliton*. In such a case the equation (\[soliton\]) becomes $$\label{gradientsoliton}
Rc+H_f=\lambda g,$$ where $H_f$ denotes the Hessian of the function $f$. A Ricci soliton (\[soliton\]) is said to be *shrinking*, *steady* or *expanding* according to $\lambda >0$, $\lambda=0$ or $\lambda <0$. [@C] is a very intesting paper for recent information on this topic.
For steady gradient Ricci solitons it is well-known ([@C], for example) that $R+|\nabla f|^2=C,$ where $C$ is a positive constant, unless the steady soliton is Ricci flat. We scale the metric to have the constant equal to $1.$
Very recently it was given in [@CLY] a lower bound for the scalar curvature of a steady gradient Ricci solitons in terms of the dimension of the manifold and the potential function, under additional assumptions. However there is no a good knwoledge of the behaviour of the potential function of a steady gradient soliton, and thus the bound cannot be expresed in an explicit way in terms of the distance function. In this paper we show the following
\[th\] Let $(M,g)$ be a complete gradient steady Ricci soliton satifying $|Rc|^2\leq \frac{R^2}{2}$ and normalized as before. Then $$R(x)\geq k{\mathrm{sech}}^2 \frac{r(x)}{2},$$ where $r(x)$ is the distance from a fixed point $O\in M$ and $k\leq 1$ is a constant that only depends on $O$ and $R(O).$
Note that on the scaled Hamilton’s cigar soliton $\left(\mathbb{R}^2, \frac{4(dx^2+dy^2)}{1+x^2+y^2}\right)$ one has $R+|\nabla f|^2=1$ and $R(x)={\mathrm{sech}}^2 \frac{r(x)}{2},$ where the distance $r(x)$ is measured from the only point where the scalar curvature attains its maximum. This shows that our lower bound is sharp in dimension two. In higher dimensions, if we consider the product of Hamilton’s cigar soliton and any complete Ricci flat manifold, we also have that our bound is sharp. Indeed, note that we actually have equality when moving in the direction of the cigar, where the distance $r(x)$ is measured again from the only point where the scalar curvature attains its maximum.
It is also possible to give a lower bound for the scalar curvature assuming that the Ricci tensor is nonnegative. In such a case we do not know if such a bound is sharp, because we do not know of any example where the equality is achieved.
\[co\] Let $(M,g)$ be a complete gradient steady Ricci soliton with nonnegative Ricci curvature and normalized as before. Then $$R(x)\geq k{\mathrm{sech}}^2 r(x),$$ where $r(x)$ is the distance from a fixed point $O\in M$ and $k\leq 1$ is a constant that only depends on $O$ and $R(O).$
Proofs of the results
=====================
[**Proof of Theorem \[th\].-**]{}
From Kato’s inequality, at every point where $\nabla f$ does not vanish, we have
$$|H_f|^2=|\nabla \nabla f|^2\geq |\nabla |\nabla f||^2 = |\nabla \sqrt{1-R}|^2=\frac{|\nabla R|^2}{4|\nabla f|^2,}$$ or, equivalently,
$$|\nabla R|^2\leq 4 |H_f|^2|\nabla f|^2.$$ By assumption we have that $|H_f|^2=|Rc|^2\leq \frac{R^2}{2}.$ Thus
$$\frac{|\nabla R|}{R\sqrt{1 -R}}\leq 1.$$ Now, let $O$ a fixed point on $M$ and let $\gamma:[0,t]\rightarrow M$ be a minimizing geodesic with $\gamma(0)=O.$ Integrating the function $\frac{-(R\circ \gamma)'}{R\sqrt{1 -R}}$ along $\gamma(s)$ we get $$\left[ \ln \frac{1+\sqrt{1-R}}{1-\sqrt{1-R}}\right]_0^t= -\int_0^t \frac{(R\circ \gamma)'}{R\sqrt{1 -R}}ds \leq \int_0^t \frac{|\nabla R|^2}{R\sqrt{1 -R}} ds \leq t.$$ Writing $c=\frac{1+\sqrt{1-R(O)}}{1-\sqrt{1-R(O)}}$ we get that $$1+\sqrt{1-R(\gamma(t))}\leq ce^t (1-\sqrt{1-R(\gamma(t))}).$$ Then it is a straightforward computation to get that $$R(\gamma(t))\geq \frac{4c}{c^2e^t+2c+e^{-t}}.$$ Now, since $c\geq 1,$ we have that $$R(\gamma(t))\geq \frac{4c}{c^2e^t+2c+e^{-t}}\geq \frac{4c}{c^2e^t+2c^2+c^2e^{-t}} =\frac{1}{c}{\mathrm{sech}}^2 \frac{t}{2}.$$ Since the geodesic $\gamma$ and $t$ are arbitrary we have finished the proof. $\hfill{q.e.d}$
Note that the scalar curvature $R$ may take the value $1$ along the geodesic $\gamma([0,t]).$ Since gradient Ricci solitons are analytic manifolds we have two possibilities. If the set of points where $R$ takes the value $1$ on $\gamma([0,t])$ has a point of accumulation then $R$ must be constant and the proof works. In other case, we only have a finite set of points $\gamma([0,t])$ where $R$ takes the value $1.$ Then we have to deal, eventually, with a finite number of improper integrals, and the proof also works.
[**Proof of Corollary \[co\].-**]{} Proceeding as in the proof of the theorem and using the inequality $|H_f|^2= |Rc|^2\leq R^2$ we get $$\frac{|\nabla R|}{R\sqrt{1 -R}}\leq 2.$$ Then the result is obtained following the same steps as in the theorem. $\hfill{q.e.d}$
[10]{} H.-D. Cao; Recent progress on Ricci solitons. *Recent advances in geometric analysis*, 138, Adv. Lect. Math. (ALM), 11, Int. Press, Somerville, MA, 2010.
B. Chow, P. Lu and B. Yang; A lower bound for the scalar curvature of certain steady gradient Ricci solitons. arXiv:1102.0424v1
[^1]: Supported by projects MTM2006-01432 and PGIDIT06PXIB207054PR (Spain)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We developed a new method for fabricating crystalline whispering gallery mode cavities based on laser-heated pedestal growth. We fabricated sapphire cavities and obtained a $Q$ factor of $1.6\times \mathrm{10^{4}}$ with a cavity whose diameter was about $240~\mathrm{\mu m}$. We showed numerically that the cross-sectional shape of the cavity is sensitive to the cavity $Q$, and we controlled it successfully by changing the growth condition in the molten zone, without significantly degrading the crystal structure.'
author:
- Hiroshi Kudo
- Yohei Ogawa
- Takumi Kato
- Atsushi Yokoo
- Takasumi Tanabe
title: Fabrication of whispering gallery mode cavity using crystal growth
---
Recent progress on micro- and nano-fabrication technologies has made it possible to utilize ultra-small cavities with an ultrahigh quality factor ($Q$) for applications such as low-power all-optical switches,[@ref20; @tanabe_apl; @nozaki] compact optical memories,[@ref21; @tanabe_ol; @yoshiki] and optical sensors.[@armani2007; @ref10] Those applications are possible because a high $Q/V$ cavity exhibits various optical nonlinearities even at a very low input power ($V$ is the mode volume of the cavity). Among various type of microcavities, a whispering gallery mode (WGM) microcavity exhibits the highest $Q$.[@ref12] An ultra high $Q$ WGM cavity is particularly attractive as a building block for an ultra-narrow linewidth laser source[@liang2010] and a stable frequency comb source.[@ref22] A toroid microcavity[@ref1] and a bottle microcavity,[@ref2] both made of $\mathrm{SiO_{2}}$, exhibit record high $Q$s of about $\mathrm{10^{8}}$. As has been proven with optical fibers, the loss of $\mathrm{SiO_{2}}$ is ultralow; hence, it is an attractive material for fabricating WGM cavities. Although the $Q$ of a WGM cavity is currently limited by losses such as water absorption loss and fabrication errors, it has the potential to reach $Q \simeq 10^{10}$, which is the limitation caused by the material absorption of $\mathrm{SiO_2}$.
But crystalline materials such as $\mathrm{CaF_2}$ and $\mathrm{MgF_2}$ should exhibit even higher $Q$ value due to the ultra-low absorption coefficients of the material.[@ref16] They also have various unique characteristics such as, large mechanical stiffness and a large $\chi^{(2)}$ coefficient, which are attractive for opto-mechanics studies[@ref4] and electro-optic modulation.[@ref7; @ref23] However, crystal resonators are not as simple to fabricate as $\mathrm{SiO_2}$ resonators, because we cannot use a conventional semiconductor process or a laser reflow process. The use of precise machining has been demonstrated,[@ref8] but the fabrication of smooth surfaces is extremely challenging for small WGM microcavities because ductile mode cutting is difficult with crystalline material that is usually fragile.[@kakinuma]
In this work, we develop a new technique for fabricating small crystalline WGM microcavities by employing laser-heated pedestal growth (LHPG).[@ref6; @ref5] LHPG was originally developed for growing a thin rod-shaped single crystal for manufacturing fiber lasers, and can be applied to various materials such as $\mathrm{Al_{2}O_{3}}$, $\mathrm{LiNbO_3}$ and YAG.[@ref9] Since this method does not require complex precise machining it is easy and robust. If we apply LHPG to the fabrication of WGM microcavities, a smooth cavity surface will be obtained because it uses surface tension during crystal growth. However, crystals tend to grow faster in specific directions, and we need to find methods to control the longitudinal and cross sectional shape of the grown crystal to form a WGM cavity.
For our proof-of-principle demonstration, we used sapphire ($\mathrm{Al_2 O_3}$), which is a good material for constructing optical devices. It can be used as a host for an optical gain material, and moreover it exhibits an ultrahigh $Q$ at infrared wavelengths [@ref16], which is an interesting wavelength regime for sensing applications.
![(Color online) (a) Schematic illustration of experimental setup. AL: ZnSe axicon lens, FR: feed rod, SR: seed rod, M: gold flat mirror with a hole at the center, CM: concave gold mirror (curvature = 100 mm) with a hole at the center, MZ: molten zone. A $\mathrm{ CO_{2}}$ laser with diameter $\phi$ and beam parameter product $M^2$ is used to heat the crystal rods. (b) Side view of the fabricated sapphire WGM microcavity. (c) TM-mode profile calculated with the finite-element method. (d) Cross section of the fabricated sapphire WGM microcavity without pre-heating the seed rod. (e) As (d) but the seed rod is pre-heated.[]{data-label="fig:1"}](1.eps){width="3.2in"}
Figure \[fig:1\](a) is the LHPG setup that we used for our experiment. We used a $\mathrm{CO_2}$ laser (Coherent DIAMOND C-70) for heating the rods. The $\mathrm{CO_{2}}$ laser beam is formed into a donut shape by using a pair of axicon ZnSe lenses. This prevents the beam from hitting the base rod directly before it enters the setup. The donut shaped laser beam is focused on the top of the base rod with $\mathrm{360^{o}}$ axial symmetry by using a concave mirror with a curvature radius of 50 mm. This creates a spot with a size of $4.65 \times \mathrm{10^{-4}}~\mathrm{cm^{2}}$ in size, which enables us to obtain a power density of $8.58 \times 10^7~\mathrm{W/m^{2}}$ at the molten zone when the $\mathrm{CO_{2}}$ laser power is 4.0 W. The sapphire rods are fitted with a chuck to the computer controlled translation stages (Oriental Motor ASM46MA), and then placed near the focus of the concave mirror through a hole drilled at the center of the mirrors. The diameters of the base and seed sapphire rods are both $425~\mathrm{\mu m}$. Theoretically, the seed rod diameter does not affect to the diameter of the grown rod.
The tip of the feed crystal rod is heated by the $\mathrm{CO_{2}}$ laser beam (this forms a molten zone), and then a crystal fiber is grown by pulling the feed rod upwards at a speed of $v_1$, while the seed rod is moved in the same direction with a speed of $v_2$ ($v_1 > v_2$). The diameter $D$ of the grown fiber is given as, ${D_1}=({D_2}\sqrt{v_2})/(\sqrt{v_1})$, where ${D_2}$ is the diameter of the base rod. Our strategy is to modulate the speed of the feed and seed rods during growth, in order to fabricate a bulge, which can be used as a WGM cavity.
To demonstrate this idea, we start with standard LHPG. The laser power is set at 4 W and the velocities are set at $v_1=12~\mathrm{\mu m /s}$ and $v_2 = 2~\mathrm{\mu m /s}$. $v_2$ is set six times slower than $v_1$, and this results in the fabrication of a straight rod with a diameter of $174~\mathrm{\mu m}$.
Then we try to form a WGM cavity. For this purpose, we reduced $v_2$ to $6~\mathrm{\mu m/s}$ while keeping the speed of the base rod the same at $v_2 = 2~\mathrm{\mu m /s}$. This corresponds to a speed ratio of $v_1/v_2=1/3$ and will result in a rod with a diameter 1.4 times larger than before. Hence we are able to change the rod diameter locally, which requires us to localize the light in a longitudinal direction. By stopping the feed rod at the end, we obtained a bulge shaped WGM cavity as shown in Fig. \[fig:1\] (b). The diameter of the fabricated cavity was about 0.24 mm, which is close to the value we designed. Figure \[fig:1\] (c) shows the cross sectional intensity distribution of the WGM calculated by using the finite-element method (COMSOL Multiphysics 4.1). This result confirms that the light is localized in both the longitudinal and radius directions. The mode volume of this WGM is $1.28 \times 10^{-2}~\mathrm{mm^{3}}$.
Now we look closely at the cross section of the fabricated device. The cross sectional microscope images are shown in Fig. \[fig:1\](d) and (e). The difference between the two is the growth conditions. As shown in Fig. \[fig:1\](d), the cross section of the fabricated cavity usually becomes hexagonal, since the crystal growth is strongly affected by the crystal plane of the seed rod. Since the crystal structure of the sapphire is trigonal (hexagonal), the grown cavity is also hexagonal. Although polygonal WGM cavities have advantages in terms of controlled coupling,[@kato] it is difficult to obtain an ultra-high $Q$,[@ref17; @ref18] and a circular shape is often preferred. Hence, to obtain a cavity with a circular cross section, we start the crystal growth after pre-heating the seed rod. Before beginning cavity fabrication, we heated the seed rod with a $\mathrm{CO_2}$ laser at a power of 6 W. We believe this procedure enables the rapid heating and annealing of the seed rod and adds some randomness to the crystal structure. Indeed, we obtained a cavity with a circular cross section as shown in Fig. \[fig:1\](e).
We now have methods for controlling the longitudinal and cross-sectional shape of the grown crystal, which makes it possible to fabricate a bulge-shaped crystalline WGM cavity with LHPG. The crystal quality of the fabricated WGM cavity may be degraded due to the pre-heating procedure. Hence, in the next paragraphs we show our optical measurement result and the x-ray diffraction (XRD) spectra and discuss the tradeoffs between the $Q$, cavity shape and crystal quality.
 measured with a conventional tapered fiber setup. We changed the gap distance $\delta$ between the cavity surface and the tapered fiber and measured the transmittance spectrum. $\delta$s are shown in the panel. The dotted line is the Lorenz fit for the spectrum when the tapered fiber is in contact with the WGM microcavity ($\delta=0$ nm). The inset shows the experimental setup.[]{data-label="fig:2"}](2.eps){width="2.8in"}
First we show our optical measurement. We used a conventional tapered fiber setup, with which we used a tapered fiber with a diameter of about $1~\mathrm{\mu m}$ fabricated from a single mode fiber. We controlled the input polarization to excite the TM-WGM mode, and measured the transmittance spectrum by using a wavelength tunable laser (Santec TLS-510). When we measured the transmittance spectrum for a hexagonal cavity (Fig. \[fig:1\](d)), we obtained a $Q$ of $8.5\times 10^3$. On the other hand, we obtained a narrower resonance as shown in Fig. \[fig:2\] for a circular cavity (Fig. \[fig:1\](e)). To confirm that we were indeed measuring the resonance of the cavity, we changed the gap distance $\delta$ between the surface of the cavity and the tapered fiber. We observed a larger dip for a smaller distance, which confirms our measurement. By fitting the transmittance spectrum for $\delta=0$ nm with a Lorentz function, we obtained $Q=1.6\times 10^{4}$. A circular cavity exhibits a higher $Q$ thus revealing the importance of cross-section control during crystal growth. The influence of the cavity shape will be discussed later.
 measured using $2\theta$-$\theta$ method. The inset is the x-ray diffraction image. (b) As (a) for the cavity shown in Fig. \[fig:1\](e). The corresponding crystal plane orientations of $\mathrm{Al_2 O_3}$ are shown in the panel.[]{data-label="fig:3"}](3.eps){width="2.8in"}
Next, we conducted XRD spectrum measurements to analyze the crystal quality of the fabricated devices. We used the $2\theta$-$\theta$ method, which can measure the X-ray diffraction a few $\mathrm{\mu m}$ from the surface, because we are interested in the crystal quality where the WGM exists. Figure \[fig:3\](a) and (b) show the result for hexagonal and circular cavities, respectively. We observed only diffraction peaks that originated from $\mathrm{Al_2 O_3}$. On the other hand, we observed high-order crystal planes in Fig. \[fig:3\](b), which should not appear in our XRD measurement angle if the c-axis was maintained. This indicates the presence of some randomness. However this randomness is limited and the samples retain their crystal structure rather than becoming amorphous, as shown by the bright spots in the 2D diffraction image in the inset of Fig. \[fig:3\](b). In brief, there is a trade-off between the crystalline and the shape; however, the quality of the crystal was not significantly degraded, even for circular cavity fabrication. The experimental optical measurement and XRD results suggest that the cross sectional shape of the cavity is an important factor in determining the $Q$.
Finally, with this in mind, we performed a numerical analysis based on 2D finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) calculations to study the effect of the cross sectional shape of the WGM cavity.
![(Color online) Calculated $Q$-factors with respect to the edge curvature radius $r$ of the hexagonal WGM cavities. The inset in the upper left is the structural model used for the calculation. The cavity radius is $20~\mathrm{\mu m}$ and the refractive index is 2.4. The profiles of the perturbed-WGM for $r=0~\mathrm{\mu m}$ and $16.5~\mathrm{\mu m}$ are shown in the panel.[]{data-label="fig:4"}](4.eps){width="2.8in"}
Figure \[fig:4\] shows that the $Q$ of the WGM mode is higher when the cross section of the cavity becomes close to a circle. Note that the WGM mode we found in Fig. \[fig:4\] is different from that studied in ZnO hexagonal cavities[@ref17; @ref18]. In contrast to the light trace of the known quasi-WGM, which reflects at the side of the cavity, the light of this perturbed-WGM propagates close to the surface at the corner of the polygon and far from the surface at the side of the cavity[@kato]. Since this mode originates from a regular WGM that is available in a circular cavity, it has a much higher $Q$ than a quasi-WGM. Analysis shows that $r$ is the critical parameter for obtaining high $Q$, and indeed, we controlled this parameter by pre-heating the seed rod.
In summary, we demonstrated the fabrication of a crystalline resonator using the LHPG technique. We obtained a WGM cavity made of sapphire with a $Q$ of $1.6\times 10^4$. A high-$Q$ cavity was obtained because we successfully fabricated a WGM cavity with a circular cross section. XRD measurement revealed that the overall crystalline structure was maintained.
This work was partly supported by Keio University’s Program for the Advancement of Next Generation Research Projects.
[99]{} V. Almeida, C. Barrios, R. Panepucci, and M. Lipson, Nature **431,** 1081(2004). T. Tanabe, M. Notomi, A. Shinya, S. Mitsugi, and E. Kuramochi, Appl. Phys. Lett. **87,** 151112 (2005). K. Nozaki, T. Tanabe, A. Shinya, S. Matsuo, T. Sato, H. Taniyama, and M. Notomi, Nature Photon. **4,** 477 (2010). M. Hill, H. Dorren, T. Vries, X. Leijtens, J. Besten, B. Smalbrugge, Y. Oei, H. Binsma, G. Khoe, and M. Smit, Nature **432,** 206 (2004). T. Tanabe, M. Notomi, A. Shinya, S. Mitsugi, and E. Kuramochi, Opt. Lett. **30,** 2575 (2005). W. Yoshiki and T. Tanabe, J. Opt. Soc. Amer. B **29,** 3335 (2012). A. Armani, R. Kulkarni, S. Fraser, R. Flagan, and K. Vahala, Science **317,** 783 (2007). F. Vollmer, S. Arnold, and D. Keng, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. **105,** 20701 (2008). K. J. Vahala, Nature **424,** 839 (2003). W. Liang, V. Ilchenko, A. Savchenkov, A. Matsko, D. Seidel, and L. Maleki, Opt. Lett. **35,** 2822 (2010). T. J. Kippenberg, R. Holzwarth, and S. A. Diddams, Science **332,** 555 (2011). D. Armani, T. Kippenberg, S. Spillane, and K. Vahala, Nature **421,** 925 (2003). M. Pöllinger and A. Rauschenbeutel, Opt. Express **18,** 17764 (2010). A. Savchenkov, V. Ilchenko, A. Matsko, and L. Maleki, Phys. Rev. A **70,** 051804(R) (2004). J. Hofer, A. Schliesser, and T. Kippenberg, Phys. Rev. A **82**, 031804(R) (2010). V. Ilchenko, A. Savchenkov, J. Byrd, I. Solomatine, A. Matsko, D. Seidel, and L. Maleki, Opt. Lett. **33,** 1569 (2008). A. Ayazi, R. C. J. Hsu, B. Houshmand, W. H. Steier, and B. Jalali, Opt. Express **16,** 1742 (2008). I. Grudinin, A. Matsko, A. Savchenkov, D. Strekalov, V. Ilchenko, and L. Maleki, Opt. Commun. **265,** 33 (2006). Y. Mizumoto, Y. Kakinuma, and T. Aoyama, *Proceedings of 1st CIRP Conference on Surface Integrity, Procedia Engineering,* Bremen, Germany, 30 January–1 February 2012, edited by E. Brinksmeier, I. S. Jawahir and D. Meyer (Elsevier, Netherlands, 2011), pp. 264–269. M. M. Fejer, J. L. Nightingale, G. A. Magel, and R. L. Byer, Rev. Sci. lnstrum. **55,** 1791 (1984). A. Yokoo, S. Tomaru, I. Yokohama, H. Itoh, and T. Kaino, J. Cryst. Growth **156,** 279 (1995). R. S. Feigelson, W. L. Kway, and R. K. Route, Opt. Eng. **24,** 1102 (1985). T. Kato, W. Yoshiki, R. Suzuki, and T. Tanabe, Appl. Phys. Lett. **101,** 121101 (2012). M. Huang, S. Mao, H. Feick, H. Yan, Y. Wu, H. Kind, E. Weber, R. Russo, and P. Yang, Science **292,** 1897 (2001). H. C. Hsu, C. Y. Wu, and W. F. Hsieh, J. Appl. Phys. **97,** 064315 (2005).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Supergravity in $2+1$ dimensions has a set of first class constraints that result in two Bosonic and one Fermionic gauge invariances. When one uses Faddeev-Popov quantization, these gauge invariances result in four Fermionic scalar ghosts and two Bosonic Majorana spinor ghosts. The BRST invariance of the effective Lagrangian is found. As an example of a radiative correction, we compute the phase of the one-loop effective action in the presence of a background spin connection, and show that it vanishes. This indicates that unlike a spinor coupled to a gauge field in $2+1$ dimensions, there is no dynamical generation of a topological mass in this model. An additional example of how a BRST invariant effective action can arise in a gauge theory is provided in an appendix where the BRST effective action for the classical Palatini action in $1 + 1$ dimensions is examined.'
author:
- 'D.G.C. McKeon'
title: Radiative Corrections in 2+1 Dimensional Supergravity
---
10.0in 9.0in -0.60in
email: [email protected]\
PACS No.: 11.10Ef\
Keywords: supergravity, BRST, effective action
The first-order action for supergravity in $2+1$ dimensions is \[1\] $$\mathcal{L}_{c1} = \epsilon^{\mu\nu\lambda} \left( b_\mu^i R_{\nu\lambda i} (w) + \overline{\psi}_\mu D_\nu \psi_\lambda\right).$$ It can be shown that the first class constraints present in this model lead to the following gauge invariances \[2\]
$$\begin{aligned}
\delta b_\mu^i &= - \left[ \mathcal{D}_\mu^{ij} A_j - \frac{1}{2} \epsilon^{ijk}b_{\mu j} B_k + \frac{i}{4} \overline{C}\gamma^i \psi_\mu\right]\\
\delta w_\mu^i &= - \frac{1}{2} \mathcal{D}_\mu^{ij} B_j\\
\delta \psi_\mu &= - \frac{1}{2} \left(D_\mu C -\frac{i}{2} B \cdot \gamma \psi_\mu\right).\end{aligned}$$
(In eqs. (1,2), $b_\mu^i$, $w_\mu^i$, $A_i$, $B_i$ are not Grassman (BE) and $\psi_\mu$, $C$ are Majorana-Grassmann (FD) spinors.)
If we use the gauge fixing conditions $$\tag{3a-c}
\partial^\mu b_\mu^i = \partial^\mu w_\mu^i = \partial^\mu\psi_\mu = 0$$ in order to eliminate the redundant fields occurring because of the gauge invariances of eq. (2), then the gauge fixing Lagrangian is $$\tag{4}
\mathcal{L}_{gf} = \frac{\alpha_b}{2}N_b^i N_{bi} + \frac{\alpha_\omega}{2} N_w^iN_{wi} + \frac{\alpha_\psi}{2}\overline{N}_\psi N_\psi - N_b^i \partial^\mu b_{\mu i} - N_w^i \partial^\mu w_{\mu i} - \overline{N}_\psi \partial^\mu \psi_\mu$$ where $N_b^i$ and $N_w^i$ are BE while $N_\psi$ is a FD Majorana spinor. The Faddeev-Popov (FP) quantization procedure leads to the ghost action $$\hspace{-3cm}\mathcal{L}_{FP} = e_i \partial^\mu \left( - \mathcal{D}_\mu^{ij} c_j + \frac{1}{2} \epsilon^{ipj} b_{\mu p} + \frac{1}{4} \overline{\psi}_\mu \gamma^i \zeta \right) \nonumber$$ $$\tag{5}
+ f_i \partial^\mu \left( - \frac{1}{2} \mathcal{D}_\mu^{ij} d_j\right) +
\overline{\xi}\partial^\mu \left( \frac{i}{4}\gamma^j \psi_\mu d_j - \frac{1}{2} D_\mu \zeta \right)$$ where $c_i$, $e_i$, $d_i$, $f_i$ are FD while $\zeta ,\xi$ are Majorana BE spinors.
The effective action $S_{c1} + S_{gf} + S_{FP}$ possesses the global Becci-Rouet-Stora-Tyutin (BRST) invariance \[3, 4, 5\] $$\tag{6a}
\delta b_N^i = \left(-\mathcal{D}_\mu^{ij} c_j + \frac{1}{2} \epsilon^{ipj} b_{\mu p} d_j + \frac{i}{4}\overline{\psi}_\mu \gamma_i\zeta\right)\eta$$ $$\tag{6b}
\hspace{-4.8cm}\delta w_\mu^i = -\frac{1}{2} \mathcal{D}_\mu^{ij} d_j \eta$$ $$\tag{6c}
\hspace{-2cm}\delta \psi_\mu = \left(\frac{i}{4}\gamma_j \psi_\mu d^j - \frac{1}{2} D_\mu \zeta\right)\eta$$ $$\tag{7a}
\hspace{-4.7cm}\delta e^i = - \eta N_b^i$$ $$\tag{7b}
\hspace{-4.7cm}\delta f^i = - \eta N_w^i$$ $$\tag{7c}
\hspace{-4.7cm}\delta \overline{\xi} = - \eta \overline{N}_\psi$$ $$\tag{8a}
\hspace{-2cm}\delta c_i = \frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{ijk} c^jd^k \eta - \frac{i}{16} \overline{\zeta} \gamma_i \zeta\eta$$ $$\tag{8b}
\hspace{-4cm}\delta d_i = \frac{1}{4}\epsilon_{ijk} d^jd^k \eta$$ $$\tag{8c}
\hspace{-1cm}\delta \zeta = \frac{i}{4}\gamma_i d^i\zeta \eta\qquad \left(\delta\overline{\zeta} = \frac{-i}{4} \;\overline{\zeta} \gamma_i d^i \eta\right)$$ where $\eta$ is a FD constant scalar. If the variation of a field $\Phi$ is of the form $\delta\eta$ where $\delta$ is a right variation, then $\delta^2 = 0$. For example, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\tag{9}
\delta^2c_i &= \delta \left[ \frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{ijk} c^jd^k - \frac{i}{16}\overline{\zeta}\gamma_i \zeta \right]\\
&= \frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{ijk}c^j \left(\frac{1}{4} \epsilon^{k\ell m} d_\ell d_m\right) - \frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{ijk} \Big( \frac{1}{2} \epsilon^{j\ell m} c_\ell d_m\nonumber \\
&\hspace{2cm}- \frac{i}{16} \overline{\zeta} \gamma^j\zeta \Big) d^k - \frac{i}{16}\Bigg[ \overline{\zeta} \gamma_i \left( \frac{i}{4} \gamma^jd_j\right)\zeta\nonumber \\
&\hspace{3cm}+ \left( -\frac{i}{4} \overline{\zeta} \gamma_j d^j\right) \gamma_i \zeta\Bigg]\nonumber \\
& = 0.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, the BRST transformation is idempotent.
We will now consider radiative corrections in this model. Of particular interest if the phase associated with the one loop effective action associated with the field $w_\mu^i$ having a background contribution $\Omega_\mu^i$. (We are replacing $w_\mu^i$ by $\Omega_\mu^i + \sigma_\mu^i$ where $\sigma_\mu^i$ is a quantum fluctuation.) The gauge invariances of eq. (2) in the background field $\Omega_\mu^i$ can be preserved if the gauge fixing of eq. (3) gets replaced by \[6, 7\] $$\tag{10a-c}
\mathcal{D}_\mu^{ij}(\Omega)b_j^\mu = \mathcal{D}_\mu^{ij}(\Omega)\sigma_j^\mu
= D_\mu(\Omega) \psi^\mu = 0$$ where $$\tag{11a}
\mathcal{D}_\mu^{ij} (\Omega) \equiv \partial_\mu \eta^{ij} - \epsilon^{ipj} \Omega_{\mu p}$$ $$\tag{11b}
D_\mu (\Omega) \equiv \partial_\mu + \frac{i}{2} \gamma^j \Omega_{\mu j}.$$ The ghost action of eq. (5) now is replaced by $$\begin{aligned}
\tag{12}
\mathcal{L}_{FP} &= e_i \mathcal{D}^{\mu ij}(\Omega) \left[ - \mathcal{D}_{\mu jk} (\Omega + \sigma) c^k + \frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{jpk} b_\mu^p + \frac{1}{4} \overline{\psi}_\mu\gamma_j \zeta \right]\\
& + f_i \mathcal{D}^{\mu ij}(\Omega) \left[ - \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{D}_{\mu jk} (\Omega + \sigma) d^k \right] + \overline{\xi}D^\mu (\Omega ) \left[ \frac{i}{4} \gamma^j \psi_\mu d_j - \frac{1}{2} D_\mu (\Omega + \sigma) \zeta \right]\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ as the gauge transformation in which the background field $\Omega_{\mu i}$ is unaltered is broken.
The terms in $\mathcal{L}_{c1} + \mathcal{L}_{gf}$ in the gauge in which $\alpha_b = \alpha_w = \alpha_\psi = 0$ that are bilinear in the fields $\Phi^T = \left( b_\mu^i, w_\mu^i, \psi_\mu, N_b^i, N_w^i, N_\psi\right)^T$ and $\overline{\Phi} = \left( b_\mu^i, w_\mu^i, \overline{\psi}_\mu, N_b^i, N_w^i, \overline{N}_\psi\right)$ are of the form $$\tag{13}
\overline{\Phi} H_\kappa \Phi$$ where $$\tag{14}
H = \left(
\begin{array}{cccccc}
0 & \mathcal{D}_\lambda^{ij}\epsilon^{\mu\lambda\nu} & 0 & \mathcal{D}_\mu^{ij} & 0 & 0 \\
\mathcal{D}_\lambda^{ij}\epsilon^{\mu\lambda\nu} & 0 & 0 & 0 & \mathcal{D}_\mu^{ij} & 0\\
0 & 0 & D_\lambda\epsilon^{\mu\lambda\nu} & 0 & 0 & D_\mu\\
-\mathcal{D}_\nu^{ij} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & -\mathcal{D}_\nu^{ij} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -D_\nu & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}
\right)$$ where the derivatives appearing in eq. (14) are those of eq. (11).
One-loop effects in this model are given by $\det H$, but we must deal with $\det^{1/2}H^2$. However, if $H$ has negative eigenvalues, one must separately compute the phase $\Theta$ of $\det H$. This is determined by \[8-11\] $$\tag{15}
\Theta = - \frac{\pi}{2}\lim\limits_{s\rightarrow 0} \eta(s)$$ where $\eta(s) = \eta_{\lambda=1}(s)$ with $$\tag{16}
\frac{d\eta_\lambda(s)}{d\lambda}= - \frac{s}{\Gamma\left(\frac{s+1}{2}\right)}
\int_0^\infty dt \,t^{\frac{s-1}{2}} str \left[ \frac{dH_\lambda}{d\lambda} e^{-H_\lambda^2t} \right].$$ In eq. (16), $H_\lambda$ is obtained from $H$ by rescaling each of the external fields by a factor of $\lambda$ \[16\]. It follows from eq. (14) that $$\hspace{-4cm}H = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
-\eta_{\mu\nu}\mathcal{D}^{2ij} -\epsilon^{ijp}R_{\mu\nu p} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -\eta_{\mu\nu}\mathcal{D}^{2ij}-\epsilon^{ijp}R_{\mu\nu p} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -\eta_{\mu\nu}D^2- \frac{i}{2}\gamma \cdot R_{\mu\nu } \\
0 & -\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\lambda\sigma\nu}\epsilon^{ijp}R^{\lambda\sigma}_p & 0 \\
-\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\lambda\sigma\nu}\epsilon^{ijp}R^{\lambda\sigma}_p &0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\lambda\sigma\nu}\left(\frac{i}{2} \gamma \cdot R^{\lambda\sigma}\right)
\end{array}\right.\nonumber$$ $$\tag{17}
\hspace{4.5cm}\left. \begin{array}{ccc}
0 & \frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\lambda\sigma}\epsilon^{ijp}R^{\lambda\sigma}_p & 0\\
\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\lambda\sigma}\epsilon^{ijp}R^{\lambda\sigma}_p & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & \frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\lambda\sigma}\left( \frac{i}{2} \gamma \cdot R^{\lambda\sigma}\right)\\
-\mathcal{D}^{2ij}& 0 & 0\\
0 & -\mathcal{D}^{2ij} & 0\\
0 & 0 & -D^2
\end{array}\right)$$ Since to compute $\Theta$ in eq. (15) we only need $\eta(s)$ with $s = 0$, it follows that in eq. (15) the only contribution that is needed in the integrand in the integral over $t$ is the piece that results in a pole at $s = 0$. We now follow the approach to compution $\Theta$ used in ref. \[11\]. If $e^{-H^2_{\lambda}t}$ is expanded in powers of $t$, then this entails using terms that behave as $t^0$ or $t^1$. Since $H_{\lambda}^2$ is of the form $(p + V)^2 + \phi (p \equiv -i\partial)$, it follows \[8\] that the term linear in $t$ is the Seeley-Gilkey coefficient $a_1 = -\phi$ and so what is needed in $str\left(\frac{dH_\lambda}{d\lambda} e^{-H_\lambda^2t}\right)$ is the contribution that is linear in $t$, which is $$str
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & -\epsilon^{ipj}\epsilon^{\mu\lambda\nu}\Omega_{\lambda p} & 0 & -\epsilon^{ipj}\Omega_{\mu p} & 0 & 0\\
-\epsilon^{ipj}\epsilon^{\mu\lambda\nu}\Omega_{\lambda p} & 0 & 0 & 0 &
-\epsilon^{ipj}\Omega_{\mu p} & 0\\
0 & 0 & \frac{i}{2}\gamma \cdot \Omega_\lambda\epsilon^{\mu\lambda\nu} & 0 & 0 &
\frac{i}{2}\gamma \cdot \Omega_\mu\\
\epsilon^{ipj}\Omega_{\nu p} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \epsilon^{ipj}\Omega_{\nu p} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -\frac{i}{2}\gamma \cdot \Omega_\nu & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}\nonumber$$ $$\times
\begin{pmatrix}
-\lambda \epsilon^{ijp}R_{\mu\nu p} & 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{2}\lambda \epsilon_{\mu\lambda\sigma}\epsilon^{ijp}R^{\lambda\sigma}_p & 0\\
0 & -\lambda \epsilon^{ijp}R_{\mu\nu p} & 0 &\frac{1}{2}\lambda \epsilon_{\mu\lambda\sigma}\epsilon^{ijp}R^{\lambda\sigma}_p & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -\frac{i\lambda}{2}\gamma \cdot R_{\mu\nu} & 0 & 0 & \frac{\lambda}{2} \epsilon_{\lambda\sigma\nu} \left(\frac{i}{2}\gamma\cdot R^{\lambda\sigma}\right)\\
0 & -\frac{1}{2}\lambda \epsilon_{\lambda\sigma\nu}\epsilon^{ijp}R^{\lambda\sigma}_p & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
-\frac{1}{2}\lambda \epsilon_{\lambda\sigma\nu}\epsilon^{ijp}R^{\lambda\sigma}_p & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & -\frac{\lambda}{2} \epsilon_{\lambda\sigma\nu} \left(\frac{i}{2}\gamma\cdot R^{\lambda\sigma}\right) & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}\nonumber$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\tag{18}
&= - tr \Bigg[\left( \frac{i}{2} \gamma \cdot \Omega_\lambda \epsilon^{\mu\lambda\nu}\right) \left(- \frac{i}{2 }\lambda\gamma \cdot R_{\mu\nu}\right) + \left( \frac{i}{2}\gamma \cdot \Omega_{\nu}\right)
\left( -\frac{\lambda}{2} \epsilon_{\lambda\sigma\nu}\right)\left( \frac{i}{2} \gamma \cdot R^{\lambda\sigma}\right) \nonumber \\
&\hspace{3cm}+ \left( -\frac{i}{2} \gamma \cdot \Omega_\nu\right) \left( \frac{\lambda}{2}\epsilon_{\lambda\sigma\nu}\right)\left(\frac{i}{2} \gamma \cdot R^{\lambda\sigma}\right) \Bigg]\nonumber \\
& = 0. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ This shows that the phase of the one-loop effective action vanishes non-trivially. This is unlike what happens when a gauge field couples to spinor in $2 + 1$ dimensions; in this case the phase of the one-loop effective action contributes a Chern-Simons term which means that the gauge field develops a topological mass and that the gauge coupling is quantized \[11\]. Other radiative effects in the model of eq. (1) can be computed using operator regularization \[11, 12\]. This technique is especially useful as when using it, the initial action is unaltered, thereby leaving the symmetries of eqs. (2, 6, 7, 8) intact.
[**[Acknowledgements]{}**]{}\
F.T. Brandt and T.N. Sherry had many helpful suggestions. R. Macleod made had a useful comment.
[99]{} P.S. Howe and R.W. Tucker, *J. Math. Phys.* **19**, 809 (1978).\
A. Achucarro and P.K. Townsend, *Phys. Lett.* **B180**, 89 (1986).\
H.J. Matschull and H. Nicolai, *Nucl. Phys.* **B411**, 609 (1994). D.G.C. McKeon, *Can. J. Phys.* **92**, 145 (2014). C. Becchi, A. Rouet and R. Store, *Ann. of Phys.* **98**, 287 (1976). I.V. Tyutin, arxiv 0812.0580. P. van Nieuwenhuizen, *Phys. Rep.* **68**, 189 (1981). L.F. Abbott, *Nucl. Phys.* **185**, 189 (1981). L.F. Abbott, *Acta Physica Polon.* **B13**, 33 (1982). P.B. Gilkey, “Invariance Theory, the Heat Equation and the Atiyah-Singer Index Theorem” Publish or Perish, Wilmington, DE 1984. E. Witten, *Commun. Math. Phys.* **121**, 351 (19891). D. Birmingham, H.T. Cho, R. Kantowski and M. Rakowski, *Phys. Rev.* **D42**, 3476 (1990). D.G.C. McKeon and T.N. Sherry, *Ann. of Phys.* **218**, 325 (1992). D.G.C. McKeon and T.N. Sherry, *Phys. Rev.* **D35**, 3854 (1987). N. Kiriushcheva, S.V. Kuzmin and D.G.C. McKeon, *Mod. Phys. Lett.* **A20**, 1895 (2005); *Int. J. Mod. Phys.* **A21**, 3401 (2006). D.G.C. McKeon, *Cl. and Q. Grav.* **23**, 3037 (2006). D.G.C. McKeon, *Can. J. Phys.* **93**, 1294 (2015). D. Birmingham, R. Kantowski and M. Rakowski, *Phys. Lett.* **B251**, 121 (1990).
Appendix I - Notation {#appendix-i---notation .unnumbered}
=====================
We use the flat space metric $$\tag{A.1}
\eta^{ij} = \mathrm{diag} (+, -, -)$$ with the anti-symmetric tensor $$\tag{A.2}
\epsilon^{012} = +1 = \epsilon_{012}.$$ The Dirac matrices are $$\tag{A.3}
\gamma^0 = \sigma_2, \quad \gamma^i = i\sigma_3, \quad \gamma^2 = i\sigma_1$$ so that $$\tag{A.4}
\gamma^i \gamma^j = \eta^{ij} + i\epsilon^{ijk}\gamma_k.$$ The Majorana condition is $\psi = \psi_C$ where $$\tag{A.5}
\psi_C = C \overline{\psi}^T$$ with $$\tag{A.6}
\overline{\psi} = \psi^\dagger \gamma^0$$ and $C = - \gamma^0 = C^{-1}$ so that $$\tag{A.7}
C \gamma^i C^{-1} = - \gamma^{iT} = \gamma^{i\dagger}.$$ With our conventions, if $\psi = \psi_C$ then $\psi = \psi^*$. If $\phi$ and $\chi$ are Grassmann spinors then $$\tag{A.8a-c}
\overline{\chi} \phi = \overline{\phi}\chi , \quad
\overline{\chi} \gamma^i \phi = - \overline{\phi}\gamma^i \chi , \quad
\overline{\chi} \gamma^i \gamma^j \phi = \overline{\phi}\gamma^j\gamma^i \chi.$$ The signs in eq. (A.8) are reversed if either or both $\chi$ and $\phi$ are not Grassmann.
We also have defined $$\tag{A.9a}
R_{\mu\nu}^i = \partial_\mu w_\nu^i - \partial_\nu w_\mu^i - \epsilon^{ijk}w_{\mu j} w_{\nu k}$$ $$\tag{A.9b}
D_\mu = \partial_\mu + \frac{i}{2} \gamma^i w_{\mu i} \quad \left( \left[ D_\mu, D_\nu \right] = \frac{i}{2}\gamma^i R_{\mu \nu i} \right)$$ $$\tag{A.9c}
\mathcal{D}_\mu^{ij} = \partial_\mu -\epsilon^{ipj} w_{\mu p} \quad \left( \left[ \mathcal{D}_\mu, \mathcal{D}_\nu \right]^{ij} = \epsilon^{ijk} R_{\mu\nu k}\right)$$
Appendix II - The First Order Einstein-Hilbert Action in $1 + 1$ Dimensions {#appendix-ii---the-first-order-einstein-hilbert-action-in-1-1-dimensions .unnumbered}
===========================================================================
In this paper we have demonstrated how a BRST effective action can be derived for a theory with an unusual gauge invariance by considering supergravity in $2 + 1$ dimensions. In this appendix we further illustrate this by deriving the effective action for the first order Einstein-Hilbert (Palatini) action in $1 + 1$ dimensions. This theory is manifestly invariant under a diffeormorphism transformation, but it is not this gauge transformation that follows from the first class constraints in the theory \[13\].
If in the Einstein-Hilbert action $$\tag{B.1}
S_{c1} = \int d^d x \sqrt{-g}\; g^{\mu\nu} R_{\mu\nu} (\Gamma)$$ we set $$\tag{B.2a}
h^{\mu\nu} = \sqrt{-g}\; g^{\mu\nu}$$ $$\tag{B.2b}
G^\lambda_{\mu\nu} = \Gamma_{\mu\nu}^\lambda - \frac{1}{2} \left( \delta_\mu^\lambda \Gamma_{\nu\sigma}^\sigma + \delta_\nu^\lambda \Gamma_{\mu\sigma}^\sigma\right)$$ then $$\tag{B.3}
S_{c1} = \int d^d x h^{\mu\nu} \left( G_{\mu\nu , \lambda}^\lambda + \frac{1}{d - 1} G_{\lambda\mu}^\lambda G_{\sigma\nu}^\sigma - G_{\sigma\mu}^\lambda G_{\lambda\nu}^\sigma \right).$$ When $d = 2$, the first class constraints show that in addition to diffeomorphism invariance, the action of eq. (B.3) has the local gauge invariance \[13\] $$\tag{B.4a}
\delta h^{\mu\nu} = \left( \epsilon^{\mu\lambda} h^{\sigma\nu} + \epsilon^{\nu\lambda} h^{\sigma\mu} \right) \theta_{\lambda\sigma}$$ $$\tag{B.4b}
\delta G_{\mu\nu}^\lambda = - \epsilon^{\lambda\rho} \theta_{\mu\nu , \rho} - \epsilon^{\rho\sigma}
\left( G_{\mu\rho}^\lambda \theta_{\sigma\nu} + G_{\nu\rho}^\lambda \theta_{\sigma\mu} \right)$$ where $\epsilon^{01} = 1 = -\epsilon_{01} = -\epsilon^{10}$ and $\theta^{\mu\nu} = \theta^{\nu \mu}$.
It is not clear how to extend the gauge invariance of eq. (B.4) to $d > 2$ or if it is possible to couple matter fields to $h^{\mu\nu}$, $G_{\mu\nu}^\lambda$ so that these symmetries are maintained.
The gauge fixing condition \[14\] $$\tag{B.5}
\epsilon_{\lambda\sigma} G_{\mu\nu}^{\lambda ,\sigma} = 0$$ results in the gauge fixing Lagrangian $$\tag{B.6}
\mathcal{L}_{gf} = \frac{\alpha}{2} N_{\mu\nu} N^{\mu\nu} - N^{\mu\nu}\epsilon_{\lambda\sigma} G_{\mu\nu}^{\lambda ,\sigma}$$ as well the Faddeev-Popov ghost action $$\tag{B.7}
\mathcal{L}_{gh} = -\overline{\zeta}^{\alpha\beta} \epsilon_{\mu\nu}
\left[ -\epsilon^{\mu\rho} \zeta_{\alpha\beta ,\rho} - \
\epsilon^{\rho\sigma}\left( G_{\alpha \rho}^\mu \zeta_{\sigma\beta} +
G_{\beta\rho}^\mu \zeta_{\sigma\alpha}\right)\right]^{, \nu}$$ where $\zeta_{\mu\nu},\overline{\zeta}^{\mu\nu}$ are a pair of symmetric tensor Grassmann fields. The effective action $S_{c1} + S_{gf} + S_{gh}$ has the unusual global BRST gauge invariance $$\tag{B.8a}
\hspace{-2.7cm}\delta h^{\mu\nu} = (\epsilon^{\mu\lambda} h^{\sigma\nu} + \epsilon^{\nu\lambda} h^{\sigma\mu}) \zeta_{\lambda\sigma}\eta$$ $$\tag{B.8b}
\delta G_{\mu\nu}^\lambda = -\epsilon^{\lambda\rho} \zeta_{\mu\nu , \rho} \eta -\epsilon^{\rho\sigma} \left( G_{\mu\rho}^\lambda \zeta_{\sigma\nu} + G_{\nu\rho}^\lambda \zeta_{\sigma\mu}\right)\eta$$ $$\hspace{-5.3cm}\delta \overline{\zeta}^{\alpha\beta} = N^{\alpha\beta} \eta\nonumber$$ $$\tag{B.8c}
\hspace{-2cm}\delta \zeta_{\alpha\beta} = \frac{1}{2} \epsilon^{\mu\nu} \left( \zeta_{\mu\alpha} \zeta_{\nu\beta} + \zeta_{\nu\alpha} \zeta_{\mu\beta} \right) \eta$$ where $\eta$ is a constant Grassmann scalar.
Radiative corrections arising in this model have been discussed in ref. \[14\].
We note that if the Hamiltonian approach the finding a BRST invariant action, the resulting effective action itself possesses a gauge invariance \[15\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We review the recent developments in the field of nuclear double beta decay, which is presently an important topic in both nuclear and particle physics. The mechanism of lepton number violation within the neutrinoless double beta decay ($0\nu\beta\beta$-decay) is discussed in context of the problem of neutrino mixing and the R-parity violating supersymmetric extensions of the Standard model. The problem of reliable determination of the nuclear matrix elements governing both two-neutrino and neutrinoless modes of the double beta decay is addressed. The validity of different approximation schemes in the considered nuclear structure studies is analyzed and the role of the Pauli exclusion principle for a correct treatment of nuclear matrix elements is emphasized. The constraints on different lepton number violating parameters like effective electron neutrino mass, effective right-handed weak interaction parameters, effective Majoron coupling constant and R-parity violating SUSY parameters are derived from the best presently available experimental limits on the half life of $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay.'
address: |
1. Institute für Theoretische Physik der Universität Tübingen\
Auf der Morgenstelle 14, D-72076 Tübingen, Germany\
e-mail: [email protected]\
2. Department of Nuclear Physics, Comenius University,\
Mlynská dol., pav. F1, SK-842 15 Bratislava, Slovakia\
e-mail: [email protected]
author:
- Amand Faessler$^1$ and Fedor Šimkovic$^2$
title: 'Double beta decay[^1]'
---
\#1\#2\#3\#4[[\#4]{} [\#1]{} [**\#2**]{} \#3]{}
Introduction
============
The double beta ($\beta\beta$) decay attracts the attention of both experimentalists and theoreticians for already a long period and remains of major importance both for particle and nuclear physics.
The double beta decay is a second order process of weak interaction and there are few tenths of nuclear systems [@hax84], which offer an opportunity to study it. The $\beta\beta$ decay can be observed because the pairing force renders the even-even nuclei with even number of protons and neutrons more stable than the odd-odd nuclei with broken pairs. Thus, the single beta decay transition from the even-even parent nucleus (A,Z) to the neighboring odd-odd nucleus (A,Z+1) is forbidden energetically and the $\beta\beta$ decay to the daughter nucleus (A,Z+2) is the only possible decay channel.
There are different possible modes of the double beta decay, which differ from each other by the light particles accompanying the emission of two electrons. We distinguish the double beta decay modes with and without lepton number violation.
The two-neutrino double beta decay ($2\nu\beta\beta$-decay), which involves the emission of two electrons and two antineutrinos, $$(A,Z) \rightarrow (A,Z+2) + 2e^- +2{\overline{\nu}}_e,
\label{int.1}$$ is a process fully consistent with the standard model (SM) of electroweak interaction formulated by Glashow [@gla61], Weinberg [@wei67] and Salam [@sal68]. This decay mode with obvious lepton number conservation was first considered by Mayer in 1935[@may35]. The inverse half-life of $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay is free of unknown parameters on the particle physics side and is expressed as a product of a phase-space factor and the relevant $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay nuclear matrix element. Thus, the measured experimental half lifes of $2\nu\beta\beta$-decays give us directly the value of the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay nuclear matrix elements. In this way $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay offers a severe test of nuclear structure calculations.
The $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay is already well established experimentally for a couple of isotopes. The most favored for the experimental study of this rare process is the transition from the ground state $0^+$ of the initial to the ground state $0^+$ of the final nuclei because of the large energy release. But recently, increased attention is paid also for transitions to the $2^+$ and $0^+$ excited states of the final nucleus [@barb90; @kopy90; @blum92; @piep94; @barb95; @suc93; @suc94; @sto94; @dhi95; @sch97; @bara97]. The half-lifes of the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay range from $10^{19}$ up to $10^{24}$ years \[see Table \[tabint.1\]\]. Direct counter experiments have observed $2\nu\beta\beta$-decays for ground state to ground state transitions in $^{48}Ca$, $^{76}Ge$, $^{82}Se$, $^{100}Mo$, $^{116}Cd$ and $^{150}Nd$. A positive evidence for a $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay transition to the $0^+_1$ excited state of the final nucleus was observed for $^{100}Mo$ [@barb95]. The geochemical experiments, which observe the double beta decay through daughter isotope excesses in natural samples has proved the existence of double beta decay in $^{82}Se$, $^{96}Zr$, $^{128}Te$ and $^{130}Te$. The radiochemical experiment, which observes the accumulation of daughter isotopes under laboratory condition, has observed double beta decay in $^{238}U$. The positive signals of geochemical and radiochemical experiments are identified with the lepton number conserving $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay mode.
The neutrinoless mode of the double beta decay ($0\nu\beta\beta$-decay) (proposed by Fury in 1939 [@fur39]), which involves the emission of two electrons and no neutrinos $$(A,Z) \rightarrow (A,Z+2) + 2e^-,
\label{int.2}$$ is expected to occur if lepton number conservation is not an exact symmetry of nature and thus is forbidden in the SM (Standard Model) of electroweak interaction. The $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay takes place only if the neutrino is a Majorana particle (i.e. identical to its own antiparticle) with non-zero mass.
The study of the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay is stimulated by the development of grand unified theories (GUT’s) [@moh91; @val92] representing generalization the of $SU(2)_L \otimes U(1)$ SM. In spite of the facts that the SM represents the simplest and most economical theory, which describes jointly weak and electromagnetic interactions and in spite of the fact that it has been very successful, wherever it has been tested, the SM can not answer many of the fundamental questions, e.g.: Is the neutrino really massless? If it has mass, why is this mass much smaller than that of corresponding charged leptons? What kind of particles are neutrinos, Dirac or Majorana? Does neutrino mixing take place? Therefore, the SM cannot be considered as the ultimative theory of nature. The non-zero neutrino masses and neutrino mixing appear naturally in many different variants of GUT’s like the simplest SO(10) left-right symmetric model [@moh92], minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) and their extensions. The exception is essentially the minimal SU(5) model [@geo74], which however has been practically ruled out due unsuccessful searches for nucleon instability. The expectations arising from GUT’s are that the conservation laws of the SM may be violated to some small degree. The GUT’s offer a variety of mechanisms which allow the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay, from which the well-known possibility is via the exchange of a Majorana neutrino between the two decaying neutrons [@hax84; @sch84; @doi85; @ver86].
If the global symmetry associated with lepton number conservation is broken spontaneously, the models imply the existence of a physical Nambu-Goldstone boson, called Majoron [@chi81; @gel81; @geo81; @sch82], which couples to neutrinos. The Majoron might occur in the Majoron mode of the neutrinoless double beta decay [@ber92; @hir96]: $$(A,Z) \rightarrow (A,Z+2) + 2e^- + \phi.
\label{int.3}$$ There are also other possible mechanisms of $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay induced by lepton-number violating quark-lepton interactions of R-parity non-conserving extensions of the SM [@moh86; @ver87]. A complete analysis of this mechanism within the MSSM for the case the initial d-quarks are put inside the two initial neutrons (two-nucleon SUSY mode) was carried in [@hkk96]. Recently, it has been found that a new contribution of the R-parity violating ($R_p \hspace{-1em}/\;\:$) supersymmetry (SUSY) to the $0\nu\beta\beta$ via pion exchange between the two decaying neutrons dominates over the two-nucleon $R_p \hspace{-1em}/\;\:$ SUSY mode [@fae97]. The R-parity conserving SUSY mechanisms of $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay have been proposed and investigated in Ref. [@hir97]. The GUT’s predict also new type of gauge bosons called leptoquarks, which can transform quarks into leptons or vice versa [@buc87]. A new mechanism for $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay based on leptoquark exchange has been discussed in [@lpq96].
The $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay has not been seen experimentally till now. We note that it is easy to distinguish between the three decay modes in Eqs. (\[int.1\])-(\[int.3\]) in the experiment by measuring the sum of electron energies [@hax84]. A signal from the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay is expected to be a peak at the end of the electron-electron coincidence spectrums as a function of the sum of the energies of the two electrons as they carry the full available kinetic energy for this process. Both, the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay and the $0\nu\beta\beta\phi$-decay modes yield a continuous electron spectrum, which differ by the position of the maximum as different numbers of light particles are present in the final state. The observation of $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay would signal physics beyond the SM. It is worthwhile to notice that the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay is one of few eminent non-accelerator experiments which may probe grand unification scales far beyond present and future accelerator energies. For these reasons, considerable experimental effort is being devoted to the study of this decay mode. Presently there are about 40 experiments searching for the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay. The best available experimental limits on the half-life of this decay mode for different nuclei are presented in Table \[tabint.1\]. The most stringent experimental lower bound for a half-life has been measured by the Heidelberg-Moscow collaboration for the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay of $^{76}Ge$ [@bau97]: $$\begin{aligned}
T_{1/2}^{{0\nu\beta\beta}-\mbox{exp}}(0^+ \rightarrow 0^+)
\hskip2mm \geq \hskip2mm
1.1 \times 10^{25} \mbox{ years} \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (90 \% \ \mbox{C.L.})\end{aligned}$$ The experimental half-life limits allow to extract limits on different lepton number violating parameters, e.g. effective neutrino mass, parameters of right-handed currents and parameters of supersymmetric models.
However, in order to correctly interpret the results of $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay experiments, i.e. to obtain quantitative answers for the lepton number violating parameters, the mechanism of nuclear transitions has to be understood. This means one has to evaluate the corresponding nuclear matrix elements with high reliability.
The calculation of the nuclear many-body Green function governing the double beta decay transitions continues to be challenging and attracts the specialists of different nuclear models. As each mode of double beta decay requires the construction of the same many-body nuclear structure wave functions, the usual strategy has been first to try to reproduce the observed $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay half-lifes. A comparison between theory and experiment for the $2\nu\beta\beta$ - decay provides a measure of confidence in the calculated nuclear wave functions employed for extracting the unknown parameters from $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay life measurements.
A variety of nuclear techniques have been used in attempts to calculate the nuclear $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay matrix elements, which require the summation over a complete set of intermediate nuclear states. It has been found and it is widely accepted that the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay matrix elements are strongly suppressed. The nuclear systems which can undergo double beta decay are medium and heavy open-shell nuclei with a complicated nuclear structure. The only exception is the A=48 system. Within the shell model, which describes well the low-lying states in the initial and final nuclei, it is clearly impossible to construct all the needed states of the intermediate nucleus. Therefore, the proton-neutron Quasiparticle Random Phase Approximation (pn-QRPA), which is one of the approximation to the many-body problem, has developed into one of the most popular methods for calculating nuclear wave functions involved in the $\beta\beta$ decay [@vog86; @civ87; @mut88]. The QRPA plays a prominent role in the analysis, which are unaccessible to shell model calculations. The QRPA has been found successful in revealing the suppression mechanism for the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay [@vog86; @civ87; @mut88]. However, the predictive power of the QRPA is questionable because of the extreme sensitivity of the calculated $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay matrix elements in the physically acceptable region on the particle-particle strength of the nuclear Hamiltonian.
This quenching behavior of the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay matrix elements is a puzzle and has attracted the attention of many theoreticians. The main drawback of the QRPA is the overestimation of the ground state correlations leading to a collapse of the QRPA ground state. Several attempts have been made in the past to shift the collapse of the QRPA to higher values by proposing different alterations of the QRPA including proton-neutron pairing [@cheo93], higher order RPA corrections [@rad91] and particle number projection [@civ91; @krm93]. But, none of them succeeded to avoid collapse of the QRPA and to reduce significantly the dependence of $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay matrix elements on the particle-particle strength. It is because all these methods disregard the main source of the ground state instability which is traced to the assumption of the quasiboson approximation (QBA) violating the Pauli exclusion principle. Recently, Toivanen and Suhonen have proposed a proton-neutron renormalized QRPA (pn-RQRPA) to study the two neutrino [@toi95] and Schwieger, Simkovic and Faessler the $0\nu \beta \beta$ decay [@simn96]. In these works the Pauli exclusion principle is taken into account more carefully. The pn-RQRPA prevents to build too strong ground state correlations and avoids the collapse of the pn-RQRPA solution that plaque the pn-QRPA. The $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay matrix elements calculated within pn-RQRPA and pn-RQRPA with proton-neutron pairing (full-RQRPA) [@simn96] has been found significantly less sensitive to the increasing strength of the particle-particle interaction in comparison with pn-QRPA results. In the meanwhile, some critical studies have discussed the shortcomings of RQRPA like the violation of the Ikeda sum rule [@krm96; @hirm96] and particle number non-conservation in average in respect to the correlated ground states in the double beta decay [@simm97; @sims97].
A large amount of theoretical work has been done to calculate nuclear matrix elements and decay rates. However, the mechanism which is leading to the suppression of these matrix elements is still not completely understood. The practical calculation always involves some approximations, which make it difficult to obtain an unambiguous decay rate. The calculation of the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay nuclear transition continues to be subject of interest, which stimulates the rapid development of different approaches to the many-body problem, e.g. shell model and QRPA.
The aim of this review is to present some of the most recent developments in the field of the double beta decay. Let us note that several other review articles treating the problem of double beta decay already exist. The theory and the experimental status of double beta decay have been reviewed e.g. by Primakoff and Rosen (1981) [@pri81], Boehm and Vogel (1984) [@boe84], Haxton and Stephenson (1984) [@hax84], Schepkin (1984) [@sch84], Doi et al (1985) [@doi85], Vergados (1986) [@ver86], Avignone and Brodzinski (1988) [@avi88], Grotz and Klapdor [@gro90], Tomoda (1991) [@tom91], and Moe and Vogel (1994) [@moe94].
Massive neutrinos
=================
The neutrino remains a puzzle. The neutrino is the only elementary particle, which basic properties are not known till today. In contrast with the charged fermions the nature and the masses of the neutrinos has not yet been established phenomenologically. The neutrino can be like other fermions a Dirac particle, i.e. is different from its antiparticle. However, there is an another possibility proposed long ago by Majorana [@maj37]. The neutrino is the only fermion which can be a Majorana particle, i.e. it is identical to its antiparticle. This distinction is important if the mass of neutrino is non-zero. It is worthwhile to notice that there is no principle, which dictates neutrinos to be massless particles as it is postulated in the SM. If the neutrinos are particles with definite mass, it is natural to suppose that neutrino mixing does take place. This was first considered by Pontecorvo [@pon57; @pon58]. It means that flavor neutrino fields in the weak interaction Lagrangian are a mixture of fields of neutrinos possessing definite masses. Unlike of only one possible scheme for quark mixing there exist several totally different schemes of neutrinos mixing as the neutrino is electrically neutral. The number of massive neutrinos depends on the considered scheme of neutrino mixing and varies from three to six. The problem of neutrino masses and mixing is very important for understanding of fundamental issues of elementary particle physics and astrophysics and has been treated in numerous review articles, see e.g. [@val92; @ver86; @bil78; @bil87; @boe84; @kay89; @dol80].
The investigation of neutrino properties is a way to discover new physics beyond the SM. However, the problem of neutrino masses and mixing is still far of being solved. The finite mass of neutrinos is related to the problem of lepton flavor violation. The SM strictly conserves lepton flavor but the GUT extensions of the SM violate lepton flavor at some level. The lepton flavor violation has been discussed in several review articles [@ver86; @her93; @van93; @dep95].
By using the flavor fields $\nu_L$, $(\nu_L)^c$, $\nu_R$ and $(\nu_R)^c$ (the indices L and R refer to the left-handed and right-handed chirality states, respectively, and the superscript $c$ refers to the operation of charge conjugation) one can construct Dirac, Majorana and Dirac-Majorana neutrino mass Lagrangian’s: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}^D & = &
- \sum_{ll'} ~\overline{\nu_{l'R}}~ M^D_{l'l} ~\nu_{lL} + h.c.,
\label{mass.1} \\
{\cal L}^M & = &
- \frac{1}{2} \sum_{ll'} ~\overline{(\nu_{l'L})^c}
~M^M_{l'l}~ \nu_{lL} + h.c.,
\label{mass.2} \\
{\cal L}^{D+M} & = &
-\sum_{ll'} ~[~ \frac{1}{2} ~\overline{(\nu_{l'L})^c}
~(M^M_L)_{l'l} ~\nu_{lL}
+ \frac{1}{2} ~\overline{\nu_{l'R}}~ (M^M_R)_{l'l}~ (\nu_{lR})^c
+ \overline{\nu_{l'R}} ~(M^D)_{l'l}~ \nu_{lL}~ ] + h.c.
\label{mass.3}\end{aligned}$$ Here the index $l$ and $l'$ take the values $e, \mu, \tau$.
The Dirac neutrino mass term ${\cal L}^D$ ($M^D$ is a complex non-diagonal 3x3 matrix) couples “active” left-handed flavor fields $\nu_{lL}$ (weak interaction eigenstates) with the right-handed fields $\nu_{lR}$ which do not enter into the interaction Lagrangian of the SM. In the case of the Dirac neutrino mass term the three neutrino flavor field are connected with the three Dirac neutrino mass eigenstates as follows: $$\nu_{lL} = \sum_{i=1}^3 ~U_{li} ~~\nu_{iL}.
\label{mass.4}$$ Here U is a unitary matrix and $\nu_i$ is the field of the Dirac neutrino with mass $m_i$. The mixing of neutrinos generated by Dirac mass term is analogous to the mixing of quarks described by the Cabbibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix.
It is evident that lepton flavor is violated in the theories with a Dirac mass term, if the matrix $M^D$ is not diagonal, i.e. additive partial lepton numbers of electronic ($L_e$), muonic ($L_\mu$) and tauonic ($L_\tau$) type are not conserved. However, the Dirac mass term is invariant in respect to the global gauge transformation $\nu_L \rightarrow e^{i\Lambda} \nu_L$, $\nu_R \rightarrow e^{i\Lambda} \nu_R$ ($\Lambda$ is arbitrary) what implies the conservation of the total lepton number $L=L_e+L_\mu+L_\tau$. Processes like the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay are forbidden in this scheme.
The Majorana mass term ${\cal L}^M$ in Eq. (\[mass.2\]) couples neutrino states of given chirality and its charge conjugate. It is obvious that the Majorana mass term ${\cal L}^M$ is not invariant under the global gauge transformation, i.e. does not conserve the total lepton number $L$. Consequently, the theories with ${\cal L}^M$ allow total lepton charge non-conserving processes like the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay.
The Dirac-Majorana mass term ${\cal L}^{D+M}$ in Eq. (\[mass.3\]) is the most general neutrino mass term that does not conserve the total lepton number $L$. $M^M_L$ and $M^M_R$ are complex non-diagonal symmetrical 3x3 matrices. The flavor neutrino fields are superpositions of six Majorana fields $\nu_i$ with definite masses $m_i$ [@bil87], $$\begin{aligned}
\nu_{lL} = \sum_{i=1}^6~ U_{l i} ~~\nu_{iL}, ~~~
(\nu_{lR})^c = \sum_{i=1}^6 ~U_{\overline{l} i}~~ \nu_{iL}. \label{mass.5}\end{aligned}$$ The fields $\nu_i$ satisfy the Majorana condition $$\nu_i \xi_i = \nu_i^c = C ~{\overline{\nu}}_i^T,
\label{mass.6}$$ where C denotes the charge conjugation and $\xi$ is a phase factor.
The advantage of the Dirac-Majorana mass mixing scheme is that it allows to explain the smallness of the neutrino mass within the so called see-saw mechanism proposed by Yanagida, Gell-Mann, Ramond and Slansky [@yan79]. If the model involves the violation of lepton number at the large mass scale like in GUT’s, the see-saw mechanism is the most natural way to obtain light neutrino masses. In the simplest case of one flavor generation the ${\cal L}^{D+M}$ takes the form $${\cal L}^{D+M} =
- \frac{1}{2} ~
\left(
\matrix{ \overline{(\nu_{L})^c}~~ \overline{\nu_{R}}}
\right)~
\left(
\matrix{ m_L ~~ m_D \cr m_D ~~ m_R}
\right)~
\left(
\matrix{ \nu_{L} ~~ (\nu_{R})^c }
\right).
\label{mass.7}$$ If we assume the left-handed Majorana mass $m_L$ is zero, the right-handed Majorana mass is of the GUT’s scale ($ M_{GUT} \approx 10^{12} GeV$ ) and the Dirac mass $m_D$ is of the order of the charged lepton and quark masses ($m_F << M_{GUT}$), we obtain after diagonalization one small and one large eigenvalues: $$m_1 ~\approx ~\frac{m^2_F}{M_{GUT}}, ~~~~~ m_2 ~ \approx ~ M_{GUT}.
\label{mass.8}$$ By considering the general case of three flavor generation we end up with three light masses $m_i$ and three very heavy masses $M_i$ ($m_i \approx (m^i_F)^2/M_i$).
The information about the neutrino masses and neutrino mixing is obtained from different experiments. The laboratory studies of lepton charge conserving weak processes offer model independent neutrino mass limits that follow purely from kinematics. The most stringent bound 4.35 eV on the “electron neutrino mass” has been obtained from the Troitsk tritium beta decay experiment [@bel95] by investigation of the high energy part of the $\beta$ spectrum. The tritium beta decay experiments suffer from the anomaly given by the negative average value of $m^2_\nu$. It means that instead of the expected deficit of the events at the end of the spectrum some excess of events is observed. The PSI study of the pion decay gives the strongest upper limit 170 KeV on the “muon neutrino mass” [@par96]. Further improvement of this limit is restricted by the uncertainty in the $\pi^-$ mass. By studying the end point of the hadronic mass spectrum in the decay $\tau^- \rightarrow 2\pi^+3^-\nu_\tau$ an upper “tau neutrino mass” limit of 24 MeV was obtained [@par96].
The experimental study of neutrino oscillations allows to obtain interesting information about some lepton flavor violating parameters. There are neutrino mixing angles and differences of masses-squared $\Delta m^2$. In the neutrino oscillation experiments one searches for a deficit of some kind of neutrinos at some distance from the source of neutrinos $\nu_l$ (disappearance experiment) or one is looking for an appearance of neutrinos of a given kind $\nu_{l'}$ ($l'=e, \mu, \tau$) at some distance from the source of neutrinos of different kind $\nu_l$ ($l \ne l'$) (appearance experiment). As a result of several oscillation experiments limits have been set on relevant mixing and mass differences. Till now, only the LSND experiment [@ath95] found positive signals in favor of neutrino oscillations. The events can be explained by $\overline{\nu_\mu} \leftrightarrow \overline{\nu_e}$ oscillations with $\Delta m^2 \sim 1 eV^2$.
The second important indication in favor of neutrino masses and mixing comes from the Kamiokande [@fuk94], IMB [@bec95] and Soudan [@goo96] experiments on the detection of atmospheric neutrinos. The data of the Kamiokande collaboration can be explained by ${\nu_\mu} \leftrightarrow {\nu_e}$ or ${\nu_\mu} \leftrightarrow {\nu_\tau}$ oscillations with $\Delta m^2 \sim 10^{-2} eV^2$.
The third most important indication comes from solar neutrino experiments (Homestake [@cle95], Kamiokande [@hir91], Gallex [@gal95] and SAGE [@abd94]). The neutrinos from the sun are detected by observation of the weak interaction induced reactions. The observed events still pose a persisting puzzle being significantly smaller than the values predicted by the Standard Solar Model SSM [@bah95]. These experimental data can be explained in the framework of MSW [@mih86] matter effect for $\Delta m^2 \sim 10^{-5} eV^2$ or by vacuum oscillations in the case of $\Delta m^2 \sim 10^{-10} eV^2$.
It is worthwhile to mention that all the above mentioned existing indications in favor of neutrino mixing cannot be described by any scheme with three massive neutrinos [@oka97]. This fact implies that a scheme of mixing with at least four massive neutrinos (that include not only $\nu_e$, $\nu_\mu$, $\nu_\tau$ but at least one sterile neutrino) has to be considered.
A prominent role among the neutrino mass experiments plays the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay violating the total lepton number by two units. A non-vanishing $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay rate requires neutrinos to be Majorana particles, irrespective which mechanism is used [@sche82]. This theorem has been generalized also for the case of any realistic gauge model with the weak scale softly broken SUSY [@hir97; @hir97t].
The $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay is a second order process in the theory of weak interaction and neutrino mixing enters into the matrix element of the process through the propagator $$<{{\nu_{eL}(x_1)\nu}}^T_{eL,R}(x_2)>
= \sum_{k} U^L_{ek} U^{L,R}_{ek} \xi_k \frac{1- {\gamma}_5}{2}
<{{\nu_{k}(x_1)\overline{\nu}}}_k(x_2)>
\frac{1\mp{\gamma}_5}{2} C,
\label{mass.9}$$ where the propagator of virtual neutrino $\nu_k$ ($k = 1, 2 ...$) with Majorana mass $m_k$ takes the form $$<{{\nu_{k}(x_1)\overline{\nu}}}_k(x_2)> =
\frac{1}{{(2\pi)}^4}
\int d^4 p \,
e^{-ip(x_1-x_2)}
\frac{\hat{p}+m_k}
{p^2-m^2_k}.
\label{mass.10}$$ Eq. (\[mass.9\]) can be derived as result of Eq. (\[mass.6\]) and the following relations: $$\begin{aligned}
\nu_{eL} &= & \sum_k U^L_{ek} \nu_{kL} ~~~
(U^L_{ek}~ = ~U_{ek} ~ e^{-i\alpha_k}, e^{-2i\alpha_k}=\xi_k),
\label{mass.11}\\
\nu_{eR} &= & \sum_k U^R_{ek} \nu_{kR} ~~~
(U^R_{ek}~ = ~U^*_{\overline{e}k} ~ e^{i\alpha_k}~\xi_k).
\label{mass.12}\end{aligned}$$ In the case the matrices $U^L$ and $U^R$ are not independent i.e. in the case of Dirac-Majorana mass term, they obey the normalization and orthogonality conditions [@bil87] $$\begin{aligned}
\sum^{2n}_{k=1} ~ U^L_{lk}~ (U^L_{l'k})^* ~ = ~\delta_{ll'},
~~~\sum^{2n}_{k=1} ~ U^L_{lk}~ U^R_{l'k} ~\xi_k ~ = 0,
~~~\sum^{2n}_{k=1} ~ U^L_{lk}~ (U^R_{l'k})^* ~ = ~\delta_{ll'}.
\label{mass.13}\end{aligned}$$ From LEP data it follows from the measurement of the total decay width of Z vector boson that the number of flavor neutrinos is equal to three [@par96], i.e. n=3 and $l,l' = e, \mu, \tau$.
If we suppose that the light neutrino ($m_k \ll $ few MeV) exchange is the dominant mechanism for the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay, the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay amplitude is proportional to the following lepton number violating parameters:\
i) If both current neutrinos are left handed one can separate an effective (weighted average) neutrino mass $$<m> ~ = ~ \sum^{light}_k~ (U^L_{ek})^2 ~ \xi_k ~ m_k ~ = ~
\sum^{light}_k~ U_{ek}^2 ~ m_k.
\label{mass.14}$$ We note that $<m>$ may be suppressed by a destructive interference between the different contributions in the sum of Eq. (\[mass.14\]) if CP is conserved. In this case the mixing matrix satisfies the condition $U_{ek} = U^*_{ek}~\zeta_k$, where $\zeta_k = \pm i$ is the CP parity of the Majorana neutrino $\nu_k$ [@bil84]. Then we have $$<m_\nu> ~ = ~\sum^{light}_k~ |U_{ek}|^2 ~
\zeta_{k} ~ m_k.
\label{mass.15}$$ ii) If both current neutrinos are of opposite chirality the amplitude is proportional to the factor $$\epsilon_{LR} ~ = ~ \sum^{light}_k~ U^L_{ek}~U^R_{ek} ~ \xi_k
\label{mass.16}$$ and the amplitude does not explicitly depend on the neutrino mass. We note that in Eqs. (\[mass.14\]) and (\[mass.16\]) the summation is only over light neutrinos.
If we consider only the heavy neutrino ($m_k \gg $ 1 GeV) exchange $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay mechanism and both current neutrinos to be left-handed, we can separate from the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay amplitude the parameter $$<m^{-1}_\nu> ~ = ~ \sum^{heavy}_k~ (U^L_{ek})^2 ~ \xi_k ~ \frac{1}{m_k}.
\label{mass.17}$$ Here, the summation is only over heavy neutrinos.
Most investigation study the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay mechanism generated by the effective neutrino mass parameter given in Eq. (\[mass.14\]). The value of this parameter can be determined in two ways.\
i) One can extract $|<m_\nu>|$ from the best presently available experimental lower limits on the half-life of the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay after calculating the corresponding nuclear matrix elements. >From the results of the $^{76}Ge$ experiment [@gue97] one finds $|<m_\nu>| <$ 1.1 eV [@simf97]. We note that a significant progress in search for $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay is expected in the future. The Heidelberg-Moscow and NEMO collaborations are planning to reach sensitivity of 0.1-0.3 eV for $|<m_\nu>|$.\
ii) One can use the constraints imposed by the results of neutrino oscillation experiments on $<m_\nu>$. Bilenky et al [@biln97] have shown that in a general scheme with three light Majorana neutrinos and a hierarchy of neutrino masses (see-saw origin) the results of the first reactor long-baseline experiment CHOOZ [@apo97] and Bugey experiment [@ach95] imply: $|<m_\nu>| < 3\times 10^{-2} eV$. Thus the observation of the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay with a half-life corresponding to $|<m_\nu>| > 10^{-1} eV$ would be a signal of a non-hierarchical neutrino mass spectrum or another mechanism for the violation of lepton number, e.g. right-handed currents [@moh95; @pan96], $R_p \hspace{-1em}/\;\:$ SUSY [@moh86; @ver87; @hkk96; @fae97; @wo97] or others [@hir97; @lpq96; @pan97].
Double beta decay
=================
In this Section the main formulas relevant for the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay, Majorana neutrino exchange and $R_p \hspace{-1em}/\;\:$ SUSY mechanisms of $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay are presented. We note that the theory of the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay and Majorana neutrino exchange mechanism of $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay was discussed in details e.g. in an excellent review of Doi et al [@doi85]. The theory of the $R_p \hspace{-1em}/\;\:$ SUSY mechanism of $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay was presented comprehensively in [@hkk96; @fae97]. The readers are referred to these publications for the details which are not covered in this review.
Two-neutrino mode
-----------------
The $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay is allowed in the SM, so the effects on the lepton number non-conservation can be neglected. In the most popular two nucleon mechanism of the $2\nu\beta\beta$ - decay process the beta decay Hamiltonian acquires the form: $${\cal H}^\beta(x)=\frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}}
\bar{e}(x)\gamma^\alpha (1-\gamma_5) \nu_{e}(x)~
j_{\alpha (x)} + {h.c.},
\label{two.1}$$ where $e(x)$ and $\nu (x)$ are the field operators of the electron and neutrino, respectively. $j_{\alpha}(x)$ is free left-handed hadronic current.
The matrix element of this process takes the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
<{f}|S^{{(2)}}|{i}> &=&\frac{(-{i})^{{2}}}{2}
{\left(\frac{G_{{F}}}{~\sqrt{2}}\right)}^{{2}}
L^{\mu\nu}(p_{{1}},p_{{2}},k_{{1}},k_{{2}})
J_{\mu\nu}(p_{{1}},p_{{2}},k_{{1}},k_{{2}})
\nonumber \\
&&-(p_{{1}}\leftrightarrow p_{{2}}) -
(k_{{1}}\leftrightarrow k_{{2}}) +
(p_{{1}}\leftrightarrow p_{{2}})
(k_{{1}}\leftrightarrow k_{{2}}),
\label{two.2} \end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
J_{\mu\nu}(p_{{1}},p_{{2}},k_{{1}},k_{{2}})
=\int {{e}}^{{i}{{(p}}_{{1}}
{{+k}}_{{1}}{{)x}}_{{1}}}
{{e}}^{{i}{{(p}}_{{2}}
{{+k}}_{{2}}{{)x}}_{{2}}}\nonumber \\
{ _{{out}}<}p_{{f}}|T(J_\mu(x_{{1}})
J_\nu(x_{{2}}))|p_{{i}}>_{{in}} {d}x_{{1}}
{d}x_{{2}}.
\label{two.3}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $L^{\mu\nu}$ originates from the lepton currents and $J_\mu(x)$ is the weak charged nuclear hadron current in the Heisenberg representation [@bil87; @bil82]. $p_{{1}}$ and $p_{{2}}$ ($k_{{1}}$ and $k_{{2}}$) are four-momenta of electrons (antineutrinos), $p_{{i}}$ and $p_{{f}}$ are four-momenta of the initial and final nucleus.
The matrix element in Eq. (\[two.2\]) contains the contributions from two subsequent nuclear beta decay processes and $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay. They can be separated, if we write the T-product of the two hadron currents as follows [@sim91]: $$\begin{aligned}
T(J_\mu(x_{{1}}) J_\nu(x_{{2}}))
=J_\mu(x_{{1}}) J_\nu(x_{{2}}) +
\Theta(x_{{20}} - x_{{10}})
[J_\nu(x_{{2}}),J_\mu(x_{{1}})].
\label{two.4}\end{aligned}$$ The product of two currents in the r.h.s. of Eq. (\[two.4\]) is associated with two subsequent nuclear beta decay processes, which are energetically forbidden for most of the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay isotopes. Thus the non-equal-time commutator of the two hadron currents corresponds to $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay process.
If standard approximations are assumed (only s-waves states of emitted electrons are considered, lepton energies are replaced with their average value ...) we have [@sim91] $$\begin{aligned}
J_{\mu\nu}(p_{{1}},
p_{{2}},k_{{1}},k_{{2}})=
-i2 M^{2\nu}_{{GT}}\delta_{\mu {k}}
\delta_{\nu {k}} ~~~~\nonumber \\
\times 2\pi\delta(E_{{f}}-E_{{i}}+
p_{{10}}+k_{{10}}+p_{{20}}+k_{{20}})
,~k=1,2,3,
\label{two.5}\end{aligned}$$ where, $$\begin{aligned}
M^{2\nu}_{GT} = <0^{{+}}_f|~
\frac{i}{2} \int_0^\infty
[ A_{{k}}(t/2), A_{{k}}(-t/2) ] dt~ |0^{{+}}_i>,
\label{two.6} \end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
A_k (t) = e^{i H t} A_k (0) e^{- i H t} =
\sum^{\infty}_{{n=0}}\frac{(it)^{{n}}}{n!}
\overbrace{[H[H...[H}^{{n}~{times}}
,A_k(0)]...]].
\label{two.7} \end{aligned}$$ Here, $|0^{{+}}>_i$ and $|0^{{+}}>_f$ are the wave functions of the initial and final nuclei with their corresponding energies $E_{{i}}$ and $E_{{f}}$, respectively. $\Delta$ denotes the average energy $\Delta = (E_{{i}}-E_{{f}})/2$. $A_{{k}}(0)$ is the Gamow-Teller transition operator $A_{{k}}(0)=\sum_{{i}}
\tau^{{+}}_{{i}}(\vec{\sigma}_{{i}})_{{k}}$, k=1,2,3.
After performing the integration over the time, inserting a complete set of intermediate states $|1^+_n>$ with eigenenergies $E_{{n}}$ between the two axial currents in Eq. (\[two.6\]) and assuming that the nuclear states are eigenstates of the nuclear Hamiltonian, one ends up with the well-known form the Gamow-Teller transition matrix element in second order $$\begin{aligned}
M^{2\nu}_{\text{GT}}&=&\sum_{\text{n}}\frac{
<0^{{+}}_{{f}}|A_{{k}}(0)|1^{{+}}_{{n}}>
<1^{{+}}_{{n}}|A_{{k}}(0)|0^{{+}}_{{i}}>}
{E_{{n}}-E_{{i}}+\Delta}.
\label{two.8}\end{aligned}$$ So, $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay can be expressed in terms of single beta decay transitions through virtual intermediate states. The form of $M^{2\nu}_{GT}$ in Eq. (\[two.8\]) is suitable for approaches using states in the intermediate nucleus (Intermediate Nucleus Approach = INA) to $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay process like QRPA, RQRPA and shell model methods, which construct the spectrum of the intermediate nucleus by diagonalization.
Under the introduced assumptions the inverse half-life for $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay can be written in the form with factorized lepton and nuclear parts: $$[ T^{2\nu}_{1/2}(0^+ \rightarrow 0^+) ]^{-1} =
G^{2\nu} ~ | M^{2\nu}_{GT}|^2,
\label{two.9}$$ where $G^{2\nu}$ results from integration over the lepton phase space. For the decays of interest $G^{2\nu}$ can be found e.g. in refs. [@hax84; @doi85].
It is worthwhile to notice that the form of $M^{2\nu}_{GT}$ in Eq. (\[two.6\]) as a time integral is very useful for an analytical study of the different approximation schemes. It is obvious that the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay operator should be at least a two-body operator changing two neutrons into two protons. If the commutator of the two time dependent axial currents in Eq. (\[two.6\]) is calculated without approximation for a nuclear Hamiltonian consisting of one- and two- body operators, one obtains an infinite sum of many-body operators. However, if the single particle Hamiltonian approximation scheme is employed, the transition operator is zero [@simm97; @sims97]. The QBA and renormalized QBA (RQBA) schemes imply for the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay transition operator to be a constant. It means that the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay is a higher order process in the boson expansion of the nuclear Hamiltonian and its higher order boson approximations are important. This important phenomenon can not be seen within INA [@simm97; @sims97].
In view of the smallness of the nuclear matrix element $M^{2\nu}_{GT}$ in Eq. (\[two.8\]) the electron $p_{1/2}$-wave Coulomb corrections to the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay amplitude for $0^+_{g.s} \rightarrow 0^+_{g.s.}$ transition have been examined. It was done first within the closure approximation in [@sim88] with the conclusion that the effect is small. The more careful evaluation of the corresponding nuclear matrix elements involves the summation over all virtual $0^-$ and $1^-$ states. In the study performed by Krmpotić et al [@bar95] it is argued this contribution to be significant. If the $p_{3/2}$-wave states of outgoing electrons are considered, the nuclear transition can take place through virtual $2^-$ intermediate states. However, it has been shown in [@civ96] that such contribution to the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay half-life can be disregarded.
The inverse half-life of the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay transition to the $0^+$ and $2^+$ excited states of the final nucleus is given as follows: $$[ T^{2\nu}_{1/2}(0^+ \rightarrow {\bf J}^+) ]^{-1} =
G^{2\nu}(J^+) ~ | M^{2\nu}_{GT}(J^+)|^2,
\label{two.10}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
M^{2\nu}_{\text{GT}}(J^+) = \sum_{\text{n}}\frac{
<0^{{+}}_{{f}}|A_{{k}}(0)|1^{{+}}_{{n}}>
<1^{{+}}_{{n}}|A_{{k}}(0)|0^{{+}}_{{i}}>}
{[{E_{{n}}-E_{{i}}+\Delta}]^s},
\label{two.11}\end{aligned}$$ where $s = 1$ for $J = 0$ and $ s = 3 $ for $J = 2$. These transitions are disfavored by smaller phase space factors $G^{2\nu}(J^+) $ due to a smaller available energy release for these processes [@doi83].
Neutrinoless mode
-----------------
The presently favored left-right symmetric models of Grand Unifications pioneered by Mohapatra, Pati and Senjanović [@moh75] are based on a very interesting idea. It is assumed that parity violation is a low energy phenomenon and that parity conservation is restored above a certain energy scale. Parity could be violated spontaneously in the framework of gauge theories built on the electroweak $SU(2)_R \otimes SU(2)_L \otimes U(1)$ gauge group [@moh81]. In addition the left-right group structure can be derived from GUT groups SO(10) [@fri81] and the small neutrino masses can be explained with help of the see-saw mechanism in a natural way.
The left-right models contain the known vector bosons $W^\pm_L$ (81 GeV) mediating the left-handed weak interaction and hypothetical vector bosons $W^\pm_R$ responsible for a right-handed weak interaction: $$\begin{aligned}
W^{\pm}_1 = \cos\zeta W^{\pm}_L + \sin\zeta W^{\pm}_R, ~ ~~~
W^{\pm}_2 = -\sin\zeta W^{\pm}_L + \cos\zeta W^{\pm}_R.
\label{neu.1}\end{aligned}$$ The “left- and right-handed” vector bosons are mixed if the mass eigenstates are not identical with the weak eigenstates. Since we have not seen a right-handed weak interaction, the mass of a heavy vector boson must be considerably larger than the mass of the light vector boson, which is responsible mainly for the left-handed weak interaction.
Within the left-right models the weak beta decay Hamiltonian constructed by Doi, Kotani, Nishiura and Takasugi [@doi83] takes the form $${\cal H}^\beta = \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}
[ j_{L\mu}J^{\mu +}_L + \kappa j_{L\mu}J^{\mu +}_R +
\eta j_{R\mu}J^{\mu +}_L + \lambda j_{R\mu}J^{\mu +}_R ] + h.c.
\label{neu.2}$$ Here, $\kappa = \eta = \tan \zeta$ and $\lambda = (M_1/M_2)^2$ are dimensionless coupling constants for different parts of the right handed weak interaction. $M_1$ and $M_2$ are respectively the masses of the vector bosons $W_1$ and $W_2$. The left- and right- handed leptonic currents are $$j^\mu_L(x) = \overline{e}(x) \gamma^\mu (1-\gamma_5) \nu_{eL}(x),
~~~
j^\mu_R(x) = \overline{e}(x) \gamma^\mu (1+\gamma_5) \nu_{eR}(x).
\label{neu.3}$$ The left- and right- handed current neutrinos ($\nu_{eL}$ and $\nu_{eR}$) are given in Eqs. (\[mass.11\]) and (\[mass.12\]). The nuclear currents are assumed to be $$\begin{aligned}
(J^{0 +}_{L,R}(\mathbf{x}), {\mathbf{J}}^{0 +}_{L,R}(\mathbf{x}))
= \sum_{n=1}^A \tau^+_n \delta ( \mathbf{x}-{\mathbf{r}}_n )
(g_V\mp g_A C_n, \mp g_A {\mathbf{\sigma}}_n + g_V {\mathbf{D}}_n ),
\label{neu.4}\end{aligned}$$ where $C_n$ and ${\mathbf{D}}_n$ are nucleon recoil terms [@doi85]. The $\eta$ term arises when the chiralities of the quark hadronic current match those of the leptonic current, i.e. there are of left-right combination (this is possible due W-boson mixing). The $\lambda$ term arises when both the quark hadronic current and leptonic current are right-handed \[ see Fig. \[figzero.1\]\].
Let suppose that $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay is generated by the weak interaction Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[neu.2\]) and that only exchange of light neutrinos is considered. Then, the matrix element for this process depends on the three effective lepton number violating parameters $<m_\nu>$ (defined in Eq. (\[mass.14\])), $< \lambda >$ and $<\eta >$: $$<\lambda > = \lambda ~~\epsilon_{LR} = \lambda ~
\sum^{light}_k~ U^L_{ek}~U^R_{ek} ~ \xi_k, ~~~
<\eta > = \eta ~\epsilon_{LR} = \eta ~
\sum^{light}_k~ U^L_{ek}~U^R_{ek} ~ \xi_k.
\label{neu.5}$$ We note that the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay amplitude converges to zero in the limit of zero neutrino mass. It is apparent by $<m_\nu> = 0$ in this case. If all neutrinos are massless or are massive but light , $<\lambda>$ and $<\eta>$ vanish due to the orthogonality condition in Eq. (\[mass.13\]).
The inverse half-life for $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay expressed in terms of the lepton number violating parameters is given by [@doi85] $$\begin{aligned}
[T^{0\nu}_{1/2}]^{-1} & = & |M^{0\nu}_{GT}|^2
[ C_{mm} (\frac{m_\nu }{m_e})^2 +
C_{\lambda \lambda} <\lambda >^2 + C_{\eta\eta} <\eta >^2 +\nonumber \\
&&C_{m \lambda} |<\lambda>| \frac{|<m_\nu >|}{m_e} \cos\Psi_1 +
C_{m \eta} |<\eta>| \frac{|<m_\nu >|}{m_e} \cos\Psi_2 + \nonumber \\
&&C_{\lambda\eta} |<\lambda>| |<\eta>| \cos(\Psi_1-\Psi_2) ],
\label{neu.6}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Psi_1$ and $\Psi_2$ are the relative phases between $<m_\nu>$ and $<\lambda >$ and $<\eta>$, respectively. The coefficients $C_{xy}$ are expressed as combination of 8 nuclear matrix elements and 9 kinematical factors: $$\begin{aligned}
C_{mm}&=&(1-\chi_F)~ G_{01}, ~~~~
C_{m \eta} = (1-\chi_F )[ \chi_{2+} G_{03} - \chi_{1-} G_{04} -
{\chi}_{P} G_{05} + \chi_{R} G_{06} ], \nonumber \\
C_{m \lambda}&=& -(1-\chi_F )[\chi_{2-} G_{03} - \chi_{1+} G_{04} ], ~~
C_{\lambda \lambda} = [ \chi^2_{2-} G_{02} +
\frac{1}{9} \chi^{2}_{1-} G_{04} - \frac{2}{9} \chi_{1+}\chi_{2-} G_{03} ]
\nonumber \\
C_{\eta \eta}&=&[ \chi^2_{2+} G_{02} + \frac{1}{9}\chi^2_{1-} G_{04} +
- \frac{2}{9}\chi_{1-}\chi_{2+} G_{03} + \chi^2_P G_{08} -
\chi_P \chi_R G_{07} + \chi^2_R G_{09} ], \nonumber \\
C_{\lambda \eta}&=&-2[ \chi_{2-}\chi_{2+} G_{02} -
\frac{1}{9}(\chi_{1+}\chi_{2+} + \chi_{2-}\chi_{1-}) G_{03} +
\frac{1}{9} \chi_{1+}\chi_{1-} G_{04} ],
\label{neu.7}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\chi_{1\pm} = \pm 3 {{\chi}}_{{F'}} + {{\chi}}_{{GT'}} -
6 {\chi_{{T'}}}, ~~~
\chi_{2\pm} = \pm {{\chi}}_{F\omega} + {{\chi}}_{GT\omega} -
\frac{1}{9} \chi_{1\pm}.
\label{neu.8}$$ The numerical values of the kinematical factors $G_{0i}$ ($i=1,9$) can be found e.g. in [@doi85; @pan96]. The nuclear matrix elements within closure approximation are of the form $$X_I =
\langle 0^+_f|\sum_{i\neq j} \tau_i^+ \tau_j^+
{\cal O}_{I}({\mathbf{r}}_i,{\mathbf{r}}_j,
{\mathbf{\sigma}}_i,{\mathbf{\sigma}}_j) | 0^+_i \rangle
\label{neu.9}$$ with $X_I = M^{0\nu}_I$ ($I = GT$) or $X_I = \chi_I$ ($I = GT$, $F$, $GT\omega $, $F\omega $, ${GT'} $, ${F'}$, ${T'}$, $P$, $R$). The radial and spin-angular dependence of the transitions operators ${\cal O}_I $ is given in Table \[tabneu.1\]. We mention that the inaccuracy coming from the closure approximation in completing the sum over virtual nuclear states is small (about $15 \%$) [@mut95], since the average neutrino momentum is large compared to the average nuclear excitation energy [@tom91]. The nuclear matrix elements derived without closure approximation can be found in [@ver90; @pan92; @krm94; @bar97]. The expressions for the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay matrix elements obtained within the relativistic quark confinement model are given in [@suh91].
We note that a more general expression for the inverse half-life including also the heavy neutrino exchange mechanism can be found in [@pan92]. We shall discuss this type of $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay mechanism in context of the $R_p \hspace{-1em}/\;\:$-SUSY mechanisms.
Majoron-Neutrinoless mode
-------------------------
In many extensions of the standard model [@chi81; @gon89; @rom92; @ber92] appears a physical Goldstone boson called Majoron, which is a light or massless boson with a very tiny coupling to neutrinos. The Majoron offers a new possibility for looking for a signal of new physics in double beta decay experiments.
The Majoron emitting mode of double beta decay ($0\nu\beta\beta\phi$-decay) \[see Eq. (\[int.3\])\] has been proposed by Georgi, Glashow and Nussinov [@geo81] within the model introduced by Gelmini and Roncadelli [@gel81].
Today, we know several Majoron models based on different motivations leading to a different form of the Majoron-neutrino interaction Lagrangian. The classical Majoron Models [@chi81; @gel81; @aul82] suggest that the interaction of the so called ordinary Majoron with neutrinos is of the form: $${\cal L}_{\phi\nu\nu} = -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{ij}
{\overline{\nu}}_{i} (a_{ij}P_L +b_{ij} P_R) \nu_j \phi^* + h.c.,
\label{maj.1}$$ where $P_{R,L}= 1/2(1\pm\gamma_5)$. If the usual approximation $m_{i,j} \ll q \approx p_F
\approx {\cal O}(100 MeV)$ valid for light neutrinos is assumed, one can write for the inverse half-life of the $0\nu\beta\beta\phi$-decay $$[T^{\phi 0\nu}_{1/2}]^{-1} = |<g>|^2 |M^{0\nu}_{GT}|^2 |1-\chi_F|^2 G_B,
\label{maj.2}$$ with the effective Majoron coupling constant $$<g> = \sum_{i j}^{light} U^R_{ei} U^R_{ej} b_{ij}.
\label{maj.3}$$ We see that $0\nu\beta\beta\phi$-decay is ruled by the same nuclear matrix elements as the light Majorana neutrino mass mechanism of the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay. The numerical value of the kinematical factors $G_B$ for different nuclei can be found e.g. in [@doi85].
Recently, a new class of Majoron models [@bur93; @bam95; @car93] have been considered, which introduce a new types of Majorons carrying leptonic charge. The theoretical analysis of the charged Majoron modes of double beta decay have been performed in [@hir96; @bark95]. It has been found that within the new Majoron models unobservable small decay rates for the Majoron-emitting $0\nu\beta\beta\phi$-decay are expected.
SUSY neutrinoless mode
----------------------
Supersymmetry has been introduced to solve the so called “hierarchy problem” of the unified theories [@chan88]. It is the only known symmetry which can stabilize the elementary Higgs boson mass with respect to otherwise uncontrollable radiative corrections. Unlike the symmetries of ordinary particle physics, that relate the particles of the same spin, the SUSY is relating bosons to fermions and vice-versa and requires the existence of new supersymmetric particles. To each ordinary particle like leptons (neutrino, electron), quarks, gauge bosons (W, Z, photon), Higgs bosons corresponds a superpartner with different spin (bosons replacing fermions and vice versa), i.e. slepton (sneutrino, selectron), squark, gaugino (wino, zino, photino), higgsino. SUSY is not a good symmetry in the nature. Supersymmetry has to be broken otherwise the superpartners would possess the same masses as their ordinary partners. This would change drastically the phenomenology of particle physics.
The simplest SUSY extension of the SM is the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM). The Lagrangian of the MSSM conserves a new quantity called R-parity: $$R = (-1)^{(3B + L + 2S)}.$$ Here, B, L and S are respectively the baryon number, lepton number and spin. The R-parity has been imposed guarantee the baryon and lepton number conservation. Ordinary particles have R-parity even and their supersymmetric partners R-parity odd. However, R-parity conservation is not required by gauge invariance or supersymmetry and might be broken explicitly or spontaneously at the Planck scale ($R_p \hspace{-1em}/\;\:$ SUSY) [@rom92].
The $R_p \hspace{-1em}/\;\:$ SUSY is an other way of the lepton number violation in addition to the Majorana neutrino mass term. It has interesting phenomenological consequences. The lepton flavor violation in the context of SUSY models has been discussed extensively in the literature [@val91; @rom91; @leo86; @kos89]. The collider experiments [@roy92], low-energy processes [@bar89], matter stability [@zwi83; @wei82; @bar86] and cosmology [@cam91; @moh87; @dre91] offer important constraints on $R_p \hspace{-1em}/\;\:$ SUSY theories.
The $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay induced by exchange of superparticles has been studied within the $R_p \hspace{-1em}/\;\:$ MSSM [@hkk96; @fae97; @wo97]. The relevant $R_p \hspace{-1em}/\;\:$ violating part of the superpotential takes the form: $$W_{R_p \hspace{-0.8em}/\;\:}~ = ~\lambda'_{ijk}~ L_i ~ Q_j ~{\bar D}_k.
\label{susy.1}$$ Here $L$ and $Q$ are respectively lepton and quark doublet superfields while ${\bar D}$ denotes ${\em down}$ quark singlet superfields. $\lambda'_{ijk}$ is a coupling constant and indices $i,j, k$ denote generations.
The nuclear ${0\nu\beta\beta}$-decay is triggered by the ${0\nu\beta\beta}$ quark transition $d + d\rightarrow u + u + 2 e^-$. If this lepton number violating process ($\Delta L_e = 2$) is induced by heavy SUSY particles and heavy neutrinos in a virtual intermediate state, one can write for the corresponding effective quark-electron Lagrangian [@fae98]: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}^{\Delta L_e =2}_{eff}\ =
\frac{G_F^2}{2 m_{_p}}~ \bar e (1 + \gamma_5) e^{\bf c}~
\left[\eta_{PS}~ J_{PS}J_{PS}
- \frac{1}{4} \eta_T ~ J_T^{\mu\nu} J_{T \mu\nu}
+ \eta_N ~ J^\mu_{VA} J_{VA \mu} \right].
\label{susy.2}\end{aligned}$$ The color singlet hadronic currents are $J_{PS} = {\bar u}^{\alpha} (1+\gamma_5) d_{\alpha}$, $J_T^{\mu \nu} = {\bar u}^{\alpha}
\sigma^{\mu \nu} (1 + \gamma_5) d_{\alpha}$, $J^\mu_{AV} = {\bar u}^{\alpha} \gamma^\mu (1-\gamma_5) d_{\alpha}$, where $\alpha$ is a color index and $\sigma^{\mu \nu} = (i/2)[\gamma^\mu , \gamma^\nu ]$. Compared to Ref. [@hkk96] the Lagrangian in Eq. (\[susy.2\]) contains properly taken into account contribution of the color octet currents.
The effective lepton-number violating parameters $\eta_{PS}$ and $\eta_{T}$ in Eq. (\[susy.2\]) accumulate fundamental parameters of $R_p \hspace{-1em}/\;\:$ MSSM as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{etaq}
\eta_{PS} &=& \eta_{\chi\tilde e} + \eta_{\chi\tilde f} +
\eta_{\chi} + \eta_{\tilde g} + 7 \eta_{\tilde g}^{\prime}, \\
\label{eta}
\eta_{T} &=& \eta_{\chi} - \eta_{\chi\tilde f} + \eta_{\tilde g}
- \eta_{\tilde g}^{\prime},
%\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eta_g}
\eta_{\tilde g} &=& \frac{\pi \alpha_s}{6}
\frac{\lambda^{'2}_{111}}{G_F^2 m_{\tilde d_R}^4} \frac{m_P}{m_{\tilde g}}\left[
1 + \left(\frac{m_{\tilde d_R}}{m_{\tilde u_L}}\right)^4\right]\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\eta_{\chi} &=& \frac{ \pi \alpha_2}{2}
\frac{\lambda^{'2}_{111}}{G_F^2 m_{\tilde d_R}^4}
\sum_{i=1}^{4}\frac{m_P}{m_{\chi_i}}
\left[
\epsilon_{R i}^2(d) + \epsilon_{L i}^2(u)
\left(\frac{m_{\tilde d_R}}{m_{\tilde u_L}}\right)^4\right]\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\eta_{\chi \tilde e} &=& 2 \pi \alpha_2
\frac{\lambda^{'2}_{111}}{G_F^2 m_{\tilde d_R}^4}
\left(\frac{m_{\tilde d_R}}{m_{\tilde e_L}}\right)^4
\sum_{i=1}^{4}\epsilon_{L i}^2(e)\frac{m_P}{m_{\chi_i}},\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\eta'_{\tilde g} &=& \frac{\pi \alpha_s}{12}
\frac{\lambda^{'2}_{111}}{G_F^2 m_{\tilde d_R}^4}
\frac{m_P}{m_{\tilde g}}
\left(\frac{m_{\tilde d_R}}{m_{\tilde u_L}}\right)^2,\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{eta_end}
\eta_{\chi \tilde f} &=& \frac{\pi \alpha_2 }{2}
\frac{\lambda^{'2}_{111}}{G_F^2 m_{\tilde d_R}^4}
\left(\frac{m_{\tilde d_R}}{m_{\tilde e_L}}\right)^2
\sum_{i=1}^{4}\frac{m_P}{m_{\chi_i}}
\left[\epsilon_{R i}(d) \epsilon_{L i}(e) + \right.\\ \nonumber
&+& \left.\epsilon_{L i}(u) \epsilon_{R i}(d)
\left(\frac{m_{\tilde e_L}}{m_{\tilde u_L}}\right)^2
+ \epsilon_{L i}(u) \epsilon_{L i}(e)
\left(\frac{m_{\tilde d_R}}{m_{\tilde u_L}}\right)^2
\right].
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_2 = g_{2}^{2}/(4\pi)$ and $\alpha_s = g_{3}^{2}/(4\pi)$ are $SU(2)_L$ and $SU(3)_c$ gauge coupling constants. $m_{\tilde u_L}$, $m_{\tilde d_R}$, $m_{\tilde g}$ and $m_{\chi}$ are masses of the u-squark, d-squark, gluino $\tilde g$ and of the lightest neutralino $\chi$, respectively. The neutralino is linear superposition of the gaugino and higgsino fields: $\chi = \alpha_{\chi} \tilde{B} + \beta_{\chi} \tilde{W}^{3} +
\delta_{\chi} \tilde{H}_{1}^{0} + \gamma_{\chi} \tilde{H}_{2}^{0}$. Here $\tilde{W}^{3}$ and $\tilde{B}$ are neutral $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)$ gauginos while $\tilde{H}_{2}^{0}$, $\tilde{H}_{1}^{0}$ are higgsinos which are the superpartners of the two neutral Higgs boson fields $H_1^0$ and $H_2^0$ with a weak hypercharge $Y=-1, \ +1$, respectively. The mixing coefficients $\alpha_{\chi},\beta_{\chi},\gamma_{\chi},
\delta_{\chi}$ can be obtained from diagonalization of the $4\times 4$ neutralino mass matrix [@Haber]. Neutralino couplings are defined as [@Haber] $\epsilon_{L\psi} = - T_3(\psi) \beta_{\chi} +
\tan \theta_W \left(T_3(\psi) - Q(\psi)\right) \alpha_{\chi}$, $\epsilon_{R\psi} = Q(\psi) \tan \theta_W \alpha_{\chi}$. Here $Q $ and $ \ T_3$ are the electric charge and the weak isospin of the fields $\psi = u, d, e$. The relevant Feynman diagrams associated with gluino and neutralino contributions to the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay are drawn in Fig. \[figsus.1\].
The effective lepton-number violating parameters $\eta_{N}$ in Eq. (\[susy.2\]) has origin in the exchange of heavy Majorana neutrino and takes the form: $\eta_N = m_p <m^{-1}_\nu >$. Here, $m_p$ is the mass of proton and $<m^{-1}_\nu >$ is the inverse value of the effective heavy Majorana neutrino mass defined in Eq. (\[mass.17\]).
For the calculation of the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay nuclear transitions the quark-lepton interaction in Eq. (\[susy.2\]) has to be reformulated in terms of effective hadron-lepton interaction. The quarks undergoing $R_p \hspace{-1em}/\;\:$ SUSY transition can be incorporated in two nucleons (the well-known two-nucleon mode), one intermediate pion and one nucleon (so called one-pion mode) or in two intermediate pions (so called two-pion mode). These three possibilities are drawn in Fig. \[figsus.2\]. We note that intermediate SUSY partners are heavy particles and thus in the two-nucleon mode the two-decaying neutrons must come very close to each other. This contribution is therefore suppressed by the short range nucleon-nucleon repulsion. Therefore, it is expected that the pion-exchange mechanism dominates over the conventional two-nucleon one. The scale on which the pion contribution is enhanced compared to the two-nucleon mode is the ratio of the nucleon form factor cut-off parameter compared to the pion mass. In addition, the relative importance of the two-nucleon mode, of the one-pion mode and of the two-pion mode depends on the evaluation of the hadronic matrix element $<\pi^+ | J_i J_i |\pi^- >$ ($i = P,S,T$), which is model dependent. The values of the corresponding structure coefficients calculated within the vacuum insertion approximation (VIA) and within the non-relativistic quark model (QM) differs from each other by a factor of three [@fae97]. It is worthwhile to notice that the importance of the pion-exchange currents in the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay was first been pointed out by Pontecorvo [@pon68].
The half-life for the neutrinoless double beta decay regarding all the three possibilities of hadronization of the quarks can be written in the form [@fae98] $$\begin{aligned}
\big[ T_{1/2}^{0\nu}(0^+ \rightarrow 0^+) \big]^{-1}~~ =
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nonumber \\
G_{01} \left | \eta_{T} {\cal M}_{\tilde q}^{2N}
+ (\eta_{PS}-\eta_{T}) {\cal M}_{\tilde f}^{2N} + \frac{3}{8}
(\eta_{T} + \frac{5}{8} \eta_{PS}) {\cal M}^{\pi N}
+\eta_N {\cal M}_N \right |^2\,
\label{susy.3}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal M}^{2N}_{\tilde q} &=& c_A \Big[
\alpha^{(0)}_{V-\tilde{q}} {\cal M}_{F N} +
\alpha^{(0)}_{A-\tilde{q}} {\cal M}_{GT N} +
\alpha^{(1)}_{V-\tilde{q}} {\cal M}_{F'} +
\alpha^{(1)}_{A-\tilde{q}} {\cal M}_{GT'} +
\alpha_{T-\tilde{q}} {\cal M}_{T'} \Big]\,, \nonumber \\
{\cal M}^{2N}_{\tilde f} &=& c_A \Big[
\alpha^{(0)}_{V-\tilde{f}} {\cal M}_{F N} +
\alpha^{(0)}_{A-\tilde{f}} {\cal M}_{GT N} +
\alpha^{(1)}_{V-\tilde{f}} {\cal M}_{F'} +
\alpha^{(1)}_{A-\tilde{f}} {\cal M}_{GT'} +
\alpha_{T-\tilde{f}} {\cal M}_{T'} \Big]\,, \nonumber \\
{\cal M}^{\pi N} &=& c_A \Big[
\frac{4}{3}\alpha^{1\pi}\left(M_{GT-1\pi} + M_{T-1\pi} \right)
+
\alpha^{2\pi}\left(M_{GT-2\pi} + M_{T-2\pi} \right)\Big]\,,
\nonumber \\
{\cal M}_N &=& c_A \Big[
\frac{g^2_V}{g^2_A} {\cal M}_{F N} - {\cal M}_{GT N} \Big],
~~~~c_A = \frac{m_{_p}}{ m_e}\left(\frac{m_A}{m_{_p}}\right)^2.
\label{susy.5}\end{aligned}$$ Here $G_{01}$ is the standard phase space factor introduced in Eq. (\[neu.7\]) and $m_A = 850$ MeV is the nucleon form factor cut-off (for all nucleon form factors the dipole shape with the same cut-off is considered). The nucleon structure coefficients $\alpha 's$ entering nuclear matrix elements of the two-nucleon mode are given in Table \[tabsus.1\]. The structure coefficient of the one-pion $\alpha^{1\pi}$ and two-pion mode $\alpha^{2\pi}$ are [@fae97; @fae98]: $\alpha^{1\pi} = -0.044$ and $\alpha^{2\pi} = 0.2$ (VIA), 0.64 (QM). The partial nuclear matrix elements of the $R_p \hspace{-1em}/\;\:$ SUSY mechanism for the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay appearing in Eq. (\[susy.5\]) are of the following form: $${\cal M}_I =
\langle 0^+_f|\sum_{i\neq j} \tau_i^+ \tau_j^+
{\cal O}_{I}({\mathbf{r}}_i,{\mathbf{r}}_j,
{\mathbf{\sigma}}_i,{\mathbf{\sigma}}_j) | 0^+_i \rangle ,
\label{susy.8}$$ where $I =$ $F N$, $GT N$, $F'$, $GT'$, $T'$, $GT-i\pi$ and $T-i\pi$ (i=1,2). The corresponding operators ${\cal O}_{I}$ are given in Table \[tabneu.1\].
After the nuclear matrix elements are evaluated one can extract the constraints on the combination of lepton number violating parameters $\eta_{PS}$, $\eta_{T}$ and $\eta_{N}$ from the non-observation of the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay \[see Eq. (\[susy.3\])\]. It is worthwhile to notice that it is a common practice to consider separatelly $R_p \hspace{-1em}/\;\:$ SUSY and heavy neutrino exchange mechanisms for the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay. Then, the experimental lower bound $T^{exp}_{1/2}$ for the half-life provides the following constraint on $\eta_N$ and $\eta_{_{SUSY}}$ parameters: $$\eta_{N} \leq \eta^{exp}_{N} = \frac{1}{|{\cal M}_N |}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{G_{01} T^{exp}_{1/2}}},$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{con}
\eta_{_{SUSY}} \equiv \frac{3}{8}(\eta^T + \frac{5}{3} \eta^{PS})
\leq \eta^{exp}_{_{SUSY}} = \frac{1}{|{\cal M}^{\pi N}|}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{G_{01} T^{exp}_{1/2}}}.
\label{limit.susy}\end{aligned}$$ where we assumed the dominance of the two-pion mode (, which seems to be very probable). Then we have for the 1st generation Yukawa coupling constant ${\acute{\lambda}}_{111}$ under the phenomenologically viable simplifying assumptions (the lightest neutralino is B-ino dominant, $m_{\tilde q} \geq m_{\tilde e}/2$) [@fae98]: $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda'_{111} \le 1.8
\sqrt{{\eta}^{exp}_{_{SUSY}}}
\Big({m_{\tilde q}\over{100 ~{\text{GeV}}}} \Big)^2
\Big({m_{\tilde g}\over{100 ~{\text{GeV}}}} \Big)^{1/2},
\label{susy.9}\\
\lambda'_{111} \le 12.5
\sqrt{{\eta}^{exp}_{_{SUSY}}}
\Big({m_{\tilde e}\over{100 ~{\text{GeV}}}} \Big)^2
\Big({m_{\chi}\over{100 ~{\text{GeV}}}} \Big)^{1/2}.
\label{susy.10}\end{aligned}$$ We note that the running QCD coupling constant $\alpha_s(Q)$ was taken at the scale $Q = 1$GeV with the normalization on the world average value $\alpha_s(M_Z) = 0.120$ [@par96].
There is also a possibility to get useful constraints on other parameters of the SUSY models by (e.g. B-L violating sneutrino mass) considering the R-parity conserving SUSY mechanism for $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay. A class of such mechanisms have been considered in [@hir97]. However, the constraint on the sneutrino mass spectrum from the double beta decay experiment has been found less stringent then the constraint from the best laboratory limits on the neutrino masses.
Nuclear models
==============
Shell model
-----------
The shell model is giving a very satisfactory description of the observed properties of the low-lying states of nuclei. The microscopic shell model wave functions posses a set of quantum numbers reflecting the symmetries of the strong interaction. This is an advantage in respect to the QRPA (Quasiparticle Random Phase Approximation), where the proton and neutron numbers are only conserved in average. However, for the medium and heavy nuclei the shell model space increases so drastically, that reliable calculations are impossible beyond the pf-shell. But even relative large spaces in pf-shell nuclei can not reliably describe the states in the giant Gamow-Teller resonance region, where most of the $\beta^-$ strength is concentrated. Thus even in lighter nuclei the shell model studies of the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay transitions are based on the assumption that the contribution of higher lying $\beta^-$ strengths to $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay matrix element is negligible, e.g. due to the small overlap with the $\beta^+$ strength distribution and due to the large energy denominator.
Calculation of the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay matrix elements requires only the knowledge of the initial and final nuclear wave functions as the exchange potential depends weakly on details of nuclear structure. It is worthwhile to notice that it is almost impossible to construct even the wave functions of the initial and final nuclei for nuclear systems, which are interesting for the $\beta\beta$ decay. Only for the double beta decay candidate $^{48}Ca$ this has been found possible by considering the full (pf) shell [@ret95]. In the heavier nuclei the number of basis states increases astronomically and it is difficult to perform a realistic shell-model calculation without very severe truncations.
In earlier studies the weak coupling scheme has been employed, starting from a product of neutron and proton wave functions and employing truncations according the energies of the unpertubated proton and neutron states [@hax84; @sin88; @gru85]. Nowadays, there are some shell model codes [@cau96; @zha90; @john97; @nak96] which can treat some of the heavier nuclear systems undergoing double beta decay in a considerably more realistic way. We remind also that the feasibility of the shell model calculations is growing with increasing computer facilities.
The shell model calculations generally have resulted in larger transition matrix elements than the QRPA. One may surmise that the stringent truncation imposed on shell model spaces exclude configurations responsible for the reduction by destructive interference. This idea is supported by the shell model studies of the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay of $^{48}Ca$ [@zha90] and $^{92}Mo$ [@john97], in which the dependence of the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay matrix elements on the configuration space used have been examined. Another reason can be the omission of the spin-orbit partners. Recently, it has been found that there is a destructive interference between “spin-flip” and “non spin-flip” contributions to the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay transition leading to the suppression of $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay matrix elements [@rad95; @civn95]. In addition the matrix elements obtained within the shell model can be suppressed by the renormalization of the Gamow-Teller operators in order to account for about $20\%$ quenching of the beta decay strength. Till now, the origin of this quenching phenomenon is not well understood and can be explained by a number of reasons, e.g. by influence of many-particle configurations or by the renormalization of axial vector and vector weak interactions constants due to nuclear medium effects leading to $g_A/g_V\approx 1$.
QRPA and renormalized QRPA
--------------------------
The pn-QRPA has been found to be a powerful model, considering its simplicity, to describe nuclear matrix elements in ordinary beta decay. In addition, the QRPA can handle of great number of intermediate states. Therefore, the pn-QRPA has been the most frequently used nuclear structure method to deal with the nuclear structure aspects of the $\beta\beta$ decay for open shell systems \[see e.g. [@vog86; @civ87; @mut88; @pan92; @krm94; @tom87; @eng88; @mut89]\]. In the double beta decay the initial nucleus decays to final nucleus through virtual excitations of all states of the intermediate nucleus. The excited states are obtained by solving the well-known QRPA equations, which yield all excited states of a given even-even nucleus. The advantage of the QRPA calculation in respect to the shell model approach is that it can be performed in large model spaces. The QRPA produces a considerably smaller number of states than the shell model as it is based on a harmonic approximation.
A shortcoming of the pn-QRPA is that it frequently overestimates the ground state correlations, leading to instabilities and finally to collapse of the QRPA solution. The collapse is caused by generation of too many correlations with increasing strength of the attractive proton-neutron interaction. Unfortunately, the physical value of this force is usually close to the point in which the QRPA solutions collapse. This behavior has its origin in the quasi-boson approximation (QBA) violating the Pauli exclusion principle and causing the QRPA excitation operators behave like bosons [@toi95; @simn96]. The increasing violation of the Pauli principle is generated by excessive ground state correlations. To overcome this difficulty the renormalized QRPA have been proposed [@toi95; @simn96], which take into account the Pauli exclusion principle in an approximate way. The price paid for bypassing the collapse in the RQRPA is the violation of the Ikeda sum rule [@krm96; @hirm96].
The pn-QRPA [@vog86; @civ87; @mut88], full-QRPA [@cheo93], pn-RQRPA [@toi95] and full-RQRPA [@simn96] formalisms are fairly well known. So we briefly mention only its main features here.
The QRPA as well as the RQRPA formalisms consist of two main steps: (i) The Bogoliubov transformation smears out the nuclear Fermi surface over a relatively large number of orbitals (ii) The equation of motion in the quasiparticle basis determines then the excited states.
If the proton-proton, neutron-neutron and proton-neutron pairing is considered, the particle ($c^{+}_{\tau a m_{a}}$ and $c^{}_{\tau a m_{a}}$, $\tau = p,n$) and quasiparticle ($a^{+}_{\mu a m_{a}}$ and $a^{}_{\mu a m_{a}}$, $\mu = 1,2$) creation and annihilation operators for spherical shell model states (The label $a$ designates quantum numbers $n^{}_a, l^{}_{a}, j^{}_{a}$.) are related each to other by the Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (HFB) transformation: $$\left( \matrix{ c^{+}_{p k m_{k} } \cr
c^{+}_{n k m_{k}} \cr {\tilde{c}}_{p k m_{k} } \cr
{\tilde{c}}_{n k {\tilde{m}}_{k}}
}\right) = \left( \matrix{
u_{k 1 p} & u_{k 2 p} & -v_{k 1 p} & -v_{k 2 p} \cr
u_{k 1 n} & u_{k 2 n} & -v_{k 1 n} & -v_{k 2 n} \cr
v_{k 1 p} & v_{k 2 p} & u_{k 1 p} & u_{k 2 p} \cr
v_{k 1 n} & v_{k 2 n} & u_{k 1 n} & u_{k 2 n} }\right)
\left( \matrix{ a^{+}_{1 k m_{k}} \cr
a^{+}_{2 k m_{k}} \cr {\tilde{a}}_{1 k m_{k}} \cr
{\tilde{a}}_{2 k m_{k}} }\right).
\label{qrpa.1}$$ where the tilde $\sim$ indicates time reversal ($a_{\tau a {\tilde m}_{a}}$ = $(-1)^{j_{a} - m_{a}}a^{}_{\tau a -m_{a}}$). The occupation amplitudes $u$ and $v$ and the single quasiparticle energies $E^{}_{a \alpha}$ are obtained by solving the adequate HFB equation [@cheo93]. Since the model space considered is finite, the pairing interactions are renormalized by the strength parameters $d_{pp}$, $d_{nn}$ and $d_{pn}$ [@cheo93] to the empirical gaps defined by Moeller and Nix [@mn92]. The numerical values of the $d_{pp}$ and $d_{nn}$ are close to unity. A $d_{pn}$ value higher than unity is the price paid for the spherical symmetry of the model which excludes the treatment of the T=0 pairing. The J=0 T=0 pairs can be treated in a BCS or even HFB approach only due to deformation. The T=0 pairing is effectively taken into account by the renormalization of the T=1 J=0 n-p interaction leading to a higher value of $d_{pn}$. For large enough model space the value of $d_{pn}$ is about 1.5, what is reasonable [@simf97].
In the limit without proton-neutron pairing one has: $u^{}_{2p}$ = $v^{}_{2p}$ = $u^{}_{1n}$ = $v^{}_{1n}$ = 0. In this case the Bogoliubov transformation in Eq. (\[qrpa.1\]) is reduced to two BCS transformations, for protons ($u^{}_{1p}=u^{}_p$, $v^{}_{1p}=v^{}_p$) and for neutrons ($u^{}_{2n}=u^{}_n$, $v^{}_{2n}=v^{}_n$) separately.
In the framework of the full-QRPA or full-RQRPA the $m^{th}$ excited states with angular momentum $J$ and projection $M$ is created by a phonon-operator $Q$ with the properties $$Q^{m\dagger}_{JM}|0^+_{RPA}\rangle
=|m,JM\rangle \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad
Q|0^+_{RPA}\rangle=0.
\label{qrpa.2}$$ Here, $|0^+_{RPA}\rangle$ is the ground state of the initial or the final nucleus. The phonon-operator $Q$ takes the following form $$\begin{aligned}
Q^{m\dagger}_{JM^\pi}&=&\sum_{k l}
X^m_{12}(k,l,J) A^{\dagger}_{12}(k,l,J,M)
+ Y^m_{12}(k,l,J) {\tilde{A}}_{12}(k,l,J,M)+\nonumber \\
&&\sum_{k \leq l \atop \mu = 1,2}
X^m_{\mu\mu}(k,l,J) A^{\dagger}_{\mu\mu}(k,l,J,M)
+ Y^m_{\mu\mu}(k,l,J) {\tilde{A}}_{\mu\mu}(k,l,J,M).
\label{qrpa.3} \end{aligned}$$ $ A^{\dagger}_{\mu\nu}(k,l,J,M)$ is two quasiparticle creation and annihilation operator coupled to angular momentum $J$ with projection $M$ namely $$\begin{aligned}
A^{\dagger}_{\mu\nu}(k,l,J,M)
&=& n(k\mu, l\nu) \sum^{}_{m_k , m_l }
C^{J M}_{j_k m_k j_l m_l } a^\dagger_{\mu k m_k} a^\dagger_{\nu l m_l}\,,
\nonumber \\
n(k\mu, l \nu)&=&
(1+(-1)^J\delta_{kl}\delta_{\mu \nu})/(1+\delta_{kl}
\delta_{\mu \nu})^{3/2}.
\label{qrpa.4} \end{aligned}$$ We note that if proton-neutron pairing is neglected, the phonon operator in Eq. (\[qrpa.3\]) decouples on two phonon operators, one for charge changing and second for non-charge changing modes of nuclear excitations.
In the full-RQRPA the commutator of two bifermion operators is replaced with its expectation value in the correlated QRPA ground state $|0^+_{QRPA}>$ (renormalized quasiboson approximation). We have $$\begin{aligned}
&& \big<0^+_{QRPA}\big|\big
[A^{}_{\mu \nu}(k, l, J, M),A^+_{\mu' \nu'}(k', l', J, M)\big]
\big|0^+_{QRPA}\big> =
\nonumber \\
&&n(k\mu, l\nu) n(k'\mu', l'\nu')
\Big( \delta_{kk'}\delta_{\mu \mu' }\delta_{ll'}
\delta_{\nu\nu'} -
\delta_{lk'}\delta_{\nu \mu'}\delta_{kl'}
\delta_{\mu \nu'}(-1)^{j_{k}+j_{l}-J}\Big)\times \nonumber \\
\lefteqn{\underbrace{
\Big\{1
\,-\,\frac{1}{\hat{\jmath}_{l}}
<0^+_{QRPA}|[a^+_{\nu l}{\tilde{a}}_{\nu l}]_{00}|0^+_{QRPA}>
\,-\,\frac{1}{\hat{\jmath}_{k}}
<0^+_{QRPA}|[a^+_{\mu k}{\tilde{a}}_{\mu \tilde{k}}]_{00}|0^+_{QRPA}>
\Big\}
}_{
=:\displaystyle {\cal D}_{\mu k, \nu l; J^\pi}
},} &&
\nonumber \\
\label{qrpa.5} \end{aligned}$$ with $\hat{\jmath}_k=\sqrt{2j_k+1}$. If we replace $|0^+_{QRPA}>$ in Eq. (\[qrpa.5\]) with the uncorrelated HFB ground state, we obtain the quasiboson approximation (i.e. ${\cal D}_{\mu k, \nu l; J^\pi}=1$), which violates the Pauli exclusion principle by neglecting the terms coming from the Fermion commutation rules of the quasi-particles. The QBA assumes that pairs of quasiparticles obey the commutation relations of bosons.
The full-RQRPA takes into account the Pauli exclusion principle more carefully. From Eqs. (\[qrpa.2\]) and (\[qrpa.3\]) one can derive the RQRPA equation $$\underbrace{{\cal D}^{-1/2}\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cal A &\cal B\\
\cal -B &\cal -A
\end{array}
\right)
{\cal D}^{-1/2}}
_{ \textstyle \overline{\cal A},\overline{\cal B}}
\;
\underbrace{{\cal D}^{1/2}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
X^m\\
Y^m
\end{array}
\right)}_{\textstyle \overline{X}^m, \overline{Y}^m}
= \Omega^m_{J^\pi}
\underbrace{{\cal D}^{1/2}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
X^m\\
Y^m
\end{array}
\right)}_{\textstyle\overline{X}^m, \overline{Y}^m}\, .
\label{qrpa.6}$$ The matrices $\cal{A}$ and $\cal{B}$ are given as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{qrpa.7}
{\cal A}^{a\alpha b\beta}_{k\mu l\mu,J} &=&
\left\langle 0^+_{RPA}\right|\left[
A_{\alpha\beta}(a,b,J,M)
,\left[H,A^{\dagger}_{\mu\nu}(k,l,J,M)
\right]\right]\left|0^+_{RPA}\right\rangle\,,\\
\label{qrpa.8}
{\cal B}^{a\alpha b\beta}_{k\mu l\mu,J} &=&
\left\langle 0^+_{RPA}\right|\left[
A_{\alpha\beta}(a,b,J,M),\left[
H,{\tilde{A}}_{\mu\nu}(k,l,J,M)\right]\right]\left|0^+_{RPA}\right\rangle\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $H$ is the quasiparticle nuclear Hamiltonian [@simn96]. The coefficients ${\cal D}_{\mu k, \nu l; J^\pi}$ are determined by solving numerically the system of equations[@toi95; @simn96]: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal D}_{k\mu l\nu J^\pi} &=& 1-\frac{1}{\hat{\jmath}_k^2}
\sum_{k'\mu' \atop J'^{\pi'} m}
{\cal D}_{k\mu k'\mu'J'^{\pi'}}\hat{J}'^2 \big|
{\overline{Y}}^m_{\mu \mu'}(k, k', J'^{\pi'}) \big|^2
\nonumber \\
&& ~~~~~-\frac{1}{\hat{\jmath}_l^2}\sum_{l'\nu' \atop J'^{\pi'} m}
{\cal D}_{l\nu
l'\nu'J'^{\pi'}}\hat{J}'^2 \big |{\overline{Y}}^m_{\nu \nu'}(l, l', J'^{\pi'})
\big|^2 .
\label{qrpa.9} \end{aligned}$$ The selfconsistent scheme of the calculation of the forward- (backward-) going free variational amplitude ${\overline{X}}^m_{}$ (${\overline{Y}}^m_{}$), the energies of the excited states $\Omega^m_{J^\pi}$ for every multipolarity $J^\pi$ and the coefficients ${\cal D}_{\mu k, \nu l; J^\pi}$ is a double iterative problem which requires the solution of coupled Eqs. (\[qrpa.6\]) and (\[qrpa.9\]).
In order to calculate double beta transitions two fully independent RQRPA calculations are needed, one to describe the beta transition from the initial to the intermediate nucleus and another one for the beta transition from the intermediate to the final nucleus. For that purpose the one-body transition densities of the charge changing operator has to be evaluated. They take the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{qrpa.10}
<J^\pi m_i \parallel [c^+_{pk}{\tilde{c}}_{nl}]_J \parallel 0^+_i>=
\sqrt{2J+1}\sum_{\mu,\nu = 1 , 2} m(\mu k,\nu l)\times \\ \nonumber
\left [
u_{k \mu p}^{(i)} v_{l \nu n}^{(i)} {\overline{X}}^{m_i}_{\mu\nu}(k,l,J^\pi)
+v_{k \mu p}^{(i)} u_{l \nu n}^{(i)} {\overline{Y}}^{m_i}_{\mu\nu}(k,l,J^\pi)
\right ]
\sqrt{{\cal D}^{(i)}_{k \mu l \nu l J^\pi}},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{qrpa.11}
<0_f^+ \parallel \widetilde{ [c^+_{pk'}{\tilde{c}}_{nl'}]_J}
\parallel J^\pi m_f>=
\sqrt{2J+1}\sum_{\mu,\nu=1,2}m(\mu k',\nu l')\times \\ \nonumber
\left [
v_{k' \mu p}^{(f)} u_{l' \nu n}^{(f)}
{\overline{X}}^{m_f}_{\mu\nu}(k',l',J^\pi)
+u_{k' \mu p}^{(f)} v_{l' \nu n}^{(f)}
{\overline{Y}}^{m_f}_{\mu\nu}(k',l',J^\pi)
\right ]
\sqrt{{\cal D}^{(f)}_{k' \mu l' \nu J^\pi}},\end{aligned}$$ with $m(\mu a,\nu b)=\frac{1+(-1)^J\delta_{\mu \nu}\delta_{ab}}{(1+\delta_{\mu\nu}
\delta_{ab})^{1/2}}$. We note that the ${\overline{X}}^{m}_{\mu\nu}(k,l,J^\pi)$ and ${\overline{Y}}^{m}_{\mu\nu}(k,l,J^\pi)$ amplitudes are calculated by the renormalized QRPA equation only for the configurations $\mu a \leq \nu b$ ( i.e., if $\mu = \nu$ the orbitals a and b are ordered $a \leq b$, and if $\mu = 1$, $\nu = 2$, the orbitals need not to be ordered). For the amplitudes ${\overline{X}}^{m}_{\mu\nu}(k,l,J^\pi)$ and ${\overline{Y}}^{m}_{\mu\nu}(k,l,J^\pi)$ in Eqs. (\[qrpa.10\]) and (\[qrpa.11\]) exist the following symmetry relations: $${\overline{X}}^{{m}}_{\mu \nu}(k,l,J^\pi)
= -(-1)^{{{j}}_{{k}}+{{j}}_{{l}}-{J}}
{\overline{X}}^{{m}}_{\nu \mu}(l,k,J^\pi), ~~~
{\overline{Y}}^{{m}}_{\mu \nu}(k,l,J^\pi)
= -(-1)^{{{j}}_{{k}}+{{j}}_{{l}}-{J}}
{\overline{Y}}^{{m}}_{\nu \mu}(l,k,J^\pi).
\label{qrpa.12}$$ The index i (f) indicates that the quasiparticles and the excited states of the nucleus are defined with respect to the initial (final) nuclear ground state $|0^+_i>$ ($|0^+_f>$). We note that for ${\cal D}_{k \mu l \nu J^\pi}=1$ (i.e. there is no renormalization) and $u_{{2p}} =
\upsilon_{{2p}} = u_{{1n}} = \upsilon_{{1n}} = 0$ (i.e. there is no proton-neutron pairing), Eqs. (\[qrpa.10\]) and (\[qrpa.11\]) reduce to the expressions of the standard pn-QRPA.
The two sets of intermediate nuclear states generated from the initial and final ground states are not identical in the QBA or RQBA schemes considered. Therefore the overlap factor of these states is introduced in the theory as follows[@sims97]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{qrpa.13}
<J_{m^{}_{f}}^+ | J_{m^{}_{i}}^+> \approx
[Q^{ m_f}_{JM}, Q^{+ m_i}_{JM}] \approx
\sum_{\mu k \leq \nu l,~~ \mu' k' \leq \nu' l'}
\delta_{kk'}\delta_{ll'}{\tilde{u}}_{k\mu\mu'} {\tilde{u}}_{l\nu\nu'}
\times \\ \nonumber
\big(
\overline{X}^{m_{i}^{}}_{\mu \nu}(k, l, J)
\overline{X}^{m_{f}^{}}_{\mu' \nu'}(k, l, J)-
\overline{Y}^{m_{i}^{}}_{\mu \nu}(k, l, J)
\overline{Y}^{m_{f}^{}}_{\mu' \nu'}(k, l, J)
\big),\end{aligned}$$ with $${\tilde{u}}_{k \mu \mu'} = u^{(i)}_{k\mu}u^{(f)}_{k\mu'} +
v^{(i)}_{k\mu}v^{(f)}_{k\mu'}.
\label{qrpa.14}$$ Here, $Q^{ m_f}_{JM}$ and $Q^{+ m_i}_{JM}$ are respectively phonon annihilation and creation operators for the initial and final nuclear states. We note that in the previous calculations $\tilde{u}$ was approximated by unity. However, in that case the overlap factor is dependent on the phases of the BCS/HFB occupation amplitudes u’s and v’s, which are in principal arbitrary. A negligible difference between the results with the above overlap containing $\tilde{u}$ and with the overlap with $\tilde{u}=1$ one obtains only if the phases of the BCS/HFB amplitudes are chosen so that $\tilde{u}$ is positive for each level.
The double beta decay nuclear matrix elements are usually transformed to ones containing two-body matrix elements by using the second quantization formalism. One arrives at the expression: $$\begin{aligned}
<O_{12}>=
\sum_{{k l \acute{k} \acute{l} } \atop {J^{\pi}
m_i m_f {\cal J} }}
~(-)^{j_{l}+j_{k'}+J+{\cal J}}(2{\cal J}+1)
\left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
j_k &j_l &J\\
j_{l'}&j_{k'}&{\cal J}
\end{array}
\right\}\times ~~~~~\nonumber \\
< 0_f^+ \parallel
\widetilde{[c^+_{pk'}{\tilde{c}}_{nl'}]_J} \parallel J^\pi m_f>
<J^\pi m_f|J^\pi m_i>
<J^\pi m_i \parallel [c^+_{pk}{\tilde{c}}_{nl}]_J \parallel
0^+_i >\nonumber \\
\times<pk,pk';{\cal J}|f(r_{12})\tau_1^+ \tau_2^+ {\cal O}_{12}
f(r_{12})|nl,nl';{\cal J}>.~~~~~~~~~~
\label{qrpa.15} \end{aligned}$$ with short-range correlation functions $$f(r)=1-e^{-\alpha r^2 }(1-b r^2) \quad \mbox{with} \quad
\alpha=1.1 \mbox{fm}^2 \quad \mbox{and} \quad b=0.68 \mbox{fm}^2,
\label{qrpa.16}$$ which takes into account the short range repulsion of the nucleons. In the case of the nuclear matrix element $M^{2\nu}_{GT}$ in Eq. (\[two.8\]) ${\cal O}_{12}$ is replaced by $2 {\mathbf{\sigma}}_1 \cdot {\mathbf{\sigma}}_2
/(\Omega^{m_i}_{1^+}+\Omega^{m_f}_{1^+})$ and in the case of neutrinoless double beta decay matrix elements in Eqs. (\[neu.9\]) and (\[susy.8\]) ${\cal O}_{12}$ is replaced by ${\cal O}_{I}({\mathbf{r}}_1,{\mathbf{r}}_2,
{\mathbf{\sigma}}_1,{\mathbf{\sigma}}_2) $ \[see Table \[tabneu.1\]\].
In the QRPA and RQRPA calculations it is necessary to introduce the renormalization parameters $g_{pp}$ and $g_{ph}$ for particle-particle and particle-hole channels of the G-matrix interaction of the nuclear Hamiltonian $H$, which in principle should be close to unity. Slight deviations from unity can be expected because the full Hilbert space can not be taken into account. The $g_{ph}$ value is usually fixed by physical arguments, e.g. by fitting the position of giant Gamow-Teller resonance. The $g_{pp}$ is considered as free parameter and the dependence of the matrix element on $g_{pp}$ is carried out. The problem regarding $g_{pp}$ is crucial to predictability of the QRPA calculation. It has been shown that $\beta^+$ transitions (second branch of the double beta decay in reverse) to low-lying states are very sensitive to $g_{pp}$. The introduction of $g_{pp}$ as a phenomenological factor makes it possible to reproduce the observed $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay half-lifes.
Operator expansion method
-------------------------
The Operator expansion method (OEM) is a nuclear structure method for the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay, which has the advantage to avoid the explicit sum over the intermediate nuclear states.
There are two different ways to derive the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay OEM transition operators. In the first approach (OEM1) [@chi89] the expansion of the denominators of $M^{2\nu}_{GT}$ in Eq. (\[two.8\]) in Taylor series is used. In the second approach proposed (OEM2) [@sim89] the OEM is derived from the integral representation of the nuclear matrix element $M^{2\nu}_{GT}$ in Eqs. (\[two.6\]) and (\[two.7\]). It has been found that the OEM2 offers advantages over OEM1 as there are no problems with convergence of the power series expansion of the denominator [@simm97; @sims97], which has been a subject of criticism [@eng92]. In addition, the approximations under consideration are better controlled.
The OEM is based on two main assumptions [@chi89; @sim89]: i) It is assumed that the kinetic energy operator can be ignored in the resulting commutators \[ see Eqs. (\[two.6\]) and (\[two.7\]) \] and therefore the nuclear Hamiltonian H is represented only by two-body interaction terms. ii) Only two-body terms are retained in evaluating each commutator and higher order terms are neglected. These approximations are supported by the following arguments: First, if we consider only the one-body part of the nuclear Hamiltonian $H_0$, the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay transition operator \[A(t/2), A(-t/2)\] in (\[two.6\]) is an one body operator [@simm97; @sims97]. As the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay operator should be at least a two-body operator to change two neutrons into two protons, it means that the one-body operator of H plays a less important role in the evaluation of $M^{2\nu}_{GT}$. Second, in the case of the QBA the commutator \[A(t/2), A(-t/2)\] is just a constant but within the OEM it is a two-body operator. It means that the OEM approximations go beyond the QBA and RQBA [@simm97; @sims97].
Further, it has been shown that the energy difference between the initial and final nuclear states plays an important role in the derivation of the OEM transition operators and that the consideration of Coulomb interaction is crucial for the OEM [@sim90]. If the approximate nuclear two-body Hamiltonian $H$ does not contain a Coulomb interaction term [@chi89; @sim89; @wu91] or the Coulomb interaction is considered in the way of refs. [@gmi90; @mut93; @kad95], the derivation of the OEM transition operators is not consistent. Therefore, an effective Coulomb interaction term $V_{C}$ has to be considered, which represents partially the one body terms of the nuclear Hamiltonian [@sim90; @simm97; @sims97]. The approximate OEM two-body nuclear Hamiltonian H containing $V_{C}$, central $V_{CN}$ and tensor $V_{TN}$ interactions is given as follows (the notation of ref. [@mut93] is used): $$\begin{aligned}
H \approx V_C + V_{CN} +V_{TN},
\label{oem.1}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
V_C&=&\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i\neq j} ~(E_f -E_i ) ~O^\tau_{ij},
~~~~~~O^\tau_{ij}=\frac{1}{4}(1+\tau^0_i )(1+\tau^0_j ),\\
V_{CN}&=&\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i\neq j}
~[~~ (~ g_{SE}(r_{ij})~\Pi^r_e(ij) ~+~
g_{SO}(r_{ij})~\Pi^r_o(ij)~ )~\Pi^\sigma_s(ij) +
\nonumber \\
&&\phantom{~~~\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i\neq j}}
( ~g_{TE}(r_{ij})~\Pi^r_e(ij) ~+~
g_{TO}(r_{ij})~\Pi^r_o(ij)~ ) ~\Pi^\sigma_t(ij) ~~],
\\
V_{TN}&=&\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i\neq j}
~(~ g_{TNE}(r_{ij})~\Pi^r_e(ij) +
g_{TNO}(r_{ij} )~\Pi^r_o(ij)~)~S_{ij}.
\label{oem.2}\end{aligned}$$
In the framework of the OEM2 for the nuclear matrix element $M^{2\nu}_{GT}$ one obtains [@simm97; @sims97]: $$\begin{aligned}
M^{2\nu}_{GT}&=&<0^+_f|\frac{1}{2} {\cal{P}}
\sum \limits_{i \ne j} \tau^+_i \tau^+_j
~(~{\cal V}^{singlet}(r_{ij})~\Pi^\sigma_s(ij) ~+ \nonumber \\
&&\phantom{ \sum \limits_{i \ne j} \tau^+_i \tau^+_j }
{\cal V}^{triplet}(r_{ij})~\Pi^\sigma_t(ij) ~+~
{\cal V}^{tensor}(r_{ij})~S_{ij}~)~|0^+_i>,
\label{oem.3}\end{aligned}$$ where, $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal V}^{singlet}&=&\frac{-2}{g_{TE}-g_{SE}-4g_{TNE}+\Delta } -
\frac{4}{g_{TE}-g_{SE}+2g_{TNE}+ \Delta } \\
{\cal V}^{triplet}&=&\frac{1}{3} [
\frac{4}{\Delta} +\frac{4}{-6g_{TNO}+\Delta}+
\frac{4}{6g_{TNO}+\Delta} - \nonumber \\
&& \frac{2}{g_{SO}-g_{TO}+4g_{TNO}+\Delta } -
\frac{4}{g_{SO}-g_{TO}-2g_{TNO}+\Delta } ], \\
{\cal V}^{tensor}&=& \frac{1}{3} [ \frac{1}{\Delta}+
\frac{1}{-6g_{TNO}+\Delta } -
\frac{2}{6g_{TNO}+\Delta } + \nonumber \\
&&\frac{1}{g_{SO}-g_{TO}+4g_{TNO}+\Delta } -
\frac{1}{g_{SO}-g_{TO}-2g_{TNO}+\Delta } ].
\label{oem.4}\end{aligned}$$ Here ${\cal{P}}$ denotes the Principle value integration. We note that the central and tensor interactions appear only in the denominators of the OEM potentials. As $\Delta$ (half energy release for $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay process) is about few MeV, only the long range part of nucleon-nucleon potential is relevant for the calculation. Therefore, the OEM potentials are not expected to be sensitive to the type of realistic effective interaction, e.g. Bonn or Paris ones.
For the calculation of $M^{2\nu}_{GT}$ in Eqs. (\[oem.3\]) and (\[oem.4\]) it is necessary to know the wave functions of the initial and final nucleus. The OEM can be combined with the ground state wave functions of the QRPA or renormalized RQRPA models (OEM+RPA) [@wu91; @mut93; @ves98]. Recently, the consistently derived OEM transition operators have been combined with pn-RQRPA wave functions of the initial and final nuclear systems to calculate $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay of $^{76}Ge$ [@ves98]. A strong dependence of the matrix element $M^{2\nu}_{GT}$ has been found on the choice of the pn-RQRPA ground state wave functions. Therefore, there is an interest to combine OEM-transition operators in Eqs. (\[oem.3\]) and (\[oem.4\]) with other ground state wave functions, e.g. shell model ones.
Alternative methods
-------------------
Till now no consistent many body approach is available for the calculation of the many-body Green function governing the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay process, because of the computational complexity of the problem. The small predictive power of the QRPA is the motivation that stimulated us to seek an alternative way, which might produce more reliable results.
The most promising are those methods, which can guarantee the particle number conservation and an explicit consideration of the Pauli principle. The two-vacua RPA (TVRPA) fulfill both criteria [@ten95]. The trial nuclear wave functions of the intermediate odd-odd nucleus are constructed as linear combinations of proton-particle neutron-hole excitations from the ground state of the initial even-even (N,Z) nucleus and at the same time, as neutron-particle proton-hole excitations from the ground state of the final (N-2,Z+2) nucleus. Till now, the method has been applied only to the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay of $^{48}Ca$. In order to understand its predictive power, it is clearly necessary to perform more calculations of the beta strength distributions and double beta decay matrix elements.
In the past few years a new method for the solution of the nuclear many-body problem has been developed, which uses the shell model Monte Carlo technique (SMMC) [@koo97]. The SMMC method enforces the Pauli principle exactly and scales more gently with the problem of the single particle basis size than the traditional shell model direct-diagonalization approach. The SMMC has been found successful in description of the Gamow-Teller strength distributions and has been also applied for the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay of $^{48}Ca$ (complete $pf$ shell) and $^{76}Ge$ ($0f_{5/2}$,$1p$,$0g_{9/2}$ model space) giving promising results [@koo97]. However, the dependence of $M^{2\nu}_{GT}$ on effective interaction and single particle energies remains to be investigated.
Other approaches looking for the physical cause of the suppression mechanism of the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay are based on the approximate Wigner spin-isospin $SU(4)_{\sigma\tau}$ symmetry in nuclei [@ber90; @rum95]. The possibility of using $SU(4)_{\sigma\tau}$ symmetry to analyze nuclear excitations (Gamow-Teller and isobaric analog resonances) has been discussed e.g. in [@vlad92]. We know that $SU(4)_{\sigma\tau}$ is not an exact symmetry and is broken by the spin-orbit and Coulomb forces. It is worthwhile to notice that if the exact $SU(4)_{\sigma\tau}$ symmetry is considered, $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay is forbidden [@moe94], i.e. $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay is determined by the mechanism responsible for breaking of this symmetry. In the approach proposed in [@rum95] the spin-orbit part of the mean field of the nucleus was assumed to be responsible for the symmetry breaking.
Results and Discussion
======================
QRPA and violation of the Pauli principle
-----------------------------------------
Most of the calculations of the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay matrix elements for nuclei heavier than $^{48}Ca$ rely on QRPA. However, the calculated matrix elements are uncertain because of their great sensitivity to $J=1^+$, $T=0$ particle-particle component of the residual interaction governed by the $g_{pp}$ parameter [@vog86; @civ87; @mut88]. The $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay matrix element $M^{2\nu}_{GT}$ is reduced by the enhanced ground state correlations with increasing strength of proton-neutron interaction and it even crosses zero. The dependence of $M^{2\nu}_{GT}$ on $g_{pp}$ for the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay of $^{76}Ge$ calculated within the pn-QRPA for three different model spaces is presented in the Fig. (\[res.1\])a [@sims97]. For 9, 12 and 21 level model spaces the collapse of the pn-QRPA occurs near the critical interaction strength given by $g_{pp}$ values 1.3, 1,1 and 0.9, respectively. A larger model space means more ground state correlations, i.e. a collapse of the pn-QRPA solution for smaller $g_{pp}$.
It was long believed that this curious behavior of the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay matrix elements in the QRPA is typical only for this decay mode. Recently, it has been found that in the framework of the pn-QRPA for a large enough model space the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay matrix elements shows similar instability with respect to $g_{pp}$ as the one known from the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay mode. The value of the matrix element crosses zero and it is then difficult to make definite predictions about the transition rate \[see Fig. (\[res.2\])a\]. This fact is not surprising as the origin of this dependence is the product of two one body transition densities of the charge changing operator to the lowest (or one of the lowest) $1^+$ state of the intermediate nucleus namely $$< 0_f^+ \parallel
\widetilde{[c^+_{pk'}{\tilde{c}}_{nl'}]_1} \parallel 1^+_{1-f}>
<1^+_{1-f}|1^+_{1-i}>
<1^+_{1-i} \parallel [c^+_{pk}{\tilde{c}}_{nl}]_J \parallel
0^+_i >, ~~(m_i=m_f=1),$$ which is present in the calculation of each the double beta decay matrix element via the QRPA and its extensions (see Eqs. \[\[qrpa.16\]\]) except the simple double Fermi transition. The theoretical nuclear matrix elements show large uncertainties, since they depend on the ground state correlations, which are overestimated in QRPA.
It is worthwhile to notice that there is no mechanism in QRPA, which prevents the increase of the ground state correlation to unreasonable large values with increasing $g_{pp}$, leading finally to a collapse of QRPA solution. The investigation of the $M^{2\nu}_{GT}$ within the pn-RQRPA [@toi95] and the full-RQRPA [@simn96] has shown that the main source of the ground state instability in QRPA is the violation of the Pauli exclusion principle, if one has large ground state correlations.
The RQRPA, which considers the Pauli exclusion principle in an approximate way, shifts the collapse of the QRPA outside the physical range of $g_{pp}$ and shows a less sensitive dependence of $M^{2\nu}_{GT}$ on $g_{pp}$ [@toi95; @simn96; @krm96; @muto97]. Fig. (\[res.1\])b shows $M^{2\nu}_{GT}$ for the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay of $^{76}Ge$ calculated by pn-RQRPA [@sims97]. We see that the crossing point through zero is shifted to larger $g_{pp}$ in comparison with Fig. (\[res.1\])a. A steeper slope of $M^{2\nu}_{GT}$ as a function of $g_{pp}$ for larger model spaces may indicate that the approximate treatment of the Pauli exclusion principle by the pn-RQRPA is for larger $g_{pp}$ not good enough.
The RQRPA offers considerable less sensitive results to $g_{pp}$ in comparison with the QRPA also for the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay transitions to the $0^+$ and $2^+$ excited states of the final nucleus [@sch97; @bara97]. The same is valid also for the calculation of $M^{0\nu}_{mass}=M^{0\nu}_{GT}(1-\chi_F)$ associated with the neutrino mass mechanism of the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay \[see Fig. (\[res.2\])\] [@simf97; @ves97].
In both QRPA and RQRPA treatments of the double beta decay matrix elements one has two sets for the same intermediate nuclear states generated from initial and final nuclei, which do not coincide with each other. The overlap factor of these two sets is introduced artificially and the effect of this inaccuracy is not well understood. One can learn more about this problem, if the mismatching between the initial and final QRPA (RQRPA) Hamiltonians is studied [@sims97]. It has been found that pn-RQRPA Hamiltonians demonstrate a better mutual agreement than the pn-QRPA ones [@sims97].
Recently, the validity of the RQRPA have been discussed within schematic models, which are trying to simulate the realistic cases either by analytical solutions or by a minimal computational effort [@hirm96; @eng97; @del97; @sam97]. Again it was confirmed that the renormalized QRPA is superior to the QRPA. But differences were found between the exact and the RQRPA solutions after the point of collapse of QRPA. However, it is not clear whether these results would also hold for realistic calculations with large model spaces, realistic effective NN-interactions and by consideration of the two-vacua problem. In fact we do not know of any exactly solvable realistic model.
We note that there is a principal difference between the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay and $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay modes from the nuclear physics point of view. In the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay the correlation of two single nucleon beta decays in the nucleus are taken into account by the interaction part of the nuclear Hamiltonian. For a correct treatment of these correlations higher order terms in the boson (renormalized boson) expansion of the nuclear Hamiltonian are important [@sims97]. Several procedures have been proposed which outline the importance of the higher order effects [@rad91; @stoi93; @rad96; @sam97]. It is expected that the consideration of these higher order approximations will improve the correspondence between the initial and final nuclear Hamiltonian and more reliable results can be obtained.
The $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay is not a higher order effect in the boson expansion of the nuclear Hamiltonian as the dominant correlation of the two beta decay vertices in the nucleus comes from the exchange of lepton number violating particles. Therefore the renormalized QBA scheme should be sufficient. We believe that the renormalized-QRPA is at present the most reliable method to deduce the desired interesting lepton number non-conserving parameters from the experimental lower limits on the half-lifes of $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay of heavier nuclei.
Limits on lepton number violating parameters
--------------------------------------------
It is a common practice to impose limits on different lepton number non-conserving parameters to assume that only one mechanism dominates at a time. A more accurate procedure requires the construction of multi-dimensional plots. This is worth doing only when $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay has been found in the future.
In order to extract the limits on the effective neutrino mass $<m_\nu >$ and effective Majoron coupling $<g>$ from the experimental limits of $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay lifes the nuclear matrix elements $M^{0\nu}_{GT}$ and $\chi_F$ have to be calculated. We have evaluated these matrix elements for the experimentally most interesting A=76, 82, 96, 100, 116, 128, 130, 136 and 150 nuclear systems within the framework of pn-RQRPA [@toi95; @simn96]. The same model space and nuclear structure parameters have been used as those considered in [@fae98]. The calculated nuclear matrix elements for $g_{pp}=1.0 $ together with upper bounds on $<m_\nu >$ and $<g>$ are presented in Table \[tabres.1\]. We see that nowadays $^{76}Ge$ provides the most stringent limit on the effective neutrino mass: $<m_\nu > < 0.54 eV$. This value is about twice smaller as the value obtained within the full-RQRPA [@simf97], which include proton-neutron pairing correlations. The most stringent upper constraint on $<g>$ is associated with A=128 and is equal to $5.5\times 10^{-5}$.
As we mentioned already many different nuclear models (shell model [@ret95; @hax84], general seniority scheme [@eng89], pn-QRPA [@eng88; @mut89; @tom91; @pan96], full-QRPA [@pan96] and pn-, full-RQRPA [@simf97] and others ) have been used for the calculation of the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay matrix elements. Unfortunately, there is no possibility to assign an uncertainty to the calculated theoretical values. One can only claim that the renormalized QRPA predicts more reliable results in respect to the QRPA because of reasons discussed before. A comparison between the shell model and the QRPA (RQRPA) is not possible as both models work with fully different model spaces and nucleon-nucleon interactions. We remind that the QRPA is loosing sense for a small model space and shell model studies for heavier open-shell nuclei are not possible. Thus one can expect that for the A=48 system the shell model results are more reliable and for other nuclear systems the RQRPA perhaps have more predictive power.
First, we discuss here the light Majorana neutrino exchange mechanisms. The $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay half-lifes for several nuclei calculated from some representative nuclear matrix elements of different nuclear models are listed in Table \[tabres.2\]. We have assumed that only one mechanism at a time is important and that $<m_\nu > = 1 eV$, $<\lambda > = 10^{-6}$, $<\eta > = 10^{-8}$ and $<g> = 10^{-5}$. By glancing at Table \[tabres.2\] we see that most theoretical works have concentrated on A=76, 82, 128 and 130 nuclear systems and that the calculated half-lifes agree within a factor ten. It is remarkable that there is a large disagreement between the two different shell model calculations for $^{76}Ge$ and $^{82}Se$ [@hax84; @ret95]. We note that from the theoretical point of view the best candidates for the experimental measurements are $^{150}Nd$ and $^{130}Te$ nuclei with the shortest half-lifes. The upper bound on $<m_\nu >$, $<\lambda >$, $<\eta >$ and $<g>$ can be deduced from the experimental limit on the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay $T^{exp}_{1/2}$ given in Table \[tabint.1\] with help of the theoretical half-life $T^{theor}_{1/2}$ \[see Table \[tabres.2\]\] as follows: $$< I >~~ = ~~C_I ~~\sqrt{\frac{T^{theor}_{1/2}}{T^{exp}_{1/2}}},$$ where $C_I$ takes the value 1 eV, $10^{-6}$, $10^{-8}$ and $10^{-5}$ for I = $m_\nu$, $\lambda $, $\eta $ and $g$, respectively. Thus, the most restrictive limits are as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
<m_\nu > ~< ~~ 0.4 - 1.3 eV ~~[^{76}Ge,~ ref.~ 21], ~~~~~~~~~~
0.7 - 1.5 eV ~~[^{128}Te, ~ ref.~ 35]\\
<\lambda >~ < ~~ (0.8-2.1)\times 10^{-6}~~[^{76}Ge,~ ref.~ 21] ~~~
(2.5-7.3)\times 10^{-6}~~[^{136}Xe,~ ref.~ 37]\\
<\eta >~ < ~~(0.4-1.8)\times 10^{-8}~~[^{76}Ge, ~ref.~ 21], ~~~
(0.9-3.7)\times 10^{-8}~~[^{128}Te, ~ref.~ 35]\\
<g> ~ < ~~(2.9-5.8)\times 10^{-5}~[^{128}Te,~ref.~ 35], ~~
(9.8-22.)\times 10^{-5}~~[^{100}Mo,~ref.~ 29]
\label{vio.1}\end{aligned}$$ The sensitivity of different experiments to these $<m_\nu >$, $<\lambda >$, $<\eta >$ and $<g> $. is drawn in Fig. \[fighis.1\]. Currently, the Heidelberg-Moscow experiment [@gue97]offers the most stringent limit for $<m_\nu >$, $<\lambda >$, $<\eta >$ and the $^{128}Te$ experiment [@bern92] for $<g>$.
Second, we present nuclear matrix elements associated with the $R_p \hspace{-1em}/\;\:$ SUSY and heavy neutrino exchange mechanisms.
The nuclear matrix elements governing the two-nucleon, one pion-exchange and two-pion exchange $R_p \hspace{-1em}/\;\:$ SUSY contributions to the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay have been calculated only within the pn-QRPA, pn-RQRPA and the full-RQRPA approaches [@hkk96; @fae97; @fae98]. It has been found that the pion-exchange contribution dominates over the conventional two-nucleon one and its contribution can be safely neglected [@fae97]. The calculated pion-exchange nuclear matrix elements ${\cal M}^{\pi N}$ for the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay of various isotopes within the pn-RQRPA ($g_{pp}=1.0$) are presented in Table \[tabres.3\] [@fae98]. The two largest are -1073 and -756 for A=150 and 100, respectively. It has been found that the variation of ${\cal M}^{\pi N}$ on $g_{pp}$ do not exceed $15\%$ within the physical region of $g_{pp}$. In the evaluation of ${\cal M}^{\pi N}$ the pion vertex structure coefficient was considered to be $\alpha^{2\pi}=0.2$ (VIA) [@fae97]. We note that the value of ${\cal M}^{\pi N}$ calculated for $^{76}Ge$ within the full-RQRPA [@fae97] is suppressed by about $30\%$ in comparison with pn-RQRPA. The upper bounds on $\eta^{exp}_{_{SUSY}}$ \[see Eq. (\[limit.susy\])\] have been deduced by using the most stringent lower limits of $T^{exp}_{1/2}$ in Table \[tabint.1\]. By glancing at Table \[tabres.3\] we see that $^{76}Ge$ provides the most stringent limit: $\eta^{exp}_{susy}$ $= 5.5\times 10^{-9}$. By using the Eqs. (\[susy.9\]) and (\[susy.10\]) one obtains for the 1st generation $R_p \hspace{-1em}/\;\:$ Yukawa coupling constant [@fae98] $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda'_{111} \le 1.3 \times 10^{-4}
\Big({m_{\tilde q}\over{100 ~{\text{GeV}}}} \Big)^2
\Big({m_{\tilde g}\over{100 ~{\text{GeV}}}} \Big)^{1/2}, \\
\lambda'_{111} \le 9.3 \times 10^{-4}
\Big({m_{\tilde e}\over{100 ~{\text{GeV}}}} \Big)^2
\Big({m_{\chi}\over{100 ~{\text{GeV}}}} \Big)^{1/2}.
\label{vio.2}\end{aligned}$$ These limits are much stronger than those previously known and lie beyond the reach of the near future accelerator experiments. The size of $\lambda'_{111}$ depends on the masses of the SUSY-partners. If the values of these masses would be around their present experimental lower limits $\sim 100$GeV [@par96], one could constrain the coupling to $\lambda'_{111}\leq 1.3 \cdot 10^{-4}$. A conservative bound can be set by assuming all the SUSY-masses being at the “SUSY-naturalness” bound of 1 TeV, leading to $\lambda'_{111}\leq 0.04$.
The nuclear matrix element ${\cal M}_N$ associated with the exchange of heavy Majorana neutrino are shown for different nuclear systems in Table \[tabres.3\]. They have been evaluated within the pn-RQRPA for the same nuclear model parameters as $M^{0\nu}_{GT}$ and $\chi_F$ in Table \[tabres.1\]. The two largest elements are -206 and -151 for for A=150 and 100, respectively. It is worthwhile to note that these values can be reduced, if higher order terms of the nucleon current are considered [@lyu92]. For the A=76 system the most stringent limit on the relevant lepton number non-conserving parameter has been found: $\eta_N < 2.6\times 10^{-8}$.
Conclusion and Outlook
======================
In this review we have discussed the recent progress in the field of the nuclear double beta decay and its present status.
The $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay remains at the forefront of nuclear physics. The established $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay half-lifes for a couple of isotopes constrain nuclear theory and stimulate its further development. There are still a number of open questions concerning the solution of the nuclear many-body problem. In order to increase the predictive power of the nuclear many-body models it seems to be necessary to include better the Pauli exclusion principle in the evaluation of the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay matrix elements. This is done in the renormalized QRPA. It is an improvement over the commonly used QRPA approach. An improved description of the complete set of the intermediate nuclear states, which are needed for the calculation of double beta decay, can possibly also be obtained with growing computer power for example in the shell model approach.
Additional experimental information about the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay and related processes is of great interest. We note that the NEMO experiment allows to perform a precise measurement also of the energy and angular distributions of the outgoing electrons. Further, there is a chance to detect the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay to the excited $0^+$ and $2^+$ states of the final nucleus at the level of $10^{21}$-$10^{22}$ years with present low-background detectors. New $\beta\beta$ experiments are planned by the detection of the capture of two bound atomic electrons [@ste98]. A recent theoretical analysis has shown that the experimental measurement of the double beta decay induced in a neutrino beam can be feasible due to an enhancement due to a resonance in the corresponding amplitude [@gap97]. Such an experiment is planned for the double beta decay at the Kurchatow Institute [@gap97]. These future experiments are important because they complement the known informations from the conventional $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay.
The $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay is a powerful tool for the study of lepton number conservation in general. In particular, it contributes to the search for the Majorana neutrino mass, the heavy W-boson (mainly responsible for a possible right-handed weak interaction), the $R_p \hspace{-1em}/\;\:$ SUSY and leptoquarks on the sensitivity level competitive to Large Hadron Colliders. We remind that the study of rare decays at low energy is complementary to high energy physics experiments.
Searches for double beta decay are pursued actively for different nuclear isotopes, but the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay has been not yet observed, experimentally. The currently laboratory upper limits on the half-life provide severe constraints on the effective Majorana neutrino mass $<m_\nu >$, on parameters of the left-right symmetric models $<\lambda >$ and $<\eta >$, on the effective Majoron coupling constant $<g>$, on the $R$-parity violating coupling constant $\lambda'_{111}$ and on the the inverse effective mass of heavy neutrinos ${\eta_N}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
<m_\nu > ~ &<& ~~ 0.4 - 1.3 eV,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<g> ~ < ~~(2.9-5.8)\times 10^{-5},
\nonumber \\
<\lambda >~ &<& ~~ (0.8-2.1)\times 10^{-6},~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<\eta >~ < ~~(0.4-1.8)\times 10^{-8}
\nonumber \\
\lambda'_{111}~~~ &\le & ~~1.3 \times 10^{-4}
\Big({m_{\tilde q}\over{100 ~{\text{GeV}}}} \Big)^2
\Big({m_{\tilde g}\over{100 ~{\text{GeV}}}} \Big)^{1/2}, ~~~~
\eta_N ~< ~2.6\times 10^{-8}
\label{out.1}\end{aligned}$$ The uncertainty of these parameters is due to the ambiguity of nuclear matrix elements.
The above limits constitute our most stringent test of the lepton number conservation. It is worthwhile to notice that the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay imposes very restrictive bounds on the lepton number violating sector of R-parity violating SUSY models. The upper limit on $\lambda'_{111}$ (deduced from the pion-exchange $R_p \hspace{-1em}/\;\:$ SUSY mode for the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay [@fae97]), is significantly stronger than those previously known or expected from the ongoing accelerator experiments. The $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay constraints on lepton number violating parameters in Eq. (\[out.1\]) must be taken into account by theoreticians, when they build new theories of Grand Unification.
In the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay it is still possible to improve the existing limits. The extension of the ongoing experiments: ELEGANT ($^{48}Ca$) [@kum95], Heidelberg-Moscow ($^{76}Ge$) [@bau97], NEMO ($^{100}Mo$, $^{116}Cd$) [@das95; @arn96], the $^{130}Te$ cryogenic experiment [@ale94] and Caltech Neuchatel TPC $^{136}Xe$ [@bus96] is expected to reach the level of 0.1 eV. The prospect for exploration of SUSY in the next generation of the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay experiments have been discussed in [@bedn97]. Recently, a new project GENIUS for the measurement of the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay of $^{76}Ge$ have been proposed, which suppose to probe neutrino masses down to $10^{-2}$-$10^{-3}$ eV by using 1 ton of enriched $^{76}Ge$ [@hell97]. If the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay will be discovered, it would be a major achievement, which would initiate new experimental activities both for rare decays at low-energies and also at high energy accelerator facilities. In the case that the lepton number violation is out of reach of near future $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay experiments, the improved upper limits will yield more stringent constraints for the Grand Unified Theories and Super Symmetric (SUSY) models.
Haxton W C and Stephenson G S Glashow S L Weinberg S Salam A [*in Elementary Particle Theory: Relativistic Groups and Analyticity, Proceeding of the Eight Nobel Symposium*]{}, ed. by N. Svartholm (Almqvist and Wiksell, Stokholm), 1968 p. 367 Goeppert-Meyer M, Barabash A S, Barabash A S, Kopylov A V and Cherovsky V I, Blum et al, Piepke et al, Barabash et al, Suhonen J and Civitarese O, Suhonen J and Civitarese O, Stoica S, Dhiman S K and Raina P K, Schwieger J, Šimkovic F, Faessler A and Kamiński W A, Suhonen J et al, Bardin R K, Gollon P J, Ullman J D and Wu C S, Balysh A et al, Ke You et al. Günter et al, Baudis L et al, Avignone F T et al, Elliot S R et al, Lin W J et al, Kawashima A, Takahashi K and Masuda A, De Silva A, Moe M K, Nelson M A and Vient M A, Dassié et al. (NEMO Collaboration), Ejiri H et al, Ejiri H et al, Alston-Garnjost M et al, Vasilév S I et al, Danevich F A et al, Kume K et al, Arnold R et al, Bernatovicz T et al, ; Alessandrello A et al, Busto J, Artemiov V et al, Vasilév et al, Turkevich A L, Economou T E and Gowan G A, Moody K J, Lougheed R W, Hulet E K, Fury W Mohapatra R N and Pal P B [*Massive neutrinos in Physics and Astrophysics*]{}, World Scientific, Singapore, 1991. Valle J W F [*Workshop on Particles and Phenomena of Fundamental Interactions*]{} published in Jorge Swieca Summer School on Nuclear Physics 1995, hep-ph/9603307. Mohapatra R N Georgi H M and Glasow S L Schepkin M G Doi M, Kotani T and Takasugi E Vergados J D Chikashige T, Mohapatra R N and Peccei R D ; Gelmini G B and Roncadelli M Georgi H M, Glashow S L and Nussinov S Schechter J and Valle J W F Berezhiani Z G, Smirnov A Yu and Valle J W F Hirsch M, Klapdor-Kleingrothaus H V, Kovalenko S G, Päs H
Mohapatra R Vergados J D Hirsch M, Klapdor-Kleingrothaus H V and Kovalenko S G ; Faessler A, Kovalenko S, Šimkovic F and Schwieger J, ; Proceeding of the Int. Workshop on Non-Accelerator New Physics (NANP’97), Dubna, Russia, June 1997, 1998 Phys. Atom. Nucl. [**61**]{} 1329 Hirsch M, Klapdor-Kleingrothaus H V, Kovalenko S G, hep-ph/9707207 Buchmüller W, Rückl R and Wyler D, Hirsch M, Klapdor-Kleingrothaus H V, Kovalenko S G, Vogel P and Zirnbauer M R, Civitarese O, Faessler A and Tomoda T, Muto K and Klapdor H V, ; Muto K, Bender E and Klapdor H V, Cheoun M K, Bobyk A, Faessler A, Šimkovic F and Teneva G, ; ; Cheoun M K, Faessler A, Šimkovic F, Teneva G and Bobyk A, Raduta A A, Faessler A, Stoica S and Kamiński W A, ; Raduta A A, Faessler A and Stoica, Civitarese O, Faessler A, Suhonen J and Wu X R, Krmpoti' c F, Mariano A, Kuo T T S and Nakayama K, Toivanen J and Suhonen J, ; Schwieger J, Šimkovic F and Faessler A, ; Schwieger J, Thesis Tuebingen 1997 Krmpotić F, Kuo T T S, Mariano A, de Passos E J V and de Toledo Piza A F R, ; Hirsch J G, Hess P O and Civitarese O, ; ; Šimkovic F and Pantis G, Šimkovic F, Pantis G and Faessler A, preprint nucl-th/9711060 and 1998 [*Yad. Fiz.*]{} [**61**]{} (to be published); Šimkovic F, Pantis G and Faessler A, 1998 [*Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.*]{} 40 (to be published) Primakoff H and Rosen S P, Boehm F and Vogel P, Avignone F T III and Brodzinski R L, Tomoda T, Grotz K and Klapdor-Kleingrothaus H V, [*The Weak Interactions in Nuclear, Particle and Astrophysics*]{} (Adam Hilger, Bristol, New York, 1990) Moe M and Vogel P,
Majorana E, Pontecorvo B, Pontecorvo B, Bilenky S M and Pontecorvo B, Bilenky S M and Petcov S T, Kayser B, Gibrat-Debu F and Perier F, “The Physics of Massive Neutrinos”, [*World Scientific Lectures Notes in Physics 25*]{}, (Singapore: World Scientific), 1989 Dolgov A D, Zeldovich Ya B, Herczeg P, [*Proc. Third Int. Symp. on Weak and Electromagnetic Interactions in Nuclei (WEIN-92)*]{}, Dubna, Russia, June 1992, ed. Vylov Ts, (Singapre: World Scientific) p 262 van der Schaaf A, Depommier P and Leroy C, Yanagida T, [*Proc. Workshop on Unified Theory and Baryon Number in the Universe*]{}, ed. by Sawada and Sugamoto, (KEK, 1979); Gell-Mann M, Ramond P and Slansky R, in [*Supergravity*]{}, ed. by van Nieuwenhuizen and Freedman, (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1979) Belesev A I, Particle Data Group, Athanassopoulos C et al, Fukuda Y et al, Becker-Szendy R et al, Goodman M, Cleveland B T et al, Hirata K S et al, GALLEX coll, Abdurashitov J N et al, Bahcall J N and Pinsonneault M H, Mikheyev M and Smirnov A, ; Wolfenstein L, , Bilenky S M, Giunti C and Grimus W, 1998 Eur. Phys. J. C [**1**]{} 247, 1998 Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 40; Okada N and Yasuda O 1997 Mod. Phys. Lett. [**12**]{} 3669; Fogli G L Lisi E Montanino D and Scioscia G 1997 Phys. Rev. D [**56**]{} 4365 Schechter J and Valle J W F, ; Nieves J F, ; Takasugi E, Hirsch M, Klapdor-Kleingrothaus H V, Kovalenko S G, 1997 Phys. Lett. B [**398**]{} 311 Bilenky S M, Nedelcheva N P and Petcov S T, ; Kayser B, Šimkovic F, Schwieger J, Pantis G, and Faessler A, Bilenky S M, Giunti C, Kim C W and Monteno M, 1998 Phys. Rev. D [**57**]{} 6981 Apolonio et al, preprint hep-ex/9711002 and 1998 Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**40**]{} Achkar B et al, Mohapatra R N, Int. Workshop on Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay: Double Beta Decay and Related Topics, (Trento, Italy, July 1995) ed. H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus and S. Stoica, World Scientific, 1996, p. 44 Hirsch M, Klapdor-Kleingrothaus H V and Panella O, Panella O, Carimalo C, Srivastava Y N and Widom A, Wodecki A, Kamiński W A and Pagerka S, S.M. Bilenky, [*Introduction to the Physics of Electroweak Interactions*]{} (Pergamon Press Ltd., 1982), p.4. F. Šimkovic, ; F. Šimkovic and G. Pantis, 1999 to be published in Phys. Atom. Nucl. [**62**]{} Šimkovic F, Barbero C, Krmpotić F and Mariano A, Civitarese O and Suhonen J,
Mohapatra R N and Pati J C, ; Mohapatra R N and Senjanović G, Mohapatra R N and Senjanović G Fritzsch H and Minkowski R, Doi M, Kotani T, Nishiura H and Takasugi E, Pantis G, Šimkovic F, Vergados J D and Faessler A, Muto K, [*Proc. Int. Workshop on Double Beta Decay and Related Topics*]{}, Trento 1995, World Scientific, ed. Klapdor H V and Stoica S Vergados J D, Pantis G, Faessler A, Kamiński W A and Vergados J D, ; Pantis G, Vergados J D, Krmpotić F and Sharma S, Barbero C, Krmpotić and Tadić, 1998 Nucl. Phys. A [**628**]{} 170 Suhonen J, Khadkikar S B and Faessler A, ;
Gonzalez-Garcia and Valle J W F, Romão J C, de Campos F and Valle J W F, Aulakh C S and Mohapatra R N, Burgess C P and Cline J M, ; Bamert P, Burgess C P and Mohapatra R N, Carone C D, Barbero C, Cline J M, KrmpotiF and Tadic D, 1996 Phys. Lett. B [**371**]{} 78
Chanowitz M S, Roy D P, Barger V, Guidice G F and Han T, Zwirner F, Weinberg S, Barbieri R and Masiero A, Campbell B A, Davidson S, Ellis J and Olive K, Mohapatra R and Valle J W F, Dreiner H and Ross G, Valle J W F, Romão J C, Rius N and Valle J W F, Leontaris G K, Tamvakis K and Vergados J D, Kosmas T S, Leontaris G K and Vergados J D, Faessler A, Kovalenko S and Šimkovic F, 1998 Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{} 115004 Haber H E and Kane G L, ; Gunion J F, Haber H E and Kane G L, Pontecorvo B,
Retamosa J, Caurier E and Nowacki F, ; Caurier F, Nowacki F, Poves A and Retamosa J, preprint nucl/th9601017 Sinatkas J, Skouras L D and Vergados J D, Tomoda T, Faessler A, Schmidt K W and Grümmer F, Caurier E, Nowacki F, Poves A and Retamosa J, Zhao L, Brown B A and Richter W A, Suhonen J, Divari P C, Skouras L D and Johnstone I P, Nakada H, Sebe T and Muto K, 1996 Nucl. Phys. A [**607**]{} 235 Poves A, Bahukutumbi R P, Langanke K and Vogel P, Raduta A A, Delion D S and Faessler A, Civitarese O, Suhonen J and Faessler A, ; Aunola M, Civitarese O, Kauhanen J and Suhonen J,
Tomoda T and Faessler A, Engel J, Vogel P and Zirnbauer M R, Muto K, Bender E and Klapdor H V, Moeller P and Nix J R, . Šimkovic F, Schwieger J, Veselský M, Pantis G and Faessler A,
Ching C, Ho T and Wu X, Šimkovic F, Engel J, Haxton W C and Vogel P, Šimkovic F and Gmitro M, [*Proc. Int. Conf. on Low Energy Weak Interactions (LEWI -90)*]{}, Dubna 1990, p 258 Wu X, Staudt A, Klapdor H V, Ching C and Ho T, ; Wu X, Staudt A, Kuo T T S and Klapdor H V, ; Hirsch M, Wu X R, Klapdor-Kleingrothaus H V, Ching C and Ho T, Gmitro M and Šimkovic F, Muto K, Hirsch M, Kadowaki O, Klapdor-Kleingrothaus H V and Muto M, Šimkovic and Veselský, [*Proc. Int. Workshop MEDEX97*]{}, Praha, June 1997,
Šimkovic F, Teneva G, Bobyk A, Cheoun M K, Khadkikar S B and Faessler A, ; Teneva G, Šimkovic F, Bobyk A, Cheoun M K, Faessler A and Khadkikar S B, Bernabeu J, Desplanques B and Navarro J, Rumyantsev O A and Urin M G, Vladimirov D M and Gaponov Yu V, Koonin S E, Dean D J and Langanke K, ; Radha P B, Dean D J, Koonin S E, Langanke K and Vogel P,
Muto K, Engel J, Pittel S, Stoitsov M, Vogel P and Dukelsky J, Delion D S, Dukelsky J and Schuck P, Sambataro M and Suhonen J, Stoica S and Kamiński W A, Raduta A A and Suhonen J, Engel J, Vogel P, Ji X D and Pittel S, Šimkovic F, Efimov G V, Ivanov M A and Lyubovitskij V E,
Štekl I, Šimkovic F, Kovalik A and Brudanin V B, [*Proc. Int. Workshop MEDEX97*]{}, Praha, June 1997, Semenov S V, Gaponov Yu V and Khafizov R U, Proc. Int. Workshop on Non-Accelerator New Physics NANP’97 (Dubna, Russia, June 1997), 1998 Yad. Fiz. [**61**]{} 1379; Inzhechik L V, Gaponov Yu V and Semenov S V 1998 Proc. Int. Workshop on Non-Accelerator New Physics NANP’97 (Dubna, Russia, June 1997), 1998 Yad. Fiz [**61**]{} 1384 Kume K, [*Proc. Int. Workshop on Double Beta Decay and Related Topics*]{}, Trento 1995, World Scientific, ed. Klapdor H V and Stoica S Bednyakov V A, Brudanin V B, Kovalenko S G and Vylov Ts S, Hellming J and Klapdor-Kleingrothaus H V, ; Klapdor-Kleingrothaus H V and Hirsch M,
--------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------
nuclear $T_{1/2}^{2\nu\beta\beta}(0^+_{g.s.}\rightarrow 0^+_{g.s.}$) $T_{1/2}^{0\nu\beta\beta}(0^+_{g.s.}\rightarrow 0^+_{g.s.}$) $T_{1/2}^{0\nu\beta\beta \Phi}(0^+_{g.s.}\rightarrow 0^+_{g.s.}$)
transition \[$y^{-1}$\] ref. \[$y^{-1}$\] C.L. ref. \[$y^{-1}$\] C.L. ref.
$^{48}Ca\rightarrow{^{48}Ti}$ $ > 3.6\times 10^{19}$ [@bard70] $ > 2.0\times 10^{21}$ 80% [@bard70] $ > 7.2\times 10^{20}$ 90% [@bard70]
$(4.3^{+2.4}_{-1.1}\pm 1.4)\times 10^{19}$ [@bal96] $ > 9.5\times 10^{21}$ $76\%$ [@you91]
$^{76}Ge\rightarrow{^{76}Se}$ $(1.77^{+0.01~~+0.13}_{-0.01~~-0.11})\times 10^{21}$ [@gue97] $> 1.1 \times 10^{25}$ $90\%$ [@bau97] $> 7.91 \times 10^{21}$ [@gue97]
$(9.2^{+0.7}_{-0.4})\times 10^{20}$ [@avi91]
$^{82}Se\rightarrow{^{82}Kr}$ $(1.08^{+0.26}_{-0.06}) \times 10^{20}$ [@ell92] $> 2.7 \times 10^{22}$ $68\%$ [@ell92] $> 1.6 \times 10^{21}$ $68\%$ [@moe94]
$(1.2\pm 0.1)\times 10^{20}$ gch. [@lin88]
$^{96}Zr\rightarrow{^{96}Mo}$ $> 3.9 \times 10^{19}$ gch. [@kaw93] $> 3.9 \times 10^{19}$ gch. [@kaw93] $> 3.9 \times 10^{19}$ gch. [@kaw93]
$^{100}Mo\rightarrow{^{100}Ru}$ $(6.82^{+0.38}_{-0.53}\pm 0.68)\times 10^{18}$ [@sil97] $> 1.23 \times 10^{21}$ $90\%$ [@sil97] $> 3.31 \times 10^{20}$ $90\%$ [@sil97]
$(9.5\pm 0.4\pm 0.9)\times 10^{18}$ [@das95] $> 6.4 \times 10^{21}$ $90\%$ [@das95] $> 5 \times 10^{20}$ $90\%$ [@das95]
$ 11.5^{+3.0}_{-2.0}$ $\times 10^{18}$ [@eji91] $> 5.2 \times 10^{22}$ $68\%$ [@eji96] $> 5.4 \times 10^{21}$ $68\%$ [@eji96]
$7.6^{+2.2}_{-1.4}$ $\times 10^{18}$ [@als97] $> 2.2 \times 10^{22}$ $68\%$ [@als97]
$ 3.3^{2.0}_{-1.0}$ $\times 10^{18}$ [@vas90] $> 0.71 \times 10^{21}$ $68\%$ [@vas90]
$^{116}Cd\rightarrow{^{116}Sn}$ $(2.7^{+0.5}_{-0.4}\pm 0.9)\times 10^{19}$ [@dane95] $> 2.9 \times 10^{22}$ $90\%$ [@dane95]
$(2.6 ^{+0.9}_{-0.5}\pm 0.35)\times 10^{19}$ [@kume94] $> 5.4 \times 10^{21}$ $68\%$ [@kume94]
$(3.6\pm 0.35\pm 0.21)\times 10^{19}$ [@arn96] $> 5.0 \times 10^{21}$ $90\%$ [@arn96] $> 1.2 \times 10^{21}$ $90\%$ [@arn96]
$^{128}Te\rightarrow{^{128}Xe}$ $(7.7\pm 0.4)\times 10^{24}$ gch. [@bern92] $> 7.7\times 10^{24}$ gch. [@bern92] $> 7.7\times 10^{24}$ gch. [@bern92]
$^{130}Te\rightarrow{^{130}Xe}$ $(2.7\pm 0.1)\times 10^{21}$ gch. [@bern92] $> 8.2 \times 10^{21}$ [@ale94] $> 2.7 \times 10^{21}$ gch. [@bern92]
$^{136}Xe\rightarrow{^{136}Ba}$ $> 5.5 \times 10^{20}$ [@bus96] $> 4.2 \times 10^{23}$ [@bus96] $> 1.4 \times 10^{22}$ [@bus96]
$^{150}Nd\rightarrow{^{150}Sm}$ $(6.75^{+0.37}_{-0.42}\pm 0.68)\times 10^{18}$ [@sil97] $> 1.22 \times 10^{21}$ $90\%$ [@sil97] $> 2.82 \times 10^{20}$ $90\%$ [@sil97]
$(18.8^{+6.6}_{-3.9}\pm 1.9)\times 10^{18}$ [@art95] $> 2.1 \times 10^{20}$ $ 90\%$ [@art95] $> 1.7 \times 10^{20}$ $ 90\%$ [@art95]
$> 11 \times 10^{18}$ $90\%$ [@vas93]
$^{238}U\rightarrow{^{238}Pu}$ $ (2.0\pm 0.6)\times 10^{21}$ rch. [@tur91] $ > 2.0 \times 10^{21}$ rch. [@tur91] $ > 2.0 \times 10^{21}$ rch. [@tur91]
$^{242}Pu\rightarrow{^{242}Cm}$ $> 1.1 \times 10^{18}$ rch. [@moo92] $> 1.1 \times 10^{18}$ rch. [@moo92] $> 1.1 \times 10^{18}$ rch. [@moo92]
--------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------
: Experimental results for $2\nu\beta\beta$-, $0\nu\beta\beta$- and $0\nu\beta\beta\phi$-decay modes for A=48, 76, 82, 96, 100, 116, 128, 130, 136, 150, 238 and 242 nuclear systems. gch.(rch.) - geochemical (radiochemical) data.
\[tabint.1\]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M.E. const ${\cal P}(q,r)~$ $ {\cal S}$ (${\mathbf{\hat{r}}}_{ij}$, ${\mathbf{\hat{r}}}_{+ij}$, ${\mathbf{\sigma}}_i$, ${\mathbf{\sigma}}_j)$
---------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$M^{0\nu}_{GT}$ R $ j_0(q r) \frac{q}{q+\overline{A}} f^2(q^2) $ ${\mathbf{\sigma}}_i \cdot {\mathbf{\sigma}}_j$
$\chi_F$ $\big(\frac{g_V}{g_A}\big)^2 \frac{1}{M^{0\nu}_{GT}}$ $R$ $ j_0(q r) \frac{q}{q+\overline{A}} f^2(q^2) $ 1
$\chi_{GT'}$ $\frac{1}{M^{0\nu}_{GT}}$ $R^2$ $ j_1(q r) \frac{q^2}{q+\overline{A}} f^2(q^2) $ ${\mathbf{\sigma}}_i \cdot {\mathbf{\sigma}}_j$
$\chi_{F'}$ $\big(\frac{g_V}{g_A}\big)^2\frac{1}{M^{0\nu}_{GT}}$ $R^2$ $ j_1(q r) \frac{q^2}{q+\overline{A}} f^2(q^2) $ 1
$\chi_{T'}$ $\frac{1}{M^{0\nu}_{GT}}$ $\frac{R^2}{3}$ $ j_1(q r) \frac{q^2}{q+\overline{A}} f^2(q^2) $ ${\mathbf{S}}_{ij}$
$\chi_{GT\omega}$ $\frac{1}{M^{0\nu}_{GT}}$ $R$ $ j_0(q r) \frac{q^2}{(q+\overline{A})^2} f^2(q^2) $ ${\mathbf{\sigma}}_i \cdot {\mathbf{\sigma}}_j$
$\chi_{F\omega}$ $\big(\frac{g_V}{g_A}\big)^2\frac{1}{M^{0\nu}_{GT}}$ $R$ $ j_0(q r) \frac{q^2}{(q+\overline{A})^2} f^2(q^2) $ 1
$\chi_{P}$ $\big(\frac{g_V}{g_A}\big)$ $\frac{1}{M^{0\nu}_{GT}}$ $R^2$ $ j_1(q r) \frac{q^2}{q+\overline{A}} f^2(q^2) $ $i {\mathbf{\sigma}}_{-ij}\cdot \big({\mathbf{\hat{r}}}_{ij}
\times \frac{{\mathbf{\hat{r}}}_{+ij}}{R}\big)$
$\chi_{R}$ $\frac{\mu_\beta}{3} \big(\frac{g_V}{g_A}\big)$ $\frac{1}{M^{0\nu}_{GT}}$ $\frac{R^2}{m_p}$ $ (j_0(qr)-\frac{2j_1(q r)}{qr}) \frac{q^3}{q+\overline{A}} f^2(q^2) $ ${\mathbf{\sigma}}_i \cdot {\mathbf{\sigma}}_j$
${\cal M}_{GT N}$ $\frac{R}{m^2_A}$ $ j_0(qr) q^2 f^2(q^2) $ ${\mathbf{\sigma}}_i \cdot {\mathbf{\sigma}}_j$
${\cal M}_{F N}$ $\frac{R}{m^2_A}$ $ j_0(qr) q^2 f^2(q^2) $ 1
${\cal M}_{GT'}$ $\frac{R}{m^4_A}$ $ j_0(qr) q^4 f^2(q^2) $ ${\mathbf{\sigma}}_i \cdot {\mathbf{\sigma}}_j$
${\cal M}_{F'}$ $\frac{R}{m^4_A}$ $ j_0(qr) q^4 f^2(q^2) $ 1
${\cal M}_{T'}$ $\frac{R}{m^4_A}$ $ j_2(qr) q^4 f^2(q^2) $ ${\mathbf{S}}_{ij}$
${\cal M}_{GT-1\pi}$ $-\frac{R}{m^2_\pi}$ $ j_0 (qr) \frac{q^4}{(q^2+m^2_\pi)} f^2(q^2) $ ${\mathbf{\sigma}}_i \cdot {\mathbf{\sigma}}_j$
${\cal M}_{T-1\pi}$ $\frac{R}{m^2_\pi}$ $ j_2 (qr) \frac{q^4}{(q^2+m^2_\pi)} f^2(q^2) $ ${\mathbf{S}}_{ij}$
${\cal M}_{GT-2\pi}$ $- 2 R$ $ j_0 (qr) \frac{q^4}{(q^2+m^2_\pi)^2} f^2(q^2) $ ${\mathbf{\sigma}}_i \cdot {\mathbf{\sigma}}_j$
${\cal M}_{T-2\pi}$ $ 2 R$ $ j_2 (qr) \frac{q^4}{(q^2+m^2_\pi)^2} f^2(q^2) $ ${\mathbf{S}}_{ij}$
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: The transition operators ${\cal O}_{I}({\mathbf{r}}_i,{\mathbf{r}}_j,
{\mathbf{\sigma}}_i,{\mathbf{\sigma}}_j)$ = $const \cdot$ $\frac{2}{\pi}\int_0^\infty {\cal P}_I(q,r) dq$ $ \cdot {\cal S}_I$(${\mathbf{\hat{r}}}_{ij}$, ${\mathbf{\hat{r}}}_{+ij}$, ${\mathbf{\sigma}}_i$, ${\mathbf{\sigma}}_j)$ (see Eqs. (\[neu.9\])) for the nuclear matrix elements associated with exchange of light and heavy particles are listed ( ${\mathbf{{r}}}_{ij}={\mathbf{r}}_i$ - ${\mathbf{r}}_j$, ${\mathbf{{r}}}_{+ij}={\mathbf{r}}_i$ + ${\mathbf{r}}_j$, ${\mathbf{\hat{r}}}_{ij}={\mathbf{{r}}}_{ij}$$/|{\mathbf{{r}}}_{ij}|$, ${\mathbf{\hat{r}}}_{+ij}={\mathbf{{r}}}_{+ij}$$/|{\mathbf{{r}}}_{+ij}|$, $r=|{\mathbf{\hat{r}}}_{ij}|$ ). The following notations are used: R is nuclear radius. $j_i$ (i=1,2) are spherical Bessel functions. $f(q^2)=1/(1+q^2/m_A^2)^2$ is the dipole nucleon form factor with cut-off $m_A$=850 MeV. $m_\pi$ and $m_p$ are the pion and nucleon masses, respectively. $\overline{A}$ is the closure energy, which can be found for different nuclei e.g. in \[79\]. ${\mathbf{S}}_{ij}=$$3 {\mathbf{\sigma}}_i$ $\cdot$ ${\mathbf{\hat{r}}}_{ij} ~$ $ {\mathbf{\sigma}}_j$ $\cdot$ ${\mathbf{\hat{r}}}_{ij}$ - ${\mathbf{\sigma}}_i$ $\cdot$ ${\mathbf{\sigma}}_j$ is the tensor operator. ${\mathbf{\sigma}}_{-ij}=$ ${\mathbf{\sigma}}_i-{\mathbf{\sigma}}_j$. $g_V = 1.0$, $ g_A=1.24$ and $\mu_\beta=4.7$[]{data-label="tabneu.1"}
Model i $a^{(0)}_{V-i}$ $a^{(0)}_{A-i}$ $a^{(1)}_{V-i}$ $a^{(1)}_{A-i}$ $a^{}_{T-i}$
---------- ------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -------------- --
Non-rel. $\tilde{q}$ 0.145 -1.198 8.221 0.306 1.408
QM $\tilde{f}$ 0.145 0.0 0.0 -0.837 0.837
Bag $\tilde{q}$ 0.242 -1.322 2.511 -0.670 1.061
model $\tilde{f}$ 0.242 0.0 0.0 -0.931 0.931
: The nucleon structure coefficients of the two-nucleon mode for the $R_p \hspace{-1em}/\;\:$ SUSY mechanism for the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay calculated within the non-relativistic quark (QM) and Bag models. They have been calculated using Table I and Eqs. (54-57) of ref. \[58\].[]{data-label="tabsus.1"}
[cccccccccc]{}\
& $^{76}Ge$ & $^{82}Se$ & $^{96}Zr$ & $^{100}Mo$ & $^{116}Cd$ & $^{128}Te$ & $^{130}Te$ & $^{136}Xe$ & $^{150}Nd$\
$M^{0\nu}_{GT}$ & 2.80 & 2.66 & 1.54 & 3.30 & 2.08 & 2.21 & 1.84 & 0.70 & 3.37\
$\chi_F$ & -0.29 & -0.28 & -0.29 & -0.25 & -0.24 & -0.34 & -0.36 & -0.46 & -0.34\
$<m_\nu >$ & 0.54 & 5.5 & 167. & 2.5 & 5.2 & 1.5 & 10.7 & 3.5 & 7.1\
$<g>\times 10^4$ & 4.0 & 3.3 & 22. & 1.1 & 25. & 0.55 & 3.0 & 3.2 & 1.8\
[ccccccccccc]{}\
& $^{48}Ca$ & $^{76}Ge$ & $^{82}Se$ & $^{96}Zr$ & $^{100}Mo$ & $^{116}Cd$ & $^{128}Te$ & $^{130}Te$ & $^{136}Xe$ & $^{150}Nd$\
Ref. & $10^{24}$ & $10^{24}$ & $10^{24}$ & $10^{24}$ & $10^{24}$ & $10^{24}$ & $10^{25}$ & $10^{24}$ & $10^{24}$ & $10^{22}$\
\
[@ret95] & 6.42 & 17.4 & 2.40 & & & & & & 12.1 &\
[@hax84] & 3.17 & 1.68 & 0.58 & & & & 0.40 & 0.16 & &\
[@eng89] & & 2.30 & 0.92 & & & & 0.45 & 0.24 & &\
[@eng88] & & 14.0 & 5.60 & & & & 1.50 & 0.66 & 3.30 &\
[@suh91] & & 4.06 & 1.43 & & & & 1.80 & 0.83 & &\
[@mut89] & & 2.33 & 0.60 & & 1.27 & & 0.77 & 0.49 & 2.21 & 3.37\
[@tom91] & & 2.16 & 0.61 & & 0.26 & & 0.98 & 0.54 & 1.40 & 4.45\
p.w. & & 3.15 & 0.80 & 1.09 & 0.34 & 0.77 & 1.63 & 0.94 & 5.29 & 6.11\
[@simf97] & & 8.95 & & & 0.25 & 0.70 & 1.09 & & 8.76 &\
\
[@ret95] & 7.45 & 50.2 & 3.25 & & & & & & 22.2 &\
[@suh91] & & 7.75 & 1.14 & & & & 14.8 & 0.89 & &\
[@mut89] & & 7.35 & 0.99 & & 0.95 & & 13.5 & 0.95 & 4.90 & 3.73\
[@tom91] & & 8.02 & 1.07 & & 0.55 & & 21.1 & 1.18 & 3.47 & 6.71\
[@pan96]a & 2.71 & 8.90 & 2.08 & 0.94 & 30.6 & 39.1 & 22.7 & 1.34 & 2.73 &\
[@pan96]b & 27.9 & 41.2 & 4.39 & 27.7 & 10.3 & 10.8 & 165. & 2.22 & 4.42 &\
\
[@ret95] & 6.42 & 27.2 & 6.24 & & & & & & 22.2 &\
[@suh91] & & 36.7 & 11.1 & & & & 10.7 & 5.92 & &\
[@mut89] & & 2.25 & 0.65 & & 0.28 & & 0.67 & 0.44 & 1.21 & 3.39\
[@tom91] & & 2.82 & 0.76 & & 0.34 & & 0.85 & 0.54 & 1.20 & 9.13\
[@pan96]a & 15.1 & 3.10 & 6.51 & 1.48 & 3.44 & 19.2 & 1.20 & 0.62 & 1.23 &\
[@pan96]b & 43.2 & 22.8 & 5.16 & 7.95 & 102. & 83.2 & 1.90 & 1.05 & 0.96 &\
\
[@ret95] & 7.96 & 70.9 & 5.24 & & & & & & 32.5 &\
[@hax84] & 3.93 & 6.85 & 1.27 & & & & 5.70 & 4.20 & &\
[@suh91] & & 16.5 & 3.13 & & & & 25.7 & 2.19 & &\
[@eng89] & & 9.36 & 2.01 & & & & 6.41 & 0.63 & &\
[@eng88] & & 57.0 & 12.2 & & & & 21.4 & 1.73 & 8.86 &\
[@mut89] & & 9.49 & 1.32 & & 2.60 & & 11.1 & 1.28 & 5.94 & 5.30\
[@tom91] & & 8.77 & 1.32 & & 0.53 & & 13.9 & 1.42 & 3.76 & 6.99\
p.w. & & 12.8 & 1.75 & 1.92 & 0.68 & 1.76 & 23.2 & 2.47 & 14.2 & 9.61\
[@simf97] & & 36.4 & & & 0.52 & 1.61 & 15.0 & & 23.5 &\
\[tabres.2\]
[cccccccccc]{}\
& $^{76}Ge$ & $^{82}Se$ & $^{96}Zr$ & $^{100}Mo$ & $^{116}Cd$ & $^{128}Te$ & $^{130}Te$ & $^{136}Xe$ & $^{150}Nd$\
\
${\cal M}^{\pi N}\times 10^{-2}$ & -6.19 & -5.75 & -4.35 & -7.56 & -4.33 & -6.98 & -6.35 & -3.72 & -10.7\
$T^{0\nu-susy}_{1/2}\times 10^{-25}$ & 33. & 8.6 & 7.1 & 3.0 & 8.5 & 93. & 4.5 & 12. & 0.32\
$\eta_{susy} ~ \times 10^{8}$ & 0.55 & 5.6 & 135. & 2.4 & 5.4 & 1.1 & 7.4 & 1.7 & 5.2\
${\acute{\lambda}}_{111} \times 10^{4}$ & 0.79 & 2.5 & 12. & 1.7 & 2.5 & 1.1 & 2.9 & 1.4 & 2.4\
\
${\cal M}_N\times 10^{-2}$ & -1.30 & -1.20 & -0.84 & -1.51 & -0.91 & -1.37 & -1.23 & -0.72 & -2.06\
$T^{0\nu-heavy}_{1/2}\times 10^{-25}$ & 7.4 & 2.0 & 1.9 & 0.76 & 1.9 & 24. & 1.2 & 3.2 & 0.088\
$ \eta_N \times 10^{7}$ & 0.26 & 2.7 & 70. & 1.2 & 2.6 & 0.56 & 3.8 & 0.88 & 2.70\
[^1]: Supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Fa67/17 and Fa67/21 and the EU under contract CT94-0603 and CT93-0323
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that inclusion of a TeV scale chiral superfield transforming in the adjoint representation of the color SU(3) to the MSSM particle content modifies the renormalization group running of some parameters in such a way that a 125 GeV mass of the light Higgs boson is accommodated more comfortably than in cMSSM / mSUGRA. Put differently, the introduction of a color adjoint TeV scale superfield helps resurrecting lighter choices for the stop and gluino which are otherwise disfavored in cMSSM / mSUGRA.'
---
SINP/TNP/2012/13, DO-TH 12/29
[**Pushing the SUSY Higgs mass towards 125 GeV with a color adjoint**]{}\
[ [ Gautam Bhattacharyya${}^{1,2}$]{} and [Tirtha Sankar Ray${}^{3,4}$]{}]{}\
[**Introduction:**]{} The discovery of the Higgs boson, or more appropriately, a Higgs-like boson at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) [@:2012gk; @:2012gu] has pushed one of the most advertised class of supersymmetric (SUSY) models, namely, the constrained minimal supersymmetric standard model (cMSSM), or equivalently, minimal supergravity (mSUGRA), into an uncomfortable corner. The disappointment arising from the so far unsuccessful attempts to underpin any supersymmetric relics via direct searches at the LHC [@atlassusy; @cmssusy] got further aggravated by the news that the Higgs boson is as heavy as 125 GeV. This is so because the third generation squark masses and the associated soft trilinear scalar coupling, on which LHC cannot put as stringent direct constraints as on their first two generation counterparts, are now pushed to one to few TeV to ensure that the lightest Higgs mass receives sufficient radiative enhancement. It is in this context that we write this short note. We propose that a simple augmentation of the MSSM particle content with a chiral superfield transforming in the adjoint representation of the SU(3) color group proves to be useful in easing part of this difficulty and thus resurrecting some of the lost parameter space. Put briefly, our scenario is the following: add a colored chiral superfield whose scalar and fermionic components behave like a scalar gluon and a gluino, respectively, with no other non-vanishing gauge quantum numbers, each weighing around a TeV. Their presence would modify the renormalization group (RG) running of the QCD coupling $g_3$ (more specifically, would add positive contributions to its beta function), which would in turn feed into the running of the top Yukawa coupling $y_t$, and the trilinear scalar coupling $A_t$ entering the stop mixing matrix. These modifications give us a few [*territorial*]{} advantages over cMSSM: ($i$) the gluino and the lighter stop can be lighter than what they should weigh in cMSSM for generating the 125 GeV mass of the light Higgs; ($ii$) the rather large (possibly maximal) stop-mixing, which facilitates reaching out to 125 GeV mass of the Higgs, does not compel $|A_0|$ any more to be as large as what cMSSM requires it to be. The motivation for adding an adjoint superfield may come from string theory, more specifically, the intersecting D-brane models [@Cui:2006nw]. However, such color adjoint fields in four dimensional context need not be seen only as spies from extra dimension or string theory, they may very well have more mundane ancestry. The main upshot of our analysis is that the introduction of a color adjoint superfield at the TeV scale improves the fine-tuning.
Other options for creating more room for accommodating a 125 GeV SUSY Higgs also exist. Next-to-minimal supersymmetry (NMSSM) is already known to possess an improved fine-tuning as its gauge singlet superfield, coupled to the two Higgs doublets in the superpotential, provides a tree level mass to the lightest CP-even Higgs [@Drees:1988fc; @Ellwanger:2009dp]. A recent numerical study of the trilinear scalar couplings $A_\lambda$ and $A_\kappa$ in the conventional scale invariant version of NMSSM, however, shows that the 125 GeV mass of the Higgs boson is compatible only in some well-separated islands of the parameter space [@Agashe:2012zq]. Further reduction in fine-tuning in NMSSM has more recently achieved by introducing extra matter descending from $E_6$ origin in a scenario which also possesses a discrete $R$-symmetry solving the domain wall problem and enhancing proton stability [@Hall:2012mx]. A bottom-up approach for addressing the fine-tuning problem, which goes by the name of ‘natural SUSY’, has also gained attention where the third generation sfermions and the Higgsino are kept light, while the rest of the superpartners are considered heavy [@Espinosa:2012in; @Papucci:2011wy; @Brust:2011tb]. Additional matter fields transforming as grand unified theory (GUT) multiplets have also been employed to [*better*]{} realize the 125 GeV mass of the Higgs, improving consistency with the muon $(g-2)$ measurement at the same time [@Endo:2011mc; @Moroi:2011aa]. Our method of [*comfortably achieving*]{} the 125 GeV mass of the Higgs relies on adding a color adjoint state that does not directly couple to the Higgs sector but its effect filters through to the Higgs mass only via modifications of RG running of various couplings. Adjoint representation states have been employed for different purposes so far. It was shown that such a colored chiral superfield, appearing e.g. in the context of a 4-dimensional realization of $N=2$ supersymmetry in a 5-dimensional theory [@ArkaniHamed:2001tb; @Bhattacharyya:2010rm], helps the gluino acquire a large Dirac mass in a class of super-soft SUSY breaking models [@Fox:2002bu] actually helps to improve the fine-tuning [@Kribs:2012gx] of parameters. A very recent study [@Perez:2012gg] aiming to improve the fine-tuning has employed the 24-plet SU(5)-adjoint superfield, the vacuum expectation value of whose singlet component helps to enhance the tree level Higgs mass in the NMSSM-style. As a result, the 125 GeV Higgs mass is reached with a lighter stop and smaller mixing, the colored states being used to keep the running of the top Yukawa coupling under control.
{width="70.00000%"}
{width="70.00000%"}
[**Formalism:**]{} We refer to the present scenario as ‘cMSSM+’ for repeated use in the subsequent text, which implies the MSSM particle content plus a single ${\rm SU(3)_C}$ adjoint chiral superfield. We now demonstrate how its introduction induces a drastic modification to RG evolution of several parameters. All we need to calculate are the contributions of the fermion and scalar components of the adjoint superfield to the QCD gauge beta function. These are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b3}
\Delta b_3^f = \frac{4}{3} \cdot 3 \cdot \frac{1}{2} = 2 \, , ~~~{\rm and}~~~
\Delta b_3^s = \frac{1}{3} \cdot 3 = 1 \, , \end{aligned}$$ where the factor 3 represents color, and the factor (1/2) in the fermionic contribution comes from its Majorana nature. Hence $\Delta
b_3 = \Delta b_3^f + \Delta b_3^s = 3$. We assume that the new fermion and the scalar weigh around a TeV. So, as soon as this energy is crossed, the new states are sparked into life, and the above increment in the beta function changes the slope of the running of $g_3$ keeping it flat at its weak scale value all along (up to one loop precision). This constitutes the primary effect and the rest is simply its consequence, as we explain now step by step. We recall that the gauge beta functions are given by ($t = \ln Q/(1~{\rm
GeV})$), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{beta-gauge}
\beta_{g_a} \equiv {d\over dt} g_a = {b_a\over 16\pi^2} g_a^3, \end{aligned}$$ where $(b_1, b_2, b_3) = (33/5,\> 1,\> -3)$ for MSSM at one loop [@Martin:1997ns]. Since, only $b_3$ receives an increment in cMSSM+, as shown in Eq. (\[b3\]), the cMSSM+ set reads: $(b_1, b_2,
b_3) = (33/5,\> 1,\> 0)$. For our purpose, one loop estimate of beta functions is enough[^1]. Since in cMSSM+ $g_3$ hardly runs beyond the TeV scale, the gluino mass also remains stationary at the leading order. Admittedly, gauge couplings do not unify in this model since only the slope of $g_3$ running is modified, although the value of $g_3$ remains perturbative all the way up to the high scale[^2]. In our subsequent numerical discussions on cMSSM+ we treat $M_G = 2 \cdot 10^{16}$ GeV as a high scale reference point (for comparison of various running [*vis-à-vis*]{} MSSM), and assume that the common gaugino and scalar supersymmetry breaking mass parameters, $M_{1/2}$ and $m_0$, respectively, refer to that point. We now look at the RG running of the top Yukawa coupling, where for illustration we display only the dominant terms: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{beta-top}
\beta_{y_t} \equiv {d\over dt} y_t \simeq {y_t \over 16 \pi^2}
\Bigl [6 y_t^* y_t - {16\over 3} g_3^2\Bigr ].\end{aligned}$$ Since $g_3$ stays at the large weak scale value even at the high scale, the RG trajectory of the top Yukawa coupling is bent to lower values compared to MSSM at the high scale – see Fig. \[fig1\]. This will help us understand the evolution pattern of the trilinear coupling $A_t$. Again, we display the dominant terms for providing intuition: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{beta-at}
16\pi^2 {d\over dt} A_t \simeq A_t \Bigl [18 y_t^* y_t - {16\over 3} g_3^2 \Bigr]
+ {32\over 3} y_t g_3^2 M_3 \, . \end{aligned}$$ An interplay of Eqs. (\[beta-gauge\]), (\[beta-top\]) and (\[beta-at\]) provides the insight that starting from a given negative high scale value $A_0$, the weak scale value $A_t$ is more negative in cMSSM+ compared to cMSSM – see Fig. \[fig2\] (drawn for $M_{1/2} = 500$ GeV and $\tan\beta = 10$). It is now known that a negative $A_t$ of larger magnitude is more helpful for reaching out to 125 GeV mass of the Higgs (see e.g. [@Brummer:2012ns; @Ghosh:2012dh] for recent studies). This transpires from $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mh}
m_h^2 = M_Z^2 \cos^2 2\beta +
\frac{3}{4\pi^2}\frac{m_t^4}{v^2}\left[\log\frac{M_S^2}{m_t^2} +
\frac{X_t^2}{M_S^2} \left(1-\frac{X_t^2}{12M_S^2}\right)\right] \, , \end{aligned}$$ where $v = \sqrt{v_u^2+v_d^2} = 174$ GeV, $\tan\beta = v_u/v_d$, $X_t
\equiv A_t-\mu\cot\beta$, and $M_S \equiv
\sqrt{m_{\tilde{t_1}}m_{\tilde{t_2}}}$ is the geometric mean of the two stop masses. Although Eq. (\[mh\]) does not care about the sign of $A_t$, but given the slope of its RG trajectory a large negative value of $A_t$ is easier achieved than a positive value of the same magnitude.
[**Results and other implications:**]{} In Fig. \[fig3\] we show the scatter plot of the Higgs mass for different choices of the ratio of high scale parameters $A_0$ and $m_0$ in cMSSM+ (red points) and in cMSSM (blue points). We scan over the following ranges: $m_0=[0,2]$ TeV, $M_{1/2}=[0,2]$ TeV and $A_0=[0,-2]$ TeV, keeping $\tan\beta=10$ and $\mu>0$ (preferred by $(g-2)$ of muon). What is significant is that for the above parameter choices, especially, the magnitude of negative $A_0$ not exceeding 2 TeV, cMSSM struggles to give the Higgs a mass of 125 GeV [@Brummer:2012ns; @Ghosh:2012dh; @Cao:2011sn], but for the same ranges of parameters cMSSM+ offers a 3 to 4 GeV enhancement to the Higgs mass which is enough to bring it into consistency with the CMS and ATLAS measurement. This is simply a consequence of a more negative value of $A_t$ that is attainable in cMSSM+ compared to what is possible in cMSSM, i.e. $|A_t~({\rm
cMSSM+})| > |A_t~({\rm cMSSM})|$, starting from a given (negative) $A_0$ at the high scale. This happens because the running of $A_t$ has a steeper slope in cMSSM+ due to the tweaking of its RG evolution by the adjoint contribution. In Fig. \[fig4\], we choose the same high scale parameters, except that now $A_0=[0,-4]$ TeV, so that cMSSM can accommodate a 125 GeV mass of the Higgs. The shaded regions in the plane of the gluino and the lighter stop masses correspond to points for which the light Higgs weighs between 123 and 127 GeV. What we demonstrate in Fig. \[fig4\] is that there is a significant recovery of the lighter spectrum in the cMSSM+ compared to cMSSM. We have made use of two packages, `SuSpect` [@Djouadi:2002ze] and `micrOMEGAs` [@Belanger:2010gh], during the implementation of these plots, and we have ensured that the predictions for some low scale observables, e.g. $B_s$ decays to $\mu^+ \mu^-$, are consistent with their experimental observations in the shaded regions.
We now give a quantitative estimate of how much we gain in terms of fine-tuning. Using the Barbieri-Giudice criterion [@Barbieri:1987fn], a rather crude estimate of the amount of fine-tuning as a function of the stop masses is given by [@hep-ph/9801449] $$\Delta \approx \frac{10}{33} \cdot \frac{m_{\tilde{t_1}} m_{\tilde{t_2}}
}{\left(650~{\rm GeV}\right)^2} \cdot \ln\left(\frac{M_G}{M_Z}\right) \, ,
\label{delta}$$ where it is to be noted that $\ln(M_G/M_Z) \simeq 33$. Using a fixed set of high scale input parameters, we present two sample points for stop masses at the weak scale in GeV: $(m_{\tilde{t_1}},
m_{\tilde{t_2}}) =$ (1186, 1950) for cMSSM and (512, 902) for cMSSM+. Both these points correspond to $m_h = 123$ GeV. Using Eq. (\[delta\]), we obtain $\Delta \simeq 54$ for cMSSM and $\Delta
\simeq 11$ for cMSSM+. Thus we gain roughly a factor of 5 in terms of fine-tuning, though this rough estimate which we presented for illustration is only for a specific set of sample points.
{width="70.00000%"}
{width="70.00000%"}
We briefly mention some phenomenological implications of the color adjoint superfield. As shown in [@Cui:2006nw], its scalar component (assumed heavier) can decay into its fermionic component and gluino much before the time of nucleosynthesis to avoid any cosmological problems. The fermionic state can decay into characteristic $4 t +$ neutralino missing energy through nonrenormalizable interactions, which has very low standard background. If the fermionic component is long-lived, there are ways to ensure that its relic density is insignificant. In the LHC context it has been shown that the experimental bounds on such models with Dirac gauginos are weaker than on similar MSSM-type models [@Kribs:2012gx]. Several other authors have studied different hadronic decay signatures of color-octet scalars and pseudo-scalars [@Gerbush:2007fe; @Schumann:2011ji; @Zerwekh:2008mn]. The outcome of our analysis in the context of the Higgs mass may provide further motivation for the LHC studies of the adjoint states.
[**Conclusion and outlook:**]{} Naïvely, one might think that the presence of any colored matter would induce a similar shift in the Higgs mass. Indeed so, but not always in the preferred direction. We tried also with diquarks ($\Phi$) appearing through a superpotential $W_{\rm DQ} = y_\Phi^{ij} u^c_i u^c_j \Phi + \mu_\Phi
\Phi \bar \Phi $, where for illustration we considered coupling with up-type singlets. Here $\Phi = (\overline{3}, 1, 4/3)$ and $\bar \Phi
= (3, 1, -4/3)$ (see, e.g. Ref. [@Bhattacharyya:1995bw] for a list of possibilities for different diquark representations). It is easy to check that $\Delta b_3 = 1$ in this case, which is to be contrasted with $\Delta b_3 = 3$ for the adjoint – see Eq. (\[b3\]). This is one of the reasons behind the much smaller shift in the Higgs mass that one can get with a diquark. Indeed in the diquark case, $\Delta
b_2$ and $\Delta b_1$ would be non-vanishing, but these are numerically not so relevant in this context. Crucially, the diquark Yukawa coupling $y_\Phi$ contributes in the ‘wrong’ direction to the running of $y_t$ and $A_t$, and its magnitude has to be kept under control as otherwise $y_t$ would blow up pretty fast. We relegate a more detailed study of different types of diquarks in this context to a future publication. This last observation of ours, i.e. Yukawa running in this context is indeed a tricky issue, is in accord with a recent study claiming that additional chiral fermions at the GUT scale with large Yukawa couplings modify $A_t$ in a way that the light Higgs mass is actually [*reduced*]{} for the same stop and gluino masses [@vempati]. Herein lies the reason as to why the color adjoint extension offers the most promising scenario in the present context.
We advance three distinct features which make our scenario a worthy competitor of the alternative avenues for providing a few extra GeV to the Higgs mass: ($i$) The existence of a chiral superfield in the adjoint representation is well motivated as arising from higher dimensional supersymmetric theory. ($ii$) The colored fermionic component may provide a large Dirac mass of the gluino, which offers many interesting features, including an improved naturalness. We have also shown using the Barbieri-Giudice criterion that fine-tuning in cMSSM+ is lessened by a factor $\sim 5$ with respect to cMSSM . ($iii$) Even if the adjoint scalar and fermion states are much heavier than 1 TeV, e.g. if we assume them to weigh around 10 TeV, our main conclusion remains unaffected. The central issue is what is the value of the strong coupling when it stops running (at one loop level). If the adjoint scalar and fermion masses are about 1 TeV, then $\alpha_3^{-1} (1~{\rm TeV}) \simeq 9.7$ is where the strong coupling freezes and stays unmoved for higher energies up to the GUT scale. On the other hand, if the adjoint scalar and fermion masses are around 10 TeV, then the slope of the strong coupling keeps changing up to the energy scale of 10 TeV, and then as soon as the adjoint states are excited the coupling gets frozen at $\alpha_3^{-1} (10~{\rm TeV})
\simeq 10.8$, which is much closer to its value at 1 TeV and quite far away from the GUT scale value (in cMSSM, i.e. without the adjoint state) $\alpha_G^{-1} \simeq 23.4$. As a result, even for a 10 TeV adjoint state, a few GeV enhancement to the Higgs mass would not be a problem. Indeed, the collider phenomenology of a 10 TeV state is less exciting, which is why we assumed the adjoint states to weigh around 1 TeV. In this sense our scenario offers a rather robust mechanism for the incremental shift in the Higgs mass.
We reiterate that by no means one can say that cMSSM (or, equivalently, mSUGRA) is already disfavored. All we observe is that the light Higgs mass in cMSSM struggles to reach out to the last few rungs of its experimental range. This can be considerably eased if, instead of holding ourselves hostage to the conventional particle content of the MSSM, we add a new TeV scale color adjoint superfield, which has enough motivations to exist and which offers rich phenomenology to be explored at the LHC.
[**Acknowledgments:**]{} G.B. acknowledges DFG support through a Mercator visiting professorship, grant number INST 212/289-1, and hospitality at T.U. Dortmund. He also thanks CEA, Saclay, for a short visit where the project was initiated. The research of T.S.R. is supported in part by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche under contract ANR 2010 BLANC 041301, the European Commission under Contract PITN-GA-2009-237920 (UNILHC) and the Australian Research Council. T.S.R. also acknowledges hospitality at T.U. Dortmund and Department of Physics, Calcutta University, during different stages of the work. We thank T. Gherghetta for discussions.
[99]{} G. Aad [*et al.*]{} \[ATLAS Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**716**]{} (2012) 1 \[arXiv:1207.7214 \[hep-ex\]\]. S. Chatrchyan [*et al.*]{} \[CMS Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**716**]{} (2012) 30 \[arXiv:1207.7235 \[hep-ex\]\]. ATLAS Collaboration, ATL-PHYS-PROC-2012-134, http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1473137.
CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-SUS-11-016, http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1445580
Y. Cui, Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{} (2006) 075010 \[hep-ph/0607070\].
M. Drees, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**4**]{} (1989) 3635. U. Ellwanger, C. Hugonie and A. M. Teixeira, Phys. Rept. [**496**]{} (2010) 1 \[arXiv:0910.1785 \[hep-ph\]\].
K. Agashe, Y. Cui and R. Franceschini, arXiv:1209.2115 \[hep-ph\]. J. P. Hall and S. F. King, arXiv:1209.4657 \[hep-ph\].
J. R. Espinosa, C. Grojean, V. Sanz and M. Trott, JHEP [**1212**]{} (2012) 077 \[arXiv:1207.7355 \[hep-ph\]\].
M. Papucci, J. T. Ruderman and A. Weiler, JHEP [**1209**]{} (2012) 035 \[arXiv:1110.6926 \[hep-ph\]\].
C. Brust, A. Katz, S. Lawrence and R. Sundrum, JHEP [**1203**]{} (2012) 103 \[arXiv:1110.6670 \[hep-ph\]\].
M. Endo, K. Hamaguchi, S. Iwamoto and N. Yokozaki, Phys. Rev. D [**84**]{} (2011) 075017 \[arXiv:1108.3071 \[hep-ph\]\]. T. Moroi, R. Sato and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B [**709**]{} (2012) 218 \[arXiv:1112.3142 \[hep-ph\]\].
N. Arkani-Hamed, T. Gregoire and J. G. Wacker, JHEP [**0203**]{} (2002) 055 \[hep-th/0101233\]. G. Bhattacharyya and T. S. Ray, JHEP [**1005**]{} (2010) 040 \[arXiv:1003.1276 \[hep-ph\]\].
P. J. Fox, A. E. Nelson and N. Weiner, JHEP [**0208**]{} (2002) 035 \[hep-ph/0206096\]. G. D. Kribs and A. Martin, Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{} (2012) 115014 \[arXiv:1203.4821 \[hep-ph\]\]. P. F. Perez and S. Spinner, arXiv:1209.5769 \[hep-ph\].
S. P. Martin, In \*Kane, G.L. (ed.): Perspectives on supersymmetry II\* 1-153 \[hep-ph/9709356\]. M. D. Goodsell, arXiv:1206.6697 \[hep-ph\].
R. Davies, JHEP [**1210**]{} (2012) 010 \[arXiv:1205.1942 \[hep-th\]\].
F. Brummer, S. Kraml and S. Kulkarni, JHEP [**1208**]{} (2012) 089 \[arXiv:1204.5977 \[hep-ph\]\]. D. Ghosh, M. Guchait, S. Raychaudhuri and D. Sengupta, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{} (2012) 055007 \[arXiv:1205.2283 \[hep-ph\]\].
J. Cao, Z. Heng, D. Li and J. M. Yang, Phys. Lett. B [**710**]{} (2012) 665 \[arXiv:1112.4391 \[hep-ph\]\].
A. Djouadi, J. -L. Kneur and G. Moultaka, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**176**]{} (2007) 426 \[hep-ph/0211331\].
G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, P. Brun, A. Pukhov, S. Rosier-Lees, P. Salati and A. Semenov, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**182**]{} (2011) 842 \[arXiv:1004.1092 \[hep-ph\]\]. R. Barbieri and G. F. Giudice, Nucl. Phys. B [**306**]{} (1988) 63. D. Wright, hep-ph/9801449.
M. Gerbush, T. J. Khoo, D. J. Phalen, A. Pierce and D. Tucker-Smith, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{} (2008) 095003 \[arXiv:0710.3133 \[hep-ph\]\]; S. Schumann, A. Renaud and D. Zerwas, JHEP [**1109**]{} (2011) 074 \[arXiv:1108.2957 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. R. Zerwekh, C. O. Dib and R. Rosenfeld, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{} (2008) 097703 \[arXiv:0802.4303 \[hep-ph\]\]. G. Bhattacharyya, D. Choudhury and K. Sridhar, Phys. Lett. B [**355**]{} (1995) 193 \[hep-ph/9504314\]. D. Chowdhury, S. Garg, A. Ibarra and S. K. Vempati, in preparation.
[^1]: Two loop RG evolution in Dirac Gaugino context has been discussed in [@Goodsell:2012fm].
[^2]: Additional chiral multiplets suitably charged under ${\rm SU(2)_L}$ and ${\rm U(1)_Y}$ may be added to ensure that the RG curves of $\alpha_2$ and $\alpha_1$ are also bent appropriately to reinstate gauge coupling unification at a value higher (still perturbative) than in MSSM. But this is not our main focus and we do not pursue the unification issue any further. For a discussion on gauge coupling unification in F-theory GUT models with Dirac gauginos, see [@Davies:2012vu].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'MAGIC Collaboration: V. A. Acciari'
- 'S. Ansoldi'
- 'L. A. Antonelli'
- 'A. Babić'
- 'B. Banerjee'
- 'U. Barres de Almeida'
- 'J. A. Barrio'
- 'J. Becerra González[^1]'
- 'W. Bednarek'
- 'E. Bernardini'
- 'A. Berti'
- 'J. Besenrieder'
- 'W. Bhattacharyya'
- 'C. Bigongiari'
- 'O. Blanch'
- 'G. Bonnoli'
- 'G. Busetto'
- 'R. Carosi'
- 'G. Ceribella'
- 'S. Cikota'
- 'S. M. Colak'
- 'P. Colin'
- 'E. Colombo'
- 'J. L. Contreras'
- 'J. Cortina'
- 'S. Covino'
- 'V. D’Elia'
- 'P. Da Vela'
- 'F. Dazzi'
- 'A. De Angelis'
- 'B. De Lotto'
- 'M. Delfino'
- 'J. Delgado'
- 'F. Di Pierro'
- 'E. Do Souto Espiñera'
- 'A. Domínguez'
- 'D. Dominis Prester'
- 'M. Doro'
- 'V. Fallah Ramazani'
- 'A. Fattorini'
- 'A. Fernández-Barral'
- 'G. Ferrara'
- 'D. Fidalgo'
- 'L. Foffano'
- 'M. V. Fonseca'
- 'L. Font'
- 'C. Fruck'
- 'D. Galindo'
- 'S. Gallozzi'
- 'R. J. García López'
- 'M. Garczarczyk'
- 'S. Gasparyan'
- 'M. Gaug'
- 'P. Giammaria'
- 'N. Godinović'
- 'D. Guberman'
- 'D. Hadasch'
- 'A. Hahn'
- 'T. Hassan'
- 'J. Herrera'
- 'J. Hoang'
- 'D. Hrupec'
- 'S. Inoue'
- 'K. Ishio'
- 'Y. Iwamura'
- 'H. Kubo'
- 'J. Kushida'
- 'D. Kuveždić'
- 'A. Lamastra'
- 'D. Lelas'
- 'F. Leone'
- 'E. Lindfors'
- 'S. Lombardi'
- 'F. Longo'
- 'M. López'
- 'A. López-Oramas'
- 'B. Machado de Oliveira Fraga'
- 'C. Maggio'
- 'P. Majumdar'
- 'M. Makariev'
- 'M. Mallamaci'
- 'G. Maneva'
- 'M. Manganaro'
- 'L. Maraschi'
- 'M. Mariotti'
- 'M. Martínez'
- 'S. Masuda'
- 'D. Mazin'
- 'M. Minev'
- 'J. M. Miranda'
- 'R. Mirzoyan'
- 'E. Molina'
- 'A. Moralejo'
- 'V. Moreno'
- 'E. Moretti'
- 'P. Munar-Adrover'
- 'V. Neustroev'
- 'A. Niedzwiecki'
- 'M. Nievas Rosillo'
- 'C. Nigro'
- 'K. Nilsson'
- 'D. Ninci'
- 'K. Nishijima'
- 'K. Noda'
- 'L. Nogués'
- 'S. Paiano'
- 'J. Palacio'
- 'D. Paneque'
- 'R. Paoletti'
- 'J. M. Paredes'
- 'G. Pedaletti'
- 'P. Peñil'
- 'M. Peresano'
- 'M. Persic'
- 'P. G. Prada Moroni'
- 'E. Prandini'
- 'I. Puljak'
- 'J. R. Garcia'
- 'M. Ribó'
- 'J. Rico'
- 'C. Righi'
- 'A. Rugliancich'
- 'L. Saha'
- 'N. Sahakyan'
- 'T. Saito'
- 'K. Satalecka'
- 'T. Schweizer'
- 'J. Sitarek'
- 'I. Šnidarić'
- 'D. Sobczynska'
- 'A. Somero'
- 'A. Stamerra'
- 'M. Strzys'
- 'T. Surić'
- 'F. Tavecchio'
- 'P. Temnikov'
- 'T. Terzić'
- 'M. Teshima'
- 'N. Torres-Albà'
- 'S. Tsujimoto'
- 'J. van Scherpenberg'
- 'G. Vanzo'
- 'M. Vazquez Acosta'
- 'I. Vovk'
- 'M. Will'
- 'D. Zarić, FACT Collaboration: A. Arbet-Engels'
- 'D. Baack'
- 'M. Balbo'
- 'A. Biland'
- 'M. Blank'
- 'T. Bretz'
- 'K. Bruegge'
- 'M. Bulinski'
- 'J. Buss'
- 'M. Doerr'
- 'D. Dorner'
- 'S. Einecke'
- 'D. Elsaesser'
- 'D. Hildebrand'
- 'L. Linhoff'
- 'K. Mannheim'
- 'S. Mueller'
- 'D. Neise'
- 'A. Neronov'
- 'M. Noethe'
- 'A. Paravac'
- 'W. Rhode'
- 'B. Schleicher'
- 'F. Schulz'
- 'K. Sedlaczek'
- 'A. Shukla'
- 'V. Sliusar'
- 'E. von Willert'
- 'R. Walter, C. Wendel, A. Tramacere, A. Lien, M. Perri, F. Verrecchia, M. Armas Padilla, C. Leto, A. Lähteenmäki, M. Tornikoski, J. Tammi'
title: 'Study of the variable broadband emission of Markarian 501 during the most extreme [*Swift*]{} X-ray activity'
---
[Markarian 501 (Mrk 501) is a very high-energy (VHE) gamma-ray blazar located at $z=0.034$, which is regularly monitored by a wide range of multi-wavelength (MWL) instruments, from radio to VHE gamma rays. During a period of almost two weeks in July 2014, the highest X-ray activity of Mrk 501 was observed in $\sim$14 years of operation of the *Neil Gehrels Swift Gamma-ray Burst Observatory*.]{} [We characterize the broadband variability of Mrk 501 from radio to VHE gamma rays during the most extreme X-ray activity measured in the last 14 years, and evaluate whether it can be interpreted within theoretical scenarios widely used to explain the broadband emission from blazars.]{} [The emission of Mrk 501 was measured at radio with Metsähovi, at optical–UV with KVA and [*Swift*]{}/UVOT, at X-ray with [*Swift*]{}/XRT and [*Swift*]{}/BAT, at gamma ray with [*Fermi*]{}-LAT, and at VHE gamma rays with the FACT and MAGIC telescopes. The multi-band variability and correlations were quantified, and the broadband spectral energy distributions (SEDs) were compared with predictions from theoretical models.]{} [The VHE emission of Mrk 501 was found to be elevated during the X-ray outburst, with a gamma-ray flux above 0.15 TeV varying from $\sim$0.5 to $\sim$2 times the Crab nebula flux (CU). The X-ray and VHE emission both varied on timescales of 1 day and were found to be correlated. We measured a general increase in the fractional variability with energy, with the VHE variability being twice as large as the X-ray variability. The temporal evolution of the most prominent and variable segments of the SED, characterized on a day-by-day basis from 2014 July 16 to 2014 July 31, is described with a one-zone synchrotron self-Compton model with variations in the break energy of the electron energy distribution (EED), and with some adjustments in the magnetic field strength and spectral shape of the EED. These results suggest that the main flux variations during this extreme X-ray outburst are produced by the acceleration and the cooling of the high-energy electrons. A narrow feature at $\sim$3 TeV was observed in the VHE spectrum measured on 2014 July 19 (MJD 56857.98), which is the day with the highest X-ray flux ($>0.3$ keV) measured during the entire [*Swift*]{} mission. This feature is inconsistent with the classical analytic functions to describe the measured VHE spectra (power law, log-parabola, and log-parabola with exponential cutoff) at more than 3$\sigma$. A fit with a log-parabola plus a narrow component is preferred over the fit with a single log-parabola at more than 4$\sigma$, and a dedicated Monte Carlo simulation estimated the significance of this extra component to be larger than 3 $\sigma$. Under the assumption that this VHE spectral feature is real, we show that it can be reproduced with three distinct theoretical scenarios: a) a pileup in the EED due to stochastic acceleration; b) a structured jet with two-SSC emitting regions, with one region dominated by an extremely narrow EED; and c) an emission from an IC pair cascade induced by electrons accelerated in a magnetospheric vacuum gap, in addition to the SSC emission from a more conventional region along the jet of Mrk 501.]{}
Introduction
============
Markarian 501 (Mrk 501) is a well-known gamma-ray blazar located at $z=0.034$. It was first detected at very high-energy (VHE, E$>$100 GeV) gamma rays with the Whipple Observatory [@quinn]. It is classified as a BL Lac object, whose optical spectra are dominated by the nonthermal continuum from the jet. In BL Lac objects there are no signs of a strong broad-line region (BLR) or of a dusty IR torus, and therefore, in absence of any strong external photon field interacting with the jet, they are typically modeled by Synchrotron Self-Compton models [SSC; see, e.g., @ssc_maraschi].
Mrk 501 is one of the few VHE objects that can be detected with the current generation of Imaging Air Cherenkov Telescopes (IACTs) in relatively short integration times even during their low state emission periods. This makes Mrk 501 an ideal blazar for long-term multi-wavelength (MWL) monitoring with the aim of performing detailed studies that cannot be carried out for other blazars that are fainter, located farther away, or have more complicated structures. Motivated by this goal, an extensive multi-instrument program was organized to characterize and study the temporal evolution, over many years, of the broadband emission of Mrk 501 . This observational campaign was enhanced by the beginning of the *Fermi* era, providing a continuous coverage over a wide range of gamma-ray energies. Thanks to the large amount of data already investigated in the past, the extensive time and energy coverage keep bringing new clues to better understand the emission mechanisms of this blazar.
During the MWL campaign performed in July 2014, we observed a $\sim$two-week flaring activity in the X-ray and VHE bands. The X-ray activity was exceptionally high, yielding the largest fluxes detected with the X-ray Telescope (XRT) instrument on board the *Neil Gehrels Swift Gamma-ray Burst Observatory* [@2004ApJ...611.1005G] during its almost 14 years of operation after its launch in 2004. The X-ray activity during these two weeks appears to be similar to that observed during the large historical flare from 1997, when the *BeppoSAX* satellite reported a large increase in the X-ray flux of Mrk 501. During this 1997 flare, the peak of the synchrotron bump was located above 100keV, hence indicating a shift by more than two orders of magnitude of the peak position compared to that of the typical (nonflaring) state . Within the framework of the planned multi-instrument observations, the First G-APD Cherenkov Telescope (FACT) was observing Mrk501 daily (provided atmospheric conditions allow), but other facilities such as Metsähovi, KVA, *Swift*, and MAGIC were observing only once every a few days (typically once every 3–4 days). Triggered by the outstanding X-ray activity observed in the *Swift* data collected during the campaign, we organized multi-band observations every day, as shown in Fig. \[fig:mwl\_lc\]. These multi-instrument data allowed us to characterize with a wide energy coverage and fine temporal sampling the evolution of the broadband spectral energy distribution (SED) during this period of outstanding activity. This manuscript reports the results from these measurements together with a characterization of the variability and correlation among the various energy bands, and a physical interpretation of this remarkable behavior using theoretical leptonic scenarios that are commonly used in the literature.
This paper is structured as follows. In Sect. \[sec:MWL\] we briefly describe the instruments whose data are used, along with their data analyses. In Sect. \[sec:Results\] we report all the observational results, namely the multi-instrument light curves, the quantification of the variability and correlations among energy bands, and a detailed study of the X-ray and VHE gamma-ray spectra. Sections \[sec:Model\] and \[sec:ModelNarrow\] characterize the broadband SED and its temporal evolution within standard leptonic scenarios, and provide a theoretical interpretation of the obtained results. Finally, Sect. \[sec:Conclusions\] provides a short summary and concluding remarks. Additional details on the analysis are given in the Appendix. Throughout this work we adopt the cosmological parameters $H_0=70\,\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}\, \mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$, and $\Omega_{M}=0.3$.
Multi-wavelength observations {#sec:MWL}
=============================
Many different observatories, from radio to VHE gamma rays, participated in the MWL campaign on Mrk 501 performed between March and September 2014. The extensive dataset collected during the 2014 campaign will be reported in a future study. In this paper, we only report measurements from the $\sim$two-week interval in July 2014 when an extremely high X-ray activity was observed. This paper focuses mainly on the X-ray and VHE gamma-ray bands, which are the two segments of the broadband SED with the highest energy flux, and that show the highest variability (see Sec. \[sec:Results\]). In the following sections the observations and data analyses for each instrument used in this work will be briefly described.
MAGIC {#magic_analysis}
-----
The MAGIC stereoscopic telescope system is composed of two IACTs located at the Roque de los Muchachos Observatory on La Palma, one of the Canary Islands ($28.7^{\circ}$ N, $17.9^{\circ}$ W), at a height of 2200 m above sea level [@magic_upgrade1]. Each telescope has a large mirror dish 17m in diameter. MAGIC can detect air Cherenkov showers initiated by gamma rays in the energy range from $\sim$50GeV to $\sim$50TeV.
This paper reports MAGIC data taken from 2014 July 16 to 2014 July 31 (MJD 56854-56869). The observations were performed within a zenith angle range from $10.0^{\circ}$ to $41.2^{\circ}$. The energy threshold of the analysis, calculated as the peak of the number of events for these observation conditions and a spectral index of $-2.2$, is located at approximately 130 GeV. Since the data sample covers a wide range of zenith angles, the low zenith angle data allow us to characterize the spectrum at energies below the average energy threshold. The data analysis was carried out using the standard analysis package developed by the MAGIC collaboration named MAGIC Analysis and Reconstruction Software [MARS, @zanin; @magic_upgrade2]. Mrk 501 was observed with the MAGIC telescopes for a total of 13.5 h under dark and good quality conditions. Detailed information about the data collection can be found in Table \[tab:magic\_obs\].
Date MJD Obs. time \[h\] Zd \[$^{\circ}$\] Significance
-------------- ---------- ----------------- ------------------- ---------------
20140716 56854.91 0.45 10-15 13.1 $\sigma$
20140717 56855.91 0.37 11-14 15.9 $\sigma$
20140718 56856.91 0.48 11-14 22.5 $\sigma$
20140719$^a$ 56857.98 1.54 10-40 36.5 $\sigma$
20140720 56858.98 0.63 10-41 27.9 $\sigma$
20140721 56859.97 1.48 10-38 40.0 $\sigma$
20140723 56861.01 0.49 24-32 16.6 $\sigma$
20140724 56862.02 1.28 25-42 21.9 $\sigma$
20140725 56863.00 0.49 25-32 17.8 $\sigma$
20140726 56864.02 1.26 24-41 26.6 $\sigma$
20140727 56865.00 0.44 25-32 17.4 $\sigma$
20140728 56866.00 2.13 17-41 57.4 $\sigma$
20140729 56867.00 0.49 27-33 21.1 $\sigma$
20140730 56868.01 1.29 26-43 42.7 $\sigma$
20140731 56869.93 0.66 11-18 19.2 $\sigma$
: Summary of the Mrk 501 VHE observations performed with the MAGIC telescopes during the flaring activity that occurred in July 2014. The center of the observation time bin is given in MJD. The significance is calculated according to equation 17 in @1983ApJ...272..317L. $^a$ Observation showing a hint of a narrow feature at $\sim$3 TeV, see section \[bump\].[]{data-label="tab:magic_obs"}
FACT
----
The First G-APD Cherenkov Telescope is located next to the two MAGIC telescopes. With its 9.5$\mathrm{m}^2$ mirror and its camera consisting of 1440 pixels with silicon-based photosensors (G-APDs, also known as SiPM), it has been designed to perform an intense monitoring of bright TeV blazars [@2013JInst...8P6008A; @2014JInst...9P0012B]. FACT has been operating since October 2011, and it has already collected more than 11000 hours of data.
This manuscript reports FACT observations of Mrk501 from 2014 July 14 until 2014 August 5, amounting to 51.8hours, of which 47.2hours passed the quality selection based on the cosmic-ray rate described in @HildebrandICRC2017. The FACT analysis was performed as described in @2015arXiv150202582D. The excess rate was corrected for the effect of changing zenith distance and changing trigger threshold as described in @2013arXiv1311.0478D and @MahlkeICRC2017. The identically corrected excess rate measured from the Crab nebula during the same season was used to convert the observed excess rates into photon fluxes. The resulting light curve, with an energy threshold of about 0.83 TeV, is shown in Fig. \[fig:mwl\_lc\]. The analysis pipeline does not permit reliable spectral measurements for the observations reported here. Variability in the spectral shape of Mrk501 would introduce an additional uncertainty in the FACT fluxes reported in Fig. \[fig:mwl\_lc\]. However, given the spectral variability measured with MAGIC (see Table \[tab:vhe\_fits\]), this systematic error would be only $\sim$5%, which is much smaller than the statistical uncertainties on the VHE fluxes measured by FACT reported in Fig. \[fig:mwl\_lc\].
*[Fermi]{}-LAT*
---------------
We analyzed the data collected by the Large Area Telescope (LAT) on board the [*Fermi*]{} Gamma-ray Space Telescope from 200 MeV to 800 GeV. The data selection was centered at the position of Mrk 501 and a circular region of $10^{\circ}$ was chosen. The analysis used Pass 8 source class events. A first unbinned likelihood analysis was carried out for 8 months of data from 2014 April 1 to 2014 December 1 (MJD 56748-56992) in order to discard nonvariable weak sources that cannot be detected by [*Fermi*]{}-LAT on short timescales. In this first step, all the sources present in the 3FGL catalog [@3fgl] within $20^{\circ}$ of Mrk 501 were included in the analysis (85 point-like sources). The sources located within $10^{\circ}$ were left free to vary both in flux and spectral shape. On the contrary, for the sources beyond $10^{\circ}$, only the flux normalization was left free while the spectral shapes where fixed to their 3FGL catalog values. The analysis was performed using the Science-Tools software package version v11-07-00, the instrument response function `P8R2_SOURCE_V6` and the diffuse background models `gll_iem_v06` and `iso_P8R2_SOURCE_V6_v06`[^2]. After the first unbinned likelihood fit, the sources with test statistics [TS, @mattox] value of TS$<$5 were removed from the model. The resulting simplified model was used to analyze the two-week period covered by the flare detected at VHE gamma rays and X-rays. The preliminary FL8Y point source list[^3] was checked to search for any additional source not previously included in the 3FGL catalog which might have an impact on the analysis. No new sources with TS$>$25 were found within $20^{\circ}$ from Mrk 501.
The light curve (LC) was calculated with a three-day binning because Mrk 501 is a relatively weak source for [*Fermi*]{}-LAT. For the LC analysis, the shape of the source spectrum was described with a power-law function, with the flux normalization as a free parameter, and the spectral index fixed to $\Gamma=1.78$, which is the value found for the almost $\sim$two-week time period considered in this manuscript[^4]. The normalizations of the diffuse background models were allowed to vary during the likelihood fit. Additionally, we also performed a spectral analysis of [*Fermi*]{}-LAT data for two time intervals, 4 days and 10 days, centered at the time of the observations performed daily with MAGIC. Due to the low photon statistics, it is not possible to derive constraining spectral parameters in shorter observation windows for [*Fermi*]{}-LAT observations of Mrk501. Owing to the variability on one-day timescales measured at X-ray and VHE energies, the [*Fermi*]{}-LAT spectral points are considered an estimate of the HE spectra at the time of the X-ray and VHE observations, and used only as a guide in the theoretical modeling of the broadband SEDs.
Swift
-----
This study reports observations performed with the three instruments on board the *Neil Gehrels Swift Gamma-ray Burst Observatory* [@2004ApJ...611.1005G]; namely the Burst Alert Telescope [BAT, @2005ApJ...633L..77M], the X-ray Telescope [XRT, @2005SSRv..120..165B], and the Ultraviolet/Optical Telescope [UVOT, @2005SSRv..120...95R].
### BAT {#SwiftBAT}
We analyzed the BAT data available from Mrk 501 during the period of high activity in July 2014. We use BAT survey data in this analysis, which contain 80 energy channels and are pre-binned by the onboard software in $\sim 300$s [for details, see Sect. 3.3.1 in @Markwardt07]. These data are processed using the standard BAT pipeline, *batsurvey*[^5]. We adopted eight energy bands in our analysis from 14 to 195 keV. When computing the BAT fluxes in one-day time intervals, these eight channels had to be combined into a single energy bin because of the low signal event count. For each observation, the [*batsurvey*]{} pipeline produced the mask-weighted counts (i.e., background-subtracted counts) in these eight energy bands at the source location. We added up the resulting counts in each day and calculated the corresponding uncertainties through error propagation, and then used this information to create an eight energy band spectrum. As we only use the survey data when [*Swift*]{} was pointing at Mrk501, the counts could be added up without adjusting for different source incident angles and partial coding fractions. We then used the BAT tool [*batdrmgen*]{} to generate the corresponding BAT detector response file.
The analysis was performed using two different timescales: daily analysis integrating the observations within one day centered at the MAGIC observations, and a stacked analysis over the time interval considered in this manuscript, namely MJD 56854.5–MJD 56872.5. In the stacked analysis (60.2 ks of exposure), the source is detected with a signal-to-noise ratio of 19.2 and is well described by a power-law function ($\chi^2$/df=2.4/6) with spectral index of $2.3\pm0.1$ and a flux of $(4.1\pm0.3)\times 10^{-10} \mathrm{erg}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ in the 14–195 keV energy band.
The BAT flux for each day during this observation period was found by fitting the eight-bin spectra using the commonly adopted X-ray Spectral Fitting Package, Xspec[^6]. Because the source is only detected at a relatively low significance on a daily timescale, we only allowed the flux normalization to vary in the fitting procedure. Two different spectral shapes were used: a) the power-law function from the 18-day stacked analysis of the BAT data and b) the spectral parameters from the XRT spectral analysis reported in Table \[tab:xrt\_fits\]. The calculation of the flux and uncertainty range were carried out with Xspec, using the [*c*flux]{} command. In the spectral analysis for MJD 56862, the counts are too low and Xspec did not find any solution. Consequently, we calculated the $2 \sigma$ flux upper limit based on the exposure time using Eq. 9 in @Baumgartner13, which gives an approximation of the BAT sensitivity. The results are reported in Table \[tab:bat\].
### XRT
The XRT data were taken in the framework of the planned extensive multi-instrument campaign. The high activity of Mrk 501 in the X-ray band motivated the increase in the number of observations from one pointing every $\sim$4 days, to one per day between MJD 56855 and MJD 56870. All observations were carried out in the Windowed Timing (WT) readout mode, with an exposure of $\sim$1 ks per pointing. The data were processed using the XRTDAS software package (v.3.4.0), which was developed by the ASI Science Data Center and released by HEASARC in the HEASoft package (v.6.2.2). The data were calibrated and cleaned with standard filtering criteria using the *xrtpipeline* task and the calibration files available from the *Swift*/XRT CALDB (version 20140709). For the spectral analysis, events in the energy channels between 0.3 keV and 10 keV were selected within a 20-pixel ($\sim$46 arcsecond) radius, which contains 90% of the point spread function (PSF). The background was estimated from a nearby circular region with a radius of 20 pixels. Corrections for the PSF and CCD defects were applied from response files generated using the *xrtmkarf* task and the cumulative exposure map. The spectra were binned to ensure a minimum of 20 counts per bin, fitted in the band 0.3–10 keV, and corrected for absorption with a neutral-hydrogen column density fixed to the Galactic 21 cm value in the direction of Mrk501, namely . The spectral results are reported in Table \[tab:xrt\_fits\].
### UVOT
We also used the *Swift*/UVOT observations performed with the UV lenticular filters (W1, M2, and W2) that were taken within the same observations acquired by XRT. The emission from these bands is not affected by the host galaxy emission. We evaluated the photometry of the source according to the recipe in @2008MNRAS.383..627P, extracting source counts with an aperture of 5 arcsecond radius and an annular background aperture with inner and outer radii of 20 arcsecond and 30 arcsecond. The count rates were converted to fluxes using the updated calibrations [@2011AIPC.1358..373B]. Flux values were then corrected for mean Galactic extinction using an $E (B - V )$ value of 0.017 [@2011ApJ...737..103S] using the UVOT filter effective wavelength and the mean Galactic interstellar extinction curve in @1999PASP..111...63F.
Optical and radio
-----------------
The optical data in the R band were obtained with the KVA telescope, at the Roque de los Muchachos (La Palma, Spain). The data analysis was performed as described in . The calibration was performed using the stars reported by and the Galactic extinction was corrected using the coefficients given in @2011ApJ...737..103S. The contribution from the host galaxy in the R band, which is about 2/3 of the measured flux, was determined using , and subtracted from the values reported in Fig. \[fig:mwl\_lc\].
The radio fluxes at 37 GHz were obtained with the 14 m Metsähovi Radio telescope at the Metsähovi Radio Observatory. Details of the observation and analysis strategies are given in .
Results {#sec:Results}
=======
Multi-wavelength flux evolution and quantification of the variability
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The MWL LC from radio to the VHE band is reported in Fig. \[fig:mwl\_lc\]. Only marginal variability is detected in radio, optical-UV, and low-energy gamma rays above 200MeV observed by [*Fermi*]{}-LAT. On the contrary, there are large flux variations in X-rays and VHE gamma rays. In both energy bands, the flux evolution during the two-week high activity shows a two-peak structure of similar amplitude with respect to each other. Variability on one-day timescales is significantly detected, but no intra-night variability is observed in any of the energy bands studied in this work.
To quantify and compare the variability observed at different energy bands, the fractional variability ($F_{var}$) is calculated. Following the prescription from [@vaughan], $F_{var}$ is defined as
$$F_{var}=\sqrt{\frac{S^2-<\sigma^2_{err}>}{<F_{\gamma}>^2}}
,$$
where $<\mathrm{F}_{\gamma}>$ denotes the average photon flux, S the standard deviation of the different flux measurements, and $<\sigma^2_{err}>$ represents the mean squared error of the flux measurements. The uncertainty of $F_{var}$ is calculated following the prescription in @poutanen, as described in , such that these uncertainties are also valid in the case when $\Delta F_{var} \sim F_{var}$ ,
$$\Delta F_{var} = \sqrt{F^2_{var} + err(\sigma^2_{NXS})} - F_{var}
,$$
where $\sigma^2_{NXS}$ is calculated following equation 11 from [@vaughan]. This prescription to determine the multi-band variability has some caveats related to the different sensitivity and observing sampling among the various instruments used . However, it provides a relatively simple way of quantifying and comparing the flux variability in the different energy bands.
The results of the $F_{var}$ calculation for each energy band, as reported in Fig. \[fig:mwl\_lc\], are shown in Fig. \[fig:fvar\]. The fractional variability is not defined in the case of radio and HE gamma rays observed with [*Fermi*]{}-LAT, as the excess variance is negative ($S^2$ is smaller than ). A negative excess variance implies that either there is no variability or that the instruments are not sensitive enough to detect it.
There is a general increase in the fractional variability with increasing energy of the emission, showing the highest variability in the VHE band. At optical and UV bands the fractional variability is about 0.05, at the X-ray bands it is about 0.2, and at the VHE gamma-ray bands it is about 0.4. A comparable variability pattern in the broadband emission of Mrk 501 has been observed in most of the previous extensive campaigns , indicating that it is a typical characteristic of Mrk501, during low and high activity. In contrast, for the other classical TeV blazar, Mrk421, a well-defined double-peak structure is observed in the plot of $F_{var}$ versus energy, where the variability in the X-ray band is comparable (and even greater) than that at VHE gamma-ray energies .
![Fractional variability $F_{var}$ as a function of frequency.[]{data-label="fig:fvar"}](./figures/fvar.pdf)
Correlation between the X-ray and VHE gamma-ray bands. {#sec:XrayVHECorr}
-------------------------------------------------------
0.15-1 TeV $>1$ TeV
----------- ------------------------------------ ------------------------------------
Pearson ($\sigma$) | DCF Pearson ($\sigma$) | DCF
0.3-2 keV 0.75 (2.9$\sigma$) | 0.7$\pm$0.2 0.59 (2.0$\sigma$) | 0.6$\pm$0.2
2-10 keV 0.85 (3.6$\sigma$) | 0.8$\pm$0.2 0.81 (3.4$\sigma$) | 0.8$\pm$0.2
: Quantification of the correlation: VHE vs X-ray flux at different energy bands. The Pearson correlation and its significance (in brackets) are calculated following @2002nrca.book.....P. The discrete correlation function (DCF) and errors are calculated as prescribed in [@1988ApJ...333..646E]. []{data-label="tab:vhe_vs_xrays"}
![VHE flux in two energy bands (0.15–1 TeV and $>$1 TeV) as a function of the [*Swift*]{}/XRT flux in two energy bands (0.3–2 keV and 2–10 keV). []{data-label="fig:corr_xrays_vhe"}](./figures/correlation_vhe_xrays.pdf)
This section investigates the cross-correlation between the two segments of the electromagnetic spectrum with the highest variability, namely the X-rays and the VHE gamma rays (see Fig. \[fig:fvar\]). Figure \[fig:corr\_xrays\_vhe\] shows the integral VHE gamma-ray flux from two energy bands (0.15–1 TeV and $>$1 TeV) measured by MAGIC, plotted against the X-ray flux in two energy bands ( and observed by *Swift*/XRT. The 13 X-ray and VHE fluxes depicted in this figure are taken within a maximum difference of 3hours from each other[^7]. Given that we did not find any significant intra-night variability (neither in the *Swift*/XRT nor in the MAGIC and FACT data), the used X-ray and VHE data can be safely considered simultaneous. The correlation between these two bands is quantified using two methods: the Pearson correlation coefficient (and the significance of this correlation) and the discrete correlation function [DCF, @1988ApJ...333..646E]. The DCF has an advantage over the Pearson correlation in that it also uses the uncertainties in the individual flux measurements, which naturally contribute to the dispersion in the flux values. The results are shown in Table \[tab:vhe\_vs\_xrays\]. Despite the relatively short time interval considered in this study, and that Mrk 501 was in an elevated state at X-rays and VHE gamma-rays during the entire period, we observe a significant correlation between the X-ray and VHE gamma-ray bands. This correlation increases slightly with the increasing energy in X-rays: it is $\sim3 \sigma$ for the 0.3–2 keV band and $\sim4 \sigma$ for the 2–10 keV band. A stronger correlation with increasing X-ray energy was also reported for Mrk501 [see Tables 1 and 4 of @2018AhnenSubmitted], but in that case for a much longer time interval (three months instead of two weeks). These observations indicate that, within the one-zone SSC theoretical framework, the electrons that dominate the emission at 2–10 keV make a larger contribution to the emission at VHE gamma rays than those that dominate the emission at 0.3–2 keV [see @2018AhnenSubmitted for further details].
It is interesting to note that during periods of low activity the correlation between the X-ray and VHE bands has been shown to be only marginally significant or even nonexistent . On the other hand, this correlation is very strong for well-sampled and long-term light curves covering periods of low activity together with periods of very high activity [see, e.g., @2006ApJ...646...61G]. Naturally, our ability to detect significant correlations improves when considering accurate flux measurements and periods with large flux changes. The study reported here shows, for the first time for Mrk 501, a significant ($>3 \sigma$) correlated behavior between X-rays and VHE gamma rays during a short period of time (two weeks) of persistent elevated activity. A correlation on weekly timescales was also claimed for Mrk 501 in [@1997ApJ...487L.143C] and [@Sambruna2000], but the significance of this correlation was not computed in either of these two previous studies. On the other hand, a significant correlation between the X-ray and the VHE gamma-ray band during a $\sim$two-week elevated state has also been reported for Mrk 421 . Such a X-ray–VHE correlation is actually expected within the framework of the synchrotron self-Compton (SSC) emission scenario [see, e.g., @ssc_maraschi], which predicts that the X-ray and the VHE gamma-ray emission are produced by the same population of electrons and positrons. This is the most widely used theoretical scenario for describing the emission of high-peaked BL Lac-type objects such as Mrk 501, and will be also used to model the broadband SEDs of these two weeks of remarkably high X-ray activity (see Sec. \[sec:Model\]).
X-ray and VHE gamma-ray spectral variability {#sec:spectra}
--------------------------------------------
Most of the X-ray spectra measured with [*Swift*]{}/XRT are well characterized by a power-law function (PL), as reported in Appendix A (see Table \[tab:xrt\_fits\]). A hint of harder-when-brighter evolution is observed in X-rays at $\sim2\sigma$ and $\sim4\sigma$ for soft and hard X-rays, respectively, as reported in Appendix \[App:SpectrumVSFlux\].
The VHE gamma-ray spectra from MAGIC are characterized on one-day timescales because we did not find any significant intra-night variability during the observation campaign reported in this paper. The gamma-ray spectra are absorbed and distorted due to the interaction with the extragalactic background light (EBL) via pair production of an electron and a positron [see, e.g., @dominguez and references therein]. Both the observed and EBL-corrected [assuming the EBL model from @dominguez] VHE spectra can typically be well fitted by a simple power-law function (PL, eq. \[eq:power-law\]), except for two or three cases out of the 15 nights which show curvature, and a log-parabola fit (LP, eq. \[eq:logparabola\]) is preferred over a PL fit with a significance higher than $3~\sigma$ (see Table \[tab:vhe\_fits\]). The PL function is defined as
$$\frac{dF}{dE}=f_0 \left(\frac{E}{500 \, \mathrm{GeV}}\right)^{\Gamma}
\label{eq:power-law}
,$$
where $f_0$ represents the normalization constant and $\Gamma$ the spectral index. The LP function is given by
$$\frac{dF}{dE}=f_0 \left(\frac{E}{500 \,\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^{\Gamma-b \cdot log \frac{E}{500 \, \mathrm{GeV}}}
\label{eq:logparabola}
,$$
which uses the $b$ parameter in addition to eq. \[eq:power-law\] to parameterize the spectral curvature. The flux and spectral evolution in the VHE band, as observed by MAGIC, does not show a harder-when-brighter trend, as reported in Appendix \[App:SpectrumVSFlux\]. During the observations taken on 2014 July 19 (MJD 56857.98), which is the day with the highest X-ray flux above 0.3 keV measured by [*Swift*]{} during its entire operation, a hint of a narrow spectral feature is observed. The investigation of this feature is discussed in Sec. \[bump\].
Investigation of a feature in the VHE spectrum from {#bump}
----------------------------------------------------
The VHE spectrum observed by MAGIC on 2014 July 19 shows a hint of a narrow spectral feature, as depicted in the upper panel of Fig. \[fig:VHE\_bump\]. To test the significance of this feature, the goodness of the fit to the spectrum was evaluated by means of a $\chi^2$ test using different functions: a PL (see eq. \[eq:power-law\]), an LP (eq. \[eq:logparabola\]), and an exponential log-parabola (ELP) defined as
$$\frac{dF}{dE}=f_0 \left(\frac{E}{500 \,\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^{\Gamma-b \cdot log \frac{E}{500 , \mathrm{GeV}}} e^{-E/E_{c}}
\label{eq:epl}
,$$
where in addition to the parameters used in eq. \[eq:logparabola\], the parameter $E_{c}$ sets the exponential cutoff energy. These three spectral functions have been widely used to successfully parameterize the spectra of VHE gamma-ray sources.
![VHE SEDs from the MAGIC telescopes during the highest flux measured with [*Swift*]{}-XRT. [*Top and Middle panels:*]{} Black circles represent the observed SED from 2014 July 19 (MJD 56857.98), while the blue squares denote the same spectrum corrected for EBL absorption [using the model from @dominguez]. In both panels the dotted lines depict the best LP fits (reported in Table \[tab:bump\_fit\]), while the dashed lines show the best fits using data up to 1.5 TeV, and extrapolated beyond that energy (from the test reported in Table \[tab:vhe\_partialfit\]). [*Bottom panel:*]{} VHE SEDs after EBL correction during three consecutive nights around 2014 July 19 (MJD 56857.98).[]{data-label="fig:VHE_bump"}](./figures/SED_bump.pdf)
---------- ----- -------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ------------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------
Fit $f_0$ $\Gamma$ b $E_{c}$ $\mathrm{\chi}^2$/df p-value
$[10^{-10}\mathrm{TeV}^{-1}\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\mathrm{s}^{-1}]$ \[TeV\]
Observed PL 2.32$\pm$0.07 -2.20$\pm$0.03 - - 52.1/15 $5.5\times10^{-6}$ (4.6$\sigma$)
EBL–corr PL 2.81$\pm$0.08 -2.02$\pm$0.03 - - 36.0/15 $1.8\times10^{-3}$ (3.1$\sigma$)
Observed LP 2.54$\pm$0.09 -2.16$\pm$0.03 0.08$\pm$0.02 - 37.9/14 $5.4\times10^{-4}$ (3.5$\sigma$)
EBL–corr LP 2.93$\pm$0.10 -2.00$\pm$0.03 0.04$\pm$0.02 - 33.0/14 $2.9\times10^{-3}$ (3.0$\sigma$)
Observed ELP 2.69$\pm$0.12 -2.02$\pm$0.07 -0.02$\pm$0.05 5.7$\pm$2.9 34.8/13 $9.0\times10^{-4}$ (3.3$\sigma$)
EBL–corr ELP 3.11$\pm$0.15 -1.87$\pm$0.08 -0.05$\pm$0.05 5.8$\pm$3.2 31.0/13 $3.3\times10^{-3}$ (2.9$\sigma$)
---------- ----- -------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ------------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------
The parameters and the goodness of the spectral fits for both the observed and EBL-corrected spectra are reported for the three functions (PL, LP, ELP) in Table \[tab:bump\_fit\]. We note that the reported spectral fits were obtained with a forward-folding procedure [procedure details given in @ebl_magic], where the number of degrees of freedom is related to the bins in estimated energy and not to the bins in true energy, which is what is shown in the broadband SEDs (Fig. \[fig:VHE\_bump\]). As shown in Table \[tab:bump\_fit\], neither the observed nor the EBL-corrected spectrum can be fitted successfully with any of the three functions. The fits to the observed VHE spectra can be rejected at significance values ranging from $3.3\sigma$ to $4.6\sigma$, depending on the function. For the EBL-corrected spectrum, the rejection occurs at significance values from $2.9\sigma$ to $3.1\sigma$.
A further test is performed fitting with an LP (to allow possible curvature) all the single-night spectra up to 1.5 TeV, and evaluating the model-data agreement when extending the resulting fit function to energies higher than 1.5 TeV. This approach allows us to quantify how much the spectra change at high energies with respect to the low energies, and hence investigate the potential existence of additional spectral components. This test is carried out only for the spectra with at least three spectral points beyond 1.5 TeV. The table with the results is found in Appendix C. As shown in Table \[tab:vhe\_partialfit\], the only extended fit beyond 1.5 TeV that can be rejected with a high confidence level is the one for the night of MJD 56857.98, with a significance of 5.3$\sigma$ for the observed spectrum and 4.2$\sigma$ for the EBL-corrected spectrum.
Motivated by the difficulty of fitting the spectrum from 2014 July 19 with the typical analytic functions used to describe the VHE spectra of blazars, we compare the goodness of the fit for an LP function with respect to an LP plus a strongly curved LP, described as an eplogpar model [EP, @Tramacere2007] described in eq. \[eq:eplogpar\], using a likelihood ratio test (LRT, where $\chi^2_{LRT}=\chi^2_{LP}-\chi^2_{LP+EP}$ with degrees of freedom $df=df_{LP}-df_{LP+EP}$).
$$\frac{dF}{dE}= \frac{K}{E^2} 10^{-\beta \log^2(E/Ep)}
\label{eq:eplogpar}
,$$
where $K$ is a constant, $Ep$ represents the energy peak, and $\beta$ is the curvature term. The resulting spectral fits are depicted in Fig. \[fig:VHE\_bump\_extracomponent\] and the fit parameter values are reported in Table \[tab:bump\_fit\_extracomponent\]. In order to better characterize the relatively narrow spectral feature, we increased by 25% the number of bins in estimated energy with respect to those used in the spectral fits performed on all the single-night VHE spectra reported in this manuscript (see Table \[tab:bump\_fit\] and Table \[tab:vhe\_fits\]). This also increased the number of bins in true energy (i.e., the number of data points in Fig. \[fig:VHE\_bump\_extracomponent\] is larger than that of Fig. \[fig:VHE\_bump\]). This fine energy binning used to derive the spectral fitting results for 2014 July 19, as reported in Fig. \[fig:VHE\_bump\_extracomponent\] and Table \[tab:bump\_fit\_extracomponent\], would not work on other days with lower gamma-ray activity and/or shorter observation times, due to the lower photon statistics. The LRT shows that the LP with the additional narrow component is preferred over the single LP function at 4.5$\sigma$ when using the observed spectrum and 3.9$\sigma$ when using the EBL-corrected spectrum.
---------- ------- -------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- --------------- --------------------------------------------------------- -------------- --------------- ---------------------- -------------
Fit $f_0 \cdot 10^{10}$ $\Gamma$ b $K\cdot 10^{5}$ $\beta$ Ep $\mathrm{\chi}^2$/df LRT
\[$\mathrm{TeV}^{-1}\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\mathrm{s}^{-1}$\] \[ $\mathrm{TeV}^{-1}\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\mathrm{s}^{-1}$\] \[TeV\]
Observed LP $2.56\pm0.09$ $-2.16\pm0.03$ $0.08\pm0.02$ - - - 39.8/19
Observed LP+EP $2.54\pm0.10$ $-2.26\pm0.04$ $0.14\pm0.03$ $7.7\pm1.7$ $9.1\pm3.2$ $3.04\pm0.10$ 13.5/16 $4.5\sigma$
EBL-corr LP $3.00\pm0.11$ $-1.99\pm0.03$ $0.04\pm0.02$ - - - 35.4/19
EBL-corr LP+EP $2.99\pm0.11$ $-2.08\pm0.04$ $0.10\pm0.03$ $13.0\pm3.0$ $10.0\pm3.6$ $3.03\pm0.10$ 14.6/16 $3.9\sigma$
---------- ------- -------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- --------------- --------------------------------------------------------- -------------- --------------- ---------------------- -------------
![VHE SED from 2014 July 19 (MJD 56857.98) measured with the MAGIC telescopes with an analysis that uses 25% more bins in estimated energy with respect to that shown in Fig. \[fig:VHE\_bump\]. Black circles represent the observed SED, while the blue squares denote the same spectrum corrected for EBL absorption [using the model from @dominguez]. In both panels the dotted lines depict fits with an LP function, while the solid lines depict the fits with an LP+EP function. The parameter values resulting from the spectral fits are reported in Table \[tab:bump\_fit\_extracomponent\].[]{data-label="fig:VHE_bump_extracomponent"}](./figures/SED_bump_extracomponent.pdf)
It has been shown, in certain situations, that the LRT applied on a measured spectrum may overestimate or underestimate the significance of a narrow feature at an arbitrary location [@2002ApJ...571..545P]. In order to complement what is shown above, we performed a dedicated Monte Carlo simulation to better quantify the significance of the narrow feature observed in the VHE spectrum from 2014 July 19. This test is performed on the VHE spectra in the plane of true energy, using the spectral data points reported in Fig. 5. This makes the test simpler and more transparent than performing the test on the plane of estimated energy, which would require using the forward-folding methods specifically developed for the MAGIC software. While the forward-folding procedure might slightly affect the spectral index estimation, it cannot introduce narrow spectral features. Therefore, the use of the spectra in the plane of estimated energy (instead of estimated energy) should not have any impact on the test to validate the LRT methodology, while improving the repeatability of the test without the need of instrument dependent software. In this test, we first fit the spectral data points from Fig.5 [calculated using the `flute` routine within MARS, as described in @zanin] with an LP function, which is used to describe the continuum model and represents the null hypothesis. Then we fit the spectral data points with an LP+EP function, which describes the hypothesis of the narrow feature. The LP+EP hypothesis has three additional free parameters in comparison to the EP function: the normalization parameter $K$; the location of $E_p$, which can go from the energy of 0.08 TeV (first data point in the spectrum) to the energy 6.80 TeV (last data point in the spectrum); and the curvature parameter $\beta$, which can vary from 1 to 20. The difference between the $\chi^2$ from the two hypotheses ($\chi^2_{diff}=\chi^2_{LP} - \chi^2_{LP+EP}$) is $\chi^2_{diff-data}=18.1$ for the observed spectrum and $\chi^2_{diff-data}=15.8$ for the EBL-corrected one. These $\chi^2_{diff-data}$ values are somewhat lower than the difference of $\chi^2$ values reported in Table \[tab:bump\_fit\_extracomponent\] (e.g., for the observed spectrum $\chi^2_{diff}=\chi^2_{LP} - \chi^2_{LP+EP}$= ), where the LP and LP+EP spectral fits were performed in the plane of reconstructed energy. Apart from statistical fluctuations, the slightly higher LRT values reported in Table \[tab:bump\_fit\_extracomponent\] may occur because of the slightly higher resolution when performing the spectral fits in estimated energy, where the number of bins is larger than the number of energy bins in the VHE gamma-ray spectrum reported in Fig.\[fig:VHE\_bump\_extracomponent\]. Then we use the LP function derived from the spectral fit (the null hypothesis) to generate 10000 realizations of this spectrum with data points that have the same statistical uncertainty as the spectral data points from Fig.\[fig:VHE\_bump\_extracomponent\]. In order to account for the uncertainty in the null hypothesis, following the prescription from @2006ApJ...646..783M, we fit each of these simulated spectra with an LP function and generated another simulated spectrum using the new LP values as input. This new simulated spectrum is then fit with an LP function, and the resultant $\chi^2$ is the one used to describe the goodness of the fit for the baseline (LP) model[^8]. The distributions of $\chi^2_{diff}$ (= $\chi^2_{LP} - \chi^2_{LP+EP}$) values obtained from the 10000 simulated spectra (i.e., the null distributions of the LRT statistic) are shown in Fig.\[fig:likelihood\_mc\_test\_LP\], and the summary of the resulting numbers are reported in Table \[tab:MC\_Results\_LRT\]. The distributions of $\chi^2_{diff}$ values follow closely a distribution of $\chi^2$ for three degrees of freedom, which is what one would expect when comparing, for a large number of simulated spectra, a hypothesis that has three additional degrees of freedom with respect to the baseline model. Therefore, the Monte Carlo test confirms the reliability of the LRT applied to the spectral data.
![Distributions of $\chi^2_{diff}$ values (null distribution of the LRT statistic) obtained from a Monte Carlo test that uses 10000 simulated spectra to compare a baseline model (null hypothesis) parameterized with an LP function, and a narrow-feature model parameterized with an LP+EP function. The top panel shows results derived with the observed VHE spectrum, and the bottom panel shows the results obtained with the EBL-corrected VHE spectrum. The green dashed line indicates the $\chi^2_{diff-data}$ (LRT$_{data}$) obtained when comparing the LP and LP+EP fit results on the spectral data from Fig.\[fig:VHE\_bump\_extracomponent\]. The blue, red, and purple solid lines depict the nominal $\chi^2$ distribution for 1, 2, and 3 degrees of freedom. See text in section \[bump\] for further details. []{data-label="fig:likelihood_mc_test_LP"}](./figures/histogram_LP_likelihood.png "fig:") ![Distributions of $\chi^2_{diff}$ values (null distribution of the LRT statistic) obtained from a Monte Carlo test that uses 10000 simulated spectra to compare a baseline model (null hypothesis) parameterized with an LP function, and a narrow-feature model parameterized with an LP+EP function. The top panel shows results derived with the observed VHE spectrum, and the bottom panel shows the results obtained with the EBL-corrected VHE spectrum. The green dashed line indicates the $\chi^2_{diff-data}$ (LRT$_{data}$) obtained when comparing the LP and LP+EP fit results on the spectral data from Fig.\[fig:VHE\_bump\_extracomponent\]. The blue, red, and purple solid lines depict the nominal $\chi^2$ distribution for 1, 2, and 3 degrees of freedom. See text in section \[bump\] for further details. []{data-label="fig:likelihood_mc_test_LP"}](./figures/histogram_LP_likelihood_EBL.png "fig:")
--------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------
Experimental data MC data: 10$^4$ simulated spectra
$\chi^2_{diff-data}$ | $p_{value}$ (significance) N$> \chi^2_{diff-data}$ | $p_{value}$ (significance)
Observed 18.1 | $4.2\times10^{-4}$ (3.5$\sigma$) 3 | $3.0\times10^{-4}$ (3.6$\sigma$)
EBL-corr 15.8 | $1.2\times10^{-3}$ (3.2$\sigma$) 11 | $1.1\times10^{-3}$ (3.3$\sigma$)
--------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, we also performed a Monte Carlo test similar to the one reported in , which had been used to quantify the significance of line features obtained from a dedicated search over a large number of measured X-ray spectra. The context of this test is different from the one described above, which relates to the investigation of a feature observed in a single spectrum, but provides an alternative perspective to the evaluation of the random chance probability for the occurrence of narrow features in continuum spectra. The details of this test and the results obtained are given in Appendix \[App:toyMC\]. In addition to the EP function of arbitrary curvature used in the Monte Carlo test described above, we also used an EP function with fixed shape (as in ) and a Gaussian function of arbitrary width. The results obtained for the three hypotheses are similar, and comparable within 0.5$\sigma$, to the results reported in Table \[tab:MC\_Results\_LRT\].
The above-mentioned tests aim to quantify the statistical significance of the deviation of this narrow feature at $\sim$3 TeV with respect to (smooth) functions typically used to fit the spectra from gamma-ray sources, but they do not account for potential instrumental or analysis problems in the dataset. We performed several tests to search for these instrumental or analysis artifacts that may mimic similar spectral features to the one reported here. Specifically, a) we performed three different analyses, all them yielding the same results; b) we inspected the effective area after gamma–hadron separation cuts [see Sec. 3.4 and 4.2 in @magic_upgrade2], which did not show any discontinuity or feature; c) we varied the gamma–hadron separation cuts (through the random forest hadronness parameter), and several VHE spectra (with different gamma efficiencies) were produced for 2014 July 19, all them showing the feature at $\sim$3 TeV; d) we produced spectra with and without the LIDAR atmospheric corrections [@2014arXiv1403.3591F; @2015ApJ...812...65F], both yielding spectra with the same spectral feature; and e) we applied the exact same data analysis procedures to data from the Crab nebula taken under similar conditions, yielding a spectrum without features. Therefore, the Mrk 501 VHE spectrum from 2014 July 19, derived in different ways, always showed the narrow TeV feature (at somewhat different magnitudes), deviating from an LP function at a significance varying from $\sim$2$\sigma$ to $\sim$5$\sigma$. Therefore, while the narrow spectral feature is statistically only marginally significant ($\sim$3-4$\sigma$), we are confident that it is not produced by any instrumental or analysis artifact.
The shape of the VHE spectra from 2014 July 18 and 2014 July 20, above an energy of 1.5 TeV, appears to be compatible with the VHE spectrum from 2014 July 19, as is shown in the bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:VHE\_bump\]. While there is clear variability at energies below 1.5 TeV during these three consecutive nights, the spectral points appear to be similar at energies above 1.5 TeV. Nevertheless, as shown in Table \[tab:vhe\_fits\], the spectra obtained from the nights before and after that of July 19 are nicely described with PL functions, and hence the deviations from the PL functions above 1.5 TeV are not significant. Therefore, the sensitivity of these observations with MAGIC is insufficient to constrain the duration of the $\sim$3 TeV feature to only one day: it may have lasted for three nights, which would correspond to the first of the two bumps in the VHE emission reported in the LC from Fig. \[fig:mwl\_lc\]. We did not find any evidence of narrow spectral features in the VHE spectra during the second bump of the flare (MJD 56865-56867) when a similar X-ray and VHE flux is reached, as shown in Fig. \[fig:mwl\_lc\].
This is the first time that a narrow VHE spectral feature, inconsistent with a smooth function (PL, LP, and ELP) at more than 3$\sigma$, is found in the spectrum of Mrk 501 or any other blazar (see Table \[tab:bump\_fit\]). With the caveat of doing the test a posteriori, the addition of a narrow component (EP, see eq. \[eq:eplogpar\]) to the VHE spectral fit is preferred at more than $\sim$3-4$\sigma$, depending on the method used for the test. This additional spectral component peaks at $\sim$3 TeV with a FWHM of $\sim$1.4 TeV, and, as we discuss in Sec. \[sec:ModelNarrow\], it may be interpreted as an indication of additional physics in the theoretical framework aiming to explain the broadband emission of Mrk501.
Characterization of the temporal evolution of the broadband spectral energy distribution {#sec:Model}
========================================================================================
Broadband SEDs were built with MWL simultaneous observations performed within hour timescales: out of the 15 SEDs considered here, the temporal difference between the X-ray and VHE measurements is less than 1 hour for six of them, between 1 and 2 hours for five of them, and 3 hours for two of them. The remaining two SEDs do not have X-ray data taken simultaneously with the VHE data observations, and we used the spectra from the night before and after as a guide. Given that we did not detect significant intra-night variability, we can assume that the variability timescales are longer than the time difference between observations. Therefore, all the observations used here can be considered simultaneous. Each individual MWL SED is modeled using a one-zone SSC model from [@model]. The emitting region is assumed to be a sphere filled with relativistic electrons whose radius is compatible with the section of the jet. The electron energy distribution (EED) is described by a smoothed broken power law function as $$N(\gamma)=K \gamma^{-n1} \left(1+\frac{\gamma}{\gamma_b}\right)^{n1-n2}
,$$ where $K$ represents the normalization factor, and the spectral indices before and after the break are given by $n1$ and $n2$, respectively. The energy (Lorentz factor) break is denoted by $\gamma_b$, and the function is defined between a minimum and maximum Lorentz factor $\gamma_{min}$ and $\gamma_{max}$. The synchrotron emission is produced by the interaction of this relativistic electron distribution with the tangled magnetic field ($B$). The synchrotron photons can interact with the same population of relativistic electrons via inverse Compton (IC) scattering, being responsible for the high-energy emission within the SSC scenario. In addition, the model also takes into account the bulk Lorentz factor and the viewing angle of the jet, included within a single parameter as the Doppler factor ($\delta$). The emitting region size is constrained by the causality relation: R$<(c \cdot t \cdot \delta)/(1+z)$. Assuming a $\delta=20$, which is often used to model the broadband SED of Mrk501 within SSC scenarios , and given that the shortest variability found within the MWL data sample is on the order of one day, the emitting region size can be constrained to R$<5\cdot 10^{16}$ cm.
During the two-week time interval considered in this work, the X-ray emission observed by XRT display very hard spectra, compatible with the historical Mrk 501 flare from 1997 [see, e.g., @historical_flare]. Such hard X-ray spectra cannot be properly described together with the optical-UV emission with a single component. A similar situation occurred with the data collected from the extensive campaigns in 2009 and 2012 . Moreover, as shown in Fig. \[fig:mwl\_lc\] and Fig. \[fig:fvar\], the variability observed in the optical-UV band is much lower than in X-rays and VHE gamma rays, which also suggests that the emission at the optical and X-ray frequencies is dominated by different components, possibly located at different parts of the jet.
A study using multi-year radio and optical light curves reported in [@lindfors] shows only a marginally significant (2$\sigma$ confidence level) correlation between these two bands. This suggests that a fraction of the optical emission might be produced co-spatially with the radio emission. Due to self-absorption at radio frequencies, the radio emission is assumed to be produced in the outer regions of the jet. The radio emission is likely produced by a superposition of multiple self-absorbed jet components [@radio_absortion]. Emitting regions at radio wavelengths are typically larger and more complex. In particular, for Mrk 501 the radio observations reveal a complex jet with multiple components and a jet limb re-brightness [@giroletti2008]. Therefore, the simple one-zone SSC models are not the best approach to model the radio and optical-UV emission. In any case, just as an example, we tried and successfully managed to model the radio to optical–UV emission with an additional SSC component with a larger size. The details are given in Appendix D.
---------- -------------- ------- ------ -------
MJD $\gamma_b$ $n1$ $n2$ $B$
\[$10^{5}$\] \[G\]
56854.91 1.4 2.018 3.1 0.140
56855.91 2.0 2.00 3.1 0.127
56856.91 8.5 1.99 3.1 0.087
56857.98 4.0 2.00 3.1 0.120
56858.98 9.0 2.00 3.1 0.105
56859.97 4.0 2.00 3.1 0.110
56861.01 3.5 2.015 3.1 0.115
56862.02 1.9 2.015 3.1 0.134
56863.00 1.9 2.01 3.05 0.130
56864.02 2.5 2.03 3.05 0.149
56865.00 4.0 2.00 3.1 0.110
56866.00 20.0 1.99 3.1 0.078
56867.00 9.5 1.99 3.1 0.084
56868.01 11.0 1.99 3.1 0.090
56869.92 3.0 2.016 3.1 0.115
---------- -------------- ------- ------ -------
: One-zone SSC model results. The following parameters were fixed: $\gamma_{min}= 10^3$, $\gamma_{max}= 3\times10^6$, electron density$=2.1\times 10^4[\mathrm{cm}^{-3}]$, $R=2.9\times10^{15}$\[cm\], and $\delta=20$.[]{data-label="tab:modeling"}
One of the goals of this work is to describe the evolution trend of the MWL SEDs observed during this two-week period of outstanding X-ray activity. Owing to the degeneracy in the parameter values from theoretical models used for blazars, we do not intend to produce model curves that describe perfectly the SEDs, but rather to evaluate how to reproduce the observed broadband behavior with simple variations in the model parameters. For this purpose we attempted to model the data modifying only a few parameters. Given that the overall behavior observed during this period of extreme X-ray activity in 2014 is quite similar to that observed during the outstanding flaring activity in 1997 , we decided to follow [@historical_flare], and relate the overall changes in the broadband SED to variations in the parameter $\gamma_b$. In the canonical one-zone SSC scenario, the break in the electron energy distribution is related to the cooling of the electrons and hence inversely related to the size of the emitting region $R$ and the square of the magnetic field $B^2$ (see Appendix \[App:RelationBreakAndB\]), and hence any modification of $\gamma_b$ will come with changes in the parameters $R$ and/or $B$. For simplicity, we fixed the size of the emitting region, as well as the edges $\gamma_{min}$ and $\gamma_{max}$ and the electron number density and Doppler factor $\delta$, and allowed the magnetic field strength $B$, the indices $n1$ and $n2$, and the break $\gamma_b$ of the EED to vary. Following the canonical one-zone SSC framework, we also kept the expected difference in the spectral indices $n2-n1 \sim 1$.
The broadband SEDs for 15 consecutive days, together with the one-zone SSC models adjusted to describe the data points, are shown in Fig. \[fig:SED\_modeling\]. The model parameters are reported in Table \[tab:modeling\]. The agreement between the SED data and the model curves is good, indicating that the adopted strategy to ascribe most of the broadband variations to $\gamma_b$ (with adjustments in the parameters $B$ and $n1$ and $n2$), as already done in [@historical_flare], also works well for the extreme X-ray activity observed in July 2014. Within this framework, the variations in the broadband emission of Mrk 501 may be interpreted as being due to changes in the acceleration and cooling of the electrons in the shock in jet model , which would produce substantial variations in the parameter $\gamma_b$, while many of the other model parameters characterizing the emitting region would remain almost stationary. This would naturally explain the existence of large variations close to the peaks of the two SED bumps (X-ray and VHE), while at lower energies (optical and below), where the emission is dominated by a large number of low-energy electrons, the magnitude of the flux variations would be small.
       
      
Characterization of the broadband SED with a narrow TeV component {#sec:ModelNarrow}
=================================================================
As discussed in Sec. \[bump\], an indication of a narrow spectral feature at $\sim$3 TeV was found in the VHE spectrum of Mrk501 from 2014 July 19 (observation from MJD 56857.98). This prevents the parameterization of the VHE spectrum with analytic functions typically used to describe the VHE spectra of blazars (e.g., PL, LP). This feature may also be present at some level in the spectra from the day before (MJD 56856.91) and the day after (MJD 56858.98), as shown in Fig. \[fig:VHE\_bump\], but these two spectra can be fit well with simple power-law functions. It is during these three days when *Swift*/XRT measured the highest count rates from Mrk501, which can be seen as the highest fluxes reported in Table \[tab:xrt\_fits\] for the energy band [^9], with the highest X-ray flux observed for the night of July 19-20 (*Swift* observation from MJD 56858.04), when the VHE spectrum shows the indication for a narrow feature at 3 TeV. However, if we also consider the energy flux emitted in the X-ray band 2-10 keV, the X-ray emission from these three days is comparable to that measured nine days later, during the three consecutive days from July 28 to July 30 (MJD 56866.0, MJD 56867.0, and MJD 56868.0). The VHE gamma-ray activity measured with MAGIC during the three days from July 28 to July 30 is also comparable to that from the three days from July 18 to July 20, with fluxes above 1 C.U. in the energy band 0.15–1 TeV, and fluxes well above 1 C.U. at energies above 1 TeV (see Fig. \[fig:mwl\_lc\]); however, the VHE spectra from July 28-30 do not show any indication of narrow features at TeV energies. Neglecting the potential presence of a feature in the VHE spectra from July 18 and July 20 (which is not significant), out of six VHE spectra with extremely high X-ray emission and (relatively) high VHE gamma-ray emission, the narrow feature is observed in only one VHE spectrum, the one from July 19. If we treat these six observations as similar in terms of X-ray and VHE activity, and assume that the probability of finding a narrow feature in all them is the same, the significance of the narrow feature in the measured VHE spectrum from July 19 should be corrected for six trials. In that case, the $\sim$3.6$\sigma$ derived with the Monte Carlo tests reported in Sec. \[bump\] (see Table \[tab:MC\_Results\_LRT\]) would decrease to $\sim 3.1\sigma$. We could adopt a more conservative scenario, and treat all 15 observations performed with MAGIC (during this period of enhanced X-ray activity in July 2014) as 15 independent trial factors, which would further decrease the significance to $\sim 2.8\sigma$. In the most conservative approach, we could consider it equally probable for the many hundreds of Mrk501 VHE spectra obtained during the last two decades to contain a narrow TeV feature, implying several hundreds of independent trial factors (neglecting any correlation with X-ray and/or VHE activity). The latter approach would naturally make the narrow feature observed on July 19 totally insignificant. Owing to the variable nature of blazars, which show a large diversity of X-ray and VHE spectral behavior over time, often showing outstanding and unexpected behaviors on specific days (i.e., super-large flares, particularly soft or hard spectra), we think it is reasonable to consider the uniqueness of the highest X-ray activity during the July 2014 flare, and hence we think it is reasonable to regard the VHE spectrum from July 19 as special. This would imply that, at most, we should consider only a few trials (instead of tens or hundreds of trials), which would lead to a marginally significant ($\sim$3$\sigma$) indication for the presence of a narrow feature at 3 TeV.
There are no reports in the literature about such narrow features in the VHE spectra, but there are broadband SEDs with narrow high-energy bumps, such as the ones measured for Mrk 421 on MJD 55265 and MJD 55266 on March 2010 or the one measured for Mrk 501 on MJD 56087 on June 2012 [see Fig. 7 from @2018AhnenSubmitted]. In those cases the broadband SED was better explained when adding an extra component with a relatively narrow EED. In the literature, we can also find different studies that require extra components to explain broadband SEDs and complex variability patterns. In the case of Mrk501, with data from 2009, showed, using a grid-scan over the model parameters, that a two-zone scenario was statistically preferred over a one-zone scenario. Multiple zones have also been used in non-HBL blazars. For instance, in the case of the flat-spectrum radio quasar (FSRQ) PKS1222+21 (also known as 4C+21.35), variability on the order of $\sim9$min was found in the VHE band with the MAGIC telescopes [@pks1222]. Such short variability time, together with the absorption of VHE gamma rays within the BLR, suggest that a small emitting region or blob located outside of the BLR is needed to reconcile the findings with the canonical emission models for FSRQs [@pks1222_model]. Different variability patterns have also been found at different wavelengths, as in the case of the gravitationally lensed blazar QSOB0218+357 [@0218_magic], suggesting that more than one emitting region is responsible for the MWL emission.
Under the assumption that the narrow feature in the VHE spectrum of Mrk 501 at $\sim$3 TeV is real, it is legitimate to investigate theoretical scenarios that could produce it. In this work, we present three different frameworks that would produce broadband SEDs compatible with the observations. One possible explanation for the TeV feature could be the formation of a pileup in the EED due to stochastic acceleration, which would explain the broadband SED using a single region with a multi-component EED. On the other hand, the TeV spectral feature could be produced by the VHE gamma-ray emission from a completely different region. Two scenarios are considered for the latter: SSC emission from a narrow EED in an additional (small) region within the Mrk 501 jet, and emission from electrons accelerated in a magnetospheric vacuum gap close to the supermassive black hole. In the following paragraphs we describe each of the three theoretical approaches.
Pileup in the electron energy distribution due to stochastic acceleration {#sec:ModelNarrow-PileUp}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stochastic acceleration has been invoked to explain curved spectra, described by a log-parabolic law, observed in blazar SED, and the trends between the corresponding peak energy and the spectral curvature [@Tramacere2009; @Tramacere2011]. Moreover, stochastic acceleration can also lead to the formation of a pileup in the high-energy range of the relativistic EED [@Virtanen2005; @Staw2008; @Tramacere2011]. Based on this scenario we interpret the sharp and narrow spectral feature observed in the VHE band, together with the high flux level observed by BAT above 10 keV, as the result of a piled-up EED.
As a first approach, we investigate the case of pileup obtained from a continuous mono-energetic injection, escape, and acceleration, under the condition that the particle escape time ($t_{esc}$) is greater than the dominant acceleration timescale ($t_{acc}$). Under these circumstances, a pileup will emerge around the equilibrium energy ($\gamma_{eq}$), i.e., the Lorentz factor that satisfies the condition $t_{cool}(\gamma)=t_{acc}(\gamma)$, where $t_{cool}$ is the dominant cooling time. The spectral feature shape is described by a relativistic Maxwellian distribution [@Staw2008; @Sch1985]
$$n(\gamma)\propto \gamma^2 \exp{\Big[\frac{-1}{f(q,\dot\gamma)} \Big(\frac{\gamma}{\gamma_{eq}}\Big)^{f(q,\dot\gamma)}\Big]},
\label{eq:n_equil}$$
where $f(q,\dot\gamma)$ is a function depending on the index of the turbulent magnetic field spectrum and on the cooling process. In particular, when the cooling is quadratic in $\gamma$, $f(q,\dot\gamma)=3-q$. Theoretical scenarios based on multiple blobs with relativistic Maxwellian-type EEDs have been used to explain the very hard gamma-ray spectrum of Mrk501, as measured with [*Fermi*]{}-LAT [@2011ApJ...743L..19L; @2016ApJ...832..177S]. In this paper we use a single relativistic Maxwellian EED to explain the narrow feature at 3 TeV in the VHE spectrum measured with MAGIC.\
In the case of “hard-sphere” turbulence (q=2.0) the analytical solution for the steady state solution reads [@Staw2008]
$$\begin{aligned}
N(\gamma)\propto\Bigg \{
\begin{array}{rll}
&\frac{1}{(2\sigma+1)}
\gamma_{inj}^{\sigma-2}
\gamma^{\sigma+1} &\gamma\leq \gamma_{inj} \\
&\frac{1}{(2\sigma+1)}
\gamma_{inj}^{\sigma-1}
\gamma^{-\sigma} & \gamma_{inj}<\gamma<<\gamma_{eq}\\
&\frac{\Gamma(\sigma-1) }{\Gamma(2\sigma+2)}
\gamma_{inj}^{\sigma-1}\gamma_{eq}^{-\sigma-2}
\gamma^2 \exp {\Big(-\frac{\gamma}{\gamma_{eq}}\Big)} &
\gamma \gtrsim \gamma_{eq}
\label{eq:pileup2}
\end{array}
,\end{aligned}$$
where $\gamma_{inj}$ is the injection energy, and $\sigma$ determines the spectral slopes above and below $\gamma_{inj}$ as a function on the ratio $\epsilon=t_{acc}/t_{esc}$ and according to $\sigma=(-1/2)+\sqrt{9/4 +\epsilon}$.
In order to understand whether this scenario can reproduce the observed SED, it is useful to evaluate the relative normalization of the pileup branch in eq. \[eq:n\_equil\] (defined for $\gamma \gtrsim \gamma_{eq}$) to the power-law branch (defined for $\gamma_{inj}<\gamma<<\gamma_{eq}$), at $\gamma=\gamma_{eq}$, given by
$$\frac{\Gamma(\sigma-1)(2\sigma+1)}{\Gamma(2\sigma+2)e}
,$$
where $\Gamma$ is the gamma function. According to eq. \[eq:pileup2\], the pileup shape will be significantly dominant over the high-energy power-law branch, only for $\sigma \lesssim 1.3$, a value that is too hard to reproduce the IC spectrum below the TeV bump, and the X-ray spectrum observed in the XRT window. Hence, we conclude that this scenario is not easily adaptable to our observed data.
A second possible scenario is given by two injection episodes of mono-energetic particles with $\gamma_{inj}<<\gamma_{eq}$, occurring within the same acceleration region, with a duration of $T^1_{inj}$ and $T^2_{inj}$, respectively, and delayed by a time interval $\Delta T_{inj}$. As long as $\Delta T_{inj}$ is larger than a few $t_{acc}$, the first population of particles will “thermalize” toward a relativistic Maxwellian around $\gamma_{eq}$ [@katar2006; @Tramacere2011], and these particles will be mostly responsible for the emission in the TeV bump, and in the X-rays above 10 keV.
If the second injection of particles occurs with a delay $\Delta T_{inj}$ of a few $t_{esc}$, then a lower energy branch will develop cospatially with the initial relativistic Maxwellian population. The distribution resulting from the second injection, before and close to the equilibrium, can be described by a power law turning into a log-parabola (LPPL), above a critical energy $\gamma_{0}$ [@Tramacere2009; @Tramacere2011]. The phenomenological representation for this scenario can be provided by the following EED:
$$\begin{aligned}
N(\gamma)\propto\Bigg \{
\begin{array}{rll}
&(\gamma/\gamma_{0})^{-s} & \gamma_{inj}\leq \gamma \leq<\gamma_{0} \\
&(\gamma/\gamma_{0})^{-s+r \log(\gamma/\gamma_{0})} & \gamma_{0}<\gamma<<\gamma_{eq}\\
& K\gamma^2 \exp{-\Big(\frac{\gamma}{\gamma_{eq}}\Big)} &
\gamma \gtrsim \gamma_{eq}
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$
The first two terms represent the LPPL branch corresponding to the evolution of the second population, and the last term corresponds to the thermalized Maxwellian obtained from the first injection. The parameter $s$ correspond to the $\sigma$ parameter in eq. \[eq:pileup2\], and the parameter $r$ describes the curvature of the LPPL distribution that evolves under the effect of the diffusive component of the acceleration, and the parameter $K$ takes into account the ration between the two injections of particles.
We note that we are ignoring the region of the EED below $\gamma_{inj}$ because, given the parameter space adopted for the modeling, this part of the EED does not impact significantly on the model above the UV frequencies, except that for a normalization factor.
We build two models, a slower cooling model with a value of the magnetic field $B=0.1$ G, and a faster cooling model with a higher value of $B=0.3$ G, and we refer to them as “slow” and “fast” cooling respectively. We assume a beaming factor of 10, and according to the timescale variability of $ t_{var}\lesssim$ one day, we set the constraint on the source size to be $R\leq c t_{var} \delta/(1+z) \approx 9\times 10^{15}$ cm.
If we take into account the synchrotron cooling alone, the condition for the formation of the Maxwellian bump in the first injection, $t_{cool}=t_{acc}$, and the value of the best fit $\gamma_{eq}\simeq4\times10^5$, require values of $t_{acc}$ of $\simeq 2.21$ days and $\simeq0.25$ days, for the slow and fast cooling model, respectively. These timescales refer to the rest frame of the emitting-acceleration region, hence in the observer frame will be shortened by a factor of $(1+z)/\delta\simeq 0.1$. If we combine these requirements on $t_{acc}$ with the constraint that $\Delta T_{inj}$ is larger than a few $t_{acc}$ (necessary for the thermalization of the first injection), we conclude that the derived observed timescales are compatible with the temporal behavior observed in the MAGIC and [*Swift*]{} energy range.
The result of our best fit models are shown in Fig. \[fig:ModelAndrea\] and the corresponding parameter values are reported in Table \[tab:pileup\_model\]. The values of the curvature $r$, for both models, is compatible with a distribution that is approaching the equilibrium [@Tramacere2011], hence we might argue that during the second injection episode the acceleration time has decreased compared to the first injection. For both scenarios investigated in this section we used a value of $f(q,\dot{\gamma})=1.0$, which is compatible with a turbulence index of $q=2$. We note that smaller values of $q$ could provide a better description of the narrow bump observed in the TeV spectrum. A more detailed description of this scenario requires a deeper investigation of the temporal evolution of the emitting plasma under the effect of both acceleration and cooling processes through a numerical solution of the corresponding Fokker-Planck equation, and will be presented in a future publication.
Parameter slow cooling fast cooling
------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------
$R$ \[cm\] $8.8\times 10^{15}$ $3.3\times 10^{15}$
$B$ \[G\] 0.10 0.30
$N$ \[cm$^{-3}$\] 0.54 2.50
$\delta$ 10.00 10.00
$\gamma_{max}$ $1.00\times10^7$ $1.00\times10^7$
$\gamma_{inj}$ $1.00\times10^4$ $5.00\times10^3$
$\gamma_{0}$ $1.50\times10^5$ $1.30\times10^5$
$s$ 1.27 1.28
$r$ 6.00 6.10
$K$ $5.30\times10^{-17}$ $7.00\times10^{-18}$
$\gamma_{eq}$ $4.05\times10^5$ $4.0\times10^5$
: Parameters used for the stochastic acceleration pileup model applied to the broadband SED from 2014 July 19 (MJD 56857.98), as described in Sec. \[sec:ModelNarrow-PileUp\].[]{data-label="tab:pileup_model"}
Additional SSC model component with a narrow electron energy distribution {#sec:ModelNarrow-2SSC}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this theoretical framework, we used a two-zone SSC model to explain the narrow spectral feature at VHE energies. The second (small) emitting region is added to the first (large) one-zone emitting region. Such a scenario can be envisioned as a jet-in-jet model [see, e.g., @giannios2009], where a small emitting region or blob is embedded within the jet. Two situations are considered: the two emitting regions are co-spatial (i.e., the second blob is embedded within the standard one-zone region) or the two regions are not co-spatially located. In the case of the co-spatial blob, to avoid a strong interplay between the two regions, the photon density within the small blob needs to be sufficiently high such that the external photon field from the large region is negligible for inverse-Compton scattering and for e$^+$e$^-$ pair creation, otherwise the interaction of the relativistic electrons and the emitted gamma rays from the small blob with the synchrotron emission from the large region would broaden and absorb the spectral TeV feature. For the second scenario, with non co-spatial emitting regions, the conditions can be somewhat relaxed, apart from a very low magnetic field required within the small blob. In the non co-spatial scenario the small emitting region should be located farther away from the central engine (closer to the observer) than the larger emitting region to prevent the gamma-ray absorption in the low-energy photon field. The parameters used to describe the large one-zone emitting region (within the two-zone scenario) were slightly modified to prevent the model from overestimating the measured broadband spectra. The parameters are reported in Table \[tab:modeling\_bump\] and the models can be found in Fig. \[fig:SED\_modeling\_bump\]. As shown in Table \[tab:modeling\_bump\], a large Doppler factor is used, as typically done for jet-in-jet models. Despite the absence of fast (sub-hour) variability, a large Doppler factor is required due to the extremely narrow EED of the small blob. A low (or typical) Doppler factor would require a large (typical) emitting region size, which would imply diffusion, thus making the assumption of a narrow EED unlikely. We note that, due to the large difference in the Doppler factor from the two regions, the co-spatial case would only be possible during a time period on the order of days.
 
-------------------------------- -------------------- --------------------- --------------------
Large region
Parameter co-spatial non co-spatial
$\gamma_{min}$ \[$10^{5}$\] $10^{-2} $ 1.2 2.8
$\gamma_{b}$ \[$10^{5}$\] $3.7 $ - -
$\gamma_{max}$ \[$10^{5}$\] 17 1.8 3.0
$n1$ 2 2.0 2.0
$n2$ 3.3 - -
$B$ \[G\] 0.125 0.1 0.005
Density \[$\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$\] $2.1\times10^4$ $1.0\times10^{11}$ $2.8\times10^8$
$R$ \[cm\] $2.9\times10^{15}$ $1.08\times10^{12}$ $2.1\times10^{14}$
$\delta$ 20 100 60
-------------------------------- -------------------- --------------------- --------------------
: Two-zone SSC model used to describe the broadband SED from 2014 July 19 (MJD 56857.98), as described in Sec. \[sec:ModelNarrow-2SSC\].[]{data-label="tab:modeling_bump"}
IC pair cascade induced by electrons accelerated in a magnetospheric vacuum gap {#sec:ModelNarrow-Gap}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An alternative way to explain the narrow spectral feature at VHE is through the emission resulting from an electromagnetic cascade initiated by electrons accelerated to energies of about 3 TeV in a magnetospheric vacuum gap. In this scenario the electromagnetic cascade, which develops via the interaction of the high-energy electrons with emission line photons from photo-ionized gas clouds, is responsible for the creation of a narrow component of high-energy photons which, after escaping from the interaction region, get superimposed on the SSC emission from a distinct (large) region. Below we show that such a cascade can develop in the central region of Mrk501, and embody the observed broadband SED from 2014 July 19.
Inverse-Compton (IC) pair cascades were first discussed by @Zdz and were recently treated numerically by @Wendel17. We adopt a refinement of the scenario in the later work for modeling the emission of an electromagnetic cascade [@Wendel19]. There, the interaction of electrons and positrons (hereafter called electrons) and high-energy photons (HEPs) with a background field of low-energy photons (LEPs) is considered. The LEPs assumed for this scenario are those from the emission of recombination lines from photo-ionized clouds in the inner portion of the host galaxy. We consider only two interaction processes: Breit-Wheeler pair production (PP) and IC-scattering. PP happens solely via collisions of the HEPs with the LEPs, creating electrons that are again available for IC-scattering, and removing the HEPs from their distribution. IC-scattering happens via collisions of relativistic electrons with the LEPs, creating new HEPs that are available for PP, and reducing the energy of the electrons. The interplay of PP and IC-scattering initiates a cascade that evolves the HEP and the electron distributions.
@Zdz and @Wendel17 neglected both electron escape and HEP escape from the interaction region (which would imply an infinitely large interaction volume); in contrast we follow @Wendel19 and include these two additional processes into the scenario. Effectively, this means that the IC pair cascade develops only inside a spherical region of radial size $R$. The observer detects the HEPs that escape from this interaction region and arrive to Earth. For the mean escape time, we use $t_{\rm{esc}} = R/c$ with $c$ being the speed of light.
It has been proposed that there are charge-depleted regions near the poles of the magnetospheres of spinning black holes. These so-called vacuum gaps exhibit a strong electric field component, which is directed along the magnetic field. Thus, if charged particles enter the gap from the accretion disk, or are created there via PP by photons from an accretion flow, then these charged particles can be accelerated to ultra-relativistic energies and can initiate an IC pair cascade. It is thus justified to approximate the injected relativistic electron distribution ($\dot N_{\rm i}(\gamma)$) per unit space volume by a Gaussian distribution:
$$\dot N_{\rm i}(\gamma) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{K_{\rm{G}}}{\sigma \sqrt(2 \pi)} \cdot \exp \left( -\frac{(\gamma-\gamma_{\mathrm{mean}})^2}{2 \, \sigma^2} \right) & \mathrm{if} \; \gamma_{{\mathrm{i}},\,1} \leq \gamma \leq \gamma_{{\mathrm{i}},\,0} \mathrm{,} \\
0 & \mathrm{otherwise}
\end{array}
\right.
\label{EquationDistributionElectrons}$$
Here the normalization of the Gaussian ($K_{\rm{G}}$) describes the total number of electrons per unit space volume and per unit time interval that are accelerated in the vacuum gap, propagate away from the vacuum gap along the Mrk501 jet axis, and penetrate into the cascade interaction region. The cutoff in $\dot N_{\rm i}$ below $\gamma_{{\mathrm{i}},\,1}$ and above $\gamma_{{\mathrm{i}},\,0}$ was introduced to satisfy the condition $\gamma \cdot x > 1$, where $x$ is the LEP energy divided by the electron rest energy [@Zdz; @Wendel17]. We chose $\gamma_{{\mathrm{i}},\,1} =\gamma_{\mathrm{mean}} - 3.0 \, \sigma$ and $\gamma_{{\mathrm{i}},\,0} =\gamma_{\mathrm{mean}} + 3.0 \, \sigma$.
Even though Mrk501 is classified as a BL Lac-type object and has no pronounced BLR, it is probable that gas clouds from the inner portion of the host galaxy intrude into the AGN. These gas clouds, which stem from the interstellar medium and thus consist mainly of hydrogen and helium [@Wilms], are photo-ionized by the energetic radiation from hot stars and/or the accretion flow. Emission of recombination lines by the photo-ionized gas clouds is thus inevitable. This leads to abundant emission line photon fields in the AGN. Hence, the spectral number density of the LEPs ($n_0(x)$) can be described by a sum of Delta functions
$$n_{0}(x) = K_{\rm{lines}} \cdot \sum _{i=1}^4 \frac{K_{{\rm{line}},i}}{x_{0,i}} \cdot \delta_{\mathrm{Dirac}} \left( x - x_{0,i} \right)
\label{EquationDistributionLEPs}$$
The Delta functions are situated at the energy $x_{0,i} = h / (\lambda_{0,i} \, m_{\rm{e}} \, c)$, where $h$, $\lambda_{0,i}$, and $m_{\rm{e}}$ are the Planck constant, the wavelength of line $i$, and the electron rest mass, respectively. The parameter $K_{{\rm{line}},i}$ describes the relative flux of the $i$-th emission line. Dividing $K_{{\rm{line}},i}$ by the energy $x_{0,i}$ of the respective line, gives the relative contribution to the number density. The parameter $K_{\rm{lines}}$ determines the total number density of LEPs. We include these four lines here, which are generally the most prominent ones in broad-line region spectra [@Pian] and synthetic photo-ionization spectra [@Abolmasov]), and list them in Table \[TableLines\]. In the following model we do not pay attention to photons from the accretion flow because the demand to synthesize a sharp feature can be met best by usage of a sharp distribution of LEPs. If electrons from the vacuum gap penetrate into the field of emission line photons, they interact with the LEPs and initiate an IC pair cascade, which will create HEPs and secondary electrons.
----- -------------------------- ----------------- ---------------------
$i$ Line designation Wavelength Relative flux
$\lambda_{0,i}$ contribution
\[nm\] $K_{{\rm{line}},i}$
1 Helium II Lyman $\alpha$ $30.5$ 2.00
2 Hydrogen Lyman series $93.0$ 0.17
3 Hydrogen Lyman $\beta$ $102.6$ 0.57
4 Hydrogen Lyman $\alpha$ $121.5$ 5.40
----- -------------------------- ----------------- ---------------------
: Emission lines used as LEPs in the model producing IC pair cascades reported in Sec. \[sec:ModelNarrow-Gap\].[]{data-label="TableLines"}
Parameters Used value
------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------
$\phi$ $1.8 \, \degr$
$R$ \[cm\] $3.0 \cdot 10^{13}$
$K_{\rm{G}}$ \[$\rm{s^{-1} cm^{-3}}$\] $3.3 \cdot 10^{-2}$
$K_{\rm{lines}}$ \[$\rm{cm^{-3}}$\] $9.7 \cdot 10^{6}$
$\gamma_{\mathrm{mean}}$ \[${\rm{eV}} / (m_{\rm{e}} c^2)$\] $3.4 \cdot 10^{12}$
$\sigma$ $0.23 \, \gamma_{\mathrm{mean}}$
: Model parameters used to describe the narrow SED feature from 2014 July 19 (MJD 56857.98) with the emission from an IC pair cascade induced by electrons accelerated in a magnetospheric vacuum gap, as described in Sec. \[sec:ModelNarrow-Gap\].[]{data-label="TableParametersWendel"}
![Broadband SED from 2014 July 19 (MJD 56857.98) modeled with one-zone SSC emission (gray dashed and gray dot-dashed lines) and the emission from an IC pair cascade (red dot-dashed line). The sum of the two components is depicted by the black solid line. The color-coding for the data points is the same as in Fig. \[fig:SED\_modeling\]. See text in Sec. \[sec:ModelNarrow-Gap\] for further details.[]{data-label="FigureSSCPlusCascadedEmission"}](./figures/SED_wendel.pdf)
The kinetic equation that describes this type of cascade, and the numerical scheme to solve it iteratively to obtain electron and HEP spectral number densities $N(\gamma)$ and $n_{\gamma}(x_{\gamma})$, with $x_{\gamma}$ being the HEP energy divided by the electron rest energy, is described in @Wendel19. The HEP spectral number density is determined as the ratio of the IC production rate of HEPs to the loss rate of HEPs, which is the sum of the escape rate and the attenuation rate due to pair absorption. Because of the scattering kinematics, the HEPs leave the volume within a beam of opening angle $\phi$ in the direction the electrons entered the interaction region. The spectral number of photons that stream through a unit area per unit time interval and can be detected at Earth is $$F(x_\gamma) = n_{\gamma}(x_\gamma) \cdot \frac{4 \pi \, R^2}{\Omega(\phi) \, D^2 \ m_{\rm{e}} c}
\label{EquationCascadedFlux}
,$$ where $n_{\gamma}$ is measured in units of $m_{\rm{e}} c^2$. The luminosity distance $D$ = 149.4Mpc, and $\Omega(\phi)$ is the solid angle of the HEP beam with conical shape and opening angle $\phi$.
The resulting spectrum is, after adding the one-zone SSC model shown in Fig. \[fig:SED\_modeling\], adjusted to the narrow SED peak from 2014 July 19. With the parameters listed in Table \[TableParametersWendel\], the narrow feature can be theoretically explained, as is shown in Fig. \[FigureSSCPlusCascadedEmission\], by emission line photons that have been IC upscattered by the electrons from the gap.
The large dip in the cascaded spectrum above $10^{25} \rm{Hz}$, and the small dip above $10^{24} \rm{Hz}$, are due to the absorption of HEPs due to PP with LEPs from the hydrogen Lyman $\alpha$ line and helium II Lyman $\alpha$ line, respectively[^10]. Consequently, the bump at $10^{24} \rm{Hz}$ is due to cascaded emission that is just below the PP threshold, and thus not pair absorbed. The cascaded HE radiation stems from a region that is located within the typical extent of a BLR. Mrk501 has no detectable BLR, and hence the density of LEPs must be low, and probably dominated by emission lines from photo-ionized hydrogen and helium gas clouds that stem from the interstellar medium. The density of LEPs is such that the cascade is well sustained, but the HE photons are not entirely pair absorbed, and can escape and be detected by the MAGIC telescopes. This is in contrast to the case of LBLs and , where it is usually considered that the density of LEPs is large, and the HE radiation originating from inside the BLR is completely pair absorbed, implying that the HE radiation sometimes (e.g., during large flares) detected for some of these objects has to originate from outside the BLR [see, e.g., @pks1222; @0218_magic]. A discussion on the implications of the used parameters on the physical state of Mrk 501 can be found in @Wendel19.
Within the theoretical framework presented here, the narrow feature detected with MAGIC in the VHE spectrum of Mrk501 is interpreted as a signature of electron acceleration in a magnetospheric vacuum gap, close to the supermassive black hole. Similar theoretical scenarios were also used to explain the fast variability in radio galaxies [e.g., @2014Sci...346.1080A; @2018arXiv180601559M], and to test the stability of a gap and the resulting radiation on a theoretical basis [@Ptitsyna; @2016ApJ...818...50H]. The main difference with respect to those scenarios is that, in the study presented here, the inverse-Compton scattering occurs on emission line photons from BLR-like clouds, and dominate the broadband gamma-ray emission only in a narrow range of energies. In other published works, the inverse-Compton scattering occurs on seed photons emitted by the accretion disk, and describes a large fraction of the entire gamma-ray emission. From the technical perspective, another difference is that in this work we neglect curvature radiation due to its minor importance for the electron energy loss rate [@LR11], and that we use the electron energy distribution $N(\gamma)$ as a fitting function, whereas in the model by @2016ApJ...818...50H the electron energy distribution is an inherent feature of the existence and stability of the gap.
Summary and concluding remarks {#sec:Conclusions}
==============================
We presented observational and theoretical results derived with multi-instrument data from Mrk 501 collected during a period in July 2014, when the X-ray activity was at its highest among the $\sim$14 years of operation of the *Neil Gehrels Swift Gamma-ray Burst Observatory*. During this outburst, the X-ray spectra measured with XRT (and with BAT) were very hard, and somewhat similar to the large historical flare from 1997 that was measured with BeppoSAX beyond 100 keV [@1998ApJ...492L..17P].
During this short time interval, the flux variations in the radio, optical, and GeV bands were rather mild ($F_{var}\sim0.05$), but quite substantial in the X-ray bands ($F_{var}>0.15$) and especially substantial in the VHE bands ($F_{var}>0.3$). No intra-night variability was observed on any of the nights. There is a general increase in the fractional variability with energy, with the highest variability occurring at VHE. This variability pattern is similar to that from other multi-wavelength campaigns targeting Mrk 501 , but very different from the behavior observed in Mrk 421, which shows a clear double-bump structure with the highest variability often observed at X-ray energies . The correlation between the X-ray and VHE bands (the most variable segments of the electromagnetic spectrum), was investigated using two energy ranges for each, namely 0.3—2 keV and 2—10 keV for X-rays, and 0.15—1 TeV and $>$1 TeV for VHE. This study shows, for the first time for Mrk 501, a significant correlation ($>3 \sigma$) between these two bands during a relatively short time interval ($\sim$2 weeks) with a persistent elevated activity. Moreover, we observed that the strength and the significance of this correlation increases with increasing energy in X-rays, similarly to what was reported by @2018AhnenSubmitted using the dataset of a few months in length from 2012.
During the X-ray flux peak, we observed a narrow feature at about 3 TeV in the VHE gamma-ray spectrum measured with the MAGIC telescopes on 2014 July 19 (observation performed at MJD 56857.98). This TeV feature cannot be described with the analytic functions typically used for the VHE spectra of blazars, such as power laws, log-parabolas, and log-parabolas with exponential cutoffs: the inconsistencies are larger than $\sim$3 $\sigma$. A fit with a log-parabola below 1.5 TeV and extrapolated to higher energies shows deviations with the data of 4–5$\sigma$. A likelihood ratio test shows that a log-parabola with an additional narrow component (modeled with another log-parabola with a strong curvature) is preferred with respect to the single log-parabola at more than 4$\sigma$. In addition, a dedicated Monte Carlo simulation indicates the presence of the narrow component at a significance larger than 3 $\sigma$. This narrow TeV feature may also be present at some level in the spectra from the earlier (July 18) and later (July 20) nights, but at much lower significance. While the VHE spectra of Mrk 501 have previously shown a prominent peaky structure [see, e.g., Fig. 7 in @2018AhnenSubmitted], this is the first time that such a narrow feature has been observed, even if only at a marginally significant level of $\sim$3–4$\sigma$.
A detailed study on the temporal evolution of the broadband SEDs from 2014 July 16 (MJD 56854.9) to 2014 July 31 (MJD 56869.9), resolved on a day-by-day basis, was performed. The time difference between the X-ray and VHE data is mostly below 3 hours which, given the lack of variability on hour timescales, can be considered as simultaneous observations. The daily evolution of the most variable segments of the SED, namely the X-ray and the gamma-ray bands, which is where the most energy is emitted, could be successfully parameterized with a one-zone SSC model, where the main variations are produced by changes in the break energy $\gamma_b$, with some adjustments in the parameters $B$, $n1$, and $n2$. Within this theoretical framework, these results suggest that the flux variations on timescales of days are produced by the acceleration and the cooling of the high-energy electrons.
The SED from 2014 July 19 shows the largest disagreement with the one-zone SSC, which is due to the narrow feature at $\sim$3 TeV observed in the MAGIC spectrum. Under the assumption that this spectral feature is real, we investigated three theoretical scenarios that could reproduce it: a) pileup in the electron energy distribution due to stochastic acceleration; b) a structured jet with two-SSC emitting regions (related or not related), with one region dominated by an extremely narrow electron energy distribution; and c) an emission produced via an IC pair cascade induced by electrons accelerated in a magnetospheric vacuum gap, in addition to the SSC emission from a more conventional region along the jet of Mrk 501. The three frameworks could reproduce the narrow spectral component reasonably well, given its relatively large uncertainties. Future observations of the gamma-ray emission of Mrk 501 and other bright VHE blazars will help investigate the reliability and potential recurrence of narrow spectral components.
Moreover, these spectral features may also occur at hard X-rays, as predicted by the theoretical scenario from Sect. \[sec:ModelNarrow-PileUp\]. Therefore, observations with high-resolution hard X-ray instruments like NuSTAR, together with current and future Cherenkov telescopes such as CTA, would allow for a better characterization of narrow spectral features in both the low- and high-energy bumps, which could have important implications for the understanding of particle acceleration and radiation in Mrk501, and in blazars in general.
The authors thank the anonymous referee for providing a constructive list of remarks that allowed us to clarify and improve some of the results reported in the manuscript.
We would like to thank the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias for the excellent working conditions at the Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos in La Palma. The financial support of the German BMBF and MPG, the Italian INFN and INAF, the Swiss National Fund SNF, the ERDF under the Spanish MINECO (FPA2015-69818-P, FPA2012-36668, FPA2015-68378-P, FPA2015-69210-C6-2-R, FPA2015-69210-C6-4-R, FPA2015-69210-C6-6-R, AYA2015-71042-P, AYA2016-76012-C3-1-P, ESP2015-71662-C2-2-P, FPA2017‐90566‐REDC), and the Japanese JSPS and MEXT is gratefully acknowledged. This work was also supported by the Spanish Centro de Excelencia “Severo Ochoa” SEV-2016-0588 and SEV-2015-0548, and Unidad de Excelencia “María de Maeztu” MDM-2014-0369, by the Croatian Science Foundation (HrZZ) Project IP-2016-06-9782 and the University of Rijeka Project 13.12.1.3.02, by the DFG Collaborative Research Centers SFB823/C4 and SFB876/C3, the Polish National Research Centre grant UMO-2016/22/M/ST9/00382 and by the Brazilian MCTIC, CNPq and FAPERJ.\
The *Fermi* LAT Collaboration acknowledges generous ongoing support from a number of agencies and institutes that have supported both the development and the operation of the LAT as well as scientific data analysis. These include the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Department of Energy in the United States, the Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique and the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique / Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules in France, the Agenzia Spaziale Italiana and the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare in Italy, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK) and Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) in Japan, and the K. A. Wallenberg Foundation, the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish National Space Board in Sweden.
Additional support for science analysis during the operations phase is gratefully acknowledged from the Instituto Nazionale di Astrofisica in Italy and the Centre National d’Études Spatiales in France.\
The important contributions from ETH Zurich grants ETH-10.08-2 and ETH-27.12-1 as well as the funding by the Swiss SNF and the German BMBF (Verbundforschung Astro- und Astroteilchenphysik) and HAP (Helmoltz Alliance for Astroparticle Physics) are gratefully acknowledged. Part of this work is supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) within the Collaborative Research Center SFB 876, project C3. We thank the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias for allowing us to operate the telescope at the Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos in La Palma, the Max-Planck-Institut fur Physik for providing us with the mount of the former HEGRA CT3 telescope, and the MAGIC collaboration for their support.\
JBG acknowledges the support of the Viera y Clavijo program funded by ACIISI and ULL. C. W. is grateful for the support by the project “Promotion inklusive” of the Universität zu Köln and the German Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales.\
This publication makes use of data obtained at Metsähovi Radio Observatory, operated by Aalto University, Finland.\
Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2011, , 727, 129 , P. & [Poutanen]{}, J. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 152 Acciari, V., Ansoldi, S., [Antonelli]{}, L. A. et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 4233 Acero, F., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2015, ApJS, 218, 23A Ahnen, M. L., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2016, , 595, A98 Ahnen, M. L., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2017, , 603, A31 Ahnen, M. L., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2018, , 620, A181 Anderhub, H., Backes, M., Biland, A., et al. 2013, Journal of Instrumentation, 8, P06008 Albert, J., Aliu, E., Anderhub, H., et al. 2007, ApJ, 669, 862 Aleksi[ć]{}, J., Antonelli, L. A., Antoranz, P., et al. 2014, , 730, L8 Aleksi[ć]{}, J., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2014, , 572, A121 Aleksi[ć]{}, J., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2014, Science, 346, 1080. Aleksi[ć]{}, J., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2015, , 573, A50 Aleksi[ć]{}, J., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2015, , 576, A126 Aleksi[ć]{}, J., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2015, , 578, A22 Aleksi[ć]{}, J., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2015, , 573, A50 Aleksić, J., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2016, Astroparticle Physics, 72, 61 Aleksić, J., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2016, Astroparticle Physics, 72, 76 Aliu, E., Archambault, S., Archer, A., et al. 2016, , 594, A76 MAGIC collaboration, Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2018, arXiv:1806.01559 Balokovi[ć]{}, M., Paneque, D., Madejski, G., et al. 2016, , 819, 156 Biland, A., Bretz, T., Bu[ß]{}, J., et al. 2014, Journal of Instrumentation, 9, P10012 Baumgartner, W. H., Tueller, J., Markwardt, C. B., et al. 2013, ApJS, 207, 19 Breeveld, A. A., Landsman, W., Holland, S. T., et al. 2011, American Institute of Physics Conference Series, 373 Burrows, D. N., Hill, J. E., Nousek, J. A., et al. 2005, , 120, 165 Catanese, M., Bradbury, S. M., Breslin, A. C., et al. 1997, , 487, L143 Djannati-Atai , A., Piron, F., Barrau, A., et al. 1999, , 350, 17 Domínguez, A., Primack, J. R., Rosario, D. J. et al., 2011, MNRAS, 410, 2556 Dorner, D., Biland, A., Bretz, T., et al. 2013, ArXiv e-prints , arXiv:1311.0478 Dorner, D., Ahnen, M. L., Bergmann, M., et al. 2015, ArXiv e-prints , arXiv:1502.02582 Edelson, R. A. & Krolik, J. H. 1988, , 333, 646 Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1999, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 111, 63 Furniss, A., Noda, K., Boggs, S., et al. 2015, , 812, 65 Fruck, C., Gaug, M., Zanin, Z., et al. 2015, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1403.3591 Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, , 611, 1005 Giannios, D., Uzdensky, D. A. & Begelman, M. C. 2009, MNRAS, 395, L29 Giroletti, M., Giovannini, G., Cotton, W. D., et al., 2008, A&A, 488, 905 Gliozzi, M., Sambruna, R. M., Jung, I., et al. 2006, , 646, 61 Hildebrand, D., Ahnen, M. L., Balbo, M., et al. 2017, Proceedings of ICRC 2017 , https://pos.sissa.it/301/779 Hirotani, K., & Pu, H.-Y. 2016, , 818, 50 Kalberla, P. M. W., Burton, W. B., Hartmann, D., et al. 2005, , 440, 775 K Katarzy[ń]{}ski, G Ghisellini, A Mastichiadis, F Tavecchio & L Maraschi 2006, A&A, 453, 47 Kirk, J. G., Rieger, F. M., & Mastichiadis, A. 1998, , 333, 452 Königl, A., 1981, ApJ, 243, 700 Lefa, E., Aharonian, F. A., & Rieger, F. M. 2011, , 743, L19. , A. & [Rieger]{}, F. 2011, , 730, 123 Li, T.-P., & Ma, Y.-Q. 1983, , 272, 317 Lindfors, E. J., Hovatta, T., Nilsson, K., et al., 2016, A&A, 593, A98 Mahlke, M., Bretz, T., Adam, J., et al. 2017, Proceedings of ICRC 2017 , https://pos.sissa.it/301/612 , L. S. 2011, New Astronomy, 16, 503 Markwardt, C. B., Tueller, J., Skinner, G. K., et al. 2005, , 633, L77 Maraschi, L., Ghisellini, G., & Celotti, A. 1992, ApJ, 397, L5 Maraschi L. & Tavecchio F. 2003, ApJ, 593, 667 Markwardt, C. B., Barthelmy, S. D., Cummings, J. C., Hullinger, D., Krimm, H. A., & Parsons, A. 2007, http://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/analysis/bat swguide v6 3.pdf Massaro, E. , Tramacere, A., Perri, M., Giommi, P. & G Tosti 2006, A&A, 448, 861 Massaro, F., Tramacere, A., Cavaliere, A., Perri, M. & P Giommi 2008, A&A, 478, 395 Mattox, J. R., Bertsch, D. L., Chiang, J., et al., 1996, ApJ, 461, 396 Markowitz, A., Reeves, J. N., & Braito, V. 2006, , 646, 783 Neronov, A., Semikoz, D., & Taylor, A. M. 2012, , 541, A31. Nilsson, K., Pasanen, M., Takalo, L. O., et al. 2007, , 475, 199 , K. and [Lindfors]{}, E. and [Takalo]{}, L. O., et al. 2018, , 620, A185 Pian, E., Vacanti, G., Tagliaferri, G., [et al.]{} 1998, , 492, L17 , E., [Falomo]{}, R. & [Treves]{}, A. 2005, , 361, 919 Poole, T. S., Breeveld, A. A., Page, M. J., et al. 2008, , 383, 627 Poutanen J., Zdziarski A. A.& Ibragimov A. 2008, MNRAS, 389,1427 , W. H., [Teukolsky]{}, S. A., [Vetterling]{}, W. T., & [Flannery]{}, B. P. 2002, [Numerical recipes in C++ : the art of scientific computing]{} Protassov, R., van Dyk, D. A., Connors, A., Kashyap, V. L., & Siemiginowska, A. 2002, , 571, 545 , K. & [Neronov]{}, A. 2016, , 593, A8 Quinn, J., Akerlof, C. W., Biller, S., et al. 1996, ApJ, 456, L83 Quinn, J., Bond, I. H., Boyle, P. J., et al. 1999, , 518, 693 Roming, P. W. A., Kennedy, T. E., Mason, K. O., et al. 2005, , 120, 95 Sambruna, R. M., Aharonian, F. A., Krawczynski, H., et al. 2000, , 538, 127 Schlafly, E. F. & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, , 737, 103 Schlickeiser, R. 1985, , 143, 431 Shukla, A., Mannheim, K., Chitnis, V. R., et al. 2016, , 832, 177. , [Ł]{}. & [Petrosian]{}, V. 2008, , 681, 1725 Tavecchio, F., Maraschi, L., Pian, E., et al. 2001, ApJ, 554, 725 , F. and [Becerra-Gonzalez]{}, J. and [Ghisellini]{}, G., et al. 2011, , 534, A86 Teraesranta, H., Tornikoski, M., Mujunen, A., et al. 1998, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 132, 305 Tombesi, F., Cappi, M., Reeves, J. N., et al. 2010, , 521, A57 Tramacere, A., Giommi, P., Perri, M., et al. 2007, , 467, 501 Tramacere, A., Giommi, P., Perri, M., Verrecchia F., & Tosti, G. 2009, , 501, 879 , A., [Massaro]{}, E. & [Taylor]{}, A. M. 2011, , 739, 66 , G. and [de Vaucouleurs]{}, A. and [Corwin]{} H. G. Jr., et al. 1991, Springer, New York, NY (USA), ISBN 0-387-97552-7 Vaughan, S., Edelson, R., Warwick, R. S., Uttley, P. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1271 Villata, M., Raiteri, C. M., Lanteri, L., et al. 1998, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 130, 305 , M. & [Raiteri]{}, C. M. 1999, , 347, 30 , J. J. P. & [Vainio]{}, R. 2005, , 621, 313 , C., [Glawion]{}, D., [Shukla]{}, A. & [Mannheim]{}, K. 2017, 6th International Symposium on High Energy Gamma-Ray Astronomy, American Institute of Physics Conference Series, 1792 , C., [Shukla]{}, A. & [Mannheim]{}, K. 2020, in prep. , J., [Allen]{}, A. & [McCray]{}, R. 2000, , 542, 914 Zanin, R., Carmona, E., Sitarek, J., et al., 2013, Proc of 33rd ICRC, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Id. 773 Zdziarski, A. A. 1988, , 335, 786
Tables with the X-ray and VHE gamma-ray spectral results {#App:SpectralResults}
========================================================
The X-ray spectral fits to the [*Swift*]{}/XRT data from 0.3 keV to 10 keV with a PL and an LP function are reported in Table \[tab:xrt\_fits\]. The results from [*Swift*]{}/BAT analysis for the one-day time intervals are reported in Table \[tab:bat\].
The VHE gamma-ray spectral fits to the MAGIC data from 0.1 TeV to 10 TeV (for both observed and EBL-corrected) with a PL and an LP function are reported in Table \[tab:vhe\_fits\].
---------- ------------- ----------- ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ ----------------- ---------------------- ---------
MJD Swift ObsID Fit Func. Flux (0.3–2 keV) Flux (2–10 keV) $\Gamma$ b $\mathrm{\chi}^2$/df p-value
$[10^{-10}~\mathrm{erg}~\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\mathrm{s}^{-1}]$ $[10^{-10}~\mathrm{erg}~\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\mathrm{s}^{-1}]$
56855.04 35023059 PL 1.89 $\pm$ 0.03 2.33 $\pm$ 0.08 -1.81 $\pm$ 0.02 - 205.6/216 0.7
56856.04 35023060 PL 2.50 $\pm$ 0.03 3.17 $\pm$ 0.08 -1.77 $\pm$ 0.01 - 320.9/300 0.2
56856.86 35023061 PL 2.67 $\pm$ 0.03 3.63$ \pm$ 0.08 -1.74 $\pm$ 0.01 - 298.7/316 0.8
56858.04 35023062 PL 3.11 $\pm$ 0.03 4.64 $\pm$ 0.11 -1.69 $\pm$ 0.01 - 308.8/304 0.4
56858.93 35023063 PL 3.09 $\pm$ 0.03 4.43 $\pm$ 0.09 -1.69 $\pm$ 0.01 - 369.5/341 0.1
56860.04 35023064 LP 2.74 $\pm$ 0.03 3.77 $\pm$ 0.08 -1.58 $\pm$ 0.02 0.25 $\pm$ 0.04 393.5/355 0.1
56861.99 35023065 PL 2.25 $\pm$ 0.03 2.84 $\pm$ 0.10 -1.77 $\pm$ 0.02 - 213.5/223 0.7
56863.99 35023067 LP 2.52 $\pm$ 0.03 3.48 $\pm$ 0.09 -1.65 $\pm$ 0.03 0.12 $\pm$ 0.04 308.5/301 0.4
56865.04 35023068 PL 2.68 $\pm$ 0.03 3.69 $\pm$ 0.08 -1.73 $\pm$ 0.01 - 344.6/327 0.2
56865.99 35023069 PL 2.71 $\pm$ 0.03 4.43 $\pm$ 0.09 -1.63 $\pm$ 0.01 - 356.3/334 0.2
56866.92 35023070 PL 2.59 $\pm$ 0.03 3.89 $\pm$ 0.08 -1.69 $\pm$ 0.01 - 310.1/329 0.8
56867.99 35023071 PL 2.87 $\pm$ 0.03 4.89 $\pm$ 0.09 -1.60 $\pm$ 0.01 - 308.6/348 0.9
56868.92 35023072 PL 2.23 $\pm$ 0.02 3.06 $\pm$ 0.09 -1.74 $\pm$ 0.01 - 273.0/297 0.8
56869.92 35023073 PL 2.00 $\pm$ 0.02 2.80 $\pm$ 0.07 -1.71 $\pm$ 0.01 - 310.3/292 0.2
---------- ------------- ----------- ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ ----------------- ---------------------- ---------
------- ---------- ------ ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- -------------
MJD Exposure SNR $\mathrm{Flux}_1$ $\chi^2$/df $\mathrm{Flux}_2$ $\chi^2$/df
\[s\] \[$10^{-10}\,\mathrm{erg}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}$\] \[$10^{-10}\,\mathrm{erg}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}$\]
56855 905 2.4 4.5$\pm$1.6 4.4/7 5.2$\pm$2.0 5.5/7
56856 961 1.7 2.5$\pm$1.4 8.6/7 3.8$\pm$1.8 7.9/7
56857 983 3.0 4.2$\pm$1.5 4.6/7 5.4$\pm$2.1 4.8/7
56858 787 3.0 6.7$\pm$2.2 5.5/7 8.5$\pm$2.5 5.9/7
56859 536 2.3 4.7$\pm$1.8 6.3/7 8.2$\pm$2.8 3.9/7
56860 1320 1.6 1.9$\pm$1.2 1.5/7 1.7$\pm$1.1 1.5/7
56862 640 -0.2 $<4.5$ - - -
56864 895 3.0 4.6$\pm$1.6 6.0/7 5.4$\pm$1.7 5.4/7
56865 762 3.5 8.9$\pm$2.6 1.7/7 11.0$\pm$2.0 2.8/7
56866 662 3.0 4.4$\pm$1.9 6.6/7 7.9$\pm$2.4 4.1/7
56867 1004 3.2 5.8$\pm$1.7 3.8/7 8.0$\pm$2.2 3.5/7
56868 900 4.0 5.8$\pm$1.6 8.3/7 9.5$\pm$2.2 4.5/7
56869 992 2.4 3.5$\pm$1.6 1.5/7 4.8$\pm$2.0 1.3/7
56870 1001 2.7 4.3$\pm$1.5 10.9/7 5.5$\pm$1.9 12.0/7
56871 1029 4.0 6.7$\pm$1.5 3.0/7 8.7$\pm$1.8 2.9/7
56872 1027 1.4 2.0$\pm$1.5 2.6/7 2.1$\pm$1.9 3.3/7
------- ---------- ------ ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- -------------
---------- ---------- ----- -------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------------- --------- ---------------
Date MJD Fit $f_0$ $\Gamma$ b $\mathrm{\chi}^2$/df p-value LP preference
$[10^{-10}\mathrm{TeV}^{-1}\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\mathrm{s}^{-1}]$
20140716 56854.91 PL 0.82$\pm$0.10 -2.42$\pm$0.11 - 11.6/8 0.2 -
PL 0.99$\pm$ 0.12 -2.30$\pm$0.12 9.8/8 0.3 -
20140717 56855.91 PL 1.24$\pm$0.13 -2.39$\pm$0.10 - 6.2/9 0.7 -
PL 1.48$\pm$0.16 -2.27$\pm$0.10 5.8/9 0.8 -
20140718 56856.91 PL 2.78$\pm$0.15 -2.15$\pm$0.05 - 10.7/11 0.5 -
PL 3.35$\pm$0.18 -2.01$\pm$0.05 9.1/11 0.6 -
20140720 56858.98 PL 2.94$\pm$0.12 -2.19$\pm$0.04 - 17.3/12 0.1 -
PL 3.53$\pm$0.14 -2.04$\pm$0.04 14.3/12 0.3 -
20140721 56859.97 LP 2.29$\pm$0.10 -2.21$\pm$0.04 0.15$\pm$0.03 7.7/11 0.7 4.5 $\sigma$
LP 2.66$\pm$0.11 -2.05$\pm$0.04 0.11$\pm$0.03 6.6/11 0.8 3.4 $\sigma$
20140723 56861.01 PL 1.42$\pm$0.10 -2.22$\pm$0.08 - 10.1/10 0.4 -
PL 1.69$\pm$0.11 -2.06$\pm$0.08 - 9.3/10 0.5 -
20140724 56862.02 PL 1.03$\pm$0.05 -2.24$\pm$0.06 - 11.8/11 0.4 -
PL 1.23$\pm$0.06 -2.08$\pm$0.06 - 9.1/11 0.6 -
20140725 56863.00 PL 1.16$\pm$0.09 -2.12$\pm$0.09 - 15.7/10 0.1 -
PL 1.38$\pm$0.11 -1.97$\pm$0.09 - 14.8/10 0.1 -
20140726 56864.02 PL 1.24$\pm$0.05 -2.24$\pm$0.04 - 15.2/13 0.3 -
PL 1.48$\pm$0.06 -2.08$\pm$0.04 - 12.5/13 0.5 -
20140727 56865.00 PL 1.75$\pm$0.10 -2.14$\pm$0.06 - 11.3/12 0.5 -
PL 2.09$\pm$0.12 -1.97$\pm$0.06 - 9.6/12 0.6 -
20140728 56866.00 LP 3.19$\pm$0.08 -2.10$\pm$0.02 0.09$\pm$0.02 10.8/14 0.7 5.3 $\sigma$
PL 2.50$\pm$0.07 -1.97$\pm$0.02 - 17.6/15 0.3 2.7 $\sigma$
20140729 56867.00 PL 2.33$\pm$0.11 -2.15$\pm$0.05 - 10.2/12 0.6 -
PL 2.79$\pm$0.13 -1.99$\pm$0.05 - 9.8/12 0.6 -
20140730 56868.01 LP 3.17$\pm$0.11 -2.09$\pm$0.03 0.11$\pm$0.03 22.8/12 0.03 4.5 $\sigma$
LP 3.70$\pm$0.12 -1.93$\pm$0.03 0.09$\pm$0.03 22.2/12 0.04 3.2 $\sigma$
20140731 56869.92 PL 1.30$\pm$0.08 -2.11$\pm$0.07 - 8.2/10 0.6 -
PL 1.55$\pm$0.10 -1.96$\pm$0.07 - 9.0/10 0.5 -
---------- ---------- ----- -------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------------- --------- ---------------
X-ray and VHE gamma-ray spectral index vs flux {#App:SpectrumVSFlux}
===============================================
The PL spectral index as a function of the integral fluxes in two energy bands in X-rays and VHE are reported in Fig. \[fig:magic\_flux\_vs\_index\] and Fig. \[fig:xrt\_flux\_vs\_index\]. The LP function is more suitable than the PL function in a few X-ray spectra and VHE spectra, but the difference is small (see Appendix A). For the sake of simplicity, we decided to use the PL index for the study presented here. The only spectrum that was not considered in this study (for the VHE gamma-ray band) is that from 2014 July 19, which is the one showing a narrow spectral feature at about 3 TeV (see Sec. \[bump\]).
No correlation is found between the PL spectral index and the VHE fluxes, with Pearson coefficients of 0.30 (1.0$\sigma$) and 0.50 (1.7$\sigma$) for the energy bands 0.15-1TeV and $>1$TeV, respectively. On the contrary, the X-ray band shows evidence for the [harder-when-brighter]{} behavior, with Pearson coefficients of 0.61 ($2.4\,\sigma$) and 0.86 ($4.3\,\sigma$), and DCF=$0.6\pm0.3$ and DCF=$0.8\pm0.3$, for the soft (0.3–2 keV) and the hard (2–10 keV) X-ray bands, respectively.
![PL spectral index as a function of the integral flux, as observed by MAGIC in the energy bands 0.15–1 TeV and $>$1 TeV.[]{data-label="fig:magic_flux_vs_index"}](./figures/flux_vs_index_magic.pdf)
![PL spectral index as a function of the integral flux, as observed by XRT in the energy bands from 0.3-2 keV and 2-10 keV.[]{data-label="fig:xrt_flux_vs_index"}](./figures/XRT_index_vs_flux.pdf)
Evaluation of extrapolation of LP spectral fit beyond 1.5 TeV {#App:FitExtrapolation}
==============================================================
In order to test the behavior of the low- and high-energy part of the VHE spectrum during the two-week period with outstanding X-ray activity, we performed the following test. The spectral data were fit with an LP function up to 1.5 TeV. The value of 1.5 TeV is right below the energy of the narrow spectral feature at $\sim$3 TeV in the spectrum from 2014 July 19. Afterwards, the data-model agreement was quantified above 1.5 TeV for the extrapolation (to higher energies) of the best-fit function up to 1.5 TeV. The results from these spectral fits, and the quantification of the data-model agreement above 1.5 TeV, are reported in Table \[tab:vhe\_partialfit\].
As shown in the table, in general, the extrapolation of the fit up to 1.5TeV provides a good description of the spectral shape at energies above 1.5 TeV. The only notable exception is the spectrum from 2014 July 19 (MJD 56857.98), where there is a significant deviation (from the LP function) at energies above 1.5 TeV. The VHE spectrum from July 20 (MJD 56858.98) also shows a marginally significant deviation at high energies with respect to the fit at low energies.
If we consider the 1$\sigma$ uncertainty in the best fit up to 1.5 TeV (uncertainty in the spectral parameters reported in Table \[tab:vhe\_partialfit\]), the significance of the deviation of the data points with respect to the extrapolation of the spectral fit below 1.5 TeV decreases to a 3$\sigma$ level for 2014 July 19. For the observed spectrum we find that $\mathrm{\chi^2_{above\,1.5\,TeV}}$/df=24.4/7 (3.3 $\sigma$), while for the EBL-corrected spectrum the values are $\mathrm{\chi^2_{above\,1.5\,TeV}}$/df=19.5/7 (2.7 $\sigma$).
---------- -------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- ----------------------------- ---------------------- -----------------------
MJD $f_0$ $\Gamma$ b $\mathrm{\chi}^2$/df $\mathrm{\chi}^2$/df
$[10^{-10}\mathrm{TeV}^{-1}\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\mathrm{s}^{-1}]$ up to 1.5 TeV above 1.5 TeV
56857.98 2.54 $\pm$0.10 -2.26$\pm$0.06 0.15$\pm$0.06 10.3/7 54.5/7 (6.0$\sigma$)
2.92$\pm$0.12 -2.08$\pm$0.06 0.10$\pm$0.06 10.6/7 41.4/7 (5.0$\sigma$)
56858.98 3.26$\pm$0.19 -2.32$\pm$0.06 0.18$\pm$0.06 7.4/8 18.5/3 (3.6 $\sigma$)
3.75$\pm$0.21 -2.15$\pm$ 0.06 0.13$\pm$ 0.06 8.0/8 14.8/3 (3.1 $\sigma$)
56859.97 2.33$\pm$ 0.10 -2.26$\pm$ 0.05 0.21$\pm$ 0.05 4.0/8 8.9/3 (2.2 $\sigma$)
2.69$\pm$0.12 -2.10$\pm$ 0.05 0.16$\pm$ 0.05 3.9/8 5.7/3 (1.5 $\sigma$)
56864.02 1.35$\pm$ 0.08 -2.26$\pm$0.06 0.12$\pm$ 0.07 11.0/8 4.7/4 (1.0$\sigma$)
1.56$\pm$ 0.09 -2.09$\pm$ 0.06 0.08$\pm$ 0.07 10.8/8 2.9/4 (0.6$\sigma$)
56865.00 2.06$\pm$ 0.17 -2.11$\pm$ 0.09 0.22$\pm$ 0.12 5.3/8 2.7/3 (0.8$\sigma$)
2.38$\pm$ 0.20 -1.94$\pm$ 0.09 0.17$\pm$0.12 5.6/8 1.7/3 (0.5$\sigma$)
56866.00 3.14$\pm$ 0.09 -2.09$\pm$ 0.03 0.07$\pm$ 0.03 5.9/8 6.2/6 (0.8$\sigma$)
3.63$\pm$0.11 -1.93$\pm$ 0.03 0.02$\pm$0.03 5.3/8 9.8/6 (1.5$\sigma$)
56867.0 2.35$\pm$0.16 -2.13$\pm$0.07 $-6.6\times10^{-3}\pm 0.07$ 8.9/8 1.6/3 (0.4$\sigma$)
2.71$\pm$0.19 -1.96$\pm$0.07 0.05$\pm$0.07 8.5/8 1.2/3(0.3$\sigma$)
56868.01 3.11$\pm$ 0.12 -2.08$\pm$ 0.04 0.08$\pm$0.05 14.8/8 10.1/4 (2.1$\sigma$)
3.59 $\pm$0.14 -1.91$\pm$ 0.04 0.03$\pm$ 0.05 14.0/8 16.6/4 (3.0$\sigma$)
---------- -------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- ----------------------------- ---------------------- -----------------------
Additional Monte Carlo tests to estimate the chance probability of obtaining a narrow spectral feature on the top of smooth gamma-ray spectra {#App:toyMC}
=============================================================================================================================================
In this section we describe additional Monte Carlo tests that were performed to assess the random chance probability of obtaining a narrow spectral feature like the one observed in the measured VHE gamma-ray spectrum of Mrk501 from 2014 July 19 (see section \[bump\]). In this case, we followed the prescriptions from , which had been used to select line-features at $p_{value}<0.05$ in a systematic search over a large number of measured X-ray spectra. The nature of this test is different from the one described section \[bump\], which relates to the investigation of a feature observed in a single spectrum, but provides an alternative perspective to the evaluation of the random chance probability for the occurrence of narrow features in continuum spectra. The tests are performed on the differential flux spectrum (dN/dE) without applying any correction for the EBL. The continuum model (which is taken as the null hypothesis) is described with an LP function, and three distinct functions are used to parameterize the narrow feature: a) an EP function (see eq. \[eq:eplogpar\]) with curvature fixed to $\beta=9.1$; b) a more generic EP function with variable curvature, where $\beta$ is allowed to change from 1 to 20 in the spectral fits; and c) a Gaussian function with variable width where sigma is allowed to change from 10% to 40% of the Gaussian mean. The location of the narrow feature ($E_p$ in the EP function, and the mean of the Gaussian function) is determined from a scan over a 40-bin grid extending from the energy 0.08 TeV (first data point in the spectrum) to the energy 6.80 TeV (last data point in the spectrum), in steps of 0.05 in base-10 logarithmic space. Each step corresponds to a relative change in the energy of $\sim$12%, which is comparable to the energy resolution of MAGIC [15%–20%; see @magic_upgrade2]. The narrow feature hypothesis [*a)*]{} is described with one additional free (and unconstrained) parameter, the normalization $K$, which can take positive and negative values, and follows the prescriptions from . On the other hand, hypotheses [*b)*]{} and [*c)*]{} relate to a more generic search where the spectral feature hypothesis has a variable shape. In these cases, the spectral feature is described with two additional free parameters, the normalization $K$ (unconstrained) and the width of the feature, which is parameterized with $\beta$ (for EP) or sigma (for Gauss), and which are constrained to vary within the above-mentioned range of values. The results from these energy scans on the VHE gamma-ray spectrum from July 19 are depicted in the upper panels of Figures \[fig:chi2\_tombesi\_real\_data\_LP\_Beta9.1\], \[fig:chi2\_tombesi\_real\_data\_LP\_VariableCurvature\], and \[fig:chi2\_tombesi\_real\_data\_Gauss\_VariableWidth\].
![Results from the Monte Carlo simulations for the hypothesis of a narrow feature parameterized with an EP function with fixed curvature. The first (top) panel shows the VHE gamma-ray spectrum from 2014 July 19 (MJD 56857.98), from Fig. \[fig:VHE\_bump\_extracomponent\], fitted with an LP function (thick dark gray curve), and also fitted with an LP plus an EP with $\beta=9.1$, and centered at various energies from 0.08 TeV to 6.80 TeV in steps of 0.05 in base-10 logarithmic space (thin light gray lines). The difference in $\chi^2$ values ($\chi^2_{diff}$) is shown below the spectrum, using colors different from gray for cases with $\chi^2_{diff} >8$. The second and third panels show the resulting $\chi^2_{diff}$ and $\chi^2_{diff-max}$ distributions from the 10$^4$ simulated spectra. The green dashed line marks the $\chi^2_{diff-data}$ obtained for the measured spectrum and shown in the first panel, while the blue, red, and purple solid lines depict the expected $\chi^2$ distribution for 1, 2, and 3 degrees of freedom. See text in appendix \[App:toyMC\] for further details. []{data-label="fig:chi2_tombesi_real_data_LP_Beta9.1"}](./figures/Scan_LP_CurvatureFixed.pdf "fig:") ![Results from the Monte Carlo simulations for the hypothesis of a narrow feature parameterized with an EP function with fixed curvature. The first (top) panel shows the VHE gamma-ray spectrum from 2014 July 19 (MJD 56857.98), from Fig. \[fig:VHE\_bump\_extracomponent\], fitted with an LP function (thick dark gray curve), and also fitted with an LP plus an EP with $\beta=9.1$, and centered at various energies from 0.08 TeV to 6.80 TeV in steps of 0.05 in base-10 logarithmic space (thin light gray lines). The difference in $\chi^2$ values ($\chi^2_{diff}$) is shown below the spectrum, using colors different from gray for cases with $\chi^2_{diff} >8$. The second and third panels show the resulting $\chi^2_{diff}$ and $\chi^2_{diff-max}$ distributions from the 10$^4$ simulated spectra. The green dashed line marks the $\chi^2_{diff-data}$ obtained for the measured spectrum and shown in the first panel, while the blue, red, and purple solid lines depict the expected $\chi^2$ distribution for 1, 2, and 3 degrees of freedom. See text in appendix \[App:toyMC\] for further details. []{data-label="fig:chi2_tombesi_real_data_LP_Beta9.1"}](./figures/histogram_LP_CurvatureFixed_all.png "fig:") ![Results from the Monte Carlo simulations for the hypothesis of a narrow feature parameterized with an EP function with fixed curvature. The first (top) panel shows the VHE gamma-ray spectrum from 2014 July 19 (MJD 56857.98), from Fig. \[fig:VHE\_bump\_extracomponent\], fitted with an LP function (thick dark gray curve), and also fitted with an LP plus an EP with $\beta=9.1$, and centered at various energies from 0.08 TeV to 6.80 TeV in steps of 0.05 in base-10 logarithmic space (thin light gray lines). The difference in $\chi^2$ values ($\chi^2_{diff}$) is shown below the spectrum, using colors different from gray for cases with $\chi^2_{diff} >8$. The second and third panels show the resulting $\chi^2_{diff}$ and $\chi^2_{diff-max}$ distributions from the 10$^4$ simulated spectra. The green dashed line marks the $\chi^2_{diff-data}$ obtained for the measured spectrum and shown in the first panel, while the blue, red, and purple solid lines depict the expected $\chi^2$ distribution for 1, 2, and 3 degrees of freedom. See text in appendix \[App:toyMC\] for further details. []{data-label="fig:chi2_tombesi_real_data_LP_Beta9.1"}](./figures/histogram_LP_CurvatureFixed_best.png "fig:")
![Same as in Fig. \[fig:chi2\_tombesi\_real\_data\_LP\_Beta9.1\], but for an EP with a variable curvature (i.e., $\beta$ is left free to vary in the spectral fits) to parameterize the narrow spectral feature. See text in appendix \[App:toyMC\] for further details. []{data-label="fig:chi2_tombesi_real_data_LP_VariableCurvature"}](./figures/Scan_LP_CurvatureVariable.pdf "fig:") ![Same as in Fig. \[fig:chi2\_tombesi\_real\_data\_LP\_Beta9.1\], but for an EP with a variable curvature (i.e., $\beta$ is left free to vary in the spectral fits) to parameterize the narrow spectral feature. See text in appendix \[App:toyMC\] for further details. []{data-label="fig:chi2_tombesi_real_data_LP_VariableCurvature"}](./figures/histogram_LP_CurvatureVariable_all.png "fig:") ![Same as in Fig. \[fig:chi2\_tombesi\_real\_data\_LP\_Beta9.1\], but for an EP with a variable curvature (i.e., $\beta$ is left free to vary in the spectral fits) to parameterize the narrow spectral feature. See text in appendix \[App:toyMC\] for further details. []{data-label="fig:chi2_tombesi_real_data_LP_VariableCurvature"}](./figures/histogram_LP_CurvatureVariable_best.png "fig:")
![Same as in Fig. \[fig:chi2\_tombesi\_real\_data\_LP\_Beta9.1\], but for a Gaussian function with a variable width (i.e., sigma is left free to vary in the spectral fits) to parameterize the narrow spectral feature. See text in appendix \[App:toyMC\] for further details. []{data-label="fig:chi2_tombesi_real_data_Gauss_VariableWidth"}](./figures/Scan_Gauss_CurvatureVariable.pdf "fig:") ![Same as in Fig. \[fig:chi2\_tombesi\_real\_data\_LP\_Beta9.1\], but for a Gaussian function with a variable width (i.e., sigma is left free to vary in the spectral fits) to parameterize the narrow spectral feature. See text in appendix \[App:toyMC\] for further details. []{data-label="fig:chi2_tombesi_real_data_Gauss_VariableWidth"}](./figures/histogram_Gaussian_CurvatureVariable_all.png "fig:") ![Same as in Fig. \[fig:chi2\_tombesi\_real\_data\_LP\_Beta9.1\], but for a Gaussian function with a variable width (i.e., sigma is left free to vary in the spectral fits) to parameterize the narrow spectral feature. See text in appendix \[App:toyMC\] for further details. []{data-label="fig:chi2_tombesi_real_data_Gauss_VariableWidth"}](./figures/histogram_Gaussian_CurvatureVariable_best.png "fig:")
Then, in the same way as for the Monte Carlo tests reported in section \[bump\], we use the LP function derived from the fit (thick dark gray curve in Figures \[fig:chi2\_tombesi\_real\_data\_LP\_Beta9.1\], \[fig:chi2\_tombesi\_real\_data\_LP\_VariableCurvature\], and \[fig:chi2\_tombesi\_real\_data\_Gauss\_VariableWidth\]) to generate 10000 realizations of this spectrum with data points that have the same statistical uncertainty as the measured spectrum. We then performed a series of fits with a model composed of the baseline (LP) and the three cases for the narrow component: EP with fixed $\beta$, EP with variable $\beta$, and Gauss function with variable sigma. The parameter $E_p$ for the EP function and mean for the Gauss function ranges from 0.08 TeV to 6.80 TeV in steps of 0.05 in log10 scale, as done before with the actual measured VHE spectrum. The distribution of $\chi^2_{diff}$ values obtained for the three distinct hypotheses are depicted in the second and third panels of Figures \[fig:chi2\_tombesi\_real\_data\_LP\_Beta9.1\], \[fig:chi2\_tombesi\_real\_data\_LP\_VariableCurvature\], and \[fig:chi2\_tombesi\_real\_data\_Gauss\_VariableWidth\], and a summary of the resulting numbers are reported in Table \[tab:MC\_Results\].
Measured VHE spectrum MC: 40$\times$10000 spectral fits MC: 10000 spectral fits with $\chi^2_{diff-max}$
-------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------
Functional hypothesis for the feature N$> \chi^2_{diff-data}$ | $p_{value}$ (significance) N$> \chi^2_{diff-data}$ | $p_{value}$ (significance)
EP with $\beta=9.1$ ($\chi^2_{diff-data}$=15.6) 39 | $9.7\times10^{-5}$ (3.9$\sigma$) 26 | $2.6\times10^{-3}$ (3.0$\sigma$)
EP with variable curvature ($\chi^2_{diff-data}$=18.1) 21 | $5.2\times10^{-5}$ (4.0$\sigma$) 15 | $1.5\times10^{-3}$ (3.2$\sigma$)
Gauss with variable width ($\chi^2_{diff-data}$=17.3) 32 | $8.0\times10^{-5}$ (3.9$\sigma$) 18 | $1.8\times10^{-3}$ (3.1$\sigma$)
In , only the highest $\chi^2_{diff}$, namely $\chi^2_{diff-max}$, is considered. This number relates to the largest fluctuation (with the shape of the narrow feature) in the simulated spectrum. Here we also report the results obtained when using all the $\chi^2_{diff}$ values obtained from the 40$\times$10000 spectral fits. When we consider the hypothesis of a narrow feature of fixed shape, which is the one resembling the test performed in , and the most simple out of the three hypotheses investigated, the second panel of Fig. \[fig:chi2\_tombesi\_real\_data\_LP\_Beta9.1\] shows that the distribution of $\chi^2_{diff}$ follows a $\chi^2$ with 1 degree of freedom. This is expected because, for each grid position, there is only one additional degree of freedom in the fit with the narrow component (the parameter $K$ from the EP function); however, this shows that this test does not take into account that the location of the feature in the spectrum is arbitrary, and that a search in energy space is needed. When generating a large number of random tests, for a continuum spectrum where we make a search for additional components parameterized with two degrees of freedom (normalization and energy location), we would expect that distribution of $\chi^2_{diff}$ to follow a nominal $\chi^2$ distribution with 2 degrees of freedom. On the other hand, the third panel of Fig. \[fig:chi2\_tombesi\_real\_data\_LP\_Beta9.1\] shows that the distribution of $\chi^2_{diff-max}$ has a large deficit at low $\chi^2_{diff}$ values, and is shifted to the right with respect to a nominal $\chi^2$ distribution for 2 degrees of freedom. This occurs by construction of the test because the cases with low $\chi^2_{diff}$ values are systematically rejected. A similar situation occurs for the hypotheses where the shape of the narrow feature is not fixed, and hence an extra degree of freedom is added in the search (the curvature or width of the feature). The results for these tests are shown in Figures \[fig:chi2\_tombesi\_real\_data\_LP\_VariableCurvature\] and \[fig:chi2\_tombesi\_real\_data\_Gauss\_VariableWidth\], where the reference nominal $\chi^2$ distribution would be the one for 3 degrees of freedom.
We note that, when allowing for the curvature of the EP function to vary, the chance probability for a random fluctuation decreases slightly (see Table \[tab:MC\_Results\]). This is caused by the marginally better spectral fit to the measured VHE gamma-ray spectral points when using two degrees of freedom (see upper panels of Figures \[fig:chi2\_tombesi\_real\_data\_LP\_Beta9.1\] and \[fig:chi2\_tombesi\_real\_data\_LP\_VariableCurvature\]): $\chi^2_{diff-data}$ increases from 15.6 to 18.1, which counteracts the larger freedom in the spectral fits to find narrow features in the simulated spectra. The numbers obtained with the EP and the Gaussian function with variable width are very similar because of the relatively large statistical uncertainties in the measured spectral data points: the results are dominated by the peak of the mathematical function used to describe the narrow spectral feature, and they are not affected by the tails of such function, which is where the Gauss and the EP function differ most.
Characterization of the radio-optical emission with another SSC component {#App:SEDRadioOptical}
=========================================================================
In this section we model the radio to optical UV emission for one of the nights of the sample (see Fig. \[fig:SED\_modeling\_radio\]). For this model a simple PL electron distribution was used instead of the broken PL. The parameters used for this modeling are $\gamma_{min}=1$, $\gamma_{max}=8\times10^4$, $n1$=$n2$=2.2, $B$=0.02 \[G\], Density$=6\times10^3 [\mathrm{cm}^{-3}]$, R$=4.7\times10^{16}$\[cm\], $\delta=10$. With this approach the radio to optical emission could be fitted.
![Broadband SED from 2014 July 21 (MJD 56859.97) where a two-zone SSC model has been used to describe the overall emission. One emitting region is responsible for the gamma-ray, X-ray and partially optical emission (dashed blue line). A second component explains the radio emission together with some optical emission (dashed green line). The colored spectral points represent the data sample from 56859.97. The gray spectral points represent the archival spectral points taken from the SED builder at SSDC. The peak emission at $\sim 10^{14}-10^{15}$ Hz is due to the host galaxy contribution, which is not taken into account in our SSC model of the jet emission.[]{data-label="fig:SED_modeling_radio"}](./figures/SED_3-zone_MJD_56859_97.pdf)
Relation between $\gamma_{b}$ and $B$ {#App:RelationBreakAndB}
=====================================
In the canonical one-zone SSC framework, we expect a break in the electron energy distribution, where the spectral indices change by one unit. This break occurs at the energy at which the timescale for energy loss is equal to the dynamical timescale. Given that the synchrotron bump and the inverse-Compton bump appear quite similar in the Mrk 501 SEDs from July 2014 (see Fig.\[fig:SED\_modeling\]), we can assume that the electrons lose energy roughly equally through synchrotron and inverse-Compton emission. In this case, the theoretical expectation for the location of the break would be given by the relation
$$\gamma_b=\frac{3\, \pi \,m_e\,c^2}{(\sigma_T\,B^2\,R)}
\label{eq_syn_cooling}
,$$
where $m_e$ is the electron mass, $\sigma_T$ the Thompson cross section, and R the radius of the emitting region. Figure \[fig:ssc\_param\] shows the evolution of $\gamma_b$ as a function of $B$ for the theoretical exercise reported in Sec.\[sec:Model\]. The values used to parameterize the broadband SEDs agree typically within a factor of $\sim$2 with the theoretical expectations. Given that the one-zone SSC is a relatively simple theoretical scenario (e.g., the emission region may not be perfectly spherical and homogeneous), these differences between the employed values and the theoretical expectations in the canonical one-zone SSC can be considered in reasonable agreement.
![Evolution of the $\gamma_b$ as a function of the magnetic field $B$ for the one-zone SSC model reported in Sec.\[sec:Model\]. The solid line represents the theoretical expectation assuming that $\gamma_b$ is due to synchrotron and IC cooling (see eq. \[eq\_syn\_cooling\]). The dotted lines depict the region with the energy break located a factor of 3 higher and a 50% lower than the theoretical expectation.[]{data-label="fig:ssc_param"}](./figures/gb_vs_theorical_syn_IC.pdf)
[^1]: Corresponding authors: J. Becerra González ([email protected]), D. Paneque ([email protected]), C. Wendel ([email protected])
[^2]: https://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/data/access/lat/BackgroundModels.html
[^3]: https://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/data/access/lat/fl8y/
[^4]: The spectral analysis of LAT data does not show significant variability during the time period considered in this manuscript, and hence it is reasonable to assume that the spectral shape is constant throughout this period.
[^5]: https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/ftools/caldb/help/batsurvey.html
[^6]: https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/xanadu/xspec/
[^7]: The time difference is computed using the center of the time interval of the observations.
[^8]: Each spectral simulation is initiated with a slightly different realization of the null hypothesis model. This extra step does not change the overall results, but provides a more realistic simulation because the baseline model is known only within some statistical uncertainty.
[^9]: Owing to the rapidly falling flux with the energy, the X-ray count rate measured with *Swift*/XRT is dominated by the emission at the lowest X-ray energies.
[^10]: Absorption troughs due to the hydrogen Lyman $\beta$ line and series are hardly discernible because of the small $K_{{\rm{line}},2}$ and $K_{{\rm{line}},3}$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We present or recall several equilibrium methods that allow to compute isentropic processes, either during the compression or the release of the material. These methods are applied to compute the isentropic release of a shocked monoatomic liquid at high pressure and temperature. Moreover, equilibrium results of isentropic release are compared to the direct nonequilibrium simulation of the same process. We show that due to the viscosity of the liquid but also to nonequilibrium effects, the release of the system is not strictly isentropic.\
author:
- 'Jean-Bernard Maillet,[^1] Emeric Bourasseau, Laurent Soulard, Jean Clérouin'
- Gabriel Stoltz
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: Constant entropy sampling and release waves of shock compressions
---
Introduction
============
The exploration of the thermodynamic behavior of materials under extreme conditions usually follows two paths corresponding to two experimental devices: isothermal compressions and shock compressions. Isothermal compressions are performed with diamond anvil cell (DAC) techniques, and are used to compress materials up to very high pressures, although with limited temperatures. On the other hand, shock compression experiments investigate the high-pressure/high temperature regions through the propagation of dynamic shock waves in the system. Nevertheless, the thermodynamic domain available using shock experiments remains limited to the so-called Hugoniot curve, which is, by definition, the collection of thermodynamic states which can be reached from a system at fixed initial conditions, with shocks of increasing strengths. Such a constraint arises from the fact that the system is assumed to satisfy Euler’s fluid equations (*i.e* inviscid Navier-Stokes equations), and physically meaningful shocks therefore have to fulfill the Rankine-Hugoniot conditions, which relate the thermodynamic parameters of the fluid at rest, and the thermodynamic parameters of the shocked material. Another constraint is that shock waves are adiabatic, therefore leading to very large temperature increases in the material, which limits its compressibility. The equations of state (EOS) used to predict the material’s behavior at the extreme conditions encountered are often simple extrapolations of EOS fitted on available data, [ *i.e.*]{} shock data and DAC data. It then appeared interesting to enlarge the experimental domain of investigation of materials behavior using dynamic compression set-ups, and particularly isentropic compressions. Several experimental set-ups allow to load a pressure ramp in a material. The first one is the high pulsed power (of which the sandia Z machine and the High Explosive Pulsed Power[@tasker05a; @tasker05b] at LANL are good examples). The second one consists in using an impactor with a varying density along one direction, as proposed initially at the AIP - SWCM conference.[@lyzenga81] A successful technique is to stack slices of different materials, leading to the so-called PILLOW impactors at Sandia,[@barker84] MIVAR impactors in France,[@perez88] and more recently the FGM (Functionaly Graded Materials) impactors at LLNL,[@nguyen06] allowing a real design of a thermodynamic path as a succession of shock and release waves. The last one concerns experiments of Barnes’ type where the compression is the consequence of the isentropic release of another material, as for example detonation products.[@barnes74; @tsypkin75]
Experiments involving isentropic compression are of great interest to reach high compression states, or in geophysic applications to reach states representative of the earth’s core. Experiments involving a precise evaluation of release waves in materials need also general numerical methods to compute the states reached by isentropic pocesses.
Up to now, simulations involving shock processes are rather well developed due to the simplicity of the Hugoniot equations. Those studies are performed within the framework of statistical physics, see Refs. for reference textbooks on molecular simulation, and Ref. for reference works on nonequilibrium simulation of shock waves. Any state lying on the Hugoniot can be reached from the reference state by searching for a given compression the temperature for which the pressure and the total energy of the system satisfies the Hugoniot relation. The search can be implemented in very efficient manners.[@MMSRLGH00; @MS08; @Bourasseau07] Those methods are now adapted to classical molecular dynamics and Monte Carlo, as well as quantum molecular dynamics.[@bernard02]
Such an easy method does not exist for isentropic processes. In this paper, we present or recall several equilibrium methods which allow to follow isentropic paths, both for classical or quantum molecular dynamics simulations. We contrast these methods in terms of their precisions, rigor and computational requirements. We compare the results obtained from [*equilibrium*]{} simulations with release waves observed in [*nonequilibrium*]{} molecular dynamics. The comparison between equilibrium and nonequilibrium methods therefore measures how isentropic the expansion of the system is. It is expected that release waves of a perfect non-viscous fluid are isentropic. For simple monoatomic fluids such as argon, it is often assumed that the release is isentropic, and viscosity effects are neglected. Our results show that even in this simple case, the release is not strictly isentropic and some corrections have to be taken into account. As a by-product of our study, we also explore more precisely the relationship between the Hugoniot and the isentrope curves, from a numercial viewpoint, but also giving a statistical physics proof of the coincidence of the curves for small compressions (see Appendix B).
Organization of the paper {#organization-of-the-paper .unnumbered}
-------------------------
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:non\_eq\_methods\], we present the nonequilibrium method used to simulate rarefaction waves, while some equilibrium methods for constant entropy sampling are recalled in Section \[sec:eq\_methods\] - details of the practical implementaion of the thermodynamic integration and precisions on the isentropic integration are given in Appendix A and C respectively). In Section \[sec:numerical\], a comparison of numerical results obtained in the case of release waves in argon is performed, and we discuss whether release waves are isentropic.
Nonequilibrium simulations {#sec:non_eq_methods}
==========================
Microscopic description of physical systems
-------------------------------------------
We first recall how a system is described at the microscopic level using statistical mechanics.[@Balian] Statistical physics is a theory which allows to compute thermodynamic (macroscopic) properties of a system knowing the microscopic interactions between its constitutive elements.
Consider a microscopic system composed of $N$ particles, confined in a simulation box $\mathcal{D} = [0,L_x] \times [0,L_y] \times [0,L_z]$. The volume of the domain is denoted by $V = |\mathcal{D}| =
L_xL_yL_z$. The system is characterized by the positions $q=(q_1,\dots,q_N)$ and momenta $p=(p_1,\dots,p_N)$ of the particles, which have masses $m_i$, and interact through a potential energy function $U$. The phase-space $\Omega$ is the collection of all possible microscopic configurations $(q,p)$ of the system.
The central quantity describing the system is the Hamiltonian $$\label{eq:hamiltonian}
H(q,p) = \sum_{i=1}^N \frac{p_i^2}{2m_i} + U(q_1,\dots,q_N),$$ which gives the energy of a given microscopic configuration $(q,p)$. Average thermodynamic properties of the system can be computed as averages of functions of the microscopic variables $O(q,p)$ (the so-called observables) with respect to the canonical measure at a temperature $T$, for a given simulation box: $$\label{eq:canonical_average}
\mathcal{O} = \langle O \rangle_{V,T} = \int_\Omega O(q,p) \,
\pi_{V,T}(q,p) \, dq \, dp.$$ The canonical measure associated with the Hamiltonian (\[eq:hamiltonian\]) weights microscopic states according to their energies using a Boltzmann weight:[@Balian] $$\label{eq:canonical_measure}
\pi_{V,T}(q,p) = \frac{1}{Z_{V,T}} \textrm{e}^{-\beta H(q,p)},
\qquad \beta^{-1} = k_{\rm B} T,$$ where $k_{\rm B}$ is the Boltzmann constant, and the partition function $Z_{V,T}$ is a normalization factor so that (\[eq:canonical\_measure\]) is indeed a probability measure: $$\label{eq:partition_fct}
Z_{V,T} = \int_{\Omega} \textrm{e}^{-\beta H(q,p)} \, dq \, dp.$$ We have indicated explicitly the dependence of the canonical measure (\[eq:canonical\_measure\]) and the partition function (\[eq:partition\_fct\]) on the temperature $T$ and the volume $V$ since these will be the parameters allowed to vary in the sequel.
Nonequilibrium simulation of release waves {#sec:noneq_simulation}
------------------------------------------
Similarly to what has been proposed for the simulation of shock waves,[@holian98] isentropic compressions or releases can be simulated directly using Non-Equilibrium Molecular Dynamics (NEMD). A straightforward numerical set-up to this end is simply to throw a low speed piston towards the sample (creating a weak shock), and then accelerating the piston in time. Except this external forcing, the system evolves according to the standard hamiltonian dynamics $$\label{eq:hamiltonian_dynamics}
\left \{
\begin{array}{ccl}
\dot{q}_i & = & {\displaystyle }\frac{p_i}{m_i}, \\ [10pt]
\dot{p}_i & = & {\displaystyle }-\nabla_{q_i} U(q),
\end{array}
\right.$$ which is integrated in time with the Verlet scheme.[@Verlet67] A linear compression ramp would be obtained in the case where the acceleration is constant in time.
To obtain release waves, a shock wave can be loaded in a sample; when this shock wave is reflected when interacting with a free surface, it transforms into a release wave, supposedly isentropic. In this study, we start the release from an equilibrated state obtained from a preliminary canonical simulation, using three dimensional periodic boundary conditions. When the system is equilibrated, the periodic boundary conditions are removed in the $x$ direction. Two release waves are then created at the two free surfaces, and they propagate in opposite directions towards the center of the box. This process is illustrated in Figure \[NEMDprocess\].
From the simulation data presented in Figure \[NEMDprocess\], profiles of thermodynamic quantities (average densities, (kinetic) temperatures and pressures) can be extracted and averaged over thin slices. Moreover, the two release waves being symmetric, their related profiles can be averaged. A superposition of the profiles, taken at different times but projected back in the same thermodynamic diagram, is then obtained and averaged over, leading to a single profile.
The accuracy of the computation increases with the system size: an increase in the size of the transverse directions decreases the uncertainties on the slice averages (thanks to a thermodynamic limit), and an increase in the longitudinal direction allows to accumulate more profiles in time, therefore reducing statistical errors.
Equilibrium methods for constant entropy sampling {#sec:eq_methods}
=================================================
We present in this section three methods to compute the collection of all states (in terms of their temperature, volume and pressure) which have the same entropy as some reference state. These methods therefore allow to draw a curve in the $(V,T)$ diagram (or in the $(P,T)$ or $(P,V)$ diagrams), called the isentrope, and will be used as benchmark methods in Section \[sec:numerical\] to check whether release waves computed by NEMD simulations are indeed isentropic or not. We emphasize that, altough presented for the computation of isentropic releases, all the methods described in this section may also be used to determine isentropic compressions. We also recall a fourth method, used to obtain the entropy of a system once the entropy of some reference state (such as the perfect gas) is fixed. The computational cost of the latter method as well as its low accuracy for dense states prevented us from applying it to enough points to obtain an entire isentrope curve, and we therefore limited its use to a consistency check on the results obtained with the other methods.
Thermodynamic integration {#sec:TI}
-------------------------
The entropy of the system varies when the simulation conditions are changed. Here, we consider that the states visited by the release wave are a succession of local equilibrium states, which can be described within the canonical ensemble as given by statistical physics. Therefore, the state of the system is defined by two parameters, its volume (equivalently, the density) and its temperature.
### Variables indexing the variations.
Consider a general transformation in which both the volume accessible to the system (equivalently, the density) and the temperature are varied. We restrict ourselves to variations of the domain in one spatial direction only, to model the anisotropic behavior of release waves. Assuming that the state of the system at rest can be described by some cubic simulation box with periodic boundary conditions, the volume under compression may be indexed by a variable $\lambda_1$, so that the associated simulation domain $\mathcal{D}(\lambda_1) =
[0,(1+\lambda_1)L_x] \times [0,L]^2$ has a volume $$V(\lambda_1) = (1+\lambda_1) L_x L^2.$$ Notice that we consider $L_x \not = L$ since we may start from a uniaxially compressed state. The temperature variations are indexed by a parameter $\lambda_2$: $$T(\lambda_2) = (1 + \lambda_2 \delta T) T,$$ for some reference temperature $T$ and a given relative temperature variation $\delta T$, the temperature variation being therefore $\Delta T = T \delta T$. The reference inverse temperature is still $\beta^{-1} = k_{\rm B}T$. The particular case where only the temperature is changed (while the volume is kept constant) corresponds to $\lambda_1$ constant, while isothermal transformations are characterized by $\lambda_2$ remaining constant. Expansions correspond to $\lambda_1 > 0$.
### Parametrization of the isentrope curve.
The isentrope is the locus of the points in the $(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)$ space such that the entropy normalized by the Boltzmann factor $$\label{eq:entropy_constant}
\frac{\mathcal{S}}{k_{\rm B}} = \frac{\mathcal{U} -
\mathcal{F}}{k_{\rm B}T}$$ is constant, $\mathcal{F}$ denoting the free energy of the system, and $\mathcal{U}$ its energy. This thermodynamic relation can be converted into an equivalent formula in the framework of statistical physics, which is much more convenient from a computational viewpoint: $$\mathcal{U} \equiv \mathcal{U}(T,V) = \langle H \rangle_{V,T},$$ where the canonical average is defined in Eq. , and $$\mathcal{F} \equiv \mathcal{F}(T,V) = - k_{\rm B} T \ln \int_\Omega
{\rm e}^{-\beta H(q,p)} \, dq \, dp.$$ We start from some reference state described by the parameters $(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)=(0,0)$. The statistical physics reformulation of the requirement that be constant is then $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathcal{S}}}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2) - {{\mathcal{S}}}(0,0) & = & \frac{1}{k_{\rm B}T(\lambda_2)} \langle H
\rangle_{V(\lambda_1),T(\lambda_2)} - \frac{1}{k_{\rm B}T(0)} \langle H \rangle_{V(0),T(0)} \\
& & + \ln \left ( \frac{{\displaystyle }\int_{\Omega(\lambda_1)} {{\mathrm{e}}}^{-H(q,p)/k_{\rm B}T(\lambda_2)} \, dq
\, dp} {{\displaystyle }\int_{\Omega(0)}
{{\mathrm{e}}}^{-H(q,p)/k_{\rm B}T(0)} \, dq \, dp} \right)=0.\end{aligned}$$ In this expression, the phase-space $\Omega(\lambda_1)$ is the collection of all possible microscopic configurations of the system associated with a domain ${{\mathcal{D}}}(\lambda_1)$ of volume $V(\lambda_1)$.
### Numerical implementation
To determine the isentrope curve, we compute the entropy variation along a given path in $(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)$ space going through the reference initial state, and search for the point such that the entropy difference with this state is 0. A simple choice is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:TI\_path\]. It consists in performing
(i) an isothermal rarefaction, going from the initial compressed state $(0,0)$ to an intermediate state $(\lambda_1,0)$ with $\lambda_1 \geq 0$;
(ii) in a second step, an isochore cooling, going from the intermediate state $(\lambda_1,0)$ to some final state $(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)$, resorting to a maximal temperature difference $\lambda_2 \Delta T < 0$ large enough.
The idea is that, in general, the first part of the transformation increases the entropy of the system (since more space becomes available for the particles), while the entropy decreases in the second part (since the temperature decreases). Of course, more general paths, with joint variations of $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$, could be considered.
The energies $\langle H \rangle_{V(\lambda_1),T(\lambda_2)}$ are computed using standard sampling strategies, while the remainder in the expression of ${{\mathcal{S}}}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2) - {{\mathcal{S}}}(0,0)$, a ratio of partition functions, is estimated using standard techniques for free-energy calculations. This is detailed in Appendix A.
We emphasize that this procedure is time consuming since it requires many equilibrium samplings to obtain one point on the curve. It is however exact (up to statistical errors and discretization errors in the integrals defining $A$), and can be straightforwardly parallelized since the equilibrium samplings required are independent.
Successive hugoniostat simulations
----------------------------------
The variations of macroscopic quantities across a shock interface are governed by the Rankine-Hugoniot relations, which relate the jumps of the quantities under investigation (pressure, density, velocities) to the velocity of the shock front. The third Rankine-Hugoniot conservation law for the Euler equation governing the hydrodynamic evolution of the fluid reads (macroscopic quantities are denoted by curly letters) $$\label{eq:RH3}
\mathcal{H} = \mathcal{U} - \mathcal{U}_0 - \frac12 (\mathcal{P} + \mathcal{P}_0)
(V_0-V) = 0.$$ In this expression, $\mathcal{U}$ is the internal energy of the fluid, $\mathcal{P}$ its pressure, and $V$ its volume. The subscript $0$ refers to the initial state (the pole), the other quantities are evaluated at a state obtained from some shock compression, after equilibration. The Hugoniot curve corresponds to all the possible states satisfying (\[eq:RH3\]). In practice, the collection of these states may be computed by nonequilibrium simulations with shocks of different strengths, inducing various compressions.
Alternatively, small equilibrium simulations may be used, relying on the statistical physics reformulation of the Hugoniot relation: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Hugoniot_statistical_physics}
{{\mathcal{H}}}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2) - {{\mathcal{H}}}(0,0) & = & \langle H \rangle_{V(\lambda_1),T(\lambda_2)} -
\langle H \rangle_{V(0),T(0)}
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{-2cm} + \frac{\lambda_1}{2} V(0) \left ( \langle P_{xx}
\rangle_{V(\lambda_1),T(\lambda_2)} + \langle P_{xx}
\rangle_{V(0),T(0)} \right ) = 0.\end{aligned}$$ The $xx$ component of the pressure tensor is, for a simulation domain of volume $V(\lambda_1)$, $$\label{eq:xx_pressure}
P_{xx}(q,p) = \frac{1}{V(\lambda_1)} \sum_{i=1}^N
\frac{p_{i,x}^2}{m_i} - q_{i,x} \, \partial_{q_{i,x}} U(q).$$ For a given variation of the volume for instance (indexed by $\lambda_1$), the variation $\lambda_2 T \delta T$ of the temperature is sought for, using for instance the techniques described in Refs. .
The Hugoniot curve does not have [*a priori*]{} any relationship with the isentrope curve. However, it can be shown that the entropy variation along the Hugoniot curve is negligible up to terms of order three in the volume variable; the Hugoniot and the isentropic curves are osculatory. We present in Appendix B two proofs, the standard proof based on thermodynamic relations, and a new proof fully relying on a statistical physics reformulation.
The good agreement between the Hugoniot and the isentrope for small compressions and/or expansions can be used to compute the isentropic curve as a succession of weak shocks or weak releases, this approximation getting more accurate as the shock compressions are weakened. The only parameter left in this method is the relative volume change $\delta V/V =
\lambda_1^{n+1}-\lambda_1^n$ during the instantaneous compressions or releases. We used the Hugoniostat method[@MMSRLGH00; @MS08] to compute a sequence of states $(\lambda_1^n,\lambda_2^n)$ such that $\mathcal{H}(\lambda_1^{n+1},\lambda_2^{n+1}) = \mathcal{H}(\lambda_1^n,\lambda_2^n)$, the corresponding thermodynamic properties at these states being obtained as a by-product of the simulation.
Isentropic integration
----------------------
Another way to perform thermodynamic integration along an isentropic path has been proposed by Desjarlais.[@desjarlais06] The method relies on the equilibrium evaluation of ${\displaystyle }\frac{\partial
{{\mathcal{P}}}}{\partial {{\mathcal{U}}}}$ (see Eq. below). It could be applied to a system where the pressure is not isotropic upon replacing the pressure observable by the $xx$ component of the pressure tensor. The total differential of the entropy can be written as: $$\label{eq:Sdifferential}
d{{\mathcal{S}}}= \frac{\partial {{\mathcal{S}}}}{\partial T} \bigg |_V dT +
\frac{\partial {{\mathcal{S}}}}{\partial V} \bigg |_T dV.$$ For constant entropy processes, $$\frac{\partial {{\mathcal{S}}}}{\partial T} \bigg |_V = \frac{1}{T}
\frac{\partial {{\mathcal{U}}}}{\partial T} \bigg |_V
= -\frac{\partial {{\mathcal{P}}}}{\partial T} \bigg |_V,
\qquad
\frac{\partial {{\mathcal{S}}}}{\partial V} \bigg |_T = \frac{\partial {{\mathcal{P}}}}{\partial T}
\bigg|_V,$$ so that, along the isentrope, $$\frac{dT}{T} = -\frac{{\displaystyle }\frac{\partial {{\mathcal{P}}}}{\partial T} \bigg
|_V} {{\displaystyle }\frac{\partial {{\mathcal{U}}}}{\partial T} \bigg |_V} \, dV =
-\frac{\partial {{\mathcal{P}}}}{\partial {{\mathcal{U}}}}\bigg |_V dV.$$ This equation can be integrated as $$\label{eq:entropy_integration}
\frac{T_2}{T_1}=\exp \left (- \int_{V_1}^{V_2}{\frac{\partial
{{\mathcal{P}}}}{\partial {{\mathcal{U}}}} \bigg |_V dV} \right),$$ giving the temperature $T_2$ at which the system at volume $V_2$ has the same entropy as the system in the reference state $(T_1,{{\mathcal{P}}}_1)$. This formula is evaluated in practice by discretizing the integral appearing in the exponential, and approximating the integrand using standard canonical sampling procedues. We refer to Appendix C for more precisions.
Evaluation of the entropy based on the chemical potential
---------------------------------------------------------
This technique, which can be used only for systems in a fluid phase, follows the classical methodology of computing the free energy $\mathcal{F}$ of a system starting from the thermodynamic relation:[@kofke97] $$\mathcal{F} = {{\mathcal{U}}}- T{{\mathcal{S}}}= N \mu - {{\mathcal{P}}}V,$$ where $\mu$ is the chemical potential, defined in the canonical ensemble as $$\label{eq:chemical_pot}
\mu = \frac{\partial \mathcal{F}}{\partial N}.$$ In the case of a canonical simulation, all thermodynamic quantities are functions of the volume and the temperature, so that $${{\mathcal{S}}}= \frac{{{\mathcal{U}}}(T,V) + N \mu(T,V) - {{\mathcal{P}}}(T,V) V}{T}.$$ This expression allows to compute the absolute entropy of the system provided the chemical potential is known,[@lisal06] the average pressure and energy being computed using standard sampling techniques. The chemical potential is estimated using the Widom insertion method.
Numerical results for release waves {#sec:numerical}
===================================
We compare in this section the results for the different techniques presented in Sections \[sec:non\_eq\_methods\] and \[sec:eq\_methods\], for a release in a Lennard-Jones system (argon). The aim is to assess whether the release is indeed isentropic, and also to demonstrate that approximate equilibrium computations for small systems (successive Hugoniostat, isentropic integration) can approximate the isentrope curve obtained from the more rigourous and costly thermodynamic integration technique.
Numerical parameters
--------------------
### Initial state.
We consider argon in an initial shocked state, located on the Hugoniot curve for a compression such that $L_x = c L$ with $c=0.65$, and corresponding to $T=1758$ K and $P = 1.7 \times 10^{10}$ Pa. At these thermodynamic conditions, the system is in a liquid state. The interactions within noble gas atoms are well-described by a Lennard-Jones potential: $$V(q_1,\dots,q_N) = \sum_{1 \leq i < j \leq N} v(|q_i-q_j|), \qquad
v(r) = 4\varepsilon \left ( \left(\frac{\sigma}{r}\right)^{12}
-\left(\frac{\sigma}{r}\right)^{6} \right ).$$ In the case of Argon, $\varepsilon/k_{\rm B} = 120$ K and $\sigma=3.405$ Å. The cut-off radius for the Lennard-Jones interaction is here $r_{\rm cut} = 2.5 \sigma$.
### Nonequilibrium simulations.
In order to reach this initial state before performing the NEMD release, a preliminary hugoniostat simulation is run for a system of $50 \times 50 \times 500$ unit cells, using periodic boundary conditions. Then, the boundary conditions in the longitudinal direction are removed, and the system evolves according to the Hamiltonian dynamics. Profiles of thermodynamic quantities are computed every 0.25 ps for the post-processing procedure described at the end of Section \[sec:noneq\_simulation\].
### Equilibrium simulations
Equilibrium computations have been performed with a system composed of $N=4000$ atoms, starting in a FCC crystal geometry before melting, using periodic boundary conditions in all directions.
#### Thermodynamic integration.
As shown in Section \[sec:TI\], the search of states having the same entropy can be performed using thermodynamic integration, which amounts to performing many equilibrium simulations. The canonical sampling for a given set of parameters $(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)$ is done with a Langevin dynamics for $N_{\rm steps} = 2^{17}$ time steps, with $\Delta t = 2 \times
10^{-15}$ s, and a friction coefficient $\gamma = 10^{13}$ s$^{-1}$.
First, the entropy variation along the isothermal release is computed, with canonical samplings along the path $(0,0) \to (0,\lambda_1)$ with $\lambda_1 = 0.54$ (using $M+1 = 15$ states). Then, for each compression of interest, the isochore cooling is performed using temperature steps $\Delta T =
-25$ K for expansions $\lambda_1 \leq 0.25$, and $\Delta T =
-50$ K for states $\lambda_1 \geq 0.25$ (these paths can be restated in terms of $\lambda_2 \in [0,1]$ upon considering a temperature modification $\Delta T$ depending on the compression). The numerical integration for computing the value of $A$ is finally performed using the trapezoidal rule.
Error estimates on the canonical samplings are obtained with block averaging.[@FP89] In all the cases considered, the statistical error (as measured using the 95% confidence interval associated with the variance computed from block-averaging) is inferior to 1%. Therefore, the entropy difference is computed within 1% errors. For fixed $\lambda_1$, the state $\lambda_2$ such that ${{\mathcal{S}}}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)$ is constant is then known with an error depending on the local value of the partial derivative of ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ with respect to $\lambda_2$. This error can immediately be reformulated as an error on the estimated temperature. The error on the computed pressure is the error arising from the error on the state $\lambda_2$, plus the sampling error. It is found to be at most 2%.
#### Successive Hugoniostat.
Successive Hugoniostat simulations have been performed with a Langevin version of the Hugoniostat method (see Eq. (11) in Ref. , with the parameters $\xi =
10^{12}$ s$^{-1}$ and $\nu = 10^{12}$ s$^{-1}$). Trajectories of $N_{\rm steps} = 50,000$ timesteps at each compression are considered, with a timestep $\Delta t = 5 \times 10^{-16}$ s. The relative volume change $\delta V/V_0$ from one point on the curve to another is set to 0.01.
#### Isentropic integration.
See Appendix C.
#### Entropy evaluation.
The test particle insertion method used to evaluate the chemical potential requires many more iterations than the other equilibrium techniques. In the same framework as for isentropic integration (see Appendix C), $N_{\rm steps} = 5 \times 10^8$ iterations were needed to obtain a satisfactory convergence. The statistical error on the calculated entropy (as measured using the 95% confidence interval associated with the variance computed from block-averaging) is estimated to be inferior to 1.2 %.
Discussion of the numerical results
-----------------------------------
Release waves are presented in Figures \[P\_rho\]-\[T\_rho\] in three different diagrams, $(P,\rho)$,$(P,T)$ and $(T,\rho)$. It can clearly be seen that the results coming from the three equilibrium techniques of isentropic simulations are very close. This shows that provided the relative volume change parameter is carefully chosen in either the successive hugoniostat method or the isentropic integration, the propagating error remains at a low level; these methods can then be as accurate as the more rigorous and costly method of thermodynamic integration. Moreover, evaluating the chemical potential, we have computed absolute value of the entropy at three densities, $\rho=2780$ kg.m$^{-3}$, $\rho=2190$ kg.m$^{-3}$, and $\rho=1806$ kg.m$^{-3}$. The corresponding values, $83.2 \pm 0.95$ J.mol$^{-1}$, $83.1 \pm 0.42$ J.mol$^{-1}$, $83.2 \pm 0.18$ J.mol$^{-1}$, confirm that the entropy is indeed constant (within the error bars) on the calculated curve, validating once again the different methods.
The comparison with the results of the expansion of the liquid using nonequilibrium MD is also fruitful. The overall agreement is fair enough, which means that release waves are indeed almost isentropic. However, it can be noticed that the temperature is not predicted correctly. While the different curves look very similar in a ($P,\rho$) diagrams, some discrepancies appear in the ($T,P$) diagram, which are even more obvious in the ($T,\rho$) diagram. Indeed, for the latter diagram, the observed temperatures around the final density are greater than the error bars. The thermodynamic path followed by the system during its release exhibits systematically a higher temperature than the one of an isentropic process. This means that the release of a monoatomic liquid is not strictly isentropic, as is sometimes expected or assumed.
Recall however that a release is expected to be isentropic only for non-turbulent flows of non-viscous fluids. In the case considered here, the fluid has a finite, non zero viscosity, and therefore dissipates energy under the form of heat. As a consequence, the temperature should be higher than for an isentropic release. A tentative of evaluation of this effect is presented below. On the Hugoniot curve,[^2] viscous effects can be introduced in the Hugoniot relation[@fickett] by means of the “viscous pressure” $\pi$ as $$\frac{1}{2} \pi (\mathcal V_0 -\mathcal V)= \mathcal{U} -
\mathcal{U}_0 - \frac12 (\mathcal{P} + \mathcal{P}_0)
(V_0-V),$$ where $\pi$ is defined as $$\pi = -\nu \frac{du}{dx},$$ $\nu$ being the fluid viscosity and ${\displaystyle }\frac{du}{dx}$ the velocity gradient. Taking the viscosity of the argon fluid at $T=700$ K and $P = 1$ GPa (the most extremes conditions of available thermodynamic tables), and considering an average velocity gradient (taken during the fluid release), we find a temperature elevation of a few Kelvins. Considering that the pressure is much higher in our simulation, and therefore that the viscosity should be also greater, the actual temperature increase due to the finite viscosity should rather be of the order of a few tens of Kelvins, which is consistent with what can be observed in our numerical results.
Finally, a purely nonequilibrium effect has been observed during the NEMD simulations, that also leads to a temperature increase in the system. Indeed, gradients of thermodynamic and kinematic quantities are large at the first stages of the release, when the hot and dense material is in contact with void. The thermodynamic path followed by the system at those early stages of the simulation does not correspond to the thermodynamic path followed when the release has reached its self-similarity regime. Some equilibration time is needed for some steady-state regime to be reached. We evaluated this time to be around 5 picoseconds.
Conclusion
==========
We have presented or recalled several equilibrium methods to compute isentropic processes in the high pressure regime, either for compressions or releases. These methods, although very different in nature, lead to similar results when applied to the release of a monoatomic liquid.
We have then compared release waves computed with these equilibrium methods with the nonequilibrium simulation of the release process. The results show that the release is almost, but not strictly isentropic, the system’s temperature being systematically greater than the one of the isentropic process. This is the consequence of two effects. First, the fluid actually has a finite viscosity and therefore dissipates heat, leading to a temperature increase. To our knowledge, this is the first time that this effect has been quantified rigorously using molecular dynamics simulations. Moreover, the thermodynamic path followed by the system during its release takes some time to reach a converged profile. We anticipate that these effects will be enhanced in the case of a more complex fluid, for example in the case of a the release of detonation product. Therefore, the assumption that release waves are isentropic should be carefully verified in each case.
Practical implementation of the thermodynamic integration
=========================================================
Reformulation of the problem in a fixed geometry
------------------------------------------------
From a computational viewpoint, it is more convenient to work with a fixed simulation domain. For instance, the unperturbed domain $V(0)$ may be used to fix the geometry of the system. The volume variations are then rephrased as variations in the interaction scale between the particles in the direction of compression or release. In the same vein, the temperature may be kept constant, upon rescaling the interactions strengh by a factor depending on the temperature variation. Introducing the rescaled potential energy for a configuration $q=(x,y,z)$: $$U_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2}(q) = \frac{1}{1+\lambda_2 \delta T}
U((1+\lambda_1)x,y,z).$$ and the associated Hamiltonian $$H_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2}(q,p) = U_{\lambda_1}(q) + \frac{1}{1+\lambda_2
\delta T} \sum_{i=1}^N \frac{p_i^2}{2m_i},$$ canonical averages for a volume $V(\lambda_1)$ at a temperature $T(\lambda_2)$ can be reformulated as canonical averages in terms of the rescaled Hamiltonian $H_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2}$ at the reference state at volume $V(0)$ and temperature $T(0)$. More precisely, $$\langle H \rangle_{V(\lambda_1),T(\lambda_2)} = \frac{3N}{2} k_{\rm
B}T(\lambda_2) + (1+\lambda_2\delta T) \langle \langle
U_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2} \rangle \rangle_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2},$$ where $$\langle \langle f \rangle \rangle_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2} = \frac{{\displaystyle }\int_{\Omega(0)} f(q,p) \,
{{\mathrm{e}}}^{-H_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2}(q,p)/k_{\rm B}T(0)} \, dq \, dp}
{{\displaystyle }\int_{\Omega(0)}
{{\mathrm{e}}}^{-H_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2}(q,p)/k_{\rm B}T(0)} \, dq \,
dp}.$$ It is then easily seen that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:expression_cS}
{{\mathcal{S}}}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2) - {{\mathcal{S}}}(0,0) & = & \frac{3N}{2}
\ln(1 + \lambda_2 \delta T) + N \ln(1+\lambda_1) \nonumber \\
& & + \beta \left [ \langle \langle U_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2} \rangle
\rangle_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2} - \langle \langle U_{0,0} \rangle \rangle_{0,0}\right ] \\ & & +
A(\lambda_1,\lambda_2),
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with $$A(\lambda_1,\lambda_2) = \ln
\left ( \frac{{\displaystyle }\int_{V(0)^N} {{\mathrm{e}}}^{-\beta
U_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2}(q)} \, dq} {{\displaystyle }\int_{V(0)^N}
{{\mathrm{e}}}^{-\beta U_{0,0}(q)} \,
dq} \right ).$$ In the above expression of the entropy difference, the first line is the ideal gas contribution to the entropy difference. As a consistency check, we can verify that the entropy increases when the volume or the temperature is increased, as expected. The terms on the second and third lines in Eq. are the “excess” contributions associated with the potential interaction energy.
Numerical evaluation of the different terms
-------------------------------------------
To estimate ${{\mathcal{S}}}$, two quantities are required:
(i) averages $\langle \langle \cdot \rangle
\rangle_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2}$ with respect to the Hamiltonian $H_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2}$ are computed using standard sampling techniques such as a Langevin dynamics at an inverse temperature $\beta$, implemented using the so-called BBK algorithm.[@BBK84] Of course, many other sampling techniques could be used to estimate this canonical average, in particular Nosé-Hoover dynamics[@Nose84; @Hoover85] or Metropolis-Hastings schemes[@MRRTT53; @hastings70] (see Ref. for a mathematical review on sampling methods in the context of molecular simulation);
(ii) the term $A(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)$ requires more care in its estimation. Since this term is a ratio of partition functions, standard techniques used for the computation of free energy differences may be used. We resorted to thermodynamic integration,[@Kirkwood35] in which case the function is rewritten as the integral of some canonical averages: $$A(\lambda_1,\lambda_2) =
\int_{0}^{\lambda_1} \frac{\partial
A}{\partial_{\lambda_1}}(x,0) \, dx +
\int_{0}^{\lambda_2} \frac{\partial
A}{\partial_{\lambda_2}}(\lambda_1,x) \, dx,$$ with $$\label{eq:derivatives_A_2}
\frac{\partial A}{\partial \lambda_2}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2) =
\beta \, \frac{\delta T}{1+\lambda_2\delta T} \, \langle \langle
U_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2} \rangle \rangle_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2},$$ and $$\label{eq:derivatives_A_1}
\frac{\partial A}{\partial \lambda_1}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2) =
\big \langle \big \langle \, x \cdot \nabla_x
U((1+\lambda_1)x,y,z) \, \big \rangle \big
\rangle_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2}.$$
In conclusion, the numerical procedure consists in first estimating the derivatives of the function $A$ and the average potential energy, for as many points as required on the thermodynamic path chosen. Approximations of ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ can then be obtained thanks to , after a numerical integration to obtain $A$. The entropy difference along the path is then plotted, and fixing the volume change $\lambda_1$, the temperature variation is chosen such that the entropy difference is 0. This determines $\lambda_2$ as a function of $\lambda_1$.
Relationship between the Hugoniot and the isentrope curves at the pole
======================================================================
We present in this Appendix two proofs of the fact that the isentrope curve and the Hugoniot agree at order 3 in the volume change. The first one is a standard thermodynamic proof, but the second one, based on statistical physics relations, is new to the best of our knowledge.
Standard thermodynamic proof
----------------------------
For the sake of completeness, we reproduce here the proof of Ref. . From the thermodynamic relation $Td{{\mathcal{S}}}= d{{\mathcal{U}}}+ {{\mathcal{P}}}\, dV$ and from the Hugoniot relation ${{\mathcal{U}}}= {{\mathcal{U}}}_0 + \frac{1}{2}
({{\mathcal{P}}}+{{\mathcal{P}}}_0)(V_0-V)$, the entropy variation along the Hugoniot curve can be computed. One derivation leads to $$T \left ( \frac{d{{\mathcal{S}}}}{dV} \right)_{\rm Hug} = {{\mathcal{P}}}+\left (
\frac{d{{\mathcal{U}}}}{dV} \right)_{\rm Hug}
=\frac{1}{2}({{\mathcal{P}}}-{{\mathcal{P}}}_0)+\frac{1}{2}(V_0-V)\left ( \frac{d{{\mathcal{P}}}}{dV}
\right)_{\rm Hug}.$$ A second derivation gives $$T\frac{d^2{{\mathcal{S}}}_{\rm Hug}}{dV^2}+\frac{d{{\mathcal{S}}}_{\rm Hug}}{dV} \frac{dT_{\rm
Hug}}{dV}=\frac{1}{2}(V_0-V) \frac{d^2{{\mathcal{P}}}_{\rm Hug}}{dV^2}.$$ With a final derivation, $$T\frac{d^3{{\mathcal{S}}}_{\rm Hug}}{dV^3}+2\frac{d^2{{\mathcal{S}}}_{\rm Hug}}{dV^2}
\frac{dT_{\rm Hug}}{dV}+\frac{d{{\mathcal{S}}}_{\rm Hug}}{dV} \frac{d^2T_{\rm
Hug}}{dV^2} =-\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2{{\mathcal{P}}}_{\rm
Hug}}{dV^2}+\frac{1}{2}(V_0-V)\frac{d^3{{\mathcal{P}}}_{\rm Hug}}{dV^3}.$$ At the initial state (denoted with a subscript 0), that is, in the limit $V \to V_0$, it holds: $$\begin{aligned}
\left (\frac{d{{\mathcal{S}}}_{\rm Hug}}{dV} \right )_0 & = & 0, \\
\left(\frac{d^2{{\mathcal{S}}}_{\rm Hug}}{dV^2} \right )_0 & = & 0, \\
T_0\left(\frac{d^3{{\mathcal{S}}}_{\rm Hug}}{dV^3} \right )_0 & = & - \frac12
\left(\frac{d^2{{\mathcal{P}}}}{dV^2} \right )_0 \not = 0.\end{aligned}$$ The entropy variation along the Hugoniot curve is therefore of order three in volume, and the Hugoniot and the isentropic curves are osculatory.
A statistical physics derivation
--------------------------------
Without loss of generality (and for notational simplicity), we may set ${{\mathcal{H}}}(0,0) = {{\mathcal{S}}}(0,0) = 0$ since we are only interested in differences of $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{S}$.
### Some useful relations.
The derivatives of the function $A$ are useful for comparing the Hugoniot and the isentrope relations. The average $xx$ component of the pressure tensor for the volume $V(\lambda_1)$ and the temperature $T(\lambda_2)$ is obtained by averaging the observable $$P_{xx}(q,p) = \frac{1}{V(\lambda_1)} \left ( N k_{\rm B}T(\lambda_2) -
x \cdot \nabla_x U(q) \right ).$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle P_{xx} \rangle_{V(\lambda_1),T(\lambda_2)} & = &
\frac{N}{(1+\lambda_1) V(0)} \, k_{\rm B}T(\lambda_2) -
\frac{1}{V(\lambda_1)} \frac{{\displaystyle }\int_{V(\lambda_1)^N} x \cdot
\nabla_x U(q) \, {{\mathrm{e}}}^{-U(q)/k_{\rm B}T(\lambda_2)} \, dq} {{\displaystyle }\int_{V(\lambda_1)^N} {{\mathrm{e}}}^{-U(q)/k_{\rm B}T(\lambda_2)} \, dq} \\
& = & \frac{N}{\beta V(0)} \, \frac{1+\lambda_2\delta T}{1+\lambda_1} -
\frac{1+\lambda_1}{V(\lambda_1)} \frac{{\displaystyle }\int_{V(0)^N} x \cdot
\nabla_x U((1+\lambda_1)x,y,z) \, {{\mathrm{e}}}^{-\beta
U_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2}(q)} \, dq} {{\displaystyle }\int_{V(0)^N}
{{\mathrm{e}}}^{-\beta U_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2}}}.\end{aligned}$$ This shows that, using , $$\langle P_{xx} \rangle_{V(\lambda_1),T(\lambda_2)} = \frac{N}{\beta
V(0)} \, \frac{1+\lambda_2\delta T}{1+\lambda_1} +
\frac{1+\lambda_2\delta T}{\beta V(0)} \frac{\partial
A}{\partial_{\lambda_1}}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2).$$
### Hugoniot curve.
With the above computations, it is easily seen that the Hugoniot relation can be restated as $$\begin{aligned}
\beta {{\mathcal{H}}}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2) & = & \frac{3N}{2} \lambda_2 \delta T +
\beta \left [ (1+\lambda_2\delta T) \langle \langle
U_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2} \rangle \rangle_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2} -
\langle \langle U_{0,0} \rangle \rangle_{0,0} \right ] \\
& & +
\frac{N\lambda_1}{2} \left ( \frac{1+\lambda_2\delta T}{1+\lambda_1} +
1 \right ) + \frac{\lambda_1}{2} \left (\frac{\partial
A}{\partial_{\lambda_1}}(0,0) + (1+\lambda_2\delta T) \frac{\partial
A}{\partial_{\lambda_1}}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)\right ).\end{aligned}$$
### Comparison between the Hugoniot and the isentrope.
We now Taylor expand the difference $\beta {{\mathcal{H}}}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2) -
{{\mathcal{S}}}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)$ up to the third order, [*i.e.*]{} neglecting a remainder term $r(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)$ which is such that $|r(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)| \leq C(|\lambda_1|+\lambda_2|)^3$. We denote such remainders by ${{\mathrm{O}}}(\lambda^3)$ in the sequel. It holds $$\begin{aligned}
\beta {{\mathcal{H}}}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2) - {{\mathcal{S}}}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2) & = &
\frac{3N}{2} (\lambda_2\delta T - \ln(1+\lambda_2\delta T)) + N \left
( \frac{\lambda_1}{2}\left(1 + \frac{1}{1+\lambda_1}\right) - \ln
(1+\lambda_1) \right )
\\
& & + \lambda_1 \lambda_2 \frac{\delta T}{2}
\left ( \frac{N}{1+\lambda_1} + \frac{\partial
A}{\partial_{\lambda_1}}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2) \right ) + \beta
\lambda_2 \delta T \langle \langle U_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2} \rangle
\rangle_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2}
\\
& & + \frac{\lambda_1}{2} \left
(\frac{\partial A}{\partial_{\lambda_1}}(0,0) + \frac{\partial
A}{\partial_{\lambda_1}}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)\right ) -
A(\lambda_1,\lambda_2). \end{aligned}$$ Introducing the notation $$A_i = \frac{\partial A}{\partial_{\lambda_i}}(0,0), \qquad A_{ij} =
\frac{\partial^2 A}{\partial_{\lambda_i} \partial_{\lambda_j}}(0,0),$$ the Taylor expansions of the function $A$ and its first derivatives at an arbitrary state $(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)$ read (using $A(0,0) = 0$): $$A(\lambda_1,\lambda_2) = \lambda_1 A_1 + \lambda_2 A_2 +
\frac{\lambda_1^2}{2} A_{11} + \lambda_1 \lambda_2 A_{12} +
\frac{\lambda_2^2}{2} A_{22} + {{\mathrm{O}}}(\lambda^3),$$ $$\frac{\partial A}{\partial_{\lambda_i}}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2) = A_i +
\lambda_1 A_{i1} + \lambda_2 A_{i2} + {{\mathrm{O}}}(\lambda^2).$$ With these Taylor expansions and the relation , it is straightforward to show that $$\begin{aligned}
\beta {{\mathcal{H}}}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2) - {{\mathcal{S}}}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2) & = &
\frac{3N}{4} \lambda^2_2\delta T^2 + \lambda_1 \lambda_2 \frac{\delta
T}{2} \left ( N + A_1 \right ) + \lambda_2 (1+\lambda_2\delta T)
\frac{\partial A}{\partial_{\lambda_2}}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)\\
& = & \frac{\lambda_2 \delta T}{2} \left [ \lambda_1 \left ( N + A_1 +
\frac{A_{12}}{\delta T} \right ) + \lambda_2 \left ( \frac{3N}{2}
\delta T + 2 A_2 + \frac{A_{22}}{\delta T} \right ) \right ] +
{{\mathrm{O}}}(\lambda^3).\\\end{aligned}$$ Using , the derivatives of the entropy differences can be computed: $$\frac{\partial {{\mathcal{S}}}}{\partial \lambda_1}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2) =
\frac{N}{1+\lambda_1} + \frac{\partial A}{\partial
\lambda_1}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2) + \frac{1+\lambda_2 \delta T}{\delta
T} \frac{\partial^2 A}{\partial \lambda_1 \partial
\lambda_2}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2),$$ $$\frac{\partial {{\mathcal{S}}}}{\partial \lambda_2}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2) =
\frac{3N \delta T}{2(1+\lambda_2\delta T)} + 2\frac{\partial
A}{\partial \lambda_2}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2) + \frac{1+\lambda_2
\delta T}{\delta T} \frac{\partial^2 A}{\partial^2
\lambda_2}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2).$$ This shows that $$\beta {{\mathcal{H}}}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2) - {{\mathcal{S}}}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2) =
\frac{\lambda_2 \delta T}{2} \left ( \lambda_1 \frac{\partial
{{\mathcal{S}}}}{\partial \lambda_1}(0,0) + \lambda_2 \frac{\partial
{{\mathcal{S}}}}{\partial \lambda_2}(0,0) \right ) + {{\mathrm{O}}}(\lambda^3),$$ so that, since $${{\mathcal{S}}}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2) = {{\mathcal{S}}}(0,0) + \lambda_1 \frac{\partial
{{\mathcal{S}}}}{\partial \lambda_1}(0,0) + \lambda_2 \frac{\partial
{{\mathcal{S}}}}{\partial \lambda_2}(0,0) + {{\mathrm{O}}}(\lambda^2),$$ and ${{\mathcal{S}}}(0,0) = 0$, it holds $$\beta {{\mathcal{H}}}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2) - \left( 1+\frac{\lambda_2 \delta
T}{2}\right) {{\mathcal{S}}}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2) = {{\mathrm{O}}}(\lambda^3).$$ This relation shows immediately that ${{\mathcal{H}}}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2) =
{{\mathrm{O}}}(\lambda^3)$ on the isentrope, and so, the initial slopes of the curves, and their first derivatives, coincide.
Precisions on the isentropic integration
========================================
Several numerical schemes may be used to integrate . The simplest one consists in approximating the integral appearing in the exponential factor with a Riemman formula using the value of the integrated function on the left side of the interval: $$\label{eq:T2_estimateur}
T_2 \simeq T_1 \exp \left ( -\frac{\partial {{\mathcal{P}}}}{\partial {{\mathcal{U}}}} \bigg
|_{V_1}(V_2-V_1) \right).$$ Of course, higher order integration methods could be used.
It remains to decide how to compute the derivative ${\displaystyle }\frac{\partial {{\mathcal{P}}}}{\partial {{\mathcal{U}}}} \bigg |_{V_1}$. Finite differences may be used to this end, but this would require at least two very carefully converged simulations with volumes $V_1 \pm \Delta V$. It seems more appealing to compute the partial derivative using standard fluctuations formulas:[@lagache01; @Bourasseau07] $$\label{eq:dEdT}
\frac{\partial {{\mathcal{U}}}}{\partial T} \bigg |_{V_1} = C_v(V_1,T_1) =
\frac32 N k_{\rm B} + \frac{1}{k_{\rm B} T_12} \left( \left \langle
U^2 \right \rangle_{V_1,T_1} - \left \langle U \right
\rangle^2_{V_1,T_1} \right),$$ and $$\label{eq:dPdT}
\frac{\partial {{\mathcal{P}}}}{\partial T} \bigg |_{V_1} = \frac{Nk_{\rm
B}}{V_1}+\frac{1}{k_{\rm B}T_1^2}\left( \left \langle P H \right
\rangle_{V_1,T_1} - \left \langle P \right \rangle_{V_1,T_1} \left
\langle H \right \rangle_{V_1,T_1} \right),$$ where $C_v(V_1,T_1)$ is the specific heat at constant volume, and the pressure observable for a simulation domain of volume $V_1$ reads $$\label{eq:pressure}
P(q,p) = \frac{1}{3 V_1} \sum_{i=1}^N \frac{p_i^2}{m_i} - q_i \cdot
\nabla_{q_i} U(q).$$ The partial derivative $\partial {{\mathcal{P}}}/\partial {{\mathcal{U}}}$ can then be evaluated in a single simulation at $(N,V_1,T_1)$ using -.
The numerical implementation of this method is done as follows. The partial derivative of the pressure with respect to the energy is first computed with a Monte Carlo simulation for the given initial conditions $(N,V_1,T_1)$. The temperature $T_2$ is then evaluated from Eq. . The partial derivative is next computed at volume $V_2$ to predict the next temperature. Proceeding incrementally, the whole isentrope curve can be constructed.
The numerical results presented in this work have been obtained by performing canonical samplings with a Metropolis algorithm, using the Monte-Carlo Gibbs code.[^3] Partial derivatives have been computed in the NVT ensemble. The convergence of simple thermodynamic averages was generally obtained after $N_{\rm steps} = 10^7$ iterations, but derivative properties (related to the covariance of some observables) required about $N_{\rm steps} = 10^8$ iterations for a satisfactory convergence. Error estimates on the canonical samplings have been obtained with block averaging,[@FP89] and the error propagation estimated along the integration scheme has been computed using standard propagation rules. In all the cases considered, the statistical error (as measured using the 95% confidence interval associated with the variance computed from block-averaging) on the predicted temperature on the isentrope curve is inferior to 1.5 %.
Caption list:\
Figure \[NEMDprocess\]: (a) (color online) Non-Equilibrium Molecular Dynamics of isentropic release waves. The four pictures represent snapshots of the system during the release process, the expansion proceeding in the longitudinal $x$ direction. Atoms are colored according to their potential energies (scaling corresponding to $-1.38 \times 10^{-20}$ J for blue up to $7.55 \times 10^{-20}$ J for red).\
Figure \[NEMDprocess\]: (b) (color online) Density profiles taken at different times of the simulation (from blue to red as time increases).\
Figure \[fig:TI\_path\]: Path in the $(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)$ space used to compute states with the same entropy as the initial state. Each cross represents some equilibrium canonical sampling along the thermodynamic path. First, the isothermal expansion is performed (horizontal line in the diagram), starting from the initial state $(0,0)$, until the required density is reached. The entropy of the state $(\lambda_1,0)$ is $S_{\rm init} + \Delta S_{\rm expansion}$. Then, an isochore cooling is performed ($\lambda_1$ is kept fixed; vertical line in the diagram), until the entropy difference during this process is the opposite of the entropy variation found in the expansion part. The final state $(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)$, located at the intersection of the curve $\Delta S = 0$ and the vertical line, has then the same entropy as the initial state.\
Figure \[P\_rho\]: (color online) Isentropic release in a ($P, \rho$) diagram. Symbols represent results from equilibrium methods, red diamonds for the successive hugoniostat, blue squares for the thermodynamic integration and yellow triangles for the entropy integration. NEMD results are plotted in green, the width of the so-obtained tube corresponding to the error bars. The arrow indicates the path followed during the release.\
Figure \[T\_P\]: (color online) Isentropic release in a ($T, P$) diagram. The symbols are the same as in Figure \[P\_rho\]. Notice that there is slight deviation of the NEMD results for the lowest temperatures.\
Figure \[T\_rho\]: (color online) Isentropic release in a ($T, \rho$) diagram. The symbols are the same as in Figure \[P\_rho\]. There is a noticeable deviation of the NEMD results for the lowest temperatures.\
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
![[]{data-label="NEMDprocess"}](NewPic/nemd1_0.ps "fig:"){width="7.0cm"} ![[]{data-label="NEMDprocess"}](NewPic/nemd1_1.ps "fig:"){width="7.0cm"}
![[]{data-label="NEMDprocess"}](NewPic/nemd1_2.ps "fig:"){width="7.0cm"} ![[]{data-label="NEMDprocess"}](NewPic/nemd1_3.ps "fig:"){width="7.0cm"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a)
\
Fig \[NEMDprocess\]: (b)
![[]{data-label="fig:TI_path"}](NewPic/TI_path.eps){width="14cm"}
[^1]: corresponding author: [email protected]
[^2]: Since the Hugoniot curve and the isentrope are close enough, we assume that the impact of the viscosity has roughly the same amplitude on the isentrope curve.
[^3]: The Monte-Carlo Gibbs code is owned by the Institut Francais du Pétrole, the Université Paris-Sud, and the CNRS, and developped in collaboration with the CEA.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We use fibrations to construct four complete Segal spaces: simplicial spaces, Segal spaces and complete Segal spaces and spaces. Each one comes with a universal fibration that classifies Reedy left fibrations, Segal coCartesian fibrations, coCartesian fibrations and left fibrations.'
author:
- Nima Rasekh
date: September 2018
title: A Model for the Higher Category of Higher Categories
---
Introduction {#Introduction}
============
Motivation {#Motivation}
----------
One of the important questions of higher category theory is the construction of the higher category of higher categories and the higher category of spaces. We can always construct them by taking any model structure that models $(\infty,1)$-categories (such as the Joyal, Bergner or complete Segal space model structure [@Be10]) and use a nerve construction to build a higher category of higher categories. The problem is that such constructions can make the resulting higher category hard to understand. Thus the goal should be to construct a higher category directly.
We want to use fibrations to build such a higher category. The main problem with that approach is the fact that functoriality of fibrations corresponds to taking pullbacks. However taking pullbacks is not actually functorial, but only up to isomorphism. One way to remedy this is to use an ordering on the sets to get an actual functor. This approach is taken in [@KL12] to construct a universal Kan fibration. Another approach is to use the fact that such fibrations can also be characterized by certain functors. Those functors then do satisfy the necessary functoriality conditions. This approach is used in [@Ci17] to construct a quasi-category of spaces.
In this work we generalize the second approach to construct functors that classify fibrations of bisimplicial spaces. We use that to construct various higher categories.
Main Results {#Subsec Main Results}
------------
The main result is to prove the existence of the following diagram of simplicial spaces where each square is a pullback square:
(\_\*)\_[s]{} & (\_\*)\_[s]{} & (\_\*)\_[s]{} & (\_\*)\_[s]{}\
& & &
The bottom row are all complete Segal spaces. The complete Segal spaces and their fibrations can be found in the following table:
Name of Object Symbol Name of Fibration Symbol
----------------------- --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- ------------------------------------
Simplicial Spaces ${\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$ Universal Reedy left Fibration $(p_{ReeLeft})_{s{\mathscr{S}}}$
Segal Spaces ${\mathscr{S}\text{eg}}$ Universal Segal coCartesian Fibration $(p_{SegcoCart})_{s{\mathscr{S}}}$
Complete Segal Spaces ${\mathscr{C}\mathscr{S}\mathscr{S}}$ Universal coCartesian Fibration $(p_{coCart})_{s{\mathscr{S}}}$
Spaces ${\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$ Universal Left Fibration $(p_{Left})_{s{\mathscr{S}}}$
For the definition of ${\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$ see Definition \[Def SSpaces\] and for the other definitions see Definition \[Def CSS Seg Spaces\]. In the top row the simplicial spaces are not necessarily complete Segal spaces. Rather $({\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}_*)_{s{\mathscr{S}}}$ is Reedy fibrant, $({\mathscr{S}\text{eg}}_*)_{s{\mathscr{S}}}$ is a Segal space, and $({\mathscr{C}\mathscr{S}\mathscr{S}}_*)_{s{\mathscr{S}}}$ and $({\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}_*)_{s{\mathscr{S}}}$ are complete Segal spaces (Theorem \[The Upper Level Objects\]).
Outline {#Outline}
-------
The first section is a quick review of the most important results in [@Ra17b] that we need in the next sections. In the second section we carefully set up a way to translate between fibrations and functors. We then use the tools from the second section to define ${\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$, the complete Segal space of simplicial spaces. In the next section then we indicate how the same proofs construct ${\mathscr{S}\text{eg}}$, ${\mathscr{C}\mathscr{S}\mathscr{S}}$ and ${\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$. In the final section we give a construction for the simplicial spaces $({\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}_*)_{s{\mathscr{S}}}$, $({\mathscr{S}\text{eg}}_*)_{s{\mathscr{S}}}$, $({\mathscr{C}\mathscr{S}\mathscr{S}}_*)_{s{\mathscr{S}}}$ and $({\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}_*)_{s{\mathscr{S}}}$.
Background {#Background}
----------
We use the language of complete Segal spaces throughout. For an introduction to complete Segal spaces see [@Re01] or [@Ra18a]. We also use the theory of fibrations for complete Segal spaces. All of the references for that can be found in [@Ra17a] and [@Ra17b].
Acknowledgements {#Subsec Acknowledgements}
----------------
I also would like to thank William Balderrama for many helpful conversations and in particular for making me aware of [@Ci17 Definition 5.2.3]. I also would like to thank Emily Riehl for many helpful conversations and in particular for making me aware of the non-functoriality of pullbacks.
Fibrations of Complete Segal Spaces {#Sec Fibrations of Complete Segal Spaces}
===================================
In this section we give a brief summary of the main results about fibrations of complete Segal spaces that we need in the next sections. All the results in this section can be found in more details in [@Ra17a] and [@Ra17b].
Let ${\mathscr{S}}= Fun(\Delta^{op}, {\mathscr{S}\text{et}})$. We call objects in ${\mathscr{S}}$ spaces.
Let $s{\mathscr{S}}= Fun(\Delta^{op} , {\mathscr{S}}) = Fun(\Delta^{op} \times \Delta^{op} , {\mathscr{S}\text{et}})$. We call objects in $s{\mathscr{S}}$ simplicial spaces.
Let $ss{\mathscr{S}}= Fun(\Delta^{op} \times \Delta^{op} , {\mathscr{S}}) = Fun(\Delta^{op} \times \Delta^{op} \times \Delta^{op}, {\mathscr{S}\text{et}})$. We call objects in $ss{\mathscr{S}}$ bisimplicial spaces.
We have following three bisimplicial spaces: $$(\varphi_r)_{knl} = Hom([k],[r])$$ $$(F(p))_{knl} = Hom([n],[p])$$ $$(\Delta[q])_{knl} = Hom([l],[q])$$
Notice the category $ss{\mathscr{S}}$ is generated by the objects $\varphi_r \times F(p) \times \Delta[q]$.
There is a functor $i_F^*: s{\mathscr{S}}\to ss{\mathscr{S}}$ that sends a simplicial space $X$ to the bisimplicial space defined as $$i_F^*(X)_{knl} = X_{nl}$$ We call this the [*standard embedding*]{} and every time we use a simplicial space inside $ss{\mathscr{S}}$ we are using this embedding.
\[Rem Delta Embed\] There is another map $\Delta Diag^*: ss{\mathscr{S}}\to s{\mathscr{S}}$ that sends a bisimplicial space $X$ to the simplicial space defined as $$\Delta Diag^*(X)_{nl} = X_{nnl}$$
We can use bisimplicial spaces to define fibrations that model functors.
\[Def Left Fibration\] [@Ra17a Definition 3.1] A map $p: L \to X$ is called a [*left fibration*]{} if it is a Reedy fibration and the following is a homotopy pullback square:
L\_n L\_0\
X\_n X\_0
where the map $0^*$ is induced by the map $0: F(0) \to F(n)$ that sends the point to $0$.
Left fibrations model functors into spaces. For more details on left fibrations and its relevant properties see [@Ra17a Chapter 3].
We can generalize left fibrations to model other functors.
\[Def Reedy Left Fib\] [@Ra17b Definition 4.2] Let $p:L \to X$ be a bisimplicial space over $X$. We say $p$ is a [*Reedy left fibration*]{} if it is a biReedy fibration and it is a level-wise left fibration.
\[Def Segal coCartesian Fibration\] [@Ra17b Definition 7.82] A Reedy left fibration $p: L \to X$ is called a [*Segal coCartesian fibration*]{} if it satisfies the Segal condition, meaning the map $$L_n \to L_1 \underset{L_0}{\times} ... \underset{L_0}{\times} L_1$$ is a Reedy equivalence of simplicial spaces.
\[Def coCartesian Fibration\] [@Ra17b Definition 7.84] A Segal coCartesian fibration $p: L \to X$ is called a [*coCartesian fibration*]{} if it satisfies the completeness condition, meaning the map $$L_0 \to L_3 \underset{L_1 \underset{L_0}{\times} L_1 \underset{L_0}{\times} L_1}{\times} L_1$$ is a Reedy equivalence of simplicial spaces.
\[Def Left Fibration of ssS\] [@Ra17b Definition 7.76] A Reedy left fibration $p: L \to X$ is called a [*left fibration*]{} if for each $k$ the map $L_0 \to L_k$ is a Reedy equivalence of simplicial spaces.
A Reedy left fibration models a functor valued in simplicial spaces. Accordingly, Segal coCartesian fibrations model functors valued in Segal spaces and coCartesian fibrations model functors valued in complete Segal spaces.
A Reedy left fibration over the point is just a simplicial space [@Ra17b Example 4.22].
Given this example the goal is to use those fibrations to define a complete Segal space that models simplicial spaces. Ideally we would like to define a simplicial space that at level $(n,l)$ is equal to the set of Reedy left fibrations over $F(n) \times \Delta[l]$. The problems is that pulling back preserves a fibration but is only functorial up to an equivalence. Thus we do not get an actual functor. In the next section we will discuss a way to translate fibrations to functors and that will allow us to define an actual simplicial object.
Fibrations as Functors {#Sec Fibrations as Functors}
======================
In the last section we defined several fibrations and indicated how we can use them to construct simplicial objects. In this section we show how we can change our perspective on fibrations in a way that gives us functorial constructions.
Let us review a specific lemma that we will use throughout to give a relation between fibrations and functors. It can be thought of as a Grothendieck construction as it relates functors and fibrations. The lemma is in no sense new, however, as it is a necessary result in the coming sections we give a careful proof here.
Let $G: {\mathscr{D}}^{op} \to {\mathscr{S}}$. Moreover, let $S$ be a subset of the objects of ${\mathscr{D}}$. We use the notation $$\sum_{d:S} G(d) = \coprod_{d \in S} G(d).$$
There exists an equivalence of categories:
ss\_[/ F(p) ]{} Fun((\_[/p]{})\^[op]{} (\_[/q]{})\^[op]{}, )
First we define the two functors. For a functor $G: (\Delta_{/p})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q})^{op} \to {\mathscr{S}}$ we define $\sum G$ as $$(\sum G)_{knl} = \sum_{f_1:Hom([n],[p])} \sum_{f_2:Hom([l],[q])} G(f_1,f_2)_k$$ Notice this collection of spaces gives us a bisimplicial space. Indeed, let $(\delta_1 , \delta_2) : ([n_1], [l_1]) \to ([n_2],[l_2])$. For every map $(f_1,f_2) : ([n_2],[l_2]) \to ([p],[q])$ we get a map $$G(\delta_1, \delta_2) : G(f_1,f_2) \to G( f_1 \delta_1, f_2 \delta_2 )$$ using the fact that $G$ is a functor. We can combine this into a map $$(\delta_1 , \delta_2)^*_k: (\sum G)_{kn_2l_2} \to (\sum G)_{kn_1l_1}$$ which shows we have a simplicial space. By definition this simplicial space $\sum G$ comes with a map $$\alpha_F : \sum G \to F(p) \times \Delta[q].$$ On the other side, for each bisimplicial space $\alpha: X \to F(p) \times \Delta[q]$ we define ${\mathscr{F}}(\alpha)$ as $${\mathscr{F}}(\alpha)(f_1,f_2)_k = Hom_{/ F(p) \times \Delta[q]}( \varphi_k \times F(n) \times \Delta[l], X)$$ Here $f_1: [n] \to [p]$, $f_2: [l] \to [q]$ and the map $(f_1,f_2) \pi_2 : \varphi_k \times F(n) \times \Delta[l] \to F(p) \times \Delta[q] $. This definition gives us a functor as for every morphism $(\delta_1, \delta_2): ([n_1],[l_1]) \to ([n_2],[l_2])$ between objects $(f_1,f_2): ([n_2],[l_2]) \to ([p],[q])$ and $(f_1 \delta_1,f_2 \delta_2): ([n_1],[l_1]) \to ([p],[q])$ we have a composition map $$(\delta_1, \delta_2)^* : Hom_{/ F(p) \times \Delta[q]}( \varphi_k \times F(n_2) \times \Delta[l_2], X) \to
Hom_{/ F(p) \times \Delta[q]}( \varphi_k \times F(n_1) \times \Delta[l_1], X)$$ which gives us the desired functoriality.
We now move on to show that this map is an equivalence. Let $G: (\Delta_{/p})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q})^{op} \to {\mathscr{S}}$ be a functor. We want to understand the functor ${\mathscr{F}}\sum G$. Let $(f_1,f_2) : ([n],[l]) \to ([p],[q])$ be an object in $(\Delta_{/p})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q})^{op}$. By definition of ${\mathscr{F}}$ we have $${\mathscr{F}}\sum G(f_1,f_2)_k = Hom_{/ F(p) \times \Delta[q]}( \varphi_k \times F(n) \times \Delta[l], \sum G)$$ at the same time we know that $$(\sum G)_{knl} = \sum_{f_1:Hom([n],[p])} \sum_{f_2:Hom([l],[q])} G(f_1,f_2)_k$$ The relative hom set is just the fiber of $(\sum G)_{knl}$ of the point $(f_1,f_2)$. Thus we have $${\mathscr{F}}\sum G(f_1,f_2)_k = G(f_1,f_2)_k .$$ For the other side let $\alpha: X \to F(p) \times \Delta[q]$ be a bisimplicial space. We want to understand $\sum {\mathscr{F}}\alpha$. By definition we have $$(\sum {\mathscr{F}}\alpha)_{knl} =
\sum_{f_1:Hom([n],[p])} \sum_{f_2:Hom([l],[q])} {\mathscr{F}}\alpha(f_1,f_2)_k =$$ $$\sum_{f_1:Hom([n],[p])} \sum_{f_2:Hom([l],[q])} Hom_{/ F(p) \times \Delta[q]}( \varphi_k \times F(n) \times \Delta[l], X) = X_{knl}$$ Thus these functors are inverses of each other and thus equivalences.
We will use customary notation with regard to simplicial spaces. For a functor $G: (\Delta_{/p})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q})^{op} \to {\mathscr{S}}$ we use the notation $(\sum G)_{kn}$ for the space defined as $(\sum G_{kn})_l = (\sum G)_{knl}$.
We have made important steps towards understanding the base of our desired fibrations. Now we also need to understand the fibration above it. We can use a similar argument as above to prove the following corollary.
\[Cor knl Equiv\] There exists an equivalence of categories:
(ss)\_[/ \_r F(p) ]{}
Fun((\_[/r]{})\^[op]{} (\_[/p]{})\^[op]{} (\_[/q]{})\^[op]{}, )
How do these functors relate to each other?
There is a map $$(\pi_r)^*: Fun((\Delta_{/p})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q})^{op}, {\mathscr{S}}) \to
Fun((\Delta_{/r})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/p})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q})^{op}, {\mathscr{S}\text{et}})$$ induced by the projection map $\pi_r: (\Delta_{/r})^{op} \to \Delta^{op}$.
To simplify things henceforth we use following notation: $$Fun(p,q,{\mathscr{S}}) = Fun((\Delta_{/p})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q})^{op}, {\mathscr{S}})$$ $$Fun(p,q, {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_*) = Fun(\Delta^{op} \times (\Delta_{/p})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q})^{op}, {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_* )$$ $$Fun(r,p,q, {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}) = Fun((\Delta_{/r})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/p})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q})^{op}, {\mathscr{S}\text{et}})$$ $$Fun(r,p,q, {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_*) = Fun((\Delta_{/r})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/p})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q})^{op}, {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_* )$$
Let $Fun^{ex}(r,p,q, {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}) \subset Fun(r,p,q, {\mathscr{S}\text{et}})$ be the image of $$(\pi_r)^*: Fun((\Delta_{/p})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q})^{op}, {\mathscr{S}}) \to
Fun((\Delta_{/r})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/p})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q})^{op}, {\mathscr{S}\text{et}})$$
By Corollary \[Cor knl Equiv\] a functor $G: (\Delta_{/r})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/p})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q})^{op} \to {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}$ is equivalent to a map of bisimplicial spaces $X \to \varphi_k \times F(n) \times \Delta[l]$. The subset $Fun^{ex}(r,p,q, {\mathscr{S}\text{et}})$ consists of those bisimplicial spaces $(id_{\varphi_k} \times f): \varphi_k \times X \to \varphi_k \times F(n) \times \Delta[l]$ where $f: X \to F(n) \times \Delta[l]$ is a bisimplicial space.
The map $(\pi_r)^*: Fun(p,q, {\mathscr{S}}) \to Fun^{ex}(r,p,q, {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}) $ has an inverse $$(\pi_r)_*: Fun(r, p,q, {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}) \to Fun(p,q, {\mathscr{S}}).$$
By definition the map $(\pi_r)^*$ is surjective on $Fun^{ex}(r,p,q, {\mathscr{S}\text{et}})$. Thus it suffices to show that $(\pi_r)^*$ is injective. Let $G_1, G_2 : (\Delta_{/p})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q})^{op} \to {\mathscr{S}}$ such that $G_1 \neq G_2$. Then there exists a tuple $(f_1,f_2)$ such that $G_1(f_1,f_2) \neq G_2(f_1,f_2)$. Given the definition of $(\pi_r)^*$ we have $$((\pi_r)^*G_1)(id_r , f_1 , f_2 ) = G_1(f_1,f_2)$$ $$((\pi_r)^*G_2)(id_r , f_1 , f_2 ) = G_2(f_1,f_2)$$ So $(\pi_r)^* G_1 \neq (\pi_r)^* G_2$. Thus $(\pi_r)^*$ is injective. This means there exists an inverse map $$(\pi_r)_*: Fun^{ex}(r,p,q, {\mathscr{S}}) \to Fun(p,q, {\mathscr{S}}) .$$
Let $Fun^{ex}(r,p,q, {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_*)$ be defined by the pullback:
Fun\^[ex]{}(r,p,q, \_\*) Fun\^[ex]{}(r,p,q, )\
Fun(r,p,q, \_\*) Fun(r,p,q, )
A functor $G: (\Delta_{/r})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/p})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q})^{op} \to {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_*$ is the data of the underlying functor $UG: (\Delta_{/r})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/p})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q})^{op} \to {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}$ and an element in the set $UG(id_r,id_p,id_q)$. In the language of fibrations this translates to a fibration $X \to \varphi_r \times F(p) \times \Delta[q]$ with a chosen point in $X_{rpq}$. Thus an element in the set $Fun^{ex}(r,p,q, {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_*)$ is a bisimplicial space $X \to F(p) \times \Delta[q]$ with a chosen element in $X_{rpq}$.
Before we move on we give another way of characterizing $Fun^{ex}(r,p,q, {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_*)$.
\[Lemma Fiber of FunEx\] There is a bijection of sets
Fun\^[ex]{}(r,p,q, \_\*) \_[G:Fun(p,q,)]{} G(id\_p,id\_q)\_r
First we define $I$ and ${\mathscr{F}}_*$ and then we show they are inverses of each other. Let $$G: (\Delta_{/p})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q})^{op} \to {\mathscr{S}}.$$ By adjunction this gives us a map $$G: (\Delta)^{op} \times (\Delta_{/p})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q})^{op} \to {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}.$$ Using $(\pi_r)^*$ we get $$(\pi_r)^*G: (\Delta_{/r})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/p})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q})^{op} \to {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}.$$ Now we have $(\pi_r)^*G(id_r,id_p,id_q) = G(id_p,id_q)_r$. Thus any point in $G(id_p,id_q)_r$ gives us a functor $${\mathscr{F}}_*(G) : (\Delta_{/r})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/p})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q})^{op} \to {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_* .$$ On the other hand, let $$\tilde{G}: (\Delta_{/r})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/p})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q})^{op} \to {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_*$$ be a functor in $Fun^{ex}(r,p,q, {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_*)$. This implies that there exists a $G: \Delta^{op} \times (\Delta_{/p})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q})^{op} \to {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}$ such that $(\pi_r)^*G = U\tilde{G}$. Then we define $I(\tilde{G}) = (G, x_0)$, where $x_0 \in \tilde{G}(id_r,id_p,id_q)$ is the chosen point.
Now we can show those maps are inverses. Let $$\tilde{G}: (\Delta_{/r})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/p})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q})^{op} \to {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_*$$ such that $(\pi_r)^*G = U\tilde{G}$ and $x_0 \in \tilde{G}(id_r,id_p,id_q)$ is the basepoint. Then $U{\mathscr{F}}_* (I) (\tilde{G}) = (\pi_r)^*G$ such that ${\mathscr{F}}_* (I) (\tilde{G})(id_r,id_p,id_q)$ has basepoint $x_0$. Thus $F_* (I) (\tilde{G}) = \tilde{G}$.
On the other hand, let $(G,x_0)$ be a tuple where $G: \Delta^{op} \times (\Delta_{/p})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q})^{op} \to {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}$ be a functor and $x_0 \in G(r, id_p, id_q)$. Then $U {\mathscr{F}}_* (G) = (\pi_r)^*G$ and so $U I {\mathscr{F}}_* G = G$. Thus $I {\mathscr{F}}_* (G,x_0)= (G,x_0)$.
In this section we reviewed the relation between functors and fibrations. In the next section we use the functoriality of functors to define the complete Segal space of simplicial spaces.
The complete Segal space of simplicial spaces {#Sec The complete Segal space of simplicial spaces}
=============================================
In this section we construct the complete Segal space of simplicial spaces. In order to be able to construct a simplicial space we first need some lemmas.
There is a bi-cosimplicial category $(\Delta_{/\bullet })^{op} \times (\Delta_{/\bullet})^{op}$ that at level $(p,q)$ is equal to $(\Delta_{/p})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q})^{op}$.
We already know how to define $(\Delta_{/\bullet })^{op} \times (\Delta_{/\bullet})^{op}$ at each level. We have to show this gives us a bi-cosimplicial object. Let $(\delta_1, \delta_2): ([p_1],[q_1]) \to ([p_2],[q_2])$. Then we get a post-composition map: $$(\delta_1, \delta_2)_* : (\Delta_{/p_1})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q_1})^{op} \to (\Delta_{/p_2})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q_2})^{op}$$
Similarly we can show
There is a tri-cosimplicial category $(\Delta_{/\bullet })^{op} \times (\Delta_{/\bullet })^{op} \times (\Delta_{/\bullet})^{op}$ that at level $(r, p,q)$ is equal to $(\Delta_{/r})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/p})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q})^{op}$.
This lemma has following corollaries.
The sets $Fun( p , q , {\mathscr{S}}) = Fun((\Delta_{/p})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q})^{op}, {\mathscr{S}})$ form a simplicial space $Fun( \bullet , \bullet , {\mathscr{S}})$.
The sets $Fun( r, p , q , {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_*) = Fun((\Delta_{/r})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/p})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q})^{op}, {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_*)$ form a bisimplicial space $Fun( \bullet, \bullet , \bullet , {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_* )$.
We now have a simplicial space, but the definition above is too broad. We have to restrict it appropriately.
We say a functor $G: (\Delta_{/p})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q})^{op} \to {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}$ is Reedy left if the corresponding fibration $\sum G \to F(p) \times \Delta[q]$ is Reedy left (Definition \[Def Reedy Left Fib\]). We denote the subset of Reedy left functors by $ReeL(p,q,{\mathscr{S}}) \subset Fun(p,q,{\mathscr{S}})$.
We define $ReeL(r,p,q,{\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_*)$ by the following pullback.
ReeL(r,p,q,\_\*) Fun\^[ex]{}(r,p,q,\_\*)\
ReeL(p,q,) Fun(p,q,)
As of yet we do not know if those restricted sets give us a simplicial space. For that we need following lemma.
\[Lemma Pb of Reedy Left is Reedy Left\] let $G: (\Delta_{/p_2})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q_2})^{op} \to {\mathscr{S}}$ be a functor that is Reedy left. Then for every $(\delta_1, \delta_2): ([p_1],[q_1]) \to ([p_2],[q_2])$ the restriction map $G \circ (\delta_1 , \delta_2 ) : (\Delta_{/p_1})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q_1})^{op} \to {\mathscr{S}}$ is also Reedy left.
If $G$ is Reedy left then $\sum G \to F(p_2) \times \Delta[q_2]$ is a Reedy left fibration. By definition we have following pullback square.
( G) (\_1 [,]{}\_2 ) G\
F(p\_1) F(p\_2)
But Reedy left fibrations are closed under pullbacks. Thus $(\sum G) \circ (\delta_1 {,}\delta_2 ) \to F(p_1) \times \Delta[q_1]$ is a Reedy left fibration, which means that $G \circ (\delta_1 {,}\delta_2 )$ is Reedy left.
Similarly, we can prove following lemma.
Let $G: (\Delta_{/r_2})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/p_2})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q_2})^{op} \to {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_*$ be a functor that is in $ReeL(r_2, p_2,q_2 , {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_*)$ Then for every $(\delta_1, \delta_2, \delta_3): ([r_1], [p_1],[q_1]) \to ([r_2], [p_2],[q_2])$ the functor $G \circ (\delta_1 , \delta_2 , \delta_3)_* : (\Delta_{/p_1})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q_1})^{op} \to {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_*$ is in $ReeL(r_1, p_1,q_1 , {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_*)$.
Having these results we can make the following definitions.
\[Def SSpaces\] We define the simplicial space ${\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$ and bisimplicial space ${\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}_*$ as $${\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}_{pq} = ReeL(p, q, {\mathscr{S}})$$ $$({\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}_*)_{rpq} = ReeL(r, p, q, {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_* )$$ The forgetful map $r_*U: ReeL(r, p, q, {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_* ) \to ReeL(p, q, {\mathscr{S}})$ gives us a map of bisimplicial spaces $$p_{ReeLeft} : {\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}_* \to {\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$$
We have following important facts about $p_{ReeLeft}$.
\[The p ReeLeft is ReeLeft\] The map $ p_{ReeLeft} : {\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}_* \to {\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$ is a Reedy left fibration.
In order to show that $p_{ReeLeft}$ is a Reedy left fibration it suffices to prove that for every map $f: \varphi_r \times F(p) \times \Delta[q] \to {\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$ the pullback $f^* p_{ReeLeft}$ is a Reedy left fibration.
f\^\* \_\* \_\*\
\_r F(p)
However, every map $f: \varphi_r \times F(p) \times \Delta[q] \to {\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$ factors through a map $G: F(p) \times \Delta[q] \to {\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$. This gives us the following diagram
f\^\* \_\* & G\^\* \_\* & \_\*\
\_k F(p) & F(p) &
Thus it suffies to prove that the map $G^* p_{ReeLeft} : G^* {\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}_* \to F(p) \times \Delta[q]$ is a Reedy left fibration. The map $G: F(p) \times \Delta[q] \to {\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$ corresponds to an element in the set $${\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}_{pq} = ReeL(p,q,{\mathscr{S}\text{paces}})$$ This gives us a Reedy left functor which we will also name $G$. In order to finish the proof it suffices to show that $G^*{\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}_* = \sum G$.
We will compare them level-wise. Let $([k]: [k] \to [0], f_1: [n] \to [p], f_2: [l] \to [q])$ be an element in $(F(p) \times \Delta[q])_{knl}$. Using Lemma \[Lemma Fiber of FunEx\] we see that the fiber of $G^* p_{ReeLeft}$ over $([k], f_1, f_2)$ is of the form $$Hom_{F(p) \times \Delta[q]}(\varphi_k \times F(n) \times \Delta[l] , G^* p_{ReeLeft}) =
\sum_{G \circ (f_1, f_2): ReeL(p,q)} G(id_p, id_q)_k .$$ However, $G \circ (f_1,f_2)(id_p , id_q ) = G(f_1, f_2)$ and so $$Hom_{F(p) \times \Delta[q]}(\varphi_k \times F(n) \times \Delta[l] , G^* p_{ReeLeft}) = \sum_{G \circ (f_1, f_2): ReeL(p,q)} G(id_p, id_q)_k =$$ $$\sum_{G: ReeL( p,q, {\mathscr{S}})} G(f_1, f_2)_k = Hom_{F(p) \times \Delta[q]}(\varphi_k \times F(n) \times \Delta[l], \sum G).$$
Let $X$ be a simplicial space. Let $(ReeLeft_{/X})^{small}$ be the set of all Reedy left fibrations over $X$ which are fiber-wise small.
\[The Sspaces gives ReeLeft\] Let $X$ be a simplicial space. There is a bijection of sets
Hom(X, ) (ReeLeft\_[/X]{})\^[small]{}
For each map $f:X \to {\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$ we get a Reedy left fibration $P(f) = f^*p_{ReeLeft}: f^* {\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}_* \to X$. On the other side for each Reedy left fibration $f: R \to X$ we can define a map $X \to {\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$ which sends $x \in X_{nl}$ to the functor ${\mathscr{F}}(x^* f : x^*R \to F(n) \times \Delta[l]) \in {\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}_{nl}$. This assignment gives us a bisimplicial map $X \to {\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$. In order to prove that we need to show that for each map $(\delta_1, \delta_2): ([p_1],[q_1]) \to ([p_2],[q_2])$ the induced square is commutative
X\_[p\_2q\_2]{} \_[p\_2q\_2]{}\
X\_[p\_1q\_1]{} \_[p\_1q\_1]{}
Let $x \in X_{p_2q_2}$. Then we have $${\mathscr{F}}( ((\delta_1, \delta_2)^*(x))^*f ) = {\mathscr{F}}(x^*f) \circ (\delta_1, \delta_2)^*$$ which is exactly the statement we wanted to prove.
Now we only have to show that these two maps are inverses of each other. Let $f: R \to X$ be a map of simplicial spaces. We have to show the Reedy left fibration $PL(f) \to X$ is equal to $R \to X$. It suffices to check this for each $x: F(n) \times \Delta[l] \to X$. Pulling both back we get a diagram
x\^\*R & & x\^\*PL(f)\
& F(n)
The map $x^*PL(R) \to F(n) \times \Delta[l]$ fits into the following diagram.
x\^\*PL(f) & PL(f) & \_\*\
F(n) & X &
As both squares are pullback diagrams the rectangle is a pullback diagram. Thus $x^*PL(f) = (x \circ L(f))^* p_{ReeLeft}$. However, by definition of the map $L$ this is same as $x^*R$.
On the other side let $f: X \to {\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$ be a map. Then we get a Reedy left fibration $f^*p_{ReeLeft}: f^* {\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}\to X$, which in turn gives us a map $L(f^* p_{ReeLeft}): X \to {\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$. We have to show that the map $L(f^* p_{ReeLeft})$ is the same as the map $f$. Again it suffices to compare them for a map $x: F(n) \times \Delta[l] \to X$. By definition the map $L(f^* p_{ReeLeft}) \circ x : F(n) \times \Delta[l] \to {\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$ maps to the functor ${\mathscr{F}}( x^* f^* {\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}\to F(n) \times \Delta[l])$. However, this is also the image of $(f \circ x)^*$. Hence we are done.
\[Rem Straightening\] The focus of [@Ra17b] is the study of fibrations with the goal of showing that they behave like functors. In particular we expected Reedy left fibrations to behave like functors valued in simplicial spaces [@Ra17b Remark 4.11]. This theorem makes the argument precise by proving that Reedy left fibration are in bijection with functors. This is one example of a higher categorical Grothendieck construction (which is also called the straightening construction).
\[The Sspaces is CSS\] ${\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$ is a complete Segal space.
In order to show that ${\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$ is a complete Segal space we have to prove that for every complete Segal space equivalence $f: A \to B$ the induced map $$f^*: Hom(B, {\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}) \to Hom(A, {\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}})$$ is surjective. Using the previous theorem this is equivalent to showing that the map $$f^*: (ReeLeft_{/B})^{small} \to (ReeLeft_{/A})^{small}$$ is surjective. This means we have to show that for every Reedy left fibration $ g: L \to A$ the diagram below
L &\
A & B
such that $\hat{g}: \hat{L} \to B$ is also a Reedy left fibration. However, this follows immediately from [@Ra17b Theorem 6.29].
\[The Sspaces is sS\] The complete Segal space ${\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$ is a model for the higher category of simplicial spaces.
It suffices to check the objects. An object in ${\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$ is a Reedy left fibration over the point. By Example [@Ra17b Example 4.22] these are just the simplicial spaces.
Note we could have gotten the same results by using Reedy right fibrations.
In this section we showed how to construct the complete Segal space of simplicial spaces along with a universal Reedy left fibration. In the next section we will restrict our attention to construct complete Segal spaces for subclasses of simplicial spaces.
The complete Segal space of \[(complete) Segal\] spaces {#Sec The complete Segal space of complete Segal spaces}
=======================================================
In this section we use the constructions above to construct Segal spaces, complete Segal spaces and spaces. It mostly consists of necessary definitions as the proofs all follow directly from the previous section.
Let $G: (\Delta_{/p})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q})^{op} \to {\mathscr{S}}$ be a functor.
1. $G$ is [*Segal coCartesian*]{} if $\sum G \to F(p) \times \Delta[q]$ is a Segal coCartesian fibration (Definition \[Def Segal coCartesian Fibration\]). We denote the set of such functors as $SegcoCart(p,q , {\mathscr{S}})$.
2. $G$ is [*coCartesian*]{} if $\sum G \to F(p) \times \Delta[q]$ is a coCartesian fibration (Definition \[Def coCartesian Fibration\]). We denote the set of such functors as $coCart(p,q , {\mathscr{S}})$.
3. $G$ is [*left*]{} if $\sum G \to F(p) \times \Delta[q]$ is a left fibration (Definition \[Def Left Fibration of ssS\]). We denote the set of such functors as $L(p,q , {\mathscr{S}})$.
We define the sets $SegcoCart(r, p,q , {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_*)$, $coCart(r ,p,q ,{\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_*)$ and $L(r,p,q , {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_*)$ via the following pullback diagram:
L(r, p,q , \_\*) & coCart(r,p,q ,\_\*) & SegcoCart(r,p,q , \_\*) & ReeL(r,p,q , \_\*)\
L(p,q , ) & coCart(p,q ,) & SegcoCart(p,q , ) & ReeL(p,q , )
Again we have to confirm that these give us simplicial spaces.
Let $G: (\Delta_{/p_2})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q_2})^{op} \to {\mathscr{S}}$ be a functor that is Segal coCartesian, coCartesian or left. Then for every $(\delta_1, \delta_2): ([p_1],[q_1]) \to ([p_2],[q_2])$ the restriction map $G \circ (\delta_1 , \delta_2 ) : (\Delta_{/p_1})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q_1})^{op} \to {\mathscr{S}}$ is also Segal coCartesian, coCartesian or left.
Let $$G: (\Delta_{/r_2})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/p_2})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q_2})^{op} \to {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_*$$ be a functor that is in $SegcoCart(r_2, p_2,q_2 , {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_*)$, $coCart(r_2 ,p_2,q_2 ,{\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_*)$ or $L(r_2,p_2,q_2 , {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_*)$. Then for every $(\delta_1, \delta_2, \delta_3): ([r_1], [p_1],[q_1]) \to ([r_2], [p_2],[q_2])$ the restriction map $$G \circ (\delta_1 , \delta_2 , \delta_3) : (\Delta_{/r_1})^{op} (\Delta_{/p_1})^{op} \times (\Delta_{/q_1})^{op} \to {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_*$$ is in $SegcoCart(r_1, p_1,q_1 , {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_*)$, $coCart(r_2 ,p_1,q_1 ,{\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_*)$ or $L(r_1,p_1,q_1 , {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_*)$, respectively.
We can get a proof by adjusting the proof of Lemma \[Lemma Pb of Reedy Left is Reedy Left\]. With these two lemmas we can give following definitions.
\[Def CSS Seg Spaces\] We define the simplicial spaces ${\mathscr{C}\mathscr{S}\mathscr{S}}$, ${\mathscr{S}\text{eg}}$, ${\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$ as follows: $${\mathscr{S}\text{eg}}_{pq} = SegcoCart(p,q,{\mathscr{S}})$$ $${\mathscr{C}\mathscr{S}\mathscr{S}}_{pq} = coCart(p, q, {\mathscr{S}})$$ $${\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}_{pq} = L(p,q, {\mathscr{S}})$$ Moreover, we define the bisimplicial spaces ${\mathscr{S}\text{eg}}_*$, ${\mathscr{C}\mathscr{S}\mathscr{S}}_*$ and ${\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}_*$ as follows $$({\mathscr{S}\text{eg}}_*)_{rpq} = SegcoCart(r,p,q,{\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_*)$$ $$({\mathscr{C}\mathscr{S}\mathscr{S}}_*)_{rpq} = coCart(r,p, q, {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_* )$$ $$({\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}_*)_{rpq} = L(r,p,q, {\mathscr{S}\text{et}}_*)$$ The forgetful map gives us maps of bisimplicial spaces: $$p_{SegcoCart} : {\mathscr{S}\text{eg}}_* \to {\mathscr{S}\text{eg}}$$ $$p_{coCart} : {\mathscr{C}\mathscr{S}\mathscr{S}}_* \to {\mathscr{C}\mathscr{S}\mathscr{S}}$$ $$p_{Left} : {\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}_* \to {\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$$
We have following theorems about these objects and maps.
The map $ p_{SegcoCart} : {\mathscr{S}\text{eg}}_* \to {\mathscr{S}\text{eg}}$ is a Segal coCartesian fibration. The map $ p_{coCart} : {\mathscr{C}\mathscr{S}\mathscr{S}}_* \to {\mathscr{C}\mathscr{S}\mathscr{S}}$ is a coCartesian fibration. The map $ p_{Left} : {\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}_* \to {\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$ is a left fibration.
We will only prove the first part as the rest are similar. In order to show that $ p_{SegcoCart} : {\mathscr{S}\text{eg}}_* \to {\mathscr{S}\text{eg}}$ is a Segal coCartesian fibration we have to show that for each map $G: F(n) \times \Delta[l] \to {\mathscr{S}\text{eg}}$ the pullback $G^*p_{SegcoCart}$ is Segal coCartesian. However, in the proof of Theorem \[The p ReeLeft is ReeLeft\] we showed that $G^*({\mathscr{S}\text{eg}}_*) = G^*({\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}_*) = \sum G $ and $\sum G \to F(n) \times \Delta[l]$ is Segal coCartesian by definition.
Let $X$ be a simplicial space.
1. Let $(SegcoCart_{/X})^{small}$ be the set of all Segal coCartesian fibrations over $X$ which are fiber-wise small.
2. Let $(coCart_{/X})^{small}$ be the set of all coCartesian fibrations over $X$ which are fiber-wise small.
3. Let $(Left_{/X})^{small}$ be the set of all left fibrations over $X$ which are fiber-wise small.
Let $X$ be a simplicial space. There are bijections of sets
Hom(X, ) (SegcoCart\_[/X]{})\^[small]{}
Hom(X, ) (coCart\_[/X]{})\^[small]{}
Hom(X, ) (Left\_[/X]{})\^[small]{}
We simply repeat the argument in Theorem \[The Sspaces gives ReeLeft\] to get the desired result.
Notice that this result is again consistent with results and intuition from [@Ra17b]. Any of these fibrations should correspond to a certain class of functor [@Ra17b Remark 6.19]. The result above just makes this intuition very precise by showing there is an actual bijection.
${\mathscr{S}\text{eg}}$, ${\mathscr{C}\mathscr{S}\mathscr{S}}$ and ${\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$ are complete Segal spaces.
Using the argument from Theorem \[The Sspaces is sS\] it suffices to prove that for each CSS equivalence $f: A \to B$ and any of the fibrations above $L \to A$ there exists a diagram
L &\
A & B
such that $\hat{g}: \hat{L} \to B$ is the same type of fibration as $L \to A$. Again, this follows immediately from [@Ra17b Theorem 6.29].
There is another way to characterize the complete Segal spaces we have described here.
${\mathscr{S}\text{eg}}$ is the full sub CSS of ${\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$ consisting of all Segal spaces. Similarly, ${\mathscr{C}\mathscr{S}\mathscr{S}}$ is the full CSS of ${\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$ consisting of all complete Segal spaces and ${\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$ is the full sub CSS of ${\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$ consisting of all spaces.
We only prove the first part as the other parts are similar. Let ${\mathscr{S}\text{eg}}'$ be the sub CSS of ${\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$ generated by all Segal spaces. Then we know that ${\mathscr{S}\text{eg}}_{pq}$ has elements Segal coCartesian fibrations $R \to F(p) \times \Delta[q]$ and ${\mathscr{S}\text{eg}}'_{pq}$ has elements Reedy left fibrations $R \to F(p) \times \Delta[q]$ such that for every $x:F(0) \to F(p) \times \Delta[q]$ the restriction map $x^*R$ is Segal Cartesian. By [@Ra17b Corollary 7.4 (5)] a Reedy left fibration over $F(p) \times \Delta[q]$ is a Segal coCartesian fibration if and only if each fiber is a Segal space. Thus these two sets are actually equal. The other cases are proven similarly and hence we are done.
Universal fibration as Simplicial Spaces
========================================
Up to here we constructed complete Segal spaces ${\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$, ${\mathscr{S}\text{eg}}$, ${\mathscr{C}\mathscr{S}\mathscr{S}}$ and ${\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$ along with bisimplicial spaces ${\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}_*$, ${\mathscr{S}\text{eg}}_*$, ${\mathscr{C}\mathscr{S}\mathscr{S}}_*$ and ${\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}_*$. In this last section we show how to build simplicial spaces out of those bisimplicial spaces. The key is the following definition.
[@Ra17b Definition 6.21] A map of simplicial spaces $ S \to X$ is a Reedy left fibration/Segal coCartesian fibration/ coCartesian fibration/Left fibration if there exists a Reedy left fibration/Segal coCartesian fibration/ coCartesian fibration/Left fibration $R \to X$ such that $S = \Delta Diag^*(R)$ (Remark \[Rem Delta Embed\]).
We use this in the next definitions.
We have following definitions: $$({\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}_*)_{s{\mathscr{S}}} = \Delta Diag^*({\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}_*)$$ $$({\mathscr{S}\text{eg}}_*)_{s{\mathscr{S}}} = \Delta Diag^*({\mathscr{S}\text{eg}}_*)$$ $$({\mathscr{C}\mathscr{S}\mathscr{S}}_*)_{s{\mathscr{S}}} = \Delta Diag^*({\mathscr{C}\mathscr{S}\mathscr{S}}_*)$$ $$({\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}_*)_{s{\mathscr{S}}} = \Delta Diag^*({\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}_*)$$
There are maps of simplicial spaces: $$(p_{ReeLeft})_{s{\mathscr{S}}}: ({\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}_*)_{s{\mathscr{S}}} \to {\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$$ $$(p_{SegcoCart})_{s{\mathscr{S}}}:({\mathscr{S}\text{eg}}_*)_{s{\mathscr{S}}}\to {\mathscr{S}\text{eg}}$$ $$(p_{coCart})_{s{\mathscr{S}}}:({\mathscr{C}\mathscr{S}\mathscr{S}}_*)_{s{\mathscr{S}}} \to {\mathscr{C}\mathscr{S}\mathscr{S}}$$ $$(p_{Left})_{s{\mathscr{S}}}:({\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}_*)_{s{\mathscr{S}}} \to {\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$$
We have following facts about these maps of simplicial spaces.
For the maps above the following holds:
1. The map $(p_{ReeLeft})_{s{\mathscr{S}}}: ({\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}_*)_{s{\mathscr{S}}} \to {\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$ is a biReedy fibration.
2. The map $(p_{SegcoCart})_{s{\mathscr{S}}}:({\mathscr{S}\text{eg}}_*)_{s{\mathscr{S}}}\to {\mathscr{S}\text{eg}}$ is a Segal fibration.
3. The map $(p_{coCart})_{s{\mathscr{S}}}:({\mathscr{C}\mathscr{S}\mathscr{S}}_*)_{s{\mathscr{S}}} \to {\mathscr{C}\mathscr{S}\mathscr{S}}$ is a CSS fibration.
4. The map $(p_{Left})_{s{\mathscr{S}}}:({\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}_*)_{s{\mathscr{S}}} \to {\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$ is a CSS fibration.
All of these statements except for the last one follows from [@Ra17b Theorem 6.38]. The last one follows from the fact that $(p_{Left})_{s{\mathscr{S}}}$ is a pullback of $(p_{coCart})_{s{\mathscr{S}}}$.
\[The Upper Level Objects\] For the simplicial spaces above we have following statements:
1. The simplicial space $({\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}_*)_{s{\mathscr{S}}}$ is Reedy fibrant.
2. The simplicial space $({\mathscr{S}\text{eg}}_*)_{s{\mathscr{S}}}$ is a Segal space.
3. The simplicial space $({\mathscr{C}\mathscr{S}\mathscr{S}}_*)_{s{\mathscr{S}}}$ is a complete Segal space.
4. The simplicial space $({\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}_*)_{s{\mathscr{S}}}$ is a complete Segal space.
This follows from the previous theorem combined with the fact that the base is always a complete Segal space.
The notion of coCartesian fibration of simplicial spaces as defined here coincides with more traditional definition using coCartesian lifts. See [@Ra17b Subsection 7.3] for more details. The same holds for left fibrations [@Ra17b Subsection 7.6].
According to [@JT07] there is a functor $i^*_1 : s{\mathscr{S}}\to s{\mathscr{S}\text{et}}$ that takes a complete Segal space to a quasi-category. If we apply this functor to the CSS ${\text{s}\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$, ${\mathscr{S}\text{eg}}$, ${\mathscr{C}\mathscr{S}\mathscr{S}}$ and ${\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}$ we can then construct quasi-categories of simplicial spaces, Segal spaces, CSS and spaces. In particular the resulting quasi-category of spaces corresponds exactly to the one defined in [@Ci17 Definition 5.2.3].
In addition to that the functor $i^*_1$ also preserves coCartesian fibrations [@Ra17b Theorem B.3] and left fibrations [@Ra17b Theorem B.7]. This means we get a universal coCartesian fibration of quasi-categories $i_1^*(p_{coCart}): i_1^*({\mathscr{C}\mathscr{S}\mathscr{S}}_*) \to i_1^*({\mathscr{C}\mathscr{S}\mathscr{S}})$ and a universal left fibration of quasi-categories $i_1^*(p_{Left}): i_1^*({\mathscr{S}\text{paces}}_*) \to i_1^*({\mathscr{S}\text{paces}})$.
[9]{}
J.E. Bergner, [*A survey of ($\infty$,1)-categories*]{}, The IMA Volumes in Mathematics and its Applications. Springer, 2010. pp. 69-83 D. Cisinksi, [*Higher Categories and Homotopical Algebra*]{}, <http://www.mathematik.uni-regensburg.de/cisinski/CatLR.pdf>
A. Joyal, M. Tierney, [*Quasi-categories vs Segal spaces*]{}, Contemp. Math 431 (2007): pp. 277-326
C. Kapulkin, P. L. Lumsdaine. [*The simplicial model of univalent foundations (after Voevodsky).*]{} arXiv preprint arXiv:1211.2851 (2012).
N. Rasekh, [*Yoneda Lemma for Simplicial Spaces*]{}. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.03160 (2017).
N. Rasekh, [*Cartesian Fibrations and Representability*]{}. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.03670 (2017).
N. Rasekh, [*An Introduction to Complete Segal Spaces*]{}. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.03131 (2018). C. Rezk, [*A model for the homotopy theory of homotopy theory*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math.Soc., 353(2001), no. 3, 973-1007.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Wei in 8 and 9 discovered a bound on the clique number of a given graph in terms of its degree sequence. In this note we give an improvement of this result.'
author:
- Nedyalko Dimov Nenov
title: 'IMPROVEMENT OF GRAPH THEORY WEI’S INEQUALITY[^1] [^2]'
---
We consider only finite non-oriented graphs without loops and multiple edges. A set of $p$ vertices of a graph is called a $p$-clique if each two of them are adjacent. The greatest positive integer $p$ for which $G$ has a $p$-clique is called clique number of $G$ and is denoted by $\operatorname{cl}(G)$. A set of vertices of a graph is independent if the vertices are pairwise nonadjacent. The independence number ${\alpha}(G)$ of a graph $G$ is the cardinality of a largest independent set of $G$.
In this note we shall use the following notations:
- $V(G)$ is the vertex set of graph $G$;
- $N(v)$, $v\in V(G)$ is the set of all vertices of $G$ adjacent to $v$;
- $N(V)$, $V\subseteq V(G)$ is the set $\bigcap_{v\in V} N(v)$;
- $d(v)$, $v\in V(G)$ is the degree of the vertex $v$, i.e. $d(v)=|N(v)|$.
Let $G$ be a graph, $|V(G)|=n$ and $V\subseteq V(G)$. We define $$\begin{aligned}
W(V)&=\sum_{v\in V}\frac1{n-d(v)};\\
W(G)&=W(V(G)).\end{aligned}$$
Wei in 8 and 9 discovered the inequality $${\alpha}(G)\ge\sum_{v\in V(G)}\frac1{1+d(v)}.$$
Applying this inequality to the complementary graph of $G$ we see that it is equivalent to the following inequality $$\operatorname{cl}(G)\ge\sum_{v\in V(G)}\frac1{n-d(v)}$$ that is $$\label{NN:1}
\operatorname{cl}(G)\ge W(G).$$ Alon and Spencer 1 gave an elegant probabilistic proof of Wei’s inequality. In the present note we shall improve the inequality .
\[d:1\] Let $G$ be a graph, $|V(G)|=n$ and $V\subseteq V(G)$. The set $V$ is called a ${\delta}$-set in $G$, if $$d(v)\le n-|V|$$ for all $v\in V$.
\[ex:1\] Any independent set $V$ of vertices of a graph $G$ is a ${\delta}$-set in $G$ since $N(v)\subseteq V(G)\setminus V$ for all $v\in V$.
\[ex:2\] Let $V\subseteq V(G)$ and $|V|\ge\max\{d(v),v\in V(G)\}$. Since $d(v)\le|V|$ for all $v\in V(G)$, $V(G)\setminus V$, is a ${\delta}$-set in $G$.
The next statement obviously follows from Definition \[d:1\]:
\[pro:1\] Let $V$ be a ${\delta}$-set in a graph $G$. Then $W(V)\le 1$.
\[d:2\] A graph $G$ is called an $r$-partite graph if $$V(G)=V_1\cup\dots\cup V_r,
\quad
V_i\cap V_j=\emptyset,
\quad
i\ne j,$$ where the sets $V_i$, $i=1,\dots,r$, are independent. If the sets $V_i$, $i=1,\dots,r$, are ${\delta}$-sets in $G$, then $G$ is called generalized $r$-partite graph. The smallest integer $r$ such that $G$ is a generalized $r$-partite graph is denoted by ${\varphi}(G)$.
\[pro:2\] ${\varphi}(G)\ge W(G)$.
Let ${\varphi}(G)=r$ and $$V(G)=V_1\cup\dots\cup V_r,
\quad
V_i\cap V_j=\emptyset,
\quad
i\ne j,$$ where $V_i$, $i=1,\dots,r$, are ${\delta}$-sets in $G$. Since $V_i\cap V_j=\emptyset$, $i\ne j$, we have $$W(G)=\sum_{i=1}^r W(V_i).$$ According to Proposition 1 $W(V_i)\le 1$, $i=1,\dots,r$. Thus $W(G)\le r={\varphi}(G)$.
Below (see Theorem \[th:1\]) we shall prove that $\operatorname{cl}(G)\ge{\varphi}(G)$. Thus follows from Proposition 2.
\[d:3\] Let $G$ be a graph and $v_1,\dots,v_r\in V(G)$. The sequence $v_1,\dots,v_r$ is called an ${\alpha}$-sequence in $G$ if the following conditions are satisfied:
1. $d(v_1)=\max\{d(v)\mid v\in V(G)\}$;
2. $v_i\in N(v_1,\dots,v_{i-1})$ and $v_i$ has maximal degree in the graph$G[N(v_1,\dots,v_{i-1})]$, $2\le i\le r$.
Every ${\alpha}$-sequence $v_1,\dots,v_s$ in the graph $G$ can be extended to an ${\alpha}$-sequence $v_1,\dots$, $v_s,\dots,v_r$ such that $N(v_1,\dots,v_{r-1})$ be a ${\delta}$-set in $G$. Indeed, if the ${\alpha}$-sequence $v_1,\dots,v_s$, $\dots,v_r$ is such that it is not continued in a $(r+1)$-clique (i.e. $v_1,\dots,v_s,\dots,v_r$ is a maximal ${\alpha}$-sequence in the sense of inclusion) then $N(v_1,\dots,v_{r-1})$ is an independent set and, therefore, a ${\delta}$-set in $G$. However, there are ${\alpha}$-sequences $v_1,\dots,v_r$ such that $N(v_1,\dots,v_{r-1})$ is a ${\delta}$-set but it is not an independent set.
\[th:1\] Let $G$ be a graph and $v_1,\dots,v_r$, $r\ge 2$, be an ${\alpha}$-sequence in $G$ such that $N(v_1,\dots,v_{r-1})$ is a ${\delta}$-set in $G$. Then
$(a)$ ${\varphi}(G)\le r\le\operatorname{cl}(G)$;
$(b)$ $r\ge W(G)$.
According to Definition \[d:3\] $v_1,\dots,v_r$ is an $r$-clique and thus $r\le\operatorname{cl}(G)$. Since $N(v_1,\dots,v_{r-1})$ is a ${\delta}$-set, the graph $G$ is a generalized $r$-partite graph, 6. Hence $r\ge{\varphi}(G)$. The inequality (b) follows from (a) and Proposition 2.
Theorem \[th:1\] (b) was proved in 7 in the special case when$N(v_1,\dots,v_{r-1})$ is independent set in $G$.
\[d:4\] Let $G$ be a graph and $v_1,\dots,v_r\in V(G)$. The sequence $v_1,\dots,v_r$ is called ${\beta}$-sequence in $G$ if the following conditions are satisfied:
1. $d(v_1)=\max\{d(v)\mid v\in V(G)\}$;
2. $v_i\in N(v_1,\dots,v_{i-1})$ and $d(v_i)=\max\{d(v)\mid v\in N(v_1,\dots,v_{r-1})\}$, $2\le i\le r$.
\[th:2\] Let $v_1,\dots,v_r$ be a ${\beta}$-sequence in a graph $G$ such that $$d(v_1)+\dots+d(v_r)\le (r-1)n,$$ where $n=|V(G)|$. Then $r\ge W(G)$.
According to 5 it follows from $d(v_1)+\dots+d(v_r)\le (r-1)n$ that $G$ is a generalized $r$-partite graph. Hence $r\ge{\varphi}(G)$ and Theorem \[th:2\] follows from Proposition \[pro:2\].
Let $G$ be a graph, $|V(G)|=n$ and $v_1,\dots,v_r$ be a ${\beta}$-sequence in $G$ which is not contained in $(r+1)$-clique. Then $r\ge W(G)$.
Since $v_1,\dots,v_r$ is not contained in $(r+1)$-clique it follows that $d(v_1)+\dots+d(v_r)\le (r-1)n$, 3.
\[th:3\] Let $G$ be a graph, $|V(G)|=n$ and $v_1,\dots,v_r$, $r\ge 2$, be a ${\beta}$-sequence in $G$ such that $N(v_1,\dots,v_{r-1})$ is a ${\delta}$-set in $G$. Then $r\ge W(G)$.
Since $N(v_1,\dots,v_{r-1})$ is a ${\delta}$-set according to 6 there exists an $r$-partition $$V(G)=V_1\cup\dots\cup V_r,
\qquad
V_i\cap V_j=\emptyset,
\quad
i\ne j,$$ where $V_i$, $i=1,\dots,r$, are ${\delta}$-sets and $v_i\in V_i$. Thus, we have $$d(v_i)\le n-|V_i|,
\quad
i=1,\dots,r.$$
Summing up these inequalities we obtain that $d(v_1)+\dots+d(v_r)\le (r-1)n$. Therefore Theorem \[th:3\] follows from Theorem \[th:2\].
[9]{}
1 <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">N. Alon, J. H. Spencer.</span> The Probabilistic Method. Wiley, New York, 1992.
2 <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">N. Khadzhiivanov, N. Nenov.</span> Extremal problems for $s$-graphs and a theorem of Turan. *Serdica*, 3 (1977), 117–125 (in Russian).
3 <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">N. Khadzhiivanov, N. Nenov.</span> Sequences of maximal degree vertices in graphs. *Serdica Math. J.*, 30 (2004), 95–102.
4 <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">N. Khadzhiivanov, N. Nenov.</span> Generalized $r$-partite graphs and Turan’s Theorem. *Compt. rend. Acad. bulg. Sci.*, 57, No 2 (2004), 19–24.
5 <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">N. Khadzhiivanov, N. Nenov.</span> Saturated ${\beta}$-sequences in graphs. *Compt. rend. Acad. bulg. Sci.*, 57, No 6 (2004), 49–54.
6 <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">N. Khadzhiivanov, N. Nenov.</span> Balanced vertex sets in graph. *Ann. Univ. Sofia, Fac. Math. Inf.*, 97 (2005), 50–64.
7 <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">O. Murphy.</span> Lower bounds on the stability number of graph computed in terms of degree. *Discrete Math.*, 90 (1991), 207–211.
8 <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">V. K. Wei.</span> A lower bound on the stability number of a simple graph. Bell Laboratories Technical Memorandum, 81–11217–9. Murray Hill, NJ, 1981.
9 <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">V. K. Wei.</span> Coding for a Multiple Access Channel. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, 1980.
-----------------------------------------
Nedyalko Dimov Nenov
Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics
St Kliment Ofridski University of Sofia
5, James Bourchier Blvd.
BG-1164 Sofia, Bulgaria
e-mail: `[email protected]`
-----------------------------------------
[^1]: [**2000 Mathematics Subject Classification:** ]{}05C35
[^2]: [**Key words:** ]{}clique number, degree sequence
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We determine the most general form of the antisymmetric $H$-field tensor derived from a purely time-dependent potential that is admitted by all possible spatially homogeneous cosmological models in 3+1-dimensional low-energy bosonic string theory. The maximum number of components of the $H$ field that are left arbitrary is found for each homogeneous cosmology defined by the Bianchi group classification. The relative generality of these string cosmologies is found by counting the number of independent pieces of Cauchy data needed to specify the general solution of Einstein’s equations. The hierarchy of generality differs significantly from that characteristic of vacuum and perfect-fluid cosmologies. The degree of generality of homogeneous string cosmologies is compared to that of the generic inhomogenous solutions of the string field equations.\
PACS numbers: 9880C, 1125, 0420J, 0450
author:
- |
John D. Barrow and Kerstin E. Kunze\
Astronomy Centre\
University of Sussex\
Brighton BN1 9QH\
U.K.
title: Spatially Homogeneous String Cosmologies
---
16 cm -0.8 cm -0.8 cm
[**I. INTRODUCTION**]{}
The low-energy effective action of the bosonic sector of string theory provides cosmological models that might be applicable just below the Planck (or string) energy scale in the very early universe \[1\]. A number of studies have been made of these cosmologies in order to ascertain the behaviour of simple isotropic and anisotropic universes, investigate the implications of duality, and search for inflationary solutions \[2-6\]. Many of the traditional questions of general relativistic cosmology can be asked of the cosmological models defined by string theory: do they possess space-time singularities?, what is the generic behaviour of the solutions at late and early times?, what exact solutions can be found in closed form?, and what relation do particular exact solutions have to the general cosmological solution? Since this theory is to be applied at times very close to the Planck epoch it would be unwise to make special assumptions about the form of the cosmological solutions. Anisotropies and inhomogeneities could play an important role in the evolution. Indeed, any dimensional reduction process could be viewed as an extreme form of anisotropic evolution in D dimensions in which three spatial dimensions expand whilst the rest remain static. Because of these irreducible uncertainties about the very early Universe, one would like to understand the general behaviour of wide classes of solution in order to ascertain the relative generality of any particular solution that may be found. A number of studies have focused on obtaining particular solutions for 3+1 dimensional space-times in cases where spatial homogeneity (and sometimes also isotropy) is assumed for the metric of space-time, where the $H$ field is set to zero \[4\], or where the $H$ field is included by assuming that it takes a particular form which satisfies its constraints and its equation of motion \[5\]. For example, Copeland et al, \[2\], discussed Friedmann and Bianchi type I universes, allowing $*H$ to be time-dependent or space-dependent, respectively. In a second paper, \[3\], they discussed Bianchi I solutions with a homogeneous antisymmetric tensor field. In \[6\] (see also \[5\]) Batakis presented an overview of all possible configurations of a (spatially) homogeneous $H$-field in diagonal Bianchi models with a metric $$ds^{2}=-dt^{2}+a_{1}(t)^{2}(\omega^{1})^{2}+a_{2}(t)^{2}
(\omega^{2})^{2}+a_{3}(t)^{2}(\omega^{3})^{2}$$ where $\{dt,\omega^{\alpha}\}$ is the standard basis. However, in this paper the Bianchi models are not assumed to be diagonal.
The form of the $H$-field derived from a time-dependent potential will be determined in all four-dimensional space-times with homogeneous three-spaces. These three-spaces were first classified by Bianchi \[7\] and have been extensively studied in the cosmological context following their introduction into cosmology by Taub \[8\]. They provide us with the general class of cosmological models whose solutions are determined by ordinary differential equations in time. By generalising a procedure used to study electromagnetic fields in spatially homogeneous cosmological models by Hughston and Jacobs \[10\], we can determine the maximum number of components permitted for the $H$ field in each of the Bianchi cosmologies. This enables us to determine the number of degrees of freedom which define the string cosmology of each case. The results are interesting. The Bianchi types containing the most general geometries place the most restrictions upon the presence of the $H$ field.
The string world sheet action for a closed bosonic string in a background field including all the massless states of the string as part of the background is given by, \[1\], $$S=-\frac 1{4\pi \alpha ^{\prime }}\int d^2\sigma \{\sqrt{h}h^{\alpha \beta
}\partial _\alpha X^\mu \partial _\beta X^\nu g_{\mu \nu }(X^\rho )+\epsilon
^{\alpha \beta }\partial _\alpha X^\mu \partial _\beta X^\nu B_{\mu \nu
}(X^\rho )+\alpha ^{\prime }\sqrt{h}\phi (X^\rho )R^{(2)}\}$$ where $h^{\alpha \beta }$ is the 2-dimensional worldsheet metric, $R^{(2)}$ the worldsheet Ricci scalar, $\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta }$ the worldsheet antisymmetric tensor, $B_{\mu \nu }(X^\rho )$ the antisymmetric tensor field, $g_{\mu \nu }(X^\rho )$ the background space-time metric (graviton), $%
\phi (X^\rho )$ the dilaton, $\alpha ^{\prime }$ is the inverse string tension, and the functions $X^\rho (\sigma )$ map the string worldsheet into the physical D-dimensional space-time manifold.
For the consistency of string theory it is essential that local scale invariance holds. Imposing this condition results in equations of motion for the fields $g_{\mu \nu }$, $B_{\mu \nu }$ and $\phi $ which can be derived to lowest order in $\alpha ^{\prime }$ from the low-energy effective action $$S=\int d^Dx\sqrt{-g}e^{-\phi }(R+g^{ab}\partial _a\phi \partial _b\phi
-\frac 1{12}H^{abc}H_{abc}-\Lambda).$$
In this paper we assume a vanishing cosmological constant, $\Lambda$.
In a cosmological context it is generally assumed that by some means all but four of the 10 or 26 dimensions of space-time are compactified, leaving an expanding 3+1-dimensional space-time ($D=4)$. Since we are interested in cosmological solutions of the field equations derived from the variation of this action, we adopt the Einstein frame by making the conformal transformation $$g_{ab}\rightarrow e^{-\phi }g_{ab}.$$
In this frame the 4-dimensional string field equations and the equations of motion are given by (indices run $0\leq a,b,c\leq 3$ and $1\leq $ $\alpha
,\beta \leq 3$),
$$\begin{aligned}
R_{ab}-\frac 12g_{ab}R &=&\kappa ^2(^{(\phi )}T_{ab}+^{(H)}T_{ab}), \\
\nabla _a(e^{-2\phi }H^{abc}) &=&0, \\
\Box \phi +\frac 16e^{-2\phi }H_{abc}H^{abc} &=&0,\end{aligned}$$
where $\kappa ^2=8\pi G$ is the 4-dimensional Einstein gravitational coupling and $$\begin{aligned}
^{(\phi )}T_{ab} &\equiv &\frac 12(\phi _{,a}\phi _{,b}-\frac 12g_{ab}\phi
_{,c}\phi ^{,c}), \\
^{(H)}T_{ab} &\equiv &\frac 1{12}e^{-2\phi }(3H_{acd}H_b^{\;\;cd}-\frac
12g_{ab}H_{mlk}H^{mlk}).\end{aligned}$$
The 3-geometries of the nine spatially homogeneous cosmological solutions of these equations are defined by the Bianchi classification of homogeneous spaces (with the exception of the Kantowski-Sachs universe, \[9\], which has a four-dimensional group of motions but no three-dimensional subgroup). In these Bianchi models (e.g. \[13\]) the spacelike hypersurfaces are invariant under the group $G_{3}$ of isometries whose generators are 3 Killing vectors $\xi_{\alpha}$. These hypersurfaces can be described by an invariant vector basis $\{X_{\alpha}\}$ satisfying $${\cal L}_{\xi_{\beta}}X_{\alpha}=[\xi_{\beta},X_{\alpha}]=0$$ where ${\cal L}_{\xi_{\beta}}$ is the Lie derivative in the direction of $\xi_{\beta}$. The timelike direction $X_{0}$ is chosen to be orthogonal to the invariant spacelike hypersurfaces obeying $${\cal L}_{\xi_{\beta}}X_{0}=[\xi_{\beta},X_{0}]=0 .$$
Dual to $\{X_{\alpha}\}$ is the basis of one-forms $\{\omega^{\mu}\}$ satisfying $$\omega^{\mu}=\frac{1}{2}
C^{\mu}_{\kappa\lambda}\omega^{\kappa}\wedge\omega^{\lambda} .$$
Spatial homogeneity is expressed by the following conditions on $\phi$, $g$ and $H$ $${\cal L}_{\xi_{\alpha}}\phi=0 ,$$ $${\cal L}_{\xi_{\alpha}}g=0 ,$$ $${\cal L}_{\xi_{\alpha}}H=0\Rightarrow {\cal L}_{\xi_{\alpha}}(\ast
H)=0 .$$
The definition and properties of the Lie derivative imply that ${\cal L}_{\xi_{\alpha}}\phi=\xi_{\alpha}\phi=0$. Expanding $\ast H$ in the invariant basis (that is, $\ast H=V^{0}X_{0}+V^{\alpha}X_{\alpha}$), and using its properties, implies then $\xi_{\alpha}V^{0}=0$ and $\xi_{\alpha}V^{\beta}=0$. The Killing vectors in the Bianchi models are spacelike and time independent and this then implies that $\phi$ and $H$ are functions of time only in the standard basis $\{dt,\omega^{\alpha}\}$. Furthermore, the antisymmetric tensor potential $B$ where $H=dB$ will be assumed to be a function of time only.
We would like to know the general algebraic form of the $H$ field with a time-dependent potential $B$ in these models, determine which Bianchi universes are the most general, and discover whether the assumption of spatial homogeneity reduces the number of independent pieces of Cauchy data below the number needed to specify a generic inhomogeneous solution of the field equations (4)-(8). This analysis of the allowed components of the $H$-field is most economically performed using differential forms.\
[**II.**]{} [**THE ANTISYMMETRIC TENSOR FIELD AS A 2-FORM**]{}
There are three equations determining the antisymmetric tensor field: the definition of its field strength (for a closed bosonic string) $$\begin{aligned}
H=dB,\end{aligned}$$ which implies the second equation$^{\ }$ $$\begin{aligned}
dH=0,\end{aligned}$$ and there is the equation of motion, (5),
$$\begin{aligned}
d(*H)-2(d\phi )\wedge (*H)=0.\end{aligned}$$
Spatially homogeneous models are described by choosing an orthonormal tetrad, $$ds^2=\eta _{ab}\sigma ^a\sigma ^b,$$ where $\eta _{ab}=diag(-1,1,1,1),$ and specifying the 1-forms ${\sigma ^a}$ \[10,13\] as
$$\begin{aligned}
\sigma ^0 &=&N(\Omega )d\Omega , \nonumber \\
\sigma ^\alpha &=&e^{-\Omega }b_\beta ^\alpha \omega ^\beta .\end{aligned}$$
Here, the $\omega ^\alpha $ obey the algebra $$\begin{aligned}
d\omega ^\alpha =\frac 12C_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha \omega ^\beta \wedge
\omega ^\gamma ,\end{aligned}$$ where $C_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha $ are the structure constants of the possible isometry groups which define the homogeneous 3-spaces, and the $%
b_\beta ^\alpha $ are symmetric matrices which depend only on the time coordinate $\Omega $. Since $B$ is a 2-form, it can be decomposed as $$\begin{aligned}
&& \nonumber \\
\ B &=&B_{0\alpha }\sigma ^0\wedge \sigma ^\alpha +B_{\alpha \beta }\sigma
^\alpha \wedge \sigma ^\beta =Q_{0\kappa }d\Omega \wedge \omega ^\kappa
+S_{\kappa \mu }\omega ^\kappa \wedge \omega ^\mu ,\end{aligned}$$ where $$Q_{0\kappa }(\Omega )\equiv NB_{0\alpha }e^{-\Omega }b_\kappa ^\alpha ,$$ $$S_{\kappa \mu }(\Omega )\equiv e^{-2\Omega }B_{\alpha \beta }b_\kappa
^\alpha b_\mu ^\beta .$$ Hence, $H=dB$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
H=(S_{\alpha \beta \mid \Omega }-\frac 12C_{\alpha \beta }^\kappa Q_{0\kappa
})d\Omega \wedge \omega ^\alpha \wedge \omega ^\beta +\frac 12S_{\kappa \mu
}C_{\alpha \beta }^{[\kappa }\omega ^{\mu ]}\wedge \omega ^\alpha \wedge
\omega ^\beta .\end{aligned}$$ This expression can be analysed further if we introduce the Ellis-MacCallum \[11\] decomposition of the structure constants into the matrix $m_{\alpha
\beta }\ $and the vector $a_\beta ,$
$$C_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma =\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \mu }m^{\mu \gamma
}+\delta _\beta ^\gamma a_\alpha -\delta _\alpha ^\gamma a_\beta ,$$
so (18) becomes
$$\begin{aligned}
H=(S_{\alpha \beta \mid \Omega }-\frac 12C_{\alpha \beta }^\kappa Q_{0\kappa
})d\Omega \wedge \omega ^\alpha \wedge \omega ^\beta +2a_\alpha S_{\kappa
\mu }\omega ^\mu \wedge \omega ^\alpha \wedge \omega ^\kappa .\end{aligned}$$
The structure constants satisfy a Jacobi identity which leaves $C_{\alpha
\beta }^\gamma $ with a maximum of 6 independent components. Since the lagrangian is invariant under the gauge transformation $B_{ab}\rightarrow
B_{ab}+\partial _{[a}\Lambda _{b]},$ we can always choose $\Lambda $ such that $Q_{0\kappa }=-\partial _{[0}\Lambda _{\kappa ]}=-\partial _0\Lambda
_\kappa ,$ and set $Q_{0\kappa }$ to be zero.
The nine Bianchi-type universes fall into two classes, A and B, distinguished by whether the constant $a$ is zero or non-zero respectively \[11\]. From (20) we see that $H$ has no purely spatial components in Class A models.
$H$ is also given by
$$\begin{aligned}
H &=&H_{abc}\sigma ^a\wedge \sigma ^b\wedge \sigma ^c \nonumber \\
&=&H_{0\alpha \beta }\sigma ^0\wedge \sigma ^\alpha \wedge \sigma ^\beta
+H_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\sigma ^\alpha \wedge \sigma ^\beta \wedge \sigma
^\gamma \nonumber \\
&=&X_{0\kappa \lambda }d\Omega \wedge \omega ^\kappa \wedge \omega ^\lambda
+Y_{\kappa \lambda \mu }\omega ^\kappa \wedge \omega ^\lambda \wedge \omega
^\mu ,\end{aligned}$$
where $$X_{0\kappa \lambda }=X_{0\kappa \lambda }(\Omega )\equiv Ne^{-2\Omega
}b_\kappa ^\alpha b_\lambda ^\beta H_{0\alpha \beta },$$ $$Y_{\kappa \lambda \mu }=Y_{\kappa \lambda \mu }(\Omega )\equiv e^{-3\Omega
}b_\kappa ^\alpha b_\lambda ^\beta b_\mu ^\gamma H_{\alpha \beta \gamma }.$$ Therefore $dH=0$ implies
$$\begin{aligned}
Y_{\kappa \lambda \mu \mid \Omega }d\Omega \wedge \omega ^\kappa \wedge
\omega ^\lambda \wedge \omega ^\mu +\frac 12X_{0\kappa \lambda }(C_{\alpha
\beta }^\kappa \omega ^\lambda -C_{\alpha \beta }^\lambda \omega ^\kappa
)\wedge \omega ^\alpha \wedge \omega ^\beta \wedge d\Omega =0.\end{aligned}$$
Using the expression (19) for the structure constants, and noting that the 3-dimensional Levi-Civita symbol is defined by $\epsilon =\sqrt{\det
g_{\alpha \beta }\ }\omega ^1\wedge \omega ^2\wedge \omega ^3,$ eq. (24) becomes
$$\begin{aligned}
(Y_{\kappa \lambda \mu \mid \Omega }-2X_{0\mu \kappa }a_\lambda )d\Omega
\wedge \omega ^\kappa \wedge \omega ^\lambda \wedge \omega ^\mu =0.\end{aligned}$$
The dual, $*\lambda ,$ of an n-dimensional p-form $\lambda $ is defined by the Levi-Civita symbol as \[12\] $$\ast \lambda _{b_1...b_{n-p}}=\frac 1{p!}\lambda ^{a_1...a_p}\epsilon
_{a_1...a_pb_1...b_{n-p}}.$$ Hence, $*H$ is a 1-form given by $$\begin{aligned}
&& \nonumber \\
\ast H &=&\frac 16H^{bcd}\epsilon _{bcda}\sigma ^a=Ud\Omega +V_\alpha \omega
^\alpha ,\end{aligned}$$ where $$U\equiv U(\Omega )\equiv \frac 16H^{\alpha \beta \gamma }\epsilon _{\alpha
\beta \gamma 0}N,$$
$$V_\alpha \equiv V_\alpha (\Omega )\equiv \frac 16H^{abc}\epsilon _{abc\kappa
}b_\alpha ^\kappa e^{-\Omega },$$
and so$\ $
$$d*H=V_{a\mid \Omega }d\Omega \wedge \omega ^\alpha +\frac 12V_\alpha
C_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha \omega ^\beta \wedge \omega ^\gamma .$$
Since $\phi=\phi(\Omega)$, we have $d\phi =\phi _{\mid \Omega }d\Omega $ and equation (11) reads
$$\begin{aligned}
(V_{\alpha \mid \Omega }-2\phi _{\mid \Omega }V_\alpha )d\Omega \wedge
\omega ^\alpha +\frac 12V_\alpha C_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha \omega ^\beta
\wedge \omega ^\gamma =0;\end{aligned}$$
hence, $$\begin{aligned}
V_{\alpha \mid \Omega }-2\phi _{\mid \Omega }V_\alpha &=&0, \\
\frac 12V_\alpha C_{[\beta \gamma ]}^\alpha &=&0.\end{aligned}$$
Notice that the constraint (32) is preserved in time. Contracting (31) with $%
C_{[\beta \gamma ]}^\alpha $ gives $(V_\alpha C_{[\beta \gamma ]}^\alpha
)_{\mid \Omega }=0$ so that if (32) is satisfied at one time it holds at all times. Eqn. (32) implies $$\epsilon ^{\beta \gamma \delta }V_\alpha C_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha =0,$$ which can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
V_\alpha (m^{\delta \alpha }+a_\beta \epsilon ^{\beta \alpha \delta })=0,\end{aligned}$$ and so, by (20), we have $$H=\ X_{0\kappa \lambda }d\Omega \wedge \omega ^\kappa \wedge \omega ^\lambda
+Y_{\kappa \lambda \mu }\ \omega ^\mu \wedge \omega ^\alpha \wedge \omega
^\kappa ,$$ with $$X_{0\kappa \lambda }=S_{[\kappa \lambda ]\mid \Omega }-\frac 12C_{[\kappa
\lambda ]}^\nu Q_{0\nu }{\;\;\rm and\;\;}Y_{\kappa \lambda \mu }=2a_{[\alpha
}S_{\kappa \mu ]}.$$ Eqn. (25) implies $$\begin{aligned}
C_{[\mu \kappa }^\alpha a_{\lambda ]}Q_{0\alpha }=0,\end{aligned}$$ and (31) can be integrated to give
$$\begin{aligned}
V_\alpha =e^{2\phi }K_\alpha ,\end{aligned}$$
where $K_\alpha $ is a constant spatial 3-vector of integration.
Since $*(*H)=H,$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
X^{0\alpha \beta } &=&-\epsilon ^{0\alpha \beta \gamma }V_\gamma \nonumber
\\
\ &=&\epsilon ^{0\alpha \beta \gamma }e^{2\phi }K_\gamma ,\end{aligned}$$ where the minus sign has been absorbed into the constant spatial 3-vector $%
K_\gamma $.\
TABLE 1\
Table 1 displays the restrictions on the spatial components of $*H$ imposed by the constraint equation (34) for the different Bianchi types \[11,13\], together with the components of the homogeneous antisymmetric tensor field strength $H$ in the standard basis $\{d\Omega ,\omega ^\alpha \}$ which are given by eqn. (20). Note that in Class A, eqn. (23) implies $Y_{123}=0,$ and the contravariant components of $Y_{\alpha \beta \gamma }$ are obtained by raising the indices using $g_{ab}$ given by $$g_{00}=-N^2(\Omega )$$ $$g_{\alpha \beta }=e^{-2\Omega }\sum_\gamma b_\alpha ^\gamma b_\beta ^\gamma .$$ In Class B, eqn.(23) implies that $Y_{123}=2a_{[2}S_{31]}=2a_3S_{12}.$ The matrix ${\bf \alpha }$ which specifies the Ellis-MacCallum symbol ${\bf m}%
=m_{\alpha \beta }$ is defined by, \[11\], the matrix
$${\bf \alpha }=\left(
\begin{tabular}{lcr}
0 & 1 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{tabular}
\right)$$
[**III. COUNTING DEGREES OF FREEDOM**]{}
Consider first the question of how many independently arbitrary spatial functions are required to specify generic initial data for the system of string field equations (4)-(8). In a synchronous frame we require 6 $%
g_{\alpha \beta }$, 6 $\dot g_{\alpha \beta },$ 3 components of the $H\ $field, together with values of $\phi $ and $\dot \phi .$ This amounts to 17 functions, but we can remove 4 by using the coordinate covariance of the theory, another 4 by using the $R_{0a}$ constraint equations, and another 1 by using the $\phi $ equation, (6). This leaves 8 independent functions of three spatial variables to specify a general solution of the field equations (4)-(8). If special symmetries are assumed for the solutions of the field equations then some of the metric components and their time derivatives may be absent but some of the algebraic $R_{0a}$ constraints may be identically satisfied. As a result, the number of functions characterising the most general solution compatible with some symmetry may be specified by fewer functions (or by lower-dimensional functions) than the general solution.
Spatially homogeneous cosmological models will be determined by some number of independently arbitrary constants rather than spatial functions. If spatially homogeneous string cosmologies are representative of the most general inhomogeneous string cosmologies then it is necessary (although not necessarily sufficient) that they be characterised by 8 independent arbitrary constants. When the $H$ field vanishes in eqns. (4)-(8), so they reduce Einstein’s equations for a free scalar field, the number of arbitrary functions is required to characterise the general inhomogeneous solution equals the number of constants required for the general homogeneous solution. This equivalence also holds for Einstein’s equations with a perfect fluid (or in vacuum), where 8 (or 4) functions specify a general inhomogeneous solution and 8 (or 4) constants specify Bianchi types VI$_h,$ VII$_h$, VIII, and IX, \[15,16\]. We shall now investigate the degree of generality of the different Bianchi type solutions of the string field equations when the $H$ field is present.
In order to determine how many free parameters are allowed in the different Bianchi models, consider the field equations, (4), for spatially homogeneous universes in the standard basis $\{d\Omega ,\omega ^\alpha \}.$ The components of the Ricci tensor are given by \[14\] $$\begin{aligned}
R_{00} &=&-\dot \theta -\theta _{\alpha \beta }\theta ^{\alpha \beta }, \\
R_{0\alpha } &=&3a_\gamma \theta _\alpha ^\gamma -a_\alpha \theta +\epsilon
_{\gamma \alpha \tau }m^{\tau \beta }\theta _\beta ^\gamma , \\
R_{\alpha \beta } &=&\dot \theta _{\alpha \beta }+\theta \theta _{\alpha
\beta }-2\theta _{\alpha \gamma }\theta _\beta ^\gamma +\Gamma _{\lambda
\gamma }^\gamma \Gamma _{\alpha \beta }^\lambda -\Gamma _{\lambda \beta
}^\gamma \Gamma _{\alpha \gamma }^\lambda +C_{\gamma \beta }^\kappa \Gamma
_{\alpha \kappa }^\gamma ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta _{\alpha \beta }=\frac 12g_{\alpha \beta \mid \Omega }$ , $%
\theta \equiv \theta _\alpha ^\alpha $ and the Ellis-MacCallum parametrization, (19), has been used to express the spatial curvature terms in (44) and (45).
The string field equations give 10 equations for the 6 components of the symmetric metric $g_{\alpha \beta },$ so there are at most 4 constraint equations. The initial data for $g_{\alpha \beta }$ consist of 12 independent constants: 6 $g_{\alpha \beta }$ and 6 $\dot g_{\alpha \beta }$. These are reduced by $(9-p+1)$ due to the fact that there are $9-p+1$ parameters of triad freedom to put the group structure constants into their canonical Ellis-MacCallum form \[14\]. The parameter $p$ is the number of independent group structure constants and $0\leq p\leq 6$. Their values are given below, and in Table 1, for each Bianchi group type. The number of independent constants is reduced by a further $\ 4-r$ due to the constraint equations, where $r$ counts the number of field equations satisfied identically. Hence, a total of $12-(9-p+1)-(4-r)=p+r-2$ independent constants specify the general solution to equations (4)-(8) for spatially homogeneous universes. To calculate $r$ we must check if any of the field equations are identically satisfied due to a particular choice of the group structure parameters $a_\beta $ and $m_{\alpha \beta }$. From eqn. (7) it is clear that the dilaton’s contribution to the $R_{0\alpha }$ equations vanishes identically. The contribution by the $H$ field is determined by $%
H_{0cd}H_\alpha ^{\;\;cd},$ but we know from (35)-(36) that $H_{0cd}H_\alpha
^{\;\;cd}=-X^{0\beta \gamma }Y_{\alpha \beta \gamma },$ hence $R_{0\alpha }=0
$ for all Class A models.
The equations of motion for $H$ and the constraints they impose have been discussed in section II; Table 1 gives the number of free parameters, $3-u,\
\ $to specify initial data for $H$ for each group type. The initial conditions for the dilaton $\phi $ require 2 further independent constants: $%
\phi $ and $\dot \phi ,$ while eqn.(6) determines the dynamics of $\phi $. Therefore the general spatially homogeneous solution(s) to equations (4)-(8) contain $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal N}\equiv 3+p+r-u\end{aligned}$$ independent arbitrary constants. Using the constraint equations (34) and (44) we can evaluate $p,r,u,$ and ${\cal N}$(Bianchi type) explicitly as follows (the values of these parameters are summarised in Table 1).
[**A. Class A models**]{}\
[*Bianchi I*]{}: $R_{0\alpha }=0,$ hence $r=3$, $p=0$, $u=0$ and ${\cal N}%
(I)=6$
[*Bianchi II*]{}: $R_{01}=0,R_{02}=-\theta _1^3,R_{03}=\theta _1^2,$ hence $%
r=1$, $p=3$, $u=1,$ and ${\cal N}(II)=6$
[*Bianchi VI*]{}$_{-1}$:$\ R_{01}=-\theta _1^3$, $R_{02}=\theta
_2^3,R_{03}=\theta _1^1-\theta _2^2,$ hence $r=0$, $p=5$, $u=2,$ and ${\cal N%
}(VI_{-1})=6$
[*Bianchi VII*]{}$_0$: $R_{01}=-\theta _2^3$, $R_{02}=\theta _1^3$, $%
R_{03}=\theta _2^1-\theta _{1\;\;\;}^2,$ hence $r=0$, $p=5$, $u=2,$ and $%
{\cal N}(VII_0)=6$
[*Bianchi VIII*]{}: $R_{01}=\theta _2^3-\theta _3^2,R_{02}=\theta
_1^3+\theta _3^1,R_{03}=-\theta _1^2-\theta _2^1,$ hence $r=0$, $p=6$, $u=3$ and ${\cal N}(VIII)=6$
[*Bianchi IX*]{}: $R_{01}=\theta _2^3-\theta _3^2,$ $R_{02}=\theta
_3^1-\theta _{1\;\;\;}^3,R_{03}=\theta _1^2-\theta _2^1,\ $hence $r=0$, $%
p=6$, $u=3,$ and ${\cal N}(IX)=6.$
Hence, all Class A models are equally general according to the parameter-counting criterion.
[**B. Class B models**]{}\
[*Bianchi III*]{}: $R_{01}=-2\theta _1^3,R_{02}=-\theta _2^3,R_{03}=\theta
_1^1-\theta _3^3,$ hence $r=0$, $p=5$, $u=0,$ and ${\cal N}(III)=8$
[*Bianchi IV*]{}: $R_{01}=-3\theta _1^3,R_{02}=-3\theta _2^3-\theta
_1^3,R_{03}=-\theta _3^3+\theta +\theta _1^2,$ hence $r=0$, $p=5$, $u=1,$ and ${\cal N}(IV)=7$
[*Bianchi V*]{}: $R_{01}=-3\theta _1^3,R_{02}=-3\theta _2^3,R_{03}=-\theta
-3\theta _3^3,$ hence $r=0$, $p=3$, $u=1,$ and ${\cal N}(V)=5$
[*Bianchi VI*]{}$_{h\neq -1}$: $R_{01}=-(h+2)\theta
_1^3,R_{02}=-(2h+1)\theta _2^3,R_{03}=\theta _1^1+h\theta _2^2-(h+1)\theta
_3^3.$ For special choices of $h,$ either $R_{01}$ or $R_{02}$ can be made to vanish identically. The two choices are either $h=-2$ or $h=-\frac 12,$ \[15\], so that $r(h=-2)=r(h=-1/2)=1$. Therefore, we have three cases,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --
\(i) $h=0:r=0,\;p=5,u=0,$ and ${\cal N}(VI_0)=8,$
\(ii) $h\neq 0$, $h\neq -2$ and $h\neq -\frac 12:r=0,\;p=5,$ $u=1,$ and $%
{\cal N}(VI_h)=7,$
\(iii) $h=-2$ or $h=-\frac 12:r=1,\;p=5,\;u=1,$ and ${\cal N}(VI_{h\neq
-2,-\frac 12})=8.$
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --
[*Bianchi VII*]{}$_{h\neq 0}$: $R_{01}=-h\theta _1^3-\theta _2^3,$ $%
R_{02}=\theta _1^3-2h\theta _2^3,R_{03}=\theta _2^1-\theta _1^2+h\theta
_2^2-h\theta _3^3.$ Since $h$ is a real parameter there are no exceptional cases; hence $r=0$, $p=5$, $u=1,$ and ${\cal N}(VII_h)=7.$\
This analysis of Class B models indicates that they are described by more free parameters than those of Class A and the different Class B models are not equally general like those of Class A. Thus the most general spatially homogeneous solutions of the string equations (4)-(8) are those of Bianchi types III and VI$_{h=0,-\frac 12,-2}.$ These cosmological models contain the maximum number of 8 free parameters. These results can be compared with the study of homogeneous pure magnetic or pure electric fields in general-relativistic Bianchi universes carried out by Hughston and Jacobs \[10\] and Ruban \[17\] where a similar phenomenon occurs. For a homogeneous magnetic field the most general solution is found to be Bianchi type III. Contrary to what was found for the antisymmetric tensor field strength, the exceptional purely magnetic universes of Bianchi type VI do not contain as many free parameters as the Bianchi III universe. This might be related to the fact that $H$ is a 3-form and the homogeneous space is three dimensional, which implies that $dH$ does not provide additional constraints on the purely spatial components of $H,$ whereas in the case of a Maxwell 2-form, $f,$ the differential, $df,$ does give additional constraints on the purely spatial components involving the group structure constants via the Maxwell equations $df=0=d*f$. However, the number of free parameters in Bianchi models in the cases of the homogeneous pure magnetic fields and homogeneous antisymmetric tensor field strength possess common features. In both cases the generality of the solutions is the same in Bianchi types IV, VI$_{h\neq 0,-\frac 12,-2}$ and VII$_{h\neq 0},$and the least general model is Bianchi type V.
The hierarchy of generality in the string cosmologies has several interesting features when compared with the situation of vacuum and perfect-fluid universes in general relativity. The most general category of 8-parameter models (types III and VI$_{h=0,-\frac 12,-2})$ does not contain closed universes (ie type IX) as in general relativity, nor does it contain any types which contain isotropic universes as particular cases (ie types I, V, VII$_0,$VII$_h$ or IX). Isotropy is not an open property of homogeneous initial data space. This is related to the fact that the $H$ field is an anisotropic stress: the isotropic limit cannot be obtained with a non-zero $%
H $ field. This means that the isotropic Friedmann universes appear to be even less representative of the general behaviour of cosmological models in string theory than they are in general relativity. However, a similar situation can arise in general relativity when anisotropic stresses are included.
[**IV. CONCLUSIONS**]{}
The equations that determine the antisymmetric tensor field in low-energy effective string theory have been investigated in spatially homogeneous Bianchi-type universes. It is found that the homogeneous 3-form $H$ with a homogeneous potential can have at most three nonvanishing components. The number of allowed components were fully classified in Table 1. In Bianchi Class A models the field strength $H$ has no purely spatial components in the standard basis. Bianchi types VIII and IX allow only a time-independent, antisymmetric tensor field, $B_{\mu
\nu },$ which implies a vanishing field strength $H$. In the case of Bianchi IX this can be understood in geometrical terms. Each of the Bianchi models corresponds to a group of motions or isometries of spatial hypersurfaces. In the case of Bianchi IX this group is isomorphic to SO(3,I$\!$R), which is isomorphic to the three-dimensional rotation group. Since the dual of the antisymmetric tensor field strength, $H,$ is a vector, one of the spatial directions is picked out and this is incompatible with the rotational invariance.
In comparison with Batakis’ findings on the possible configurations of the $H$-field (not necessarily derived from a homogeneous potential) in diagonal Bianchi models \[6\] \[5\] the cases $\chi(d \rightarrow)$ and $\chi(d \nearrow)$ are recovered \[18\] if Einstein’s equations for the diagonal Bianchi $IV$ and $VII$ models are taken into account (primarily the $R_{12}$ constraint equation in the orthonormal frame which implies a solution which is singular everywhere). For the $\chi(d\rightarrow)$ case one must bear in mind that for $Y_{123}=0$ equation (25) implies $X_{012}=0$. Since we started with a purely time-dependent potential the case $\chi(d\uparrow)$ is only partially recovered. However, in the other two cases the generality is not restricted by assuming a purely time-dependent potential.
Eight independent functions of three spatial variables were found to be required to characterise a general inhomogeneous solutions of the string field equations. This was compared with the number required to specify each homogeneous Bianchi type solution. It was found that the most general homogeneous solutions are of Bianchi types III and VI$_{h=0,-\frac 12,-2}$, and contain 8 independent constants. This situation contrasts with that for spatially homogeneous vacuum and perfect-fluid universes in general relativity and for degenerate string cosmologies with $\phi \neq 0$ and $H=0$. In these cases, the most general universes are of Bianchi types VI$_h,$ VII$_h$, VIII, and IX. When $H\neq 0$ we find a change in the relative degrees of generality that is analogous to that found in the case of spatially homogeneous general relativistic universes containing pure magnetic fields.
[**Acknowledgements** ]{}The authors would like to thank A. Lahiri and M. Dabrowski for discussions. JDB was supported by a PPARC Senior Fellowship and KEK was supported by the German National Scholarship Foundation.\
[** References**]{}\
\[1\] M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz, E. Witten [*Superstring Theory,*]{}[* *]{}Vol. I (CUP: Cambridge, 1987); E. S. Fradkin, & A. A. Tseytlin, Nucl. Phys. [**B 261,**]{} 1 (1985); C. G. Callan, E. J. Martinec & M. J. Perry, Nucl. Phys. [**B**]{} [**262**]{}, 593 (1985); C. Lovelace, Nucl. Phys.[** B**]{} [**273**]{}, 413 (1985).
\[2\] E. J. Copeland, A. Lahiri, & D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D [**50**]{}, 4868 (1994).
\[3\] E. J. Copeland, A. Lahiri, & D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D [**51,**]{} 1569 (1995)
\[4\] M. Gasperini, J. Maharana & G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. B [**272**]{}, 277 (1991); J. García-Bellido, M. Quirós, Nucl. Phys. B[**368**]{} 463 (1992); J. García-Bellido, M. Quirós, Nucl. Phys. B [**385**]{} 558 (1992); M. Gasperini, & G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. B [**277**]{}, 256 (1992); M. Gasperini, R. Ricci & G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. B [**319**]{}, 438 (1993); M. Gasperini & R. Ricci, Class. Quantum Grav. [**12**]{}, 677 (1995). A. A. Saaryan, Astrophysics [**38**]{}, 164 (1995).
\[5\] N. A. Batakis & A. A. Kehagias, Nucl. Phys. B [**449,**]{} 248 (1995); N. A. Batakis, Phys. Lett. B [**353,**]{} 450 (1995).
\[6\] N. A. Batakis, Phys. Lett. B [**353,**]{} 39 (1995).
\[7\] L. Bianchi, Mem. Soc. It. della Sc. (dei XL) [**11**]{}, 267 (1897); [*Lezioni sulla teoria dei gruppi continui finiti di transformazioni*]{}, (Spoerri: Pisa, 1918).
\[8\] A. H. Taub, Ann. Math. [**53**]{}, 472 (1951).
\[9\] R. Kantowski & R. K. Sachs, J. Math. Phys. [**7**]{}, 443 (1966); A. S. Kompanyeets & A .S. Chernov, Sov. Phys. JETP [**20**]{}, 1303 (1964); C. B. Collins, J. Math. Phys. [**18**]{}, 2116 (1977). Exact string cosmological solutions have been found for Kantowski-Sachs models by J. D. Barrow and M. Dabrowski, Phys. Rev. D [**000**]{} 000 (1996).
\[10\] L. P. Hughston & K. C. Jacobs, Astrophys. J. [**160,**]{} 147 (1969).
\[11\] G. F. R. Ellis & M. A. H. MacCallum, Comm. Math. Phys. [**12,**]{} 108 (1969) and [**19,**]{} 31 (1970).
\[12\] See e.g. R. M. Wald, [*General Relativity* ]{}(U. Chicago P.: Chicago, 1984).
\[13\] M. P. Ryan & L. C. Shepley, [*Homogeneous Relativistic Cosmologies,* ]{}(Princeton U. P.; Princeton, 1975).
\[14\] M. A. H. MacCallum, in [*General Relativity: an Einstein Centenary,* ]{}eds. S. W. Hawking & W. Israel (CUP: Cambridge, 1979); S. T. C. Siklos, in [*Relativistic Astrophysics and Cosmology*]{}, eds. X. Fustero & E. Verdaguer, (World Scientific: Singapore, 1984), pp 201-248; S. T. C. Siklos, Class. Q. Grav. [**13**]{}, 1931 (1996); J. D. Barrow & D. H. Sonoda, Phys. Rep. [**139**]{},1 (1986); J.D. Barrow, in [*The Physical Universe: The Interface Between Cosmology, Astrophysics and Particle Physics*]{}, eds. J. D. Barrow, A.B. Henriques, M.T.V.T. Lago & M.S. Longair, Springer LNP 383, (Springer: NY,1991), pp1-20.
\[15\] L. Landau & E. M. Lifshitz, [*The Classical Theory of Fields,*]{} 4th edn., (Pergamon: Oxford, 1975).
\[16\] $h=-\frac 19$ is not the special value because Ryan and Shepley, in ref. \[13\], use an off-diagonal parametrization for $m_{\alpha \beta }$ in Bianchi VI$_{h\neq -1}$; $h=-\frac 19$ is obtained as special value if one chooses the diagonal parametrization.
\[17\] V. A. Ruban, Sov. Astron. [**26**]{}, 632 (1983) and [**29**]{}, 5 (1985).
\[18\] $\chi(d\;\;\;)$ is a parameter with value I,II,...,IX denoting the Bianchi classification, $d$ stands for diagonal and an arrow indicates the orientation of $\ast H=\ast H_{0}(t)dt+\ast H_{\alpha}(t)
\omega^{\alpha}$. So that in a $\chi(d\uparrow)$ model $\ast H$ has only a timelike component, in a $\chi(d\rightarrow)$ model only spatial components while in a $\chi(d \nearrow)$ model both components appear.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bianchi Type $a_{\alpha}$ [**m**]{} $V_{\alpha}$ $X^{0\alpha\beta}$ $Y_{123}$ $p$ $ r$ $u$ ${\cal N}$
----------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------ ---------------------------------- ---------------------- ----- ------ ----- ------------
$X^{012}=e^{2\phi}K_{3}$
[**I**]{} 0 0 $V_{\alpha}$ arb $X^{013}=-e^{2\phi}K_{2}$ 0 0 3 0 6
$X^{023}=e^{2\phi}K_{1}$
$V_{1}=0$ $X^{012}=e^{2\phi}K_{3}$
[**II**]{} 0 diag(1,0,0) $V_{2}$ arb $X^{013}=-e^{2\phi}K_{2}$ 0 3 1 1 6
$V_{3}$ arb $X^{023}=0$
$V_{1}=0$ $X^{012}=e^{2\phi}K_{3}$
[**VI$_{-1}$**]{} 0 [**m**]{}=$-{\bf\alpha}$ $V_{2}=0$ $X^{013}=0$ 0 5 0 2 6
$V_{3}$ arb $X^{023}=0$
$V_{1}=0$ $X^{012}=e^{2\phi}K_{3}$
[**VII$_{0}$**]{} 0 diag$(-1,-1,0)$ $V_{2}=0$ $X^{013}=0$ 0 5 0 2 6
$V_{3}$ arb $X^{023}=0$
$V_{1}=0$ $X^{012}=0$
[**VIII**]{} 0 diag$(-1,1,1)$ $V_{2}=0$ $X^{013}=0$ 0 6 0 3 6
$V_{3}$=0 $X^{023}=0$
$V_{1}=0$ $X^{012}=0$
[**IX**]{} 0 diag$(1,1,1)$ $V_{2}=0$ $X^{013}=0$ 0 6 0 3 6
$V_{3}$=0 $X^{023}=0$
$V_{1}=0$ $X^{012}=e^{2\phi}K_{3}$
[**III**]{} $-\frac{1}{2}\delta^{\alpha}_{3}$ $-\frac{1}{2}{\bf\alpha}$ $V_{2}$ arb $X^{013}=-e^{2\phi}K_{2}$ $-S_{12}$ 5 0 0 8
$V_{3}$ arb $X^{023}=0$
$V_{1}=0$ $X^{012}=e^{2\phi}K_{3}$
[**IV**]{} $-\delta^{\alpha}_{3}$ diag(1,0,0) $V_{2}$=0 $X^{013}=0$ $-2S_{12}$ 5 0 1 7
$V_{3}$ arb $X^{023}=0$
$V_{1}=0$ $X^{012}=e^{2\phi}K_{3}$
[**V**]{} $-\delta^{\alpha}_{3}$ 0 $V_{2}$=0 $X^{013}=0$ $-2S_{12}$ 3 0 1 5
$V_{3}$ arb $X^{023}=0$
$\;\;\; h=0$ $V_{1}=0$ $X^{012}=e^{2\phi}K_{3}$ 5 0 0 8
[**VI$_{h\neq -1}$**]{} $-\frac{1}{2}(h+1)\delta^{\alpha}_{3}$ $ $V_{2}h$=0 $ X^{013}_{h=0}=-e^{2\phi}K_{2}$ $-(h+1)S_{12}$
-\frac{1}{2}(h-1)\alpha$
$\;\;\; h\neq 0,-\frac{1}{2}, -2$ $ X^{013}_{h\neq 0}$ = 0 5 0 1 7
$\;\;\; h=-\frac{1}{2}, -2$ $V_{3}$ arb $X^{023}=0$ 5 1 1 8
$V_{1}=0$ $X^{012}=e^{2\phi}K_{3}$
[**VII$_{h\neq 0}$**]{} $-\frac{h}{2}\delta^{\alpha}_{3}$ diag$(-1,-1,0)$ $V_{2}=0$ $X^{013}=0 $ $-\frac{h}{2}S_{12}$ 5 0 1 7
$ \;\;\;+ \frac{h}{2}{\bf\alpha}$ $V_{3}$ arb $X^{023}=0$
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Summary of the possible components of the homogeneous antisymmetric tensor field strength and degrees of freedom. The different variables are explained in the text.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A contragredient Lie superalgebra is a superalgebra defined by a Cartan matrix. In general, a contragredient Lie superalgebra is not finite dimensional, however it has a natural $\mathbb{Z}$-grading by finite dimensional components. A contragredient Lie superalgebra has finite growth if the dimensions of these graded components depend polynomially on the degree. We discuss the classification of finite-growth contragredient Lie superalgebras.'
author:
- |
Crystal Hoyt[^1]\
(joint work with Vera Serganova)
date: 'November 17, 2009'
title: 'Classification of finite-growth contragredient Lie superalgebras'
---
\^\#2\_\#3[@[-\^>]{}@<.5ex>\[\#1\]\^[\#2]{} @[\_<-]{}@<-.5ex>\[\#1\]\_[\#3]{}]{}
Introduction
============
A Lie superalgebra is a generalization of a Lie algebra, and a contragredient Lie superalgebra is a superalgebra defined by a Cartan matrix [@K77; @K90]. In 1977, V.G. Kac classified the simple finite-dimensional contragredient Lie superalgebras [@K77]. In 1978, V.G. Kac classified the finite-growth contragredient Lie superalgebras which satisfy the condition that there are no zeros on the main diagonal of the Cartan matrix [@K78]. In 1986, J.W. van de Leur classified the finite-growth contragredient Lie superalgebras which have symmetrizable Cartan matrices [@L86; @L89]. We complete the classification of finite-growth contragredient Lie superalgebras in [@HS07], imposing no conditions. Our list contains previously known examples [@KL89; @S84] and some new superalgebras, however these new superalgebras are not simple.
Let $\mathfrak{ g} (A)$ be a contragredient Lie superalgebra of finite growth and suppose the matrix $A$ is indecomposable with no zero rows. Then either $A$ is symmetrizable and $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ is isomorphic to an affine or finite-dimensional Lie superalgebra classified in [@L86; @L89], or it is $D(2,1,0)$, $\widehat{D}(2,1,0)$, $S(1,2,\alpha)$ or $q(n)^{(2)}$. See Table 1 and Table 3.
The case where the matrix $A$ has a zero row is also handled in [@HS07]. In this case, the Lie superalgebra $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ is not simple and is basically obtained by extending a finite dimensional algebra by a Heisenberg algebra. A characterization of these Cartan matrices is given in [@HS07].
Unlike the usual Kac-Moody algebra situation, there exist non-symmetrizable families of finite-growth contragredient Lie superalgebras, and one of these families, $S(1,2,\alpha)$, can not be realized as a twisted affinization, whereas another family, $q(n)^{(2)}$, is a twisted affinization of a finite dimensional Lie superalgebra which is not contragredient. The Lie superalgebra $S(1,2,\alpha)$ appears in the list of conformal superalgebras given in [@KL89].
The main idea of this classification is to use odd reflections [@LSS86] to relate the properties of different bases for the Lie superalgebra g(A). In contrast to the Lie algebra case where the Cartan matrix is unique, a Lie superalgebra usually has more than one Cartan matrix.
It is shown in [@HS07] that if $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ is a finite-growth contragredient Lie superalgebra and the Cartan matrix $A$ has no zero rows, then simple root vectors of $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ act locally nilpotently on the adjoint module. This implies certain conditions on $A$ which are only slightly weaker than the conditions for the matrix to be a generalized Cartan matrix. The crucial point is that for a finite-growth Lie superalgebra, these matrix conditions should still hold after odd reflections.
This leads to the definition of a regular Kac-Moody superalgebra: a contragredient Lie superalgebra all of whose Cartan matrices obtained by odd reflections are generalized Cartan matrices. Equivalently, these are the contragredient Lie superalgebras for which all real root vectors act locally nilpotently on the adjoint module and all real isotropic roots are regular. Remarkably, this is a finite list of families.
By comparing the classification of regular Kac-Moody superalgebras to the classification of symmetrizable finite-growth contragredient Lie superalgebras in [@L86; @L89] we obtain the following formulation of the classification theorem.
If $A$ is a symmetrizable indecomposable matrix and the contragredient Lie superalgebra $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ has a simple isotropic root, then $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ is a regular Kac-Moody superalgebra if and only if it has finite growth.
If $A$ is a non-symmetrizable indecomposable matrix and the contragredient Lie superalgebra $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ has a simple isotropic root, then $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ is a regular Kac-Moody superalgebra if and only if it belongs to one of the following three families: $q(n)^{(2)}$, $S(1,2,\alpha)$ with $\alpha\in\mathbb{C}\setminus\mathbb{Z}$, $Q^{\pm}(m,n,t)$ with $m,n,t\in\mathbb{Z}_{\leq -1}$.
We discover that regular Kac-Moody superalgebras almost always have finite growth. The only exception is a family of $3\times 3$-matrices, $Q^{\pm}(m,n,t)$. This superalgebra is new, and a realization is not known.
We classify regular Kac-Moody superalgebras by extending finite type diagrams. We then prove that our list is complete by using the theory of integrable highest weight modules of Kac-Moody superalgebras developed in [@KW01].
Lie superalgebras
=================
A [*superalgebra*]{} is a $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$-graded algebra $A=A_{\overline{0}} \oplus
A_{\overline{1}}$ over $\mathbb{C}$. A [*Lie superalgebra*]{} is a (non-associative) superalgebra $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{g}_{\overline{0}} \oplus \mathfrak{g}_{\overline{1}}$ where the product operation $[\cdot,\cdot]: \mathfrak{g} \times \mathfrak{g} \rightarrow \mathfrak{g}$ satisfies the following axioms, with $x \in \mathfrak{g}_{p(x)}$, $y \in \mathfrak{g}_{p(y)}$: $$\begin{aligned}
&[x,y]=-(-1)^{p(x)p(y)} [y,x] &\text{super skew-symmetry,} \\
&[x,[y,z]] = [[x,y],z] + (-1)^{p(x)p(y)} [y,[x,z]] &\text{super Jacobi identity.}\end{aligned}$$ The subalgebra $\mathfrak{g}_{\overline{0}}$ is a Lie algebra.
The general Lie superalgebra $\mathfrak{gl}(m|n)$: Let $M_{r,s}$ denote the set of $r\times s$ matrices. As a vector space $\mathfrak{gl}(m|n)$ is $M_{m+n,m+n}$, where: $$\mathfrak{g}_{\overline{0}}=\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc} A & 0 \\ 0 & B\end{array}\right)\mid A\in M_{m,m},\ B\in M_{n,n}\right\}, \text{ and }
\mathfrak{g}_{\overline{1}}=\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & C \\ D & 0\end{array}\right)\mid C\in M_{m,n},\ D\in M_{n,m}\right\}.$$ The bracket operation is defined on homogeneous elements as follows: if $X\in\mathfrak{g}_{i}$, $Y\in\mathfrak{g}_{j}$, then $$[X,Y]:=XY-(-1)^{ij}YX,$$ and is extended linearly to the superalgebra.
The special Lie superalgebra $$\mathfrak{sl}(m|n):=\left\{X=\left(\begin{array}{cc} A & C \\ D & B\end{array}\right)\in\mathfrak{gl}(m|n)\mid \mbox{supertr}(X):=\mbox{tr}(A)-\mbox{tr}(B)=0 \right\}.$$
Contragredient Lie superalgebras
================================
Let $A$ be a $n\times n$ matrix over $\mathbb{C}$, $I=\{1,\ldots,n\}$ and $p:I \to {\mathbb Z}_{2} $ be a parity function. Fix a vector space $\mathfrak{h}$ over $\mathbb{C}$ of dimension $2n-\operatorname{rk}(A)$. Let $\alpha_{1},\dots ,\alpha_{n}\in{\mathfrak h}^{*}$ and $h_{1},\dots ,h_{n}\in{\mathfrak h}$ be linearly independent elements satisfying $\alpha_{j}\left(h_{i}\right)=a_{ij}$, where $a_{ij}$ is the $ij$-th entry of $A$.
Define a Lie superalgebra $\tilde{\mathfrak{g}}(A)$ by generators $X_{1},\dots ,X_{n},Y_{1},\dots ,Y_{n}$ and $\mathfrak{h}$, and by relations $$\left[X_{i},Y_{j}\right]=\delta_{ij}h_{i}\text{,\hspace{.5cm}
}\left[h,X_{i}\right]=\alpha_{i}\left(h\right)X_{i}\text{,\hspace{.5cm} }\left[h,Y_{i}\right]=-\alpha_{i}\left(h\right)Y_{i},\hspace{.5cm}\text{for all }h\in\mathfrak{h},$$ where the parity of $X_i$ and $Y_i$ is $p(i)$, and the elements of $\mathfrak{h}$ are even.
Let $r(A)$ be the maximal ideal of $\tilde{\mathfrak{g}}(A)$ which intersects $\mathfrak{h}$ trivially. Then $$\frak{g}(A):=\tilde{\mathfrak{g}}(A)/ r(A)$$ is a [*contragredient Lie superalgebra*]{}.
The matrix $A$ is the [*Cartan matrix*]{} of $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ for the set of simple roots $\Pi:=\{\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n\}$. If $B=DA$ for some invertible diagonal matrix $D$, then $\mathfrak{g}(B)\cong\mathfrak{g}(A)$. Hence, we may assume without loss of generality that $a_{ii}\in\{0,2\}$ for $i\in I$. The matrix $A$ is said to be [*symmetrizable*]{} if there exists an invertible diagonal matrix $D$ such that $B=DA$ is a symmetric matrix, i.e. $b_{ij}=b_{ji}$ for all $i,j\in I$. In this case, we also say that $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ is symmetrizable.
We have the following lemma [@HS07].
\[lm20\] For any subset $ J\subset I $ the subalgebra $\mathfrak{a}_{J}$ in $\mathfrak{g}\left(A\right) $ generated by $ \mathfrak{h} $, $ X_{i} $ and $ Y_{i} $, with $ i\in J $, is isomorphic to $ \mathfrak{h}'\oplus{\mathfrak g}\left(A_{J}\right) $, where $ A_{J} $ is the submatrix of $A$ with coefficients $ \left(a_{ij}\right)_{i,j\in J} $ and $\mathfrak{h}' $ is a subspace of $\mathfrak{h} $. More precisely, $\mathfrak{h}' $ is a maximal subspace in $ \cap_{i\in J} \operatorname{Ker} \alpha_{i} $ which trivially intersects the span of $ h_{i} $, $ i\in J $.
Let $\mathfrak{n}_{+}$ (resp. $\mathfrak{n}_{-}$) denote the subalgebra of $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ generated by the elements $X_i$ (resp. $Y_i$), $i\in I$. Then $\mathfrak{g}(A)=\mathfrak{n}^{-}\oplus\mathfrak{h}\oplus\mathfrak{n}^{+}$.
Roots
=====
The Lie superalgebra $ {\mathfrak g}={\mathfrak g}\left(A\right) $ has a [*root space decomposition*]{} $${\mathfrak g}={\mathfrak h}\oplus\bigoplus_{\alpha\in\Delta}{\mathfrak g}_{\alpha}.
\notag$$ Every root is either a positive or a negative linear combination of the simple roots, $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n$. Accordingly, we have the decomposition $ \Delta=\Delta^{+}\cup\Delta^{-} $, and we call $\alpha\in\Delta^{+}$ positive and $\alpha\in\Delta^{-}$ negative. One can define $ p:\Delta \to {\mathbb Z}_{2} $ by letting $ p\left(\alpha\right)=0 $ or 1 whenever $\alpha $ is even or odd, respectively. By $ \Delta_{0}$ (resp. $\Delta_{1}$) we denote the set of even (resp. odd) roots.\
There are four possibilities for each simple root:
1. if $ a_{ii}=2 $ and $ p(\alpha_i)=0 $, then $ X_{i} $, $ Y_{i} $ and $ h_{i} $ generate a subalgebra isomorphic to $ \mathfrak{sl}\left(2\right) $;
2. if $ a_{ii}=0 $ and $ p(\alpha_i)=0 $, then $ X_{i} $, $ Y_{i} $ and $ h_{i} $ generate a subalgebra isomorphic to the Heisenberg algebra;
3. if $ a_{ii}=2 $ and $ p(\alpha_i)=1 $, then $ X_{i} $, $ Y_{i} $ and $ h_{i} $ generate a subalgebra isomorphic to $ \mathfrak{osp}\left(1|2\right) $, and in this case $2\alpha_i\in\Delta $;
4. if $ a_{ii}=0 $ and $ p(\alpha_i)=1 $, then $ X_{i} $, $ Y_{i} $ and $
h_{i} $ generate a subalgebra isomorphic to $ \mathfrak{sl}\left(1|1\right) $.
In the last case we say that $ \alpha $ is [*isotropic*]{}, and in the other cases a root is called [*non-isotropic*]{}. A simple root $\alpha_i$ is [*regular*]{} if for any other simple root $\alpha_j$, $a_{ij}=0$ implies $a_{ji}=0$. Otherwise a simple root is called [*singular*]{}.\
It is useful to describe $A$ by the corresponding Dynkin diagram, which we denote $\Gamma_{A}$, see [@K77; @L86]. Here we use matrix diagrams, but still follow the standard labeling conventions for the vertices.
$$\doublespacing
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$\mathfrak{g}(A)$ & $A$ & $p(1)$ & Dynkin diagram \\
\hline
$\mathfrak{sl}(2)$ & (2) & 0 & ${\bigcirc}$ \\
$\mathfrak{osp}(1,2)$ & (2) & 1 & {\mbox{\Huge $\bullet$}}\\
$\mathfrak{sl}(1,1)$ & (0) & 1 & ${\bigotimes}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}$$
We join vertex $i$ to vertex $j$ by an arrow if $a_{ij} \neq 0$ and we write the number $a_{ij}$ on this arrow.
Odd reflections
===============
Let $\Pi=\{\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n\}$ be the set of simple roots of $\mathfrak{g}(A)$. If $\alpha_k\in\Pi$ and $a_{kk}\neq 0$, we define the (even) reflection $r_{k}$ at $\alpha_k$ by $$r_{k}(\alpha_i)=\alpha_i - \alpha_i(h_k)\alpha_k,\hspace{2cm}\alpha_i\in\Pi.$$
If $\alpha_k\in\Pi$, $a_{kk}=0$ and $p(\alpha_k)=1$, we define the [*odd reflection*]{} $r_{k}$ at $\alpha_k$ as follows: $$r_{k}(\alpha_{i}):= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
-\alpha_{k}, & \hbox{if $i=k$;} \\
\alpha_{i}, & \hbox{if $a_{ik}=a_{ki}=0$, $i \neq k$;} \\
\alpha_{i}+\alpha_{k}, & \hbox{if $a_{ik}\neq 0$ or $a_{ki} \neq 0$, $i \neq k$;}
\end{array}\hspace{1cm}\alpha_i\in\Pi,
\right.$$
$$X_{i}':=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
Y_{i}, & \hbox{if $i=k$;}\\
X_{i}, & \hbox{if $i\neq k$, and $a_{ik}=a_{ki}=0$;}\\
{[X_{i},X_{k}]}, & \hbox{if $i\neq k$, and $a_{ik}\neq 0$ or $a_{ki}\neq 0$;}
\end{array}\right.$$
$$Y_{i}':=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
X_{i}, & \hbox{if $i=k$;}\\
Y_{i}, & \hbox{if $i\neq k$, and $a_{ik}=a_{ki}=0$;}\\
{[Y_{i},Y_{k}]}, & \hbox{if $i\neq k$, and $a_{ik}\neq 0$ or $a_{ki}\neq 0$;}
\end{array}\right.$$
and $$h_{i}' := [X_{i}',Y_{i}'].$$ Then $$h_{i}' = \begin{cases}
h_{k} &\text{ if } i=k,\\
h_{i} &\text{ if }i \neq k\text{, and }a_{ik}=a_{ki}=0, \\
(-1)^{p(\alpha_{i})} (a_{ik}h_{k}+a_{ki}h_{i}) &\text{ if }i \neq k\text{, and }a_{ik} \text{ or }a_{ki} \neq 0. \end{cases}$$ Set $\alpha'_i:=r_{k}(\alpha_i)$ for $i\in I$.\
We have the following lemma [@HS07].
The roots $\alpha'_1,\dots\alpha'_n$ are linearly independent. The elements $$X'_1,\dots,X'_n \text{, } \hspace{.5cm} Y'_1,\dots,Y'_n \text{, } \hspace{.5cm} h'_1,\dots,h'_n$$ satisfy the Chevalley relations $$\left[h'_j,X'_{i}\right]=\alpha'_{i}\left(h'_j\right)X'_{i}
\text{, } \hspace{.5cm} \left[h'_j,Y'_{i}\right]=-\alpha'_{i}\left(h'_j\right)Y'_{i}
\text{, } \hspace{.5cm} \left[X'_{i},Y'_{j}\right]=\delta_{ij}h'_{i}.$$ Moreover, if $\alpha_k$ is regular, then $X'_i, Y'_i, \mathfrak{h}$ generate $\mathfrak{g}(A)$.
Given a matrix $A$ and a regular isotropic root $\alpha_k$, one can construct a new matrix $A'$ such that $\mathfrak{g}(A')$ and $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ are isomorphic as Lie superalgebras. Explicitly, the entries of $A'$ are defined by $$a'_{ij}:=\alpha'_j(h'_i).$$ After rescaling the rows of $A'$ we obtain the following (where we assume $ i \neq k$ and $ j \neq k $): $$a_{kk}' := a_{kk}; \hspace{1cm}
a_{kj}' := a_{kj}; \hspace{1cm}
a_{ik}' := -a_{ki}a_{ik};$$$$a_{ij}' := \begin{cases}
a_{ij}, &\text{ if } a_{ik}=a_{ki}=0; \\
a_{ki}a_{ij}, &\text{ if }a_{ik} \text{ or } a_{ki} \neq 0, \text{ and } a_{kj}=a_{jk}=0; \\
a_{ki}a_{ij}+a_{ik}a_{kj}+a_{ki}a_{ik}, &\text{ if }a_{ik} \text{ or } a_{ki}\neq 0, \text{ and } a_{jk} \text{ or } a_{kj} \neq 0.
\end{cases}$$ We say that $A'$ is obtained from $A$ (and $\Pi':=\{\alpha'_1,\ldots,\alpha'_n\}$ is obtained from $\Pi$) by an odd reflection with respect to $\alpha_k$. If $\Delta'^{+}$ is the set of positive roots with respect to $\Pi'$, then $$\Delta'^{+}=\left(\Delta^{+}\setminus\{\alpha_k\}\right)\cup\{-\alpha_k\}.$$ We call $\Pi'$ a [*reflected base*]{} if it can be obtained from $\Pi$ by a sequence of even and odd reflections A root $\alpha$ is called [*real*]{} if $\alpha$ or $\frac{1}{2} \alpha$ is simple in some reflected base $\Pi'$, and it is called [*imaginary*]{} otherwise.\
An odd reflection at a regular isotropic root $\alpha_k$ is indeed a reflection. If $A''=r'_k (r_k(A))$, then there is an invertible diagonal matrix $D$ such that $A''=DA$ and scalars $b_i,c_i$ such that $X''_i=b_i X_i$ and $Y''_i=c_i Y_i$. However, if $\alpha_k$ is singular, then the subalgebra generated by $ X'_{1},\dots ,X'_{n},Y'_{1},\dots ,Y'_{n} $ and $ {\mathfrak h} $ is necessarily a proper subalgebra of $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ and $r_k$ is not invertible.
$\mathfrak{sl}(1|2)$ $$\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}
0 & 1 \\
1 & 0 \\
\end{array}\right)
\hspace{1cm} \overrightarrow{ r_1 } \hspace{1cm}
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
-1 & 2\\
\end{array}\right)$$ $$\xymatrix{ {\bigotimes}\AW[r]^{1}_{1} & {\bigotimes}}
\hspace{1cm} \overrightarrow{ r_1 } \hspace{1cm}
\xymatrix{{\bigotimes}\AW[r]^{1}_{-1} & {\bigcirc}}$$
The following definition was given by V. Serganova in [@S08].
Let $C$ be a category with objects $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ for each matrix $A$. A $C$-morphism $f:\mathfrak{g}(A)\rightarrow\mathfrak{g}(A')$ is by definition an isomorphism of superalgebras which maps a Cartan subalgebra of $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ to a Cartan subalgebra of $\mathfrak{g}(A')$. A Weyl groupoid $C(A)$ of a contragredient Lie superalgebra $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ is by definition the connected component of $C$ which contains $\mathfrak{g}(A)$.
Integrability conditions
========================
We say that $ {\mathfrak g}\left(A\right) $ is [*integrable*]{} if $ \operatorname{ad}_{X_{i}}
$ are locally nilpotent for all $ i\in I $. In this case $ \operatorname{ad}_{Y_{i}} $ are also locally nilpotent. A matrix $A$ is [*indecomposable*]{} if the the index set $I$ can not be decomposed into the disjoint union of non-empty subsets $J,K$ such that $a_{j,k}=a_{k,j}=0$ whenever $j\in J$ and $k\in K$.
\[lm23\] Let $ A $ be be an indecomposable with $ n\geq2 $ and no zero rows. If $ {\mathfrak g}\left(A\right) $ is integrable, then after rescaling the rows $ A $ satisfies the following conditions:
1. for any $ i\in I $ either $ a_{i i}=0 $ or $ a_{i i}=2 $;
2. if $ a_{i i}=0 $ then $ p\left(i\right)=1 $;
3. if $ a_{ii}=2 $ then $ a_{ij}\in2^{p\left(i\right)}{\mathbb Z}_{\leq 0} $;
4. if $ a_{ij}=0 $ and $ a_{ji}\not=0 $, then $ a_{i i}=0 $.
A matrix $A$ is called a [*generalized Cartan matrix*]{} if it satisfies conditions 1-3, together with $$4'.\ \text{ if } a_{ij}=0\text{, then }a_{ji}=0.$$ Condition $4'$ is equivalent to the condition that $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ has no real singular isotropic roots.
Finite growth
=============
A superalgebra $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{g}(A)$ has a natural $\mathbb{Z}$-grading $\mathfrak{g}=\oplus\mathfrak{g}_{m}$, called the [*principal grading*]{}, which is defined by $\mathfrak{g}_{0}:=\mathfrak{h} $ and $\mathfrak{g}_{1}:=\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha_{1}}\oplus\dots \oplus\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha_{n}} $, where $\Pi=\{\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n\}$. We say that ${\mathfrak g} $ is of [*finite growth*]{} if $ \dim\mathfrak{g}_{m} $ grows polynomially depending on $m$. This means that the Gelfand-Kirillov dimension of $\mathfrak{g}$ is finite.
The following lemma shows that the notion of finite growth does not depend on the choice of a reflected base [@HS07].
\[lm2\] Let $ \Pi' $ be obtained from $ \Pi $ by an odd reflection. Then $ \dim
{\mathfrak g}'_{m}\leq\dim {\mathfrak g}_{-2m}\oplus\dots \oplus{\mathfrak g}_{2m} $. In particular, if $ {\mathfrak
g}\left(A\right) $ is of finite growth, then $ {\mathfrak g}\left(A'\right) $ is of finite growth.
The following lemma is a straightforward corollary of Lemma \[lm20\].
\[lm21\] If $ {\mathfrak g}\left(A\right) $ is of finite growth, then for any subset $ J \subseteq I $ the Lie superalgebra $ {\mathfrak g}\left(A_{J}\right) $ is of finite growth.
\[th1\] Suppose $A$ is a matrix with no zero rows. If $ {\mathfrak g}\left(A\right) $ has finite growth, the $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ is integrable.
\[admiss\] Suppose that $A$ is an indecomposable matrix with no zero rows, and that $ {\mathfrak g}\left(A\right) $ has finite growth. Then $A$ and each matrix $A'$ obtained from $A$ by a sequence of odd reflections (singular or regular) satisfies the conditions of Lemma \[lm23\], (after rescaling so that $a_{ii}\in\{0,2\}$ for $i\in I$).
Suppose that $A$ has no zero rows, and let $A'$ be a matrix obtained from $A$ by a sequence of odd reflections. It is easy to show that $A'$ has no zero rows. Suppose $ {\mathfrak g}\left(A\right) $ has finite growth. Then by Lemma \[lm2\], $\mathfrak{g}(A')$ has finite growth. Then by Theorem \[th1\], $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ and $\mathfrak{g}(A')$ are integrable. Hence, by Lemma \[lm23\], $A$ and $A'$ satisfy the matrix conditions of Lemma \[lm23\].
We call $A$ [*admissible*]{} if any matrix obtained from $A$ by a sequence of odd reflections satisfies the conditions of Lemma \[lm23\]. By Theorem \[admiss\], if $A$ is an indecomposable matrix with no zero rows and $ {\mathfrak g}\left(A\right) $ has finite growth, then $A$ is admissible. Hence, it suffices to only consider admissible Cartan matrices in the classification of finite-growth contragredient Lie superalgebras.
Main Theorem
============
\[171\] Let $\mathfrak{ g} (A)$ be a contragredient Lie superalgebra of finite growth, and suppose the matrix $A$ is indecomposable with no zero rows. Then either $A$ is symmetrizable and $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ is isomorphic to an affine or finite dimensional Lie superalgebra classified in [@L86; @L89], or it is $D(2,1,0)$, $\widehat{D}(2,1,0)$, $S(1,2,\alpha)$ or $q(n)^{(2)}$. See Table 1 and Table 3.
The proof of this theorem is separated into two cases, namely (1) $A$ is admissible and $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ has no singular isotropic roots in any reflected base, and (2) $A$ is admissible and $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ has a singular isotropic root. In the first case, $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ is a [*regular Kac-Moody superalgebra*]{}.
Regular Kac-Moody superalgebras {#rkmdef}
===============================
We call $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ a [*regular Kac-Moody superalgebra*]{} if $A$ and any matrix obtained from $A$ by a sequence of odd reflections is a generalized Cartan matrix. Equivalently, these are the contragredient Lie superalgebras for which all real root vectors act locally nilpotently on the adjoint module and all real isotropic roots are regular.
We classify regular Kac-Moody superalgebras by classifying the corresponding Dynkin diagrams. We proceed by induction on the number of vertices. If $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ does not have a simple isotropic root, then $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ is a regular Kac-Moody superalgebra if and only if $A$ is a generalized Cartan matrix. So we may assume that $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ has a simple isotropic root. If $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ has finite type, then $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ is a regular Kac-Moody superalgebra. First, we classify regular Kac-Moody diagrams $\Gamma_{A}$ which satisfy the additional condition: $$\label{gammaproperty}
\text{ for } \Gamma_{A} \text{ and any reflected diagram } \Gamma_{A'} \text{ all proper subdiagrams have finite type.}$$ Second, we prove that our list is complete using Corollary \[lm123\] and some direct computations.
\[two\] The regular Kac-Moody superalgebras with two simple roots of which at least one is isotropic are $\mathfrak{sl}(1,2)$ and $\mathfrak{osp}(3,2)$.
If $a\neq -1$, then by reflecting at $v_{1}$, we have the conditions $a, \frac{-a}{a+1} \in {\mathbb Z}_{<0}$. This implies $a=-2$. Hence, this is a Dynkin diagram for $\mathfrak{osp}(3,2)$. $$\xymatrix{ {\bigotimes}\AW[r]^{1}_{a} & {\bigodot}}
\text{\hspace{.5cm}} \overrightarrow{r_{1}} \text{\hspace{.5cm}}
\xymatrix{ {\bigotimes}\AW[r]^{1}_{- \frac{a}{1+a}} & {\bigodot}}$$ If $a=-1$, then this is a Dynkin diagram for $\mathfrak{sl}(1,2)$. By reflecting at $v_{1}$ we have the following. $$\xymatrix{ {\bigotimes}\ar@<.5ex>[r]^{1} & {\bigcirc}\ar@<.5ex>[l]^{-1}}
\text{\hspace{.5cm}} \overrightarrow{r_{1}} \text{\hspace{.5cm}}
\xymatrix{ {\bigotimes}\ar@<.5ex>[r]^{1} & {\bigotimes}\ar@<.5ex>[l]^{1}}$$
Classification of regular Kac-Moody superalgebras
=================================================
\[rkmtheorem\] Let $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ be a contragredient Lie superalgebra.
1. If $A$ is a symmetrizable matrix and $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ has a simple isotropic root, then $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ is regular Kac-Moody if and only if it has finite growth.
2. If $A$ is a non-symmetrizable matrix and $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ has a simple isotropic root, then $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ is regular Kac-Moody if and only if it is $q(n)^{(2)}$, $S(1,2,\alpha)$ or $Q^{\pm}(m,n,t)$. See Table 1 and Table 2.\
$$\doublespacing \begin{tabular}{|c|cc|}
\hline
\bf{Algebra} & \bf{Dynkin diagrams} & Table 1 \\
\hline &&\\
$q(n)^{(2)}$ & $\begin{array}{c}\xymatrix{ & & \bullet \ar@<.5ex>[lld]^{a} \ar@<.5ex>[rrd]^{b} & & \\
\bullet \ar@<.5ex>[rru] \ar[r] & \bullet \ar[l] \ar[r] & \cdots \ar[l] \ar[r] & \bullet \ar[l] \ar[r]
& \bullet \ar[l] \ar@<.5ex>[llu] }\end{array}$ & $\begin{array}{c} \text{There are n $\bullet$.} \\
\text{Each $\bullet$ is either $\bigcirc$ or $\bigotimes$.} \\ \text{An odd number of them are
$\bigotimes$.} \\
\text{If $\bullet$ is $\bigcirc$,
then $a=b=-1$.} \\
\text{If $\bullet$ is $\bigotimes$, then $\frac{a}{b}=-1$.} \\
\end{array}$
\\ &&\\
\hline &&\\
$S(1,2,\alpha)$ &
$\begin{array}{c}\xymatrix{& \bigotimes \ar@<.5ex>[rdd]^{1-\alpha} \ar@<.5ex>[ldd]^{\alpha} & \\
& & \\ \bigotimes \ar@<.5ex>[ruu]^{\alpha} \ar@<.5ex>[rr]^{-1-\alpha} & &
\bigcirc \ar@<.5ex>[ll]^{-1} \ar@<.5ex>[luu]^{-1}}\end{array}$ & $\alpha \neq 0, \text{ }\alpha \in \mathbb{C} \setminus \mathbb{Z}$\\ &&\\
\hline
\end{tabular}$$
$$\doublespacing \begin{tabular}{|c|cc|}
\hline
\bf{Algebra} & \bf{Dynkin diagrams} & Table 2 \\
\hline &&\\
$Q^{\pm}(m,n,t)$ & $\begin{array}{c}\xymatrix{& \bigotimes \ar@<.5ex>[rdd]^{b} \ar@<.5ex>[ldd]^{1} & \\
& & \\ \bigotimes \ar@<.5ex>[ruu]^{c} \ar@<.5ex>[rr]^{1} & & \bigotimes \ar@<.5ex>[ll]^{a} \ar@<.5ex>[luu]^{1}}\end{array}$ \text{
}
$\begin{array}{c}\xymatrix{& \bigotimes \ar@<.5ex>[rdd]^{b} \ar@<.5ex>[ldd]^{1} & \\
& & \\ \bigcirc \ar@<.5ex>[ruu]^{-1} \ar@<.5ex>[rr]^{1+b+\frac{1}{c}} & &
\bigcirc \ar@<.5ex>[ll]^{1+a+\frac{1}{b}} \ar@<.5ex>[luu]^{-1}}\end{array}$
& $\begin{array}{l}
1+a+\frac{1}{b} = m \\
1+b+\frac{1}{c} = n \\
1+c+\frac{1}{a} = t \\
\end{array}$ \\
& $\begin{array}{c}\xymatrix{& \bigotimes \ar@<.5ex>[rdd]^{c} \ar@<.5ex>[ldd]^{1} & \\
& & \\ \bigcirc \ar@<.5ex>[ruu]^{-1} \ar@<.5ex>[rr]^{1+c+\frac{1}{a}} & & \bigcirc \ar@<.5ex>[ll]^{1+b+\frac{1}{c}}
\ar@<.5ex>[luu]^{-1}}\end{array}$ \text{ }
$\begin{array}{c}\xymatrix{& \bigotimes \ar@<.5ex>[rdd]^{a} \ar@<.5ex>[ldd]^{1} & \\
& & \\ \bigcirc \ar@<.5ex>[ruu]^{-1} \ar@<.5ex>[rr]^{1+a+\frac{1}{b}} & &
\bigcirc \ar@<.5ex>[ll]^{1+c+\frac{1}{a}} \ar@<.5ex>[luu]^{-1}}\end{array}$ &
$\begin{array}{l}
m,n,t \in \mathbb{Z}_{\leq -1} \text{ and}\\
\text{not all equal to }-1. \\
\end{array}$ \\ &&\\
\hline
\end{tabular}$$
Principal roots
===============
We call a root $\alpha\in\Delta_{0}$ [*principal*]{} if either $\alpha$ or $\frac{1}{2}\alpha$ belongs to some base $\Pi'$ obtained from $\Pi$ be a sequence of regular odd reflections. For a principal root, the subalgebra generated by $X_{\alpha}$, $Y_{\alpha}$ and $h_{\alpha}:=[X_{\alpha},Y_{\alpha}]$ is isomorphic to $\mathfrak{sl}_2$, and we may choose $X_{\alpha}$, $Y_{\alpha}$ such that $\alpha(h_{\alpha})=2$. Note that if $\alpha=2\beta$, then $X_{\alpha}=[X_{\beta},X_{\beta}]$.
Let $\Pi_{0}\subset\Delta_{0}$ denote the set of principal roots. It is clear that $\Pi_{0}\subset\Delta_{0}^{+}$. We can define the [*Weyl group*]{} to be the group generated by reflections $r_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha\in\Pi_{0} $. In general $\Pi_{0}$ can be infinite. The results in this section are from [@HS07].
\[lm14\] If $ {\mathfrak g}\left(A\right) $ is a regular Kac-Moody superalgebra of finite growth, then $ \Pi_{0} $ is finite. Moreover, $ |\Pi_{0}|\leq2n $.
For any finite subset $S\subset \Pi_{0}$, we can define a matrix $B$ by setting $b_{ij}=\alpha_j(h_i)$. The corollary of the following lemma is an important tool in the classification of finite-growth contragredient Lie superalgebras.
\[lm4\] Let $S$ be a subset of $\Pi_0$, and let ${\mathfrak g}_S$ be the subalgebra of ${\mathfrak g}$ generated by $
X_{\beta},Y_{\beta} $ for all $\beta \in S$ and $ h_{\beta}
=[X_{\beta}, Y_{\beta}]$. These elements satisfy the following relations for the matrix $B$ defined by $S$: $$[h_{\beta}, X_{\gamma}]=b_{\beta , \gamma} X_{\beta},
[h_{\beta}, Y_{\gamma}]=-b_{\beta , \gamma} Y_{\beta}, [X_{\beta}, Y_{\gamma}]={\delta}_{\beta , \gamma} h_{\beta},\text{
for } \beta,\gamma\in{S}.$$ There exists a surjective homomorphism ${\mathfrak g}_S \to {\mathfrak
g}'(B) /c$ where $c$ is some central subalgebra of the Cartan subalgebra in ${\mathfrak g}' (B)=[{\mathfrak g}(B), {\mathfrak g} (B)]$.
\[cor1\] If a Lie superalgebra $ {\mathfrak g}\left(A\right) $ has finite growth, then for any finite subset $S$ of ${\Pi}_0$ the Lie algebra $ {\mathfrak g}\left(B\right) $ also has finite growth. In particular, $ B $ is an even generalized Cartan matrix.
The Lie superalgebra $Q^{\pm}(m,n,t)$ {#sectionQ}
=====================================
$$\label{Qroots}
\begin{array}{l}\xymatrix{& {\bigotimes}\AW[ldd]^{1}_{c} \AW[rdd]^{b}_{1} & \\ & & \\
{\bigotimes}\AW[rr]^{1}_{a} & & {\bigotimes}}
\end{array}\
\begin{array}{l}
1+a+\frac{1}{b} = m \\
1+b+\frac{1}{c} = n \\
1+c+\frac{1}{a} = t \\ \\
m,n,t \in \mathbb{Z}_{\leq -1} \text{, not all equal to -1.} \end{array}$$
\[lm333\] For each diagram $Q^{\pm}(m,n,t)$, it follows that $a,b,c \in \mathbb{R}\setminus\mathbb{Q}$, and there are two solutions of the above equations, namely $Q^{-}(m,n,t)$ with $a,b,c<-1$ and $Q^{+}(m,n,t)$ with $-1<a,b,c<0$.
\[cor3\] The determinant of the Cartan matrix equals $1 + abc$ and is nonzero. Hence, the dimension of the Cartan subalgebra is $3$.
It is clear that $Q^{\pm}(m,n,t) \cong Q^{\pm}(n,t,m)$ by cyclic permutation of the variables $a,b,c$. We also have $Q^{\pm}(m,n,t) \cong Q^{\mp}(m,t,n)$ by transforming the equations: $a \rightarrow \frac{1}{b}$, $b \rightarrow
\frac{1}{a}$, $c \rightarrow \frac{1}{c}$.
$Q^{\pm}(m,n,t)$ is not symmetrizable.
Suppose that $Q^{\pm}(m,n,t)$ is symmetrizable, for some $m,n,t\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq -1}$. Then $abc = 1$. A simple computation shows that this implies $a,b,c\in\mathbb{Q}$, which contradicts Theorem \[lm333\].
$Q^{\pm}(m,n,t)$ does not have finite growth.
Let $\Pi=\{\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3\}$ be the set of simple roots of the Dynkin diagram in (\[Qroots\]). Then the set of principal roots is $\Pi_{0}=\{\alpha_1+\alpha_2,\alpha_2+\alpha_3,\alpha_3+\alpha_1\}$. The matrix $B$ given by $\Pi_{0}$ is $$B = \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
2 & m & m \\
n & 2 & n \\
t & t & 2 \\
\end{array} \right).$$ All off diagonal entries of $B$ are negative integers. Since they are not all equal to $-1$, this is not a Cartan matrix of a finite growth Kac-Moody algebra. By Corollary \[cor1\], $Q^{\pm}(m,n,t)$ does not have finite growth.
The singular case
=================
Suppose that $A$ is an indecomposable matrix with no zero rows and that $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ has a singular isotropic simple root. If $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ has finite growth, then $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ is isomorphic to $S(1,2,0)$, $D(2,1,0)$ or $\widehat{D}(2,1,0)$. See Table 3.
$$\doublespacing \begin{tabular}{|c|cc|}
\hline
\bf{Algebra} & \bf{Dynkin diagrams} & Table 3 \\
\hline &&\\
$D(2,1,0)$ & $\xymatrix{\bigcirc \ar@<.5ex>[r]^{-1} & \bigotimes
\ar@<.5ex>[l]^{0} \ar@<.5ex>[r]^{1}
& \bigcirc \ar@<.5ex>[l]^{-1} }$ &\\ &&\\
\hline
$\widehat{D}(2,1,0)$ &
$\begin{array}{c}\xymatrix{
& & \bigcirc \ar@<.5ex>[ld]^{-1} \\
\bigcirc \ar@<.5ex>[r]^{-1} & \bigotimes \ar@<.5ex>[l]^{0} \ar@<.5ex>[ru]^{1}
\ar@<.5ex>[rd]^{-1} & \\
& & \bigcirc \ar@<.5ex>[lu]^{-1} }\end{array} $ & \\
\hline
$S(1,2,0)$ &
$\begin{array}{c}\xymatrix{& \bigotimes \ar@<.5ex>[rdd]^{1-\alpha} \ar@<.5ex>[ldd]^{\alpha} & \\
& & \\ \bigotimes \ar@<.5ex>[ruu]^{\alpha} \ar@<.5ex>[rr]^{-1-\alpha} & &
\bigcirc \ar@<.5ex>[ll]^{-1} \ar@<.5ex>[luu]^{-1}}\end{array}$ & $\alpha \in \mathbb{Z}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}$$
Integrable modules {#rkmintegrable}
==================
Let $U(\mathfrak{g})$ denote the universal enveloping algebra of a Lie superalgebra $\mathfrak{g}$. Corresponding to a set of simple roots $\Pi$ of $\mathfrak{g}$ we have the decomposition $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{n}^{-}\oplus\mathfrak{h}\oplus\mathfrak{n}^{+}$. A $\mathfrak{g}$-module $V$ is a [*weight module*]{} if $V=\oplus_{\mu \in \mathfrak{h}^{*}} V_{\mu}$, where $V_{\mu}=\{v\in V \mid hv=\mu(h)v,\ \forall h\in\mathfrak{h}\}$ are finite dimensional vector spaces. If $V_{\mu}$ is non-zero, then $\mu$ is a [*weight*]{}. A weight module $V$ is a [*highest weight module*]{} with [*highest weight*]{} $\lambda \in \mathfrak{h}^{*}$ if there exists a vector $v_{\lambda}\in V$ such that: $\mathfrak{n}_{+}v_{\lambda}=0$, $hv=\lambda(h)v_{\lambda}$ for $h\in\mathfrak{h}$, and $U(\mathfrak{g})v_{\lambda}=V$.
A [*Verma module*]{} $$M(\lambda):=U(\mathfrak{g})\otimes_{U(\mathfrak{b}^{+})}C_{\lambda}$$ is an induced module, where $C_{\lambda}$ is the one dimensional module over $\mathfrak{b}^{+}:=\mathfrak{h}\oplus\mathfrak{n}^{+}$ defined by $hv=\lambda(h)v$ for $v\in C_{\lambda}$ and for all $h\in\mathfrak{h}$, and $\mathfrak{n}^{+}$ acts trivially. A Verma module is a highest weight module with highest weight $\lambda$. Let $L(\lambda)$ denote the unique irreducible quotient of $M(\lambda)$.
Let $V$ be a weight module over $\mathfrak{g}$. An element $x\in\mathfrak{g}$ acts [*locally nilpotent*]{} on $V$ if for any $v\in V$ there exists a positive integer $N$ such that $x^{N}v=0$. Suppose $\mathfrak{g}$ is a regular Kac-Moody superalgebra. We say that $V$ is an [*integrable*]{} module if for every real root $\alpha$ the element $X_{\alpha} \in \mathfrak{g}_{\alpha} $ acts locally nilpotent on $V$.
The results of this section are from [@H07; @H08], and are used in the classification of regular Kac-Moody superalgebras.
\[lm411\] The adjoint module of a regular Kac-Moody superalgebra is an integrable module.
\[M\] Suppose $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma' = \Gamma \cup \{v_{n+1}\}$ are connected regular Kac-Moody diagrams. Let $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ (resp. $\mathfrak{g}(A')$) be the Kac-Moody superalgebra with diagram $\Gamma$ (resp. $\Gamma'$), and let $Y_{n+1} \in
\mathfrak{g}(A')_{-\alpha_{n+1}}$ be the generator corresponding to the vertex $v_{n+1}$. Then the submodule $M$ of $\mathfrak{g}(A')$ generated by $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ acting on $Y_{n+1}$ is an integrable highest weight module over the subalgebra $\mathfrak{g}(A)$.
The fact that $M$ is a highest weight module follows immediately from $[X_i,Y_{n+1}]=0$ for all $i=1,\dots,n$. The module $M$ has highest weight $-\alpha_{n+1}$. A real root $\alpha$ of the subalgebra $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ is also a real root of $\mathfrak{g}(A')$. By Lemma \[lm411\], the adjoint module of $\mathfrak{g}(A')$ is integrable. Thus for each real root $\alpha$ of $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ we have that $Y_{\alpha} \in \mathfrak{g}(A)_{-\alpha}$ acts locally nilpotently on the submodule $M$ of $\mathfrak{g}(A')$. Hence the submodule $M$ is an integrable highest weight module over the subalgebra $\mathfrak{g}(A)$.
Suppose $\Gamma$ is a diagram for a regular Kac-Moody superalgebra $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ which does not have non-trivial irreducible integrable highest weight modules. Then $\Gamma$ is not a proper subdiagram of a connected regular Kac-Moody diagram.
Suppose $\Gamma' = \Gamma \cup \{v_{n+1}\}$ is a connected regular Kac-Moody diagram. By Lemma \[M\], $M$ is an integrable highest weight module for $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ with irreducible quotient isomorphic to $L(-\alpha_{n+1})$. Since this module must be trivial, $-\alpha_{n+1}=0$. This implies $a_{i,n+1}=0$ for $i=1,\dots,n$. Since $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ is a regular Kac-Moody algebra, this implies $a_{n+1,j}=0$ for $j=1,\dots,n$. But this implies that the vertex $v_{n+1}$ is not connected to the diagram $\Gamma$, which is a contradiction. Since any subdiagram of a regular Kac-Moody diagram is a regular Kac-Moody diagram, the corollary follows.
Our definition of integrable module coincides with the standard definition of integrable module in the case that $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ is an affine Lie superalgebra. This follows from the fact that every even root of an affine Lie superalgebra with non-zero length is real, as was shown in [@S88]. The [*defect*]{} of $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ is the dimension of a maximal isotropic subspace of $\mathfrak{h}^{*}_{\mathbb{R}}:=\sum_{\alpha\in\Delta}\mathbb{R}\alpha$ [@KW94]. It was shown in [@KW01], that non-twisted affine Lie superalgebras with defect strictly greater than one do not have non-trivial irreducible integrable highest weight modules. We show that this also holds for twisted affine Lie superalgebras in [@H07; @H08].
\[p1\] The only non-twisted affine Lie superalgebras with non-trivial irreducible integrable highest weight modules are $\mathfrak{osp}(1|2n)^{(1)}$, $\mathfrak{osp}(2|2n)^{(1)}$ and $\mathfrak{sl}(1|n)^{(1)}$.
\[p2\] Let $\mathfrak{g}^{(m)}$ be a twisted affine Lie superalgebra which is not $\mathfrak{osp}(2|2n)^{(2)}$, $\mathfrak{sl}(1|2n)^{(2)}$ or $\mathfrak{sl}(1|2n+1)^{(4)}$. Then an irreducible integrable highest weight module over $\mathfrak{g}^{(m)}$ is trivial.
\[lm123\] Suppose $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ is a regular Kac-Moody superalgebra with a simple isotropic root such that $\Gamma_{A}$ satisfies condition (\[gammaproperty\]). If $\mathfrak{g}(A)$ is not of finite type and is not $\mathfrak{sl}(1|n)^{(1)}$, $\mathfrak{osp}(2|2n)^{(1)}$, $S(1,2,\alpha)$ or $Q^{\pm}(m,n,t)$, then all irreducible integrable highest weight modules are trivial.
C. Hoyt, [*Kac-Moody superalgebras of finite growth*]{}, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley (2007).
C. Hoyt, [*Regular Kac-Moody superalgebras and integrable highest weight modules*]{}, eprint: math/0810.2650 (2008).
C. Hoyt and V. Serganova, [*Classification of finite-growth general Kac-Moody superalgebras*]{}, Communications in Algebra, [**35 no. 3**]{} (2007), 851-874.
V.G. Kac, [*Lie superalgebras*]{}, Advances in Math [**26**]{} (1977), 8-96.
V.G. Kac, [*Infinite-dimensional algebras, Dedekind’s $\eta$-function, classical Möbius function and the very strange formula*]{}, Advances in Math [**30**]{} (1978), 85-136.
V.G. Kac, [*Infinite dimensional Lie algebras, 3rd ed.*]{}, Cambridge University Press, 1990.
V.G. Kac and J.W. van de Leur, [*On classification of superconformal algebras*]{}, Strings **88**, World Sci. (1989), 77-106.
V.G. Kac and M. Wakimoto, Integrable highest weight modules over affine superalgebras and number theory, Lie Theory and Geometry, Progress in Math. 123, (1994), 415-456.
V.G. Kac and M. Wakimoto, [*Integrable highest weight modules over affine superalgebras and Appell’s function*]{}, Comm. Math. Phys. [**215**]{} (2001), no. 3, 631-682.
D. Leites, M. Savel’ev and V. Serganova, [*Embeddings of Lie superalgebra $osp(1|2)$ and nonlinear supersymmetric equations*]{}, Group Theoretical Methods in Physics [**1**]{} (1986), 377-394.
J.W. van de Leur, [*Contragredient Lie superalgebras of finite growth*]{}, Thesis Utrecht University (1986).
J.W. van de Leur, [*A classification of contragredient Lie superalgebras of finite growth*]{}, Communications in Algebra [**17**]{} (1989), 1815-1841.
V. Serganova, Automorphisms of Lie superalgebras, [*Math. USSR Izvestiya*]{} [**48**]{} (1984), 585-596.
V. Serganova, [*Automorphisms and Real Form of Complex Finite-Dimensional Lie Superalgebras*]{}, Ph.D. dissertation, St. Petersburg State University (1988).
V. Serganova, [*Kac-Moody superalgebras and integrability*]{}, Perspectives and trends in infinite-dimensional Lie theory.
[^1]: Nara Women’s University, Japan; Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel; [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We generalize recent results of Breuer and Kronholm, and Chern on partitions and overpartitions with bounded differences between largest and smallest parts. We prove our generalization both analytically and combinatorially.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA'
- 'Department of Mathematics, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA'
author:
- Shane Chern
- Ae Ja Yee
title: Overpartitions with bounded part differences
---
[*European J. Combin.* **70** (2018), 317–324. [[MR3779621](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=3779621)]{}.\
[[doi: 10.1016/j.ejc.2018.01.003](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejc.2018.01.003)]{}]{}
Introduction
============
A *partition* of a positive integer $n$ is a non-increasing sequence of positive integers whose sum equals $n$. For example, there are three partitions of $3$: $3$, $2+1$, and $1+1+1$.
In [@ABR2015], Andrews, Beck and Robbins explored partitions with the difference between largest and smallest parts equal to $t$ for some positive integer $t$. Motivated by their work, Breuer and Kronholm [@BK2016] studied the number of partitions of $n$ with the difference between largest and smallest parts bounded by $t$, and they showed that the generating function is $$\label{eq:g1}
\sum_{n\ge 1}p_t(n) q^n=\frac{1}{1-q^t}\left(\frac{1}{(q)_t}-1\right),$$ where $p_t(n)$ counts the number of partitions of $n$ with the difference between largest and smallest parts bounded by $t$, and $$(a)_n=(a;q)_n:=\prod_{k=0}^{n-1} (1-a q^k).$$
The proof of Breuer and Kronholm has a geometric flavour, and their main tool used in the proof is polyhedral cones. Subsequently, Chapman [@Cha2016] also provided a simpler proof, which involves $q$-series manipulations.
An *overpartition* of $n$ is a partition of $n$ in which the first occurrence of each distinct part may be overlined. For example, there are eight overpartitions of $3$: $3$, $\overline{3}$, $2+1$, $\overline{2}+1$, $2+\overline{1}$, $\overline{2}+\overline{1}$, $1+1+1$, and $\overline{1}+1+1$.
Recently, motivated by the works of Andrews, Beck and Robbins, Breuer and Kronholm, and Chapman, the first author [@Che2017] considered an overpartition analogue with bounded difference between largest and smallest parts.
To obtain a generating function analogous to , apart from requiring the difference between largest and smallest parts less than or equal to $t$, the first author added the following restriction: if the difference between largest and smallest parts is exactly $t$, then the largest part cannot be overlined. Let $g_t(n)$ count the number of such overpartitions of $n$. Then it was shown that $$\label{eq:g2}
\sum_{n\ge 1}g_t(n) q^n=\frac{1}{1-q^t}\left(\frac{(-q)_t}{(q)_t}-1\right).$$ The first proof in his paper uses heavy $q$-series manipulation, which originates from [@ABR2015]. His second proof, which consists of many combinatorial ingredients such as the overpartition analogue of $q$-binomial coefficients introduced by Dousse and Kim [@DK2017], however, still needs some nontrivial computation, and hence it is not completely combinatorial.
The main purpose of this paper is to provide a completely combinatorial and transparent proof of . More precisely, we prove the following refined result.
\[th:1.1\] For a positive integer $t$, let $g_t(m,n)$ count the number of overpartitions of $n$ in which there are exactly $m$ overlined parts, the difference between largest and smallest parts is at most $t$, and if the difference between largest and smallest parts is exactly $t$, then the largest part cannot be overlined. Then $$\label{eq:th1.1}
\sum_{n\ge 1}\sum_{m\ge 0} g_t(m,n)z^mq^n=\frac{1}{1-q^t}\left(\frac{(-zq)_t}{(q)_t}-1\right).$$
We remark that and follow immediately from by taking $z\to 0$ and $z\to 1$, respectively.
Notation and terminology
------------------------
Throughout this paper, $\mathbb{Z}_{\ge 0}$ and $\mathbb{Z}_{>0}$ denote the set of nonnegative integers and positive integers, respectively. Given a partition or an overpartition ${\lambda}$ of $n$, let $\ell({\lambda})$ be the number of parts of ${\lambda}$ and $|{\lambda}|=n$ be the sum of the parts of ${\lambda}$. When ${\lambda}$ is an overpartition, we use $o({\lambda})$ to count the number of overlined parts in ${\lambda}$. We write parts in weakly decreasing order.
For a positive integer $t$, we denote by ${\overline{\mathcal{P}}}_t$ the set of (nonempty) overpartitions with parts less than or equal to $t$ and no parts equal to $t$ overlined, and by ${\overline{\mathcal{G}}}_t$ the set of (nonempty) overpartitions with the difference between largest and smallest parts at most $t$ and the largest part not overlined when the difference between largest and smallest parts is exactly $t$. Also, ${\overline{\mathcal{B}}}_t$ denotes the set of bipartitions where the first subpartition, which can be an empty partition, consists of only parts equal to $t$, none overlined, and the second subpartition is a nonempty overpartition with parts less than or equal to $t$. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec2.1\], we first construct a weight preserving map $\phi$ from ${\overline{\mathcal{G}}}_t$ to ${\overline{\mathcal{P}}}_t$. In Section \[sec2.2\], we then construct another weight preserving map $\psi$ from ${\overline{\mathcal{P}}}_t$ to ${\overline{\mathcal{B}}}_t$. Finally, by combining these two maps, we will deduce that ${\overline{\mathcal{G}}}_t$ and ${\overline{\mathcal{B}}}_t$ have the same generating functions: $$\sum_{\pi\in {\overline{\mathcal{G}}}_t} z^{o(\pi)} q^{|\pi |} = \sum_{\beta \in {\overline{\mathcal{B}}}_t} z^{o(\beta )} q^{|\beta |},$$ which is indeed equivalent to Theorem \[th:1.1\]. In Section \[sec3\], a $q$-series proof of Theorem \[th:1.1\] will be given.
A combinatorial approach
========================
Partition sets ${\overline{\mathcal{G}}}_t$ and ${\overline{\mathcal{P}}}_t$ {#sec2.1}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For an overpartition $\pi=(\pi_1,\pi_2,\ldots,\pi_\ell)$ in ${\overline{\mathcal{G}}}_t$, let $s(\pi)=\lfloor \pi_{\ell}/t\rfloor $, where $\lfloor a\rfloor$ denotes the largest integer not exceeding $a$, and let $k(\pi)$ be the positive integer $k$ such that $\pi_k\ge (s(\pi)+1)t$ and $\pi_{k+1}<(s(\pi)+1)t$. If there is no such $k$, then we let $k(\pi)=0$.
We now define a map $\phi: {\overline{\mathcal{G}}}_t\to {\overline{\mathcal{P}}}_t$ as follows. For an overpartition $\pi \in {\overline{\mathcal{G}}}_t$, let $\ell(\pi)=\ell$, $s(\pi)=s$ and $k(\pi)=k$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
&\phi\colon (\pi_1,\pi_2,\ldots,\pi_\ell)\\
&\quad \mapsto (\underbrace{t,t,t,\ldots,t}_{\tiny \substack{s(\ell-k)+(s+1)k\\\text{times}}},\pi_{k+1}-st,\ldots,\pi_\ell-st,\pi_1-(s+1)t,\ldots,\pi_k-(s+1)t),\end{aligned}$$ where all the parts equal to $t$ are not overlined, and if $\pi_i$ is overlined, then $\pi_i-st$ (or $\pi_i-(s+1)t$ depending on the value of $i$) is overlined. In other words, $\phi$ takes $\pi$ to $(t,t,\ldots,t,a_1,\ldots,a_\ell)$ where $a_1,\ldots,a_\ell$ are $\pi_1,\ldots,\pi_\ell$ reduced modulo $t$, cyclically permuted to make them weakly decreasing. Here we note that there may be parts equal to $0$ in $\phi(\pi)$. If there are any parts equal to $0$, then we delete them so that $\phi(\pi)$ has positive parts only.
$\phi$ is a weight preserving map from ${\overline{\mathcal{G}}}_t$ to ${\overline{\mathcal{P}}}_t$.
Since $\pi_1-\pi_{\ell}\le t$, $s=\lfloor \pi_{\ell}/t \rfloor$, and $\pi_{k}\ge (s+1)t >\pi_{k+1}$, we have $$t >\pi_{k+1}-st \ge \cdots \ge \pi_{\ell}-st \ge \pi_{1}-(s+1)t\ge \cdots \ge \pi_k -(s+1)t.$$ Thus the parts of $\phi(\pi)$ are less than or equal to $t$, and if there are overlined parts, they are less than $t$.
We now show that no more than one part of the same size is overlined. Since $\pi$ is an overpartition, at most one part of the same size is overlined in $\pi$. Hence, of $\pi_{1}-st,\ldots, \pi_{k}-st$, if there are overlined parts, then they must be of different sizes. For the same reason, of $\pi_{k+1}-(s+1)t,\ldots, \pi_{\ell}-(s+1)t$, overlined parts must be of different sizes. Thus, if $\pi_{\ell}-st>\pi_1-(s+1)t$, then it is clear that all the overlined parts of $\phi(\pi)$ have different sizes.
Let us suppose that $\pi_{\ell}-st=\pi_1-(s+1)t$. Then, we have $\pi_1-\pi_{\ell}=t$. By the definition of ${\overline{\mathcal{G}}}_t$, we know that all the parts equal to $\pi_1$ are not overlined. Thus, for parts in $\phi(\pi)$ that are equal to $\pi_\ell-st=\pi_1-(s+1)t$, either the first occurrence or none may be overlined. Therefore, $\phi(\pi)\in {\overline{\mathcal{P}}}_t$. We also note that the map $\phi$ preserves the weight of $\pi$, that is, $|\phi(\pi)|=|\pi|$.
As we see in the following example, the map $\phi$ is not a bijection.
Let $t=3$, $\pi=(7,{\overline{4}})$ and $\tilde{\pi}=({\overline{4}},4,3)$. Then $$\begin{gathered}
s(\pi)=1,\quad k(\pi)=1,\quad \phi(\pi)=(3,3,3,{\overline{1}},1), \quad |\phi(\pi)|=|\pi|=11;\\
s(\tilde{\pi})=1,\quad k(\tilde{\pi})=0,\quad \phi(\tilde{\pi})=(3,3,3,{\overline{1}},1), \quad |\phi(\tilde{\pi})|=|\tilde{\pi}|=11.\end{gathered}$$
However, $\phi$ is a surjection since ${\overline{\mathcal{P}}}_t$ is a subset of ${\overline{\mathcal{G}}}_t$ and $\phi(\pi)=\pi$ for any $\pi\in {\overline{\mathcal{P}}}_t$. So, we will count how many pre-images each $\mu\in {\overline{\mathcal{P}}}_t$ has under $\phi$.
Let $\pi\in {\overline{\mathcal{G}}}_t$. We describe how to recover $\pi$ from $\phi(\pi)$. First, note that it is clear from the definition of $s(\pi)$ and $k(\pi)$ that $\pi_i-(s(\pi)+1)t$ and $\pi_j-s(\pi) t$ are the remainders of $\pi_i$ and $\pi_j$ when divided by $t$ for $1\le i \le k(\pi)$ and $ j> k(\pi)$. If the remainders are equal to $0$, then they are deleted in $\phi(\pi)$. Thus if we know the number of such deleted remainders, we can determine $\ell(\pi)$. Also, one of the deleted remainders may have been overlined.
We then need to find $s(\pi)$ and $k(\pi)$, where $s(\pi)$ is the quotient of the smallest part of $\pi$ when divided by $t$ and $k(\pi)$ counts the number of parts whose quotients are equal to $s(\pi)+1$. Therefore, once we have $\ell(\pi)$, $k(\pi)$, and $s(\pi)$ along with the information on existence of an overlined deleted remainder, it is clear that we can recover $\pi$. Thus possible choices for $\ell(\pi)$, $k(\pi)$, and $s(\pi)$ with having a deleted remainder overlined or not will determine the number of pre-images under $\phi$.
In the following lemma, we will see the range for $\ell(\pi)$. For any $\mu\in{\overline{\mathcal{P}}}_t$, we use $m(\mu)=m_t(\mu)$ to count the number of parts of $\mu$ equal to $t$.
\[le:3.2\] Let $\pi$ be a nonempty overpartition in ${\overline{\mathcal{G}}}_t$ and $\mu=\phi(\pi)$ in ${\overline{\mathcal{P}}}_t$. Then we have
1. $\ell(\pi)\le \ell(\mu)$;
2. $\ell(\pi)\ge \ell(\mu)-m(\mu) + \delta_{\ell(\mu), m(\mu)}$, where $\delta_{\ell(\mu), m(\mu)}$ is the Kronecker delta.
First, (i) is almost trivial. Under $\phi$, each part of $\pi$ splits into its residue modulo $t$ and as many $t$’s as the quotient, i.e., each part $\pi_i$ contributes $\lceil \pi_i/t\rceil$ to the number of parts of $\mu$. Thus $\ell(\pi)\le \ell(\mu)$.
Next, we prove (ii). If all of the parts of $\mu$ are $t$, i.e., $\ell(\mu)=m(\mu)$, then $$\ell(\mu)- m(\mu)+ \delta_{\ell(\mu), m(\mu)}=1 \le \ell,$$ where the last inequality follows from the fact that $\pi$ is nonempty.
We now suppose that $\mu$ has a part not equal to $t$, i.e, $\ell(\mu)-m(\mu)\ge 1$. From the definition of $\phi$, we know that the parts of $\mu$ not equal to $t$ are the positive remainders of the parts of $\pi$, so at most $\ell$ parts of $\mu$ are not equal to $t$. Hence $$\ell(\mu)-m(\mu)+ \delta_{\ell(\mu), m(\mu)} = \ell(\mu)-m(\mu) \le \ell.$$ This completes the proof of (ii).
It follows from Lemma \[le:3.2\] that $$\delta_{\ell(\mu), m(\mu)} \le \ell(\pi)-\big(\ell(\mu)-m(\mu)\big) \le m(\mu), \label{remainder}$$ where $\ell(\pi)-\big(\ell(\mu)-m(\mu)\big)$ is the number of multiples of $t$ in $\pi$.
\[le:2.1\] Let $n$ be a fixed positive integer, and $n'$ a fixed nonnegative integer. Then the following system of equations $$\begin{cases}x+y &=n, \\s\, x+(s+1)y&=n'\end{cases} \label{eqs}$$ has exactly one simultaneous solution $(x,y,s)\in \mathbb{Z}_{>0}\times\mathbb{Z}_{\ge0}\times\mathbb{Z}_{\ge0}$.
We readily see that $y=n'-s\, n$. Also, since $x>0$ and $y\ge 0$, it follows from the first equation that $0\le y<n$. Hence $$\frac{n'}{n}-1<s\le \frac{n'}{n},$$ from which it follows that $s=\lfloor n'/n\rfloor$. Therefore, there is only one solution $(x, y, s)$.
We are now ready to determine how many pre-images an overpartition in ${\overline{\mathcal{P}}}_t$ has.
\[th:3.1\] Let $\mu$ be a nonempty overpartition in ${\overline{\mathcal{P}}}_t$.
[(i)]{} If $\ell(\mu)=m(\mu)$, then there are exactly $2m(\mu)$ pre-images in ${\overline{\mathcal{G}}}_t$ under $\phi$. Moreover, of those pre-images, exactly $m(\mu)$ pre-images have no overlined parts, and the other $m(\mu)$ pre-images have the first occurrence of the smallest parts overlined.
[(ii)]{} If $\ell(\mu)>m(\mu)$, then there are exactly $2m(\mu)+1$ pre-images in ${\overline{\mathcal{G}}}_t$ under $\phi$. Moreover, of those pre-images, exactly $m(\mu)+1$ pre-images have the same number of overlined parts as $\mu$ and the other $m(\mu)$ pre-images have one more overlined part than $\mu$ does.
Let $\pi$ be a pre-image of $\mu$. By Lemma \[le:3.2\], we know that $$\ell(\mu)-m(\mu) +\delta_{\ell(\mu), m(\mu)} \le \ell(\pi) \le \ell(\mu).\label{gap1}$$ Hence, for any integer $\ell$ in this range, we want to know how many $\pi\in{\overline{\mathcal{G}}}_t$ with $\ell(\pi)=\ell$ can be pre-images of $\mu$.
In order for $\pi$ to be a pre-image of $\mu$ with $\ell(\pi)=\ell$, $s(\pi)$ and $k(\pi)$ must satisfy $$s(\pi)(\ell-k(\pi))+(s(\pi)+1)k(\pi)=m(\mu). \label{eqs1}$$ By the definition of $k(\pi)$, it should be less than $\ell(\pi)$, i.e., $\ell-k(\pi)>0$. Thus, is equivalent to that $\big(\ell-k(\pi), k(\pi), s(\pi) \big) $ is a solution to with $n=\ell$ and $n'=m(\mu)$, which is unique.
\(i) Suppose that $\ell(\mu)=m(\mu)$. By , there are $m(\mu)$ choices for $\ell$. For a fixed $\ell$, $k(\pi)$ and $s(\pi)$ are uniquely determined as seen above. With these $\big(\ell, k(\pi), s(\pi)\big)$, we can construct $\pi$, in which parts are multiples of $t$ differing by at most $t$ and there are no overlined parts.
For each $\pi$, by having the first occurrence of the smallest parts overlined, we obtain a different pre-image. Therefore, the total number of pre-images must be equal to $2m(\mu)$ as claimed. Also, $m(\mu)$ pre-images have no overlined parts and the other $m(\mu)$ pre-images have one overlined smallest part.
\(ii) Suppose that $\ell(\mu)>m(\mu)$. By , there are $\big( m(\mu)+1\big)$ choices for $\ell$. For a fixed $\ell$, $k(\pi)$ and $s(\pi)$ are uniquely determined. With these $\big(\ell, k(\pi), s(\pi)\big)$, we can construct $\pi$, in which no multiples of $t$ are overlined.
Note that from the construction of $\phi$, $\ell(\mu)-m(\mu)$ counts the nonzero residues of the parts of $\pi$ modulo $t$. So, if $\ell(\pi)>\ell(\mu)-m(\mu)$, then $\pi$ must have multiples of $t$ as parts. For such $\pi$, by having the first occurrence of the smallest multiples of $t$ overlined, we obtain a different pre-image.
Therefore, the total number of pre-images must be equal to $\big(2m(\mu)+1\big)$ as claimed. Also, $\big(m(\mu)+1\big)$ pre-images have the same number of overlined parts as $\mu$ and the other $m(\mu)$ pre-images have one more overlined part than $\mu$ does.
Theorem \[th:3.1\] yields $$\sum_{\pi\in{\overline{\mathcal{G}}}_t}z^{o(\pi)}q^{|\pi|}=\sum_{\mu \in{\overline{\mathcal{P}}}_t}\left(\left(1-\delta_{\ell(\mu), m(\mu)}\right)+ (1+z) m(\mu)\right)z^{o(\mu)}q^{|\mu|}. \label{gen_qt_pt}$$
In the following example, we present how to find all the pre-images $\pi$ of $\mu$.
Let $t=3$.
\(i) Let $\mu=(3,3,3)$. Since $\ell(\mu)=m(\mu)=3$, by Lemma \[le:3.2\] $$1\le \ell(\pi) \le 3.$$ By solving , we have $\big(\ell(\pi), k(\pi), s(\pi)\big)=(1,0, 3), (2,1,1), (3, 0, 1)$, which yield $$\begin{aligned}
& (9), (\overline{9}), \\
&(6,3), (6, \overline{3}), \\
&(3, 3, 3), (\overline{3}, 3, 3), \end{aligned}$$ respectively. There are $2m(\mu)$ pre-images.
\(ii) Let $\mu=(3,3,3,{\overline{1}},1)$. Since $\ell(\mu)= 5$ and $m(\mu)=3$, by Lemma \[le:3.2\] $$2\le \ell(\pi) \le 5.$$ By solving , we have $\big(\ell(\pi), k(\pi), s(\pi)\big)=(2,1,1), (3,0, 1), (4, 3, 0), (5, 3 ,0)$, which yield $$\begin{aligned}
&(7, \overline{4}), \\
&(\overline{4}, 4, 3), (\overline{4}, 4, \overline{3}),\\
&(4, 3, 3, \overline{1}), (4, \overline{3}, 3, \overline{1}),\\
&(3, 3, 3, \overline{1}, 1), (\overline{3}, 3, 3, \overline{1}, 1), \end{aligned}$$ respectively. Thus, there are $2m(\mu)+1$ pre-images.
Partition sets ${\overline{\mathcal{P}}}_t$ and ${\overline{\mathcal{B}}}_t$ {#sec2.2}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us recall the definition of ${\overline{\mathcal{B}}}_t$, from which it is clear that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\beta\in{\overline{\mathcal{B}}}_t}z^{o(\beta)}q^{|\beta|}
&=(1+q^t+q^{2t}+\cdots)\left(\frac{(-zq)_t}{(q)_t}-1\right)\notag\\
&=\frac{1}{1-q^t}\left(\frac{(-zq)_t}{(q)_t}-1\right), \label{gen_bt}\end{aligned}$$ where $o(\beta)$ denotes the number of overlined parts in $\beta$, which is indeed the number of overlined parts in the second subpartition of $\beta$.
We now construct a map $\psi:{\overline{\mathcal{B}}}_t\to{\overline{\mathcal{P}}}_t$ as follows:
1. First collect all parts equal to $t$ in both subpartitions and replace an overlined $t$ by a non-overlined $t$;
2. and then append the remaining parts in the second subpartition to the parts collected in (1).
For example, $[(3),(3,3,{\overline{1}},1)]$ and $[(3),({\overline{3}},3,{\overline{1}},1)]$ are both mapped to $(3,3,3,{\overline{1}},1)$ under $\psi$.
Let $\mu \in {\overline{\mathcal{P}}}_t$. Suppose that $\ell(\mu)=m(\mu)$, i.e., $\mu$ has parts equal to $t$ only. Then, its pre-image $\beta$ must be a bipartition of this form $$[(\underbrace{t,\ldots,t}_{m(\mu)-x}), (\underbrace{t,\ldots, t}_{x})]$$ for some $x>0$ with either the first occurrence or none of $t$’s in the second subpartition overlined. Thus there are $2m(\mu)$ pre-images of $\mu$ in ${\overline{\mathcal{B}}}_t$ under $\psi$. Of those pre-images, $m(\mu)$ pre-images have the same number of overlined parts as $\mu$, and the other $m(\mu)$ pre-images have one more overlined part than $\mu$.
Suppose that $\ell(\mu)>m(\mu)$, i.e., $\mu$ has a part not equal to $t$. Then, its pre-image $\pi$ must be a bipartition of this form $$[(\underbrace{t,\ldots,t}_{m(\mu)-x}), (\underbrace{t,\ldots, t}_{x}, \mu_{m(\mu)+1},\ldots)]$$ for some $x\ge 0$ with either the first occurrence or none of $t$’s in the second subpartition overlined. Thus there are $2m(\mu)+1$ pre-images of $\mu$ in ${\overline{\mathcal{B}}}_t$ under $\psi$. Of those pre-images, $(m(\mu)+1)$ pre-images have the same number of overlined parts as $\mu$, and the other $m(\mu)$ pre-images have one more overlined part than $\mu$.
Therefore, it follows from the map $\psi$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\mu \in{\overline{\mathcal{P}}}_t}\left(\left(1-\delta_{\ell(\mu),m(\mu)}\right)+(1+z)m(\mu)\right)z^{o(\mu)}q^{|\mu|}&=\sum_{\beta\in{\overline{\mathcal{B}}}_t}z^{o(\beta)}q^{|\beta|}.
\label{gen_pt_bt}\end{aligned}$$
By , , and , $$\sum_{n\ge 1} \sum_{m\ge 0} g_t(m,n)z^m q^n=\sum_{\pi\in {\overline{\mathcal{G}}}_t} z^{o(\pi)} q^{|\pi |}=\sum_{\beta \in {\overline{\mathcal{B}}}_t} z^{o(\beta)} q^{|\beta |}=\frac{1}{1-q^t}\left(\frac{(-zq)_t}{(q)_t}-1\right),$$ which completes the proof of Theorem \[th:1.1\].
Final remarks {#sec3}
=============
We remark that, by slightly modifying the first proof of [@Che2017 Theorem 2.1], we can also prove Theorem \[th:1.1\] analytically.
Let $${}_{r+1}\phi_s\left(\begin{matrix} a_0,a_1,a_2\ldots,a_r\\ b_1,b_2,\ldots,b_s \end{matrix}; q, z\right):=\sum_{n\ge 0}\frac{(a_0;q)_n(a_1;q)_n\cdots(a_r;q)_n}{(q;q)_n(b_1;q)_n\cdots (b_s;q)_n}\left((-1)^n q^{\binom{n}{2}}\right)^{s-r}z^n.$$ Then we will need the following identities later.
\[le:chu\] We have $$\label{eq:chu}
{}_{2}\phi_{1}\left(\begin{matrix} a,q^{-n}\\ c \end{matrix}; q, cq^{n}/a\right)=\frac{(c/a;q)_n}{(c;q)_n}.$$
\[le:32\] We have $$\label{eq:32}
{}_{3}\phi_{2}\left(\begin{matrix} a,b,c\\ d,e \end{matrix}; q, de/(abc)\right)=\frac{(e/a;q)_\infty(de/(bc);q)_\infty}{(e;q)_\infty(de/(abc);q)_\infty} {}_{3}\phi_{2}\left(\begin{matrix} a, d/b, d/c\\ d, de/(bc) \end{matrix}; q, e/a\right).$$
First, note that the generating function for partitions in ${\overline{\mathcal{G}}}_t$ with smallest part equal to $r$ is $$\frac{(1+z)q^r}{1-q^r}\frac{1+zq^{r+1}}{1-q^{r+1}}\cdots\frac{1+zq^{r+t-1}}{1-q^{r+t-1}}\frac{1}{1-q^{r+t}},$$ in which the coefficient of $z^m q^n$ counts the number of such overpartitions of $n$ with exactly $m$ overlined parts. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n\ge 1}\sum_{m\ge 0}g_t(m,n)z^mq^n&=\sum_{r\ge 1}\frac{(1+z)q^r}{1-q^r}\frac{1+zq^{r+1}}{1-q^{r+1}}\cdots\frac{1+zq^{r+t-1}}{1-q^{r+t-1}}\frac{1}{1-q^{r+t}} \notag\\
&=(1+z)\sum_{r\ge 1}\frac{(q)_{r-1}(-zq)_{r+t-1}}{(q)_{r+t}(-zq)_r}q^r \notag\\
& =(1+z)q\sum_{r\ge 0}\frac{(q)_{r}(-zq)_{r+t}}{(q)_{r+t+1}(-zq)_{r+1}}q^r \notag\\
&=\frac{(1+z)q(-zq)_{t}}{(1+zq)(q)_{t+1}}\sum_{r\ge 0}\frac{(q)_{r}(q)_{r}(-zq^{t+1})_{r}}{(q)_r(q^{t+2})_{r}(-zq^2)_{r}}q^r \notag \\
&=\frac{(1+z)q(-zq)_{t}}{(1+zq)(q)_{t+1}}\ {}_{3}\phi_{2}\left(\begin{matrix} q,q,-zq^{t+1}\\ -zq^2,q^{t+2} \end{matrix}; q, q\right) \notag \\
& = \frac{(1+z)q(-zq)_{t}}{(1+zq)(q)_{t+1}}\frac{(q^{t+1})_\infty(q^2)_\infty}{(q^{t+2})_\infty(q)_\infty}\ {}_{3}\phi_{2}\left(\begin{matrix} q,-zq,q^{1-t}\\ -zq^2,q^{2} \end{matrix}; q, q^{t+1}\right) \tag{by Eq. \eqref{eq:32}}\\
&= \frac{(1+z)q(-zq)_{t}}{(1-q)(1+zq)(q)_{t}} \sum_{r\ge 0}\frac{(-zq)_{r}(q^{1-t})_{r}}{(-zq^2)_{r}(q^2)_r}q^{r(t+1)} \notag\\
&= -\frac{(-zq)_{t}}{(1-q^t) (q)_{t}} \sum_{r\ge 0}\frac{(-z)_{r+1} (q^{-t})_{r+1} }{(-zq)_{r+1}(q)_{r+1}}q^{(r+1)(t+1)} \notag\\
&= -\frac{(-zq)_{t}}{(1-q^t)(q)_{t}} \left({}_{2}\phi_{1}\left(\begin{matrix} -z,q^{-t}\\ -zq \end{matrix}; q, q^{t+1}\right)-1\right) \notag \\
&= -\frac{(-zq)_{t}}{(1-q^t)(q)_{t}} \left(\frac{(q)_t}{(-zq)_t}-1\right) \tag{by Eq. \eqref{eq:chu}}\\
&= \frac{1}{1-q^t}\left(\frac{(-zq)_t}{(q)_t}-1\right). \notag\end{aligned}$$
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
We thank the referees for their careful reading and helpful comments. The second author was partially supported by a grant ($\#$280903) from the Simons Foundation.
[9]{}
G. E. Andrews, $q$-Hypergeometric and related functions, *NIST handbook of mathematical functions*, 419–433, U.S. Dept. Commerce, Washington, DC, 2010.
G. E. Andrews, M. Beck, and N. Robbins, Partitions with fixed differences between largest and smallest parts, *Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.* **143** (2015), no. 10, 4283–4289.
F. Breuer and B. Kronholm, A polyhedral model of partitions with bounded differences and a bijective proof of a theorem of Andrews, Beck, and Robbins, *Res. Number Theory* **2** (2016), Art. 2, 15 pp.
R. Chapman, Partitions with bounded differences between largest and smallest parts, *Australas. J. Combin.* **64** (2016), 376–378.
S. Chern, An overpartition analogue of partitions with bounded differences between largest and smallest parts, *Discrete Math.* **340** (2017), no. 12, 2834–2839.
J. Dousse and B. Kim, An overpartition analogue of the $q$-binomial coefficients, *Ramanujan J.* **42** (2017), no. 2, 267–283.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Pavel Jiroušek,'
- and Alexander Vikman
bibliography:
- 'Unimod.bib'
title: 'New Weyl-invariant vector-tensor theory for the cosmological constant '
---
Introduction
=============
The cosmological constant problem remains an unsolved mystery, for reviews see e.g. [@Weinberg:1988cp; @Martin:2012bt; @Burgess:2013ara; @Padilla:2015aaa]. One of the cornerstones of this problem is a fine-tuning or (un)naturalness of the value of the observed acceleration of our expanding universe. However, any discussion of naturalness, fine-tuning, and especially related anthropic reasoning [@Weinberg:1987dv] at least implicitly assumes an ensemble of theories or solutions where the cosmological constant or vacuum energy can take different values. One of the setups where such an ensemble is realized by different solutions is the so-called *unimodular gravity* which was first proposed by Einstein almost a century ago in [@Einstein:1919gv][^1]. In unimodular gravity the dynamics of spacetime is given by the trace-free part of the standard Einstein field equations. If one assumes that matter energy-momentum tensor is conserved, the value of the cosmological constant is given by an integration constant, for recent discussion see e.g. [@Ellis:2010uc; @Ellis:2013eqs]. This integration constant is not related to the Planck and electroweak scales or any other parameters and coupling constants of the Standard Model. This property does not solve the cosmological constant problem, but puts it in a rather different perspective. There are already quite a few different action principles reproducing the dynamics of the unimodular gravity, see e.g. [@vanderBij:1981ym; @Henneaux:1989zc; @Buchmuller:1988wx; @Buchmuller:1988yn; @Kuchar:1991xd; @Padilla:2014yea]. The most relevant for this work is the theory by Henneaux and Teitelboim (HT) [@Henneaux:1989zc]. The main advantage of this formulation is that it is manifestly generally covariant and has a slightly simpler formulation than in [@Kuchar:1991xd]. To ensure the general covariance the HT action contains a vector field.
On the other hand, recently another construction leading to the trace-free equations of motion for the metric was proposed by Chamseddine and Mukhanov in [@Chamseddine:2013kea] under the name *Mimetic* Gravity. This construction is dynamically equivalent to irrotational dust minimally coupled to standard General Relativity [@Chamseddine:2013kea; @Golovnev:2013jxa; @Barvinsky:2013mea], Hence it is more interesting for modeling dark matter. Similarly to HT theory the energy density of this mimetic irrotational dark matter is a Lagrange multiplier. One of the main features of this mimetic construction is that the theory is Weyl-invariant. This Weyl-invariance with respect to $h_{\mu\nu}=\Omega^{2}\left(x\right)h'_{\mu\nu}$ originates from the ansatz of the composite metric $$g_{\mu\nu}=h_{\mu\nu}\cdot h^{\alpha\beta}\partial_{\alpha}\phi\,\partial_{\beta}\phi\,,\label{eq:Mimetic_scalar}$$ into the Einstein-Hilbert action. Here it is assumed that the scalar field $\phi$ is Weyl-invariant. Different mimetic constructions with vector fields were considered in [@Barvinsky:2013mea; @Chaichian:2014qba; @Vikman:2017gxs; @Gorji:2018okn]. All of these theories use Weyl-invariant vector fields and no one of these constructions corresponds to the unimodular gravity. Motivated by the HT vector-field formulation of the unimodular gravity we search for a novel nontrivial Weyl-invariant generalization of the mimetic ansatz for the composite metric (\[eq:Mimetic\_scalar\]) containing a vector field $V^{\mu}$.
Mimetic vector field of conformal weight four
==============================================
In this paper we propose a new extension of the *mimetic* construction [@Chamseddine:2013kea] to a vector field, $V^{\alpha}$, namely we propose to use the ansatz
$$g_{\mu\nu}=h_{\mu\nu}\cdot\left(\nabla_{\alpha}^{\left.h\right)}V^{\alpha}\right)^{1/2}\text{ ,}\label{eq:mimetic_vector}$$
where the covariant derivative, $\nabla_{\alpha}^{\left.h\right)}$, is the Levi-Civita connection compatible with the auxiliary metric $h_{\mu\nu}$ $$\nabla_{\alpha}^{\left.h\right)}h_{\mu\nu}=0\text{ .}$$ We will call the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ the *physical metric*. In contrast to [@Gorji:2018okn] the vector field $V^{\mu}$ is not a gauge potential / connection. However, similarly to [@Gorji:2018okn], with this particular form of the conformal factor in front of $h_{\mu\nu}$ the resulting theory becomes Weyl-invariant. Indeed, the Weyl transformation of the auxiliary metric $h_{\mu\nu}$ $$h_{\mu\nu}=\Omega^{2}\left(x\right)h'_{\mu\nu}\text{ ,}\label{eq:Weyl_trans_metric}$$ performed along with the corresponding transformation of the vector field $$V^{\mu}=\Omega^{-4}\left(x\right)V'^{\mu}\text{ ,}\label{eq:Weyl_trans_vector}$$ keeps the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ invariant. This is easy to check using $$\nabla_{\alpha}^{\left.h\right)}V^{\alpha}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{-h}}\partial_{\alpha}\left(\sqrt{-h}V{}^{\alpha}\right)=\frac{1}{\Omega^{4}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{-h'}}\partial_{\alpha}\left(\sqrt{-h'}V'^{\alpha}\right)=\Omega^{-4}\text{ }\nabla_{\alpha}^{\left.h'\right)}V'^{\alpha}\text{ .}$$ Unlike the constructions in [@Barvinsky:2013mea; @Chaichian:2014qba; @Vikman:2017gxs; @Gorji:2018okn] the vector field $V^{\mu}$ has *conformal weight four* under the Weyl transformations. Another crucial difference from these works and from the original mimetic construction [@Chamseddine:2013kea] is that the map (\[eq:mimetic\_vector\]) from $h_{\mu\nu}$ to $g_{\mu\nu}$ is not algebraic, but contains derivatives[^2] of the auxiliary metric $h_{\mu\nu}$ as $$g_{\mu\nu}=\frac{h_{\mu\nu}}{\left(-h\right)^{1/4}}\cdot\left(\partial_{\alpha}\sqrt{-h}V^{\alpha}\right)^{1/2}\,.\label{eq:non_algebraic}$$
Substituting the ansatz (\[eq:mimetic\_vector\]) into *any* action functional $S\left[g,\Phi_{m}\right]$ (with some matter fields $\Phi_{m}$) induces a *novel* Weyl-invariant theory with the action functional $$S\left[h,V,\Phi_{m}\right]=S\left[g\left(h,V\right),\Phi_{m}\right]\,.\label{eq:action_transform}$$ There is also an obvious ancillary gauge invariance with respect to $$V_{\mu}=V'_{\mu}+\partial_{\mu}\theta\,,\qquad\text{where}\qquad\text{\ensuremath{\Box}}\theta=0\,,\label{eq:residual_gauge}$$ which is similar to residual gauge redundancy in the Lorenz gauge.
Now we can plug in the ansatz (\[eq:mimetic\_vector\]) into the Einstein-Hilbert action to obtain an action for a higher-derivative vector-tensor theory[^3] $$S_{g}\left[h,V\right]=-\frac{1}{2}\int d^{4}x\sqrt{-h}\left[\left(\nabla_{\alpha}^{\left.h\right)}V^{\alpha}\right)^{1/2}\text{ }R\left(h\right)+\frac{3}{8}\cdot\frac{\left(\nabla_{\mu}^{\left.h\right)}\nabla_{\alpha}^{\left.h\right)}V^{\alpha}\right)^{2}}{\left(\nabla_{\sigma}^{\left.h\right)}V^{\sigma}\right)^{3/2}}\right]\text{ .}\label{eq:ShV}$$ This is clearly a novel scalar-vector theory going beyond Horndeski and other more recent constructions. For details see [@Heisenberg:2018vsk; @Clifton:2011jh]. The gravitational part of the whole theory can be more conveniently written as $$S_{g}\left[h,V\right]=-\frac{1}{2}\int d^{4}x\sqrt{-h}\left[\sqrt{D}\text{ }R\left(h\right)+\frac{3}{8}\cdot\frac{h^{\alpha\beta}D_{,\alpha}D_{,\beta}}{D^{3/2}}\right]\text{ ,}\label{eq:ShVD}$$ where we introduce the notation for the four-divergence $$D=\nabla_{\alpha}^{\left.h\right)}V^{\alpha}\text{ .}\label{eq:D}$$ Under the Weyl transformations this scalar quantity has conformal weight four $$D=\Omega^{-4}D'\text{ .}\label{eq:D_trans}$$ It should be stressed that as a result of this procedure all matter fields acquire a universal coupling to the vector field $V^{\alpha}$ due to the substitution (\[eq:action\_transform\]). The total action is $S\left[h,V,\Phi_{m}\right]=S_{g}\left[h,V\right]+S_{m}\left[h,V,\Phi_{m}\right]$.
Equations of motion
====================
Let us derive equations of motion for our novel vector-tensor theory. $$\delta S=\frac{1}{2}\int d^{4}x\sqrt{-g}\left(T_{\mu\nu}-G_{\mu\nu}\right)\delta g^{\mu\nu}+\text{Boundary terms}\,,\label{eq:variation_action}$$ where $G_{\mu\nu}$ is the Einstein tensor for $g_{\mu\nu}$ and the energy momentum tensor of matter is defined as usual through $$T_{\mu\nu}=\frac{2}{\sqrt{-g}}\cdot\frac{\delta S_{m}}{\delta g^{\mu\nu}}\,.\label{eq:EMT_standard}$$ The variation of the contravariant metric yields $$\delta g^{\mu\nu}=\frac{\delta h^{\mu\nu}}{\sqrt{D}}-\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}\frac{\delta D}{D}\,,\label{eq:variation_metric}$$ where the variation of the divergence (\[eq:D\]) can be expressed as $$\delta D=\nabla_{\alpha}^{\left.h\right)}\delta V^{\alpha}-\frac{1}{2}h_{\alpha\beta}\,V^{\lambda}\nabla_{\lambda}^{\left.h\right)}\delta h^{\alpha\beta}\,.\label{eq:variation_divergence}$$ Integrating by parts, neglecting the boundary terms and using $\sqrt{-g}=D\sqrt{-h}$ we obtain equation of motion for the vector field $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{-h}}\cdot\frac{\delta S}{\delta V^{\mu}}=\frac{1}{4}\text{ }\partial_{\mu}\left(T-G\right)=0\,,\label{eq:EoM_V}$$ along with the equation of motion for the auxiliary metric $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{-h}}\cdot\frac{\delta S}{\delta h^{\alpha\beta}}=\frac{\sqrt{D}}{2}\left[T_{\alpha\beta}-G_{\alpha\beta}-\frac{1}{4}g_{\alpha\beta}\left(T-G-\frac{1}{D}V^{\lambda}\partial_{\lambda}\left(T-G\right)\right)\right]=0\,,\label{eq:EoM_h}$$ where $T=T_{\alpha\beta}g^{\alpha\beta}$ and $G=G_{\alpha\beta}g^{\alpha\beta}$. Using the equation of motion (\[eq:EoM\_V\]) for the vector $V^{\alpha}$, the equation of motion for the metric $h_{\mu\nu}$ transforms to the trace-free part of the Einstein equations $$G_{\alpha\beta}-T_{\alpha\beta}-\frac{1}{4}g_{\alpha\beta}\left(G-T\right)=0\,.\label{eq:trace_free_Einstein}$$ Crucially, both equations of motion (\[eq:EoM\_V\]) and (\[eq:trace\_free\_Einstein\]) are manifestly invariant with respect to the Weyl transformations of $h_{\mu\nu}$ and $V^{\alpha}$, as $V^{\lambda}/D=\text{inv}$ and all other quantities are expressed through manifestly gauge invariant objects $g_{\mu\nu}$ and matter fields $\Phi_{m}$. For the later it is convenient to consider the Weyl-invariant vector $$W^{\mu}=\frac{V^{\mu}}{\nabla_{\alpha}^{\left.h\right)}V^{\alpha}}\,.\label{eq:W}$$ Considered as an equation on original variables equation of motion for the vector (\[eq:EoM\_V\]) has fourth derivatives of $\left\{ h_{\mu\nu},V^{\alpha}\right\} $ while the trace-free part of the $g-$Einstein equations (\[eq:trace\_free\_Einstein\]) has up to third derivatives of these original variables.
In fact, these equations of motion are those of the so-called *unimodular* gravity. The only difference from the standard GR is that the cosmological constant is an integration constant. Indeed, integrating the equation of motion (\[eq:EoM\_V\]) for the vector $V^{\alpha}$ one obtains $$G-T=4\Lambda=\text{const}\,.$$ Substituting this solution into the trace-free part of the Einstein equations one derives the standard Einstein equations with the cosmological constant $\Lambda$ $$G_{\alpha\beta}=\Lambda g_{\alpha\beta}+T_{\alpha\beta}\,.$$ Hence one can say that our construction provides *Mimetic Dark Energy* or *Mimetic Cosmological Constant*.
We could guess that our mimetic theory describes unimodular gravity by observing that in the coordinate frame[^4] where $$V^{\mu}\left(x\right)\doteq\frac{1}{4}\frac{x^{\mu}}{\sqrt{-h}}\,,\label{eq:special_coordinates}$$ the determinant of the physical metric is unity, see (\[eq:non\_algebraic\]) and all quantities depend on $h_{\mu\nu}$ through $$g_{\mu\nu}\doteq\frac{h_{\mu\nu}}{\left(-h\right)^{1/4}}\,.$$ For a nice discussion on how one can construct the unimodular coordinates where $\sqrt{-g}=1$ see [@vanderBij:1981ym].
Gauge invariant variables and scalar-vector-tensor formulation
===============================================================
Now we can follow a similar procedure as in [@Hammer:2015pcx] and upgrade $D$ to an independent dynamical variable in order to eliminate the second derivatives from the action, so that $$S\left[h,D,V,\lambda\right]=-\frac{1}{2}\int d^{4}x\sqrt{-h}\left[\sqrt{D}\text{ }R\left(h\right)+\frac{3}{8}\cdot\frac{h^{\alpha\beta}D_{,\alpha}D_{,\beta}}{D^{3/2}}+\lambda\left(D-\nabla_{\alpha}^{\left.h\right)}V^{\alpha}\right)\right]\text{ .}\label{eq:Constrained}$$ Hence, we introduced a constraint with the corresponding Lagrange multiplier and promoted theory (\[eq:ShV\]) to a vector-tensor-scalar theory in this way. This theory should be Weyl-invariant, as it was the case with the original action (\[eq:ShV\]). This requirement forces the Lagrange multiplier, $\lambda$, to be invariant under the Weyl transformations. In this way all matter fields acquire a universal coupling to the scalar field $D$.
One can further canonically normalize the kinetic term by defining a new scalar field of conformal weight one $$D=\left(\frac{\varphi^{2}}{6}\right)^{2}\,,$$ so that the action (\[eq:Constrained\]) takes the form $$S\left[h,\varphi,V,\lambda\right]=\int d^{4}x\sqrt{-h}\left[-\frac{1}{2}\left(\partial\varphi\right)^{2}-\frac{1}{12}\varphi^{2}\text{ }R\left(h\right)-\frac{\lambda}{72}\varphi^{4}+\frac{\lambda}{2}\cdot\nabla_{\alpha}^{\left.h\right)}V^{\alpha}\right]\,.\label{eq:canonical_normalization}$$ The first three terms correspond to the Dirac’s theory of the Weyl-invariant gravity [@Dirac:1973gk], see also [@Deser:1970hs]. These terms are also the starting point for the so-called Conformal Inflation [@Kallosh:2013hoa]. In our sign convention the scalar field $\varphi$ has a ghost-like kinetic term. Importantly, in contrast to [@Dirac:1973gk] the would be coupling constant $\lambda$ is a Lagrange multiplier field. All other matter fields are coupled to the physical metric $$g_{\mu\nu}=\frac{\varphi^{2}}{6}\cdot h_{\mu\nu}\,.$$
The form of the action is closely related, but not identical to those studied in [@Alvarez:2006uu]. The main difference is the full diffeomorphism invariance of our action (\[eq:canonical\_normalization\]) whereas the theories studied in [@Alvarez:2006uu] were only invariant with respect to transverse diffeomorphisms preserving the value of $\sqrt{-h}$. It seems that the vector field $V^{\mu}$ (absent in [@Alvarez:2006uu]) in our construction works[^5] as a Stückelberg, Freiherr von Breidenbach zu Breidenstein und Melsbach field (also colloquially known as a compensator field) restoring the full diffeomorphism invariance. However, the form of the action suggests that the Weyl symmetry is in a sense empty (or as sometimes called fake) in our construction and corresponds to the Noether current which is identically vanishing, see [@Jackiw:2014koa; @Oda:2016pok]. We leave the clarification of this issue for a future work.
The dynamical variables $\left\{ h_{\mu\nu},V^{\mu},\lambda,D,\right\} $ transform as $$\begin{aligned}
& h_{\mu\nu}=\Omega^{2}\left(x\right)h'_{\mu\nu}\,,\label{eq:Weyl_Transform_set}\\
& D=\Omega^{-4}\left(x\right)D'\,,\nonumber \\
& V^{\mu}=\Omega^{-4}\left(x\right)V'^{\mu}\,,\nonumber \\
& \lambda=\lambda'\text{ .}\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Instead of these dynamical variables one can introduce a new set of independent dynamical variables $\left\{ g_{\mu\nu},W^{\mu},\Lambda,D\right\} $, where the first three $$\begin{aligned}
& g_{\mu\nu}=D^{1/2}\,h{}_{\mu\nu}\,,\label{eq:gauge_invariant_variables}\\
& W^{\mu}=D^{-1}\,V^{\mu}\,,\nonumber \\
& \Lambda=\frac{\lambda}{2}\text{ ,}\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ are gauge invariant. This field-redefinitions resemble the Weyl transformations with $\Omega=D^{1/4}$, except we do not transform $D$ and consequently do not reduce the dimensionality of the phase space. Hence this transformation is different from fixing the gauge where $D=1$, even though the variables $W^{\mu}$ and $g_{\mu\nu}$ are equal to the corresponding variables in this gauge.
In this way the divergence transforms $$\nabla_{\alpha}^{\left.h\right)}V^{\alpha}=\frac{D}{\sqrt{-g}}\partial_{\alpha}\left(\sqrt{-g}\,W^{\alpha}\right)=D\,\nabla_{\mu}^{\left.g\right)}W^{\mu}\text{ .}$$ Performing this field redefinition in (\[eq:Constrained\]) one obtains $$S\left[g,W,\Phi_{m}\right]=\int d^{4}x\sqrt{-g}\left[-\frac{1}{2}R\left(g\right)+\Lambda\left(\nabla_{\mu}^{\left.g\right)}W^{\mu}-1\right)\right]+S_{m}\left[g,\Phi_{m}\right]\text{ .}\label{eq:H-T_action}$$ This action functional does not depend anymore on the scalar field $D$, but only on gauge invariant dynamical variables (\[eq:gauge\_invariant\_variables\]). In fact, as a result of this transformation we obtained the Henneaux-Teitelboim representation [@Henneaux:1989zc] of the unimodular gravity. Indeed, the variation of this action with respect to the vector field $W^{\mu}$ implies that $\Lambda$ is a constant of integration (global degree of freedom): $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}}\cdot\frac{\delta S}{\delta W^{\mu}}=-\partial_{\mu}\Lambda=0\text{ ,}$$ while the variation with respect to the metric gives the Einstein equations with the cosmological constant $\Lambda$ $$\frac{2}{\sqrt{-g}}\cdot\frac{\delta S}{\delta g^{\mu\nu}}=T_{\mu\nu}+\Lambda g_{\mu\nu}-G_{\mu\nu}=0\text{ .}$$ Finally there is a constraint $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}}\cdot\frac{\delta S}{\delta\Lambda}=\nabla_{\mu}^{\left.g\right)}W^{\mu}-1=0\,.\label{eq:current_nonconservation}$$ The constraint equation (\[eq:current\_nonconservation\]) per construction becomes identity in terms of original fields $\left\{ h_{\mu\nu},V^{\alpha}\right\} $ and does not provide any new information regarding the dynamics. In electrodynamics one faces a similar situation with $\nabla_{\mu}^{\left.g\right)}F^{\mu\nu}$ which is identically conserved per construction.
The constraint equation (\[eq:current\_nonconservation\]) can be considered as a non-conservation of the current $W^{\mu}$. This equation only allows to find the evolution of the corresponding charge - the global mode defined on a foliation of the spacetime as $$\mathscr{T}\left(t\right)=\int d^{3}\mathbf{x}\sqrt{-g}\,W^{t}\left(t,\mathbf{x}\right)\,,\label{eq:global_time}$$ which is often called “cosmic time” or four-dimensional spacetime volume, see [@Henneaux:1989zc]. Indeed, using (\[eq:current\_nonconservation\]) we can calculate $$\begin{aligned}
& \dot{\mathscr{T}}\left(t\right)=\int d^{3}\mathbf{x}\partial_{t}\left(\sqrt{-g}\,W^{t}\left(t,\mathbf{x}\right)\right)=\int d^{3}\mathbf{x}\left(\sqrt{-g}-\partial_{i}\left(\sqrt{-g}W^{i}\right)\right)=\\
& =\int d^{3}\mathbf{x}\sqrt{-g}-\oint_{\mathcal{B}}ds_{i}\sqrt{-g}W^{i}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the last integral is taken over the boundary surface $\mathcal{B}$ of the three-dimensional space. If there is no flux of $W^{i}$ through the boundary surface, then $$\mathscr{T}\left(t_{2}\right)-\mathscr{T}\left(t_{1}\right)=\int_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}}dt\int d^{3}\mathbf{x}\sqrt{-g}\,.$$ It is worth noting that one can write the ”cosmic time” $\mathscr{T}\left(t\right)$ in terms of $\left\{ h_{\mu\nu},V^{\alpha}\right\} $: $$\mathscr{T}\left(t\right)=\int d^{3}\mathbf{x}\sqrt{-h}\,V^{t}\left(t,\mathbf{x}\right)\,,\label{eq:global_degree}$$ as the tensor density $\sqrt{-h}V^{\mu}$ is invariant under the Weyl transformations (\[eq:Weyl\_Transform\_set\]) and remains invariant under the field redefinition (\[eq:gauge\_invariant\_variables\]). In the special coordinate system (\[eq:special\_coordinates\]) the charge expression takes a particularly simple form $$\mathscr{T}\left(t\right)\doteq t\int d^{3}\mathbf{x}\,.$$
Clearly there is still a lot of gauge redundancy in the action (\[eq:H-T\_action\]), as it does not allow to find all components of $W^{\mu}$, but only the global mode $\mathscr{T}\left(t\right)$. To find the evolution of the global mode one has to specify conditions for normal components of $W^{i}$ to the spatial boundary surface $\mathcal{B}$ at all times and initial $W^{t}\left(t_{1},\mathbf{x}\right)$ (or final $W^{t}\left(t_{2},\mathbf{x}\right)$) charge density. Of course one can specify both, the initial $W^{t}\left(t_{1},\mathbf{x}\right)$ and the final $W^{t}\left(t_{2},\mathbf{x}\right)$, though in that case the boundary conditions for $W^{i}$ should be chosen consistently so that the flux of the current $W^{i}$ could compensate for the changes in the charge additional to the the four-volume of the spacetime between two Cauchy hypersurfaces: $$\mathscr{T}\left(t_{2}\right)-\mathscr{T}\left(t_{1}\right)=\int_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}}dt\int d^{3}\mathbf{x}\sqrt{-g}-\int_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}}dt\oint_{\mathcal{B}}ds_{i}\sqrt{-g}W^{i}\,.$$ Of course very different charge densities $W^{t}\left(t,\mathbf{x}\right)$ can still correspond to the same global charge $\mathbf{\mathscr{T}}\left(t\right)$.
Conclusion and Discussion
=========================
We proposed a new vector-tensor theory (\[eq:ShV\]) with a vector field $V^{\mu}$ of conformal weight four: $$S_{g}\left[h,V\right]=-\frac{1}{2}\int d^{4}x\sqrt{-h}\left[\left(\nabla_{\alpha}^{\left.h\right)}V^{\alpha}\right)^{1/2}\text{ }R\left(h\right)+\frac{3}{8}\cdot\frac{\left(\nabla_{\mu}^{\left.h\right)}\nabla_{\alpha}^{\left.h\right)}V^{\alpha}\right)^{2}}{\left(\nabla_{\sigma}^{\left.h\right)}V^{\sigma}\right)^{3/2}}\right]\text{ .}\label{eq:our_theory_conclusion}$$ Notably the Weyl-symmetry is considered to be a desirable and intriguing property in physics, see e.g. [@Lucat:2016eze]. This higher-derivative Weyl-invariant theory is highly degenerate and has only one global degree of freedom (\[eq:global\_degree\]) $$\mathscr{T}\left(t\right)=\int d^{3}\mathbf{x}\sqrt{-h}\,V^{t}\left(t,\mathbf{x}\right)\,,\label{eq:global_dof_concluison}$$ whose canonical momentum is the cosmological constant $\Lambda$. This global degree of freedom is Weyl-invariant. We obtained this theory by making a mimetic substitution
$$g_{\mu\nu}=h_{\mu\nu}\cdot\left(\nabla_{\alpha}^{\left.h\right)}V^{\alpha}\right)^{1/2}\text{ ,}\label{eq:ansatz_metric_conclusion}$$
into the Einstein-Hilbert action.
Further we reformulated this theory as a Weyl-invariant scalar-vector-tensor gravity (\[eq:canonical\_normalization\]), which closely resembles the Dirac’s theory of the Weyl-invariant gravity [@Dirac:1973gk]. However, our formulation has an additional constraint and a vector field of different conformal weight. Then we introduced gauge-invariant local variables (\[eq:gauge\_invariant\_variables\]) and found that our theory reduces to the generally covariant Henneaux-Teitelboim representation [@Henneaux:1989zc] of *unimodular* gravity. In contrast to other formulations of unimodular gravity our action (\[eq:ShV\]) has manifest i) Weyl-invariance and ii) general covariance, while there are iii) no explicit constraints imposed using Lagrange multipliers. The price for the combination of all these three properties is the presence of higher derivatives in the action. Despite of these higher derivatives the theory does not suffer from the Ostrogradsky ghosts [@Ostrogradsky:1850fid] in the standard sense. Indeed, as it is in the standard Ostrogradsky prescription, the Henneaux-Teitelboim theory is linear in the canonical momentum $\Lambda$, but for each solution the momentum stays constant in the whole spacetime.
Vector-tensor theories are quite popular in the context of modeling dark energy and dark matter phenomena, for recent reviews see e.g. [@Heisenberg:2018vsk; @Clifton:2011jh]. Clearly our vector field is not a U(1) gauge potential. Our theory goes beyond Horndeski’s most general construction for the U(1) vector fields with second order equations of motion [@Horndeski:1976gi]. Neither can one find our theory in more general p-form constructions [@Deffayet:2010zh; @Deffayet:2016von; @Deffayet:2017eqq]. Moreover our construction goes beyond popular generalized Proca vector-tensor theories [@Heisenberg:2014rta] and Einstein aether models [@Jacobson:2000xp] where the U(1) invariance is broken, and goes even beyond further extended vector-tensor theories [@Kimura:2016rzw; @Heisenberg:2016eld]. Also our construction is principally different from other mimetic vector models [@Barvinsky:2013mea; @Chaichian:2014qba; @Vikman:2017gxs; @Gorji:2018okn]. A crucial difference is that our contravariant vector field has conformal weight four contrary to the ordinary Weyl-invariant covariant vector fields of weight zero used in the previous constructions. Another difference is that we have derivatives of the metric inside of the mimetic transformation (\[eq:ansatz\_metric\_conclusion\]).
Another interesting feature of our formulation of the unimodular gravity, which is common with [@Henneaux:1989zc; @Kuchar:1991xd], is a spontaneous breaking of the Lorentz symmetry. Indeed, in our construction (\[eq:ansatz\_metric\_conclusion\]) vanishing $V^{\mu}$ corresponds to a singularity. In Weyl-invariant or HT formulation the persistent presence of $W^{\mu}$ is enforced by the constraint (\[eq:current\_nonconservation\]). Clearly this Lorentz-symmetry breaking is not relevant as far as it does not propagate to the Standard Model fields. Interestingly, one can reproduce the dynamics of the original Chamseddine-Mukhanov scalar mimetic dark matter via Lorentz-symmetry breaking in a so-called pre-geometric setup [@Zlosnik:2018qvg], where the spacetime manifold appears only via Lorentz-symmetry breaking. One can wonder whether a different pre-geometric setup can provide our *Mimetic Cosmological Constant* or maybe evolving *Mimetic Dark Energy* along with their initial data.
Different formulations of the same classical theory can correspond to distinct quantum theories. For unimodular gravity a relevant discussion on this point can be found in e.g. [@Fiol:2008vk; @Padilla:2014yea]. These differences can be important for quantum vacuum energy and for the UV structure of the theory. Moreover, formulations of the same theory in terms of different dynamical variables are relevant for potential modifications and extensions. In particular, these modifications are interesting in any attempt to dynamically compensate the cosmological constant. On the other hand, extensions can model deviations from an exact cosmological constant to novel forms of evolving vacuum energy. Hence suggesting another formulation of the unimodular gravity can be useful also in this regard.
Finally we would like to mention further ways of generalizing our setup. Scalar field mimetic models can be extended by plugging in the mimetic ansatz into actions already containing different scalar-field operators. In particular, this procedure yields phenomenologically interesting theories for the operators $V\left(\phi\right)$ (see e.g. [@Chamseddine:2014vna; @Lim:2010yk]) and $\gamma\left(\phi\right)\left(\Box\phi\right)^{2}$, see e.g. [@Chamseddine:2014vna; @Capela:2014xta; @Mirzagholi:2014ifa; @Ramazanov:2015pha; @Casalino:2018wnc]. The latter operators are rather constrained phenomenologically [@Babichev:2016jzg; @Casalino:2018wnc; @Ramazanov:2016xhp] especially as they can introduce mild ghost instabilities, see [@Ramazanov:2016xhp] and [@Chaichian:2014qba; @Ijjas:2016pad; @Takahashi:2017pje; @Langlois:2018jdg]. Different extensions are also interesting, as they can point out directions to embed or UV complete the theory. To extend our vector-tensor theory, one can start from any progenitor theory with dynamical variables $\{g_{\mu\nu},W^{\mu}\}$ and some matter fields $\Phi_{m}$ and perform *simultaneous* transformation of metric (\[eq:ansatz\_metric\_conclusion\]) and of the vector field (\[eq:W\]): $$W^{\mu}=\frac{V^{\mu}}{\nabla_{\alpha}^{\left.h\right)}V^{\alpha}}\,.\label{eq:composite_vector_conclusions}$$ After substituting these transformed composite objects into the progenitor tensor (or vector-tensor or even scalar-vector-tensor) theory we obtain a new vector-tensor theory with the action $$S\left[h,V,\Phi_{m}\right]=S\left[g\left(h,V\right),W\left(h,V\right),\Phi_{m}\right]\,.$$ This induced novel vector-tensor theory (with some external matter fields $\Phi_{m}$) is Weyl-invariant per construction. After transition back to the Weyl-invariant variables (\[eq:gauge\_invariant\_variables\]) one just adds a constraint term (\[eq:current\_nonconservation\]), $\Lambda\left(\nabla_{\mu}^{\left.g\right)}W^{\mu}-1\right)$, to the original action $S\left[g,W,\Phi_{m}\right]$. For example, extending our model by adding the standard kinetic term $-\frac{\text{1}}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}$ with the usual field tensor $F_{\mu\nu}=\partial_{\mu}W_{\nu}-\partial_{\nu}W_{\mu}$ to the progenitor Einstein-Hilbert action and making the combined mimetic ansatz (\[eq:ansatz\_metric\_conclusion\]),(\[eq:composite\_vector\_conclusions\]) generates a new Weylinvariant gauge theory preserving even the residual gauge symmetry (\[eq:residual\_gauge\]). One can also use a different (e.g. with curvature corrections) progenitor gravitational Lagrangian instead of the standard Einstein-Hilbert one.
One can further expand the story by using various tensor fields of other conformal weights. For each progenitor field $\Psi$ which we want to transform to a field of conformal weight $k$ one should make a substitution of a composite field with $\Psi=\psi\left(\nabla_{\alpha}^{\left.h\right)}V^{\alpha}\right)^{-k/4}$.
Another interesting generalization is an extension of the conformal mimetic ansatz (\[eq:ansatz\_metric\_conclusion\]) to more general *disformal* transformations [@Bekenstein:1992pj] where instead of the usual $\partial_{\mu}\phi$ one exploits the vector field $V^{\mu}$. For instance the transformation $$g_{\mu\nu}=h_{\mu\nu}\cdot\left(\nabla_{\alpha}^{\left.h\right)}V^{\alpha}\right)^{1/2}+\left(\nabla_{\alpha}^{\left.h\right)}V^{\alpha}\right)^{-1}\,V_{\mu}\,V_{\nu}\,,$$ still generates new Weyl-invariant theories. Whether the induced theories can describe interesting physics, similarly to the setup presented in the paper, remains to be seen and is an interesting open question.
It is a pleasure to thank Ippocratis Saltas for useful discussions, Atsushi Naruko for a helpful correspondence and Tom Złośnik for valuable comments on the first draft of the paper. A.V. acknowledges support from the J. E. Purkyně Fellowship of the Czech Academy of Sciences. The work of P. J. and A.V. was supported by the funds from the European Regional Development Fund and the Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MŠMT): Project CoGraDS - CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/15\_003/0000437.\
[^1]: For more recent discussions see [@Weinberg:1988cp]
[^2]: This does not allow to use the inverse function theorem. The complications due to appearance of $h_{\mu\nu,\alpha}$ are mentioned in [@Zumalacarregui:2013pma].
[^3]: We use: the standard notation $\sqrt{-h}\equiv\sqrt{-\text{det}h_{\mu\nu}}$ , the signature convention $\left(+,-,-,-\right)$, and the units $c=\hbar=1$, $M_{\text{Pl}}=\left(8\pi G_{\text{N}}\right)^{-1/2}=1$.
[^4]: If equality holds only in a particular frame we use $"\doteq"$ instead of $"="$.
[^5]: In another [@Kuchar:1991xd] generally-covariant formulation of unimodular gravity by Kuchař instead of the vector $V^{\mu}$ there are four compensator scalar fields $X^{A}$ representing general unimodular coordinates. Formula (\[eq:special\_coordinates\]) represents one possible set of them and can be useful to show canonical equivalence between our and Kuchař formulations.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A universal inequality that bounds the angular momentum of a body by the square of its size is presented and heuristic physical arguments are given to support it. We prove a version of this inequality, as consequence of Einstein equations, for the case of rotating axially symmetric, constant density, bodies. Finally, the physical relevance of this result is discussed.'
author:
- Sergio Dain
title: Inequality between size and angular momentum for bodies
---
*Introduction* — Consider a rotating body ${U}$ with angular momentum $J({U})$. Let ${\mathcal{R}}({U})$ be a measure (with units of length) of the size of the body. A precise definition for the radius ${\mathcal{R}}$ will be given later on, for the present discussion it is enough to consider only the intuitive idea of size: for example, if the body is a sphere in flat space then ${\mathcal{R}}$ should be proportional to the radius of the sphere.
We conjecture that there exists a universal inequality for all bodies of the form $$\label{eq:22}
{\mathcal{R}}^2({U}) \apprge \frac{G}{c^3} |J({U})|,$$ where $G$ is the gravitational constant and $c$ the speed of light. The symbol $\apprge$ is intended as an order of magnitude, the precise universal (i.e. independent of the body) constant will depend, of course, on the definition of ${\mathcal{R}}$.
The purpose of the first part of this article is to provide physical arguments supporting the validity of this inequality. In the second part we prove, as consequence of Einstein field equations, theorem \[t:1\]. This theorem provides a precise version of the inequality valid for rotating, axially symmetric, constant density, bodies. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of the physical relevance of this result.
*Heuristic arguments*— The arguments in support of the inequality (\[eq:22\]) are based in the following three physical principles:
- The speed of light $c$ is the maximum speed.
- For bodies which are not contained in a black hole the following inequality holds $$\label{eq:2}
{\mathcal{R}}({U}) \apprge\frac{G}{c^2} m({U}),$$ where $m({U})$ is the mass of the body.
- The inequality (\[eq:22\]) holds for black holes.
Let us discuss these assumptions. Item (i) is clear. Item (ii) is called the *trapped surface conjecture* [@Seifert79]. Essentially, it says that if the reverse inequality as in (\[eq:2\]) holds then a trapped surface should enclose ${U}$. That is: if matter is enclosed in a sufficiently small region, then the system should collapse to a black hole. This is related with the *hoop conjecture* [@thorne72] (see also [@Wald99] [@PhysRevD.44.2409] [@Malec:1992ap] ). The trapped surface conjecture has been proved in spherical symmetry [@Bizon:1989xm] [@Bizon:1988vv] [@Khuri:2009dt] and also for a relevant class of non-spherical initial data [@Malec:1991nf]. The general case remains open but it is expected that some version of this conjecture should hold.
Concerning item (iii), the inequality $$\label{eq:5}
A\geq8\pi\frac{G}{c^3} |J|$$ was recently proved for axially symmetric black holes (see [@dain12] and reference therein), where $A$ is the area of the stable marginally trapped surface and $J$ its angular momentum. The area $A$ is a measure of the size of a trapped surface, hence the inequality represents a version of for axially symmetric black holes. In fact the inequality (\[eq:5\]) was the inspiration for the inequality (\[eq:22\]). A possible generalization of (\[eq:5\]) for bodies is to take the area $A(\partial
{U})$ of the boundary $\partial {U}$ of the body ${U}$ as measure of size. But unfortunately the area of the boundary is not a good measure of the size of a body in the presence of curvature. In particular, an inequality of the form $A(\partial {U}) \apprge G c^{-3} |J({U})| $ does not hold for bodies. The counterexample is essentially given by a rotating torus in the weak field limit, with large major radius and small minor radius. The details of this calculation will be presented elsewhere [@Anglada13].
It is important to emphasize that principles (i) and (iii) have a different status than principle (ii). The former are well established facts, the later is a conjecture. Assuming (i), (ii) and (iii) we want to argue that should hold. Consider, in Newton theory, an axially symmetric body ${U}$ with mass density $\bar \mu $, rotating around the axis of symmetry with angular velocity $\omega$. These functions are not required to be constant on ${U}$. The angular momentum and the total mass of the body are given by $$\label{eq:29}
J(U)= \int_{U}\bar \mu \omega \rho^2 \, {dv_0}, \quad m(U)=\int_U \bar \mu {dv_0},$$ where $\rho$ is the euclidean distance to the axis and ${dv_0}$ is the euclidean volume element. The angular velocity is bounded by $$\label{eq:32}
|\omega|=\frac{|v|}{\rho}\leq \frac{c}{\rho},$$ where we have used the principle (i): $|v| \leq c$, where $v$ is the linear velocity. Using in the expression for the angular momentum we obtain $$\label{eq:24}
|J(U)|\leq c \int_{U}\bar \mu \rho \,{dv_0}\leq c m(U) \sup_U \rho.$$ Note that this inequality is deduced using only the Newtonian expression for the angular momentum and principle (i). If the body is contained in a black hole, then the inequality (\[eq:22\]) holds for the black hole boundary according to principle (iii). Hence, we assume that it is not contained in a black hole, and then, according to principle (ii), the inequality (\[eq:2\]) holds. Using this inequality for the mass in (\[eq:24\]) we get $$\label{eq:34}
\frac{G}{c^3} J(U)\apprle {\mathcal{R}}({U}) \sup_U \rho.$$ A reasonable property for a size measure (at least in flat space) is that $$\label{eq:25}
\sup_U \rho \leq {\mathcal{R}}(U).$$ Using in we obtain . Note that even if the property does not hold, the right hand side of can be interpreted as the square of a measure of the size of ${U}$ and hence an inequality of the form also holds for that new measure of size.
It is clear that one of the main difficulties in the study of inequalities of the form and is the very definition of the quantities involved, in particular the measure of size. In fact, despite the intensive research on the subject, there is no know universal measure of size such that the trapped surface conjecture (or, more general, the hoop conjecture) holds (see the interesting discussions in [@Malec:1992ap] [@Gibbons:2012ac] [@Senovilla:2007dw]). However, as we will see in the next section, the remarkable point is that in order to find an appropriate measure of size ${\mathcal{R}}$ such that holds we do not to need to prove first , and hence we do not need to find the relevant measure of mass $m({U})$ for the trapped surface conjecture.
The arguments of the previous discussion can be summarized as follows. In order to increase the angular momentum of a body with fixed size there are two mechanisms: to increase the angular velocity or to increase the mass inside the body. But there is a physical limit to both mechanisms. The angular velocity is bounded by the speed of light, and increasing the mass (at fixed size) will eventually produce a black hole, where the inequality holds. Hence, an universal inequality of the form is expected for all bodies.
*A precise version of the inequality* — We make precise the three notions involved in the inequality (\[eq:22\]): a body ${U}$, the angular momentum $J$ and the size ${\mathcal{R}}$ of the body. A *body* ${U}$ is a connected open subset ${U}\subset S$ with smooth boundary $\partial {U}$; where $S$ is a spacelike 3-surface which gives rise to the initial data set for Einstein equations defined as follows. An *initial data set* for the Einstein equations is given by $(S, h_{ij}, K_{ij},\mu, j^i)$ where $S$ is a connected 3-dimensional manifold, $ h_{ij} $ a (positive definite) Riemannian metric, $ K_{ij}$ a symmetric tensor field, $j^i$ a vector field and $\mu$ a scalar field on $S$, such that the constraint equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{const1}
D_j K^{ij} - D^i K= -8\pi\frac{G}{c^4} j^i,\\
\label{const2}
R - K_{ij} K^{ij}+ K^2=16\pi\frac{G}{c^4} \mu,\end{aligned}$$ are satisfied on $S$. Where $ {D}$ and $R$ are the Levi-Civita connection and the scalar curvature associated with $ {h}_{ij}$, and $ K = K_{ij} h^{ij}$. In these equations the indices are moved with the metric $ h_{ij}$ and its inverse $ h^{ij}$. In terms of the four dimensional energy momentum tensor $T_{\mu\nu}$, the matter fields are given by $\mu=T_{\mu\nu} n^\mu n^\nu$, $j_\nu=-
h_\nu{}^\lambda T_{\lambda \nu} n^\nu$, where $n^\nu$ is the timelike unit vector normal to the slice $S$. The relation between the mass density $\bar \mu$ used in (\[eq:29\]) and the energy density $\mu$ is given by $\mu=c^2 \bar \mu$.
We require that the matter fields satisfy the dominant energy condition $$\label{eq:1}
\mu\geq \sqrt{j^i j_i}.$$ In order to have a proper definition of the angular momentum of the body we will further assume that the data are *axially symmetric* (in general, the angular momentum of a bounded region ${U}$ is very difficult to define, see the review article [@Szabados04] and reference therein). That is, we assume the existence of a Killing vector field $\eta^i$, i.e; $$\label{eq:38}
\pounds_\eta h_{ij}=0,$$ where $\pounds$ denotes the Lie derivative, which has complete periodic orbits and such that $$\label{eq:8b}
\pounds_\eta \mu = \pounds_\eta j^j = \pounds_\eta K_{ij}=0.$$ We denote the norm of the Killing vector by ${\lambda}= (\eta^i\eta_i)^{1/2}$. The angular momentum of the body ${U}$ is defined by $$\label{eq:4}
J({U})=-\frac{1}{c}\int_{{U}} j_i \eta^i {dv},$$ where ${dv}$ is the volume measure with respect to the metric $h_{ij}$.
Finally, we should define a notion of size for the body ${U}$. This notion will be a variant of the following definition of radius presented by Schoen and Yau in [@schoen83d]. Let $\Gamma$ be a simple closed curve in ${U}$ which bounds a disk in ${U}$. Let $p$ be largest constant such that the set of points within a distance $p$ of $\Gamma$ is contained within ${U}$ and forms a proper torus. Then $p$ is a measure of the size of ${U}$ with respect to the curve $\Gamma$. The radius ${\mathcal{R}_{SY}}({U})$ is defined as the largest value of $p$ we can find by considering all curves $\Gamma$. That is, ${\mathcal{R}_{SY}}({U})$ is expressed in terms of the largest torus that can be embedded in ${U}$. Using this definition, the following deep theorem was proved in [@schoen83d]. Let ${U}$ be any subset of $S$. Assume that the scalar curvature $R$ of the metric $h_{ij}$ is bounded from below $R\geq \Lambda$ in ${U}$ by a positive constant $\Lambda$. Then the following inequality holds $$\label{eq:49}
\Lambda \leq \frac{8\pi^2}{3}\frac{1}{ {\mathcal{R}_{SY}}^{2}}.$$ Note that this is a purely local and purely Riemannian result. There is no requirement that $S$ be asymptotically flat and only assumptions on the metric $h_{ij}$ are made.
In [@Murchadha86b] Ó Murchadha made the following important observation. Define another radius ${\mathcal{R}_{OM}}({U})$ as follows. Let ${\mathcal{R}_{OM}}({U})$ be the size of the largest stable minimal 2-surface that can be imbedded in ${U}$, where size of the surface is the distance (with respect to the ambient metric $h_{ij}$) from the boundary to that internal point which is furthest from the boundary. Then, it can be proved that $$\label{eq:9}
{\mathcal{R}_{OM}}({U}) \geq {\mathcal{R}_{SY}}({U}),$$ and also that the same bound (\[eq:49\]) holds for ${\mathcal{R}_{OM}}({U})$, under similar assumptions[^1]. Namely, $$\label{eq:49b}
\Lambda \leq \frac{8\pi^2}{3}\frac{1}{ {\mathcal{R}_{OM}}^{2}}.$$ Since we have , the right hand side of is smaller than the right hand side of , and hence ${\mathcal{R}_{OM}}$ provide a better bound.
To have an intuitive idea of these measures, let us compute them for some relevant domains in flat space. Recall that the planes are minimal stable surfaces in flat space. For a sphere of radius $b$ we have that ${\mathcal{R}_{SY}}=b/2$, ${\mathcal{R}_{OM}}=b$. We see that both radii give essentially the same desired value for the sphere. For a torus with major radius $b$ and minor radius $a$ we have ${\mathcal{R}_{SY}}=a/2$, ${\mathcal{R}_{OM}}=a$. Both radii are independent of the major radius $b$ for the torus. Hence, we can not expect an inequality of the form for ${\mathcal{R}_{SY}}$ or ${\mathcal{R}_{OM}}$, since in the weak field limit a torus of large radius $b$ and small radius $a$ will have large angular momentum $J$ and small ${\mathcal{R}_{SY}}$ or ${\mathcal{R}_{OM}}$ (a similar counter example as in the case of the area discussed above). Finally, to see the relevant difference between ${\mathcal{R}_{SY}}$ and ${\mathcal{R}_{OM}}$ consider a cylinder with radius $a$ and height $L$. We have ${\mathcal{R}_{SY}}=\min\{a/2,L/2\}$, ${\mathcal{R}_{OM}}=a$. When $L>a$, then both radius gives similar values, however for a thin disk with $L<a$ we have ${\mathcal{R}_{SY}}=L/2$ and ${\mathcal{R}_{OM}}=a$. That is, ${\mathcal{R}_{SY}}\to 0$ as $L \to 0$ while ${\mathcal{R}_{OM}}$ is independent of $L$.
Motivated by the example of the torus, we define a new radius for axially symmetric bodies as follows. Consider a region ${U}$ with a Killing vector $\eta^i$ with norm $\lambda$, we define the radius ${\mathcal{R}}$ by $$\label{eq:8}
{\mathcal{R}}({U}) = \frac{2}{\pi}\frac{\left(\int_{U}{\lambda}\, {dv}\right)^{1/2}}{{\mathcal{R}_{OM}}({U})}.$$ This will be our measure for size for the inequality . The most natural normalization for ${\mathcal{R}}$ in the inequality is to require that ${\mathcal{R}}=b$ for an sphere in flat space of radius $b$. This is the reason for the factor $2/\pi$ in .
We have also the analog definition with respect to ${\mathcal{R}_{SY}}$, namely $$\label{eq:15}
{\mathcal{R}'}({U}) = \frac{2}{\pi} \frac{\left(\int_{U}{\lambda}\,
{dv}\right)^{1/2}}{{\mathcal{R}_{SY}}({U})}.$$ Using the inequality , we obtain $$\label{eq:16}
{\mathcal{R}'}({U}) \geq {\mathcal{R}}({U}).$$ That is, from the point of view of the inequality , the radius ${\mathcal{R}}$ provides a sharper estimate than ${\mathcal{R}'}$.
For the torus in flat space, the volume integral of the norm of the Killing vector is given by $$\label{eq:19}
\int_{\text{Torus}} \rho \, {dv_0}=2\pi^2 a^2 \left(\frac{a^2}{4}+b^2\right).$$ Then we obtain $$\label{eq:20}
{\mathcal{R}}= 2^{3/2}\left(\frac{a^2}{4}+b^2\right)^{1/2}, \quad {\mathcal{R}'}= 2{\mathcal{R}}.$$ The important point is that in the limit $a\to 0$ we obtain ${\mathcal{R}}=2^{3/2}b$, that is, a torus with a large $b$ has also large size in contrast with the original radii ${\mathcal{R}_{SY}}$ or ${\mathcal{R}_{OM}}$. For a thin disk with $L<a$ we have $$\label{eq:21}
{\mathcal{R}}=\frac{2^{3/2}}{\sqrt{3\pi}} \sqrt{aL}, \quad {\mathcal{R}'}=\frac{2^{5/2}}{\sqrt{3\pi}}
\frac{a^{3/2}}{L^{1/2}}.$$ We see that ${\mathcal{R}}\to 0$ and ${\mathcal{R}'}\to \infty$ as $L \to 0$. That is, the difference between the two measures is significant.
Finally, it is important to compute ${\mathcal{R}}$ for a very dense body where the gravitational field is strong. Consider a constant density star of total mass $m$ with area radius equal to Schwarzschild radius $2m G/c^2$. That is, we are considering the limit case before the formation of a black hole. The radius ${\mathcal{R}_{OM}}$ for that case was calculated in [@Murchadha86b]. Using that result we obtain $$\label{eq:13}
{\mathcal{R}}=\frac{2^{11/2}}{\pi\sqrt{3}} \frac{G}{c^2} m \approx 8.16 \frac{G}{c^2} m.$$ We see that ${\mathcal{R}}$ is of the same order of magnitude than the area radius, and hence it is a reasonable measure of size in that case.
We have the following result.
\[t:1\] Let $(S,h_{ij},K_{ij},\mu, j^i)$ be an initial data set that satisfy the energy condition . We assume that the data are maximal (i.e. $K=0$) and axially symmetric. Let ${U}$ be an open set in $S$. Assume that the energy density $\mu $ is constant on ${U}$. Then the following inequality holds $$\label{eq:7}
{\mathcal{R}'}^2({U}) \geq \frac{24}{\pi^3}\frac{G}{c^3} |J({U})|.$$ The same bound holds for ${\mathcal{R}}({U})$ if we assume, in addition, that the boundary $\partial {U}$ is mean convex.
The angular momentum of the body ${U}$ is given by (\[eq:4\]). Define the unit vector $\hat \eta^i$ by $$\label{eq:14}
\hat \eta ^i=\frac{\eta^i}{{\lambda}}.$$ Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
|J({U})|\leq \frac{1}{c} \int_{U}|j^i\eta_i| \, dv &=\frac{1}{c} \int_{U}|j^i\hat\eta_i|\,
{\lambda}\, dv \label{eq:bj1} \\
&\leq \frac{1}{c} \int_{U}\sqrt{j^ij_i}\, {\lambda}\, dv \label{eq:bj2}\\
&\leq \frac{1}{c}\int_{U}\mu \, {\lambda}\, dv ,\label{eq:bj3}\end{aligned}$$ where in the line we have used that $\hat \eta^i$ has unit norm, in the line we used the energy condition (\[eq:1\]).
We have assumed that the data are maximal and hence, by equation (\[const2\]), we obtain $$\label{eq:23}
R\geq 16\pi\frac{G}{c^4} \mu.$$ Since we have assumed that $\mu$ is constant (which should be positive by the energy condition (\[eq:1\])) on ${U}$, we can take $\Lambda=16\pi G c^{-4}\mu$ and then we are under the hypothesis of the Schoen-Yau theorem. That is, the bound (\[eq:49\]) holds, and hence we get $$\label{eq:17}
\mu \leq \frac{\pi}{6}\frac{c^4}{G}\frac{1}{ {\mathcal{R}_{SY}}^{2}}.$$ Using this bound in (\[eq:bj3\]) we obtain $$\label{eq:6}
|J({U})| \leq \frac{\pi}{6} \frac{c^3}{G}\frac{1}{ {\mathcal{R}_{OM}}^{2}}\int_{U}{\lambda}\, {dv}= \frac{\pi^3}{24} \frac{c^3}{G} {\mathcal{R}'}^2,$$ where in the last equality we have used the definition (\[eq:15\]). Under the additional assumption that the boundary $\partial {U}$ is mean convex, we have the same bound (\[eq:17\]) for the radius ${\mathcal{R}_{OM}}$, and hence the same inequality (\[eq:6\]) holds for ${\mathcal{R}}$.
It is interesting to note that this proof is very similar to the heuristic argument presented above. There is a physical reason for this similarity: in axial symmetry the gravitational waves have no angular momentum. All the angular momentum is contained in the matter sources. Hence the Newtonian expression for the angular momentum is similar to relativistic one . Condition (i) on the maximum velocity of the matter is expressed in the dominant energy condition . Moreover, from inequality (\[eq:bj3\]) (without using the assumption that $\mu$ is constant), we get the analog of the inequality (\[eq:24\]), namely $$\label{eq:3}
|J(U)|\leq c m(U) \sup_U \lambda,$$ where we have defined $$\label{eq:11}
m(U)=\frac{1}{c^2}\int_U \mu {dv}.$$ Note that the length of the azimuthal circles is given by $2\pi \lambda$, hence $\lambda$ represents a natural generalization for curved spaces of the coordinate $\rho$ that appears in (\[eq:24\]).
The important new ingredient is that instead of using the bound for the mass of the body, we use the Schoen-Yau bound for the energy density . This allow us to bypass the hoop conjecture and its associated definition of size and mass.
Note that the radius used in the theorem can not be applied in general to black holes, since it requires a regular interior region. And even when the interior is regular the radius is not a priori related with the black hole area. A relevant open problem is to find a suitable measure of size that can be applied for both black holes and bodies.
*Physical relevance* — It is important to emphasize that the validity of inequality is entirely independent of any specific matter model, the only requirement is that the dominant energy condition is satisfied.
The inequality is a prediction of Einstein theory and hence it should be contrasted with observational evidences. In order to violate this inequality a body should be small and highly spinning, a natural candidate for that is a neutron star. For the fastest rotating neutron star found to date (see [@Hessels:2006ze]) we have $$\label{eq:66}
\omega \approx 4.5 \times 10^3 \, rad\, s^{-1}.$$ Assuming that the neutron star has about three solar masses (which appears to be a reasonable upper bound for the mass, see [@Lattimer:2004pg]) we obtain $$\label{eq:67}
m \omega\approx 2.7 \times 10^{37}\, s^{-1} g.$$ The radius of the neutron star is typically $$\label{eq:12}
{\mathcal{R}}\approx 1.2 \times 10^6 \, cm.$$ Assuming that the star is spherical with constant density we get that the angular momentum is given by $$\label{eq:10}
\frac{G}{c^3} |J| = \frac{G}{c^3}\frac{2}{5}m {\mathcal{R}}^2 \omega \approx 3.8 \times
10^{10} \, cm^2.$$ This should be compared with the square of the radius $$\label{eq:18}
{\mathcal{R}}^2 \approx 1.44 \times 10^{12} \, cm^2.$$ We see that the inequality (\[eq:22\]) is satisfied.
Finally, it is also interesting to consider what kind of limit the inequality impose on elementary particles. From quantum mechanics we get that the angular momentum of an elementary particle is given by $$\label{eq:13b}
J=\sqrt{s(s+1)}\hbar, \quad \hbar =1.05 \times 10^{-27} \, cm^2 s^{-1} g,$$ where $s$ is the spin of the particle. Using this expression in we obtain that the classical theory impose the following minimal size for a particle with spin $s$ $$\label{eq:22b}
{\mathcal{R}}_0 = (s(s+1))^{1/4} l_p, \quad l_p = \left( \frac{G \hbar}{c^3}\right)^{1/2},$$ where $l_p=1.6\times 10^{-33}\, cm$ is the Planck length. We recover the Planck length essentially because the order of magnitude of the universal constant in the inequality is one. It appears to be a remarkable self consistence of the Einstein field equations that they predict a minimum length of the order of magnitude of the Planck length if we assume that there exists a minimum for the angular momentum given by quantum mechanics.
It is a pleasure to thank E. Gallo, G. Galloway, R. J. Gleiser, N. Ó Murchadha, O. Ortiz, M. Reiris, R. Wald, for illuminating discussions. This work was supported in by grant PICT-2010-1387 of CONICET (Argentina) and grant Secyt-UNC (Argentina).
[10]{}
P. Anglada, S. Dain, and O. Ortiz. In preparation.
P. Bizon, E. Malec, and N. O’Murchadha. . , 61:1147–1450, 1988.
P. Bizon, E. Malec, and N. O’Murchadha. . , 6:961–976, 1989.
S. Dain. Geometric inequalities for axially symmetric black holes. , 29(7):073001, 2012, 1111.3615.
E. Flanagan. Hoop conjecture for black-hole horizon formation. , 44:2409–2420, Oct 1991.
G. J. Galloway and N. O’Murchadha. . , 25:105009, 2008, 0802.3247.
G. Gibbons. , 1460:90–100, 2012, 1201.2340.
J. W. Hessels, S. M. Ransom, I. H. Stairs, P. C. C. Freire, V. M. Kaspi, et al. . , 311:1901–1904, 2006, astro-ph/0601337.
M. A. Khuri. . , D80:124025, 2009, 0912.3533.
J. Lattimer and M. Prakash. . , 304:536–542, 2004, astro-ph/0405262.
E. Malec. . , 67:949–952, 1991.
E. Malec. . , B22:829, 1992.
N. O. Murchadha. How large can a star be? , 57(19):2466–2469, 1986.
R. Schoen and S. T. Yau. The existence of a black hole due to condensation of matter. , 90(4):575–579, 1983.
H. Seifert. Naked singularities and cosmic censorship: Comment on the current situation. , 10(12):1065–1067, 1979.
J. M. Senovilla. . , 81:20004, 2008, 0709.0695.
L. B. Szabados. Quasi-local energy-momentum and angular momentum in [GR]{}: A review article. , 7(4), 2004. cited on 8 August 2005.
K. Thorne. Nonspherical gravitational collapse: A short review. In J. Klauder, editor, [*Magic Without Magic: John Archibald Wheeler. A Collection of Essays in Honor of his Sixtieth Birthday*]{}, pages 231–258. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1972.
R. Wald. Gravitational collapse and cosmic censorship. In B. R. Iyer and B. Bhawal, editors, [*Black Holes, Gravitational Radiation and the Universe*]{}, volume 100 of [*Fundamental Theories of Physics*]{}, pages 69–85. Kluwer Academic, Dorddrecht, 1999, gr-qc/9710068.
[^1]: It was pointed out in [@Galloway:2008gc] that to prove this bound with the radius ${\mathcal{R}_{OM}}$ an additional requirement is needed: the boundary $\partial {U}$ should be mean convex.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this letter, we present a new procedure to determine completely the complex modular values of arbitrary observables of pre- and post-selected ensembles, which works experimentally for all measurement strengths and all post-selected states. This procedure allows us to discuss the physics of modular and weak values in interferometric experiments involving a qubit meter. We determine both the modulus and the argument of the modular value for any measurement strength in a single step, by controlling simultaneously the visibility and the phase in a quantum eraser interference experiment. Modular and weak values are closely related. Using entangled qubits for the probed and meter systems, we show that the phase of the modular and weak values has a topological origin. This phase is completely defined by the intrinsic physical properties of the probed system and its time evolution. The physical significance of this phase can thus be used to evaluate the quantumness of weak values.'
author:
- Mirko Cormann
- Mathilde Remy
- Branko Kolaric
- Yves Caudano
title: Interferences in quantum eraser reveal geometric phases in modular and weak values
---
In 1988, Aharonov, Albert, and Vaidman (AAV) introduced the weak value of a quantum observable $\hat{A}$ from an extension of the von Neumann measurement scheme [@Aharonov; @(1988)]. They pointed out that the result of a measurement involving a weak coupling between a meter and the observable $\hat{A}$ of a system with a pre-selected initial state $|\psi_{i}\rangle$, and a post-selected final state $|\psi_{f}\rangle$ depends directly on the weak value: $$\label{eq:WeakValueDefinition}
A_{w}=\frac{\langle\psi_{f}|\hat{A}|\psi_{i}\rangle}{\langle\psi_{f}|\psi_{i}\rangle}\:,$$ an unbounded complex number. In particular, they showed that the shift of the average detected position due to post-selection is proportional to the real part of the weak value. Since for weak measurements in the absence of post-selection, this shift is proportional to the average of the observable $\langle\psi_{i}|\hat{A}|\psi_{i}\rangle / \langle\psi_{i}|\psi_{i}\rangle$, a direct but bold physical interpretation of the weak value assumes it represents somehow the average of $\hat{A}$ in the pre- and post-selected ensemble. They also related the imaginary part of the weak value to the shift of the average impulsion. Beside the AAV approach, weak values may also appear using a meter strongly coupled to the observable $\hat{A}$ [@Kofman; @(2012); @Brun; @(2008); @Wu; @(2009); @Shikano; @(2011); @Hofmann; @(2013)-1; @Iinuma; @(2011)]. In these instances, the effective weak interaction is achieved by selecting particular initial states of the meter system, so that the probability of actually measuring $\hat{A}$ is low and the probed system is left unperturbed most of the time. Therefore, both methods transform the standard von Neumann procedure to a weak measurement with a high incertitude.
Weak values and weak measurements proved useful in many fields of physics and chemistry [@Hosten; @(2008); @Dixon; @(2009); @Starling; @(2009); @Tang; @(2010); @Rhee; @(2009); @Solli; @(2004); @Brunner; @(2004); @Resch; @(2004); @Lundeen; @(2009); @Kocsis; @(2011); @Lundeen; @(2011); @Salvail; @(2013); @Lundeen; @(2012)]. Nevertheless, the proper physical interpretation of weak values remains highly debated. For example, weak values were used to develop a time-symmetrized approach to standard quantum theory, the two-state vector formalism [@Aharonov; @(2008)], where they appear as purely quantum objects. Oppositely, a purely classical view of the occurrence of unbounded, real weak values – and possibly of complex ones – was proposed recently [@Ferrie; @(2014)] (which is criticizable though [@Brodutch; @(2015); @Vaidman; @(2014); @Dressel; @(2015)]).
In this letter, we uncover a physical interpretation of complex weak values in terms of their polar representation (modulus and argument), which provides evidence for their quantumness. We devised an interferometric procedure to measure and discuss complex weak values in their polar representation instead of the usually determined real or imaginary part. Our procedure relies essentially on a joint phase and visibility measurement in a quantum interferometer where the meter system acts as a quantum eraser. Using simple cases exploiting entangled qubits, we relate the argument of the weak value to topological phases defined completely by the probed system states involved in the weak measurement. Additionally, our procedure works in conditions where the usual weak measurement procedure fails completely: () for arbitrary measurement strengths (i. e. including strong measurements) and () for orthogonal and nearly orthogonal initial and final probe states. It proceeds by optimizing the interference phase to measure simultaneously the modulus and the argument of the weak value in a single step.
Formally, our procedure implements a quantum controlled evolution, in which an arbitrary quantum system $|\psi_{i}\rangle$, the probe, interacts with a qubit meter via the quantum gate (Fig. \[fig:bloch representation\].a): $$\hat{U}_{GATE}=\hat{\Pi}_{r}\otimes\hat{I}+e^{i \delta}\,\hat{\Pi}_{-r}\otimes\hat{U}_{A}\;,\label{eq:controlled measurement interaction}$$where $\hat{\Pi}_{\pm r}$ are projectors acting on the meter and $\delta$ is a phase factor first supposed to be null. The transformation $\hat{U}_{A}=e^{-ig\,\hat{A}}$ is expressed in terms of a time independent Hermitian operator $\hat{A}$ and an arbitrary coupling strength $g$, defined by the integral $g=\int g\!\left(t\right)\, dt$ [@Comment; @Hint]. After the gate interaction, the spin observable $\hat{\sigma}_{q}$ of the meter is measured. According to the final meter state, the information about whether the transformation $\hat{U}_{A}$ was applied on the probe can be preserved or erased, completely or partially. Finally, a projective measurement of the probe system post-selects the vector state $|\psi_{f}\rangle$.
The average $\overline{\sigma}_{q}^{m}$ of the meter observable for a given pre- and post-selected sub-ensemble of the probe system is then: $$\overline{\sigma}_{q}^{m}=2 P_{m}\frac{\left(\overrightarrow{m}.\overrightarrow{q}\right)\: \operatorname{\Re \mathfrak{e}} A_{m} +\left[ \left(\overrightarrow{r}\times\overrightarrow{m}\right).\overrightarrow{q}\right] \:\operatorname{\Im \mathfrak{m}} A_{m} }{\left(1+P_{m}\,\overrightarrow{r}.\overrightarrow{m}\right)\:+\left(1-P_{m}\, \overrightarrow{r} . \overrightarrow{m}\right)\: \left|A_{m}\right|^{2}}\:.\label{eq:QSMeanValue}$$ In this expression, the normalized vectors $\overrightarrow{m}$, $\overrightarrow{q}$ and $\overrightarrow{r}$ are the directions on the meter Bloch sphere determining the initial $| m \rangle$ and final $| q \rangle$ meter states as well as the projector state $| r \rangle$ controlling the interaction, respectively. The direction of $\vec{q}$ was chosen orthogonal to $\vec{r}$ to select maximally interfering pathways through the meter measurement: then, the gate action appears as a superposition of having applied both $\hat{U}_{A}$ and $\hat{I}$, and all information about the gate action is lost (quantum eraser condition). The parameter $P_{m}$ characterizes the purity of the initial meter state, ranging from $1$ for pure states to $0$ for a maximally mixed state. $A_{m}$ is defined as the modular value of the probe observable $\hat{A}$ for the pre- and post-selected sub-ensemble: $$A_{m}=\frac{\langle\psi_{f}|e^{-ig\hat{A}}|\psi_{i}\rangle}{\langle\psi_{f}|\psi_{i}\rangle}\: .\label{eq:ModularValue}$$ It appears from the action of projectors in (\[eq:controlled measurement interaction\]). Modular values were not often reported as such in the literature because they are directly related to weak values in the usual weak approximation limit for small coupling strengths, through a first order polynomial development in $g$: $A_{m}=1-ig\ A_{w}+\operatorname{o}\!\left(g^{2}\right)$. Nevertheless, they characterize all projective couplings between the probe and meter systems, where they generalize weak values in a non-perturbative way. They typically describe quantum-gate type interactions [@Kedem; @(2010)] and quantum interference experiments [@Sponar; @(2015); @Tollaksen; @(2010); @Denkmayr; @(2014)], but appear also in photon trajectory measurements [@Kocsis; @(2011)] for example. In the following, we relate the physical interpretation of modular values to the visibility and the phase of interferometric experiments.
In our procedure, the interaction strength is not determined by $g$. Instead, it reflects the probability of the application of $\hat{U}_{A}$ by the quantum gate, which is controlled by the measurement strength $\theta=\arccos\left(\overrightarrow{m}.\overrightarrow{r}\right)$, with $\theta\in\left[0,\pi \right]$. By choosing particular final meter states $\vec{q}_{Re}$ and $\vec{q}_{Im}$ (constrained by $\vec{q}.\vec{r}=0$), the real and imaginary parts of the modular value are determined from the average meter observable $\overline{\sigma}_{q}^{m}$, respectively [@Supplemental; @Material; @Meter; @Configurations]. For small measurement strengths $\theta\approx 0$ when the purity $P_{m}$ is close to one, we obtain the modular value according to the standard approximations of weak measurements: $$\operatorname{\Re \mathfrak{e}} A_{m} \approx\frac{1}{\theta}\,\overline{\sigma}^{m}_{q_{Re}}\:\:\:\:\: \operatorname{\Im \mathfrak{m}} A_{m} \approx\frac{1}{\theta}\,\overline{\sigma}^{m}_{q_{Im}}\:,\label{eq:realpartmodular variable}$$ where the weak measurement approximation effectively removes the nonlinear dependence of equation (\[eq:QSMeanValue\]) on the modular value modulus (see denominator).
For an arbitrary measurement strength, we seek instead to measure the modular value in its polar form to assess directly its modulus $\left|A_{m}\right|$ and argument $\varphi=\arg A_{m}$. We introduce an additional unitary transformation $\hat{R}_{\xi}$ in the meter path. It creates a relative phase shift $\xi$ between the orthogonal states $|r\rangle$ and $|-r\rangle$ that is effectively equivalent to a rotation of the modular value in the complex plane. When the phase shift compensates precisely the argument of the modular value (i. e. when $\xi=\varphi$), this rotation aligns the modular value with the real axis. Choosing the meter configuration $\vec{q}_{Re}$ that picks the real part of the modular value provides now its full modulus, while its argument is equal to the introduced phase shift. In practice, our procedure implements a quantum interferometer exploiting entanglement to measure the two quantities concurrently. Indeed, the expression for the joint probability outcome $P{}_{joint}$ of the meter and the probe measurements is proportional to: $$P_{joint}\propto1+V\, \cos\left(\varphi-\xi\right)\:,\label{eq:jointprobaQuantumeraser}$$ typical of an interference phenomenon, where $V$ represents the visibility and $\varphi-\xi$ the phase. Experimentally, the visibility is determined by measuring the maximum and the minimum of the joint probability, denoted by $P_{max}$ and $P_{min}$, respectively: $$V=\frac{P_{max}-P_{min}}{P_{max}+P_{min}}\:.\label{eq:visibility}$$ When the phase introduced by $\hat{R}_{\xi}$ equals the argument of the modular value, the maximum of the joint probability is obtained for the meter vector $\vec{q}_{Re}$, while its minimum is obtained for the orthogonal state $-\vec{q}_{Re}$. The two situations correspond to constructive and destructive interferences in the joint measurement, respectively. The visibility depends on the coupling strength and the modular value modulus: $$V=\frac{2\,P_{m}\, \tan\left(\frac{\theta}{2}\right)}{C_{\theta+\pi}+C_{\theta}\:\tan^{2}\left(\frac{\theta}{2}\right) \left|A_{m}\right|^{2}}\,\left|A_{m}\right|\:,$$ with coefficients $C_\epsilon$ defined by: $$C_{\epsilon}=\frac{1+P_{m}}{2}+\frac{1-P_{m}}{2}\, \cot^{2}\frac{\epsilon}{2}\,.\label{eq:meter coeff}$$ This quadratic equation provides two solutions for the modular value modulus: $$\left|A_{m}\right|_{\pm}= \frac{1\pm\sqrt{1-C_{\theta}\, C_{\theta+\pi}\, P_m^{-2} V^{2}}}{C_{\theta}\:\tan\left(\frac{\theta}{2}\right)\, V} P_m \:.\label{eq:modular value relation}$$ The solution $\left|A_{m}\right|_{-}$ corresponds to $\left|A_{m}\right|$, if the condition: $$\tan^{2}\left(\frac{\theta}{2}\right)\frac{C_{\theta}}{C_{\theta+\pi}}\, \left|A_{m}\right|^{2}\leq1\,\label{eq:WeakMeasurCond}$$ is verified, and $\left|A_{m}\right|_{+}=\left|A_{m}\right|$ otherwise. Together, they provide the characterization of the modular value modulus for an arbitrary coupling strength. It is directly related to the visibility. In particular, the weak measurement approximation gives $\left|A_{m}\right|\approx V / \theta$, similarly to equation (\[eq:realpartmodular variable\]). In this expression of the modular value, the visibility plays the same role than the pointer shift in weak values. This shows a strong connection between modular values and weak interferometric experiments.
![(color online) Quantum controlled evolution: (a) protocol, (b) representation in the Bloch sphere of the relevant probe states and (c) experimental set-up. (b) Probe Bloch sphere with initial $\vec{i}$ and final $\vec{f}$ states, $\hat{\sigma}_n$ observable rotation axis $\vec{n}$, and the mirror image $\vec{i}^\prime$ of $\vec{i}$ with respect to the $\vec{n}$ axis. The solid angle $\Omega_{i n i^\prime\! f}$ associated to the geometric phase in eq. (\[eq:GmPhase\]) is obtained by following consecutively the three great circle arcs $i \rightarrow n \rightarrow i^\prime$ (blue), $i^\prime \rightarrow f$ (red), and $f \rightarrow i$ (red). (c) The set-up comprises three areas: the state preparation with the two qubit generation (), the meter measurement by detectors $D_1$ and $D_2$ () and the final probe post-selection by $D_3$ (). The coincidence counts $N_{13}$ and $N_{23}$ are acquired by four single photon counting modules (SPCM) placed in the meter and probe paths.[]{data-label="fig:bloch representation"}](ProtocolBlochExperimental.eps){width="48.00000%"}
Now we consider the connection between modular and weak values to gain insight into the physics of weak values. The previously arbitrary probe system becomes a qubit and the probe transformation $\hat{U}_{A}=e^{-i\frac{g}{2}\,\hat{\sigma}_{n}}$ is a rotation operator involving the Pauli observable $\hat{\sigma}_{n}=\vec{n}.\hat{\vec{\sigma}}$ ($\vec{n}$ a unit vector). We set a strong AAV coupling strength $g=\pi$. Then, $\hat{U}_{A}=-i\,\hat{\sigma}_{n}$ and the quantum gate acting on the two qubits becomes: $$\hat{U}_{GATE}=\hat{\Pi}_{r}\otimes\hat{I}+\hat{\Pi}_{-r}\otimes\hat{\sigma}_{n}\,,$$ where the phase factor $\delta$ in (\[eq:controlled measurement interaction\]) was set to $\frac{\pi}{2}$. This shows the equivalence of modular and weak values of $\hat{\sigma}_{n}$ (see also [@Kedem; @(2010)]). We can thus apply our scheme to determine an arbitrary weak value of the Pauli operator in its polar representation. Interestingly, the argument of the weak value depends only on the probe evolution from its initial to final state as defined by the operator $\hat{U}_A$ (a related result is mentioned in [@Pati; @(2014)]). This phase has a topological component, similar to the Pancharatnam geometric phase. Its value is proportional to the solid angle $\Omega_{i n i^\prime\! f}$ delimited by four vectors on the Bloch sphere (see Fig. \[fig:bloch representation\].b and derivation [@Supplemental; @Material; @Geometric; @Phase] for details): $$\arg \frac{\langle\psi_f | \hat{ \sigma}_n | \psi_i \rangle}{\langle \psi_f | \psi_i \rangle}=\arctan\frac{(\vec{n}\times\vec{i}\,).\vec{f}}{\vec{n}.\vec{i}+\vec{n}.\vec{f}}=-\frac{1}{2} \Omega_{i n i^\prime\! f}\,.\label{eq:GmPhase}$$ This geometric phase is completely defined by intrinsic properties of the probe system. It is observed directly in the interferometric experiment but does not depend on the meter properties, contrary to the pointer shift in usual weak measurement (which depends on $g$). It emphasizes the quantum origin of the argument of the complex weak value and its relationship to physical properties of the probe system.
Experimentally, we implement a conceptual CNOT gate $\hat{U}_{GATE}=\hat{\Pi}_{|0\rangle}\otimes\hat{I}+\hat{\Pi}_{|1\rangle}\otimes\hat{\sigma}_{x}$. The initial meter state $\hat{\rho}_{m}=\frac{1}{2} \hat{I}+\frac{1}{2}P_{m}\,\overrightarrow{m}.\hat{\overrightarrow{\sigma}} $, with $\overrightarrow{m} =\left(\sin\theta,\,0,\, \cos\theta\right)$, controls the application of the unitary observable $\hat{\sigma}_{x}$ on the target probe state pre-selected in the $|\psi_{i}\rangle=|0\rangle$ state. The meter projective measurement is then performed in the $\hat{\sigma}_{x}$ basis ($\vec{q}$). It erases the information about the application of $\hat{\sigma}_{x}$ on the target since it was controlled by the meter basis vectors $|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle$ of $\hat{\sigma}_{z}$ ($\vec{r}$). It is followed by the probe measurement of the final post-selected state $|\psi_{f}\rangle$. Finally, we obtain the weak value $\sigma_{x,w}$ as a function of our chosen initial meter state ($\vec{m}$), which defines the measurement strength ($\theta$), and post-selected probe state $|\psi_{f}\rangle$.
In practice, the two-qubit state after the CNOT gate is simulated by entangled photon pairs produced by type I spontaneous parametric down-conversion in two orthogonal nonlinear BBO-crystals [@Kwiat; @(1999)] (see Fig. \[fig:bloch representation\].c and [@Supplemental; @Material; @Experimental; @Material] for set-up details). One photon is assimilated to the meter and the other to the probe. A half-wave plate and a third BBO placed before the source control the photon pair state. Conceptually, they select the initial meter polarization of the CNOT gate while the initial probed state always has horizontal polarization.
![(color online) (a) Visibility and (b) argument as a function of the post-selected polarization $|\psi_{f}\rangle= \cos \left(\alpha\right)\,|H\rangle+\sin\left(\alpha\right)|V\rangle$ with pre-selected $|H\rangle$ polarization for three initial meter states: $\theta_{1} = 0.499\,\pi$ and $P_{1m} =0.882\pm0.002 $ (red squares), $\theta_{2} = 0.297\,\pi$ and $P_{2m} =0.836\pm0.002$ (blue circles), $\theta_{3} = 0.092\,\pi$ and $P_{3m} =0.956\pm0.001$ (black triangles). (c) Positive/negative solution criterion. Values larger/smaller than unity (violet, solid horizontal line) admit the positive/negative solution $\left|\sigma_{x, w}\right|_{\pm}$, respectively. Final meter states are $|D\rangle$ and $|A\rangle$ for measurements (a-b) and $|H\rangle$ and $|V\rangle$ for (c). Grey, solid lines represent theoretical curves. \[fig:VisibilityD\]](VisibilityPhaseMeasurement.eps)
We post-select the probe polarization $|\psi_{f}\rangle=cos\left(\alpha\right)\,|H\rangle+sin\left(\alpha\right)|V\rangle$ at detector $D_3$. Detectors $D_1$ and $D_2$ measure the meter polarization (diagonal $|D\rangle$ and anti-diagonal $|A\rangle$ states, respectively). We adjust the phase $\xi$ by tilting a birefringent $Z$-cut quartz plate in the meter path to obtain the interference visibility $V$ from the coincidence counts. When coincidence counts $N^{max}_{13}$ are maximal for detectors $D_1$ and $D_3$ (constructive interference), coincidence counts $N^{min}_{23}$ for detectors $D_2$ and $D_3$ are minimal (destructive interference). Then, the phase $\xi$ equals the argument $\varphi$ of the weak value $\sigma_{x,w}=\langle \psi_f(\alpha)|\hat{ \sigma}_x|H\rangle/\langle \psi_f(\alpha)|H\rangle$, while the visibility is given by equation (\[eq:visibility\]): $V=\frac{N^{max}_{13}-N^{min}_{23}}{N^{max}_{13}+N^{min}_{23}}$. This scheme improves the signal-to-noise ratio of a weak measurement [@Supplemental; @Material; @SNR].
Fig. \[fig:VisibilityD\] presents the visibility and the phase for three different initial meter states inconciliable with weak measurement approximations. The corresponding strengths $\theta$ were determined from the density operator of the biphoton using quantum state tomography [@Altepeter; @(2004); @Supplemental; @Material; @Preliminary; @Meter; @Analysis]. The purities were rather estimated by fitting the theoretical visibility to the data ($\chi^{2}$ minimization method) because $V$ is highly sensitive to $P_{m}$. The latter step may be skipped if the meter is supposed in a pure initial state [@Supplemental; @Material; @Preliminary; @Meter; @Analysis], as usually done in the literature. We chose pre- and post-selected states for which the argument of $\sigma_{x,w}(\alpha)$ (Fig. \[fig:VisibilityD\].b) takes only the two values $0$ or $\pi$ for simplicity. It determines the sign of the weak value. The solid angle $\Omega_{i n i^\prime\! f}$ related to the geometric phase (\[eq:GmPhase\]) is defined in the $OXZ$ plane of the Bloch sphere (see Fig. \[fig:VisibilityD\].b): the great circle arcs $i \rightarrow n \rightarrow i^\prime \rightarrow f \rightarrow i$ make a full circle or compensate each other depending on the post-selected state $f(\alpha)$. The visibility (Fig. \[fig:VisibilityD\].a) provides the modulus $\left|\sigma_{x,w}\right|$, using the two solutions obtained in relation (\[eq:modular value relation\]). The switch between them occurs at the maximum of the visibility. The criterion (\[eq:WeakMeasurCond\]) determining this switch is measured from the coincidence count ratio $N^{c}_{23}/N^{c}_{13}$ with horizontal $|H\rangle$ (detector $D_1$) and vertical $|V\rangle$ (detector $D_2$) meter polarizations. In this case $\vec{r}=\vec{q}$, and the meter measurement reveals completely the probe state after the quantum gate interaction (no information erasure). The theoretical switch angle and the measured criterion agree strongly except for strengths approaching the range of weak measurements ($\theta_3$), where a difference of $2-4^\circ$ is observed due to increasing experimental noise (Fig. \[fig:VisibilityD\].c).
![(color online) Weak values determined from phase and visibility measurement for the three strengths $\theta_1$ (red squares), $\theta_2$ (blue circles), and $\theta_3$ (black triangles), and from the standard weak measurement technique (violet diamonds) using relation (\[eq:realpartmodular variable\]) with the weak strength $\theta_{4}= 0.025\,\pi$ and purity $P_{4m} =0.982\pm0.001$. All set-ups use a $|D\rangle, |A\rangle$ basis for the final meter measurement (the additional measurement in the $|L\rangle, |R\rangle$ meter basis required by standard weak measurements was not performed since $\Im \mathfrak{m}\, \sigma_{x,w}(\alpha)=0$ here). \[fig:WV\]](WeakValues.eps)
The full weak values determined using a strong ($\theta_2$) or a weaker ($\theta_3$) strength are compared in Fig. \[fig:WV\].a. Both set-ups provide excellent agreement with the theoretical curve, except at the solution switch, where the accuracy of the set-up using weaker measurement strengths decreases (see insets a.1 and a.2). In Fig. \[fig:WV\].b, we compare our method to the standard weak measurement technique. For a small modulus of the weak value $\sigma_{x,w}(\alpha)$, both techniques provide results close to theoretical predictions. However, for large moduli, the weak measurement approximation breaks down completely (zoom b.1) for a wide range of post-selected states approaching orthogonality to the pre-selected state. Weak measurement results are useless there and only our method works.
In conclusion, the presented quantum eraser procedure exploits a qubit meter to measure directly the modulus and the argument of complex modular and weak values for arbitrary measurement strengths. The connection between modular and weak values allowed us to investigate directly weak values of qubit systems in their polar representation by performing a one-step visibility and phase measurement. In this case, the argument of the weak value is associated to a quantum geometric phase, that has a non-controversial physical meaning. This direct relevance of the polar form of the weak value to the intrinsic physical properties of the system evolution shows that the interpretation of past and present experiments involving weak values ought not be limited to the consideration of their real and imaginary parts. Our method to determine weak values requires fewer measurements and does not suffer the limitations of the standard weak measurement technique for large weak values, while it is applicable for both weak and strong measurement conditions. Experimentally, this opens the way to exploiting with greater accuracy the measure of weak values, particularly for nearly orthogonal pre- and post-selected states.
Y. C. is a research associate of the Belgian Fund for Scientific Research F.R.S.-FNRS. B. K. acknowledges financial support from the Action de Recherche Concertée (BIOSTRUCT project) of the University of Namur (UNamur) and the support from the Nanoscale Quantum Optics COST-MP1403 action. The authors would like to thank Profs. B. Hespel and P. A. Thiry for fruitful discussions and support, without which this work would not have been possible. We also thank S. Mouchet for the careful reading of the paper and the insightful remarks as well as J.-P. van Roy for the upgrade and the automation of the whole photon detection system.
Supplemental Material
=====================
Meter configurations
--------------------
In our quantum protocol, the average $\overline{\sigma}_{q}^{m}$ of the meter observable for a given pre- and post-selected sub-ensemble of the probe system is: $$\overline{\sigma}_{q}^{m}=2 P_{m}\frac{\left(\overrightarrow{m}.\overrightarrow{q}\right)\: \operatorname{\Re \mathfrak{e}} A_{m} +\left[ \left(\overrightarrow{r}\times\overrightarrow{m}\right).\overrightarrow{q}\right] \:\operatorname{\Im \mathfrak{m}} A_{m} }{\left(1+P_{m}\,\overrightarrow{r}.\overrightarrow{m}\right)\:+\left(1-P_{m}\, \overrightarrow{r} . \overrightarrow{m}\right)\: \left|A_{m}\right|^{2}}\:.\label{eq:QSMeanValue}$$ For a given vector $\vec{r}$ controlling the quantum gate action, the quantum eraser condition $\overrightarrow{r}.\overrightarrow{q}=0$ constrains $\vec{q}$ to the red plane in figure \[fig:bloch representation\].a. We choose now particular final vectors $\vec{q}$ of the meter system in relationship to the initial vector $\vec{m}$ (characterizing the meter initial state), in order to determine the real and imaginary parts of the modular value from the average meter observable $\overline{\sigma}_{q}^{m}$. We pick the real part of $A_{m}$ when the three vectors $\vec{m},\, \vec{r},\, \vec{q}$ are coplanar ($\vec{q}_{Re}$ in blue plane in figure \[fig:bloch representation\].b), so that $\left(\overrightarrow{r}\times\overrightarrow{m}\right).\overrightarrow{q}=0$ in equation (\[eq:QSMeanValue\]). We isolate the imaginary part with orthogonal initial and final states of the meter ($\vec{q}_{Im}$ orthogonal to blue plane in figure \[fig:bloch representation\].c), so that $\overrightarrow{m}.\overrightarrow{q}=0$ in equation (\[eq:QSMeanValue\]).
![Representation in the Bloch sphere of the relevant (a-c) meter states. (a) The red plane is perpendicular to the control state $\protect\overrightarrow{r}$. It contains all final meter states $\protect\overrightarrow{q}$ and $-\protect\overrightarrow{q}$ implementing the quantum eraser condition. (b-c) The blue plane contains the initial meter state $\protect\overrightarrow{m}$ and the control state $\protect\overrightarrow{r}$. The final meter states (b) $\protect\overrightarrow{q}\!_{Re}$ in the blue plane and (c) $\protect\overrightarrow{q}\!_{Im}$ perpendicular to it measure the real and imaginary parts of the modular value, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:bloch representation"}](BlochSphere.eps){width="48.00000%"}
Topological component of the weak value argument
------------------------------------------------
As described in the letter, the argument of the weak value of the spin operator $\hat{\sigma}_{n}$ verifies the two equalities: $$\arg \frac{\langle f | \hat{ \sigma}_n | i \rangle}{\langle f | i \rangle}=\arctan\frac{(\vec{n}\times\vec{i}\,).\vec{f}}{\vec{n}.\vec{i}+\vec{n}.\vec{f}}=-\frac{1}{2} \Omega_{i n i^\prime\! f}\,.\label{eq:GmPhase}$$
The first equality results immediately from the definition of the argument of the weak value, considering the following expression: $$\arg \frac{\langle f | \hat{ \sigma}_n | i \rangle}{\langle f | i \rangle}= \arctan\frac{\operatorname{\Im \mathfrak{m}}\,\langle f|\hat{ \sigma}_n|i\rangle \langle i | f \rangle}{\operatorname{\Re \mathfrak{e}}\,\langle f|\hat{ \sigma}_n|i\rangle \langle i | f \rangle}\,,$$ in which $\langle f|\hat{ \sigma}_n|i\rangle \langle i|f\rangle $ can be expressed as a function of directions on the Bloch sphere: $$\langle f|\hat{ \sigma}_n|i\rangle \langle i|f\rangle=\frac{1}{2} (\,\vec{n}.\vec{i}+\vec{n}.\vec{f}+j\,(\vec{n}\times\vec{i}\,).\vec{f}\,)\,,$$ where $j$ is the imaginary unit, $\vec{i}$ and $\vec{f}$ describe the pure initial and final qubit states, respectively, and $\vec{n}$ gives the rotation axis associated to the observable $\hat{\vec{\sigma}}_n$. For the second equality in (\[eq:GmPhase\]), our approach is inspired by the work of Martinez et al. [@Martinez; @(2012)], where they studied the geometrical characteristics (amplitude and phase) of polarization modulation optical devices on the Poincaré sphere.
The trajectory of a pure qubit state on the Bloch sphere corresponding to the unitary transformation $\hat{\sigma}_{n}$ is a non-geodesic opened arc. Consequently, the resulting state $|I^\prime\!\rangle=\hat{\sigma}_{n}|i\rangle$ is no longer in phase with the initial state $|i\rangle$. To yield nonetheless an expression in terms of a solid angle for the accumulated phase, let us express the resulting state as $|I^\prime\!\rangle=e^{j\varphi_{i\rightarrow i^\prime\!}}|i^\prime\!\rangle$, where the phase $\varphi_{i\rightarrow i^\prime\!}$ is due to the non-geodesic movement of $|i\rangle$ to the output state $|i^\prime\!\rangle$. The vector $\vec{i}^{\prime}$ is entirely defined by $\vec{i}^{\prime}=2\left(\vec{n}.\vec{i}\right)\,\vec{n}-\vec{i}$ (essentially, $\vec{i}^{\prime}$ is the mirror image of $\vec{i} $ with respect to the $\vec{n}$ axis). The additional phase $\varphi_{i\rightarrow i^\prime\!}$ is determined by projecting $|I^\prime\!\rangle$ onto the orthogonal eigenvectors $|n\rangle$ and $|-n\rangle$ of the operator $\hat{\sigma}_{n}$. By considering: $$\hat{\sigma}_{n}=|n\rangle\langle n|-|-n\rangle\langle-n|\,,$$ we conclude that the projection of $|I^\prime\!\rangle$ onto the eigenvector $|n\rangle$ yields the following two relations: $$\label{connectionRel}
\langle n|I^\prime\!\rangle = e^{j\varphi_{i\rightarrow i^\prime\!}}\langle n|i^\prime\!\rangle
=\langle n|i\rangle\,.$$ The moduli $\left|\langle n|i\rangle\right|=\left|\langle n|i'\rangle\right|$ are equal since $\vec{i}$ and $\vec{i^\prime}$ are mirror images with respect to $\vec{n}$. Consequently, only the accumulated total phase of the open loops, known as Pancharatnam connection, remain in (\[connectionRel\]): $$\label{phiexpr}
\varphi_{i\rightarrow i^{^{\prime}}} = \arg\langle n|i\rangle-\arg\langle n|i'\rangle\:.$$
![The solid angle $\Omega_{abb_{e}a_{e}}$ of the four vertices $\vec{a}$, $\vec{b}$, $\vec{b}_{e}$ and $\vec{a}_{e}$ represented in the Bloch sphere (the red surface). The states $|a_{e}\rangle$ and $|b_{e}\rangle$ lying on the equator are horizontal lifts of the associated states $|a\rangle$ and $|b\rangle$, respectively. The solid angle of the counterclockwise sequence of states $|a\rangle\rightarrow|b\rangle\rightarrow|b_{e}\rangle\rightarrow|a_{e}\rangle\rightarrow|a\rangle$ is in direct relationship to the Pancharatnam connection $\arg\ \langle b|a\rangle$.\[fig:sphericalquadrangles\]](Quadrangles.eps)
In practice, the Pancharatnam connection $\arg\langle b|a\rangle$ relating arbitrary states $|a\rangle$ and $|b\rangle$ is determined by calculating the spherical quadrangle $\Omega_{abb_{e}a_{e}}$ in the Bloch sphere (figure \[fig:sphericalquadrangles\]), where the supplemental vertices $|a_{e}\rangle$ and $|b_{e}\rangle$ are well-defined vectors. To understand, how they are determined, we must express their position in the spherical coordinate system. By convention, $2\eta$ corresponds to the azimuth angle and $2\chi$ to the polar angle. In this representation, a pure state on the Bloch sphere is defined by: $$\vec{a}\left(\chi,\eta\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\cos\left(2\eta\right)\, \cos(2\chi)\\ \sin\left(2\eta\right)\, \cos(2\chi)\\ \sin(2\chi)
\end{array}\right)\:,$$ and the Pancharatnam connection is given by: $$\arg\langle b|a\rangle=\arctan\left(\tan\left(\eta_{a}-\eta_{b}\right)\frac{\sin\left(\chi_{a}+\chi_{b}\right)}{\cos\left(\chi_{a}-\chi_{b}\right)}\right).$$ The connection is in phase, i.e. $\arg\langle b|a\rangle=0$, for transports with the same azimuth angles $\eta$ and for transformations happening around the equator of the Bloch sphere, i.e. for the polar angle $\chi=0$. These two kinds of transports are known as horizontal lifts along the geodesic connecting the states $|a\rangle$ and $|b\rangle$ on the Bloch sphere. The states $|a_{e}\rangle=|\eta_{a},0\rangle$ and $|b_{e}\rangle=|\eta_{b},0\rangle$ are fixed with the same azimuth angle as $|a\rangle$ and $|b\rangle$, respectively, and with a polar angle $\chi=0$.
The closed loop $|a\rangle\rightarrow|b\rangle\rightarrow|b_{e}\rangle\rightarrow|a_{e}\rangle\rightarrow|a\rangle$ along the geodesic arcs determines the spherical quadrangle $\Omega_{abb_{e}a_{e}}$, which is equivalent to $\arg\langle b|a\rangle$: $$\begin{aligned}
\arg\langle b|a\rangle & = & \arg\langle a|a_{e}\rangle+\arg\langle a_{e}|b_{e}\rangle+\arg\langle b_{e}|b\rangle+\arg\langle b|a\rangle\nonumber \\
& = & \arg\left(\langle a|a_{e}\rangle\langle a_{e}|b_{e}\rangle\langle b_{e}|b\rangle\langle b|a\rangle\right)\nonumber \\
& = & -\frac{\Omega_{abb_{e}a_{e}}}{2}\:.\label{eq:argsolidabba}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the sign present in front of the solid angle for a given sequence of states is positive when the sequence is followed counterclockwise and is negative when the sequence is followed clockwise. The sign of the solid angle changes when the sequence of projections is inversed, $\Omega_{a\rightarrow b}=-\,\Omega_{b\rightarrow a}$. It is possible to express a solid angle linking three vertices as a sum of three spherical quadrangles [@Martinez; @(2012)]: $$\label{decomp}
\Omega_{abc}=\Omega_{abb_{e}a_{e}}+\Omega_{bcc_{e}b_{e}}+\Omega_{caa_{e}c_{e}}\: ,$$ where each spherical quadrangle contains two vertices of the initial solid angle.
We use the decomposition property of eq. (\[decomp\]) to rewrite the expression giving $\varphi_{i\rightarrow i^{\prime}}$ (\[phiexpr\]) according to: $$\label{triquadforphi}
\varphi_{i\rightarrow i^{\prime}}=-\frac{\Omega_{ini^{\prime}}+\Omega_{ii^{\prime}i'_{e}i_{e}}}{2}\:,$$ where we made use of eq. (\[eq:argsolidabba\]) to express the connexions appearing in (\[phiexpr\]). Following the indices may be tedious but, essentially, eq. (\[phiexpr\]) and (\[eq:argsolidabba\]) show together that the expression of the phase $\varphi_{i\rightarrow i^{\prime}}$ includes a sum of two spherical quadrangles; then we used eq. (\[decomp\]) to express the sum of these two spherical quadrangles as a function of the third spherical quadrangle and of the spherical triangle appearing in eq. (\[decomp\]).
Furthermore, expression (\[triquadforphi\]) points out that the non-geodesic phase $\varphi_{i\rightarrow i^{\prime}}$ is the sum of the geometric phase of the closed loop $|i\rangle\rightarrow|n\rangle\rightarrow|i'\rangle\rightarrow|i\rangle$ (first term) and the phase of the Pancharatnam connection $|i\rangle\rightarrow|i^{\prime}\rangle$ (second term).
Using the last results, the argument of the weak value of $\hat{\sigma}_{n}$ is: $$\begin{aligned}
\arg\frac{\langle f|\hat{\sigma}_{n}|i\rangle}{\langle f|i\rangle} & \stackrel{(a)}{=} & \arg\left(e^{j\varphi_{i\rightarrow i^{\prime}}}\frac{\langle f|i^{\prime}\rangle}{\langle f|i\rangle}\right)\nonumber \\
& \stackrel{(b)}{=} & \arg\left(\frac{\left| \langle f|i^\prime\rangle \right|}{\left| \langle f|i\rangle \right|}e^{j\varphi_{i\rightarrow i^{\prime}}}e^{-j\frac{\Omega_{i'ff_{e}i'_{e}}}{2}}e^{-j\frac{\Omega_{fii_{e}f_{e}}}{2}}\right)\nonumber \\
& \stackrel{(c)}{=} & \varphi_{i\rightarrow i'}-\frac{\Omega_{i'ff_{e}i'_{e}}+\Omega_{fii_{e}f_{e}}}{2}\nonumber \\
&\stackrel{(d)}{=} & \varphi_{i\rightarrow i'}-\frac{\Omega_{ii'f}-\Omega_{ii'i'_{e}i_{e}}}{2}\nonumber \\
& \stackrel{(e)}{=} & -\frac{\Omega_{ini'}}{2}-\frac{\Omega_{ii'i'_{e}i_{e}}}{2}-\frac{\Omega_{ii'f}}{2}+\frac{\Omega_{ii'i'_{e}i_{e}}}{2}\nonumber \\
& \stackrel{(f)}{=} & -\frac{\Omega_{ini'}}{2}-\frac{\Omega_{ii'f}}{2}\nonumber \\
& \stackrel{(g)}{=} & -\frac{\Omega_{ini'f}}{2}\:.\end{aligned}$$ Equality (a) results from the definition of the states $|I^\prime\rangle$ and $|i^\prime\rangle$. (b) expresses the Pancharatnam connexions in terms of solid angles using eq. (\[eq:argsolidabba\]). (c) takes the argument of the previous expression. (d) exploits the decomposition property of eq. (\[decomp\]). (e) follows from the expression of $\varphi_{i\rightarrow i^{\prime}}$ in (\[triquadforphi\]). (f) is due to canceling terms. (g) combines the two spherical triangles in one spherical quadrangle (as the paths $i\rightarrow i^\prime$ and $i^\prime\rightarrow i$ present in the triangles cancel each other).
Experimental material
---------------------
Experimentally, we implement the polarization-entangled biphoton state after the conceptual CNOT gate using two orthogonal nonlinear BBO crystals in the “sandwich configuration" [@Kwiat; @(1999)]. Each crystal is $1$ mm thick and cut for type-I phase matching with $\theta=29.2^{o}$ and $\varphi=90^{o}$. Via the nonlinear interaction of spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC), the pump laser (blue diode DL-7146-101S from SANYO Electric Co.) centered at $407$ nm generates two polarization-entangled photons at $814$ nm. The laser diode is controlled by temperature (Thorlabs TED 200C) and current (Thorlabs LDC202C) controllers. It produces a continuous laser output power of $60$ mW. We use four single photon counting modules (SPCM-AQ4C from Perkin-ElmerFor) for the joint polarization measurement of the meter or probe photons. The polarization basis are selected by half- and quarter-wave plates followed by a polarizing beam-splitter (RCHP-15.0-CA-670-1064 from CVI Melles Griot). Before detection, the photons are coupled into multimode fibers and filtered using low-pass filters (FGL780 from Thorlabs). About $4000$ total coincidence counts per second are acquired by using a homemade FPGA (SE3BOARD from Xilinx) coincidence counter.
Signal-to-noise ratio
---------------------
By definition, the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is the ratio of the magnitude of the expected meter shift to the standard deviation [@Kofman; @(2012)].
For given pre- and post-selected probe states, we consider a final meter outcome which follows a binomial distribution: the meter qubit is measured either by detector $D_{1}$ (and contributes to $N^{max}_{13}$) or by detector $D_{2}$ (and contributes to $N^{min}_{23}$). The expectation value of $N^{min}_{23}$ is therefore $E\left[N^{min}_{23}\right]=p\left(2|3\right)N$ and its variance $\Delta N^{min}_{23}=p\left(2|3\right)\left(1-p\left(2|3\right)\right)N$. $N=N^{max}_{13}+N^{min}_{23}$ is the total number of pre- and post-selected detector events and $p\left(2|3\right)$ is the conditional probability to trigger the meter detector $D_{2}$ for a given probe detection by $D_{3}$. Consequently, the expectation value of the measured visibility is: $$\begin{aligned}
E_{V} & {=} & E\left[\frac{N^{max}_{13}-N^{min}_{23}}{N^{max}_{13}+N^{min}_{23}}\right]\nonumber \\
& {=} & 1 - \frac{2}{N} E\left[N^{min}_{23}\right]\nonumber\\
& {=} & 1 - 2 p\left(2|3\right)\nonumber \\
& {=} & V\:,\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality follows directly from the definition of the conditional probability: $p\left(2|3\right)=\frac{P_{min}}{P_{max}+P_{min}}$, with $P_{max}$ and $P_{min}$ the maximum and the minimum of the joint probability of the measurement protocol. The corresponding variance is: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{V} & {=} & \Delta\left(\frac{N^{max}_{13}-N^{min}_{23}}{N^{max}_{13}+N^{min}_{23}}\right)\nonumber \\
& {=} & \frac{4}{N^2} \Delta\left(N^{min}_{23}\right)\nonumber\\
& {=} & \frac{4 p\left(2|3\right)\left(1-p\left(2|3\right)\right)}{N}\nonumber \\
& {=} &\frac{1 - V^{2}}{N}\:,\end{aligned}$$ where we used the relationship $p\left(2|3\right)=\frac{1-V}{2}$. This leads to the standard deviation: $$\label{standarddeviation}
\sigma_{V}=\sqrt{\frac{1 - V^{2}}{N}}\:.$$ Finally, the signal-to-noise ratio of the presented measurement scheme is: $$\label{SNR}
SNR=\frac{V}{\sqrt{1 - V^{2}}} \sqrt{N}\:.$$ The standard protocol determines the real (or the imaginary) part of the modular value by measuring the meter observable $\hat{\sigma}_{q_{Re}}$ (or $\hat{\sigma}_{q_{Im}}$). In this case, the visibility $V$ in the signal-to-noise relation (\[SNR\]) is replaced by the absolute value of the meter average $\overline{\sigma}^{m}_{q_{Re}}$ (or $\overline{\sigma}^{m}_{q_{Im}}$). In the weak measurement limit, the latter is related to the modular value by the approximation $\overline{\sigma}^{m}_{q_{Re}}\approx \theta \, \Re \mathfrak{e}\, A_{m}$ (or $\overline{\sigma}^{m}_{q_{Im}}\approx \theta \, \Im \mathfrak{m}\, A_{m}$). This expression is similar to the one obtained for our scheme in the weak measurement limit, relating the visibility to the modulus of the modular value: $V\approx \theta \, \left|A_{m}\right|$. Because the modulus of a complex number is always larger or equal than its real and imaginary parts ($\left|A_{m}\right|\geq \Re \mathfrak{e}\, A_{m}$ and $\left|A_{m}\right|\geq \Im \mathfrak{m}\, A_{m}$), our scheme improves the signal-to-noise ratio of the weak measurement compared to the standard protocol. (And, additionaly, it works when the weak measurement approximation fails.)
Preliminary meter analysis
--------------------------
As described in the main Letter, the proposed measurement scheme involves the determinations of two parameters: the measurement strength $\theta$ and the purity $P_m$. These requirements are not specific to our scheme. In all weak value measurement protocols, the determination of the measurement strength $\theta$ is a necessary and inevitable process which requires a separate acquisition. Our scheme does not perform better or worse than other schemes in the literature in that respect. The additional determination of the purity $P_m$ is only required because we considered the most general case of an initial incoherent state of the qubit meter system. Most of the literature assumes the meter to be in a known pure state to avoid this supplementary step. To determine the initial meter state in our protocol, it is only necessary to perform the quantum tomography of a single qubit. In pratice, in our experimental implementation, we simulated the CNOT gate by using spontaneous parametric down-conversion (instead of using a true CNOT gate with two separate entries that could be characterized independently). For this reason, in our experiment, we determined the purity by performing quantum tomography of the two-qubit state since the input meter state could not be measured directly. This two-qubit tomography is not at all required by the proposed protocol but appears only as a side-effect of the practical implementation of our demonstrative experiment.
[10]{} Y. Aharonov, D. Z. Albert, and L. Vaidman, Phys. Rev. Lett. **60**, 1351 (1988).
A. G. Kofman, S. Ashhab, and F. Noriet, Phys. Rep. **520**, 43 (2012).
T. A. Brun, L. Diosi, and W. T. Strunz, Phys. Rev. A **77**, 032101 (2008).
S. Wu, and K. M[ø]{}lmer, Phys. Lett. A **374**, 34 (2009).
Y. Shikano, and S. Tanaka, EPL **96**, 40002 (2011).
H. F. Hofmann, C. Ren, Phys. Rev. A **87**, 062109 (2013).
M. Iinuma, Y. Suzuki, G. Taguchi, Y. Kadoya, and H. F Hofmann, New J. Phys. **13** 033041 (2011).
O. Hosten and P. Kwiat, Science **319**, 787 (2008).
P. B. Dixon, D. J. Starling, A. N. Jordan, and J. C. Howell, Phys. Rev. Lett. **102**, 173601 (2009).
D. J. Starling, P. B. Dixon, A. N. Jordan, and J. C. Howell, Phys. Rev. A **80**, 041803 (2009).
Y. Tang, E. Cohen, Phys. Rev. Lett. **104**, 163901 (2010).
H. Rhee, Y.-G. June, J.-S. Lee, K.-K. Lee, J.-H. Ha, Z. H. Kim, S.-J. Jeon, and M. Cho, Nature **458**, 310 (2009).
D. R. Solli, C. F. McCormick, R. Y. Chiao, S. Popescu, and J. M. Hickmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. **92**, 043601 (2004).
N. Brunner, V. Scarani, M. Wegm[ü]{}ller, M. Legré, and N. Gisin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **93**, 203902 (2004).
K. J. Resch, J. S. Lundeen, and A. M. Steinberg, Phys. Lett. A **324**, 125 (2004).
J. S. Lundeen, and A. M. Steinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. **102**, 020404 (2009).
S. Kocsis, B. Braverman, S. Ravets, M. J. Stevens, R. P. Mirin, L. K. Shalm, and A. M. Steinberg, Science **332**, 1170 (2011).
J. S. Lundeen, B. Sutherland, A. Patel, C. Stewart, and C. Bamber, Nature **474**, 188 (2011).
J. Z. Salvail, M. Agnew, A. S. Johnson, E. Bolduc, J. Leach, and R. W. Boyd, Nature Photonics **7**, 316 (2013).
J.S. Lundeen, and C. Bamber, Phys. Rev. Lett. **108**, 070402 (2012).
Y. Aharonov, and L. Vaidman, *The Two-State Vector Formalism of Quantum Mechanics: an Updated Review*, edited by J. G. Muga, R. Sala Mayato, and Í. L. Egusquiza, Time in Quantum Mechanics, (Springer, 2008), ISBN 978-3-540-73472-7.
C. Ferrie and J. Combes, Phys. Rev. Lett. **113**, 120404 (2014).
A. Brodutch, Phys. Rev. Lett., **114**, 118901 (2015).
J. Dressel, Phys. Rev. A **91**, 032116 (2015)
L. Vaidman, arXiv:1409.5386 (2014).
A simple transformation of $\hat{U}=e^{-i\int\hat{H}_{int}(t)\,dt}$ with the interaction Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_{int}=g(t)\,\hat{\Pi}_{-r}\otimes\hat{A}$ reveals the similitude between the von Neumann measurement scheme and our gate application $\hat{U}_{GATE}$.
Y. Kedem, and L. Vaidman, Phys. Rev. Lett. **105**, 230401 (2010).
S. Sponar, T. Denkmayr, H. Geppert, H. Lemmel, A. Matzkin, and Y. Hasegawa, arXiv:1404.2125 (2015).
J. Tollaksen, Y. Aharonov, A. Casher, T. Kaufherr, and S. Nussinov, New J. Phys. **12**, 013023 (2010).
Tobias Denkmayr, Hermann Geppert, Stephan Sponar, Hartmut Lemmel, Alexandre Matzkin, Jeff Tollaksen, and Yuji Hasegawa, Nat. Commun. **5**, 4492 (2014).
See Supplemental Material at \[URL will be inserted by publisher\] for details about the qubit meter configurations chosen to determine the real and imaginary parts of the modular value using $\overline{\sigma}_{q}^{m}$.
A. K. Pati, and J. Wu, arXiv:1410.5221 (2014).
See Supplemental Material at \[URL will be inserted by publisher\] for the derivation of both equalities. Description of the geometric phase follows ideas from [@Martinez; @(2012)].
J. L. Martínez-Fuentes, J. Albero, and I. Moreno, Opt. Commun. **285**, 393 (2012).
P. G. Kwiat, E. Waks, A. G. White, I. Appelbaum, and P. H. Eberhard, Phys. Rev. A **60**, R773 (1999).
See Supplemental Material at \[URL will be inserted by publisher\] for technical details on the experiment.
See Supplemental Material at \[URL will be inserted by publisher\] for the derivation and discussion of the signal-to-noise ratio.
J. B. Altepeter, E. R. Jeffrey, and P. G. Kwiat, *4 Qubit Quantum State Tomography*, edited by M. Paris, and J. Řeháček, Quantum State Estimation (Springer, 2004), ISBN 978-3-540-22329-0.
See Supplemental Material at \[URL will be inserted by publisher\] for details about preliminary meter measurements.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Who should be charged with responsibility for an artificial intelligence performing market manipulation have been discussed. In this study, I constructed an artificial intelligence using a genetic algorithm that learns in an artificial market simulation, and investigated whether the artificial intelligence discovers market manipulation through learning with an artificial market simulation despite a builder of artificial intelligence has no intention of market manipulation. As a result, the artificial intelligence discovered market manipulation as an optimal investment strategy. This result suggests necessity of regulation, such as obligating builders of artificial intelligence to prevent artificial intelligence from performing market manipulation.'
author:
- |
[^1]\
SPARX Asset Management Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
---
Introduction
============
Who should be charged with responsibility for an artificial intelligence (AI) having an accident and/or performing an illegal action have been discussed. In financial sector, who should be charged with responsibility for an AI performing market manipulation have been discussed. Market manipulation is that some traders artificially increase or decrease market prices to gain their profits, and is prohibited in many countries as unfair trades.
Scopino indicated that when a human has built an AI trader without intention to perform market manipulation and the AI trader has actually performed market manipulation with its own discretion, the human may not be charged with responsibility in the present regulation of the united states[@Scopino2016]. This means that even though market prices are manipulated no one is charged with responsibility. This is a big problem to prevent keeping quality of markets.
An AI trader must automatically learn impacts of its trades to market prices in order to discover that market manipulation earns profit because own trades must increase or decrease market prices to perform market manipulation. An AI trader is usually evaluated by backtesting, in which the profit is estimated if the AI trader were trading at some time using historical real data of market prices. An AI trader cannot learn impacts of its trades to market prices because market prices are fixed as real historical data in the backtesting. Therefore, an AI trader will not discover that market manipulation earns profit when the AI trader use backtesting as learning process. Then, we do not have to worry that an AI trader performs market manipulation with its own discretion without the human’s intention as long as using backtesting.
In contrast, an artificial market simulation using a kind of agent-based model[@mizuta2019arxiv] allows an AI trader to be able to automatically learn impacts of its trades to market prices because in the simulation market prices are changed by trades of an AI trader.
In this study, as Fig. \[p01\] shown, I constructed an AI trader using a genetic algorithm [^2] that learns in an artificial market simulation, and investigated whether the AI trader discovers market manipulation through learning despite a builder of the AI trader has no intention of market manipulation.
Model
=====
A human building an AI trader (builder) gives the AI trader candidates of trading strategies, and makes the AI trader to learn which strategies and parameters earn more. This study focuses whether an AI trader can discover market manipulation through learning despite the builder has no intention of market manipulation[^3].
Fig. \[p01\] schematically shows a model of this study. An AI trader that the builder intents no trading strategy is modeled using a genetic algorithm in which a gene includes all trades. Each gene is evaluated in the artificial market simulation. The artificial market includes an AI agent (AIA) that trades exactly same as one gene indicating. The gene is evaluated by AIA’s profit in the artificial market simulation. The genetic algorithm search the gene most earns profit. This searching corresponds with what the AI trader learns how trades earns profit.
Of course, trades of the AIA impact market prices in the artificial market, but for the purpose of comparison, I also investigated the case without the impacts to market prices (backtesting).
In the following, at first I explain the artificial market simulation evaluating each gene and then, I explain the genetic algorithm searching the gene most earns profit.
Artificial Market Simulation
----------------------------
In this study, I built an artificial market model added an AIA to the artificial market model of Mizuta[@mizuta2019arxiv]．
In the model here, there is one stock. The stock exchange adopts a continuous double auction to determine the market price. In this auction mechanism, multiple buyers and sellers compete to buy and sell financial assets in the market, and transactions can occur at any time whenever an offer to buy and an offer to sell match. The minimum unit of price change is $\delta P$. The buy-order price is rounded off to the nearest fraction, and the sell-order price is rounded up to the nearest fraction.
The model includes $n$ normal agents (NAs) and an AIA. Agents can short sell freely. The quantity of holding positions is not limited, so agents can take any shares for both long and short positions to infinity. Agents always places an order for only one share. I employed “tick time” $t$ that increase by one when an agent orders.
### Normal Agent (NA)
To replicate the nature of price formation in actual financial markets, I introduced the NA to model a very general investor. The number of NAs is $n$. First, at time $t=1$, NA No. $1$ places an order to buy or sell its risk asset; then, at $t=2,3,,,n$, NAs No. $2,3,,,n$ respectively place buy or sell orders. At $t=n+1$, the model returns to the first NA and repeats this cycle. An NA determines an order price and buys or sells as follows. It uses a combination of a fundamental value and technical rules to form an expectation on a risk asset’s return. The expected return of agent $j$ for each risk asset is $$r^{t}_{e,j} = (w_{1,j} \log{\frac{P_f}{P^{t-1}}} + w_{2,j}\log{\frac{P^{t-1}}{P^{t-\tau _ j-1}}}+w_{3,j} \epsilon ^t _j )/\Sigma_i^3 w_{i,j} \label{eq1}$$ where $w_{i,j}$ is the weight of term $i$ for agent $j$ and is independently determined by random variables uniformly distributed on the interval $(0,w_{i,max})$ at the start of the simulation for each agent. $\log$ is natural logarithm. $P_f$ is a fundamental value and is a constant. $P^t$ is a market price that is the mid price (the average price of the highest buy order price and the lowest sell order price), and $\epsilon ^t _ j$ is determined by random variables from a normal distribution with average $0$ and variance $\sigma _ \epsilon$. Finally, $\tau_j$ is independently determined by random variables uniformly distributed on the interval $(1,\tau _{max})$ at the start of the simulation for each agent[^4].
The first term of Eq. (\[eq1\]) represents a fundamental strategy: the NA expects a positive return when the market price is lower than the fundamental value, and vice versa. The second term of Eq. (\[eq1\]) represents a technical strategy using a historical return: the NA expects a positive return when the historical market return is positive, and vice versa. The third term of Eq. (\[eq1\]) represents noise.
After the expected return has been determined, the expected price is $$P^t_{e,j}= P^t \exp{(r^t_{e,j})}.$$
An order price $P^t_{o,j}$ is determined by random variables uniformly distributed on the interval $(P^t_{e,j}-P_d, P^t_{e,j}+P_d)$ where $P_d$ is a constant. Whether to buy or sell is determined by the magnitude relationship between $P^t_{e,j}$ and $P^t_{o,j}$:
when $P^t_{e,j}>P^t_{o,j}$, the NA places an order to buy one share, but
when $P^t_{e,j}<P^t_{o,j}$, the NA places an order to sell one share[^5]. The remaining order is canceled after $t_c$ from the order time.
### AI Agent (AIA)
Every $\delta t$ tick time the AIA takes one of three actions that are buy one share (at the lowest sell order price on the order book), sell one share (at the highest buy order price on the order book) and no action[^6]. The AIA takes actions $N_t=(t_e-t_c)/\delta t$ times through the whole one artificial market simulation, where one simulation runs until tick time $t_e$. The actions are given by one gene in the genetic algorithm as following I will mention.
Genetic Algorithm
-----------------
### Genes and Artificial Market
Fig. \[p01\] schematically shows a model of this study. An AI trader that the builder intents no trading strategy is modeled using a genetic algorithm. The number of genes is $N_g$. One gene has information of actions and the number of actions that one gene has is $N_t$. Each action is one of three actions that are buy one share, sell one share and no action. Each gene is evaluated by profit of the AIA in an artificial market, in where the AIA trades every $\delta t$ tick time same as $N_t$ actions one gene indicating. When the AIA holds stocks at the end of a simulation, the stocks are evaluated as $P_f$. All artificial markets has exactly same NAs using same random numbers. Therefore, if the AIA trades same, the artificial markets output same market prices and same NAs’ trades.
### Inheritance to Next Generation
The top $N_ {ge}$ genes that earned most are not changed and inherited to the next generation.
Non top $N_ {ge}$ genes are, with a probability of $R_c$, replaced to the crossed-over gene with two genes $g_0$ and $g_1$ that are randomly selected from the top $N_ {ge}$ genes. In the crossover, first, all actions are replace with those of the gene $g_0$, and then from $i_0$th to $i_1$th actions ($i_0$ and $i_1$ are randomly determined) are replaced with those of the gene $g_1$. After crossovers, each action of all the non top $N_ {ge}$ genes is mutated with a probability of $R_m$. The mutated action is changed with same probability to buy, sell or no action.
This inheritance to the next generation is repeated $N_e$ times.
At the first generation, all actions of all genes are determined with same probability to buy, sell or no action.
![Time evolution of market prices (mid prices) in the case with the AI agent (AIA) and without the AIA[]{data-label="z01"}](z01.pdf)
![Case without the impacts to market prices (backtesting)[]{data-label="z02"}](z02.pdf)
Simulation Result
=================
In this study, I set parameters for the artificial market with $n=900, w_{1,max}=1, w_{2,max}=100, w_{3,max}=1, \tau _ {max}=1000, \sigma _ \epsilon = 0.03, P_d= 1000, t_c=2000, \delta P=0.01, P_f=10000, \delta t=10$. I ran simulations to $t=t_e=10000$. I set parameters for the genetic algorithm with $N_t=(t_e-t_c)/\delta t=800, N_g=10000, N_{ge}=400, R_c=0.65, R_m=0.2, N_e=1500$. These lead $N_g \times N_e=1.5 \times 10^7$, this means that I have executed 15 million simulation runs of the artificial market. In the following result, I used the AIA of the best gene at the final generation.
Result of First Simulation Run
------------------------------
Fig. \[z01\] shows the time evolution of market prices (mid prices) in the case with the AIA and without the AIA. The AIA amplified variation of market prices.
Fig. \[z03\] shows the time evolution of market prices with the AIA and trading volume (positive and negative number show buy and sell, respectively) aggregated within each 200 tick time. Around 2000 tick time, the AIA bought many stocks, and this buying leads to the market prices increasing. Around 3000 tick time, the market prices continued to increase even though the AIA did not bought so many stocks. Here, the fundamental strategy of normal agents in the first term of Eq. (\[eq1\]) expected negative return because the market prices are over the fundamental price. On the other hand, the technical strategy in the second term of Eq. (\[eq1\]) expected larger positive return due to the historical positive return around 2000 tick time where the AIA had increased market prices by itself. Therefore, the market prices were able to increase even though the AIA did not bought so many stocks. After then, from around 4000 tick time to around 6000 tick time, the AIA was able to sell stocks with higher prices than the prices bought them around 2000 tick time thanks to increasing market prices around 3000 tick time.
These trades of the AIA are nothing but market manipulation. This indicates that an artificial intelligence can discover market manipulation as an optimal investment strategy through learning with an artificial market simulation.
Fig. \[z02\] shows the time evolution of market prices and trading volume in the case without the impacts to market prices (backtesting) like Fig. \[z03\]. Note that Fig. \[z02\] has different scale for the vertical axis from those in Fig. \[z01\] and Fig. \[z03\]. The time evolution of market prices is exactly same as the case without the AIA because the trades of the AIA never impact market prices in Fig. \[z01\]. Due to lower market prices from the fundamental price, the AIA tended to buy stocks. These trades of the AIA corresponds to fundamental strategy. Thus, in the case of backtesting, the AIA cannot discover market manipulation as trading strategy.
This indicates possibility that an artificial intelligence cannot discover market manipulation through learning with backtesting.
Summary and Future Works
========================
In this study, as Fig. \[p01\] shown, I constructed an AI trader using a genetic algorithm that learns in an artificial market simulation, and investigated whether the AI trader discovers market manipulation through learning despite a builder of the AI trader has no intention of market manipulation.
As a result, the AI trader discovered market manipulation as an optimal investment strategy. This indicates that despite a builder of the AI trader has no intention of market manipulation, the AI trader can discover market manipulation as an optimal investment strategy through learning with an artificial market simulation in which the AI trader to be able to automatically learn impacts of its trades to market prices. On the other hand, this also indicates possibility that an AI trader cannot discover market manipulation through learning with backtesting in which there are no impacts to market prices.
This result suggests necessity of regulation, such as obligating builders of artificial intelligence to prevent artificial intelligence from performing market manipulation.
Of course, future works exist. In this study, I simulated eleven situations by one data set of normal agents. In short, I simulated whole my model showed by Fig. \[p01\] only one time. Because this study aimed to investigate whether possibility that an artificial intelligence discovers market manipulation exists or does not, the only one simulation run indicating the possibility is enough for the aim of this study. On the discussing necessity of regulation, whether there is the possibility or not is very important. On the other hand, how easily an artificial intelligence can discover market manipulation may also interested. To answer the question, whole my model should be simulated more times. The many runs needs very faster computers. This is one of future works.
$0.0103\%$
------------------ ------------ ---------
$11.54$
lag
1 $0.081$
auto-correlation 2 $0.041$
coefficient of 3 $0.032$
square returns 4 $0.047$
5 $0.018$
: Statistics for Returns in the Artificial Market
\[t0\]
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
Verification of the Artificial Market Model
-------------------------------------------
In many previous artificial market studies, the models were verified to see whether they could explain stylized facts, such as a fat-tail or volatility-clustering [@lebaron2006agent; @chen2009agent; @mizuta2019arxiv]. A fat-tail means that the kurtosis of price returns is positive. Volatility-clustering means that square returns have a positive auto-correlation, and this auto-correlation slowly decays as its lag becomes longer. Many empirical studies, e.g., that of Sewell [@Sewell2006], have shown that both stylized facts (fat-tail and volatility-clustering) exist statistically in almost all financial markets. Conversely, they also have shown that only the fat-tail and volatility-clustering are stably observed for any asset and in any period because financial markets are generally unstable.
Indeed, the kurtosis of price returns and the auto-correlation of square returns are stably and significantly positive, but the magnitudes of these values are unstable and very different depending on the asset and/or period. The kurtosis of price returns and the auto-correlation of square returns were observed to have very broad magnitudes of about $1 \sim 100$ and about $0 \sim 0.2$, respectively [@Sewell2006].
For the above reasons, an artificial market model should replicate these values as significantly positive and within a reasonable range as I mentioned. It is not essential for the model to replicate specific values of stylized facts because the values of these facts are unstable in actual financial markets.
Table \[t0\] lists the statistics, standard deviation of returns, kurtosis of price returns, and auto-correlation coefficient of square returns, where the returns are measured within 100 time steps and the statistics are averaged values of the 100 simulation runs. This table shows that this model replicated the statistical characteristics, fat-tails, and volatility-clustering observed in real financial markets.
Disclaimer {#disclaimer .unnumbered}
----------
[^1]: [email protected], https://mizutatakanobu.com
[^2]: A genetic algorithm is a calculation method approximately searching an optimal solution inspired by the evolution of life by the force of natural selection. Input values are represent as genes, and surviving a gene that has higher adaptability (output value) leads to obtain an optimal solution, that is the input value that emerges the highest output value. Goldberg wrote the great text book[@Goldberg1989]
[^3]: In reality, the builder always intents some kinds of strategies in the process of picking up and modeling candidates of strategies. In contrast, it is very important for this study that the builder has no intention of any strategies including market manipulation. Therefore, I do not intentionally modeled trading strategies and my model directly searches for all the best trades in an artificial market environment. Due to no models of trading strategies my model can not make any outputs in an out-sample, then no one can test my model in an out-sample. I argue, however, that this study needs no evaluations in an out-sample because this study focuses whether an AI trader can discover market manipulation through learning despite the builder has no intention of market manipulation. This study does not aim to use my model in actual financial markets that are in an out-sample environment. \[ft02\]
[^4]: When $t< \tau _ j$, however, the second term of Eq. (\[eq1\]) is zero.
[^5]: When $t<t_c$, however, to generate enough waiting orders, the agent places an order to buy one share when $P_f>P^t_{o,j}$, or to sell one share when $P_f<P^t_{o,j}$. \[ft01\]
[^6]: But, the AIA dose not take any action before tick time $t_c$ to stabilize the simulations. As I mentioned at \*\[ft01\], the period before $t_c$ is aimed to generate enough waiting orders.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.